a hanging

[dlaing]

...or how about the Belfast Agreement?

Or would you say the Belfast Agreement was a mistake because it made concessions to TERRORISTS?

And how about this October's St Andrews agreement? I suppose you right wingers hate the idea of peace at the expense of concessions. Maybe Blair should have used smart bombs and MOABs on Belfast?

[g.forrest]

''TERRORISTS'' WHO ARE THEY. And what do they do. from what i've observed they don't own helicopter gunships or fighter air craft. they don't seem to have intercontinental balistic missiles. it seems they don't even have land mines or cluster bombs. they have no navy. no destroyers aircraft carriers heavy haulage aircraft hover craft stealth bombers or even drones. do they have military academies, colonels/ major generals / generals / sgt majors large land mass dedicated to training troops in the ''art'' of war. do they have war memorials . veterans day ? . do they have government funding dedicated to the supply of latest high tech equipment. do they rely on high tech surveilence ''satelite'' technology. [enquiring mind just has to know]

[Guest ratchethack]

THIS is the mentality that has resulted in the loss of milliions of innocent lives:

The ONLY semi-valid reason to attack Iraq was to remove Saddam, but even that could have been avoided by spending a fraction of the war costs on benevolency.

We could have bribed him into being nice.

This is the most naive thing I have ever seen or heard from an adult.

 

Absolutely amazing. The rank, felony stupid idea of spending money on "benevolency" on a mass-murdering, tyrannical dictator harboring Islamo-fascist terrorists who declared war on our Nation and attacked us, killing thousands of our innocent Citizens on our soil is more pie-in-the-sky, speculative hogswallop, and unprecedented in our Nation's history.

 

Thankfully, our Nation has never been threatened into paying TRIBUTE to mass-murdering tyrants in exchange for a promise of freedom from attack, and never will.

 

Paying TRIBUTE to the tyranny of a foreign Nation is surrender of freedom and acceptance of slavery. In an indirect way, buying off tyrannical dictators has been the "unofficial" function of the UN, and even this has consistently failed, and miserably so. PayingTRIBUTE in exchange for freedom is patently unacceptable -- at any cost -- to any Real American. You would obviously make us a Nation of slaves rather than go to war to defend ourselvses. Most of our planet understands that Americans have never been so cowardly, and they are for the most part deeply thankful to us for their own sakes that we are not such cowards. The idea itself is inconceivable to those of us with any sense of who we are, and who we have always been as a Nation.

 

It might be your willingness to give up your freedom and accept the yoke of slavery over fighting to defend ourselves, above all other things, Dave, that separates YOU most from Real Americans. Thankfully, you and those who place such little value on freedom as you do are not yet able to make this decision with your votes for the rest of us.

Instead we gave Saddam the "green light" to invade Kuwait.

May I remind you that it was your Pal, Madame Halfbright, as a "diplomat" sent by the Klinton I Regime, who perpetrated this debacle, with her special brand of "diplomacy" by meeting with Saddam personally in Kuwait -- with predictable results within mere weeks. One wonders about Madam H's thoughts as the oil field fires raged and became an inferno, blackening the landscape, and our military then came in to liberate Kuwait and put out the oil fires. . . . .all at such outrageous costs not only in lives lost, but to taxpayers for the extraordinary task of cleaning up the mess. There's your shining example of what comes from negotiating with mass-murdering tyrants.

We could start by over throwing the Bush regime, the father and son team that may have killed more people in the past twenty years than Saddam and his sons or the leader of Korea, or Noriega, or Castro, or Chavez, but maybe not our fine trade partner China.

There is no stronger evidence of the degree of raw, seething hatred that possesses you than this.

 

You've evidently lapped up every word of propaganda from the Islamo-fascist terrorist playbook, Dave. Your words could have been spoken by Richard Reid at his sentencing hearing -- word for word.

 

What you've said above makes my point far better than I could have.

[antonio carroccio]

Ratch, now Al has gone, or not so often or the forum anymore, you begin this long, long, long thread every times.

We do not have that time enough to read and realize what we read.

[Guest ratchethack]

Ratch, now Al has gone, or not so often or the forum anymore, you begin this long, long, long thread every times.

We do not have that time enough to read and realize what we read.

I fully understand, Antonio. You and anyone not interested enough to read my posts, regardless of length, are free to disregard them.

 

Thanks for the feedback, anyway.

[TX REDNECK (R.I.P.)]

''TERRORISTS'' WHO ARE THEY. And what do they do. from what i've observed they don't own helicopter gunships or fighter air craft. they don't seem to have intercontinental balistic missiles. it seems they don't even have land mines or cluster bombs. they have no navy. no destroyers aircraft carriers heavy haulage aircraft hover craft stealth bombers or even drones. do they have military academies, colonels/ major generals / generals / sgt majors large land mass dedicated to training troops in the ''art'' of war. do they have war memorials . veterans day ? . do they have government funding dedicated to the supply of latest high tech equipment. do they rely on high tech surveilence ''satelite'' technology. [enquiring mind just has to know]

 

[antonio carroccio]

Ratch, I am not dumb enough to read your post, it's just too long...

Sorry pal.

[g.forrest]

 

thanks for the info TX but do we need fear signs and tea towels? my point was that we have been convinced to fear the unknown. nothing to fear but fear itself.

[dlaing]

"THIS is the mentality that has resulted in the loss of milliions of innocent lives:"

QUOTE(dlaing @ Mar 3 2006, 06:23 PM) *

 

The ONLY semi-valid reason to attack Iraq was to remove Saddam, but even that could have been avoided by spending a fraction of the war costs on benevolency.

We could have bribed him into being nice. END QUOTE

 

This is the most naive thing I have ever seen or heard from an adult.

 

"Absolutely amazing. The rank, felony stupid idea of spending money on "benevolency" on a mass-murdering, tyrannical dictator"-hatchet

 

So, I take it Ratchet, you are also against the benevolency the US gives in dollars and weapons to all the brutal right wing dictatorships of the world, including Sadam when he was killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Finally something we agree upon

[Guest Nogbad]

The IRA situation was not equivalent to the current Islamic terrorism.

 

First, the IRA were political terrorists waging a campaign to achieve something that could actually be accommodated without too much loss of face on both sides.

Second, they were rational, and did not seek death in the normal way of things, hence the criminal law and the sanctions available were a suitable deterrent.

 

Islamic terrorism is however predicated on an irrational, religious mindset that is entirely alien to all that we hold dear unfortunately. You cannot have a rational discussion with someone who actively wants to die in order to achieve some sort of nirvana (sorry for the mixed religious metaphor there). There is consequently NO WAY that can be found to appease the worst of these people. What they would want is the end of free society as we know it.

 

However, it is only a small hard core of people that fit into the above category, and there could be less reason for their sympathisers and hangers on to help them if we paid more attention to justice as part of foreign policy.

 

If the moral outlook of the judge quoted earlier was apparent in US and British foreign dealings, I doubt if we would be where we are today.

 

 

And Ratchet, I don't think you have the right to mount what is a pretty dreadful personal attack, whatever you think of Dave's opinions on this or any other issue. Personally, I find Dave a tad annoying too when he posts bleeding heart socialism and hypocritical eco-chondria, but do we know whether he even believes a lot of the nonsense he posts. Maybe you are being wound up!

[Guzzirider]

This is all getting a bit silly- you can tell the winter nights are drawing in.

[Admin Jaap]

I don't want to interfere, but could some of you (you know who you are) please find a different forum where you can disagree on political topics publicly? It seems that over here noone cares anymore...

 

topic closed