RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 5:12:28 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

I am fully aware spitting on a forum board isn't the same thing as war. The war on terrorism was declared because of what terrorists did in NYC. They did in fact terrorize the whole city of NY...not to mention the fireman and policeman suffering from lung disease/problems right now from the actual disintegration of those skyscrapers. I do thank the heavens the terrorists went after a hugely populated area instead of a little country bumpkin area like the one I live in. It spared me and mine. But I do remember. And am not going to be so quick to forget.

Yes, 20 people from North Africa/Saudi or wherever killed a few thousand Americans (and others), and you're talking of Pakistan/the Taliban/or whatever and some wild goose chase about harbouring terrorists somewhere, which of course you're certain of even though you don't have a clue and are going off second hand stories from those with an agenda. Has it entered your head that occupying and bombing foreign countries will exacerbate terrorism rather than alleviate it?

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Louve00)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 6:09:26 AM

Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline

ummmm...and who were those 20 people? What organization did they represent?

_____________________________

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 6:38:27 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

Jeeze Popeye do you care about being honest or honorable at all? If not, I can uncerstand that, but the fact is the US signed treaties where we said we would and would not do certain things. Either we withdraw from those, or we honor them. I do not like the UN either, but we are either a country that abides by laws, honors our treaties, or we are hypocrits with no honor, and little better than thieves and liars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Jeeze Orion, nobody gives a shit about the "U.N." either!
If the American People could vote on it we'd be out of it tommorow morning!
WHEN are they going to kick us out for not paying our dues and raise that eyesore on the East River?
The few times I've been by there I've wanted to pull out my knife and slash a bunch of tires.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to popeye1250)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 6:40:20 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

You cannot actually declare official and legal war on an ideal. You declare it on a country. Try reading some more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

I am fully aware spitting on a forum board isn't the same thing as war. The war on terrorism was declared because of what terrorists did in NYC. They did in fact terrorize the whole city of NY...not to mention the fireman and policeman suffering from lung disease/problems right now from the actual disintegration of those skyscrapers. I do thank the heavens the terrorists went after a hugely populated area instead of a little country bumpkin area like the one I live in. It spared me and mine. But I do remember. And am not going to be so quick to forget.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to Louve00)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 6:57:08 AM

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

I think Northern Gent and Orion have said whats on my mind. Honestly I dont think its in the best interest of any country to chase ideals blithely thru any country they please. Yes terrorism is despicable, but arrogance to believe you are entitled to invade anywhere you damn well feel like it is asking for more serious repurcussions.

Lucy

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 8:19:06 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JonnieBoy

If the US had the support of the world over the invasion of Afghanistan, it would not have been a US invasion.

Has the US actual evidence of a group in Afghanistan responsible for the deaths you relate to? (granted there have been a good many applauding it since, but that's not the same thing at all)

EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - UN Supports US Unilaterla Action ...

As the world awaits a US response to this month’s terrorist attack, diplomats at the United Nations have achieved uncommon unanimity - for at least the time being - on the right of the United States to take unilateral action under the aegis of self-defense.

The UN Security Council has been discussing behind closed doors what elements of fighting terrorism to incorporate in the council’s next resolution on the subject. Diplomats have stressed many options on the table, but one point seems clear: as one diplomat put it, "military action is certainly not the focus of this resolution."

It is not the focus, diplomats say, because UN acquiescence on any US action against Afghanistan has already been settled. Terrorism and Afghanistan in particular have been the focus of past UN treaties and resolutions. During the past two years, three Security Council resolutions have imposed and tightened sanctions on the Taliban, which controls roughly 90 percent of Afghanistan, for not surrendering Osama bin Laden.

And on September 12, the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution that condemned the terrorist attacks against the United States the previous day, calling on all states to bring those responsible to justice, and reaffirming "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense."

War in Afghanistan (2001–present) - Wikipedia

The UN Security Council resolutions of November 14, 2001, included "Condemning the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the export of terrorism by the Al-Qaeda network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and others associated with them, and in this context supporting the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regime"

quote:

It is not only out of concern over the Taliban/US headache though and I do not for one moment think that they are volunteering any complicity at all, I think if there is any it is a bow to intimidation.

You don't think so?

You don't think that the government in Pakistan, waging its own war with the Taliban, would not privately welcome these U.S. attacks against Taliban positions?

Pakistan Taliban militants edge closer to Islamabad - Los Angeles ...Apr 24, 2009 ... Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and New Delhi -- Emboldened Taliban fighters imposed control over towns and villages closer to Islamabad

quote:

What happens if (well, you started it) Pakistan falls under Taliban rule then?

The same thing that happened with Afghanistan under Taliban rule, only now with access to nuclear weapons.

(in reply to JonnieBoy)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 8:40:04 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Yes, 20 people from North Africa/Saudi or wherever killed a few thousand Americans (and others), and you're talking of Pakistan/the Taliban/or whatever and some wild goose chase about harbouring terrorists somewhere, which of course you're certain of even though you don't have a clue and are going off second hand stories from those with an agenda. Has it entered your head that occupying and bombing foreign countries will exacerbate terrorism rather than alleviate it?

Then what would be your solution, ignore it and watch more innocent people die? It hasn't just been the hijackings, as you well know, but a worldwide pattern of terrorist activity.

Should we negotiate? Pakistan tried that and the Taliban took advantage of government concessions to launch an offensive.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 9:41:05 AM

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Jeeze Popeye do you care about being honest or honorable at all? If not, I can uncerstand that, but the fact is the US signed treaties where we said we would and would not do certain things. Either we withdraw from those, or we honor them. I do not like the UN either, but we are either a country that abides by laws, honors our treaties, or we are hypocrits with no honor, and little better than thieves and liars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Jeeze Orion, nobody gives a shit about the "U.N." either!
If the American People could vote on it we'd be out of it tommorow morning!
WHEN are they going to kick us out for not paying our dues and raise that eyesore on the East River?
The few times I've been by there I've wanted to pull out my knife and slash a bunch of tires.

Orion. here we go with the "honor" stuff again. No, I don't want to have "honor" as a country. I don't need to think that I'm "better" than anyone else, that gives me no solace at all and is nothing less than a false assumption on the part of the "left." If (they) feel that they're "better" than al qeada or the taliban fine but I don't need that.
And as for "treaties" I don't ever remember being consulted by my congressmen or senators as to what "treaties" I'd become involved in!
Look at "NAFTA", there was tremendous pressure against that, the American People never wanted it, Big Business wanted it and Clinton signed it into law anyway! This may come as a surprise to you but the U.S. govt. does things in *direct opposition* to the will and wishes of The People.
We've been doing "foreign aid" for fifty years now, how's that working out?
The whole world hates us.
Certain people think that if we give Somalians a few bags of rice and beans that they'll like us? I don't want to feed Somalians, or give them any medical care or anything else. I don't want them to like me or be "friends" with them. As Goldfinger said; "No Mr. Bond, I want you to die."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 10:45:18 AM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Orion. here we go with the "honor" stuff again. No, I don't want to have "honor" as a country. I don't need to think that I'm "better" than anyone else, that gives me no solace at all and is nothing less than a false assumption on the part of the "left." If (they) feel that they're "better" than al qeada or the taliban fine but I don't need that.

Honor has little to do with thinking you are better than anyone else. It has to do with integrity of one's beliefs and ethics. Are you a man that has integrity of your beliefs and ethics? If so, do you not want your country to reflect these principles?

quote:

And as for "treaties" I don't ever remember being consulted by my congressmen or senators as to what "treaties" I'd become involved in!

You are consulted every time there is an election. It is part of the US Constitution, that as a US citizen, your social contract demands you uphold or suffer the consequences of your own actions.

quote:

Look at "NAFTA", there was tremendous pressure against that, the American People never wanted it, Big Business wanted it and Clinton signed it into law anyway! This may come as a surprise to you but the U.S. govt. does things in *direct opposition* to the will and wishes of The People.

The people get the government they deserve, which means if the people allow politicians to go against the people's will, then they should be voted out of office.

quote:

We've been doing "foreign aid" for fifty years now, how's that working out?

This has nothing to do with the OP or the discussion. Maybe a different topic on foreign aid may be a better ground to have that discussion. I am not for much foreign aid, unless we get some kind of return on our investment.

quote:

The whole world hates us.

I really do not care whether the whole world hates us. It is us the people that must look ourselves in the mirror and decide on whether we are proud of our country or not. We the people, even you Popeye, must take responsibility for all actions that our government takes upon our behalf.

quote:

Certain people think that if we give Somalians a few bags of rice and beans that they'll like us? I don't want to feed Somalians, or give them any medical care or anything else. I don't want them to like me or be "friends" with them. As Goldfinger said; "No Mr. Bond, I want you to die."

This has nothing to do with the topic either.

Popeye, we are either a country that has high ethics, and strong beliefs/principles, or we are really no better than lawless warlords. It is at our foundation of ethics and principles that change occurs, and if the people will not change then neither will the politicians or the country.

I did not vote for Obama, but I am an American and he is my President.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to popeye1250)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 11:13:18 AM

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Sorry Orion but I just don't do that "feel good" stuff. It doesn't accomplish anything.
And you're right about our govt.,they do things that they shouldn't be doing. "Isolationism" is a *good* word!
After all the pendulum has swung way too far in the opposite direction.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to OrionTheWolf)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 11:31:28 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

ummmm...and who were those 20 people? What organization did they represent?

They represent Al-Quaeda, of course, who are a loose connection of religious zealots and political idealists who span the globe, and probably aren't in contact with one another. They share an idea but they're not an organisation in the sense the IRA was an organisation. Be honest, you know nothing of them - their tactics, their structure, their aims. You have no idea where they are or how many there are; all you 'know' is based on newspaper reports, which may or might not be accurate. They could have been rounded up by a sustained police investigation, but, no, the US government (and willing executioners) had to go and spread 'democracy', or was it detect and destroy WMDs, or was is it remove a despot: the story changes every day, and the chances are that it has nothing to do with the aforementioned.

Have a read of US intervention in Nicaragua - the propaganda to get US citizens on board, the funding and training of the Contras etc. They turned a rag-tag outfit such as the Sandinistas into the mongol hordes - same old.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Louve00)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 11:36:15 AM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Then what would be your solution

Get your troops out of someone else's back garden, and stop meddling in the politics of the region. Until you do that, then you're fair game, regardless of how many ventures you undertake to track down those opposed to US actions.

When your neighbour builds a fence in your part of the garden and claims some of your garden, what are you going to do? Take it up the arse or do something about it? And, when you two reach an agreement that you respect one another's land and the fence should lie in the middle, then you may want to settle down and co-exist in peace. I know I would.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 11:44:13 AM

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

A war on an idea or ideals is shadow-boxing at best and a waste of resources and abuse of power at worst. See also the wars on drugs and other official proclamations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I think Northern Gent and Orion have said whats on my mind. Honestly I dont think its in the best interest of any country to chase ideals blithely thru any country they please. Yes terrorism is despicable, but arrogance to believe you are entitled to invade anywhere you damn well feel like it is asking for more serious repurcussions.

Lucy

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to Lucylastic)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 2:23:10 PM

Posts: 7803
Joined: 10/11/2006
Status: offline

If being honest and having integrity is feel good stuff to you, then there is not much else to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Sorry Orion but I just don't do that "feel good" stuff. It doesn't accomplish anything.
And you're right about our govt.,they do things that they shouldn't be doing. "Isolationism" is a *good* word!
After all the pendulum has swung way too far in the opposite direction.

_____________________________

When speaking of slaves people always tend to ignore this definition "One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence."

(in reply to popeye1250)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 2:46:33 PM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Get your troops out of someone else's back garden, and stop meddling in the politics of the region. Until you do that, then you're fair game, regardless of how many ventures you undertake to track down those opposed to US actions.

"Those opposed to US actions?" That's a remarkably benign descriptor for a terrorist organization that hijacked 4 airplanes, killed thousands of people, tried to blow up another airliner in midflight, and issues frequent and repeated threats to do more of the same as soon as they get a chance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
When your neighbour builds a fence in your part of the garden and claims some of your garden, what are you going to do? Take it up the arse or do something about it? And, when you two reach an agreement that you respect one another's land and the fence should lie in the middle, then you may want to settle down and co-exist in peace. I know I would.

What does that analogy have to do with Al Qeada/Taliban? If my neighbor and I have a property dispute, we'll work it out as two neighbors would work out a property dispute. If my neighbor murders my child, hides in his brother's house, and shouts out the window repeated threats to come back and kill my other children as soon as my guard is down, I have no interest in reaching an agreement with him. I'm going in there and blow the cocksucker's head off (assuming, for the sake of this analogy, that there are no police available to apprehend him), and if his brother considers that unreasonable, that's just tough shit. He should be more careful in his choice of brothers.

I am vehemently opposed to many aspects of America's interventionist foreign policy over the years, but that's a separate issue. If a terrorist organization - whatever their motivation - attacks you from a safe haven, and promises to keep attacking you from that safe haven, you have no alternative. Your choices are to continue to suffer their attacks, or root them out of their safe haven. There is no third option. What you're suggesting is that a group oif terrorists can do whatever they like, wherever they like, to whomever they like, as long as they can make it back to Pakistan before they get caught. And the rest of the world has no right to do anything to defend itself..

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGentThey represent Al-Quaeda, of course, who are a loose connection of religious zealots and political idealists who span the globe, and probably aren't in contact with one another. They share an idea but they're not an organisation in the sense the IRA was an organisation. Be honest, you know nothing of them - their tactics, their structure, their aims. You have no idea where they are or how many there are; all you 'know' is based on newspaper reports, which may or might not be accurate. They could have been rounded up by a sustained police investigation, but, no, the US government (and willing executioners) had to go and spread 'democracy', or was it detect and destroy WMDs, or was is it remove a despot: the story changes every day, and the chances are that it has nothing to do with the aforementioned.

Really. And which police force would have been serving the arrest warrants in Afghanistan?

Edit: Although I have to add, in case you haven't read enough of my posts to pick up on this, that I agree with your larger point that most of the fight against Al Qeada would have been much better conducted as a criminal investigation than as a primarily military operation. Most of the "organization", if you can call it that, could have been dealt with much more effectively by internationally coordinated police investigations. But the leadership, the core group that planned and launched the 9/11 attacks and have taken refuge on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, have to be rooted out by military and paramiltary operations. No Pakistani detective is going to take a 3-week mule trip into the mnountains to arrest bin Laden.

< Message edited by ThatDamnedPanda -- 5/17/2009 2:58:19 PM >

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 3:02:08 PM

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

"Those opposed to US actions?" That's a remarkably benign descriptor for a terrorist organization that hijacked 4 airplanes, killed thousands of people, tried to blow up another airliner in midflight, and issues frequent and repeated threats to do more of the same as soon as they get a chance.

Terrorists may be your definition, but, believe it or not, it's not everyone's. Never mind the dictionary definition.

I'm sure you'll appreciate that while some deemed the IRA to be terrorists, others believed they were freedom fighters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

What does that analogy have to do with Al Qeada/Taliban? If my neighbor and I have a property dispute, we'll work it out as two neighbors would work out a property dispute. If my neighbor murders my child, hides in his brother's house, and shouts out the window repeated threats to come back and kill my other children as soon as my guard is down, I have no interest in reaching an agreement with him. I'm going in there and blow the cocksucker's head off (assuming, for the sake of this analogy, that there are no police available to apprehend him), and if his brother considers that unreasonable, that's just tough shit. He should be more careful in his choice of brothers.

Turn it on its head and there's an argument to suggest that the US government is the murdering neighbour in this scenario.

Why on earth should the Taliban concern you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

I am vehemently opposed to many aspects of America's inteventionist foreign policy over the years, but that's a separate issue.

A separate issue? Why is that, then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

If a terrorist organization - whatever their motivation - attacks you from a safe haven, and promises to keep attacking you from that safe haven, you have no alternative. Your choices are to continue to suffer their attacks, or root them out of their safe haven.

There is no third option.

Perhaps in your mind, but where has all of this 'running round 'rooting people out' got you?

Thousands more dead Americans and Iraqis, millions of displaced Iraqis.....meanwhile, getting nowhere fast and laying the foundations for thousands of more young muslims to join up to remove United States involvement in muslim countries.

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 3:27:20 PM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

And what of all the other nations that have suffered Al-Quaeda terrorism?

Do they fall under your "US does bad things, US deserves what it gets" theory?

Should all the nations of the world unite and form a compact to avoid doing anything that may offend the Islamic extremists?

Because I guess your argument is that any country that has been attacked, including your own, has deserved it.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 3:47:48 PM

ThatDamnedPanda

Posts: 6060
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

"Those opposed to US actions?" That's a remarkably benign descriptor for a terrorist organization that hijacked 4 airplanes, killed thousands of people, tried to blow up another airliner in midflight, and issues frequent and repeated threats to do more of the same as soon as they get a chance.

Terrorists may be your definition, but, believe it or not, it's not everyone's. Never mind the dictionary definition.

Anyone who defines the 9/11 attacks as anything but a terrorist act is someone so sick, warped, and twisted, I don't have any respect for their definition of that event - or anything else, for that matter. That doesn't mean I dismiss what they say, because it's even more important to listen closely to your enemies than it is your friends, but it certainly means I completely dismiss their credibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
I'm sure you'll appreciate that while some deemed the IRA to be terrorists, others believed they were freedom fighters.

Certainly. But we're not talking about the IRA, we're talking about Al Qeada. Just so we're clear on what we're arguing about, are you actually arguing that Al Qeada are freedom fighters, not terrorists?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Turn it on its head and there's an argument to suggest that the US government is the murdering neighbour in this scenario.

No there isn't. Not in my analogy. I'll admit there's an argument that the US was also a murdering neighbor, prior to my neighbor murdering my child, but that argument (while it may excuse the neighbor's actions, in the eyes of some), does not change the fact that my neighbor murdered my child. If you want to create your own analogy, in which my neighbor had some sort of justification for murdering my child, then go ahead. Make that argument, and I'll respond to it. Because I do believe that it is a valid discussion.

But even though it may be valid, it's still not relevant to the point I'm making. The extension of the argument you're hinting at is that our most appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks would have been to say, "Well, you know, we had that one coming, so let's just let them go." I reject that. If someone attacks you, and kills your citizens, you have to respond. However justified they may have felt in doing so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Why on earth should the Taliban concern you?

They concern me only to the extent that they continue to facilitate Al Qeada's evasion and ongoing operations. If they confine their activities to their own country, they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned. When they make themselves accomplices in a criminal act against my country, they become my business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

If a terrorist organization - whatever their motivation - attacks you from a safe haven, and promises to keep attacking you from that safe haven, you have no alternative. Your choices are to continue to suffer their attacks, or root them out of their safe haven.

There is no third option.

Perhaps in your mind, but where has all of this 'running round 'rooting people out' got you?

It very nearly got us bin Laden at Tora Bora, until "higher command" mysteriously backed off and let him slip away. I'm hoping that having a commander-in-chief with some sense of morals, and an IQ higher than his body temperature, may put us in a position to repeat that near-success, and this time follow it through to a more favorable conclusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Thousands more dead Americans and Iraqis, millions of displaced Iraqis.....meanwhile, getting nowhere fast and laying the foundations for thousands of more young muslims to join up to remove United States involvement in muslim countries.

Why are you bringing the invasion of Iraq into this, when I'm clearly talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan? Which one would you prefer to discuss?

_____________________________

Panda, panda, burning bright
In the forest of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Made you all black and white and roly-poly like that?

(in reply to NorthernGent)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 5:13:51 PM

Posts: 1468
Joined: 4/22/2009
From: Cymru
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Just so we're clear on what we're arguing about, are you actually arguing that Al Qeada are freedom fighters, not terrorists?

(Not "arguing" just stating)

Al Quaida are freedom fighters.
Al Quaida are terrorists

Both of the above statements are true.
The US can never change that.
Now you know what you're up against.

Pirate

(in reply to ThatDamnedPanda)

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty - 5/17/2009 5:49:52 PM

Posts: 52100
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Savannah, GA
Status: offline

perceptions.

it's all about perceptions.

Whose view is correct? THEY see themselves as freedom fighters. We see them as terrorist. Is one view more correct than the other?

Not that I am in ANY way condoning what they've done.. But three sides to every story.. two sides to every coin..

(jeez this seems to be my night for cliches)

_____________________________

polysnortatious
Supreme Goddess of Snark
CHARTER MEMBER: Lance's Fag Hags!
Waiting for my madman in a Blue Box.

(in reply to JonnieBoy)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.156