How to win the War on Terrorism

[Roland]

"...and he was clear it might take many years."

Until 2008 at least, to be precise.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Not the people, really, as much as the government.

When did you start making such distinctions? This stinks of backpedaling given your posts in other threads.

it means our government

If one feels that he has a legitimate grievance against the US government justifing an armed assault in order to redress it, then why would you choose targets and people not connected with it.

[Arrian]

Arg, Imran, I distinctly recall blowing that analogy right out of the water months ago.

In your simplistic little playground scene, the bully - AN INDIVIDUAL who is harming another - takes a beating. In the 9/11 attacks, 3000 people who had little or nothing to do with US policy w/regard to the ME were slaughtered. You don't see the obvious difference?

-Arrian

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
Until 2008 at least, to be precise.

2004 actually, he's no shoe-in to be re-elected, in fact, he's looking less and less like a two term chief executive.

[Arrian]

It all depends on who steps up to run against him. The reason he got elected in the first place was that Al Gore was a terrible candidate (let's not argue the Florida stuff again, ok? If the Dems had put up a good candidate, Bush would have been soundly defeated).

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Chris 62
2004 actually, he's no shoe-in to be re-elected, in fact, he's looking less and less like a two term chief executive.

One can only hope.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In your simplistic little playground scene, the bully - AN INDIVIDUAL who is harming another - takes a beating. In the 9/11 attacks, 3000 people who had little or nothing to do with US policy w/regard to the ME were slaughtered. You don't see the obvious difference?

There is no obvious difference. The analogy is a very good one. And that is what some people see around the world. The bully got his. Some others see the bully got sucker punched, and is still being a bully.

Analogy stands.

If one feels that he has a legitimate grievance against the US government justifing an armed assault in order to redress it, then why would you choose targets and people not connected with it.

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon aren't connected with the US government in any way? PLEASE!

[Chris 62]

I would love to see McCain get the nomination over him, as it should have been.

Haven't seen a Democrat I can get behind out of the bunch recently offered.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would love to see McCain get the nomination over him, as it should have been.

Unless Bush steps down, the chances of this are basically nil, unfortunetly.

As for the Dem side, if John Edwards runs, that might be a good candidate. I can't see a President John Kerrey though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The World Trade Center and the Pentagon aren't connected with the US government in any way? PLEASE!

Other than the fact that they all happen to be on US soil, can you tell me what the WTC and the various airliner "missiles" have to do with US foreign policy in the Middle East or thier relation to the Federal government?

Is this where you start using sound and fury along with a few cute smilies in place of an actual arguement?

PS I'd like to see a response to the first half of my previous post.

[Arrian]

There is no obvious difference. The analogy is a very good one. And that is what some people see around the world. The bully got his. Some others see the bully got sucker punched, and is still being a bully.

Analogy stands.

Yup, those terrible bullies who where working in the WTC sure got theirs Ever take a look at the various nationalities of the victims?

Look, this debate is pointless, as we are so far apart there is little to discuss. You think the murder of civilians is acceptable - even commendable. I do not. There really isn't any middle ground there.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Other than the fact that they all happen to be on US soil, can you tell me what the WTC and the various airliner "missiles" have to do with US foreign policy in the Middle East or thier relation to the Federal government?

Um... The WTC is the very symbolization of American economic power. If you didn't notice they went after symbols.

You think the murder of civilians is acceptable - even commendable. I do not.

So you are of the opinion the US government ows reperations to Germany and Japan, I take it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

When did you start making such distinctions? This stinks of backpedaling given your posts in other threads.

Are you really this stupid, or do you act purposely dense? For your sake, I hope it is the later.

When you can show me where the US occupies territory in the ME, then you can make your silly claim. Then again, knowing you, you'll probably decide to make something up or deflect the question.

[Arrian]

I think every major nation involved in WWII (US, USSR, UK, Germany, Italy, Japan) was guilty of what would now be considered "war crimes." Some more than others, depending on one's personal opinions on which is worse: the rape of Nanking or the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I wish more people had learned from it.

I do think the US & UK governments should have apologized for Dresden. But I also think that if you demand compensation from each government for each act during the course of the war the process would be nearly endless. The whole damn thing was so horrific.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet doesn't that happen in just about every modern war (ie, killing of civilians)? Do you think then that every war is unacceptable?