Carter Admits to Being Weak, Bowing to International Terrorism

[David Floyd]

Not really. It's what 99% of Americans would have said during WW2. Were they a bunch of sociopaths?

[David Floyd]

Also, even without the context of WW2, it's not socio-pathic. The United States does NOT have any responsibility whatsoever for the lives of Iranians. The only responsibility of the US government is to protect and defend US national sovereignty/national interests. 2,000,000 Iranians are not necessarily relevant to that point.

[notyoueither]

You'd have to deal with the Europeans sucking their teeth and using harsh language.

[SlowwHand]

[BeBMan]

Not really. It's what 99% of Americans would have said during WW2. Were they a bunch of sociopaths?

Do you have some source or so showing that 99% of Americans were for "killing all of them" during WW2? Because I can't find something about Roosevelt or so having to justify himself against a completely outraged American public for not killing everyone on the enemy side.

The United States does NOT have any responsibility whatsoever for the lives of Iranians.

Your government (the thing meant to represent the United States internationally) entered volunteerily quite some agreements over time that give anyone accepting that stuff "responsibilities". You know, that is why those who didn't care ended up as war criminals or so....

[OzzyKP]

Not really. It's what 99% of Americans would have said during WW2. Were they a bunch of sociopaths?

The scale and danger of WW2 was quite different. Iran took a few dozen hostages. German/Japan were invading dozens of nations and killing millions of people.

You aren't a sociopath if you shoot someone who pulls a gun on you. You ARE a sociopath if you shoot someone who scuffs your Adidas.

[Arrian]

Good thing it wasn't President Floyd

On this we agree.

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

You know, that is why those who didn't care ended up as war criminals or so....

Only if they lost.

[BeBMan]

[David Floyd]

The scale and danger of WW2 was quite different. Iran took a few dozen hostages. German/Japan were invading dozens of nations and killing millions of people.

You aren't a sociopath if you shoot someone who pulls a gun on you. You ARE a sociopath if you shoot someone who scuffs your Adidas.

Comparing dozens of human hostages to a pair of scuffed tennis shoes is not only ludicrous, but beside the point. I wasn't making an argument about the scale of the offense, I was making an argument that Carter's primary concern should have been US national security.

[Straybow]

[Q=dannubis;5709440]And you are an Ameriredneck so having a hard on for big explosions indeed comes naturally. Having a brain otoh seems a "bit less common".[/Q] We all know the Euroweenies claim they have brains. They just don't work very well when stuck up their own nether orifices.

[Straybow]

[Q=OzzyKP;5710165]You aren't a sociopath if you shoot someone who pulls a gun on you. You ARE a sociopath if you shoot someone who scuffs your Adidas.[/Q] You ARE a sociopath if you shoot/blow up people who don't submit to your brand of worshiping Allah. You are NOT a sociopath if you shoot the sociopath to protect your fellow non-sociopaths.

You ARE a sociopath if you make excuses for the sociopaths and castigate the people who defend themselves. That, too, seems lost on the Euroweenies and their equivalents on this side of the pond.

[Kuciwalker]

sociopath

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[ricketyclik]

Carter possibly sacrificed his presidency on the altar of his citizens' wounded pride for the sake of saving the lives of thousands, not to mention the hostages'. He is a hero and a genuine Christian, and the rest of the world thanks him.

If the US had gone in and killed tens of thousands, the subsequent world-wide terrorism would have made the historical version pale in comparison. Look how the US reacted after 9/11.

DF, I suppose you think Kennedy should have nuked the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis?

[Dinner]

Do you have some source or so showing that 99% of Americans were for "killing all of them" during WW2?

He's talking out of his ass as usual. Yes, Americans, as part of the Allies, did believe that total war against the Axis was necessary as they felt the Axis presented a clear and present danger to their way of life. They even approved of the controversial "total war" doctrine developed by the belligerents of WW1 and that included bombing of enemy cities but if you look at old war time footage it is full of Allied civilians saying "Sure, I feel sorry for the ordinary Germans but they did the same to numerous countries and would keep doing it given the chance so we have to do the same". That's more of a "necessity" defense then "we hate them all and think they all should be exterminated" defense.

Clearly, people of the time sympathized with ordinary people of other countries but felt the war needs (given the limitations of technology of the time) needed to supersede the humanitarian concerns. If war production could have been disrupted without mass bombing of cities people would likely have demanded it or at least preferred it but since in WW2 a bomb only hit its target 5%-10% of the time wide spread bombing was seen as the only way to insure war production was disrupted.