View Full Version : Is there another option to killing?
Dr. Feelgood
09-13-02, 04:42 PM
I read this post in another forum, from a man I really respect. I think it makes a perfect start to a good debate.
My prayer is that America sees it's position as an unchallenged superpower, not as a right to dictate but as a responsibility to aide and support. A responsibility to provide a world that children aren't afraid of. A responsibility to not seek revenge from those who would harm, but rather promote understanding and above all accept the responsibility to
STOP KILLING PEOPLE.
We have no right to tell anyone what to believe or how to feel. But we do have a responsibility to lead by example. Not to be the world, but to accept our place in it and do what we can to make it better.
Dead is not better. Dead is dead. Killing is not better, even if they killed us first. Killing is still killing and the justification for it still leaves wives weeping for their dead husbands and children weeping for the fathers who aren't coming home. Revenge is not so sweet as to remove the taste of suffering, grief and loss so great as to defy human comprehension. How does anyone stand the unbearable grief of losing your own child? Would knowing that child died while someone was being paid back for hurting someone else first make it any more bearable? Can we not all see that?
Fear is the problem. Fear is what motivates terrorism and revenge and therein lies the vicious circle. Killing for whatever reason solves nothing. It only promotes fear.
I don't care what anyone's politics or religion is. I believe that is your own personal decision to make and I believe whatever decision you make does not make you less deserving of anything than I. I fully intend to sell something to people from all walks of life. I can respect you and your opinions as long as it does not include killing people as an answer.
I'm not smart enough to have the answers. I don't know what to do with criminals. I don't know the best answer for society when one would seek to damage or destroy another for their own agenda. I only know that there has to be another option to killing.
PaleDuke
09-13-02, 04:56 PM
Good post. :)
Well I guess that's the difference between the real world and a fantasy land.
Sometimes killing someone stops others from being killed. If you kill one man to save a million, is that acceptable? I think it is.
I guess the person who wrote that does not understand.
Terrorist are not spurned on by fear. No...
See, this is a prime example of someone talking out their ass!
To understand a terrorist is to have a quite evil mindset. The people who attacked America HATE this country in the purest form. It would not matter what the country, the government, or the people in the country did... they would STILL hate america. Their existance is pure evil and so is their thought process.
The people who died in those towers did NOTHING to the people who killed them... yet they still lost their lives.
And the people who planned it... rejoiced.
Why? Because they are the scum of the earth. THey are pure evil and do not deserve to exist on this planet. They deserve death, not understanding. In biblical times, it was a life for a life. No matter your reason... if you murdered, the family had the RIGHT to LEGALLY kill the killer. The only problem today is, the justice system is so outa wack... there is no way to know for sure.
But, in the case of what happened on September 11th 2001, the culprates are very clear. There is no question as to the responsable parties...
The fact remains that the people who did this, are going to CONTINUE to do this. NO matter what understanding, no matter what changes happen. They are pure hate inside, and will not stop until every last person who lives within the confinds of this country is dead.
Denmark turned the other cheak to hitler.... along with most of europe. Hitler was pure evil. He killed because of race and religion. The same thing the terrorist are doing. THey are nothing better than nazis and deserve nothing less.... Death.
To turn the other cheak would be ignorant, and nieve. The world will NEVER change until HATE ceases to exist. You show me one government that is run by man that can do that.
Originally posted by Kermit
The people who attacked America HATE this country in the purest form. It would not matter what the country, the government, or the people in the country did... they would STILL hate america. Their existance is pure evil and so is their thought process.
By going over there and shooting them up, do you think you'll take the hate away? Quite the opposite I would think...
It's better to make sure you leave "them" no reason to hate "you"...
Originally posted by Cop
By going over there and shooting them up, do you think you'll take the hate away? Quite the opposite I would think...
It's better to make sure you leave "them" no reason to hate "you"...
But what good does that do?
IT was an unprovoked attack.
It was done to innocent people with families. Wifes children, husbands, mothers, fathers. Why did they die? To make a point?
So, turn the other cheek. Then, they do it again, and kill more mothers and fathers and husbands and children. Why not?!
Why not let them attack over and over. We aren't giving them a reason.. YAY, we win a moral vicorty.. big f-ing deal!
In the end... the hate will still be there, and the deaths will still occur.
As I said, the only way to stop it is to eliminate hate all together. No man's government will ever do it.
Hey... a few less terrorist there are in the world the better. I think anyone who kills another without just cause deserves to be hung in a tree by their testicles, skinned alive, and then burned at the steak.
Maybe that would put some fear into the hearts of people who even consider it.
Originally posted by Kermit
It was done to innocent people with families. Wifes children, husbands, mothers, fathers. Why did they die? To make a point?
WW2, 2 nukes, lots of families.
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 07:21 PM
key word: unprovoked
DUKE HARDKNOCK
09-13-02, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Kermit
IT was an unprovoked attack.
Terrorists have been at it for longer than 1 year, y'know... Everyone behaves like this was somehow the very first major act of terrorism and that this was some sort of war declaration. It's been going on for years and years, and especially because very little has been done to take away the hatred (half-decent education would help a lot, as would stricter regulation on imams - many can hardly read) it's no wonder something like this happened.
Originally posted by sj_hurst
key word: unprovoked
WW2 could have been won without using nukes. It was flexing muscle, no more, no less.
sj_hurst
09-13-02, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Wamphyr
WW2 could have been won without using nukes. It was flexing muscle, no more, no less.
I agree with that, but that's not the difference I'm talking about. Think about what unprovoked means. The U.S. entered WWII in response to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Japan didn't declare war on the U.S. before attacking Pearl Harbor because they wanted the element of surprise. It's the same deal with the terrorists. They were unprovoked. The U.S. was first provoked by them. Why did they attack the U.S.? The terrorists call it Jihad (holy war). The purpose of their Jihad is to kill the infidels (whatever that means).
Frostic
09-14-02, 02:59 AM
Hiroshima was almost 60 years ago. Any discussions on the morality of it is academic at this point. Every country in the war did things that were immoral by today's standards and even by the era's standards. Japan and Germany committed a lot worse immoral actions than the allies.
As a superpower we have the duty to *USE* our power. Sadam has been acting up ever since the end of the Gulf War. He restricted the weapons inspectors' access and now for the past four years he won't even let them in at all. As long as he thinks the world won't do anything then he'll continue to act up.
He's like a little child who pushes his mother around. The child keeps acting up until he is reprimanded. The child is good for a while then acts up worse. Eventually the child is completely out of control because he knows his mother is bluffing when she threatens to discipline him. The problem child eventually grows up to be a bad citizen or even worse the child grows up to become a criminal because he never learnt that there are consequences to bad behavior. The U.N. is like his mother. The U.N. passes resolutions and baby Sadam ignores them because he knows the U.N. won't do anything. He's going to get worse and worse. You can just look at world history or a psychology book to know that he is going to get worse.
And I don't know why any one would think that a war with Iraq would just be a simple act of revenge. Believe me there will be a lot more fear in the world when Sadam gets THE bomb. I think a lot of people are either too young to remember or just forgot what it was like during the Cold War when every one lived in constant fear of a nuclear holocaust. There was hardly a day that didn't go by when one didn't think of the end of the world. Our children have had the luxury of knowing for the past 10 years that they aren't going to die in a nuclear firestorm.
The difference between America, the former Soviet Union and Sadam is that Sadam isn't all there. Tyrants have very little conscience because they are used to not having to answer to any one. Sadam doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected or impeached. And he won't launch the bomb on an ICBM or a nuclear sub. He'll brainwash some 20 year old Islamic Fundamentalist into carrying it into downtown New York or into a major sporting event. 10s of thousands of people or more will die and the world's economy will slump so bad that it'll make the 9/11 recession look like an economic boom. What's even worse is that Sadam won't take credit for it and he'll even deny it.
If the Arabs hate us even more then so be it. I'd rather live in fear of some brainwashed nut case with a pipe bomb than live in fear of some terrorist with a nuclear bomb.
Dr. Feelgood
09-14-02, 04:01 AM
I can't say I disagree with you, Frostic. I don't have the answer of how to deal with Hussatan. However, my post was directed towards dealing with the (Arab) terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. :)
Frostic
09-14-02, 04:10 AM
I live in Texas. The capital punishment capital of the US. Do you really need me to tell you what I think we ought to do with the terrorists? :)
Originally posted by Kermit
IT was an unprovoked attack.
Was it really? I'd say American foreign policy over the years was all the provocation they needed. I'm not condoning their actions, not by a long shot, but I can see what made them snap...
PaleDuke
09-14-02, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Cop
Was it really? I'd say American foreign policy over the years was all the provocation they needed. I'm not condoning their actions, not by a long shot, but I can see what made them snap...
That's only a part of it. :)
IMO...
http://boards.slackercentral.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=418644#post418644
Originally posted by Cop
By going over there and shooting them up, do you think you'll take the hate away? Quite the opposite I would think...
It's better to make sure you leave "them" no reason to hate "you"...
Thye percieve the US as a corruptor of the islamic faith because we offer freedom and choices. Thier version of Islam has no choices. That we go over there and shoot them up as you say is expected by them. does the victim of a serial killer give the killer any reason to kill them...no. We are hated by the fundamentalists because the US is a contradiction of their form of Islam. We are just the most obvious target. they would hate us regardless of what we do.
Dr. Feelgood
09-14-02, 04:12 PM
Heh. To be honest, I never thought of it that way myself, but it just goes to show there is always two sides to every coin :)
Originally posted by PaleDuke
That's only a part of it. :)
IMO...
http://boards.slackercentral.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=418644#post418644
Fair enough... And probably true...
It's kinda like the videogame/music debate. The easiest target gets the blame...
makes you wonder whos the top 10 on thier hate list hrmmmm
I noticed turning the cheak has come up here a couple of times.
I would like to add we have turned our cheaks several times at attacks aimed towards us by terrorist.
I would also like to add .. To these people turning the cheak is a sign of weakness and gives them that much more reason to attack.
I think if we would have responded when embassy buildings were being bombed back in the mid 90's or when the USS Cole was attacked. 9/11 may or may not have happend. But I think if you prove to these people (terrorist) that there unprovoked attacks and violent way of life will not be tolarated. And if such attacks happen they will be responded to with every option nessasary to eradicate terrorist and what they stand for.
I also don't think foreign policy is the whole problem here. I will say our envolvement in the middle east is not helping the situation. But I think these terrorist would still have done this sooner if not later. And it may have been to a different country besides the USA. People like this just attack because they dont agree with you or what you stand for or even if your not like them. So if it wasn't us then who? Japan? Germany? ect..
I would not wish these uncivil attacks on anyone, I sure the hell will not let them distroy my way of life or freedome. Just remember before you jump on the US for defending it's self. What would your country do if it happend to them?
Ignore the problem...... Is not an option anymore
Please forgive any typeo's but it's late.
Originally posted by BCRICH
Please forgive any typeo's
Oh the irony :)
Why is nobody looking at the obvious here?
This is all strictly, cause and effect.
The reason the United States is hated in the Muslim world is 1. An overemphatic support for Israel at the expense of the Arab countries. 2. Our insatiable greed for oil, which fuels (pardon the pun) our foreign policy towards the region.
Had we acted with an even hand in the Middle East decades ago, and continued to do so, we wouldn't be having the problems we're having now. I don't need to reprise the millions of opus threads outlining the issues.
Originally posted by Kermit
The people who attacked America HATE this country in the purest form. It would not matter what the country, the government, or the people in the country did... they would STILL hate america. Their existance is pure evil and so is their thought process.
Sorry to say, but that is a rather simplistic and naive way of viewing a very complex and ancient problem. I would ask that you consider your own thought process as well. War is never a long term solution to any problem.
Plus, how do we go after invisible enemies? We can't. There's no end in sight. The real winners will be those in power who want to have war...the military industrialists.
Someone mentioned Japan and Germany in World War 2. People seem to forget that at the end of World War I, Germany was forced to sign humiliating terms of surrender never before imposed on any country. Huge tracts of territory ceded or lost(Alsace-Lorraine, the Rhineland, the Sudetenland), tons of reparations, etc, etc....paved the way for Hitler to feed on the later economic depravation and sense of nationalistic outrage.
Japan was an Allied country at the end of World War I. However, the British and Americans refused to grant them any recognition or respect, in fact forcing them to sign a treaty limiting their forces to 3/5 that of Britain or the US....paving the way for the militarists to take over as well.
We reap what we sow.
Let me point out that I am NOT advocating "turning the other cheek". I am simply advancing a solution put forth early on- classify 9/11 as a crime against humanity rather than a military attack. This way we would have international support as well as legal and judicial support.
Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
Thye percieve the US as a corruptor of the islamic faith because we offer freedom and choices. Thier version of Islam has no choices. That we go over there and shoot them up as you say is expected by them. does the victim of a serial killer give the killer any reason to kill them...no. We are hated by the fundamentalists because the US is a contradiction of their form of Islam. We are just the most obvious target. they would hate us regardless of what we do.
The reason we're hated is our short-sighted, one-sided support for Israel and their expansion into Arab territory, with often violent results. Nothing to do with our freedoms or our choices. If our policy was more even handed, we wouldn't see the kind of terrorism sent against us.
Equating the victims of 9/11 as akin to victims of a serial killer, is again, a simplistic approach to the issue. Serial killers don't become serial killers overnight, just as the terrorists don't become terrorists overnight. Remove the root causes of the problem and there's no more serial killers, no more terrorists.
Originally posted by Frostic
Hiroshima was almost 60 years ago. Any discussions on the morality of it is academic at this point. Every country in the war did things that were immoral by today's standards and even by the era's standards. Japan and Germany committed a lot worse immoral actions than the allies.
On the contrary, Hiroshima is still very much relevant, for the simple reason that this country still has enough nuclear firepower to blow the entire planet up several times over. Moreover, the fact that the Axis powers committed atrocities does not justify the United States committing them as well. Isn't this supposed to be a civilized country? Then why would we employ methods no different than our "evil" enemies?
As a superpower we have the duty to *USE* our power. Sadam has been acting up ever since the end of the Gulf War. He restricted the weapons inspectors' access and now for the past four years he won't even let them in at all. As long as he thinks the world won't do anything then he'll continue to act up.
Wrong. Ever read Spider-Man? You forgot one thing about having great power, and that with it comes great responsibility.
That's funny, if we're gonna start pointing fingers at flouting international law, maybe we should look at ourselves first. After all, we haven't paid dues to the United Nations since who knows when, and we're about to invade Iraq despite a sure veto from the Security Council.
He's like a little child who pushes his mother around. The child keeps acting up until he is reprimanded. The child is good for a while then acts up worse. Eventually the child is completely out of control because he knows his mother is bluffing when she threatens to discipline him. The problem child eventually grows up to be a bad citizen or even worse the child grows up to become a criminal because he never learnt that there are consequences to bad behavior. The U.N. is like his mother. The U.N. passes resolutions and baby Sadam ignores them because he knows the U.N. won't do anything. He's going to get worse and worse. You can just look at world history or a psychology book to know that he is going to get worse.
I guess you forgot that the US supported him throughout the 80's in his war with Iran? So what does that make us, the corruptor of youth?
And I don't know why any one would think that a war with Iraq would just be a simple act of revenge. Believe me there will be a lot more fear in the world when Sadam gets THE bomb. I think a lot of people are either too young to remember or just forgot what it was like during the Cold War when every one lived in constant fear of a nuclear holocaust. There was hardly a day that didn't go by when one didn't think of the end of the world. Our children have had the luxury of knowing for the past 10 years that they aren't going to die in a nuclear firestorm.
Well., I'm 37 years old, and I grew up in a country ruled by a corrupt, bloodthirsty dictator, so I don't think you can tell me what living in fear is like.
The simple reason against the war with Iraq? Saddam Hussein hates the fundamentalist Muslims more than he hates us. Osama Bin Laden would be the last person he equips with a nuke, if he is even close enough to smell one. He has been shopping around unsuccessfully for one for the last 20 years, and even if he gets one, he will never use it because the Israelis will retaliate in kind.
If you're really serious about decreasing the threat of nuclear terrorism, then support the effort at global unilateral nuclear disarmament. Starting here. Reduce, then destroy, and permanently outlaw, ALL nuclear weapons. The US will still be a superpower.
The difference between America, the former Soviet Union and Sadam is that Sadam isn't all there. Tyrants have very little conscience because they are used to not having to answer to any one. Sadam doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected or impeached. And he won't launch the bomb on an ICBM or a nuclear sub. He'll brainwash some 20 year old Islamic Fundamentalist into carrying it into downtown New York or into a major sporting event. 10s of thousands of people or more will die and the world's economy will slump so bad that it'll make the 9/11 recession look like an economic boom. What's even worse is that Sadam won't take credit for it and he'll even deny it.
If the Arabs hate us even more then so be it. I'd rather live in fear of some brainwashed nut case with a pipe bomb than live in fear of some terrorist with a nuclear bomb.
Again, read the above. Saddam hates the fundamentalists more than he hates us. He has no legitimate reason to target us and he stands to lose a LOT if he ever does something that stupid. You may think he's nuts, but he's not entrenched 25 years in power by being stupid.
Originally posted by Pier
The reason we're hated is our short-sighted, one-sided support for Israel and their expansion into Arab territory, with often violent results. Nothing to do with our freedoms or our choices. If our policy was more even handed, we wouldn't see the kind of terrorism sent against us.
Equating the victims of 9/11 as akin to victims of a serial killer, is again, a simplistic approach to the issue. Serial killers don't become serial killers overnight, just as the terrorists don't become terrorists overnight. Remove the root causes of the problem and there's no more serial killers, no more terrorists.
Let me guess buy the world a coke and everything will be ok.
what are the root causes of terrorism?
poverty and ignorance?
So why dont the muslim clerics and muslim goverments do something about it?
I dont stay around the house everyday preaching hate for muslim fundamentalists. I get up go to work and then go to school to educate myself. That way I am not poor and ignorant. So why cant the muslims in other countries do this?
Is it perhaps the fault of the governments in muslim countries and some muslim clerics who want to maintain the status quo and thier grip on power. Perhaps they dont want the people to know that the national economy is their problem. If you are a government and cleric who can not explain why things are better what do you do? misdirection of blame...........
Look at all the sucess in the US...look at all the poverty here
they practice other religions....Islam is the true religion
The US must be in leauge with Satan to enjoy such prosperity.
blah blah blah
Our support for Israel is just an excuse to get the foot in the door
Did Hitler use a scapegoat...yes
are fundamentalist Muslims using a scape goat....yes
Dood, the question is not what are their governments doing about it. What we need to do is get our OWN act together. We can't control what some other government is going to do. What we CAN do is elect responsible leaders who will guide this country away from the pro-rich, pro-war, anti-human rights stances we've seen in the last 100 years.
Remove the log from our own eye, so to speak.
Originally posted by Pier
Dood, the question is not what are their governments doing about it. What we need to do is get our OWN act together. We can't control what some other government is going to do. What we CAN do is elect responsible leaders who will guide this country away from the pro-rich, pro-war, anti-human rights stances we've seen in the last 100 years.
Remove the log from our own eye, so to speak.
and buy the world a coke while we are at it...lol
everybody sing now....
nice and idealistic answer..but doesnt have diddly to do with the question at hand.
Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
and buy the world a coke while we are at it...lol
everybody sing now....
nice and idealistic answer..but doesnt have diddly to do with the question at hand.
Nice try, but I don't get insulted with pedantic remarks. Sloganeering is a Commie ploy.
Well, don't like my solution, got any better answers? Or do you want me to go after your reply bit by bit?
Originally posted by Wamphyr
Well I guess that's the difference between the real world and a fantasy land.
Sometimes killing someone stops others from being killed. If you kill one man to save a million, is that acceptable? I think it is.
Talk about fantasy land, show me one scenario where you would need to kill one man to save a million. Killing is hard to stop once it starts, pretty soon you'll have a million dead as a result of one person being killed.
Would I kill a human being to defend myself or my family? I don't know, maybe I will, but it's still a huge burden to bear on my soul no matter what the reason is. It's not removed so easily.
Originally posted by Pier
Talk about fantasy land
I just did :D.
show me one scenario where you would need to kill one man to save a million.
It's corny (Best I can think of ATM :O), but imagine a terrorist is in a highly populated area with a nuke, you can shoot him, or let him detonate it.
Killing is hard to stop once it starts, pretty soon you'll have a million dead as a result of one person being killed.
Maybe, it really depends on the situation. Most people don't seem to care if those milllion are the enemy dying.
Would I kill a human being to defend myself or my family? I don't know, maybe I will, but it's still a huge burden to bear on my soul no matter what the reason is. It's not removed so easily.
That's why you pay taxes, so other people can do it for you (Police, military etc.), it makes it easier to stomach :).
but what if there was no Police there to protect you and all that stood between you and the death of a loved one was yourself?
would you protect your family from a criminal?
Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
but what if there was no Police there to protect you and all that stood between you and the death of a loved one was yourself?
would you protect your family from a criminal?
Yes I would, if someone doesn't recognise another person's rights, they forfeit their own.
If a person broke into my house and it was within my power to do so, I would kill them.
sj_hurst
09-15-02, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Pier
Talk about fantasy land, show me one scenario where you would need to kill one man to save a million. Killing is hard to stop once it starts, pretty soon you'll have a million dead as a result of one person being killed.
Would I kill a human being to defend myself or my family? I don't know, maybe I will, but it's still a huge burden to bear on my soul no matter what the reason is. It's not removed so easily.
Pier, if you want to defend enemies of the U.S., perhaps you should learn more about them first. Here's an educational opportunity right up your alley. They can instruct you in lessons of self-sacrifice. :eek: ;) j/k
http://www.nationallampoon.com/MoDstyles/wwwaste/oblu/oblu.asp
Personally, I prefer the contrasting philosophy of self-preservation. ;)
Is the world a better place with you or your killer in it? If the killer is persistent (i.e. won't stop until you're dead), then you must make a decision. Sometimes in life, it's kill or be killed. IMO, the guilty party is the one who begins the violence.
BTW, Saddam's sanity is intermittent. Sometimes he seems like a reasonable leader. Other times, he's a mad, ruthless dictator. Every so often, he has an Iraqi officer executed to keep the others in line. He uses terror to maintain control of the Iraqi military. Also, he has used terror (through military force) to control his own people, sporadically, in the past. He has used terror when his army invaded Kuwait and they set fire to cities and oil fields. He may not be associated with fundamentalist terrorists, but he uses a terror in his own way. Doesn't that qualify as terrorism? If you doubt that, look up the definition of terrorism.
As for why the U.S. wants to attack Iraq, that's a different matter. His non-compliance of UN resolutions for over 10 years gives authorities reason to suspect that he is developing terror weapons, weapon of mass destruction. Was it any different when the U.S. developed nuclear weapons? Of course not. The U.S. government used nuclear weapons in the first-strike sense in WWII. Regardless, U.S. use of nuclear weapons in WWII is in no way a justification for any country (including Iraq or the U.S.) to do the same at any point in the future. Currently, Russia, China, and the U.S. have nuclear weapons as deterents to nuclear holocaust (defensive use only, with no first-strike intentions). Anyway, judging by Saddam's track record, it's highly possible that he'd use such weapons as a means to increase his sphere of influence (in the Mid-East, and possibly elsewhere). The U.S. and the rest of the world have good reason to stop (Saddam's) Iraqi military development of terror weapons. This reason exists despite political rhetoric and regardless of whether or not people are willing to acknowledge it as fact.
Frostic
09-16-02, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Pier
On the contrary, Hiroshima is still very much relevant, for the simple reason that this country still has enough nuclear firepower to blow the entire planet up several times over. Moreover, the fact that the Axis powers committed atrocities does not justify the United States committing them as well. Isn't this supposed to be a civilized country? Then why would we employ methods no different than our "evil" enemies?
Wrong. Ever read Spider-Man? You forgot one thing about having great power, and that with it comes great responsibility.
That's funny, if we're gonna start pointing fingers at flouting international law, maybe we should look at ourselves first. After all, we haven't paid dues to the United Nations since who knows when, and we're about to invade Iraq despite a sure veto from the Security Council.
I guess you forgot that the US supported him throughout the 80's in his war with Iran? So what does that make us, the corruptor of youth?
Well., I'm 37 years old, and I grew up in a country ruled by a corrupt, bloodthirsty dictator, so I don't think you can tell me what living in fear is like.
The simple reason against the war with Iraq? Saddam Hussein hates the fundamentalist Muslims more than he hates us. Osama Bin Laden would be the last person he equips with a nuke, if he is even close enough to smell one. He has been shopping around unsuccessfully for one for the last 20 years, and even if he gets one, he will never use it because the Israelis will retaliate in kind.
If you're really serious about decreasing the threat of nuclear terrorism, then support the effort at global unilateral nuclear disarmament. Starting here. Reduce, then destroy, and permanently outlaw, ALL nuclear weapons. The US will still be a superpower.
Again, read the above. Saddam hates the fundamentalists more than he hates us. He has no legitimate reason to target us and he stands to lose a LOT if he ever does something that stupid. You may think he's nuts, but he's not entrenched 25 years in power by being stupid.
Hiroshima was 60 years ago and you're debating whether it was right or wrong. In your not so humble opinion it was wrong. Fine. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand and it has nothing to do with whether Sadam should have the bomb. If you want to start a thread on it then be my guest. It's a tired subject and I for one won't be reading it.
And when you engage in debates in the future I would recommend not quoting comic books. Furthermore, when you have a different opinion then say something like "I disagree" or "my point of view is this". When you start off with "wrong" you come across as arrogant and probably close-minded. Not to mention the fact that you insult and alienate your target audience.
As for us helping Irag in the 80s, this has what to do with Iraq getting the bomb now? Is your argument that because the U.S. made mistakes in the past we shouldn't try to correct them? I'm lost on this one. Is your argument that because we bombed Hiroshima 60 years ago then Sadam should be allowed to have the bomb?
If you don't see anything wrong with Sadam getting the bomb then that's fine by me. However, most people do have a problem with it and most people realize that Sadam will find a way to put it to use anonymously.
You are 37 years old and lived in a dictatorship? Good for you. Nothing to brag about though.
And no matter how many times you tell me to read that paragraph I won't agree with you that it is OK for Sadam to have the bomb.
Sir_Gallahad
09-16-02, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Cop
It's better to make sure you leave "them" no reason to hate "you"...
Or make sure there are none of "them" left to hate "you." I don't mean a race by any means. I mean specifically terrorists.
sj_hurst
09-16-02, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Sir_Gallahad
Or make sure there are none of "them" left to hate "you." I don't mean a race by any means. I mean specifically terrorists.
No kidding. They already "hate" us. Why? They call it Jihad (holy war). Their goal is to drive all infidels out of their "holy land." The U.S. is allies with Israel, a nation that surrounds Jerusalem (their holy city). The terrorists believe that the friend of an enemy is also an enemy. It's not about a tiny plot of desert. It's about their religion (regarding their "holy sites" being occupied by "infidels").
Why does the Arab world hate us so?
we have US troops protecting muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. We protected two Islamic countries during the Gulf War Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We aided muslims during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. We send foriegn aid to muslim countries. We provide humanitarian aid to muslim countries.
Yet all the reason they give is our support for Israel.
hrmmm......
Lets see we have Israel which is a democracy and free market economy in an area which muslim countries are governed by a few powerful people. These people control the government and economies.
Israel has a bigger economy than the richest muslim oil nation. Israel doesnt even have oil. Would the standard of living be higher in Isreal for the average guy that that of muslim countries?
If we are the few who hold the reins of power in a muslim country do you want the folks below you looking at you as to why things are not going well for you? What to do.........
would it be redirect blame?
hrmmmmmm
do the muslim nations want a democracy in Iraq or any other muslim nation.... not no but hell no... they want to maintain the status quo.
so why not give him a wealthy sucessful nation to hate?
worked for Hitler didnt it?
think about it......
sj_hurst
09-17-02, 02:15 AM
Yeah, the Arab nations do a good job of programming/brainwashing their populations. They're much better at it than democracies for some reason. I've heard Donald Rumsfeld on CNN admit this. He said that foreign governments are better at using "word games" to win support of large groups of people. Judging by how many people are so trusting of Saddam every time he's says that he'll allow inspectors, I'd have to say that that's true.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.