Dare I say....

Dawgphood001 said:
You are contradicting yourself. According to you, invading a country is logical, but logically things like this should never come to violence?

Yes, i'm young, and yes, i'm probably a bit cynical. But i'm not stupid, and I don't need a condescending attitude to tell me otherwise. I probably have a lot of growing up to do, and who knows? I may well totally change my view over the years. But for now, i'm young, virile, crazy, and knowledgeable of Osama's goals. Like anyone else with half a cortex.

Only sort of contradicting myself. One should never have to come to violence, but this is not a very logical world. If it was, I'm sure this debate wouldn't be taking place.

I'm not trying to be anymore condescending then you are being towards me, anyways I apologize if I have become a little condescending towards you.

There are many, many very bright people who barely know there is a conflict going on at all, it was not a swing at your intellegence. It was a swing at whether you understand that this fight was coming one way or another anyways.
 
Tulkas12 said:
You are playing semantics with the definition of natural. Nice. You knew what I'm getting at didn't you? Or did your need to destroy me over-ride your want to think about what was posted?

You don't agree with me, this is fine. You think I'm Machiavellian, fine. You think I'm crazy, fine. You are not the first nor will you be the last.

Btw, one is dangerous to an individual, the other is dangerous to all man-kind. Both could be ended. One would take an iron-fist to eradicate to the point of it not having any ill effects(drugs), the other only need to be calmed to the point that it doesn't have any ill-effects(radicalism). There are many radical christians, yet they do not pose an issue to all of mankind.

Drugs are dangerous to mankind. China before WWII was almost destroyed by widespread opium addiction.

Why are radical christians exempt from this radicalism demon? Bibles instead of Korans doesn't equal docility.
 
Tulkas12 said:
Only sort of contradicting myself. One should never have to come to violence, but this is not a very logical world. If it was, I'm sure this debate wouldn't be taking place.

I'm not trying to be anymore condescending then you are being towards me, anyways I apologize if I have become a little condescending towards you.

There are many, many very bright people who barely know there is a conflict going on at all, it was not a swing at your intellegence. It was a swing at whether you understand that this fight was coming one way or another anyways.

Apology accepted.

Agreed on this aspect, but I still don't think that this fight was coming or bound to happen, at least not the one in Iraq. I actually agreed with the Afghan conflict, even though we didn't catch Osama and basically left the country to rot ever since.

This Iraq conflict has been sniffed out from the very beginning.

Matter of fact, I remember on September 11th 2001, after the event had taken place, I was watching television in the evening. A pundit from the government was giving his opinion on the attacks, as they often do on news channels. What struck me is when he said "I think this could be like the Wizard of Oz, with Saddam behind the curtain pulling the strings." Roughly paraphrased, but it does seem to indicate that we were itching for a fight.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
Drugs are dangerous to mankind. China before WWII was almost destroyed by widespread opium addiction.

They used an iron fist to defeat it too. Yes they can be, but not by use of nuclear weapons. Equating the two imo is silly regardless of how you try to equate them.

Dawgphood001 said:
Why are radical christians exempt from this radicalism demon? Bibles instead of Korans doesn't equal docility.

They aren't, but they aren't in power now. I do not see them regaining power.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
Apology accepted.

Agreed on this aspect, but I still don't think that this fight was coming or bound to happen, at least not the one in Iraq. I actually agreed with the Afghan conflict, even though we didn't catch Osama and basically left the country to rot ever since.

This Iraq conflict has been sniffed out from the very beginning.

Matter of fact, I remember on September 11th 2001, after the event had taken place, I was watching television in the evening. A pundit from the government was giving his opinion on the attacks, as they often do on news channels. What struck me is when he said "I think this could be like the Wizard of Oz, with Saddam behind the curtain pulling the strings." Roughly paraphrased, but it does seem to indicate that we were itching for a fight.

Sorry missed this post. It wasn't coming in Iraq. It was and still is coming from Iran. We now have them in check and they know it, hence their run for nuclear weapons. They are in need of the ultimate deterent to continue their behind the scenes war in Isreal. Throughout the mid-east the Iranian government has purposely propagted instability.

Yes, many people were pissed we didn't finish the deal in 91'. We went for reasons I didn't agree with, our presence their is necessary. . . imo of course.
This is a game of chess after all.
 
tomsnowman123 said:
Bleh. Iraq was a wrong war, impeach Bush, get out troops out. That's my position. War is not cool, and Iraq hadn't attacked us. Stop meddling in the Middle East, Isreal included, and maybe the terrorists won't hate us as much. I don't see why staying in Irq for 50 years is a good thing, that's a huge drain on money and resources.

Same opinion.
 
Sidhe said:
I'm sorry but fighting terrorism has never worked and it never will, all it does is increase recruitment amongst those involved, politicises people and increases terrorists numbers when people are killed on their side and genrally makes a morass of the whole area .

Disagree absolutely here . The terroristic and criminalist Kahlistani movement was finally crushed by a brutal campaign by a Sikh ( K.P.S. Gill ) himself , and it worked , because now there is no Khalistan movement .
 
aneeshm said:
Disagree absolutely here . The terroristic and criminalist Kahlistani movement was finally crushed by a brutal campaign by a Sikh ( K.P.S. Gill ) himself , and it worked , because now there is no Khalistan movement .


Yea, well the west doesn't have the will power to crush an adversary before its too late and lots of suffering results. My big fear with this fact is that we are know capable of erasing 45km circles off the face of the earth. It might not be a good idea to wait around for enemies to becoome relevant and powerful anymore. I just summarized my feelings of this whole thread I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom