billvon 2,991 #26 February 25, 2005 >Um... How does the Confederacy embody terrorism? Terrorism, in its modern definition, refers to anyone who rebels against an occupation. Note all the terrorists fighting US troops in Iraq. The South rebelled as hard as it could against the Union armies that marched into the south. >And treason? That doesn't make sense to me either - they seceded, >exercising their right to self-determination; then the two resulting >nations had a war. ----------------- Treason: Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies. ---------------- Waging war against one's country is treason - even if you make up a new country first. You're pretty much proving my point here. In the 1860's a group of people attacked the US government, and killed some 110,000 US soldiers for their own selfish purposes (mainly economic ones, which included keeping slaves.) To simplify it as much as people are simplifying the Arab issue, they hated freedom, and were fighting to keep blacks in slavery. And you're defending them. Do you think that perhaps it's possible that an arab sees terrorist acts of the past the same way you see the south during the US civil war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefal 0 #27 February 25, 2005 QuoteQuote...the ones who wish to do us harm have justified to themselves already why we are the "infadels" long before we invaded iraq. You just reminder me of an interesting letter I recently read. (see attached doc.) "Ignorance is bliss" and "Patience is a virtue"... So if you're stupid and don't mind waiting around for a while, I guess you can have a pretty good life! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #28 February 25, 2005 QuoteYou mean other than: Killing a lot of Vietnamese and North Koreans Supporting and arming Israel against Arab countries Giving Saddam WMD fixins and military intelligence to use against the Iranians Arming revolutionaries in several countries we didn't like Giving billions in arms to radical islamic terrorists Being the only country in the world to use nukes against civilians did i do all that? sorry; i get a little crazy sometimes...you are referring to what america has done to piss people off; i was referring to your comment that i gave justification to attackers... Quote"the US is the only moral country; our enemies are dirty rotten lying scumbags!" Because if we use that as justification to invade, then every other country out there can use the same justification to come after us - and be just as 'right' as we are. i agree, but thinking that a country is lead by a scumbag is not the same thing as that country having motive and opportunity. QuoteStarting wars to keep our children out of wars is like smoking heavily to make sure you live a long time.i disagree. starting wars to protect americans is part of the executive branch's job description. our kids will probably have to fight their own wars against a whole new generation of unreasonable people. Quotehe even asked us permission to attack Kuwait. (We said we didn't care if he did.) ?? QuoteWhat sort of imminent threat did he pose to the US? egotistical lunatic who hates america/americans + resources to kill people + behavioral pattern of aggression = imminent threat, in my opinion."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #29 February 25, 2005 i skimmed through it and will read it in its entirety later but, yeah, that about sums it up. actions and behaviors of those who seek to hurt america over an extended period of time speak to the justification of what this country is doing. i don't like war and i wish we could avoid it but, bottom line, it would be illogical to try to reason with unreasonable people."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Skolem45 0 #30 February 25, 2005 QuoteTerrorism, in its modern definition, refers to anyone who rebels against an occupation. No, it doesn't. Terrorism means, among other things, specifically targeting civilians. As applied to the post-civil war situation in US, lynchings can probably be considered terrorism. But the war itself cannot. QuoteWaging war against one's country is treason - even if you make up a new country first. Well, either it is your country, or it isn't. If you have legally seceded from it, it isn't. Example: if Ukraine attacks Russia right now, it will not be treason, just war. QuoteDo you think that perhaps it's possible that an arab sees terrorist acts of the past the same way you see the south during the US civil war? Well, the word past is the key here, isn't it? One was 150 years ago, the other is now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #31 February 25, 2005 >i disagree. starting wars to protect americans is part of the executive branch's job description. Not per our constitution. Only congress can declare war. I know, I know, that's an old outdated rag, but some of us have a bizarre sort of attachement to it. >our kids will probably have to fight their own wars against a whole >new generation of unreasonable people. Only if we start now by making sure that happens. I think we have better ways to spend our time. >?? What? Our ambassador to Iraq told SH that the US wouldn't mind if he attacked Kuwait. So he did. If we told him not to he wouldn't have; we were supporting him pretty heavily back then. For a good summary, read "the gathering storm" by Ken Pollack. >egotistical lunatic who hates america/americans + resources to kill people >+ behavioral pattern of aggression = imminent threat, in my opinion. A lot of people now see Bush in just that light, due to the recent wars he has started. (replace 'americans' with 'arabs' of course.) In my old fashioned view of things, we use our military for its original purpose - to protect the US against attack. It worked for 40 years against an enemy we claimed was ten times worse than Hussein - the USSR. Heck, they actually HAD WMD's. We were smart enough to not try this 'pre-emptive invasion' nonsense, and thus we beat them without a single nuke. Such wars are the wars I want to see fought in the future, ones where the battles are fought in conference rooms, markets and the world press. Sure, it's not as cool and exciting as a Tom Clancy novel or an Arnold movie, but it will kill a lot fewer of our children. You will become what you want to become. If you want to become an invader and an occupier, that's what the future will hold for us. Choose wisely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #32 February 25, 2005 QuoteTerrorism, in its modern definition, refers to anyone who rebels against an occupation. Note all the terrorists fighting US troops in Iraq. Nice million and first attempt on your part to vilify the US Bill, but it's just pure bullshit. We call the people fighting the occupation insurgents. The meaning of the word terrorist hasn't changed a bit -- it still refers to those pussies who fill their cars with explosives and drive into weddings. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tcnelson 1 #33 February 25, 2005 QuoteOnly congress can declare war. I know, I know, that's an old outdated rag, but some of us have a bizarre sort of attachement to it. excellent civics point. relatively off topic seeing as we're debating our involvement in foreign wars but, very very true. QuoteOnly if we start now by making sure that happens. I think we have better ways to spend our time. i believe that we are doing the correct thing now regardless of what happens in the future. if we have to take military action in the future as a direct result of what we are doing now, then so be it. like i said, i'm sure that there will be plenty of unreasonable people in the future that will be a problem for america. QuoteOur ambassador to Iraq told SH that the US wouldn't mind if he attacked Kuwait. So he did. If we told him not to he wouldn't have; we were supporting him pretty heavily back then. For a good summary, read "the gathering storm" by Ken Pollack. saddam was our puppet huh? well, he sure wasn't being a good puppet when america said get out of kuwait or we'll put you out. i think that it's a mistake to use revolutionaries to do our dirty work and i hope that america learns its lesson in this regard. i'm not privvy to the intricate dealings between the american govt and other nations and i'll bet ken pollack isn't either. QuoteA lot of people now see Bush in just that light, due to the recent wars he has started. (replace 'americans' with 'arabs' of course.) In my old fashioned view of things, we use our military for its original purpose - to protect the US against attack. It worked for 40 years against an enemy we claimed was ten times worse than Hussein - the USSR. Heck, they actually HAD WMD's. We were smart enough to not try this 'pre-emptive invasion' nonsense, and thus we beat them without a single nuke. i think that the main reason that america did not preemptively strike russia is because they had already become a nearly equal force by the time the cold war was escalating. also, russian leaders were able to be reasoned with. it was a "my gun is bigger than your gun" war. the leader of iraq was willing to harm americans no matter how we tried to reason with him (international community included). those are two different situations and they were dealt with differently with the appropriate level of force. QuoteYou will become what you want to become. If you want to become an invader and an occupier, that's what the future will hold for us. Choose wisely. i hope we as a country do choose wisely. if we choose to attempt to talk and reason logically with people who don't care what we say because they only want our blood then, they will most certainly have it."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
tcnelson 1 #28 February 25, 2005 QuoteYou mean other than: Killing a lot of Vietnamese and North Koreans Supporting and arming Israel against Arab countries Giving Saddam WMD fixins and military intelligence to use against the Iranians Arming revolutionaries in several countries we didn't like Giving billions in arms to radical islamic terrorists Being the only country in the world to use nukes against civilians did i do all that? sorry; i get a little crazy sometimes...you are referring to what america has done to piss people off; i was referring to your comment that i gave justification to attackers... Quote"the US is the only moral country; our enemies are dirty rotten lying scumbags!" Because if we use that as justification to invade, then every other country out there can use the same justification to come after us - and be just as 'right' as we are. i agree, but thinking that a country is lead by a scumbag is not the same thing as that country having motive and opportunity. QuoteStarting wars to keep our children out of wars is like smoking heavily to make sure you live a long time.i disagree. starting wars to protect americans is part of the executive branch's job description. our kids will probably have to fight their own wars against a whole new generation of unreasonable people. Quotehe even asked us permission to attack Kuwait. (We said we didn't care if he did.) ?? QuoteWhat sort of imminent threat did he pose to the US? egotistical lunatic who hates america/americans + resources to kill people + behavioral pattern of aggression = imminent threat, in my opinion."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #29 February 25, 2005 i skimmed through it and will read it in its entirety later but, yeah, that about sums it up. actions and behaviors of those who seek to hurt america over an extended period of time speak to the justification of what this country is doing. i don't like war and i wish we could avoid it but, bottom line, it would be illogical to try to reason with unreasonable people."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skolem45 0 #30 February 25, 2005 QuoteTerrorism, in its modern definition, refers to anyone who rebels against an occupation. No, it doesn't. Terrorism means, among other things, specifically targeting civilians. As applied to the post-civil war situation in US, lynchings can probably be considered terrorism. But the war itself cannot. QuoteWaging war against one's country is treason - even if you make up a new country first. Well, either it is your country, or it isn't. If you have legally seceded from it, it isn't. Example: if Ukraine attacks Russia right now, it will not be treason, just war. QuoteDo you think that perhaps it's possible that an arab sees terrorist acts of the past the same way you see the south during the US civil war? Well, the word past is the key here, isn't it? One was 150 years ago, the other is now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #31 February 25, 2005 >i disagree. starting wars to protect americans is part of the executive branch's job description. Not per our constitution. Only congress can declare war. I know, I know, that's an old outdated rag, but some of us have a bizarre sort of attachement to it. >our kids will probably have to fight their own wars against a whole >new generation of unreasonable people. Only if we start now by making sure that happens. I think we have better ways to spend our time. >?? What? Our ambassador to Iraq told SH that the US wouldn't mind if he attacked Kuwait. So he did. If we told him not to he wouldn't have; we were supporting him pretty heavily back then. For a good summary, read "the gathering storm" by Ken Pollack. >egotistical lunatic who hates america/americans + resources to kill people >+ behavioral pattern of aggression = imminent threat, in my opinion. A lot of people now see Bush in just that light, due to the recent wars he has started. (replace 'americans' with 'arabs' of course.) In my old fashioned view of things, we use our military for its original purpose - to protect the US against attack. It worked for 40 years against an enemy we claimed was ten times worse than Hussein - the USSR. Heck, they actually HAD WMD's. We were smart enough to not try this 'pre-emptive invasion' nonsense, and thus we beat them without a single nuke. Such wars are the wars I want to see fought in the future, ones where the battles are fought in conference rooms, markets and the world press. Sure, it's not as cool and exciting as a Tom Clancy novel or an Arnold movie, but it will kill a lot fewer of our children. You will become what you want to become. If you want to become an invader and an occupier, that's what the future will hold for us. Choose wisely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #32 February 25, 2005 QuoteTerrorism, in its modern definition, refers to anyone who rebels against an occupation. Note all the terrorists fighting US troops in Iraq. Nice million and first attempt on your part to vilify the US Bill, but it's just pure bullshit. We call the people fighting the occupation insurgents. The meaning of the word terrorist hasn't changed a bit -- it still refers to those pussies who fill their cars with explosives and drive into weddings. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #33 February 25, 2005 QuoteOnly congress can declare war. I know, I know, that's an old outdated rag, but some of us have a bizarre sort of attachement to it. excellent civics point. relatively off topic seeing as we're debating our involvement in foreign wars but, very very true. QuoteOnly if we start now by making sure that happens. I think we have better ways to spend our time. i believe that we are doing the correct thing now regardless of what happens in the future. if we have to take military action in the future as a direct result of what we are doing now, then so be it. like i said, i'm sure that there will be plenty of unreasonable people in the future that will be a problem for america. QuoteOur ambassador to Iraq told SH that the US wouldn't mind if he attacked Kuwait. So he did. If we told him not to he wouldn't have; we were supporting him pretty heavily back then. For a good summary, read "the gathering storm" by Ken Pollack. saddam was our puppet huh? well, he sure wasn't being a good puppet when america said get out of kuwait or we'll put you out. i think that it's a mistake to use revolutionaries to do our dirty work and i hope that america learns its lesson in this regard. i'm not privvy to the intricate dealings between the american govt and other nations and i'll bet ken pollack isn't either. QuoteA lot of people now see Bush in just that light, due to the recent wars he has started. (replace 'americans' with 'arabs' of course.) In my old fashioned view of things, we use our military for its original purpose - to protect the US against attack. It worked for 40 years against an enemy we claimed was ten times worse than Hussein - the USSR. Heck, they actually HAD WMD's. We were smart enough to not try this 'pre-emptive invasion' nonsense, and thus we beat them without a single nuke. i think that the main reason that america did not preemptively strike russia is because they had already become a nearly equal force by the time the cold war was escalating. also, russian leaders were able to be reasoned with. it was a "my gun is bigger than your gun" war. the leader of iraq was willing to harm americans no matter how we tried to reason with him (international community included). those are two different situations and they were dealt with differently with the appropriate level of force. QuoteYou will become what you want to become. If you want to become an invader and an occupier, that's what the future will hold for us. Choose wisely. i hope we as a country do choose wisely. if we choose to attempt to talk and reason logically with people who don't care what we say because they only want our blood then, they will most certainly have it."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
