AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
Honestly, what was the point of this topic? To prove terrorists are bad? To prove America rocks everyone's socks because our judges can give long speaches? Just to make all those darned hippy peacenicks all riled up for no reason? If i wanted to hear this kinda stuff I'd listen to any speach ever made by Mr Bush ever.
Also, I think it would be cool if the custody officer really was named Mr Custody Officer.
Freedom fighters? Hardly. Whos freedom exactly are these people fighting for? The people who the United States are opressing so horribly in Iraq and Afghanistan? Right. Come over here with me and I will show you around a little. The men we are fighting everyday here are not doing this for anyones "freedom."
Also whoever said artillery has a 12% error ratio, I have no idea what you are talking about but not in our Unit. I think the given figure is somewhere in the 3-4% range.
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 27 2005, 05:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 27 2005, 05:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+Feb 27 2005, 04:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ Feb 27 2005, 04:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Feb 27 2005, 05:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Feb 27 2005, 05:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He was wrong when he said the terrorist wasn't a soldier. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
He joined a fighting force? He's a soldier. He's also a terrorist.
Similarly, US soldiers are terrorists. But they aren't terrorizing us, they're terrorizing the enemy. Just like the enemy is doing to the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There are many reasons why you're wrong. A soldier is a professional combatant, adhering to the international laws of warfare. A terrorist's sole purpose is to incite terror. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, a soldier is a combatant in a group with other combatants. Not necessarily professional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The old line of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a load of steaming cat<span style='color:red'>****</span>, and equating military actions with terrorism equally so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ... One of the main military strategies is to incite terror in the enemy. If your enemy is afraid of you, then half of the battle is won. You can get your enemy's followers to turn against their leader, you can get civilians in the hostile country to turn against their leader, you can even scare the leader in to submitting without ever having to fire a shot. Fear is a powerful motivator and it's stupid for ANY country not to use fear to their advantage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you can't see the difference between accidentally hitting a civilian while you're trying to defend yourself from some guy in a window with a rifle, and trying to blow up a plane filled with nothing but ordinary people, there's something wrong with you. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> "Terrorism" now carries a far more powerful meaning than just "making the other side afraid of you". It's targeting civilians and civilian buildings. And if you think that our troops do that freely and/or with their commanding officer's approval, you're pessimistic beyond help.
As beautiful and inspiring as the judges words are Zig, this really isn't the place to post them. As we all know any inspirational speech made directly in the face of our enemies proudly praising the values of our great country is nothing but regurgitated rhetoric and will be labeled as so by the many forum intellectuals who so graciously keep us in line.
The judge’s words were not meant to be evaluated and criticized by angst filled teenagers who think its "hip" to hate the USA. And certainly not cynical foreigners who always look at this kind of stuff with one eyebrow raised because Bush says it and Bush is, as we all know, the manifestation of evil. He being our president for a shot span in our history forever taints these values so anyone who mentions them is clearly a mindless neo-conservative drone with an agenda.
I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage and in it he mentions how the great speeches made by senators during the 17-1800's were taught in schools and even memorized by certain school children, in an effort to help preserve our dearest values as a nation. Of course we don't do anything even close to this now a days, seeing as we would have to memorize 50/50 of each party regardless of what was said and what senator can compare to the quality of our past greats anyway?
The point: I feel this is one of those speeches, this is something that should be taught in schools, it is nothing less then pure devoted, unconditional praise for the most righteous pillars of American government and justice. Whether or not we live up to them at this current time is not important, what is important is that this message is heard by every American citizen so that we might learn from him and better ourselves in the years to come.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 27 2005, 03:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 27 2005, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Too bad this country you're all in love with is nothing what the founding fathers envisioned <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is exactly why what this man said is so important.
What you blow off as "rhetoric" is what the Founding Fathers built this country on.
I’m not trying to say our country is a flawless representation of this mans epilogue, but our country should listen to his words, and try to improve based upon them.
I don't hate the US, and I don't pretend to hate it because it's "hip," I just dislike the nationalistic fervor everyone seems to have been caught up in. There are 2 sides. Terrorism is bad, but it is the only thing they have that can hurt the US deeply. No, I'm not saying it's acceptable, because it's not, but I have little doubt I would do something similar if my homeland was being rolled over by some big empire.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't hate the US, and I don't pretend to hate it because it's "hip," I just dislike the nationalistic fervor everyone seems to have been caught up in.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was just going to say something similar. You know, its funny, right after 9/11 it "patriotism" was the fad, but I doubt you ever said anything bad of it. I have my problems with the US, I have for a long time. This isn't because its fasionable, and it certainly isn't because I'm "middle class". I don't hate the US, I'm disapointeed in it. I'm disapointed that a country that supposedly stands for freedom can pass things like the USAPATRIOT act, favors corporate rights over individual rights, and does its damnedest to insight fear in its own populace. I'm especially disapointed that so many of its citizens don't realise whats going on, who continue to vote on party lines and believe everything their favorite propoganda preacher spews, and claim that those who disagree with them are lousy socialist beatnicks or greedy gun-lovin' psychopaths.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 27 2005, 03:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 27 2005, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As beautiful and inspiring as the judges words are Zig, this really isn't the place to post them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm fairly certain Nem0 moved this thread here after people started talking about the difference between soldiers and terrorists. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Feb 27 2005, 04:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Feb 27 2005, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 27 2005, 03:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 27 2005, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As beautiful and inspiring as the judges words are Zig, this really isn't the place to post them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm fairly certain Nem0 moved this thread here after people started talking about the difference between soldiers and terrorists. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Which is already hard enough to tell apart
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 28 2005, 08:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 28 2005, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage and in it he mentions how the great speeches made by senators during the 17-1800's were taught in schools and even memorized by certain school children, in an effort to help preserve our dearest values as a nation. Of course we don't do anything even close to this now a days... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh boy, that would be.. interesting to say the least.
Mom: What did you learn at school today? Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun.
<!--QuoteBegin-Stavesacre+Feb 27 2005, 01:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stavesacre @ Feb 27 2005, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Freedom fighters? Hardly. Whos freedom exactly are these people fighting for? The people who the United States are opressing so horribly in Iraq and Afghanistan? Right. Come over here with me and I will show you around a little. The men we are fighting everyday here are not doing this for anyones "freedom." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Freedom to you might be different for them. Just because they're not fighting for your concept of freedom doesn't mean that they're not fighting for their own.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can't see the difference between accidentally hitting a civilian while you're trying to defend yourself from some guy in a window with a rifle, and trying to blow up a plane filled with nothing but ordinary people, there's something wrong with you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Different tactics, same goal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Terrorism" now carries a far more powerful meaning than just "making the other side afraid of you". It's targeting civilians and civilian buildings. And if you think that our troops do that freely and/or with their commanding officer's approval, you're pessimistic beyond help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm using the original meaning for terrorism.
And I don't believe that the troops do it freely, but I DO believe that some troops are unnecessarily violent towards Iraqi citizens simply because they want to be, or because of some hate for ALL Iraqis. While "some" may be quite a minority, it still happens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The judge’s words were not meant to be evaluated and criticized by angst filled teenagers who think its "hip" to hate the USA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just for note, in case anyone is thinking that of me... I don't hate the US. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I dislike your leader, but the rest of the country is pretty good.
This thread has a sort of fox news aroma too it. I think Zig is slowly being incapicated by that or military airs of superiority that the u.s. boasts. ha.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Feb 27 2005, 01:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Feb 27 2005, 01:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you can't see the difference between accidentally hitting a civilian while you're trying to defend yourself from some guy in a window with a rifle, and trying to blow up a plane filled with nothing but ordinary people, there's something wrong with you. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> "Terrorism" now carries a far more powerful meaning than just "making the other side afraid of you". It's targeting civilians and civilian buildings. And if you think that our troops do that freely and/or with their commanding officer's approval, you're pessimistic beyond help. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, here's the thing.
Let's say you're the "liberating force" in a country. In order to soften up a certain area containing hostiles (and innocents) you opt for cluster bombing to spare casualties on your side.
Using this reasoning you're basically putting more value on your life and yours than those you are trying to free. Is this really a _moral_ action? Or should you be taking more casualties to spare innocent lives?
How do you explain that you're not a terrorist to a father holding the lifeless body of his child?
Sure the intent may be different from side to side, but unfortunatly far too often the end result is the same: innocent life is lost.
And no I'm not a "teenager with angst", I am a rational human being with a son and wife. I could not imagine life without them, and I'm sure my Iraqi counterpart feels the same way.
As for the judge's comments: My opinion is that there is _always_ two sides to any story. Yes, the shoe-bomber should be locked up but we should always consider very carefully any possible actions that we as a nation have taken to contribute to current state of affairs.
It is frankly very arrogant to assume that we in the US are just totally the innocent party here who have never meddled in anyone else's affairs.
In other words we should seek balance: Use force only when truly necessary and consider carefully the consequences of foreign policy decision making.
<!--QuoteBegin-panda de malheureux+Feb 27 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (panda de malheureux @ Feb 27 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh boy, that would be.. interesting to say the least.
Mom: What did you learn at school today? Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That was cute, but I think it speaks volumes about how cynical our society has become towards politicians that your first instinct is to bash the thought of learning good political speeches by using Bush's mistakes out of context.
There are other politicians besides Bush...maybe you Democrats should stop pouting around with morons like Howard Dean who best communicates through screams and grunts and get some more people like Sen. Ombama.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 27 2005, 05:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 27 2005, 05:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-panda de malheureux+Feb 27 2005, 05:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (panda de malheureux @ Feb 27 2005, 05:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh boy, that would be.. interesting to say the least.
Mom: What did you learn at school today? Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That was cute, but I think it speaks volumes about how cynical our society has become towards politicians that your first instinct is to bash the thought of learning good political speeches by using Bush's mistakes out of context.
There are other politicians besides Bush...maybe you Democrats should stop pouting around with morons like Howard Dean who best communicates through screams and grunts and get some more people like Sen. Ombama. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're right, heaven forbid that a politician like Dean actually display some genuine emotion.
Let's rather have dumbya for another 4 years: who looks like a candidate for used car salesman of the year mixed with Ruprecht the monkey boy.
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Feb 27 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Feb 27 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right, heaven forbid that a politician like Dean actually display some genuine emotion.
Let's rather have dumbya for another 4 years: who looks like a candidate for used car salesman of the year mixed with Ruprecht the monkey boy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey I'm not complaining about Dean, you guys go right ahead and keep shooting yourselves in the foot.
Clinton and Dean 08, I can see it now, the Democratic Party commits political seppuku <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Feb 27 2005, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Feb 27 2005, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let's say you're the "liberating force" in a country. In order to soften up a certain area containing hostiles (and innocents) you opt for cluster bombing to spare casualties on your side.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We're hardly cluster-bombing Baghdad. In fact, we spend millions on high tech weaponry that we can guide as accurately as possible so that civilian casualties are reduced while we could just say the heck with it all and shell the entire place until we can't here the rifles anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Using this reasoning you're basically putting more value on your life and yours than those you are trying to free. Is this really a _moral_ action? Or should you be taking more casualties to spare innocent lives?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Our country is already livid that we have lost 1000 soldiers. In a war. People act like they're surprised that people are dying. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do you explain that you're not a terrorist to a father holding the lifeless body of his child?
Sure the intent may be different from side to side, but unfortunatly far too often the end result is the same: innocent life is lost.
And no I'm not a "teenager with angst", I am a rational human being with a son and wife. I could not imagine life without them, and I'm sure my Iraqi counterpart feels the same way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There you just said it, it's all about the intent. We are not actively trying to kill Iraqui civilians. We are not capturing random people off the streets and holding them at gunpoint in front of a camera, saying "Stop fighting or this guy dies!" I mean, death is death and it all sucks, but to compare a deliberate act of terrorism to something that, to be perfectly honest, was a tragic accident because some people know nothing except how to resist and kill.....they're on two different ends of a spectrum of morality. Neither is "right", but one is definitely more "right" than the other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the judge's comments: My opinion is that there is _always_ two sides to any story. Yes, the shoe-bomber should be locked up but we should always consider very carefully any possible actions that we as a nation have taken to contribute to current state of affairs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now see, in our country, when someone doesn't like something that a government does, he or she can do a number of things, all of which are nonviolent. The very fact that the only way that these people can express their dissent and animosity towards US foreign policy is itself a perfect reason why democracy is necessary in these countries: our system of government allows the peaceful expression of ideas, whereas there's does not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is frankly very arrogant to assume that we in the US are just totally the innocent party here who have never meddled in anyone else's affairs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Totally innocent, no. But we never vowed to kill off an entire country's population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In other words we should seek balance: Use force only when truly necessary and consider carefully the consequences of foreign policy decision making.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, when you're president, you can apply what you think is right to our foreign policy. Because right now, that is exactly what our government is doing. GWB's definition of "truly necessary" just differs from yours.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 27 2005, 05:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 27 2005, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Feb 27 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Feb 27 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're right, heaven forbid that a politician like Dean actually display some genuine emotion.
Let's rather have dumbya for another 4 years: who looks like a candidate for used car salesman of the year mixed with Ruprecht the monkey boy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hey I'm not complaining about Dean, you guys go right ahead and keep shooting yourselves in the foot.
Clinton and Dean 08, I can see it now, the Democratic Party commits political seppuku <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yay! more Dem vs Rep wars! As if either party weren't full of corrupt money grubbing poloticians! Seriously, neither party is worth voting for and I don't know why anybody bothers to defend either of them. They are less then worhtless.
Besides which, all this political bithcing is worhtless as well. Republicans would lick Bush's **** if he commanded it, and democrats would still hate him if he discovered the cure for cancer. GIVE IT A FLIPPING REST ALREADY! It seems to me that there was a legitimate topic here at one point, don't suppose we can get back to that?
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Feb 27 2005, 06:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 27 2005, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Besides which, all this political bithcing is worhtless as well. Republicans would lick Bush's **** if he commanded it, and democrats would still hate him if he discovered the cure for cancer. GIVE IT A FLIPPING REST ALREADY! It seems to me that there was a legitimate topic here at one point, don't suppose we can get back to that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As beautiful and inspiring as the judges words are Zig, this really isn't the place to post them. As we all know any inspirational speech made directly in the face of our enemies proudly praising the values of our great country is nothing but regurgitated rhetoric and will be labeled as so by the many forum intellectuals who so graciously keep us in line.
The judge’s words were not meant to be evaluated and criticized by angst filled teenagers who think its "hip" to hate the USA. And certainly not cynical foreigners who always look at this kind of stuff with one eyebrow raised because Bush says it and Bush is, as we all know, the manifestation of evil. He being our president for a shot span in our history forever taints these values so anyone who mentions them is clearly a mindless neo-conservative drone with an agenda.
I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage and in it he mentions how the great speeches made by senators during the 17-1800's were taught in schools and even memorized by certain school children, in an effort to help preserve our dearest values as a nation. Of course we don't do anything even close to this now a days, seeing as we would have to memorize 50/50 of each party regardless of what was said and what senator can compare to the quality of our past greats anyway?
The point: I feel this is one of those speeches, this is something that should be taught in schools, it is nothing less then pure devoted, unconditional praise for the most righteous pillars of American government and justice. Whether or not we live up to them at this current time is not important, what is important is that this message is heard by every American citizen so that we might learn from him and better ourselves in the years to come.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh boy, that would be.. interesting to say the least.
Mom: What did you learn at school today? Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.'' I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Erm...Folks, did you read that speech? Mr. Young's remarks were anything, but not Bush-conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tried to talk about the speech made by Judge Young, but people keep referring back to Bush, and taking jabs at him. I'm tired of letting all these little idiotic off topic anti-Bush comments slide, you want to poke fun out of place and for no reason, I'm going to take you up on it.
I would very much love to refocus this discussion on Young's speech, if you people can mange it.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Feb 28 2005, 10:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Feb 28 2005, 10:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...cynical...our society...you Democrats. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> People have always been cynical; I am not American; I am not a democrat. Eh don't derail this.
edit <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you want to poke fun out of place and for no reason<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hardly without reason. You said (and I quoted), children would memorize JFK's speeches and that it would not happen with Bush and gave a reason. I gave another, albeit slightly unfair. Don't derail now.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Feb 27 2005, 06:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Feb 27 2005, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We're hardly cluster-bombing Baghdad. In fact, we spend millions on high tech weaponry that we can guide as accurately as possible so that civilian casualties are reduced while we could just say the heck with it all and shell the entire place until we can't here the rifles anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that is what we first tried to use to eliminate Saddam. They failed and killed innocents. Is it moral to fire weapons at buildings knowing you will kill innocent people to get the "bad guy"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Our country is already livid that we have lost 1000 soldiers. In a war. People act like they're surprised that people are dying. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but you dodged my question. It is moral in your opinion to place your life above someone else's in the above situation?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There you just said it, it's all about the intent. We are not actively trying to kill Iraqui civilians. We are not capturing random people off the streets and holding them at gunpoint in front of a camera, saying "Stop fighting or this guy dies!" I mean, death is death and it all sucks, but to compare a deliberate act of terrorism to something that, to be perfectly honest, was a tragic accident because some people know nothing except how to resist and kill.....they're on two different ends of a spectrum of morality. Neither is "right", but one is definitely more "right" than the other. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you can call it an accident with a cluster bomb. Basically you're just using "acceptable losses" at that point. And by that time I think the morality is _very_ grey to say the least.
<!--QuoteBegin-Venmoch+Feb 27 2005, 06:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Venmoch @ Feb 27 2005, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait so terrorism is the targeting of civilian populous and buildings?
Dresden anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Battle of Britain? Bombing of Berlin? Nagasaki? Hiroshima? The Battle of Zama?
WWII was a completely different set of circumstances, if you want to go back through history look at every war and every battle and decide which was "fair" and which was "terrorism" please start another topic. Or to save you the trouble…
Terrorism has no text book definition and never will. Each incident must be judged individually; usually the stronger side or the victor has the final say. That’s the way it works.
<ul><li>Stick to one topic per thread.</li><li>Don't label other posting members.</li><li>Don't belittle other posting members.</li><li>Be respectful towards the opposing opinion.</li></ul> It was a mistake to post in here again. I should've locked this before. My bad. But do me a favor and read the Discussion forum rules once in a while. I've got some free time coming up; I'd prefer not to waste it on restricting half of this forum's population.
Comments
Also, I think it would be cool if the custody officer really was named Mr Custody Officer.
Whos freedom exactly are these people fighting for? The people who the United States are opressing so horribly in Iraq and Afghanistan? Right.
Come over here with me and I will show you around a little. The men we are fighting everyday here are not doing this for anyones "freedom."
Also whoever said artillery has a 12% error ratio, I have no idea what you are talking about but not in our Unit. I think the given figure is somewhere in the 3-4% range.
He joined a fighting force? He's a soldier. He's also a terrorist.
Similarly, US soldiers are terrorists. But they aren't terrorizing us, they're terrorizing the enemy. Just like the enemy is doing to the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are many reasons why you're wrong. A soldier is a professional combatant, adhering to the international laws of warfare. A terrorist's sole purpose is to incite terror. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, a soldier is a combatant in a group with other combatants. Not necessarily professional.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The old line of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is a load of steaming cat<span style='color:red'>****</span>, and equating military actions with terrorism equally so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
... One of the main military strategies is to incite terror in the enemy. If your enemy is afraid of you, then half of the battle is won. You can get your enemy's followers to turn against their leader, you can get civilians in the hostile country to turn against their leader, you can even scare the leader in to submitting without ever having to fire a shot. Fear is a powerful motivator and it's stupid for ANY country not to use fear to their advantage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you can't see the difference between accidentally hitting a civilian while you're trying to defend yourself from some guy in a window with a rifle, and trying to blow up a plane filled with nothing but ordinary people, there's something wrong with you. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> "Terrorism" now carries a far more powerful meaning than just "making the other side afraid of you". It's targeting civilians and civilian buildings. And if you think that our troops do that freely and/or with their commanding officer's approval, you're pessimistic beyond help.
The judge’s words were not meant to be evaluated and criticized by angst filled teenagers who think its "hip" to hate the USA. And certainly not cynical foreigners who always look at this kind of stuff with one eyebrow raised because Bush says it and Bush is, as we all know, the manifestation of evil. He being our president for a shot span in our history forever taints these values so anyone who mentions them is clearly a mindless neo-conservative drone with an agenda.
I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage and in it he mentions how the great speeches made by senators during the 17-1800's were taught in schools and even memorized by certain school children, in an effort to help preserve our dearest values as a nation. Of course we don't do anything even close to this now a days, seeing as we would have to memorize 50/50 of each party regardless of what was said and what senator can compare to the quality of our past greats anyway?
The point: I feel this is one of those speeches, this is something that should be taught in schools, it is nothing less then pure devoted, unconditional praise for the most righteous pillars of American government and justice. Whether or not we live up to them at this current time is not important, what is important is that this message is heard by every American citizen so that we might learn from him and better ourselves in the years to come.
Which is exactly why what this man said is so important.
What you blow off as "rhetoric" is what the Founding Fathers built this country on.
I’m not trying to say our country is a flawless representation of this mans epilogue, but our country should listen to his words, and try to improve based upon them.
I was just going to say something similar. You know, its funny, right after 9/11 it "patriotism" was the fad, but I doubt you ever said anything bad of it. I have my problems with the US, I have for a long time. This isn't because its fasionable, and it certainly isn't because I'm "middle class". I don't hate the US, I'm disapointeed in it. I'm disapointed that a country that supposedly stands for freedom can pass things like the USAPATRIOT act, favors corporate rights over individual rights, and does its damnedest to insight fear in its own populace. I'm especially disapointed that so many of its citizens don't realise whats going on, who continue to vote on party lines and believe everything their favorite propoganda preacher spews, and claim that those who disagree with them are lousy socialist beatnicks or greedy gun-lovin' psychopaths.
I'm fairly certain Nem0 moved this thread here after people started talking about the difference between soldiers and terrorists. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'm fairly certain Nem0 moved this thread here after people started talking about the difference between soldiers and terrorists. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is already hard enough to tell apart
Oh boy, that would be.. interesting to say the least.
Mom: What did you learn at school today?
Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun.
Whos freedom exactly are these people fighting for? The people who the United States are opressing so horribly in Iraq and Afghanistan? Right.
Come over here with me and I will show you around a little. The men we are fighting everyday here are not doing this for anyones "freedom." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Freedom to you might be different for them. Just because they're not fighting for your concept of freedom doesn't mean that they're not fighting for their own.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you can't see the difference between accidentally hitting a civilian while you're trying to defend yourself from some guy in a window with a rifle, and trying to blow up a plane filled with nothing but ordinary people, there's something wrong with you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Different tactics, same goal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Terrorism" now carries a far more powerful meaning than just "making the other side afraid of you". It's targeting civilians and civilian buildings. And if you think that our troops do that freely and/or with their commanding officer's approval, you're pessimistic beyond help.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm using the original meaning for terrorism.
And I don't believe that the troops do it freely, but I DO believe that some troops are unnecessarily violent towards Iraqi citizens simply because they want to be, or because of some hate for ALL Iraqis. While "some" may be quite a minority, it still happens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The judge’s words were not meant to be evaluated and criticized by angst filled teenagers who think its "hip" to hate the USA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just for note, in case anyone is thinking that of me... I don't hate the US. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I dislike your leader, but the rest of the country is pretty good.
Well, here's the thing.
Let's say you're the "liberating force" in a country. In order to soften up a certain area containing hostiles (and innocents) you opt for cluster bombing to spare casualties on your side.
Using this reasoning you're basically putting more value on your life and yours than those you are trying to free. Is this really a _moral_ action? Or should you be taking more casualties to spare innocent lives?
How do you explain that you're not a terrorist to a father holding the lifeless body of his child?
Sure the intent may be different from side to side, but unfortunatly far too often the end result is the same: innocent life is lost.
And no I'm not a "teenager with angst", I am a rational human being with a son and wife. I could not imagine life without them, and I'm sure my Iraqi counterpart feels the same way.
As for the judge's comments: My opinion is that there is _always_ two sides to any story. Yes, the shoe-bomber should be locked up but we should always consider very carefully any possible actions that we as a nation have taken to contribute to current state of affairs.
It is frankly very arrogant to assume that we in the US are just totally the innocent party here who have never meddled in anyone else's affairs.
In other words we should seek balance: Use force only when truly necessary and consider carefully the consequences of foreign policy decision making.
Mom: What did you learn at school today?
Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was cute, but I think it speaks volumes about how cynical our society has become towards politicians that your first instinct is to bash the thought of learning good political speeches by using Bush's mistakes out of context.
There are other politicians besides Bush...maybe you Democrats should stop pouting around with morons like Howard Dean who best communicates through screams and grunts and get some more people like Sen. Ombama.
Mom: What did you learn at school today?
Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was cute, but I think it speaks volumes about how cynical our society has become towards politicians that your first instinct is to bash the thought of learning good political speeches by using Bush's mistakes out of context.
There are other politicians besides Bush...maybe you Democrats should stop pouting around with morons like Howard Dean who best communicates through screams and grunts and get some more people like Sen. Ombama. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're right, heaven forbid that a politician like Dean actually display some genuine emotion.
Let's rather have dumbya for another 4 years: who looks like a candidate for used car salesman of the year mixed with Ruprecht the monkey boy.
Let's rather have dumbya for another 4 years: who looks like a candidate for used car salesman of the year mixed with Ruprecht the monkey boy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey I'm not complaining about Dean, you guys go right ahead and keep shooting yourselves in the foot.
Clinton and Dean 08, I can see it now, the Democratic Party commits political seppuku <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7041441/' target='_blank'>Hahahahaha...oh my.</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're hardly cluster-bombing Baghdad. In fact, we spend millions on high tech weaponry that we can guide as accurately as possible so that civilian casualties are reduced while we could just say the heck with it all and shell the entire place until we can't here the rifles anymore.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Using this reasoning you're basically putting more value on your life and yours than those you are trying to free. Is this really a _moral_ action? Or should you be taking more casualties to spare innocent lives?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Our country is already livid that we have lost 1000 soldiers. In a war. People act like they're surprised that people are dying. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How do you explain that you're not a terrorist to a father holding the lifeless body of his child?
Sure the intent may be different from side to side, but unfortunatly far too often the end result is the same: innocent life is lost.
And no I'm not a "teenager with angst", I am a rational human being with a son and wife. I could not imagine life without them, and I'm sure my Iraqi counterpart feels the same way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you just said it, it's all about the intent. We are not actively trying to kill Iraqui civilians. We are not capturing random people off the streets and holding them at gunpoint in front of a camera, saying "Stop fighting or this guy dies!" I mean, death is death and it all sucks, but to compare a deliberate act of terrorism to something that, to be perfectly honest, was a tragic accident because some people know nothing except how to resist and kill.....they're on two different ends of a spectrum of morality. Neither is "right", but one is definitely more "right" than the other.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for the judge's comments: My opinion is that there is _always_ two sides to any story. Yes, the shoe-bomber should be locked up but we should always consider very carefully any possible actions that we as a nation have taken to contribute to current state of affairs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now see, in our country, when someone doesn't like something that a government does, he or she can do a number of things, all of which are nonviolent. The very fact that the only way that these people can express their dissent and animosity towards US foreign policy is itself a perfect reason why democracy is necessary in these countries: our system of government allows the peaceful expression of ideas, whereas there's does not.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is frankly very arrogant to assume that we in the US are just totally the innocent party here who have never meddled in anyone else's affairs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Totally innocent, no. But we never vowed to kill off an entire country's population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In other words we should seek balance: Use force only when truly necessary and consider carefully the consequences of foreign policy decision making.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when you're president, you can apply what you think is right to our foreign policy. Because right now, that is exactly what our government is doing. GWB's definition of "truly necessary" just differs from yours.
Let's rather have dumbya for another 4 years: who looks like a candidate for used car salesman of the year mixed with Ruprecht the monkey boy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey I'm not complaining about Dean, you guys go right ahead and keep shooting yourselves in the foot.
Clinton and Dean 08, I can see it now, the Democratic Party commits political seppuku <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yay! more Dem vs Rep wars! As if either party weren't full of corrupt money grubbing poloticians! Seriously, neither party is worth voting for and I don't know why anybody bothers to defend either of them. They are less then worhtless.
Besides which, all this political bithcing is worhtless as well. Republicans would lick Bush's **** if he commanded it, and democrats would still hate him if he discovered the cure for cancer. GIVE IT A FLIPPING REST ALREADY! It seems to me that there was a legitimate topic here at one point, don't suppose we can get back to that?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As beautiful and inspiring as the judges words are Zig, this really isn't the place to post them. As we all know any inspirational speech made directly in the face of our enemies proudly praising the values of our great country is nothing but regurgitated rhetoric and will be labeled as so by the many forum intellectuals who so graciously keep us in line.
The judge’s words were not meant to be evaluated and criticized by angst filled teenagers who think its "hip" to hate the USA. And certainly not cynical foreigners who always look at this kind of stuff with one eyebrow raised because Bush says it and Bush is, as we all know, the manifestation of evil. He being our president for a shot span in our history forever taints these values so anyone who mentions them is clearly a mindless neo-conservative drone with an agenda.
I remember reading JFK's Profiles in Courage and in it he mentions how the great speeches made by senators during the 17-1800's were taught in schools and even memorized by certain school children, in an effort to help preserve our dearest values as a nation. Of course we don't do anything even close to this now a days, seeing as we would have to memorize 50/50 of each party regardless of what was said and what senator can compare to the quality of our past greats anyway?
The point: I feel this is one of those speeches, this is something that should be taught in schools, it is nothing less then pure devoted, unconditional praise for the most righteous pillars of American government and justice. Whether or not we live up to them at this current time is not important, what is important is that this message is heard by every American citizen so that we might learn from him and better ourselves in the years to come.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh boy, that would be.. interesting to say the least.
Mom: What did you learn at school today?
Little Johnny: "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
Little Johnny: "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.''
I agree with you though, rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning? Hehe that was fun.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Erm...Folks, did you read that speech? Mr. Young's remarks were anything, but not Bush-conservative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tried to talk about the speech made by Judge Young, but people keep referring back to Bush, and taking jabs at him. I'm tired of letting all these little idiotic off topic anti-Bush comments slide, you want to poke fun out of place and for no reason, I'm going to take you up on it.
I would very much love to refocus this discussion on Young's speech, if you people can mange it.
People have always been cynical; I am not American; I am not a democrat. Eh don't derail this.
edit
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you want to poke fun out of place and for no reason<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hardly without reason. You said (and I quoted), children would memorize JFK's speeches and that it would not happen with Bush and gave a reason. I gave another, albeit slightly unfair. Don't derail now.
Dresden anyone?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
We're hardly cluster-bombing Baghdad. In fact, we spend millions on high tech weaponry that we can guide as accurately as possible so that civilian casualties are reduced while we could just say the heck with it all and shell the entire place until we can't here the rifles anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that is what we first tried to use to eliminate Saddam. They failed and killed innocents. Is it moral to fire weapons at buildings knowing you will kill innocent people to get the "bad guy"?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Our country is already livid that we have lost 1000 soldiers. In a war. People act like they're surprised that people are dying. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but you dodged my question. It is moral in your opinion to place your life above someone else's in the above situation?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
There you just said it, it's all about the intent. We are not actively trying to kill Iraqui civilians. We are not capturing random people off the streets and holding them at gunpoint in front of a camera, saying "Stop fighting or this guy dies!" I mean, death is death and it all sucks, but to compare a deliberate act of terrorism to something that, to be perfectly honest, was a tragic accident because some people know nothing except how to resist and kill.....they're on two different ends of a spectrum of morality. Neither is "right", but one is definitely more "right" than the other.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you can call it an accident with a cluster bomb. Basically you're just using "acceptable losses" at that point. And by that time I think the morality is _very_ grey to say the least.
Dresden anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Battle of Britain? Bombing of Berlin? Nagasaki? Hiroshima? The Battle of Zama?
WWII was a completely different set of circumstances, if you want to go back through history look at every war and every battle and decide which was "fair" and which was "terrorism" please start another topic.
Or to save you the trouble…
Terrorism has no text book definition and never will. Each incident must be judged individually; usually the stronger side or the victor has the final say. That’s the way it works.
It was a mistake to post in here again. I should've locked this before. My bad. But do me a favor and read the Discussion forum rules once in a while. I've got some free time coming up; I'd prefer not to waste it on restricting half of this forum's population.