RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca

RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Stephann -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/4/2007 12:44:15 PM)
Don't get me wrong. A very astute person once said countries have interests; benevolence is not one of them. The United States has, in fact, gradually adopted the Imperialistic model of Rome, Spain, the Soviet Union, China, Greece, French, and the British Empire. They do so, in much the same fashion; they do business where they can, to their advantage, and use their military to enforce their advantage. It matters little that we fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. I'm not advocating that the US should not be strong. It would be as foolish as advocating a lion become a vegetarian. What I am pointing out, is that it should be no surprise that a lion will probably get shot, if it tries to steal a farmer's lamb. Like the lion, we don't to understand why; all we know is that it hurts, and either we will try to kill the attacker, or run away bloodied. It is our lack of understanding 'why' which will have us continue stealing lambs, and getting shot. Stephan

MsBearlee -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/4/2007 12:44:28 PM)
Hey, I just thought of something...maybe someone should tell Tancredo about this game: http://www.kplctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6879537 Okay, so I'm not very nice... Beverly

TheHeretic -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/4/2007 1:05:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlueCollar quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If what I'm saying contradicts the STORY YOU'VE BEEN TOLD, consider the source of the story you've been told. Here's a hint. The only "friend" anyone has in the Middle East is THEMSELVES. Everyone else is a resource to be used. So, in other words you have no evidence to back-up your claims? Doesn't caps lock count? [8\|] Welcome to the conversation, Blue.

Aswad -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 10:28:56 AM)
Sometimes, I wish keyboards with uppercase-capability required a licence.

Sinergy -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 11:29:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Are you suggesting that the citizens of Japan should have filed a class action lawsuit against the US government for the A-bomb? Why not? Doesnt mean the lawsuit will win. There was this little thing called a Congressional Declaration of a State of War against Japan which granted various wartime powers to the POTUSA, the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. But in the spirit of civil actions in the United States, if it moves, sue it. quote: If the constitution were to apply to non-citizens, it would create a judicial paradox; Speculation on your part, Stephann. Care to provide a source from the Supreme Court further determining the definition of the word "Person" in the Constitution? We were discussing the original amendment, if this word has been changed by case law from "Person" to "Citizen" I would love to read the court opinions in question. quote: I believe the framers intended for the US to have a strong and capable military. As I pointed out, this is your opinion. You are welcome to it. It is not, however, legally binding or relevant in US Constitutional case law. The US Constitution is a living document. It is interpreted by the Supreme Court, which determines how the document is to be applied. As you have probably read, the POTUSA has repeatedly denied allowing the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of his actions. Why do you think he imprisons "enemy combatants" on foreign soil? As I pointed out, if you wish to provide relevant case law to support your opinion, I would be fascinated to read it, but without it, your statements are simply your opinion. Sinergy

BlueCollar -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 11:48:45 AM)
Not sure who made this coment: quote: I believe the framers intended for the US to have a strong and capable military. But that's not true. Well, I mean it may be what a person believes, but the writers of the consititution saw standing armies as a potential threat to the democratic process in the United States. Let's remember that up until around World War II, most western militaries de-mobilised almost immediately after hostilities ended and reverted back to a peacetime force with severely limited resources and personnel. Obviously, the threat from the USSR changed things after WW2 - however, and we were left having to maintain a permanent combat-ready force in Europe and domestically. The bottom line is that a permanent professional army was not what the writers of the Constitution intended, though I would readily agree that it was a neccessary act to maintain a strong and active military.

popeye1250 -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 12:43:53 PM)
Sinergy, terrorists and enemy combatants aren't a matter for our courts, they are military matters. What's a court going to do, issue a "bench warrant" for Bin Laden? There is a tendancy for courts to get involved in things they're not supposed to be involved in. ("Legislating from the bench.") If these "activist judges" want to be doing those things then they need to resign from the court and run for Congress or the Senate. An "Opinion" is just that, one person's "opinion." OUR courts need to get back to the basics and stay out of non judicial matters. They need to learn the word "constraint." I'm a big proponant of "job titles" and "job descriptions" for those who are drawing a paycheck from public coffers. Funny thing is though, the people on the bottom rungs of the govt. job ladder don't need that type of guidance as much as those on the upper rungs of that ladder.

submittous -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 2:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, terrorists and enemy combatants aren't a matter for our courts, they are military matters. I couldn't disagree more. Terror is a crime, and needs to be pursued with police and law enforcement tactics. Our military is for combat with countries, not gangs of criminals. We rightfully used our army when the criminals we were after had protection from a country (Afghanistan) but we lost our way when we invaded Iraq for no real reason. At the same time we couldn't find a way to catch the real villains we were after because that requires law enforcement strategies not military ones. Armies don't often do well against insurgents or guerilla warfare. Our experience in Iraq is echoed by Vietnam (both by us and the French), the British in Iraq and the French in Algeria. Won most all the battles but lost the wars. Somehow our current administration and much of the right has no faith in the American justice system or our way of doing things.. I really can't find a good reason for this lack of confidence in the system that has produced the worlds only lasting superpower but as long as our policies are based on the belief that the other guys methods are better than ours we will continue to follow poor strategies and be out maneuvered by a small band of clever outlaws. We may be better than our enemies but we are not better at being them than they are. Bill

farglebargle -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 4:24:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlueCollar quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If what I'm saying contradicts the STORY YOU'VE BEEN TOLD, consider the source of the story you've been told. Here's a hint. The only "friend" anyone has in the Middle East is THEMSELVES. Everyone else is a resource to be used. So, in other words you have no evidence to back-up your claims? Oh, there's PLENTY of evidence that the Saudis are the biggest piece of shit around. 1) If they were our FRIENDS, the wouldn't have let Bush give into Bin Ladin's demands. How does the US recover from the simple fact that BUSH GAVE INTO BIN LADIN'S DEMANDS? For me, that's all I need. I'm sure if you poked around a bit you'd find what you're looking for.

JohnSteed1967 -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/5/2007 8:12:39 PM)
HELL Yeah Bomb Mecca, and Medina! and then watch all the rational muslims loose their freaking MINDS because it won't be Oh we fucked the radical muslims, we tore the whole relgion a new one!!! That's the same as if the Muslims called for the destruction of Bethlehem during Christmas

BlueCollar -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 3:15:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Oh, there's PLENTY of evidence that the Saudis are the biggest piece of shit around. 1) If they were our FRIENDS, the wouldn't have let Bush give into Bin Ladin's demands. How does the US recover from the simple fact that BUSH GAVE INTO BIN LADIN'S DEMANDS? For me, that's all I need. I'm sure if you poked around a bit you'd find what you're looking for. Okay, well once again I'd really like to see where you're getting this information. It certainly goes against a lot of my own research. All I'm asking is for you to supply me with some reputable sources. I don't recall any major government study or independent think-tank posting a multi-page report named "Saudis are the biggest piece of shit around." And what demands are you talking about? Why the ambiguity? So again, give me something to look at and I will look at it.

meatcleaver -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 3:26:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann The United States has, in fact, gradually adopted the Imperialistic model of Rome, Spain, the Soviet Union, China, Greece, French, and the British Empire. They do so, in much the same fashion; they do business where they can, to their advantage, and use their military to enforce their advantage. It matters little that we fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. So true. Dennis Healy, a once prominent politician in Britain got it right when he said the British Empire taught the world two things, soccer and the term 'Fuck off!'. When I was young Britain still used to congratulate itself about having spread civilisation and democracy. We didn't, we imposed ourselves on people who just wanted us to 'fuck off' back to Britain. It's amazing at how long people refuse to see the truth because it isn't in their interests to.

Sinergy -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 9:42:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, terrorists and enemy combatants aren't a matter for our courts, they are military matters. Please provide relevant interpretations in Constitutional law backing up this statement. quote: What's a court going to do, issue a "bench warrant" for Bin Laden? They have already done this. The branch of the Government in charge of serving Bin Laden has been unable to do so at this time. They are too busy engaged in imperialistic ventures in Iraq. quote: An "Opinion" is just that, one person's "opinion." Exactly, your opinions are simply your opinions. They do not, however, have much (or any) relevance to the rule of law in this country. quote: OUR courts need to get back to the basics and stay out of non judicial matters. They need to learn the word "constraint." Similarly, the Executive Branch needs to get back to the business of enforcing the laws legislated by the other branch of the government is supposed to be doing, the Legislative. Sinergy

popeye1250 -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 10:20:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: submittous quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Sinergy, terrorists and enemy combatants aren't a matter for our courts, they are military matters. I couldn't disagree more. Terror is a crime, and needs to be pursued with police and law enforcement tactics. Our military is for combat with countries, not gangs of criminals. We rightfully used our army when the criminals we were after had protection from a country (Afghanistan) but we lost our way when we invaded Iraq for no real reason. At the same time we couldn't find a way to catch the real villains we were after because that requires law enforcement strategies not military ones. Armies don't often do well against insurgents or guerilla warfare. Our experience in Iraq is echoed by Vietnam (both by us and the French), the British in Iraq and the French in Algeria. Won most all the battles but lost the wars. Somehow our current administration and much of the right has no faith in the American justice system or our way of doing things.. I really can't find a good reason for this lack of confidence in the system that has produced the worlds only lasting superpower but as long as our policies are based on the belief that the other guys methods are better than ours we will continue to follow poor strategies and be out maneuvered by a small band of clever outlaws. We may be better than our enemies but we are not better at being them than they are. Bill LOL, ok, then let the NYC Police go after Bin Laden and al qeada and we can pull our Troops out of Afganistan. What do you think is going to happen if our Troops were to take Bin Laden alive? I mean do people really think they're going to have a big production of a "trial?" And, I certainly hope that if the Troops catch that pos that they get the $25m reward.

NorthernGent -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 11:59:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann The United States has, in fact, gradually adopted the Imperialistic model of Rome, Spain, the Soviet Union, China, Greece, French, and the British Empire. They do so, in much the same fashion; they do business where they can, to their advantage, and use their military to enforce their advantage. It matters little that we fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. So true. when he said the British Empire taught the world two things, soccer and the term 'Fuck off!'. Chips. Wanker. Both ours, and both in a league of their own when it comes to the creation of profanities and inexpensive staple foods.....and it's nothing to do with the Vikings or Germans.

farglebargle -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 12:41:35 PM)
What ambiguity? OBL demanded Bush withdraw troops from Saudi Arabia, Bush withdrew troops from Saudi Arabia. I mean, it was in all the papers, do I really need to operate The Google for you?

BlueCollar -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/6/2007 10:25:06 PM)
Yeah, but hold on here, you're logic is flawed. Let's say John Q. Bananahead ALSO demanded in the 1980s that the US withdraw from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that in 2003, the US removal of troops was an appeasement to him as well? The removal of US troops happened years (by that I mean over a decade) after Bin Laden first made the remarks. In fact, according to an article posted in the VFW magazine: "The end of the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein's government mean the American military mission here is over," said Air Force Maj.Gen. Robert J. Elder, Jr. Are you saying that the US appeased Bin Laden over ten years after his first demand was made, and NOT because it was the most economically, militarily, and politically sensible thing to do at the time? I don't have any problems operating Google for you.

farglebargle -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/7/2007 6:03:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BlueCollar Yeah, but hold on here, you're logic is flawed. Let's say John Q. Bananahead ALSO demanded in the 1980s that the US withdraw from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that in 2003, the US removal of troops was an appeasement to him as well? The removal of US troops happened years (by that I mean over a decade) after Bin Laden first made the remarks. In fact, according to an article posted in the VFW magazine: "The end of the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein's government mean the American military mission here is over," said Air Force Maj.Gen. Robert J. Elder, Jr. Are you saying that the US appeased Bin Laden over ten years after his first demand was made, and NOT because it was the most economically, militarily, and politically sensible thing to do at the time? I don't have any problems operating Google for you. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html "The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America" because "we are a free people... and we want to regain the freedom of our nation," said bin Laden, dressed in yellow and white robes and videotaped against a plain brown background."

BlueCollar -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/8/2007 2:32:23 AM)
Fargle, what does this have to do with Saudi Arabia? Is it because Al-Jazeera ran the tape? They're actually based in Qatar, but is that your argument? I just don't know what you're getting at. You continue to make the remarks that Saudi Arabia is a rogue state and have stated: "Saudi Arabia was the REASON for 9/11." and, "If they were our FRIENDS, the wouldn't have let Bush give into Bin Ladin's demands. How does the US recover from the simple fact that BUSH GAVE INTO BIN LADIN'S DEMANDS?" and to top it all off, you leave us with this ironic jewel, "If what I'm saying contradicts the STORY YOU'VE BEEN TOLD, consider the source of the story you've been told." How does the news link you gave me tie into any of this? It feels like you're running aound in circles but all I want to get from you is some credible evidence that supports the various accusations you've leveled. If you're so learned on this subject, why is it so hard to give me a link or something that deals directly with what you're talking about? Should I even bother continuing on this, or am I gonna get the run-around again? You've pretty much spent your time on this thread putting forward an opinion and trying to pass it off as facts. That's not debating an issue, that's standing on a soapbox.

camille65 -> RE: Tancredo: If they nuke us....bomb Mecca (8/8/2007 7:18:13 AM)
Just reading this thread forces me to realise that yeah.. there are far too many uneducated (concerning reality) people that reinforce the emotional side instead of the logical side. Yes the 'quiet Muslims' do stand up and speak against those extremists. I live near Dearborn Michigan which has/or had the highest Muslim population in the USA and they do speak up. I swear this thread and some of the responses I've read sadden and disgust me. This is not directed to anyone in particular because I am a coward when it comes to calling someone/s out heh but I hope that those reacting on an emotional level only find a way to open their minds to logic and history. We call them savages huh? Sighing @ the bigotry, hatred & fear.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875