Irish-
Great post. Enjoyed reading it. For much of this century you would have been at home in the Democratic Party. Only recently have they morphed. More Truman and Kennedy then Hillary or Obama.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Tell me, Irish: do you really believe that the US government, once it exterminates every last Islamic terrorist on the planet, and removes all threat of terrorism through invasion, bombing and occupation of foreign countries, intensive domestic surveillance, extrajudicial extradition and incarceration and public execution, will then get busy building a pro-working welfare, pro-social security, Pro-rights, environmentalist, pro-free speech, pro-civil rights social democracy?[/quote]
Ouch
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Good. Fuck’em, they’re dead. Made their day? Not when they figure out that if there is a god, he probably don’t like murderers.
Besides this, I don’t know how many terrorists you have personally known, but all that bullshit will go out the window when you threaten to take someone’s family from them. I don’t know terrorists, but I know people, and people essentially want the same things, which is, more or less, to take care of themselves and their families. There is an angle to figure out, we just haven’t done it yet.
What is your solution? Capitulation? Do we stop fighting them because, HOLY FUCKING CHRIST! There’s more than one? No. You figure out their plots, and you capture or kill every fucking one.
C’mon dude, you’re from Sweden. Would you have said the same about Germany in the 1930s? There is no way to defeat them, they feel too strongly? An ideal is an ideal. It can be made, forced upon, or wrecked just as easily as any other ideal. Religion or politics be damened.
Good thing you Swedish fuckers don’t fight wars. You’d be done after the first hour.
[/quote]
This is the sort of fighting spirit we need. Hunt down the cockroaches in their lair!
And we have to destroy the nest!! Turn the nest into a parking lot.
[quote]Lixy wrote:
Ok, let me ask you a question and think a bit before answering. Do you think that heavily bombarding Afghanistan with a few hundred nukes would have dissuaded the guys who hit London or Madrid?
FightinIrish wrote:
No, it would have killed them. And I don’t know how hard it is to carry out an elaborate plot of terrorism after you’re dead, but I’d imagine it’s pretty fucking tough.
Varqanir wrote:
I hadn’t realized that the London and Madrid bombers had been based in Afghanistan prior to their mission.
FightinIrish wrote:
Dick. You know I was bein sarcastic. ;)[/quote]
Haha. Yeah. I figured I’d been sparring with Rainjack too much lately. He hits hard, but he’s predictable. You’re harder to corner, because your style’s different, you jab and hook faster, and your footwork’s better, so I figured I oughta throw a few sucker punches from the first bell. Nothing personal. 
This little snippet is from an article published eight days after September 11, by which time we were convinced that bin Laden was the mastermind of the attack, and that our next step was to invade Afghanistan, presumably to punish the Afghani people for allowing the Taliban to give him succor:
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0919-02.htm
[i]Bomb Afghanistan Back to the Stone Age? It’s Been Done.
Now for the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone Age. The trouble is, it’s already been done. The Soviets took care of it. Make the Afghans suffer? They’re already suffering. Level their houses? Done. Turn their schools into piles of rubble? Done. Eradicate their hospitals? Done. Destroy their infrastructure? There is no infrastructure. Cut them off from medicine and health care? Too late. Someone already did all that.
New bombs would only land in the rubble of earlier bombs. Would they at least get the Taliban? Not likely. In today’s Afghanistan, only members of the Taliban eat, only they have the means to move around. They’d slip away and hide. (They have already, I hear.) Maybe the bombs would get some of those disabled orphans; they don’t move too fast, they don’t even have wheelchairs.
But flying over Kabul and dropping bombs wouldn’t really be a strike against the criminals who did this horrific thing. Actually it would be making common cause with the Taliban – by raping once again the people it has been raping all this time.[/i]
When the United States Marine Corps wanted to take out Charlemagne Peralt, the most dangerous and elusive terrorist leader in Haiti, they sent in one Marine with a .45 automatic, who found Peralt, put a bullet in his chest, and dragged him back to camp.
That is how to do it.
[quote]But when it comes down to it, we are a democracy. The votes of the people count, and we decide our own fate. We were the first, and the longest lasting, of our kind.
Hmmm. I don’t know about that, but we’ll let it go.
Which part? The votes counting? I know it’s always been corrupt and what not, but the elections do tend to reflect the general feel of the country. In a system like ours run by money, that’s really all you can hope for.[/quote]
I had originally taken issue with the “first and the longest lasting” part, but now that you mention it, yeah, I am curious as to whether you would have voiced sentiments such as " the votes of the people count, and we decide our own fate… the elections do tend to reflect the general feel of the country" around about oh, say, December 11, 2000.
The only problem being the fact that the “they” that hit us were not the same “they” that we hit back. There was not a single Afghan on board those airliners on that September morning, and to my knowledge we have not raised a finger against Saudi Arabia or Egypt.
Three times your age? Is that so? Then my hat is off to you, Irish. You are uncommonly articulate for a lad of thirteen. And yes, I concede, if good looks are judged on the basis of eyebrow size, then you’ve got me beat by a mile. 
[quote]but I dig this country the way it is,
Really? The way it is now?
The basic concept of a liberal, capitalist state with freedom of religion/speech/press. I know certain folks in power want that going backwards, but we will stem this tide… if not in your generation, then mine. Don’t worry about that.[/quote]
I hope you’re right, although I’d be curious to hear what kind of box “your generation” plans to use in stemming this tide. You know, soap box, ballot box, jury box or cartridge box. From what I have seen, “your generation” seems more interested in Xbox.
[quote]There is a fine line, and our government sucks at toeing it. However, I have more faith in being able to change things in Washington then change things in the Middle East.
That too may be quite idealistic. Forgive me, I’m young.[/quote]
Not at all. And youth has no monopoly on idealism.
Irish, I posed a hypothetical question on another thread, but I’d like to hear your opinion.
If, in October of next year, right before the general election, there is another devastating “Islamic terrorist” attack on a major American city, and the President declares a state of emergency, suspends the Constitution, cancels all elections, and issues a series of executive orders giving himself greatly expanded executive powers (including more direct control over the military), then would you imagine that the American people (some of them, at least) would rise up in arms?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Haha. Yeah. I figured I’d been sparring with Rainjack too much lately. He hits hard, but he’s predictable. You’re harder to corner, because your style’s different, you jab and hook faster, and your footwork’s better, so I figured I oughta throw a few sucker punches from the first bell. Nothing personal.
[/quote]
If I’m so predictable - how is it you know how hard I hit?
That would suggest you know where I am going, but you are too slow to stop it at times.
Since we’re all pugilistic and shit now…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Haha. Yeah. I figured I’d been sparring with Rainjack too much lately. He hits hard, but he’s predictable. You’re harder to corner, because your style’s different, you jab and hook faster, and your footwork’s better, so I figured I oughta throw a few sucker punches from the first bell. Nothing personal.
If I’m so predictable - how is it you know how hard I hit?
That would suggest you know where I am going, but you are too slow to stop it at times. [/quote]
A hard hit is a hard hit, whether you block it or not. It was a compliment, RJ. Backhanded, yes, but a compliment nonetheless.[quote]
Since we’re all pugilistic and shit now…
[/quote]
Wasn’t it you who said that we don’t debate, we fight?
And I was, after all, addressing FightinIrish, so the metaphor seemed apt.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Wasn’t it you who said that we don’t debate, we fight?
And I was, after all, addressing FightinIrish, so the metaphor seemed apt.
[/quote]
Have you been using my thinking tree without my permission?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Have you been using my thinking tree without my permission?[/quote]
I wouldn’t think of using your tree without permission, Vroom. Besides, just outside my house is a thinking forest, which serves me well enough.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Wasn’t it you who said that we don’t debate, we fight?
And I was, after all, addressing FightinIrish, so the metaphor seemed apt.
Have you been using my thinking tree without my permission?[/quote]
My dog would love to use your thinking tree.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A hard hit is a hard hit, whether you block it or not. It was a compliment, RJ. Backhanded, yes, but a compliment nonetheless.
Wasn’t it you who said that we don’t debate, we fight?
And I was, after all, addressing FightinIrish, so the metaphor seemed apt.
[/quote]
I’m not complaining. I just though it funny that you would admit to taking a shot from me.
For me, the Fighting Irish conjures up images of Knute Rockne, Ara (not even going to try his last name), and gold helmets.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
Have you been using my thinking tree without my permission?
I wouldn’t think of using your tree without permission, Vroom. Besides, just outside my house is a thinking forest, which serves me well enough.[/quote]
Anyone happen to have a spare thinking bush the US could use?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
vroom wrote:
Have you been using my thinking tree without my permission?
I wouldn’t think of using your tree without permission, Vroom. Besides, just outside my house is a thinking forest, which serves me well enough.
Anyone happen to have a spare thinking bush the US could use?
[/quote]
Was that a dig at our CIC?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
There was not a single Afghan on board those airliners on that September morning, and to my knowledge we have not raised a finger against Saudi Arabia or Egypt. [/quote]
To be fair, the US did drastically raise the amount of weapons it sends to these countries. As it stands, Egypt is gonna get 13 billion Dollars worth, and Saudi Arabia 20 billion Dollars (to share with Oman, Yemen and the UAE).
Remember that this is at a time when US soldiers are being shot at in Iraq and…
[i]US envoy accuses Saudis on Iraq
The US ambassador at the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, has accused Saudi Arabia of undermining efforts to stabilise Iraq.
Mr Khalilzad said he was referring to Saudi Arabia in an article last week in which he said US friends were pursuing destabilising policies.[/i]
Did I mention 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis?