What would you do?

[nws01 0]

I would start singing that song "Macarena" and make the bad guys so mad that they either shoot me or let me go.
I would do the little dance too if I could remember it exactly.


Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena
Que tu cuerpo es pa darle alegria y cosa buena
Dale a tu cuerpo alegria, Macarena
Hey Macarena

[Muenkel 0]

Andrea,

Your thread has been hijacked. I tried to bring it back to the topic, but you know these folks. Get them fired up and there's no stopping them!

_________________________________________
Chris

[PhreeZone 20]

What if the country is not knowingly harboring him? If someone sneaks in over the border there is no requirement to tell the government that you are there...

>In order to keep bad people from doing bad things. Well... in some peoples minds the US was a bad guy before 9/11 for funding terrorists the world over to ghange politics in the way the administration saw fit. A coup here or an uprising here will help things in the short term only.

Just a side question Bill... did you ever serve in the military? I'm wondering if those that served are more or less willing then the general population to go into a full scale declared war.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[rhino 0]

Notice that Saddham doesn't have anyone running against him.

The US getting him out of power is the only chance they have at a decent life. If Iraqi's could speak frankly without Saddham's death squad lead by his sons going after them they would freely admit to wishing he was gone.

The Iraqi's that have escaped DO SAY that everyone wants Saddham gone.

Sad but true...

Rhino

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I would start singing that song "Macarena" and make the bad guys so mad that they either shoot me or let me go.

Nathan,

LMAO!!! You have no idea how much I HATE that fuckin song and dance! Chances are in this scenario, I think your co-hostages would cheer on the captors, or beg to be shot themselves.

_________________________________________
Chris

[rhino 0]

Quote

Just a side question Bill... did you ever serve in the military? I'm wondering if those that served are more or less willing then the general population to go into a full scale declared war.

Phree,

I am ITCHING to get back in the military.. The Army wants me in as a Warrant Officer to fly apache's.

I SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO want to do it and kick some ass....

Rhino

[ernokaikkonen 0]

WTF?

I was trying to say that a terrorist attack made by people from country X does not give the target country Y the right to kill civilians in country X.

Your post had to do with this how?
Erno

[happythoughts 0]

"Therefore, my point stands: no person and no society is inherently better than any other. " Self-defense does not require you to be morally pure. I'm not going to get into the "which country is more moral/better/humanitarian..." debate. I don't care. It's real simple, if you don't like the US structure of morality/politics/whatever, then stay home, write an essay, complain in a letter to the editor. However, if you attack the US, I don't care what your moral justification is, you become the largest beach in the Middle-East.

[rhino 0]

Were you asking me a question? I responded to Phree's question..

Rhino

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Umm. yeah. Since you actually responded to my post? Either a miss-click or a glitch in the system i guess...

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

I'm not going to get into the "which country is more moral/better/humanitarian..." debate. I don't care.

I refer you to your original post:

Quote

Yes, and when a group of wretched people band together and identify themselves as a nation and do something very bad, then we go to their little wretched nation and exterminate them as an example to other wretched people who think about doing bad things. Some peoples' sole purpose is to be an example to others.

If you do not care about the moral reasons to bomb or not bomb a country, then why do you talk about "wretched people" doing "bad things?" I used the term "wretched" specifically because I am interested in morality.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[rhino 0]

***Exactly - someone - You can't punish a nation for the deeds of an individual! Sheesh... ***

I was responding to that. The nation will get punished. It is a price they will pay to get Saddham out of power. It sucks. But if they as a people aren't willing to do it than the US will to defend the free world in general.

Rhino

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>I was responding to that. The nation will get punished. It is a price they will
>pay to get Saddham out of power. It sucks. But if they as a people aren't
>willing to do it than the US will to defend the free world in general.

Okay... I think we were originally talking about retaliation to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, but you're saying that the iraqis deserve to be bombed to stoneage because they are oppressed by the government?

Erno

[nws01 0]

Either that or I would try to teach the bad guys how to do the Pahokee Pokie on the ground. Of course they would get a little head rush standing on their heads for so long. Maybe they would pass out and we could all escape?

[happythoughts 0]

"the moral reasons" Their "moral" reasons to bomb our country: We educate women beyond high-school level, drinking alchohol, mixed-sex dancing. How do you define who is more moral ? If you want to set yourself up as moral arbiter to the universe, go ahead. My point is this, if you disagree, write the New York Times, but killing 3,000 people because of your "moral" disagreement makes you "wretched". I don't have to be on a higher moral plane to defend myself. Attack the US and kill citizens for any reason and you should have a big, big problem. Eventually, people will not want that problem.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Okay... I think we were originally talking about retaliation to the 9-11 terrorist attacks, but you're saying that the iraqis deserve to be bombed to stoneage because they are oppressed by the government?

If you read my posts CAREFULLY you will see that I didn't say they deserved shit. It is a cause and effect thing. The Iraqi people have had a chance to remove him from power and haven't taken any. The effect of that is he is now threatening the free world with weapons of mass destruction and he must be eliminated.

Iraq getting bombed is an unfortunate price that the Iraqi people are going to pay due to Saddham's actions AND their lack of action.

Cause and effect.. Not Cause and Deserve.


Rhino

[lummy 4]

Quote

but killing 3,000 people because of your "moral" disagreement makes you "wretched". I don't have to be on a higher moral plane to defend myself. Attack the US and kill citizens for any reason and you should have a big, big problem. Eventually, people will not want that problem.

And again, I ask why it is any more RIGHT for us to go kill 3000 innocents than it is for terrorists to kill 3000 innocents? Why? because they killed US citizens? Does your arguement NOT hold true to justify another attack on US citizens because we killed 3000 innocents too?

Or maybe it is just because we are better than them ?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[rhino 0]

Quote

Attack the US and kill citizens for any reason and you should have a big, big problem. Eventually, people will not want that problem.

Damn straight!!

And hopefully EVENTUALLY the US will apply what it has learned from supplying these assholes and creating this problem to begin with and not create more whacked out, insane enemies.

Rhino

[Skyrad 0]

I think your friend may have some issues.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[happythoughts 0]

"... why it is any more RIGHT" I've answered this repeatedly. I'm not talking about right/wrong. Even if they have a GREAT reason, they can stay home and bitch about it. If they attack the US, they die, problem solved. Morality is not an issue. I don't care if the Pope thinks it's a good idea. It is all about self-defense. If you have a problem with US policy/lifestyles/morality, stay home in your cave and whine to your mullah.
"Why? because they killed US citizens?' Yep.
"Does your arguement NOT hold true to justify another attack on US citizens" If we had flattened them after the van bombing in '95, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If we had retaliated then and killed 50,000 Afghans, it would have saved 3,000 innocent Americans. Good example. I have no problem with that. If we did it effectively now, they wouldn't do it in the future and none of their friends would think it was a good idea. Thus, saving future battles and casualties. Peace through superior firepower.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena
Que tu cuerpo es pa darle alegria y cosa buena
Dale a tu cuerpo alegria, Macarena
Hey Macarena

Dude, you could have used those neurons for something useful.

[rhino 0]

Quote

Peace through superior firepower.

Back to the cold war!! DAMN I AM GETTING MOTIVATED!!!

Rhino

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>Iraq getting bombed is an unfortunate price that the Iraqi people are
>going to pay due to Saddham's actions AND their lack of action.

Ok ok, we're not talking about the same thing. You're saying that some innocent people will take hits in a military operation against Iraq. Which is unfortunately going to happen, if the US attacks Iraq. I'm reluctantly accepting that.

What I'm arguing against, is Bills idea:
"If we had flattened them after the van bombing in '95, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If we had retaliated then and killed 50,000 Afghans, it would have saved 3,000 innocent Americans. Good example. I have no problem with that."

Killing innocent people to protect your country. That can never be right. I have nothing else to say.

Erno

[rhino 0]

Quote

What I'm arguing against, is Bills idea:
"If we had flattened them after the van bombing in '95, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If we had retaliated then and killed 50,000 Afghans, it would have saved 3,000 innocent Americans. Good example. I have no problem with that."

As revengefull as I would like to be what you are saying would have most likely made things allot worse. Then we would have had 10 equally funded Bin Laden assholes that want to blow up innocent US women and children just to share their pain with the world.

Yes, we should have taken action against terrorism sooner.. I would hate to be one of those assholes now..

Rhino

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

What I'm arguing against, is Bills idea:
"If we had flattened them after the van bombing in '95, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If we had retaliated then and killed 50,000 Afghans, it would have saved 3,000 innocent Americans. Good example. I have no problem with that."

Killing innocent people to protect your country. That can never be right. I have nothing else to say.

Exactly. If Bill is willing to condone the murder of innocent citizens in Afghanistan, then he has no right to be upset when innocent Americans get killed. Whether there is a question of morality or not, it is a simple matter of consistency. Either our nation and any other nation has the right to kill innocent people in combatting one another, or neither one does. There can be no in between.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All