Post by Beej on Oct 20, 2004 19:18:57 GMT -5
"Beej, this is not a Temptations board, this a board for Temptations fans. (I'm pretty sure that was my intent when I created it. ) As long as we stick it in the right spot, practically any topic, including this one, is open for debate."
Yes, I understand...and I can't thank you enough for your generosity in giving us a place to congregate. I see the purpose of The Lounge is for members to engage in general or "off-topic" discussions, but it seemed most of the current threads were light-hearted by comparison. If it's all good with you (and you ARE the boss-lady), then I'm more than happy to contribute.
"You and I obviously have our minds made up so there's really no need for a whole dialogue about it 'cause neither one of us is going to change our mind."
Exactly. You and I aren't going to budge an inch -- and that's fine -- but I'm less interested in making everyone see things my way than in trying to provide a different perspective. It's difficult to make an informed decision if we only hear one side of an argument.
"However I stand by what I said. I think it's wrong for the US to 'take the law into our own hands' so to speak and act like we're better than the rest of the world."
See, there's a significant point of difference. I don't view it as "taking the law into our own hands" as much as it is a matter of preserving our national security...i.e., taking action to confront a growing threat, sponsor of terror and sworn enemy of the United States. Here's an interesting excerpt from today's Washington Post regarding Kerry's "global view":
"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"
That speaks toward your earlier point about "world opinon" and is very telling as to John Kerry's personal sentiments. He honestly believes it's more important to seek UN permission as a legitimacy test...even when primary members of the UN have worked against us to protect their own illegal activities from being exposed. I have to reiterate my earlier point: Any presidential candidate who would place world opinion ahead of taking unilateral action to preserve our own national security is unfit to lead.
"Bush used 9/11 as an opportuntiy to carry out a personal vendetta. He led us to believe that Hussein was responsible for the attack and has yet to provide any proof of that (if he does, I'll start singing another tune.)"
I disagree. True, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no concrete evidence to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September 11, 2001...I never thought he was involved. That does not, however, mean that Hussein did not have a working relationship with various terrorist organizations...all of whom are sworn enemies of the U.S. and Israel. Whether it's Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or another organization, Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terror. That much is documented. A central tenet of our "War on Terror" is that we not only remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and go after al-Qaeda, but we confront those governments which support and sponsor terror. In that regard, Hussein's regime was a justifiable target.
"I would agree that Hussein was a corrupt leader who killed his own people. The irony is that the US has been giving aid to corrupt leaders who kill their own people FOR YEARS. There names are Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon."
Netanyahu and Sharon have targetted Israelis? If you're referring to Israel's use of force to defend themselves against Palestinian terror attacks, I'm not sure what your remedy would be. How do you live in peace with people who do not appear to want peace? When Palestinians speak up en masse to condemn the use of suicide terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, the world will be more receptive to their needs. As it stands, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians view -- actually encourage -- suicide attacks as an acceptable means of political expression. That can't be tolerated in a civilized world. Every time Hamas selects a new leader, he instantly ascends to the top of Israel's Most Wanted list...it's the only way to deal with terror organizations.
"Well, I don't think it's fair to judge an entire group of people based on their ethnicity or their homeland but even if that WERE true, there not all that unlike us, are they?"
When the Peruvians and Hungarians start attacking us, I'll concede your first point. We are not terrorsists. We do not target innocent civilians to advance a set of political or religious beliefs. Certainly, our own history is tarnished by public acceptance of shameful acts -- slavery and segregation being the most disturbing -- but that's not who we are today. The majority of Americans eventually spoke out against those practices...and, each time, we changed as a nation for the better. Those Middle East countries which continue to sponsor terror have shown no such inclination to change.
"Anyway, I don't have a problem with responding to 9/11. As a matter of fact, I wish the President would go BACK to responding to 9/11. Four words, 'Where is Bin Laden?' So when Kerry called the war a 'diversion' I knew exactly what he meant."
We have responded. The Taliban is no longer in power...Afghanistan is no longer a state-sponsor of terror...free elections have been held...women are voting for the first time...al-Qaeda no longer has Afghanistan as a safe-haven or base for operations. We will continue to provide security until the legs of democracy are firmly grounded, but I'm not sure what else you'd like us to do there. Much of al-Qaeda's command structure in the region has been badly interrupted, if not outright destroyed.
Where is bin Laden? Good question. If he's still alive, my guess would be on the Pakistan side of the border. If that's the case, we do not have permission from the Pakistan government to launch over-the-border operations, so we'd keep him contained and ineffective.
If John Kerry believes Iraq is a "diversion" from the War on Terror, it's further evidence he lacks the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief. The influx and embrace of insurgency in certain provinces of post-war Iraq is indicative of the support for terror that already existed. As I previously explained, Iraq was a legitimate target in the War on Terror and it's stunning that a presidential candidate would lack the capacity to grasp the importance of Iraq in the bigger picture.
As much as John Kerry would like to confuse and deceive voters by separating the two and pitting one against the other, there's no avoiding the fact that Iraq is a central component of the War on Terror. Success there changes the whole dynamic of the Middle East. The spread of democracy and freedom in lands now oppressed by fear, hatred and religious fundamentalism benefits not only the U.S. in the long run, but the world in general. We will be successful. Terror cannot win...unless men of little conviction stand by and do nothing.
Sorry for the length of my posts, but these topics are a little more involved than a David vs. Dennis discussion. As you can tell, I love talking about this stuff.
Thanks again, Ivory. You rock.
Yes, I understand...and I can't thank you enough for your generosity in giving us a place to congregate. I see the purpose of The Lounge is for members to engage in general or "off-topic" discussions, but it seemed most of the current threads were light-hearted by comparison. If it's all good with you (and you ARE the boss-lady), then I'm more than happy to contribute.
"You and I obviously have our minds made up so there's really no need for a whole dialogue about it 'cause neither one of us is going to change our mind."
Exactly. You and I aren't going to budge an inch -- and that's fine -- but I'm less interested in making everyone see things my way than in trying to provide a different perspective. It's difficult to make an informed decision if we only hear one side of an argument.
"However I stand by what I said. I think it's wrong for the US to 'take the law into our own hands' so to speak and act like we're better than the rest of the world."
See, there's a significant point of difference. I don't view it as "taking the law into our own hands" as much as it is a matter of preserving our national security...i.e., taking action to confront a growing threat, sponsor of terror and sworn enemy of the United States. Here's an interesting excerpt from today's Washington Post regarding Kerry's "global view":
"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, 'If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.'"
That speaks toward your earlier point about "world opinon" and is very telling as to John Kerry's personal sentiments. He honestly believes it's more important to seek UN permission as a legitimacy test...even when primary members of the UN have worked against us to protect their own illegal activities from being exposed. I have to reiterate my earlier point: Any presidential candidate who would place world opinion ahead of taking unilateral action to preserve our own national security is unfit to lead.
"Bush used 9/11 as an opportuntiy to carry out a personal vendetta. He led us to believe that Hussein was responsible for the attack and has yet to provide any proof of that (if he does, I'll start singing another tune.)"
I disagree. True, the 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no concrete evidence to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September 11, 2001...I never thought he was involved. That does not, however, mean that Hussein did not have a working relationship with various terrorist organizations...all of whom are sworn enemies of the U.S. and Israel. Whether it's Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade or another organization, Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terror. That much is documented. A central tenet of our "War on Terror" is that we not only remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and go after al-Qaeda, but we confront those governments which support and sponsor terror. In that regard, Hussein's regime was a justifiable target.
"I would agree that Hussein was a corrupt leader who killed his own people. The irony is that the US has been giving aid to corrupt leaders who kill their own people FOR YEARS. There names are Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon."
Netanyahu and Sharon have targetted Israelis? If you're referring to Israel's use of force to defend themselves against Palestinian terror attacks, I'm not sure what your remedy would be. How do you live in peace with people who do not appear to want peace? When Palestinians speak up en masse to condemn the use of suicide terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, the world will be more receptive to their needs. As it stands, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians view -- actually encourage -- suicide attacks as an acceptable means of political expression. That can't be tolerated in a civilized world. Every time Hamas selects a new leader, he instantly ascends to the top of Israel's Most Wanted list...it's the only way to deal with terror organizations.
"Well, I don't think it's fair to judge an entire group of people based on their ethnicity or their homeland but even if that WERE true, there not all that unlike us, are they?"
When the Peruvians and Hungarians start attacking us, I'll concede your first point. We are not terrorsists. We do not target innocent civilians to advance a set of political or religious beliefs. Certainly, our own history is tarnished by public acceptance of shameful acts -- slavery and segregation being the most disturbing -- but that's not who we are today. The majority of Americans eventually spoke out against those practices...and, each time, we changed as a nation for the better. Those Middle East countries which continue to sponsor terror have shown no such inclination to change.
"Anyway, I don't have a problem with responding to 9/11. As a matter of fact, I wish the President would go BACK to responding to 9/11. Four words, 'Where is Bin Laden?' So when Kerry called the war a 'diversion' I knew exactly what he meant."
We have responded. The Taliban is no longer in power...Afghanistan is no longer a state-sponsor of terror...free elections have been held...women are voting for the first time...al-Qaeda no longer has Afghanistan as a safe-haven or base for operations. We will continue to provide security until the legs of democracy are firmly grounded, but I'm not sure what else you'd like us to do there. Much of al-Qaeda's command structure in the region has been badly interrupted, if not outright destroyed.
Where is bin Laden? Good question. If he's still alive, my guess would be on the Pakistan side of the border. If that's the case, we do not have permission from the Pakistan government to launch over-the-border operations, so we'd keep him contained and ineffective.
If John Kerry believes Iraq is a "diversion" from the War on Terror, it's further evidence he lacks the judgment to be Commander-in-Chief. The influx and embrace of insurgency in certain provinces of post-war Iraq is indicative of the support for terror that already existed. As I previously explained, Iraq was a legitimate target in the War on Terror and it's stunning that a presidential candidate would lack the capacity to grasp the importance of Iraq in the bigger picture.
As much as John Kerry would like to confuse and deceive voters by separating the two and pitting one against the other, there's no avoiding the fact that Iraq is a central component of the War on Terror. Success there changes the whole dynamic of the Middle East. The spread of democracy and freedom in lands now oppressed by fear, hatred and religious fundamentalism benefits not only the U.S. in the long run, but the world in general. We will be successful. Terror cannot win...unless men of little conviction stand by and do nothing.
Sorry for the length of my posts, but these topics are a little more involved than a David vs. Dennis discussion. As you can tell, I love talking about this stuff.
Thanks again, Ivory. You rock.
We did not have permission to invade Iraq .......... why does havingi permission suddenly make a difference?! 
