Re: I agree with you on the polls

Post #173,030 by BDaye 9/7/04 10:21:30 PM Reply	Re: I agree with you on the polls >In fact, the Democratic response to Terrorism >has been consistently one of treating as a >legal issue - with capital punishment as >sentencing (McVeigh is dead). Treating terrorism as a legal issue is negotiation. --Bob
Post #173,036 by Silverlock 9/7/04 11:48:59 PM Reply	Bob, take a valium. How many more countries do we need to invade here Bob? How many more quagmires do we really need? Just who do we fucking bomb next? The ones we bombed last don't seem to have had anything to do with 9/11 and now we got more terrorism happening all over the world. Who do we fucking bomb? Pick a target. Tell me why that works. ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko
Post #173,097 by jb4 9/8/04 12:45:13 PM Reply	That's probably the dumbest thing I've read here... ...for several years, at least. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #173,098 by inthane-chan 9/8/04 12:46:37 PM Reply	Outright war is negotiation. You're just being tougher on the terms.
Post #173,101 by deSitter 9/8/04 12:49:33 PM Reply	Right - some people need to read Gett A. Cluesiwitz -drl
Post #173,100 by deSitter 9/8/04 12:47:53 PM Reply	in this context legal = criminal And yes, it's a criminal matter, mass murder. By calling this "war" you implicitly raise the opponent's status from miserable scum criminal to state combatant. I can't believe anyone is so stupid as to not see this immediately. -drl
Post #173,210 by Simon_Jester 9/8/04 9:25:00 PM Reply	I'm curious... Treating terrorism as a legal issue is negotiation. What isn't negotiation then?
Post #173,221 by BDaye 9/8/04 11:21:53 PM Reply	A Non-negotiation Position, Pre-emptive strikes, not taking prisoners (per Geneva Convention, except for key people for information), blocking finances and bringing the war to them instead of dealing with them on US soil. It's brutal, but maybe it would get them to raise the white flag sooner. They may be more willing to talk then, as they aren't willing to talk now. There will always be some form of local terrorism around the world, that's criminal - it's the global network that the US is at war with and that's what I'm talking about. We can't let them have the power to destroy the Western economies and treating them as common criminals will let them do just that. A prison full of Al Qeada members serving life sentences or spending years on death row will only encourage hostage taking situations that will result in the swapping of these people with hostages to end a situation that could also end someone's political career i.e. a future president. Check this link - Russia is talking pre-emptive strikes. [link\|http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84VLCLO0.html\|http://apnews.myway....08/D84VLCLO0.html]
Post #173,224 by JayMehaffey 9/8/04 11:50:31 PM Reply	What happens What happens if it turns out the training camps the Russians want to bomb are in the US? Rememeber the 9/11 hijackers got training in the US, it's possible the people that hijacked that plane in Russia got training here. Or do you think the pre-emptive strike thing only applies to hethen nations? Jay
Post #173,229 by pwhysall 9/9/04 1:47:10 AM Reply	That doesn't work. You misunderstand al-Qaeda; they're not afraid of dying. The WTC attacks should have taught us that much. There will never be a white flag from AQ, and we will never be able to kill them all. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #173,232 by Simon_Jester 9/9/04 3:08:28 AM Reply	Re: A Non-negotiation Position, Let's take them one at a time... Pre-emptive strikes Such as Clinton's cruise-missile strikes. not taking prisoners (per Geneva Convention, except for key people for information) Okay...but last I checked, we had a lot of prisoners in Guantanamo. That wasn't done by the left. blocking finances Excellent idea. Been done lots of times. bringing the war to them instead of dealing with them on US soil. Such as Clinton's cruise-missile strikes. It's brutal, but maybe it would get them to raise the white flag sooner. They may be more willing to talk then, as they aren't willing to talk now. It is unlikely to get them to talk at all; however it is brutal and it is necessary. There will always be some form of local terrorism around the world, that's criminal - it's the global network that the US is at war with and that's what I'm talking about. We can't let them have the power to destroy the Western economies and treating them as common criminals will let them do just that. A prison full of Al Qeada members serving life sentences or spending years on death row will only encourage hostage taking situations Why do you want them on life sentences and in prison. I want them dead. McVeigh is dead. Aren't you willing to use capital punishment on Al Qeada members? Don't get me wrong, most of the members end up killing themselves before we catch them. The Cole bombers, the 9/11 bombers, etc. tend to kill themselves as they attack. (Not much to kill in those situations). Even when some of the higher-ups are caught, they are often executed before we can get all the information we want out of them. Saudia Arabia killed several of the higher-ups from the barracks bombing before we could question them. Makes it difficult to get to the others. that will result in the swapping of these people with hostages to end a situation that could also end someone's political career i.e. a future president. Unlikely given that the last President who negotiated with people who took hostages was considered a great man by a large group of the population. (Reagan and Iran/Contra) Hell, consider our Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld who personally shook hands with Saddam Hussein (and who was working deals with him). Alas, some groups have a real difficulty identifying who the enemy is. One day they're our greatest ally, the next they're the next Hitler. You do realize that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the attack on the World Trade Center? You do realize that we haven't caught bin Ladin? You do realize that we've ignored the Saudia Arabia / Al Qeada link?

Welcome to IWETHEY!