Caltrops - Motherfucking News





	[quote name="I need clarification"][quote name="Lizard_King"][quote name="I need clarification"] Yes. Using the example of our straw men proves you need straw men to make your argument, idiots!! Also: 1. "Kill a sufficient number of terror providers to keep the supply of anti-american attack to a low hum" is the most self-contradictory statement in the history of the Bush II administration, which is saying something. The fact you can write something like that without any evidence of irony or even self-awareness indicates you not only buy Rumsfeld's drivel whole cloth, you have trouble formulating opinions during the respite between White House talking points releases. [/quote] Nice ad hominem attack. Yet you do not at any point state why it is contradictory or absurd. As usual, your statement is predicated on the other party being offended and correspondingly silenced, rather than, say, "wrong".[/quote] Fine, I'll spell it out for you (with those fancy numbers you like so much!): 1. No matter how many people we kill in the world, we will never kill all the people who want to kill us. 2. The more people we kill under the guise of "liberating" them or ridding them of imaginary weapons of mass distruction, the more likely they are to want to kill us. Witness our reaction to 9/11. I'm not saying it's the equivalent of what we're doing to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, et al, I'm saying we should expect to elicit the exact same emotional responses 9/11 did with us. We can't expect your average Abdul on the streets of Tehran to say to himself as the bombs are falling, "Well, this should have been expected. I'm a radicalized Muslim whose hatred of the United States is unfounded and I should simply allow the death of my kids/wife/brother/dog to educate me in proper Citizenship Of The World." 3. If you erect bogeymen like Osama Bin Laden as the cause for all the terrorism effect in the world, you're setting yourself up for continuous disappointment and phoney surprise each time an attack is carried out. Does anyone think the coordinated attacks last week in Morocco wouldn't have happened if Osama were dead? 4. What is "a low hum?" [quote name="I need clarification"] Wait a minute. Because Rumsfeld was appointed by an unelected president means his cracked vision of American foreign policy (invade! invade! invade!) is more legitimate than anyone else's? Get the fuck out of my country, fag. I'm talking about you, Lizard_King. If you're willing to subject your life and everyone else's to the whim of these idiots, that's your prerogative. But trying to win an argument you've already helped yourself lose by saying only those in charge get a say in how things are done goes against everything this country stands for, and I won't have traitorous bastards in this country. At least not in shackles. Please escort yourself to the nearest border or coast and keep walking. Thanks![/quote] [quote name="Lizard_King"]1. It is really, really tiresome to hear this tired canard of Bush being unelected again and again. Have you nothing better in your pitiable little arsenal? The US is a republic, NOT a fucking democracy. That means our electoral process is designed to balance population against location, so that it will not be a simple matter of NY, CA, and TX telling the rest of the country what to do. What's more, if you would bother to read any news besides that which comes from sources that agree with you directly, you would have found out that Bush did, in fact, win the Florida recount as performed by various media groups and released a year after the election. So shut the fuck up, already.[/quote] Is it tiresome to hear tired things? It's tiring to hear tired people tiredly talking about tired concept in a tiresome and tiring manner, and as tired as I may be, I think your tiresome response couldn't come at a more timely time. I agree that Bush is the President, by whatever means he made it in to office. But to suggest that "only the people in office have a legitimate right to express their opinion about foreign policy" has nothing to do with the US being a republic. My point is that the legitimacy of Bush's own appointed counsel, TO ME AT LEAST, is far more suspect than Fusbette coming on here and saying that maybe bombing every country in the world that we suspect may one day decide to attack us without any sort of consensus from other countries, even those in the region, may not be the wisest choice. Certainly Robert McNamara realized 30 years later that his policy of Vietnamization was a load of shit. Do we really have to wait 30 years for Rumsfeld to come to the same conclusion? What's wrong with right now? What's wrong with listening to Colin Powell for a change, instead of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz? [quote name="Lizard_King"]2. Are you suggesting that somehow democracy is inherently legitimizing? So if 99 out of 100 villagers elect to kill the 100th villager and take his possessions, that would no doubt be completely legitimate in your view, since it was not only democratic, but overwhelmingly so. I would expect nothing less from someone like yourself... Democratic process is but one (important) part of a constitutional republic such as the United States, which is designed both to be reasonably responsive to the people's desires and restrain their worst impulses. IE, should Al Sharpton get elected President, the other branches of government would be able to minimize the more radical elements of his agenda.[/quote] Yes, I'm suggesting we let Al Sharpton run the country and that we live in a country where 99 people would want to kill one particular person. Unfortunately, those 99 people work in the White House and the one person is the straw man they constructed to help legitimize their lust for war and whatever profitable business it may bring their campaign contributors. Can't you debate anything without going to ridiculous extremes? Were you dropped on your head four times as a child, or only three? Also, please stop expecting things of "people like me." You're not as smart as us, it's an exercise in futility for you to try and predict what we will do. Finally, a large percentage of the country thought the war in Iraq was unnecessary. When the president says he "doesn't pay attention" to those people, that's not "restraining their worst impulses." That's ignoring the populace of the country. You are correct: the legitimacy of Bush's presidency won't be defined by the legal maneuverings that got him the office. It will be defined by what he did once he got into office. So far, he hasn't acted very presidential, nor representative. [quote name="Lizard_King"]3. If you think strong foreign policy stands against everything our country is based on, I suggest you take a closer look at the history of this century, you fucking idiot. [/quote] Your definition of "strong foreign policy" is laughable, if it weren't so tragic. The idea that we will somehow whip the rest of the world into shape by invading any country we think isn't getting with the program is bound to failure. We can dismiss every dissenting country as "old Europe" or "16th Century Religious Oligarchy" or whatever else we want, but we have enmeshed ourselves economically and strategically with the rest of the world, and we can't afford to simultaneously engage them militarily while isolating ourselves financially. And we won't. So, what is the long-term plan, Wile E. Coyote?[/quote]