War - What The Hell Is It Good For - Page 5

But to answer your questions more precisely:

1. A father can be blamed for his son's sin. He is the father. Parents are supposed to raise their children. The children are a product of that raising. What that has to do with this thredt I'm not really sure.

2. No - we should not give our bombs away - nor should we build anymore for ourselves. I don't recall ever advocating otherwise? But like your Daddy - you spin what has not been spun

Nicaragua :

Free elections in 1990, 1996, and again in 2001 saw the Sandinistas defeated.

How that must make you sad Leftwood!

quote:

---

No it would only be hypocritical if I believed all nations were equal or if I believed other nations morally superior to the US

---

Will you also rewrite the English language?

"A father can be blamed for his son's sin."

Really? So the answer to my question is YES then? So, hypothetically speaking, it would be ok to blame your father for producing such a fool?

"What that has to do with this thredt I'm not really sure. "

You are the one that tried to slander Osama's father. Have you really forgotten so soon?

"I don't recall ever advocating otherwise?"

You insinuated that it was wrong that the US built its bombs while they desired that no other nation followed our action. Having memory problems today?

I didn't insinuate anything. I told you that we believe we should have more bombs while we also believe that others should not have any.

I told you that was hypocracy and you gave me this funky definition of I don't know what?

Keep talking Xris - your ignorance is sometimes amusing.

quote:

---

You are the one that tried to slander Osama's father.

---

No - I don't remember having a discussion about Osama's father, maybe you can show it to me.

"Free elections in 1990, 1996, and again in 2001 saw the Sandinistas defeated."

What does this have to do with state sponsored terrorism being wrong and illegal? Left or right doesn't matter, killing and torturing innocents, and even non-innocents, even in the name of freedom is wrong.

Your making a pointless referrence to a cat and mouse game of lets play who is the revolutionary.

"I didn't insinuate anything. I told you that we believe we should have more bombs while we also believe that others should not have any. I told you that was hypocracy and you gave me this funky definition of I don't know what?"

And I told you that you clearly don't understand the meaning of hypocrisy and I am right. For that to by hypocritical one would have to believe that the US is no better or no worse than any other nation. If, on the other hand, one believes that the US is the world's moral superior then it is not hypocritical at all. Geez - this is elementary school stuff - lol.


Didn't you write:

"By the way - The Bin Ladin Family and the Bush family are close friends. Connect the dots, or put the pieces together, if you can."

You are clearly maligning Osama's father, are you not? You are clearly judging a father or family by their son's sins, are you not?

----

Free elections in 1990, 1996, and again in 2001 saw the Sandinistas defeated.

How I knew that would infuriate you - lmao! Did you cry when the USSR collapsed?

Xris: Its hypocritical to wage a crusade against Islam supposedly because of Islamic terrorism when we ourselves have been one of biggest state sponsors of terrorism!

Crusade? Interesting that you chose that word.

Hypocritical? I guess you think that a nation must endure attack after attack out of some moral principle?

Biggest state sponsors of terrorism? Yeah all of us Irish-Americans have sent too much money to the IRA. That's really such a laughable statement I doubt even Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton would make it - lol.

I will give you I hate the term 'war on terror' because it allows so many to manipulate the meaning of terrorism as you are now doing and I'm sure you know you are doing it. According to your definition George Washington and his troops were terrorists.

"If, on the other hand, one believes that the US is the world's moral superior then it is not hypocritical at all"

No, I see how you are thinking here, you are working with multiple concepts and answering questions out of context.

Look, moral superiority (which is a laughable notion anyway) is a seperate point and your opinion at best, I see the relevance it could have but its still a seperate point made even more so when Bush says as I basically quote from memory, that a civilized nation does not have, need, or use WMD's.

Which puts us in a pickle, especially when we start up new nuclear weapons production at home.

So what I'm saying is that who has them and or is currently making them is a different subject where hypocricy does apply as opposed to who is likely to use them and why which is what you were defending your argument over the term hypocricy out of context.

Besides, we are the only country to have used big nukes killing mainly civilians and poisoning generations to come with deadly radiation. This is not exactly something to cheer about, and definitely doesn't hold the greatest foothold on the moral high ground.

Your take on situations are very one sided and so will often end up very hypocritical.

"Crusade? Interesting that you chose that word."

I call a fish a fish.

"Biggest state sponsors of terrorism?"

People who willfully target civilians are terrorists. The Contras, the IRA, the Taliban all fall under this category and were all funded by either the USA or US citizens.

Again, it is hypocritical to f*** other countries over for funding terrorism when the USA has done the same.

What I am saying is that 9/11 does not give Georgy the right to anything he wants. This is doubly true because we have supported terrorists when it suited us.

However, 9/11 had and is having exactly that effect, it has given Bush a carte blanche in the eyes of the American people to do anything and everything in the name of defending America.

It is hypocritical.

No you call an apple an orange like you did with religion and are now doing with crusade. US govt never funded the IRA or the Taliban - get your facts straight. The US did fund the Contras and rightfully so since the Sandanistas were being funded by the Soviets. And those funds led to a democratically elected government that has not elected the Sandanistas to power. Thus - there has been no hypocrisy.

No one believes that 9/11 gives W carte blanche to do whatever he wants - if that were true we wouldn't have had the vote on the war in the Congress or gone to the UN. If that were true we would settle the Iran and Syria problem with a few of our powerful bombs. What we do believe is that we can no longer turn a blind eye to the continuous attacks from the islamo-fascists. What we do believe is that the middle-east needs to be radically liberalized in order to prevent generational wars.

Im sensing that many are starting to go extreme in their anti-Americanism because they know they are losing the argument. They are seeing elections in Saudi Arabia, multiple candidate elections for President in Egypt, democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, elections in Palestine, and the collapse of the Syrian government in Lebanon and they are realizing that Bush has been right all along. Instead of just admitting they were wrong they are embracing any hope that these incredible movements for liberalization and republicanism will now fail simply so they can win and regain power. It's really disgusting.

Without 9/11, do you really think America could have destroyed Iraq and Afganistan?

"US govt never funded the IRA or the Taliban"
Note, I said *citizens* as well as government.

And the gov did fund the Islamic Mujahideen in Afghanistan.

"The US did fund the Contras and rightfully so since the Sandanistas were being funded by the Soviets. And those funds led to a democratically elected government that has not elected the Sandanistas to power. Thus - there has been no hypocrisy."
So terrorism is OK so long as it spreads your values? Bin Laden would agree with you.