VRWC Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. ~ Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps The dangerous patriot… is a liberal “supporting” the troops but not the mission. The dangerous patriot… is a liberal giving comfort to the enemy under the guise of patriotism The dangerous patriot… is a liberal not confronting evil and offering appeasement The real patriot...is a defender of this country thru military strength if necessary and its result will lead the country and world toward freedom and glory. ~ Myself The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. ~Martin Luther King, Jr. The non-reaction to evil regimes and rogue states must never be tolerated, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation ~ Myself I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... ~Benjamin Franklin The only ones I see "cutting throats", and heads, are the Islamo terrorists and Al Qaeda thugs!!!! I'm sure if they were doing this in 1776 to American's civilians, ol BF and GW would have answered in kind. By calling the terrorists "responsible creatures" and "have the reason and sense enough" gives them way too much credit. How would you reason with these people? You can’t reason with a religion such as Islam that views all other people as infidels and therefore persona non-grata. This is the exact liberal belief that we can reason with these people and that all their hatred and evil doings are caused by America. The Libs and the left cow tail to these thugs all across the world and Idolize socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 The non-reaction to evil regimes and rogue states must never be tolerated, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation~ Myself I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... ~Benjamin Franklin The only ones I see "cutting throats", and heads, are the Islamo terrorists and Al Qaeda thugs!!!! I'm sure if they were doing this in 1776 to American's civilians, ol BF and GW would have answered in kind. Ha - right on. And there is a historical precedent for this. There were these guys called the Barbary Pirates who also used their so-called 'Islamic' beliefs to justify their bald-faced barbarism and greed. Hey what do you know? When we asked them why they attacked us and how they developed that policy, this us what they said: That it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.[2] By calling the terrorists "responsible creatures" and "have the reason and sense enough" gives them way too much credit. How would you reason with these people? You can’t reason with a religion such as Islam that views all other people as infidels and therefore persona non-grata. This is the exact liberal belief that we can reason with these people and that all their hatred and evil doings are caused by America. The Libs and the left cow tail to these thugs all across the world and Idolize socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes. Hold the phone here. Just because one guy interprets his religious beliefs in a !@#$ed up way does not mean that all people of that entire religion do that. The quote above proves my point. If you are an ****, and you want to get away with/get "sympathy" for/not be held accountable for terrible things that you do, blame it on your religion. I mean, I'm a Christian but you are not gonna see me blowing up abortion clinics - ever! But there are azzholes who will do this and then say: God told me to break one of the Ten Commandments. Yeah it's all God's fault. As far as liberals go, I don't think they embrace these things. Rather, I think that their own need to be proven right about their assertion that: "there really is no evil in this world, just different points of view" has SERIOUSLY clouded their common sense, and therefore their judgment. Edit: Oh yeah and in case anyone wanted to know how well diplomacy works: The United Kingdom was called on to act for Europe, and in 1816 Lord Exmouth was sent to obtain treaties from Tunis and Algiers. His first visit produced diplomatic documents and promises and he sailed for England. While he was negotiating, a number of British subjects had been brutally ill-treated at Bona, without his knowledge. The British government sent him back to secure reparation, and on the 17th of August, in combination with a Dutch squadron under Admiral Van de Capellen, he administered a smashing bombardment to Algiers. The lesson terrified the pirates both of that city and of Tunis into giving up over 3,000 prisoners and making fresh promises. Within a short time, however, Algiers renewed its piracies and slave-taking, though on a smaller scale, and the measures to be taken with it were discussed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. In 1824 another British fleet under Admiral Sir Hally Neal had again to bombard Algiers. The great pirate city was not in fact thoroughly tamed till its conquest by France in 1830. Wait! So it took 10-15 years to stop these guys OH MY GOD! How did the American people ever survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Edit: Oh yeah and in case anyone wanted to know how well diplomacy works: The United Kingdom was called on to act for Europe, and in 1816 Lord Exmouth was sent to obtain treaties from Tunis and Algiers. His first visit produced diplomatic documents and promises and he sailed for England. While he was negotiating, a number of British subjects had been brutally ill-treated at Bona, without his knowledge. The British government sent him back to secure reparation, and on the 17th of August, in combination with a Dutch squadron under Admiral Van de Capellen, he administered a smashing bombardment to Algiers. The lesson terrified the pirates both of that city and of Tunis into giving up over 3,000 prisoners and making fresh promises. Within a short time, however, Algiers renewed its piracies and slave-taking, though on a smaller scale, and the measures to be taken with it were discussed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. In 1824 another British fleet under Admiral Sir Hally Neal had again to bombard Algiers. The great pirate city was not in fact thoroughly tamed till its conquest by France in 1830. Wait! So it took 10-15 years to stop these guys OH MY GOD! How did the American people ever survive? Diplomacy (well-muscled but without all out war) worked pretty well to win the Cold War. War worked pretty well to win WWII. And the Barbary pirates, while interesting, don't compare to today's terrorists. I'll leave you to do the calculus as to why but I feel pretty confident that 5 years into the war on terror, we're not 5-10 years from it being over, which is what you are idiotically implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Ha - right on. And there is a historical precedent for this. There were these guys called the Barbary Pirates who also used their so-called 'Islamic' beliefs to justify their bald-faced barbarism and greed. Hey what do you know? When we asked them why they attacked us and how they developed that policy, this us what they said: Wait! So it took 10-15 years to stop these guys OH MY GOD! How did the American people ever survive? So wait. Your argument is that since islamic terror justification has been around since the Barbary pirates, we're 5-10 years away from solving it. We Americans truly are an amazing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 By the way, it's "Kool-Aid". And it's Molson Goldfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdh1 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Diplomacy (well-muscled but without all out war) worked pretty well to win the Cold War. War worked pretty well to win WWII. The Russians didn't believe if they died killing us they would go to heaven and get 72 rushkie virgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The Russians didn't believe if they died killing us they would go to heaven and get 72 rushkie virgins. Sure they did, it's just that Rushkies virgins were all built like hairy linebackers. They didn't start looking like Anna K until after the cold war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Sure they did, it's just that Rushkies virgins were all built like hairy linebackers. They didn't start looking like Anna K until after the cold war. Christ, no. Russkie virgins look like Hillary Clinton. Well, you covered that, I suppose........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Christ, no. Russkie virgins look like Hillary Clinton. Well, you covered that, I suppose........ Hillary back-peddles better than most linebackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Hillary back-peddles better than most linebackers. That's because she has thicker ankles and bigger calves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 That's called cankles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. ~ Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps The dangerous patriot… is a liberal “supporting” the troops but not the mission. The dangerous patriot… is a liberal giving comfort to the enemy under the guise of patriotism The dangerous patriot… is a liberal not confronting evil and offering appeasement The real patriot...is a defender of this country thru military strength if necessary and its result will lead the country and world toward freedom and glory. ~ Myself The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. ~Martin Luther King, Jr. The non-reaction to evil regimes and rogue states must never be tolerated, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation ~ Myself I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... ~Benjamin Franklin The only ones I see "cutting throats", and heads, are the Islamo terrorists and Al Qaeda thugs!!!! I'm sure if they were doing this in 1776 to American's civilians, ol BF and GW would have answered in kind. By calling the terrorists "responsible creatures" and "have the reason and sense enough" gives them way too much credit. How would you reason with these people? You can’t reason with a religion such as Islam that views all other people as infidels and therefore persona non-grata. This is the exact liberal belief that we can reason with these people and that all their hatred and evil doings are caused by America. The Libs and the left cow tail to these thugs all across the world and Idolize socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes. I don't completely agree with either you or Molson. It's dangerous to unilaterally oppose all missions (as some liberals do), just as it's dangerous to unilaterally support all missions (as some conservatives do). Just because a president supports a war doesn't mean it's right. Take WWI, a war supposedly fought "to make the world safe for democracy." All that war accomplished was to make the world safe for France to exploit Germany. It was, in short, exactly the sort of European mess George Washington had warned us against. On the other hand, the Spanish-American War was good (from our perspective) because we gained massive amounts of territory from it. To what extent does the Iraq War advance America's interests? If the goal is to secure us against terrorism, far more could be achieved by closing the border than by invading a country halfway across the world. Not only that, the Iraq War is far more expensive--both in men and cash--than closing the border would be. Liberals are often confused by white guilt or by other equally groundless sentiments. The way many liberals idolized the Soviet Union was absolutely contemptible. But the liberal instinct to blame us for everything shouldn't cause us to assume we're always blameless. The average Muslim doesn't meet American farmers, or interact with American factory workers or other regular people. Their interaction with the U.S. consists of us bombing or invading their countries, or else American corporations trying to globalize away local Middle Eastern cultures. The invasion of American secularism and materialism is, in some ways, more threatening than the invasion of the American military. Yes, America should aspire to high levels of military strength. And no, we don't need permission from the UN to use that strength. But we do need to seek out a much higher level of moral authority than we presently have. We're currently importing people while exporting jobs. If the American government doesn't even have the moral authority to stop this nation from being assimilated into the Third World, how on earth do we have the moral authority to impose our own short-sighted and materialistic system on a nation that's half a world away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 So wait. Your argument is that since islamic terror justification has been around since the Barbary pirates, we're 5-10 years away from solving it. We Americans truly are an amazing people. No, and since we are name calling(best representation of your intellect I guess) you have idiotically(word?) used standard bait and switch logic in an lame attempt to contradict historical fact. Using religion as an excuse for bad behavior is a TACTIC. Just like using the Cover-2 defense. We aren't attacking the idea, we are attacking the people who use the idea. SO, by your logic: bait = attacking the terrorists, switch = the tactic of using religion to get away with stuff. WRONG. The idea is what it is, people that use the idea are who we are going after and YES that may take 5-10 years to complete. Nice try, but we are smarter than that here. People have been using religion for millenniums to justify bad behavior. Mostly in direct contradiction the the tenets of that religion. Why? Because this way they can say: "My religion does not allow me to accept your point of view." "My religion allows me to do whatever I want." AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: "My religion allows me to negotiate in BAD faith, because you are an unbeliever anyway and my book says I should enslave you." "My religion does not allow me to negotiate at all." This is about MONEY not religion. These "religion" fighters want to dominate the middle east(and the rest of the world if they can), because they want MONEY and POWER. The only way you "solve" it, is by bringing to bear military force that intimidates the other guy, or puts him in the ground - just like we(and Europe) did with these idiot pirates. My argument is: There is no "solution" to the "islamic" terror justification any more than there is a solution to a "domestic" terror justification. Once a guy decides to cross the line from soldier to terrorist, he loses the rights of a soldier and earns the rights of a spy, or a rabid dog. We all know the only thing that can be done with a rabid dog. My argument is also: chasing down every rabid dog in the city is not gonna get done in one day. It is gonna take time. It may take 10-15 years to get every rabid dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 No, and since we are name calling(best representation of your intellect I guess) you have idiotically(word?) used standard bait and switch logic in an lame attempt to contradict historical fact.... YES that may take 5-10 years to complete. Nice try, but we are smarter than that here. It is gonna take time. It may take 10-15 years to get every rabid dog. OK. Most of your post was incoherent so I'll respond to the part I could understand, quoted above. Based on your 5-10 year estimate (even Cheney isn't that optimistic), I chose the right adverb for you. Post again: support my choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 OK. Most of your post was incoherent so I'll respond to the part I could understand, quoted above. Based on your 5-10 year estimate (even Cheney isn't that optimistic), I chose the right adverb for you. Post again: support my choice. Ha idle threats on a message board? Please internet genius tell me what I'm allowed to do some more! Incoherent? Hmm. Maybe I need to dumb it down for you: Bad guy want to get money so he do bad things. Bad guy don't want to be punished for bad things. Bad guy say it not is fault, religion makes him do bad things. We good guys. We not want bad guy to do bad things. We not able to talk to bad guy cause him not want to talk to us. Him only want to do bad things to get money. Him laugh at us cause we so dumb. He laughs cause he knows he never do anything he say to us. He say many lies about us and says religion why he do bad things. But while he talking he do more bad things for money. He laughs cause we don't do nothing but talk. He makes big attack on us(9/11). This time we get mad. We no more talk to bad guy. Bad guy hides all over the world. We try to find bad guy but it not easy. We must take 5-10 years to find all bad guys. Some of us not understand bad guy is BAD GUY, not simply "misunderstood" guy. Some of us say we is bad. We is not bad. We is good guys, remember? How's that? Coherent enough for you? I'm impressed you know what an adverb is - how's the rest of eighth grade going? Still getting picked on in Gym class? Or are you picking up this "wisdom" at the Learning Annex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Ha idle threats on a message board? Please internet genius tell me what I'm allowed to do some more! Incoherent? Hmm. Maybe I need to dumb it down for you: Bad guy want to get money so he do bad things. Bad guy don't want to be punished for bad things. Bad guy say it not is fault, religion makes him do bad things. We good guys. We not want bad guy to do bad things. We not able to talk to bad guy cause him not want to talk to us. Him only want to do bad things to get money. Him laugh at us cause we so dumb. He laughs cause he knows he never do anything he say to us. He say many lies about us and says religion why he do bad things. But while he talking he do more bad things for money. He laughs cause we don't do nothing but talk. He makes big attack on us(9/11). This time we get mad. We no more talk to bad guy. Bad guy hides all over the world. We try to find bad guy but it not easy. We must take 5-10 years to find all bad guys. Some of us not understand bad guy is BAD GUY, not simply "misunderstood" guy. Some of us say we is bad. We is not bad. We is good guys, remember? How's that? Coherent enough for you? I'm impressed you know what an adverb is - how's the rest of eighth grade going? Still getting picked on in Gym class? Or are you picking up this "wisdom" at the Learning Annex? Idiot corollary # 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 More support. Gym class. He's got you there. Gotta smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 OK. Most of your post was incoherent so I'll respond to the part I could understand, quoted above. Based on your 5-10 year estimate (even Cheney isn't that optimistic), I chose the right adverb for you. Post again: support my choice. You understood that? Anyone else imagine the Tasmanian Devil when reading that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts