French hostages

[Metanis]

we need less sensitivity and more asskicking.

...The only way this "war" will be resolved is through dialogue and gradual encorporation through development of mutual trust and understanding...

Tell that to the 12 Nepalis. Tell that to the thousands of innocents slaughtered to a bigotry and zeal that knows no reason.

Better yet, tell that to the sensitive and trusting person who pulled the trigger.

I know you mean well and all that happy horseshit... but you share the common delusion that these terrorists are based in or will respond to reason. Step back and understand, they are malevolent and evil.

You can certainly try to rectify the social conditions that help breeds their recruits. I'm all for social justice and freedom. In fact, the best thing the USA can do to help the Iraqi people at this time is to act with firm and harsh resolve on the terrorists in their midst. No objective or reasonable review can conclude otherwise. Else you are advocating the Iraqi people be left at the mercy of a relative handful of evil and brutal animals.

[Metanis]

John Kerry doesn't know what needs to be done and is likely to surround himself with other typically clueless advisors.

Ermmm ok...a decorated war veteran...versus W...who would you say offhand has better qualifications? and please don't just assert, state the basis of your rhetoric...

Clearly Kerry's advisors might well include Gen Wesley Clarke..who certainly knows a bit about conducting a campaign in the middle east don't ya think?

So lets knock off the baseless BS eh?.....I don't particularly like Kerry...but clearly you are basing your conclusions on air...

(edit: punctuation for clarity)

You are funnier than hell.

In any event, I will merely say that we know who advises Bush. Anything you would say about Kerry is conjecture at this point, except for his choice of Vice President. That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism. Hmmmm, Kerry could ask Edwards to litigate the terrorists to death?

[vn_Tanc]

You can certainly try to rectify the social conditions that help breeds their recruits. I'm all for social justice and freedom

When people talk about a more "sensitive approach" this, and only this, is exactly what they mean. The notion that they mean "be nice to the nasty gunmen and they'll go away" is just a bullshit right-wing fallacy.
Remove the injustices that breed zealots. Enfranchise the exploited. Increase the lot of the common man and you'll starve the terrorist fire like starving the real thing of oxygen.
Neanderthal chest-beating about "killemall" is very (self-) satisfying I'm sure but everyone who has ever made progress on a terror issue anywhere has realised you have to treat the cause not just the symptom.

[Kelshara]

Yeah we know who advices Bush, and that is one of the best reasons to get rid of him.

That said, take a look at Northern Ireland. It is nice and quiet now there, eh? Know how that happened? They actually talked! And with that, IRA (who was funed by Americans btw..) stopped their bombings.

What a concept.

[vn_Tanc]

In any event, I will merely say that we know who advises Bush. Anything you would say about Kerry is conjecture at this point, except for his choice of Vice President. That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism. Hmmmm, Kerry could ask Edwards to litigate the terrorists to death?

So in the absence of any facts you're happy to take the frankly ridiculous position that Kerry won't appoint any kind of qualified military advisors to handle military matters?
Let's try to at least stick to the realms of reality.

[Arborealus]

John Kerry doesn't know what needs to be done and is likely to surround himself with other typically clueless advisors.

Ermmm ok...a decorated war veteran...versus W...who would you say offhand has better qualifications? and please don't just assert, state the basis of your rhetoric...

Clearly Kerry's advisors might well include Gen Wesley Clarke..who certainly knows a bit about conducting a campaign in the middle east don't ya think?

So lets knock off the baseless BS eh?.....I don't particularly like Kerry...but clearly you are basing your conclusions on air...

(edit: punctuation for clarity)

You are funnier than hell.

In any event, I will merely say that we know who advises Bush. Anything you would say about Kerry is conjecture at this point, except for his choice of Vice President. That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism. Hmmmm, Kerry could ask Edwards to litigate the terrorists to death?

Thanks more baseless rhetoric...

Bush and Powell clearly had faith in the general's ability...so were they right then or are you right now......you are inconsistent...if Bush was wrong in choosing Clarke initially then he is not competent to decide...if he was correct then your doubts about Clarke are baseless...Your arguement just ate itself...oops...

[Sylvus]

Step back and understand, they are malevolent and evil.

I contend that one who is malevolent and evil kills only for the "joy" of killing. The 12 Nepalese were killed to make a statement and achieve a goal, not because their killers were evil. They were killed because they were viewed to be helping the American aggressors that the killers want out of Iraq. You don't find a much more clear-cut argument against being more aggressive than that if your true goal is the future protection of all human life.

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

You are totally misinterpreting the quote that you posted. You're focusing on one of the pieces and trying to villify the word "sensitive" as if it equates to inaction. Sensitive in that context means sensitive to the needs and desires of other nations.

Let me ask you this question, though I'm rather certain that you will completely ignore it as you usually do. Given a choice between going into Iraq (or any other country) with the UN fully supporting us and all of the member nations represented in the coalition or turning our backs on the UN and going in alone, which would you choose?

[Sylvus]

That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism.

Are you honestly saying that George Bush is more adept in the arena of foreign policy than John Kerry?

/boggle

[Metanis]

Yeah we know who advices Bush, and that is one of the best reasons to get rid of him.

That said, take a look at Northern Ireland. It is nice and quiet now there, eh? Know how that happened? They actually talked! And with that, IRA (who was funed by Americans btw..) stopped their bombings.

What a concept.

Dense. Like a rock.

YOU go talk to these terrorists. Let me know how it works out.

[Metanis]

In any event, I will merely say that we know who advises Bush. Anything you would say about Kerry is conjecture at this point, except for his choice of Vice President. That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism. Hmmmm, Kerry could ask Edwards to litigate the terrorists to death?

So in the absence of any facts you're happy to take the frankly ridiculous position that Kerry won't appoint any kind of qualified military advisors to handle military matters?
Let's try to at least stick to the realms of reality.

Reality? You are the one talking about hypothetical advisors. Read my post again, I concentrated on the reality of the situation.

[Metanis]

John Kerry doesn't know what needs to be done and is likely to surround himself with other typically clueless advisors.

Ermmm ok...a decorated war veteran...versus W...who would you say offhand has better qualifications? and please don't just assert, state the basis of your rhetoric...

Clearly Kerry's advisors might well include Gen Wesley Clarke..who certainly knows a bit about conducting a campaign in the middle east don't ya think?

So lets knock off the baseless BS eh?.....I don't particularly like Kerry...but clearly you are basing your conclusions on air...

(edit: punctuation for clarity)

You are funnier than hell.

In any event, I will merely say that we know who advises Bush. Anything you would say about Kerry is conjecture at this point, except for his choice of Vice President. That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism. Hmmmm, Kerry could ask Edwards to litigate the terrorists to death?

Thanks more baseless rhetoric...

Bush and Powell clearly had faith in the general's ability...so were they right then or are you right now......you are inconsistent...if Bush was wrong in choosing Clarke initially then he is not competent to decide...if he was correct then your doubts about Clarke are baseless...Your arguement just ate itself...oops...

Why don't you post Clarke's resume here, then maybe we will both know what you are talking about. Once Clarke threw his hat in the Presidential race he became a political player. Trying to pawn him off as a trusted military advisor becomes questionable. Rhetoric? Opinion? Fact? You decide.

[Arborealus]

In any event, I will merely say that we know who advises Bush. Anything you would say about Kerry is conjecture at this point, except for his choice of Vice President. That choice surely doesn't inspire confidence in the arena of foreign relations or dealing with terrorism. Hmmmm, Kerry could ask Edwards to litigate the terrorists to death?

So in the absence of any facts you're happy to take the frankly ridiculous position that Kerry won't appoint any kind of qualified military advisors to handle military matters?
Let's try to at least stick to the realms of reality.

Reality? You are the one talking about hypothetical advisors. Read my post again, I concentrated on the reality of the situation.

I think the point was that your conjecture re Kerry was fallacious or at best entirely baseless......

You cannot posit the he and/or advisors would suck and then act as if we made the initial conjecture......logic doesn't work that way...

[Metanis]

I contend that one who is malevolent and evil kills only for the "joy" of killing. The 12 Nepalese were killed to make a statement and achieve a goal, not because their killers were evil.

I think you would make a good defense lawyer. You certainly are demonstrating an eerie ability to reject reality.

[Akaran_D]

Sylvus: if my intelligence agency - whom I will trust more than that of germany's, itally's, and whomever-else-the-fuck wants to contribute based on the fact that they are mine and yours may be clouded with political pressure or internal problems that i cannot control unlike the ones in my system tells me that neighbor X is going to sell a nuke to neighbor Y who will use it on my house without a doubt within the next 6 months I will take any action to prevent that from occuring even if it means telling the neighborhood council to go screw themselves sideways and blow if they refuse to take action with me to protect my own family.

Now it then falls onto the comission to punish me if my intell is wrong or to stop me if they think I'm very wrong. The UN has done neither - we have not been sanctioned, we were not stopped, and yes, we did even have other nations who were willing to support us.

It IS our fault for the faulty intel. It WAS backed up at the time by other national intel agencies, such as the british, and there was a report a few months back that the ruskies did the same even if it was only in private and not necessarily broadcast to the entire world.

But it we were so damn wrong in our assessment, why hasn't the UN done anything about it? Why didn't they block the US force with a un force? Why didn't they kick us out of the UN, or order a multinational trade embargo? If we were so wrong and uncaring in our actions, why did the UN let it slide with only verbal sanctions that carried no weight?

That breaks down to them being A: Spineless or B: Saying 'no' to keep up apperances. Either way, I don't think I would particullary care weather they would support us or not.

[Metanis]

You cannot posit the he and/or advisors would suck and then act as if we made the initial conjecture......logic doesn't work that way...

The main thrust of my posts were about what Kerry would do. The clueless advisor thing is a side jaunt. You are merely deflecting.

Nice try.

However since you insist on going down this path, let's revisit my comments. With Bush you know who is advising him. A lot of people may actually dislike his advisors but you have the benefit of knowledge of their identity. With Kerry the issue of advisors is one of conjecture and speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that UNLESS you happen to feel the current administration is doing OK. Then it becomes the proverbial bird in hand sort of excercise. So therefore I contend this is just one more reason to vote for Bush.

[*~*stragi*~*]

DIRTY DEEDS
THUNDARCLEESE

[Kelshara]

Sylvus: if my intelligence agency - whom I will trust more than that of germany's, itally's, and whomever-else-the-fuck wants to contribute based on the fact that they are mine and yours may be clouded with political pressure or internal problems that i cannot control unlike the ones in my system

Are you even trying to claim that American intelligence organizations are NOT clouded by politics at all? That they have NOT had infighting in between their own organizations? Holy cow...

The UN has done neither - we have not been sanctioned, we were not stopped, and yes, we did even have other nations who were willing to support us.

Hard to do anything against a veto country, hence why the veto right needs to be removed from all countries. And honestly.. most of the countries you had supporting you were 3rd world countries.

It IS our fault for the faulty intel. It WAS backed up at the time by other national intel agencies, such as the british, and there was a report a few months back that the ruskies did the same even if it was only in private and not necessarily broadcast to the entire world.

A lot of the info the British used to make their decission on, they got from the US. And trusting Russia and their oh so lovely leader in anything is like sticking your hand into a lion's mouth.

[Arborealus]

You cannot posit the he and/or advisors would suck and then act as if we made the initial conjecture......logic doesn't work that way...

The main thrust of my posts were about what Kerry would do. The clueless advisor thing is a side jaunt. You are merely deflecting.

Nice try.

However since you insist on going down this path, let's revisit my comments. With Bush you know who is advising him. A lot of people may actually dislike his advisors but you have the benefit of knowledge of their identity. With Kerry the issue of advisors is one of conjecture and speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with that UNLESS you happen to feel the current administration is doing OK. Then it becomes the proverbial bird in hand sort of excercise. So therefore I contend this is just one more reason to vote for Bush.

Nonsense...that is a reason for you to vote for him...Not a reason for everyone to vote for him...But I do not think they are doing ok...so your arguement only holds for those that already agree with you so you arent in fact arguing a point you are making a baseless statement with a facade, albeit poor, of logic to bolster it...

And attacking a specific point is not deflection...one cannot argue all issues simultaneously or one tends to loop his logic...case in point the death by circularity of arguement you walked into...

[Sylvus]

I contend that one who is malevolent and evil kills only for the "joy" of killing. The 12 Nepalese were killed to make a statement and achieve a goal, not because their killers were evil.

I think you would make a good defense lawyer. You certainly are demonstrating an eerie ability to reject reality.

Reality? I think that I have a fairly good grasp on reality that is unclouded by blind faith in everything that my party's president does. What about the more than 12 Iraqis who were not holding weapons that have died by the actions of the Americans. Are we evil too? My point is that neither are evil and killing for the sake of killing, but that we are both killing people for a cause that either side believes is the just cause. Unfortunately neither side is right.


Akaran: I'm not trying to bring up the specific instance of us turning our backs on the UN. I was trying more to point out what it means to be sensitive to the needs of other countries. Disregard the situation that has already happened. When looking at future decisions that will impact the world, would you prefer that most of the rest of the world thought we were making the right choice or should we just say "fuck you, we're the USA and will do what we want?" I think that's what Kerry's statement actually said, despite Metanis trying to twist it into Kerry being a pussy and saying he wouldn't do anything against terrorism, and it's a statement that I believe is the best course of action. I'm not saying that the statement will or should convince you to like Kerry, but I do think it's a position that you should try to get your party to adopt.

[Metanis]

What about the more than 12 Iraqis who were not holding weapons that have died by the actions of the Americans.

Yeah, we Americans lined 'em up on the ground and methodically put bullets in the back of their heads. Yep, our actions certainly equate to that form of vicious cold-blooded evil.

Your attempt to argue that that we are somehow similar to those terrorist animals suggests that you have a serious problem in discernment, reasoning, and a moral deficiency.

[Sylvus]

So in the case of killing, only the means by which one kills determines whether it is evil or not? Interesting.

If they had the technology that we do and were dropping bombs on Nepal, simply because some people from Nepal helped out their enemies (the US), you would then say that they are not evil, right? Cause that's pretty much how you justified us dropping bombs on Iraq.

[Metanis]

So in the case of killing, only the means by which one kills determines whether it is evil or not? Interesting.

If they had the technology that we do and were dropping bombs on Nepal, simply because some people from Nepal helped out their enemies (the US), you would then say that they are not evil, right? Cause that's pretty much how you justified us dropping bombs on Iraq.

I had some respect for you before this bs.

[Kelshara]

When you have no argument just claim you lost respect for them! Check!

[Sylvus]

What about that is bs? All I've tried to do is get you to look at it from a perspective other than your own. That's all I've been trying to do throughout this thread and in pretty much every response I've written to you in the last several weeks at least. When WMDs were not found in Iraq, you (maybe not specifically you, but people in your camp of "reasoning") said that Iraq had helped Al Queda. Since Iraq helped our enemies (Al Q), we dropped bombs on Iraq and some of their innocent (read: non-military) citizens died. That is an exact mirror of what I presented to you.

Somewhere over in Iraq lives Bizzaro-Metanis, who feels exactly about the United States that you do about "Muslims". He thinks that you are evil and that your people are killing his for no reason. The only difference between the two of you is that he lives in a hovel without electricity or running water and the prospect of losing his life to stop the evil Americans is much more attractive than it is to someone who doesn't have to live like that. You're both wrong, and the sooner that we can get both of you to see that, the sooner we'll have peace. Unfortunately we get further and further away from that every time one of his neighbors gets killed.

I can understand why you want to believe that 'we' are always right and 'they' are always wrong, but that sort of thinking is what is leading us into this morass.

[Akaran_D]

Are you even trying to claim that American intelligence organizations are NOT clouded by politics at all? That they have NOT had infighting in between their own organizations? Holy cow...

No, I'm not. But I have more control over, say, the CIA than I do M6 or whatever Germany's intel branch is.

Hard to do anything against a veto country, hence why the veto right needs to be removed from all countries. And honestly.. most of the countries you had supporting you were 3rd world countries.

Third world countries vs third world countries. There are some of them that will directly benifit from having Saddam removed from power. There are others that will look at this as a scary precdent.

A lot of the info the British used to make their decission on, they got from the US. And trusting Russia and their oh so lovely leader in anything is like sticking your hand into a lion's mouth.

OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of does not equal 'all'. Some here, some there; if it backs what my intel system says, I am going to have some very strong reasons to beleive it.

Syl:

Akaran: I'm not trying to bring up the specific instance of us turning our backs on the UN. I was trying more to point out what it means to be sensitive to the needs of other countries. Disregard the situation that has already happened. When looking at future decisions that will impact the world, would you prefer that most of the rest of the world thought we were making the right choice or should we just say "fuck you, we're the USA and will do what we want?" I think that's what Kerry's statement actually said, despite Metanis trying to twist it into Kerry being a pussy and saying he wouldn't do anything against terrorism, and it's a statement that I believe is the best course of action. I'm not saying that the statement will or should convince you to like Kerry, but I do think it's a position that you should try to get your party to adopt.

And I will still say what I did above to that. It doesn't matter what country. What leader. What-ever. If I am my country's leader and I find a credible threat that warrants immedate action, then I will take immedate action to protect my people regardless of any other third party who is not directly affected by it. Sorry, this coutnry is too mucked up atm for me to be all that concerned about what other countries think of us or if it will hurt their feeligns if we go beat the shit out of the neighborhood bully when he's holding a gun to our dog.

[Kelshara]

Third world countries vs third world countries. There are some of them that will directly benifit from having Saddam removed from power. There are others that will look at this as a scary precdent.

Then you force them. That is the whole point of having a strong unified UN without veto powers. Decisions will not always be what you want, but without a veto power it will be good in the long run.

[miir]

sen·si·tive
adj.

• Capable of perceiving with a sense or senses.
  Responsive to external conditions or stimulation.
  Susceptible to the attitudes, feelings, or circumstances of others.
  Quick to take offense; touchy
  Readily altered by the action of an agent

[miir]

Sorry, this coutnry is too mucked up atm for me to be all that concerned about what other countries think of us or if it will hurt their feeligns if we go beat the shit out of the neighborhood bully when he's holding a gun to our dog.

Interesting that you would equate Saddam/Iraq to a bully.

Iraq's economy was in shambles from 10+ years of sanctions... their military was virtually non-existant, using poorly maintained 15-20 year old vehicles and weapons. The UN literally had them under a microscope for a decade.
The same sad, sorry military that after invading Kuwait a over 10 years ago got their asses easily kicked back home in a matter of weeks with massive casualties and surrendurs... that had also been prohibited from maintining a fraction of their awesome "military might" for over a decade.


This is what the most powerful country in the world considers a major and imminent threat?


Sorry Ak, I aint buying that load of shit.

[Dregor Thule]

Dude, I finally get it! Metanis' avatar is God whispering to him to go kill the dirty Muslims and Liberals. Man, that's been bugging me for ages!

[Zaelath]

What about that is bs? All I've tried to do is get you to look at it from a perspective other than your own.

This has been shown time and again to be a big ask, and not only for Met..

The real problem isn't the zealots and fanatics, they can do very little by themselves. However, and while the Bush administration has tried to wrap it up in compassion, the effective part of the war is the "hearts and minds" stuff they are attempting in Iraq.

If you can raise the average Iraqi's standard of living, if you can convince the average person that you're not the Great Satan that Saddam portrayed you as for years, they will look for internal reasons for their problems and stop volunteering to work for the terrorists. Sooner or later an educated and informed populace will start to realise the fanatics are the root of their problems instead of the cure.

Well, that or elect one as their president

[Akaran_D]

Miir: Sorry mate, I didn't reference Iraq as a "bully". I did mention Saddam back in an earlier section fo the post, but most of my ranting was done speaking in general.

[Cartalas]

Dude, I finally get it! Metanis' avatar is God whispering to him to go kill the dirty Muslims and Liberals. Man, that's been bugging me for ages!

This is comming form half a page avatar man.

[Sionistic]

if his avatar if half your page, you seriously need a new resolution and/or monitor

[Markulas]

The avatar is about 1/4 a page on my comp.

[Arborealus]

Why don't you post Clarke's resume here, then maybe we will both know what you are talking about.

Missed this yesterday...sorry...

Lets see:

1st in class west point
Rhodes Scholar
Silver Star for bravery in Vietnam (was shot 4 times then rallied his troops to contiunue an ordered push)
Commanded 1st ACR in Kuwait
Supreme Allied Commander NATO (Kosovo)
Member Joint Chiefs (Director for Strategic Plans and Policy)
4 Star General US Army
Knighted by England and Holland
French Legion of Honor
34 years military service
Presidential Medal of Freedom (post service)

Hell the only things missing there are what CMH and Chair of the joint chiefs?...Not a bad resume imo...

[Metanis]

What about that is bs?

I can understand why you want to believe that 'we' are always right and 'they' are always wrong, but that sort of thinking is what is leading us into this morass.

I guess I'll consider myself OWNED because I can deduce the difference between some evil scumbag executing 12 innocent civilians and the USA military operation in Iraq.

You de man!

You get bonus points because... guess what? I believe there really is a difference between US and THEM.

[Metanis]

Dude, I finally get it! Metanis' avatar is God whispering to him to go kill the dirty Muslims and Liberals. Man, that's been bugging me for ages!

Ummmm, sorry to disappoint you. My avatar is a simply a cleric from Warcraft, cause dude, like.. like, I play a cleric.

[Cartalas]

Dude, I finally get it! Metanis' avatar is God whispering to him to go kill the dirty Muslims and Liberals. Man, that's been bugging me for ages!

Ummmm, sorry to disappoint you. My avatar is a simply a cleric from Warcraft, cause dude, like.. like, I play a cleric.

Psssstttt ... Metanis dont explain it to him his simple mind might explode.

[Metanis]

Dude, I finally get it! Metanis' avatar is God whispering to him to go kill the dirty Muslims and Liberals. Man, that's been bugging me for ages!

Ummmm, sorry to disappoint you. My avatar is a simply a cleric from Warcraft, cause dude, like.. like, I play a cleric.

Psssstttt ... Metanis dont explain it to him his simple mind might explode.

Oh Crap! Too Late!

[Winnow]

I find it typical that the liberals are discussing two french hostages when nothing is being discussed about the hundreds of school children being held hostage in Russia.

Aren't you worried about your comrades?

[Krimson Klaw]

I could have sworn we had a discussion about that already, may be in another thread though. Someone said that with Russias past with dealing with hostages, this will end very badly for those children and I agree with that statement.

[Sylvus]

Maybe you should stick to posting pictures, Winnow...

[Winnow]

Maybe you should stick to posting pictures, Winnow...

Ah, that thread was all over the place. After reading it, I found a post or two about the topic!

[Kelshara]

Winnow is flip-flopping all over the place. Typical!

[Bojangels]

Ummmm, sorry to disappoint you. My avatar is a simply a cleric from Warcraft, cause dude, like.. like, I play a cleric.

Hah I always wondered what your av was. I figured it was Father Time or some other reference to you being an old guy.