This is the Hermann Goering who liked young boys, head of the Luftwaffe, second in command to Hitler. Which Hermann Goering are you talking about??
And really like the fact that people in the pit feel that it is so terrible to call somebody a Nazi, and yet, don’t seem to mind Fuckhead, which was about the fifth word in the OP. Get over it. To quote someone else, it’s a “strawman” argument.
Rush Limbaugh is not an authority on, well, anything. He is a reactionary blowhard. The Economist, on the other hand, is an internationally respected British magazine that covers the news with a great deal of intellectual rigor.
Gazoo, what do you read?
Actually, GAZOO, as someone who has largely been only an observer in this thread, allow me to tell you in perfect seriousness that around here you will almost invariably be subjected to heaps of scorn for calling someone a Nazi, while Fuckhead will not cause people to turn a hair. That’s because many of us recognize the very real distinction between an insult based on historical genocide and one based upon hooking up a naughty word with a random body part.
Just, y’know, FYI.
I read a lot, including the Economist on occasion. In case you missed my point, quoting the Economist’s position on someone who is protesting the IMF, capitalism, etc. doesn’t impress me. “We love Capitalism” is practically their banner.
Dude, Goering wasn’t gay. Unless you’ve got a relevant cite, shut up, you’re wrong. Fuckhead is a generic term of abuse; Nazis killed millions of innocent people.
I am not a Nazi, but you are most definitely a fuckhead.
I see, You get to define the terms. Nazi is a political affiliation that mirrors in many ways your position. I am sorry if you read it that you killed millions.
You are right. I have no great love for the Soviets. But have you noticed that NONE of this is our fault?? It’s the Taliban’s fault, the Soviet’s fault, would have been Pakistan’s fault, except that they caved. We are always justified, no one else is. We have seen too many Rambo movies.
Just to get this back on the OP, I take back the Nazi comment, you Right Wing Motherfucker 
To the extent that we know what they’re doing, I’d agree.
How do you know that it’s an “absolute need”?
Why does the horror of 9/11 necessitate a straight-forward response? While the issue facing us is rather unambiguous (“How do we stop terrorism?”), the solution is not so simple.
I don’t think “unequivocal” modifies “response” very well in this instance, as I’m still not entirely certain of what you meant. Realistically, what would an unequivocal response be? And an equivocal response? Surely you can find a better adjective.
We don’t know that. In fact, I personally believe that if we were to withdraw our support for Israel, lift all sanctions on Iraq, recognize the Taliban, and withdraw all U.S. military forces from the region (am I forgetting any?), the terror attacks from Muslim extremists would stop. I’m not advocating this, but let’s remember that our adversaries are not simgle-minded killing machines. They have goals.
Because I don’t see them as “clearly not usable” any more than I see military solutions as clearly effective. I have yet to hear a plan for military action that is both realistically achievable and likely to accomplish more good than harm. Do you have one?
Page 2, about a third of the way down, dropzone said:
I was going to suggest that you missed it, but you quoted it yourself. As it is explicitly labeled as his solution, what was os hard about finding it? It may be a little vague, but it sounds very reasonable to me. Make it a true international effort, not a U.S. crusade. Treat it as a hunt for criminals, not a war.
Yes, but to be fair I’ve heard no one say that any military action at all is unacceptable (I’m sure some believe that, but it’s an incredibly rare opinion). If we could effectively wipe out ObL’s terrorism network (as well as ObL himself) through a military strike with no collateral damage and no serious political consequences, only the truly batty would still be opposed. Since it’s not that easy, there’s going to be lots of disagreement about the size and nature of your “military component.”
I do not hold, nor have I implied that I hold, any such belief. I believe that the administration is putting lots of thought and effort into non-military solutions. I fear that they will not find one that is to their liking and will embark on a wholly destructive (for everybody involved) and ineffective campaign of military attacks.
The problem is that you’d never be able to determine when someone is being “dishonest.” You apparently believe that peace has already been proven unworkable, whereas those arguing for peace do not (hence the original disagreement). It likely has nothing to do with dishonesty.
Not necessarily. I’d bet that his “amount of retaliation” is different than yours, perhaps enormously so.
Don’t forget that you don’t have a cite (for the opinion that military strikes will work) either. It’s conjecture on all sides.
Personally, I would be glad to eradicate the groups mentioned above. My primary objection to military strikes (and the objection of most of my ilk, I would imagine) is that I don’t think military strikes can wipe them out. Destroying underground, stealthy, and highly mobile
organizations is very difficult to do with an F-18. Putting troops on the ground seems an even worse solution.
I hope so, but I hardly think it’s a given (and I’m not even sure that it’s possible).
Was this directed at me or dz? In any event, you have not shown non-violent solutions to be unworkable, nor have you shown military strikes to be effective.
Yes, we (you, me, dz, and others) are in agreement that we should proceed with a multi-faceted approach and that some sort of military response is appropriate. I think we disagree over where to draw the line militarily. In this case, questions of scale are rather important.
I have no time to proof-read; please forgive any typos.
*Gazoo, what do you gain by labelling gobear “right wing”? It’s clear that’s not how he sees himself; at worst he’s an economic conservative with (IMO) a need to learn more about the effects of US foreign policy. The same could be said about a huge swath of Clinton/Gore supporters.
It’s fine do indulge in a bit of name-calling in a Pit thread. But let’s do it with some savvy, shall we?
Varlos, I enjoyed reading your response to Milo.
Oh, brother! I give up. He is hawkish, he calls protesters Anarchists and hippies, he cites the Economist, I am sure I am missing some, and just because he’s gay, he’s not Right Wing? I hope you’re not stereotyping, because I wasn’t trying to. I am basing it on his posts. Let’s just put a skirt on him and call him ‘pudding’ from now on.
As did I, very much.
VarlosZ, you have done an excellent job of summing up exactly how the two sides are talking past one another.
Specifics from both sides would be extremely helpful at this point.
Gazoo: *"Oh, brother! I give up. He is hawkish, he calls protesters Anarchists and hippies, he cites the Economist, I am sure I am missing some, and just because he’s gay, he’s not Right Wing? I hope you’re not stereotyping, because I wasn’t trying to. *
Hell no! Some of my favorite enemies are gay neo-cons ;).
No, my point is, right now about 60% of the country is in a hawkish frame of mind (but much ground has been gained). And the media has been feeding people the idea that protesters are anarchists and hippies so we can’t demonize everyone who buys into it. And The Economist, is not what I’d call “right-wing”; more like moderate conservative. More importantly, you’ll often read the same kind of drivel from columnists in The New York Times and is that “right-wing”?
As dropzone noted early in this thread, 9/11 seems to have brought out something in gobear that I don’t particularly warm to either. I wish he’d get back in touch with his inner goteddy ;). But I still don’t see the point in lumping him in as part of an undifferentiated “right wing”. If we do that then we turn most of the people in this country into a huge indistinguishable and irreclaimable rightwing monolith that we can only shout at and never reason with.
I skimmed most of p.2 so maybe you were provoked. Believe me, I appreciate your spirit. And I don’t criticize your netiquette as I’m well aware that this is the BBQ pit. But I do think that when you call people like gobear “Nazi” or even “rightwing”–people who perceive themselves as moderate and even progressive on some issues–that you only harden the impression that we’re all a lot Starbucks-smashing nutters with black masks.
I don’t really know how to get much more specific than I did in my post. Do you want me to get down to what troops do what, where? OK. Tracking down Osama and the gang in Afghanistan will largely be done by special forces, working with the Northern Alliance, with some level of helicopter and other air support.
Whether the Taliban troops react with fury in large numbers, or start surrendering to CNN camera crews like the Iraqi troops did at the end of the Gulf War, will go a long way to determining how the war escalates from there, if at all. We are seeing signs that people on the street and even Afghan soldiers don’t love and admire their government, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the reaction is closer to the latter than the former.
This military operation will commence in earnest within the next week or so, because it would behoove the U.S. to act before the weather turns to shit in the mountains of Afghanistan, and before the very holy Muslim period of Ramadan.
The other terrorist groups are going to be handled largely through the intelligence and law enforcement realms. With heavy reliance upon our friends in that part of the world to prove their friendship, in a number of ways I discussed in my previous post. There may be occasional air strikes or quick attacks with small groups of elite forces here and there, I would suspect from what I’ve been reading.
A real wild card in this is Iraq. If it’s determined that Saddam Hussein had a hand in Sept. 11 (which may have already been determined, but not announced for military reasons), I think a lot of people may soon be surprised by the scale of attack that occurs there.
**
The solution to stopping terrorism long-term isn’t simple.
Where we seem to most disagree is, you apparently don’t see a need for the United States to respond in a way to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, that sends a message throughout the radical, American-hating, fundamentalist Islamic world. A message that causes them to shudder when they later recall the level of retribution one gets for attacking innocent Americans on American soil in such a way.
I think you and others see that as ego- and/or vengeance-driven, reactionary, mean, etc. I (and a few others) see that as highly necessary. A particularly ruthless message needs to also be sent for those we have implicated. They aren’t going to be swayed by our humanitarian efforts.
**
And I completely disagree. As I’ve stated previously, I believe their goal is to hit us with incomprehensible tragedy after incomprehensible tragedy, until we feel forced to respond in an overwhelming way militarily. Because they want a jihad that rallies all of Islam, and they hope to be the leaders of the New Islamic Order. With a side order of wiping Israel off the map.
**
Guess I don’t have anything more to say on this subject. We disagree. I see nonviolence in the face of al Qaida as even worse than nonviolence in the face of Nazism.
**
Like the death penalty debate; it’s clearly debatable whether executing a murderer prevents other murders. It’s not debatable whether it prevents other murders by that murderer, however.
**
I have full faith that there are enough Vietnam vets in the loop on the military aspect to assure that we don’t try to put our square peg military desires into a round hole of what we have to work with logistically in Afghanistan.
**
I agree.
Mandlestam - I’ll read your links when I get time, promise. Keep those lips far, far away from me, though.
Did anyone else notice (USA Today?) that there haven’t been any flags of the United States burned in Berkley?
Now that’s interesting.
p.s. I have to wonder where the little-peter-headed-protesting-cock-knockers-in-Washington, DC intend to FIND gas for their cars (even if they’re be able to afford the stuff) if they continue their moronic jabber-babble-poster-waving crap.
Cite? I’ve never heard that about Goering and I’m curious.
Back to this, though, can you honestly not tell the difference between “Nazi” and “fuckhead”, or the connotations that “Nazi” has that “fuckhead” doesn’t? I mean, come on. Use your head.
Protesilaus
“Wanting for people not to fight wars” is in no way quantitatively or qualitatively similar to “getting chased through down the street by bulls.”
gobear
Make me.
And yet you keep responding.
You lied when you said that I offered or wanted to offer “aid and comfort” to the people who perpetrated or planned these attacks. Although I suppose it is possible in that mass of wadded up toilet paper that passes as your brain that “let’s not have a war” is the same as “let’s go fellate Osama bin Laden, wonderful guy that he is,” but one would hope that those whose brains actually function would see there’s a difference. but I think the most likely explanation is that you lied and you don’t have the stones to 'fess up to it.
I can’t believe how amazingly unsmart you are.
Another lie, in fact a whole series of lies right in a row. Too bad you’re not capable of feeling shame. So much for your “I respect the right of others to disagree with me” bullshit.
No, sorry, the answer is, they’re safer at home than in the middle of a combat zone.
First it was because I wanted to make fun of you for your hypocrisy in attacking me for speaking out in one instance while then launching your own attack. Then it was actually to defend you from an attack someone else posted. Now, though, it’s because you’re a lying little bastard.
We’re not? Someone had better inform the President and CNN immediately. They both talk a lot about “America’s new war.”
I don’t recall this thread being about the administration’s response to the attacks. I thought it was about you shitting on people exercising their constitutional rights.
Who said I was unhappy?
Loyalty under threat is not loyalty. There was a story in the paper the other day about a gentleman who received death threats because he wasn’t flying his flag at half staff. Turns out his flag pole was of the telescopic variety. His choices were either fly the flag at full staff or not fly it at all, and this loyal American hose to fly it. he did not know about the provision of the flag code calling for a black ribbon to fly with the flag. Neither did the “loyal” Americans who threatened his life every day for not flying it at half staff.
Given the choice between that kind of loyalty and your kind of “loyalty,” I’ll choose the former.
Additionally, “dissent” does not equal “disloyalty.” The Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed some time ago.
And here we have yet another lie told by the blindly enraged gobear.
Oh, and another thing:
I can’t speak for everyone who wears a mask, but at least some of the demonstrators go masked because the police and feds have developed a nasty habit of charging even peaceful protestors under RICO conspiracy theories. You’re a proper little assimilationist faggot so you must subscribe to Out. read Patricia Neil Warren’s article in the latest issue.
Michael Ellis
Considering that 6,000 dead in aggression on United States soil, while undeniably tragic, is peanuts compared to the numbers killed by US-backed regimes throughout the world. Also considering that despite this tragedy the statistical likelihood of being killed by a terrorist on US soil is still far lower that the likelihood of a soldier’s being killed in a combat zone, and there’s not a bit of straw to be found.
Milo
Gee, David Horowitz wants to curtail civil liberties. Maybe he’ll stop whining now about the college papers who refuse to run his silly anti-reparations ad.
'Uigi
Actually, gas prices in Wisconsin have fallen by more than a quarter a gallon since the attack.
Cite?
:rolleyes:
Ouch! That hurt!
:rolleyes:
This isn’t second grade, waffle nuts.
**
And this proves…
**
Hey, “Shit on the Protestors from a 3rd Story Window” is my favorite game!
**
I do. You’re unhappy because we all don’t see the world through your LSD-spiked rose-tinted bifocals.
**
Who’s threatening anyone, spinach shit?
**
So that makes it okey-doky, then?
:rolleyes:
**
Statistics: The Last Resort of a Sick Fucker.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
In fact, I personally believe that a statement such as yours is opinion of ethnocentric pollyanna.
If we actually did do all of the above - withdraw from the Middle East in all ways, lift sanctions, etc. - all it would do is egg these guys on. Why? Because if we cave instead of resist it means we’re weak and easily manipulated. So they’ll have new demands, and if we don’t give in to those new demands then they’ll kill more of us.
Immediately after 9/11 they waited for the bombs to fall, ready to protest their innocence and accuse us of being the bully. Now, since we didn’t not fly off the cuff, they’re basically going “nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah” saying we’re not brave enough to confront them.
These people certainly do think, but they do not think like us. They are absolutely convinced that they have built utopia in Afganistan and now want to bring utopia to the rest of the world. Since all other ideas are wrong, they must be eliminated by any means necessary. Do YOU want to live like the people of Kabul?
Personally, I don’t think the Taliban and bin Laden give a flying fuck about other Muslims, the Middle East, or anything other than their own power. It’s just an excuse to kill people, and if you took it away they’d find another reason to kill.