 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandy Cheeks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4605
Location: in the city that never sleeps
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/11/04 - 17:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
purple hayes
Frightened Inmate #2
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 14462
Location: ON YOUR LEFT!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 17:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
MastrBrewr
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
|
|
|
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 6974
Location: outside
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 17:31 Post subject:
| purple hayes wrote: |  |
Oh, now that's too funy!
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 17:46 Post subject:
| Sandy Cheeks wrote: |
That's SO WEIRD that townhall.com would write anything bad about John Kerry... I could never have predicted that...  |
Yeah, kinda like the New York Lies.....errrr, I mean Times, writing anything positive about Dubya. 
|
|
|
|
|
Sandy Cheeks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4605
Location: in the city that never sleeps
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 18:26 Post subject:
| genie wrote: | | Sandy Cheeks wrote: |
That's SO WEIRD that townhall.com would write anything bad about John Kerry... I could never have predicted that... |
Yeah, kinda like the New York Lies.....errrr, I mean Times, writing anything positive about Dubya. |
They're not supposed to report anything positive. Or negative, for that matter - news is supposed to be objective. To what degree that is achieved is in the eye of the beholder.
Townhall.com bills itself as a conservative website; that's all I was saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 20:12 Post subject:
| Sandy Cheeks wrote: | | genie wrote: | | Sandy Cheeks wrote: |
That's SO WEIRD that townhall.com would write anything bad about John Kerry... I could never have predicted that... |
Yeah, kinda like the New York Lies.....errrr, I mean Times, writing anything positive about Dubya. |
They're not supposed to report anything positive. Or negative, for that matter - news is supposed to be objective. To what degree that is achieved is in the eye of the beholder.
Townhall.com bills itself as a conservative website; that's all I was saying. |
The NY Times objective to a republican president or conservative agenda, yeah I believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 20:47 Post subject:
Pug,
We have been fighting the war on terror for many years. FDR launched a preemptive attack on Germany to enter us into WW2. Truman launched a preemptive attack on Korea to enter us into that conflict. JFK launced a preemptive attack on Vietnam to enter us into that conflict. Clinton attacked Bosnia preemptively (& without any UN consent).
Were those attacks OK? Or is the current one in Iraq not acceptable because the person living at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave leans to the right?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 21:16 Post subject:
Sonny,
You forgot about the Eyetalians. We attacked them too. Although they wised up and switched sides.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 23:09 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | | We have been fighting the war on terror for many years. |
Where? When did we start?
| sonnylax wrote: | | FDR launched a preemptive attack on Germany to enter us into WW2. |
Where? When?
| sonnylax wrote: | | Truman launched a preemptive attack on Korea to enter us into that conflict. |
Where? When?
| sonnylax wrote: | | JFK launced a preemptive attack on Vietnam to enter us into that conflict. |
Where? When?
| sonnylax wrote: | | Clinton attacked Bosnia preemptively (& without any UN consent). |
Where? When?
| sonnylax wrote: | Were those attacks OK?
Or is the current one in Iraq not acceptable because the person living at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave leans to the right? |
I think the reason some people find "the current one in Iraq" unacceptable is that they feel that they were duped into believing that this country faced imminent danger if action wasn't taken.
War on terror? Oooh, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction! We'd better start the shock and awe program.
Face it: whether or not they exist/existed is a moot point. Americans got really involved in the war on terror right after terrorists struck this country. Didn't need wmd's, did they? Now that was shock and awe.
I sure would like to know which history book or books you've been reading, Sonny. That way, I could look up the dates and sites of all those preemptive strikes you've listed. But I think you missed a Democrat and a war - Wilson and WWI. So, if you'd please, let us know when and where that preemptive strike occurred.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 23:25 Post subject:
pre·emp·tive or pre-emp·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-mptv)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of preemption.
Having or granted by the right of preemption.
Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence: The two companies organized a preemptive alliance against a possible takeover by another firm.
Having or marked by the power to preempt or take precedence: a preemptive business offer; preemptive authority.
Games. Relating to or being a bid in bridge at a high level that is intended to interfere with the opponents' bidding.
Germany, Italy, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia never attacked the US! We started military actions (right or wrong) against those nations on our own (with out them attacking us first). We invaded Europe & Germany, ditto for Vietnam and Korea. We attacked Milosivich (sp?) in Bosnia without one ounce of aggression toward America.
The only problem is that these days the world is a whole lot smaller then it once was.... 
My point is that there is an amazing double standard when it comes to Iraq and one George W. Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/04 - 23:51 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | pre·emp·tive or pre-emp·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-mptv)
adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of preemption.
Having or granted by the right of preemption. |
<snip>
Thanks for the definition of preemptive. I was never in doubt about it. I've known the word for a long time. But thanks anyway.
| sonnylax wrote: | Germany, Italy, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia never attacked the US! We started military actions (right or wrong) against those nations on our own (with out them attacking us first). We invaded Europe & Germany, ditto for Vietnam and Korea. We attacked Milosivich (sp?) in Bosnia without one ounce of aggression toward America.
My point is that there is an amazing double standard when it comes to Iraq and one George W. Bush. |
And my point is this: name the sites of these attacks. Give us the dates - just the month and year would be fine. If you want to be taken seriously, do it. There can be no double standard without proving your allegations.
And while you're at it, how about telling us all about where and when Iraq attacked the US.
|
|
|
|
|
Noley
AZhat
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 10494
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 00:15 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: |
We have been fighting the war on terror for many years. FDR launched a preemptive attack on Germany to enter us into WW2. |
Pearl Harbor Raid, 7 December 1941 --
Overview and Special Image Selection
The 7 December 1941 Japanese raid on Pearl Harbor was one of the great defining moments in history. A single carefully-planned and well-executed stroke removed the United States Navy's battleship force as a possible threat to the Japanese Empire's southward expansion. America, unprepared and now considerably weakened, was abruptly brought into the Second World War as a full combatant
Did I miss something in my World History classes or what?
I could have sworn that the Japanese led a preemptive strike on us first on 07.Dec.41
which led to our involvement into WWll.
What were we to do?
Sit and let them strike again?
Here's what FDR had to say 08.Dec.41 in his speech to Congress.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/infamy.htm
|
|
|
|
|
msparks
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 3182
Location: Jammin' at the Frim Fram, Frippin' in the Krotz
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 09:10 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: | | Though i do fear for the sovreignty of Djibouti |
Well, I've heard that when trouble begins, the sheikh is the first to leave Djibouti.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 09:29 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | The NY Times objective to a republican president or conservative agenda, yeah I believe that. |
I think they gave Lincoln a little slack.
| msparks wrote: | | Well, I've heard that when trouble begins, the sheikh is the first one to leave Djibouti. |
Sheikh, sheikh, sheikh.
Sheikh, sheikh, sheikh.
Sheikh Djibouti,
Sheikh Djibouti.
I will escort myself to the penalty box.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/12/04 - 09:56 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | Pug,
We have been fighting the war on terror for many years. FDR launched a preemptive attack on Germany to enter us into WW2. Truman launched a preemptive attack on Korea to enter us into that conflict. JFK launced a preemptive attack on Vietnam to enter us into that conflict. Clinton attacked Bosnia preemptively (& without any UN consent).
Were those attacks OK? Or is the current one in Iraq not acceptable because the person living at 1600 Pennslyvania Ave leans to the right? |
Situational. Was it right to get involved in World War II? Yes. There was already a conflict and a war going on. This next statement is likely going to raise more questions based on my previous discussion, but i have to make it all the same. The Nazi Regime was doing its best to exterminate a race of people (plus gypsies, homosexuals and political dissidents) and the Shoah was one of the darker stains on humanity in the 20th Century. Further, Germany was taking its war across Europe so while Germany may not have attacked us directly, it was attacking some of our allies. Our shame is just that it took us as long as it did to get involved in that war.
Korea? I don't know. This is one of the wars that i don't know enough about to have a meaningful opinion.
Vietnam? No. That wasn't right. We were helping the French in Indochina to keep an alliance and we stayed in when France pulled out after Dien Bien Phu. There was the fear that if the United States allowed Communism to take a foothold in Vietnam, it would only continue to spread in the region. I don't think that was a good enough reason to go to war, especially one in which the United States had no clear aims and did not truly fight to win the war (that is a criticism of the administrations rather than on the soldiers).
Bosnia? Again, i don't know. I know just about as much about Bosnia as i do about Korea.
I honestly don't care if a President leans left, or right, or how far he does so in either direction. If we're just talking about taking the nation into war, the question always remains: Was this war justified?
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
