Perhaps I should rephrase that. Given that any course of action which would be effective the Left would automatically condemn as immoral, and any course of action which would pass muster morally would be guaranteed to fail, I would thus be constrained (by the liberal element) to do NOTHING - assuming I were to listen to, and heed the carping of, the liberals around here, that is. :evil:Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus
Well, at least you didn't object to my advocacy of "Fortress America" under the conditions specified. :lol:You would send a handful of guys into Pakistan to look for Bin Laden? Such an operation would have a near-zero chance of getting Bin Laden.
How is your decision to let the terrorists get away with it meaningfully different from what you claim the liberals would do?
The necessity of which is something I have firmly believed in for over a quarter of a century, BTW. :twisted:
If not, then some four or five American cities 'smouldering' and radioactive should certainly do it. (BTW, keep in mind that hitting multiple targets simultaneously is an al-Qaeda specialty. I somehow doubt that the employment of nukes would change that aspect of al-Qaeda's MO very much at all. My guess is that they'd just save up enough nukes to fit their MO, then use them all at once.)
Why are you playing semantical games? Were the attackers wearing formal military uniforms bearing an insignia of a recognized country for which they are fighting for? Or were they terrorists from the same organization that bombed the WTC in 1993 and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?
But, if it makes you feel better to play games do play on, dude.
So, does that make our Special Forces guys in Afghanistan (you know, the ones who try to 'blend-in' with the local population) terrorists? I'm just trying to get my feet firmly planted here...Why are you playing semantical games? Were the attackers wearing formal military uniforms bearing an insignia of a recognized country for which they are fighting for?
Organization, huh?Or were they terrorists from the same organization that bombed the WTC in 1993 and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998?
What course of action would you propose, Sabinius?Perhaps I should rephrase that. Given that any course of action which would be effective the Left would automatically condemn as immoral, and any course of action which would pass muster morally would be guaranteed to fail, I would thus be constrained (by the liberal element) to do NOTHING - assuming I were to listen to, and heed the carping of, the liberals around here, that is. :evil:
To Durbin, Dean and Pelosi it sure does. You need to get your feet firmly planted and start votin', dude. And votin' for Democrats, they're on your side in this war.So, does that make our Special Forces guys in Afghanistan (you know, the ones who try to 'blend-in' with the local population) terrorists? I'm just trying to get my feet firmly planted here...Why are you playing semantical games? Were the attackers wearing formal military uniforms bearing an insignia of a recognized country for which they are fighting for?
Waitaminute, I'm using your definition, not theirs... Or do you have a refinement or revision to offer?To Durbin, Dean and Pelosi it sure does.So, does that make our Special Forces guys in Afghanistan (you know, the ones who try to 'blend-in' with the local population) terrorists? I'm just trying to get my feet firmly planted here...Why are you playing semantical games? Were the attackers wearing formal military uniforms bearing an insignia of a recognized country for which they are fighting for?
And your point is what?
In reply to Pink Splice's question:
In fact, scott63 has already rendered his opinion of the above, as follows:
Your scenario might indeed might happen, by default, Sabinius. It might be forced by economics, rather than by a nuclear attack.In reply to Pink Splice's question:
In fact, scott63 has already rendered his opinion of the above, as follows:
Wally.
DC is already smouldering... haven't you taken a look at their housing bubble lately? :lol:Special Forces sound really good except they are not the magic bullet that they like to portray themselves as. If they were, then Israel would not be locked in a death embrace with the Palestinians today. Israel has nuclear weapons, one of the best militaries in the world and quite adequate special forces. They are still struggling.Were I to listen to the liberals around here, I wouldn't do a thing, militarily, as I would "know" that America really deserved the attack, and far worse. And when such passive inaction led to another, even worse, attack (and rest assured that it WOULD!!!), I would still do nothing militarily. And after enough such attacks, I would offer a complete, abject, unconditional surrender. :evil:Suppose one of our cities were attacked by a terrorists with a nuke, killing 50,000, and you were president.
Our intelligence agencies are nearly certain the group responsible is al Qaeda. They don't know exactly from whom al Qaeda got the nuke. Some believe from the Russian mafia, others from the Pakistanis.
What would YOU do?
In actuality, I would go after al-Qaeda and their suspected backers with both barrels (using Special Forces H/K teams, instead of large numbers of regular troops), seal off our borders as tightly as possible, and go all out to reconfigure our economy for autarky (whatever would be left of it after such an attack, that is), in support of a foreign policy of total isolationism. (Behind a beefed up defensive cordon around the country.) IOW, Fortress America, all the way!!! One would hope that after something like that, the American people would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to see all of that through rather than go through another such holocaust. :twisted:
As for using nuclear weapons, I was wondering this morning what would have happened in Vietnam had we nuked Hanoi. It would not have made us popular but it may have made us feared enough to prevent any other nation from even considering messing with us. The questions are: how many cities would you have to nuke to make your point? What happens when you start nuking the wrong cities (see above)? Do you lose street cred if you hesitate to nuke Peshawar because Musharref is supposedly your ally?
Fortress America would be very 4T. I don't think a chemical attack would be enough to push the country if the timing were not right. Biologicals would make people pretty panicaky. However, a smouldering DC might just be the thing to put America "in the mood." Mukes are much more visceral.
If Johnson had nuked Hanoi in '68, I wonder what form the Awakening and Unravelling would have taken? He'd have won reelection handily after bringing the boys home in record time... Watergate would have never happened because we wouldn't have had Dick Nixon to kick around anymore. There'd have been no national malaise to usher in Jimmy Carter... and if there had been no way in Hell to brand Democrats as soft on anything (said party having nuked not one, not two, but three cities in history), would we have bothered to elect President Reagan?
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
If Johnson had have nuked Haoi, THe Soviets would have nuked Islamabad, and we would have been off to the races. To seal the deal, China would have invaded Vietnam.
Now how did that play again?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Wally, thanks for the back-up here.Twit. You would think for somebody who claims to be the Devil's Advocate, you could come up with something wittier. Shoulda read the fine print, pal. I think, like Steve Jackson before you, you did a deal with "a" devil, not "THE" Devil.And then there's always Ms. Snobby, whose snide little commentary is a regular feature at 4T.com. :lol:
Wally.
I got into a snit the other day because I'm tired of the attacks on people who were sincerely opposed to the Vietnam War and decided they had something to say about it.
Likewise, I have opinions about things that are going on in the world right now, and I'm going to damn well exercise my God-given right to speak out about them. If the political opposition can't do any better than put up straw men, throw out red herrings, or engage in personal attacks, then it seems more and more likely to me that I'm getting somewhat closer to the truth.
No, I pointed out that Horn was merely expressing his love of country by tossing his Vietnam medals on the lawn of his then Commander in Chief. To wit such love of country continues today by "questioning everything" from the Gitmo "gulag" to America's conduct of this war.
I fail to see why this constitutes an "Ad Hominem" or "personal" attack on Mr. Horn. Certainly he is expressing his sincere beliefs. Is he somehow ashamed of thinking this way? I think not. Liberals as whole would not have nominated Kerry, who did the same thing as Horn, for president if that medal-tossing event in 1972 didn't represent a powerful and positive moment in their collective lives.
Yet if I remind them of this moment I am somehow constructing a "straw men," throwing out "red herrings," or engaging "in personal attacks"? This seems more than a bit disingenuous of your part. I think that until you people can really come to terms with exactly what you believe and begin to feel more comfortable shouting it from the housetops, this feeling of being attacked anytime somebody brings up Vietnam and medal tossing events will always consume you with rage.
I, of course, was merely speculating Dave on how it might have played out. Who really knows? If I had a point at all, it was to suggest that we not fight wars we are ambivalent about winning.If Johnson had have nuked Haoi, THe Soviets would have nuked Islamabad, and we would have been off to the races. To seal the deal, China would have invaded Vietnam.
Now how did that play again?
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
It was a gratuitous cheap shot at David that had nothing to do with the conversation at the time, which was about the possibility of nuclear weapons being used by terrorists against the United States. Thus, I believe it falls under the general category of a red herring.No, I pointed out that Horn was merely expressing his love of country by tossing his Vietnam medals on the lawn of his then Commander in Chief. To wit such love of country continues today by "questioning everything" from the Gitmo "gulag" to America's conduct of this war.
I fail to see why this constitutes an "Ad Hominem" or "personal" attack on Mr. Horn. Certainly he is expressing his sincere beliefs. Is he somehow ashamed of thinking this way? I think not. Liberals as whole would not have nominated Kerry, who did the same thing as Horn, for president if that medal-tossing event in 1972 didn't represent a powerful and positive moment in their collective lives.
Yet if I remind them of this moment I am somehow constructing a "straw men," throwing out "red herrings," or engaging "in personal attacks"? This seems more than a bit disingenuous of your part. I think that until you people can really come to terms with exactly what you believe and begin to feel more comfortable shouting it from the housetops, this feeling of being attacked anytime somebody brings up Vietnam and medal tossing events will always consume you with rage.
The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.
That was how the conversation started, but Horn had turned it "very quickly" to the real nuclear threat, the U.S. To which a poster wondered, "Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else."
Why can't you just be honest here? You fear the Bush Administration, and the America who elected him, far more than you fear al Qaeda, Iran, China, et al. As Paul Begala recently said:Now, am I attacking Begala by quoting him?
- "They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit. That is bullshit."
The US is the only country which has used nuclear weapons against its enemies, and we also control enough nukes to obliterate much of civilization as we know it. Fortunately, that's not our mission.
Why is that "funny?" Retaliation is the number one response in most people's minds, and it's completely understandable. It just may not always be the wisest course of action in the long run.To which a poster wondered, "Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else."
Actually, I don't particularly fear any of those people or states that you mentioned. I won't give into the ideologies that bred them, either.Why can't you just be honest here? You fear the Bush Administration, and the America who elected him, far more than you fear al Qaeda, Iran, China, et al.
I have absolutely no idea, because I don't know the context of the quote.As Paul Begala recently said:Now, am I attacking Begala by quoting him?
- "They want to kill me and my children if they can. But if they just kill me and not my children, they want my children to be comforted -- that while they didn't protect me because they cut my taxes, my children won't have to pay any money on the money they inherit. That is bullshit."
You seem pretty convinced that the ideology that bred you is superior to the one[s] that bred them. How can you be so sure about this? That seems pretty narrow-minded to me.
I suppose it would.
But reason and experience tell me that tolerance, compassion, and free thought are superior to bigotry, selfishness, and rigid dogma.
That's a pretty strong thing to say about your neighbors, ma'am. What evidence so completely convinces you that those who voted for Bush are intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigots?I suppose it would.
But reason and experience tell me that tolerance, compassion, and free thought are superior to bigotry, selfishness, and rigid dogma.
I wasn't speaking about my neighbors. Most of my neighbors are good people -- tolerant, law-abiding folks who help each other out in a pinch and who don't really give a crap whom I voted for in the last election. I have no doubt that some of them voted for Bush.
I remain opposed to the ideology and practices of the Bush Administration and will continue to support those who want to prevent it from turning the agenda of this country back by decades. I don't believe that Bush's policies are good for the long-term interests of the United States.
But you didn't just mention Bush (and, by implication, "Red" America) in your earlier post. You mentioned al-Qaeda, China, and Iran -- one terrorist organization and two repressive states whose leaderships follow an ideology that is antithetical to all of the values I mentioned above.
I choose neither the wasteful, short-sighted policies of the Bush Administration or the reactionary ideologies of radical Islam or totalitarian China.
I said the "Bush Administration, and the America who elected him..."
It is certainly within your right to call Bush an intolerant, compassionless, narrow-minded bigot, ma'am. But in doing so, to the point of lumping him in with thugs running al Qaeda, Iran and China insults everyone who voted for the man of their own freewill, including some of your "neighbors".
If this is the way you figure to win the hearts and minds of the American people, I would suggest that you will fail, as you are failing, miserably.
Point taken. I guess I'm just sensitized by the discussion of nuke-tossing that's been going on the last few days.I, of course, was merely speculating Dave on how it might have played out. Who really knows? If I had a point at all, it was to suggest that we not fight wars we are ambivalent about winning.If Johnson had have nuked Haoi, THe Soviets would have nuked Islamabad, and we would have been off to the races. To seal the deal, China would have invaded Vietnam.
Now how did that play again?
Oh, and a hearty PS to DAs insistence that we all threw our medals on the White House lawn. It was the Capital steps.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
