 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti
but that logic is flawed . What's next ? joining forces with Neo-Nazis against moderates? |
It's a fair question, and I don't have a a fair defense, since I'm not sure I agree with it. I actually think that in certain cases, imperialism may be more progressive than its targets. Certainly in the case of the Taleban and bin Laden, I think that has to be the case.
edit: I would also put Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the later catagory, though not Fatah. Arafat is a fool trying to court the reactionaries. Even if he wins independence, they will try and get him. He's a secularist, even if he's cynically trying to play to recationary Islamist feelings. They will do to him what bin Laden did ti us and what Hamas did previous to the Israelis.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 24-06-2002 at 02:15
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:20
|
|
Well, yes, Iraq does issue threat after threat, but considering the fact that we bomb them almost daily, it's kinda understandable. We forget that we are dealing with a very honor driven society. For some reason, we really enjoy rubbing our foes noses in it. We don't just kick them when they're down, we laugh at them too. Even among ourselves, it's not something you really do, unless you want an enemy. To a society where honor is as important as life, it means blood.
BTW, appeasing Saddam is a misnomer. We aren't giving in to his territorial ambitions. We aren't allowing him WoMD. Even if we ended the blockade, that wouldn't be appeasement. It would be mercy to his people. But mercy is not a quality Americans are known for.
Oh, and my original point wasn't to let him have the bombs, but rather to try and bring a more realistic assessment into the fray. Saddam didn't use gas against us, even though he could have. He's not going to use a nuke against us the moment he gets it (and he probably will, let's face it). He knows that means nuclear annihilation.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sprayber

|
 |
Dixie
Oct 2000 time: 23:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh, and my original point wasn't to let him have the bombs, but rather to try and bring a more realistic assessment into the fray. Saddam didn't use gas against us, even though he could have. He's not going to use a nuke against us the moment he gets it (and he probably will, let's face it). He knows that means nuclear annihilation. |
I don't think most of the policy makers are worried about Saddam himself lauching a nuclear attack on the US. I think many are concerned that these materials will fall into the hands of organizations that have no territory or position to loose. If a terrorist detonates even a small sized device in the US, who do we obliterate in response? How far are we off from someone having that ability? I honestly don't know. But it would be reasonable to try everything in our power to prevent, harass, and put every roadblock between them and even the possiblity of such an event. Yeah Saddam has a lot to loose, but there are people out there with nothing to loose. Saddam's greatest use of nuclear capability isn't what he can do with it, but what others can do with it.
As for Iran, I don't really know if they are more likely or less likely to divulge those technogies or not. I would seem to think that even though they support certain groups, they would be more likely to keep the tech to themselves. Maybe not, I don't know.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kropotkin
Yes, so what? It's not in my interest to do anything drastic about that.
Dr. Strangelove: Exampels please. |
Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:20
|
|
When i meant political Judaism, i meant many of the things currently policy in Israel, such as the Rabbi's having control over many civil laws in marriage, death, and so forth. nd as you well know, there are extremist streams in jewish life, which believe in mutual respect of peoples of other faits as much as Osama.
God and relegion are intangibles, they are issues of faith. I am also an aethist, but Dalgetti, can you prove to me that God doesn't exist? You, as I , have put our FAITH in reason, perhaps just as blindly as those that believe in God. If someone asks me a 'why, perhaps my answer will involve less invoking of sacred texts and more experimental data, but if anyone asks me an existensial question, what answers can we give them? Besides, mockery is no form of adult debate, and a moral system that adopts mockery can't help but be corrupt. You will not succeed in lessening faiths, for faith is to strong for that. If you whish to creae a mporal world then, you must try to convince people with arguments, not mockery, and if you can't convince them on the reason, convince them on the path of action, but again, that calls for reasoned argument, not mockery.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|