 |
|
Edan
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Zylka
HAHA JUST AS WE THOUGHT!!!
|
Are we supposed to print out those pictures and make flipbooks of them or something?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:28
|
|
quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler
So I'm scared now.
Ok, cryptic points. What are you trying to say? When you **** up due to a regime change, try it again? |
LOL. yes. And a little bit of "grasp the nettle firmly".
I think I actually understand your tossaway just fine too (see point 2 below). I just don't always agree with you. (But since I haven't performed the arduous "pin Roland down" exercise, who knows...)
---------------------
I would also disagree with a few possible inferences from your message (feel free to say "I didn't mean that"-haha).
1. The regime change 20 years ago wasn't "ours" in the sense of being engineered or of being an invasion. Sure we had a role but there were other actors. It is an oversimplification to call it "our regime change".
2. Just because some bad actions occur, doesn't mean that one still shouldn't take an action. Appeasement avoids a conflict, but it has consequences as well. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture. Our tolerance for Islamic terrorism has gone down since 9-11. In the past we took limited actions against Abu Nidal and OBL and their ilk and their sponsors. Now we will be more aggressive against them. That is a strategic decision. Perhaps even the wrong one. Maybe we should just let things blow over. But that's not what we've decided to do. Time will tell what was right. (Of course we can't reload and test it out with a statistically relevant number of trials using the cheat menu.)
Does that mean we will invade everywhere? No. Does it mean the tripwire is tighter? Yes. Does it mean we will sabre-rattle? Yes.
Some other things to think about :
1. We supported Stalin in WW2 as the lesser of two evils and as the enemy of our enemy. This does not mean that we "created" the gulags. Nor did we create the regime that is in power. Yes, we had an effect on what happened. But we are not the puppet-masters of the universe.
2. Would you have supported the Shah more strongly in 1979? If you are criticising "our" last regime change, does it mean that you would have supported him?
Last edited by TCO on 25-05-2003 at 23:59
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
GP:
"1. The regime change 20 years ago wasn't "ours" in the sense of being engineered or of being an invasion."
"your" regime change was the overthrowing of Mossadeq in the early 50s. Which resulted in the Shah regime. Which resulted in the islamist revolution in 1979.
"Appeasement avoids a conflict, but it has consequences as well."
Who's talking appeasement? Do you see Truman as an appeaser?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Well, Tony wouldn't survive being a poodle on this one. I still think he'll be in deep **** once it gets clear how much he lied to justify the Iraq war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Saudi? Well, nothing is beyond the idiocy of this administration, but Saudi Arabia is still extremely unlikely.
Why would you think otherwise?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Explain it again. It was too whacky a conspiracy theory for me to remember.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|