I *do* think that Americans are more decent than you seem to think.
I *do* think we let our government do bad things in our name, because we can be ignorant and apathetic.
I absolutely agree that Americans are extremely decent, , I think most everyone on the planet is decent. However, I also believe we'd wipe out an entire country if there was even a chance they were going to 9/11 us again and frankly, I don't think a lot of us would lose a whole lot of sleep over it either. Kinda sad really.
(breathes deeply)
1) Half of what you write is too hastily formed and very unclear. It is genuinely hard for me to understand some of your points.
2) I never mentioned morals. I mentioned moral clarity. That you don't seem to understand the difference leads me to conclude you don't seem to understand half of what *I* am saying.
Please take a bit more time to read, comprehend and compose.
Moral clarity is just a buzzword that attaches the idea's doing the right thing, strong morals into a policitacl, national sense. Quit acting like its some novel, newfangled, totallly unrelated aspect.
I agree deeply with your first point. My mind works faster than my hands alot of times and unless it really means something, my idea's and message are more important than my delivery. The point is always there though, the only editing i do is usually things that i retype twice because i don't remember if i already caught up to what i was thinking.
I will NOT take more time to compose though. You know what i'm getting at when i post, just like ducks does.
The suck thing about 9-11 is that the terrorists actually LOST support from it.
Sure they could claim they won some victory, and it might have gained them some support from people who 99% believed as they did anyway, but it horrified everybody else.
If a nation actually sponsored something like 9-11, you bet I would support wiping that nation off the map. Therein lies the problem. Nations don't do that sort of thing anymore.
Military power is necessary but not sufficient to win the war on terror.
I'll suck it up. For the most part you are right about this, but it takes me re-reading our posts a couple of times to get it sometimes.
Moral clarity isn't a buzzword.Moral clarity is just a buzzword that attaches the idea's doing the right thing, strong morals into a policitacl, national sense. Quit acting like its some novel, newfangled, totallly unrelated aspect.
Somethings are morally clear.
I should not kill the guy next to me just so I can use his coffeecup.
That we should do something to combat the jackasses that caused 9-11 and would do it again is just as clear.
Somethings aren't.
Do we give up on our principles and detain people for decades without trials?
In this sense you are right: most at Gitmo aren't americans, and so a good chunk of america doesn't give a rat's ass, i.e. generally conservatives.
But a good chunk of American citizens DO care that we shouldn't give up our core values to "win" the "war" on terror and imprison, torture, and do "whatever it takes".
They lost support? Really?
Then why were Palestinians dancing in the streets?
Why were Osama T-shirts and hats flying out of the bazaars?
Why were lots of Muslim children named Osama starting after September 11?
I think you may misapprehend the value attached to human life outside Western cultures.
Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?
Oh my God..........that was good stuff.
Seriously, I can't stop laughing at this one. I've never used one of those little smilies, but this clearly calls for a few.
Really. I mean it.
The vast majority of muslims were appalled. Those pictures of palestinians "dancing in the streets" was stock footage taken out of context. Look that one up.
The extremely small minority that celebrated were only the people who believed much as he (or at least his miltant mentors) believed.
Have you actually talked to or read about real muslim reaction after 9-11, from any non-american press? Please do some reading and talking to people.
Again, no.
You underestimate the power of people to affect things for the better, and the number of people who care.
Just a smaller percantage than the number it would actually take to make a difference though, right?(puzzled)Seriously, I can't stop laughing at this one. I've never used one of those little smilies, but this clearly calls for a few.
Why is this funny?
Here's the way I saw it, but first let me say that I'm not liberal or conservative, in fact, I dislike both sides. Anyway, the way I saw it was that the left are the ones that say they are the compassionate ones who can make a difference but they keep losing elections by 1-2% of the vote. Man, when you explain it, it kind of loses some of it's punch.
Regardless if it really was funny or not i was starting to feel like i was funny.
not now......
Regardless if it really was funny or not i was starting to feel like i was funny.
not now......
Boutons is going to hate you forever for that joke..........classic.
Ah, don' sweat it. I still think you're funnyRegardless if it really was funny or not i was starting to feel like i was funny.
not now......
...lookin. j/k.
Well, FDR wouldn't be President because of the heavy coverage of his handicap.
Ike wouldn't be Supreme Commander of allied forces beacuse news of his extramarital affair would force him out of the Army.
Etc.
...probably true, actually.
You can go back to the 1780's even, and if anything, the media was more vitriolic than it is now.
You should read some of the things editorial writers would say about George Washington.
yellow rags!
It is commonly said that FDR's polio wasn't popularly known at the time of his election. Of course, those around him knew. Moreover, they talked about its possible effect on his Presidency.
Henry L. Stoddard, editor of a New York newspaper, had the following conversation with Calvin Coolidge during FDR's first run for the White House in 1932
"If [FDR is elected]," said Mr. Coolidge, "we will be taking in America the biggest gamble in government that any people ever took."'
"You refer to Roosevelt's disability?" I asked.
"Yes -- that is part of the gamble," he replied. "Roosevelt has shown a great fighting spirit. I admire him for it, but he must have even greater courage to undertake what is ahead of any man the next four years. He will need greater strength, too. I know the burdens of the Presidency even [sic] in good times; in this situation they will be tremendous. There is almost an even chance that neither he nor any man in stronger health can stand the strain -- and that chance is a good deal for a nation deliberately to face with all our other uncertainties.
That has what to do with a large percantage of the population being unaware?
Pi equals 3.14 is about as relevant as that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
