No, you are just uninformed.

__________________
See y'all after the election. Good luck to whichever Republicrat you are voting for.

How about you answer the questions I posed above?

__________________
sputterman: "Aiding the enemy? If the truth aids the enemy then we are in the wrong war."

Have you ever heard of the B-36 Peacemaker? Peace is never agreed, but is forced upon the world. The only thing that can deter a man with a gun from doing evil is a man with another gun. Apologies, but peace is NOT the natural order. It is artificial, synthetic, MAN made. And it is one of the few things we have yet to master. Untill judgement day, when we're all in some utopic heaven, peace will always be US pointing a gun at the rest of the world.

another way of saying this in the first person is "I am no longer interested in learning from other people because I already know everything on the subject, but I reserve the right to call others wrong and without the intent of addressing their pier review and criticism of my posts with respectful communication".

Hey that only leaves one reason for your posting in this thread Blade. So you can abuse others and their attempts to hold fruitful, meaningful debate.

can you tell us in your own words why your abuse is so important to for us to stomach?

You know, in his defense, I think it was all merely a means of setting up the implication that you don't know what you're talking about(a.k.a. a Joke). I'm not saying I agree with him but he's clearly open for debate.

yeah I understand your viewpoint on the matter, it all depends on the qualities you assign to the word debate. I prefer a high quality political debate, even though many do not.

As I pointed out, his intentions are to not qualify his remarks with communicable reason. Which, in my opinion, makes his joining the conversation with this premise an insults to all in the thread because his core intention in doing so is only simple condescension and personally negative insinuation. So it is a matter of choosing perspective. anyone that says they are not personally choosing a particular perspective in their decision on the matter is not telling the whole truth.

Peace through stupidity isn't peace.. its a delusional state of denial.



Kumbaya...

Have any idea how many millions of people died in the 90's because the USA 'worked with the world'..how many who probably would not have died but for that fact. Millions...

But you want to go back to that...
It felt like peace ..we where the world sing along kumbaya with our life...and around the camp fire also danced the ghosts of millions who you simply turned the TV knob on...but you never noticed..it was Peace after all.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Fabulous Sane-one!! A great contribution because it is one of those massive truths which are politically incorrect in current Westrn society.

While we are being honest, allow me to point out that this is a two-way street. The US has inflicted huge numbers of death and suffering on others, and it did not only start with the civilians of two Japanese cities. What if roles were switched? What if the 1 million dead in Iraq became just too much to bear for even moderate Islamists to bear? What if the finger on the trigger belonged to someone else? Would that also represent the upholding of Peace? And if not, why not? I mean why should militant anti-Americans accept that the shedding of the blood of their people is "right" but the shedding of Billy Joe's blood is "wrong"?

So if you want another answer to the question - "Why do they hate us so much?", maybe part of it is because they object most fundamentally to your attitude that "our blood is worth infinitely more than their's".

Which brings us neatly to the many dozens of comments in this forum that the UN; the International Criminal Court in the Hague; etc are corrupt institutions. The usual reasoning is that this is so because they stand in the way of the US best interests.

So let us simplify this by turning the world into a town somewhere in the USA. There is this big Rambo guy. He carries tasers, stun grenades, automatic pistols and assault rifles - substitute any belicose stuff that the average citizen would have difficulty in obtaining. He is pretty mercenary and his own cashflow comes first. As a result, he has trodden on many toes in the past, and therefore has few friends.

Ever more frequently over the past quarter century (but also beforehand) he has walked into peoples houses and forced them to substitute a new family leader or to allow someone else to live on the ground floor; he has tossed out the main gardener in one of the best allotments in town and substituted someone who would sell him veg at prices fixed in his own currency; he supports leaders of thug gangs when they threaten to molest folk who are resisting Rambo's best interests and he shakes their leader's hand; but then when they stand in the way of something Rambo wants, they are quickly branded thugs and dictators and their house gets fire-bombed; etc, etc, etc.

So how does society stop these anti-social bullies? They slowly evolve laws and processes and institutions to curb or punish Rambo when he oversteps the line of best Town interests. Naturally Rambo cries FOUL, and brands the police and courts as corrupt agencies because they want to stop him from doing what is in his best interests.

Now in some towns his bullying, threats and beatings allow him to continue - sometimes for years and even decades. But in ALL cases, from the town of Rome through to the town of Carthage, London, Berlin, Sparta, Moscow, Madrid .... he becomes over-confident, he doesn't listen to the voices of others, he continues to believe that his blood is worth more than anyone else's, his ego gets so swollen that his crippling and maiming of others reaches a pitch where even those who once might have admired him, now get a bitter taste in their mouths (lol - and start to contribute to political forums).

As Toqueville said, Rambo rarely dies as a result of murder. He usually commits suicide.

But this seldom happens in a town where everyone has a right to say how it is run. Legislating, controlling, judging, disciplining institutions ARE created. In Rambo's case it is the law makers, the police, the public prosecutor and the governor of the local penitentiary that keep Rambo under control. Are they corrupt, bankrupt and immoral because they stand in the way of Rambo's best interests?