bin laden and his al qaeda captains declared war on the US, and they were fully supported by the taliban. You don't consider that the same thing as the taliban declaring war on the US? And, heh, I thought I was talking to Roland when I typed that.
I don't see it that way. If you wanna go after Bin Laden, I think there's better ways of handling that than invading Afghanistan....which did nothing to get Bin Laden or stomp out Al qaeda.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I don't see it that way. If you wanna go after Bin Laden, I think there's better ways of handling that than invading Afghanistan....which did nothing to get Bin Laden or stomp out Al qaeda.
But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then the invasion would've been justified you're saying.
No. I said it would have been justified if Afghanistan declared war on the US. That did not happen.
But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then they would've been "stomped". In which case, from the way you make it sound, the invasion would've been justified.
Your only problem with the invasion, from what you've been saying, is that it "wasn't the best way" to get Bin Laden and stomp out Al Qaeda.
so why do so many americans and europeand disagree with you on that stance i wonder.
More than agree with me? Curious would you say an antiwar stance is not only impossible but foolish?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then they would've been "stomped". In which case, from the way you make it sound, the invasion would've been justified.
Your only problem with the invasion, from what you've been saying, is that it "wasn't the best way" to get Bin Laden and stomp out Al Qaeda.
This whole 'get the big bad terrorist' shit has never been something I've bought into so I'm already giving you that point for argument's sake.
(IF) we were justified in going after Bin Laden and Co then we should have taken him out covertly without declaring war or invading a whole country in the process killing thousand of civilians. We've conducted secret assasination plots and funded rebellion groups etc many times in the past. I just don't believe that we couldn't take this guy out and round up known terrorists in a much more efficient manner.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This whole 'get the big bad terrorist' shit has never been something I've bought into so I'm already giving you that point for argument's sake.
(IF) we were justified in going after Bin Laden and Co then we should have taken him out covertly without declaring war or invading a whole country in the process killing thousand of civilians. We've conducted secret assasination plots and funded rebellion groups etc many times in the past. I just don't believe that we couldn't take this guy out and round up known terrorists in a much more efficient manner.
Were you aware that Al Qaeda had a vast network of training camps and supply routes throughout afghanistan that were being protected by the Taliban...not something that can be eliminated by a simple assassination.
Yes, but we're looking at possibly electing a president who has promised to take that stance as though it were not impossible or foolish.
Well I don't view that stance as foolish or impossible. Violence is always the irrational way to handle problems. And no one has ever said self defense was off the table.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well I don't view that stance as foolish or impossible. Violence is always the irrational way to handle problems. And no one has ever said self defense was off the table.
So you believe the self-defense approach is plausible then? And if you believe that violence is "always" irrational, then how do you use self-defense as justification?
Were you aware that Al Qaeda had a vast network of training camps and supply routes throughout afghanistan that were being protected by the Taliban...not something that can be eliminated by a simple assassination.
Yes, I've heard that. It wasn't handled too damn well your way either.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, I've heard that. It wasn't handled too damn well your way either.
My way? Who said it was my way?
What I'm getting at is that you're not really against the invasion. You actually support such an invasion. It's just that you think the invasion was poorly planned. A lot of people have a really hard time differentiating between those two viewpoints.
So you believe the self-defense approach is plausible then? And if you believe that violence is "always" irrational, then how do you use self-defense as justification?
Yes. But I don't think invading Afghanistan is an example of that.
It's not irrational to protect yourself when in danger.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, but we're looking at possibly electing a president who has promised to take that stance as though it were not impossible or foolish.
At some point, in some way, there has to be an alternate path to mankind's destiny. This one leads to destruction.
I think this can be cleared up, but it will take a whole new approach to Presidential speeches with emphasizing an outpouring of copious good will and clearly stated intentions followed up by economic aid, societal programs etc...
I wouldn't say people like myself and Abook are confused so much as trying to find a way to put good will to practical use. Peace and harmony is what we believe in. These are highly coveted core values to living a happy life.
We are not confused or lost about that....we are just trying to find a way to incorporate a positive change to an obviously very complex and deep rooted problem.
So I would have to disagree a little with your assessment of being confused and not understanding the problem entirely.
One path is of hope. The other is of hopelessness. My instincts guide me towards hope.
It would seem apparent that to eliminate war and destruction at some point we have to actually stop doing it.
I think a new global precedence can be set. The alternative is to stop trying altogether and embrace war as our ultimate answer to everything.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
At some point, in some way, there has to be an alternate path to mankind's destiny. This one leads to destruction.
I think this can be cleared up, but it will take a whole new approach to Presidential speeches with emphasizing an outpouring of copious good will and clearly stated intentions followed up by economic aid, societal programs etc...
I wouldn't say people like myself and Abook are confused so much as trying to find a way to put good will to practical use. Peace and harmony is what we believe in. These are highly coveted core values to living a happy life.
We are not confused or lost about that....we are just trying to find a way to incorporate a positive change to an obviously very complex and deep rooted problem.
So I would have to disagree a little with your assessment of being confused and not understanding the problem entirely.
One path is of hope. The other is of hopelessness. My instincts guide me towards hope.
It would seem apparent that to eliminate war and destruction at some point we have to actually stop doing it.
I think a new global precedence can be set. The alternative is to stop trying altogether and embrace war as our ultimate answer to everything.
Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.
And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.
Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking about. It's the belief that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.
"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain
Actually, you do think Afghanistan is an example of that.
You said if the Taliban declared war on the US, the invasion would be justified.
I said the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, who declared war on the US.
Your response to that was that it was "not the best way" to wipe out Al Qaeda.
Therefore, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hadn't run away from Afghanistan, invading Afghanistan would've in fact been an example of self-defense.
The disconnection is where you say the Taliban supported Al qaeda so it is self defense to invade Afghanistan. Just because they supported them doesn't mean we invade them. The only justifiable group to attack is the one who attacked you, no one else. And as I've already stated, that could be done without invading Afghanistan.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.
And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.
Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking. It's the believe that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.
"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain
Your stance is the easier way out. Ours is the harder more noble path to follow...the one that has no one has found an answer to, and one that has no historical examples to read about and follow. For this I believe we cannot be faulted and should not be criticized for.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.
And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.
Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking about. It's the belief that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.
"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain
Quit being an ass. I've explained my stance and you just disagree with it. But if it boosts you up to resort to petty insults, have at it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The disconnection is where you say the Taliban supported Al qaeda so it is self defense to invade Afghanistan. Just because they supported them doesn't mean we invade them. The only justifiable group to attack is the one who attacked you, no one else. And as I've already stated, that could be done without invading Afghanistan.
You said "take out Bin Laden and Co"
"Bin Laden and Co" amounted to a very large force situated in Afghanistan in the form of numerous training camps protected by the Taliban.
Therefore, the only way to "wipe them out" at the time was to invade.
Al Qaeda and the training camps ran away from Afghanistan.
That's why you support the invasion, but think it was poorly planned.
Quit being an ass. I've explained my stance and you just disagree with it. But if it boosts you up to resort to petty insults, have at it.
That's the problem. You think it's "insulting" to be told that you are uninformed and confused. That's why you try so desperately to look otherwise. It really is an embarassing experience for you.
But consider that most people generally do not know what they're talking about. The problem is that most of those people pretend that they do and then act as though it's "insulting" when they're told that they don't.
Get over yourself and just admit when you're wrong. It's healthy and you'll be a better person because of it.
That's the problem. You think it's "insulting" to be told that you are uninformed and confused. That's why you try so desperately to look otherwise. It really is an embarassing experience for you.
But consider that most people generally do not know what they're talking about. The problem is that most of those people pretend that they do and then act as though it's "insulting" when they're told that they don't.
Get over yourself and just admit when you're wrong. It's healthy and you'll be a better person because of it.
Ok got it.
Not agreeing with spongers accepted solution = uninformed. Cool.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Your stance is the easier way out. Ours is the harder more noble path to follow...the one that has no one has found an answer to, and one that has no historical examples to read about and follow. For this I believe we cannot be faulted and should not be criticized for.
There's nothing noble about being inconsistent. It's nice to live in the ideal world of world peace, but it's just illogical to apply that to real world situations and expect to it be received as empirical.
After all, you just spent many posts discussing the circumstances where war is necessary, but then change your tune to "war should be avoided" as though the very sound of those words alone make you "noble". It's delusional and utterly self-righteous.
And we wiped them out, right. Your solution failed.
Again, you're missing the point. I never offered a solution.
What I'm getting at is that you're not the righteous anti-war activitist that you think you are. You actually support war, but then cry anti-war when that war is waged improperly. There's a huge difference, and it's taking many, many posts to help you see that difference.
Again, you're missing the point. I never offered a solution.
What I'm getting at is that you're not the righteous anti-war activitist that you think you are. You actually support war, but then cry anti-war when that war is waged improperly. There's a huge difference, and it's taking many, many posts to help you see that difference.
No you're just hard headed. I couldn't say it anymore clearly than I already have. At this point it's only a waste of time to continue on putting up with your pretentciousness.
If Al quaeda had attacked us then I prefer using self defense in the way Clinton did....by striking the group (their camps and bases) who we are defending ourselves from...not invading Afghanistan. You can say that didn't work but neither did invading Afghanistan.
I don't know any anti-war activists who say you shouldn't defend yourself when attacked.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
I don't see it that way. If you wanna go after Bin Laden, I think there's better ways of handling that than invading Afghanistan....which did nothing to get Bin Laden or stomp out Al qaeda.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then the invasion would've been justified you're saying.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
No. I said it would have been justified if Afghanistan declared war on the US. That did not happen.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
But, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had stayed in Afghanistan, then they would've been "stomped". In which case, from the way you make it sound, the invasion would've been justified.
Your only problem with the invasion, from what you've been saying, is that it "wasn't the best way" to get Bin Laden and stomp out Al Qaeda.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
More than agree with me? Curious would you say an antiwar stance is not only impossible but foolish?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yes, but we're looking at possibly electing a president who has promised to take that stance as though it were not impossible or foolish.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
This whole 'get the big bad terrorist' shit has never been something I've bought into so I'm already giving you that point for argument's sake.
(IF) we were justified in going after Bin Laden and Co then we should have taken him out covertly without declaring war or invading a whole country in the process killing thousand of civilians. We've conducted secret assasination plots and funded rebellion groups etc many times in the past. I just don't believe that we couldn't take this guy out and round up known terrorists in a much more efficient manner.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Were you aware that Al Qaeda had a vast network of training camps and supply routes throughout afghanistan that were being protected by the Taliban...not something that can be eliminated by a simple assassination.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Well I don't view that stance as foolish or impossible. Violence is always the irrational way to handle problems. And no one has ever said self defense was off the table.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So you believe the self-defense approach is plausible then? And if you believe that violence is "always" irrational, then how do you use self-defense as justification?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yes, I've heard that. It wasn't handled too damn well your way either.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
My way? Who said it was my way?
What I'm getting at is that you're not really against the invasion. You actually support such an invasion. It's just that you think the invasion was poorly planned. A lot of people have a really hard time differentiating between those two viewpoints.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yes. But I don't think invading Afghanistan is an example of that.
It's not irrational to protect yourself when in danger.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Actually, you do think Afghanistan is an example of that.
You said if the Taliban declared war on the US, the invasion would be justified.
I said the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, who declared war on the US.
Your response to that was that it was "not the best way" to wipe out Al Qaeda.
Therefore, if Bin Laden and Al Qaeda hadn't run away from Afghanistan, invading Afghanistan would've in fact been an example of self-defense.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
At some point, in some way, there has to be an alternate path to mankind's destiny. This one leads to destruction.
I think this can be cleared up, but it will take a whole new approach to Presidential speeches with emphasizing an outpouring of copious good will and clearly stated intentions followed up by economic aid, societal programs etc...
I wouldn't say people like myself and Abook are confused so much as trying to find a way to put good will to practical use. Peace and harmony is what we believe in. These are highly coveted core values to living a happy life.
We are not confused or lost about that....we are just trying to find a way to incorporate a positive change to an obviously very complex and deep rooted problem.
So I would have to disagree a little with your assessment of being confused and not understanding the problem entirely.
One path is of hope. The other is of hopelessness. My instincts guide me towards hope.
It would seem apparent that to eliminate war and destruction at some point we have to actually stop doing it.
I think a new global precedence can be set. The alternative is to stop trying altogether and embrace war as our ultimate answer to everything.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Well, if the two of you weren't confused, then you both did an excellent job of acting like you were. Take a look at your posts and try to understand how the two of you continuously fumbled over your own supposed points of view.
And you say that you didn't have a lack of understanding of the issue, yet midway through the discussion you had to wiki a few facts to help you to your final opinion on the situation in afghanistan.
Look, it sucks to look confused and uninformed, but IMO it's even worse to try to play it off when the proof is right here in this thread. There's nothing wrong with not knowing what you're talking about. It's the belief that there is something wrong with that which causes people to talk out of their assess with the desperate intention of not appearing stupid.
"I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive...I've seen it all, I was here first" -Kurt Cobain
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
The disconnection is where you say the Taliban supported Al qaeda so it is self defense to invade Afghanistan. Just because they supported them doesn't mean we invade them. The only justifiable group to attack is the one who attacked you, no one else. And as I've already stated, that could be done without invading Afghanistan.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Your stance is the easier way out. Ours is the harder more noble path to follow...the one that has no one has found an answer to, and one that has no historical examples to read about and follow. For this I believe we cannot be faulted and should not be criticized for.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Quit being an ass. I've explained my stance and you just disagree with it. But if it boosts you up to resort to petty insults, have at it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You said "take out Bin Laden and Co"
"Bin Laden and Co" amounted to a very large force situated in Afghanistan in the form of numerous training camps protected by the Taliban.
Therefore, the only way to "wipe them out" at the time was to invade.
Al Qaeda and the training camps ran away from Afghanistan.
That's why you support the invasion, but think it was poorly planned.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
That's the problem. You think it's "insulting" to be told that you are uninformed and confused. That's why you try so desperately to look otherwise. It really is an embarassing experience for you.
But consider that most people generally do not know what they're talking about. The problem is that most of those people pretend that they do and then act as though it's "insulting" when they're told that they don't.
Get over yourself and just admit when you're wrong. It's healthy and you'll be a better person because of it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Ok got it.
Not agreeing with spongers accepted solution = uninformed. Cool.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
There's nothing noble about being inconsistent. It's nice to live in the ideal world of world peace, but it's just illogical to apply that to real world situations and expect to it be received as empirical.
After all, you just spent many posts discussing the circumstances where war is necessary, but then change your tune to "war should be avoided" as though the very sound of those words alone make you "noble". It's delusional and utterly self-righteous.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
And we wiped them out, right. Your solution failed.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I never offered a solution. Go find where I offered a solution.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You accepted the solution the US decided upon.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Again, you're missing the point. I never offered a solution.
What I'm getting at is that you're not the righteous anti-war activitist that you think you are. You actually support war, but then cry anti-war when that war is waged improperly. There's a huge difference, and it's taking many, many posts to help you see that difference.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
What did I accept?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
No you're just hard headed. I couldn't say it anymore clearly than I already have. At this point it's only a waste of time to continue on putting up with your pretentciousness.
If Al quaeda had attacked us then I prefer using self defense in the way Clinton did....by striking the group (their camps and bases) who we are defending ourselves from...not invading Afghanistan. You can say that didn't work but neither did invading Afghanistan.
I don't know any anti-war activists who say you shouldn't defend yourself when attacked.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That invading Afghanistan was the only way to get to Al qaeda.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde