Letters to the Editor
-
@Shooter
"Shooter" is not a bad handle for a photographer.
How did that move from Charleston to Jersey work out? Any more work?
Are you really over six feet, or is that just a put-on?
I know who you are. In a day or two I will know where you live.
I do not make threats.
-
@shooter242
Ah, so harboring suspected terrorists is enough reason to invade a country. How is that more legitimate than thinking we were threatened with actual weapons?
You know the difference between "before" and "after," right? Between "response" and "unprovoked attack?"
-
National Interest Resonates......... Cognitively
..."Living up to our ideals" By invading a no threat country? [...] Look, there is no way to claim justification for invading one country and denouncing the invasion of another. It doesn't compute, isn't logical, it is cognitively dissonant.-- shooter242
A "no threat country"? You aren't perchance, referring to the Islamist nation-state that provided Usama bin Laden with a home, are you?
I don't have cognitive dissonance on this issue shooter242. In 2001-2 we should have gone into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, all his associates, and their supporters. AND we should not have diverted resources elsewhere until this real mission was accomplished.
There was nothing about Iraq in 2003 that was as important as the thorough, public eradication of al Qaeda. However, the Bush administration was so devoted to forwarding their long-term agenda that they did not act in the best interest of our nation. They exploited what happened on 9-11 to get into the Mideast militarily. Four years later, we're still there.
Not only should we "walk softly while carrying a big stick" we should "walk quickly" as well. And when the walk's over, we should do just like you suggest, bring them all home, and let the rest of the world screw itself without our "help".
-
@ Jordan Orlando
You know the difference between "before" and "after," right? Between "response" and "unprovoked attack?" -- Jordan Orlando
Are you claiming that we were attacked by Afghanistan? If I remember correctly, that is the sole reason you've given for the US to invade anyone. Have you amended that?
-
@shooter
Shooter - The only other choice in that proposition is stay home and perpetuate Saddam's reign.
JO - Exactly. That's what we should have done.
JO (in another post) - So please, please stop with the "liberals think Iraq was better off under Saddam" arguments.
Shooter - You know, that sure looks like a contradiction to me.
That's because you're a moron.
If we had stayed at home, would a million Iraqi civilians now be dead from our bombs and the effects of those bombs? Please explain how Saddam would have managed to kill anything like that number (had he wished to do so) since we utterly destroyed his military in Gulf War 1?
There are lots of people who think the US would be better off without the Bush administration. Does that give them the right to invade? According to you, it does.
According to your logic, shooter, being unhappy with a regime that tortures its own citizens and attacks countries without reason is enough of a reason to invade. Hmmm. Does that apply to anywhere besides Iraq?
So you see, actually, shooter, you're 100% in support of the terrorists who attacked on 9/11.
Unlike you, every liberal I know is 100% opposed to the terrorists who attacked on 9/11. Just as we were 100% opposed to Saddam's regime in Iraq.
But neither of those things -- even if you lie and try to put them together as the Bush administration did -- are a justification for the invasion of Iraq.
This is real, real simple. But since your position puts you in 100% agreement with Osama bin Laden on how to solve problems, I don't expect you to understand.
Osama's solution: "They don't do what we want! Bomb them!"
Shooter's solution: "They don't do what we want! Invade them!"
The liberal solution: oppose Saddam's regime in every possible way that doesn't hurt the exact same people you are trying to help.
At the same time, if there are people actually in league with the 9/11 perps (like the al Queada cells in Afghanistan) then, sure, go hard at 'em. But make every effort, again, to not hurt the bystanders.
The terrorists (and shooter) don't give a rat's ass about the innocent bystanders.
Liberals do. That's what makes us better than the them. And you.
-
@ Holly McLachlan
I don't have cognitive dissonance on this issue shooter242. In 2001-2 we should have gone into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, all his associates, and their supporters. AND we should not have diverted resources elsewhere until this real mission was accomplished.
Then the argument for only one reason to invade a country (in response to an actual attack) is not true. What IS true, is that there is a double standard around Iraq and Afghanistan. That opens up a very large can of worms.
As an aside, OBL and company are technically just suspects in a conspiracy who if enrolled in our legal system would stand a very good chance of acquittal. How foolish would we look if we spent all this "blood and treasure" to apprehend these folks only to let them go later? It's just another reason to go after a universally agreed bad guy.
I'm glad you're on board for the isolationism, I believe you've mentioned that before. I have to suspect that it doesn't get much play as an idea, because most people really DO want to be the "world's policeman", but for different reasons.
-
I failed again to keep my promise- No open mouth- is not easy.
In some literature I picked up to read for hope and inspiration-
In former times legends in-struck ya's can pretend, or literally if ya's get the opportunity- Toss upon the criminals some cool water.
Kimberly should heed history lesson.
Beware. She must be a fallen saint?
Amina was transformed into a horse.
Now, we all know YKW is a lame arse.
I saw Kimberly speak via film at a flag-wave DC event.
It was so sad. I had to take a walk. Some things..Sad.
-
square pegs
I think we should call Shooter "Square Pegs" because whatever you say to him, he has to change the shape of the argument before it goes into his head, and then when it comes out, it looks remarkably different from what you thought you said.
I bet he thinks he's really clever, uncovering "contradictions" in what other people say. But the contradictions only exist because he doesn't really understand the other person's arguments.
But I have to admit, it does get tiresome explaining to a person that, no, your philosophy is not inconsistent. The constant waves of false interpretations of what one says would get tiresome.
That is, if I ever thought debate with Shooter were worthwhile.