Andy - I finally agree with everything you say in your most recent post
With respect to other near-nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea, they just don't pose a threat at this point. They are in the business of refining their weapons for the purpose of dealing with enemies much closer to their soil. We spend too much time and money on our allies, and they need to be able to fend for themselves. I find it ironic that the Republican party take such a hard-nosed stance to its own citizens having to survive on their own, and then feels we need to send troops to defend other nations. Let these nations figure out for themselves that war is a horrible thing. They'll make peace. By the time Iran has the long-range firepower to get halfway to the U.S., we'll have ***-slapped them to Jupiter and back.
I guess I see it as less of a direct threat and more of a gradual shift that threatens us. If you don't see radical Islam as a threat, than I guess you'll disagree with me. But I do see it as a threat and if Iran goes nuclear and takes out Israel, one of our few ME allies and its only democratic state, then that further enables the continued spread of radical Islam throughout the ME and we already have glimpsed at what that means for us here on our own soil.
I disagree that Republicans take a hard-nosed stance on people surviving on their own. It's more an expectation of some personal responsibility. On the domestic front, I think we Republicans just feel that the help doesn't always have to come from the government and social welfare programs. Of course, this is muddled by the shameful job GWB has done in growing the federal government to never-before-seen levels.
I always vote liberitarian. Simple reason, Dems want to control your money, GOP wants to control your morality. I like my government to protect me from outsiders not from myself, thank you very much.
Maddy, that statement just made me very happy. I was gunna bomb your house here soon but i may just have to wait a bit longer and NUKE ya.
Andy - I finally agree with everything you say in your most recent post
With respect to other near-nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea, they just don't pose a threat at this point. They are in the business of refining their weapons for the purpose of dealing with enemies much closer to their soil. We spend too much time and money on our allies, and they need to be able to fend for themselves. I find it ironic that the Republican party take such a hard-nosed stance to its own citizens having to survive on their own, and then feels we need to send troops to defend other nations. Let these nations figure out for themselves that war is a horrible thing. They'll make peace. By the time Iran has the long-range firepower to get halfway to the U.S., we'll have ***-slapped them to Jupiter and back.
I guess I see it as less of a direct threat and more of a gradual shift that threatens us. If you don't see radical Islam as a threat, than I guess you'll disagree with me. But I do see it as a threat and if Iran goes nuclear and takes out Israel, one of our few ME allies and its only democratic state, then that further enables the continued spread of radical Islam throughout the ME and we already have glimpsed at what that means for us here on our own soil.
I disagree that Republicans take a hard-nosed stance on people surviving on their own. It's more an expectation of some personal responsibility. On the domestic front, I think we Republicans just feel that the help doesn't always have to come from the government and social welfare programs. Of course, this is muddled by the shameful job GWB has done in growing the federal government to never-before-seen levels.
Luko, it is my opinion that radical Islam is only a threat as long as we maintain our policy of global intervention. Like I said, its my opinion and take it only as such, but I feel if we were to pull our presence off of their territory, they would pose less and less of a threat to us. I don't think it is that they don't like us for who we are, but rather the problem lies in what we do.
joe, im pretty sure they would want to kill us or convert us no matter what we do or dont do throuout the world. radical islam is just that: radical. they dont like that we let women run around in pants (not to mention halter tops, short skirts, low necklines, and tight clothing) they think we are decident and therefore evil. they want to kill the US because we arent an islamic state. they want to kill us because we let homosexuals exist. they want to kill us because we have no problem with Jews. they want to kill us because we have a thirst for sexual things. they want to kill us because we use course language. the list goes on and on The US going into other countries is just the icing on the cake. it has everything to do with who we are... AND what we do
Radical islam has had a "convert or die" mentality since before the US existed. they have always been a threat and always will be one. remember the crusades?
when Radical islam moves it has bloody boarders. It alwasy has and always will.
Well, I'm in no position to say definitively that what you say is untrue. But radicalism has existed in many forms throughout history and in different religions and it is always dangerous, Islam is no exception but neither is the only culprit. So that much I will agree with, that radicalism is very dangerous, regardless of religion, race or creed. I just don't believe that the majority of Muslims feel the same way as the radicals do, and therefore I have a hard time supporting "proactive" aggression/intervention against them.
While the Crusades may have been a response to Muslim conquest throughout the lands, I'll remind you that it was not the Muslims who started it based on the idea of "taking back the holy land", and it was not the Muslims who offered indulgences to the soldiers who died in battle fighting for that cause. Christianity is hardly an innocent, and those times were a lot different than what they are now.
I just don't believe that the majority of Muslims feel the same way as the radicals do, and therefore I have a hard time supporting "proactive" aggression/intervention against them.
I agree and disagree with this. i think that the VAST majority of muslims are peaceful people by nature. they dont want to hurt anyone. However, they dont NOT support radical islam. what do i mean? where are all "good" muslims when radical ismlam does something violent to innocents? where are they denouncing radical ismlam? why are the Islamic leaders not distancing themselves from the radical islam sect saying that this is not what islam is all about? something doesnt add up. I wanna know why.
j0z3r:
While the Crusades may have been a response to Muslim conquest throughout the lands, I'll remind you that it was not the Muslims who started it based on the idea of "taking back the holy land", and it was not the Muslims who offered indulgences to the soldiers who died in battle fighting for that cause. Christianity is hardly an innocent, and those times were a lot different than what they are now.
this is an argument that was around since before the crusades even. the land around Gaza has been faught over for thousands of years. the jews, muslams and christians all try and lay claim to parts of it. (more so the muslims and the jews)
I still stand by my statement of when radical islam moves it has has bloody boarders.
I always vote liberitarian. Simple reason, Dems want to control your money, GOP wants to control your morality. I like my government to protect me from outsiders not from myself, thank you very much.
Maddy, that statement just made me very happy. I was gunna bomb your house here soon but i may just have to wait a bit longer and NUKE ya.
whaddya know, something else we agree on.
It seems that we agree on the important stuff. Hell we might have to just have a herf sometime soon.
I believe that radical Islam is a threat to national and global security. However, I will broaden the statement and say that radical religion of any sort is a threat to national and global security. I do believe our policy of global intervention feeds radical Islam, but I don't believe that a passive stance would make them tolerant of the U.S. I do think we create problems for ourselves by acting too pre-emptively. There are many nations between the M.E. and the U.S. that would be targeted with WMD before we would.
You want to talk about fairness in taxes? How about a fairness in the tax of human lives lost fighting terrorism. In that regard, the U.S. is playing the part of a wealth tax-paying citizen, while the rest of the world is on our welfare.
I will broaden the statement and say that radical religion of any sort is a threat to national and global security.
ill agree with this.
I would like you to point out to me any OTHER radical religions that are terrorizing the world right now.
radical Christians
when have radical christians blown up airplanes or buildings? when have they cut peoples heads off on film? when have they threatend ANYONE? Radical christians may be nuts but they dont kill people. they annoy people. this is from a non christian BTW
Hey, don't sell them short just because they're less successful.
Eric Rudolph comes to mind. The KKK is primarily radical Christian, even against Christian faiths, in a manner very similar to radical Islamic groups turning against less-extreme Islamic faiths.
Abortion clinic bombings/shootings. The Radical Christian Activists in 2007 tried to blow up a church.
Most radical Christian violence is categorized as "hate crime" rather than "religious terrorism." I believe that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the radical Muslim and the radical Christian, and that a violent crime is inspired by their belief that the target is doing something wrong or evil. I find it disturbing that we use different terminology based on the race of the offender.
I will broaden the statement and say that radical religion of any sort is a threat to national and global security.
ill agree with this.
I would like you to point out to me any OTHER radical religions that are terrorizing the world right now.
radical Christians
when have radical christians blown up airplanes or buildings? when have they cut peoples heads off on film? when have they threatend ANYONE? Radical christians may be nuts but they dont kill people. they annoy people. this is from a non christian BTW
Radical Christians have killed more people than any other group. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, even the holocaust had radical christian overtones, not to mention Waco and the like. They have just been less successful lately. Wasn't McVeigh a radical christian? I know his bombing was politically motivated but I think it had some christian ideals as well.
Wow...I have missed a lot, this thing has kicked up some good debate.
I wouldn't call the crusaders radical christians. They were fighting against the same people we are fighting today. Except today they are radicals. We are fighting over the same god but different interpretations. It's a bit assinine. But it is foretold in the bible. Waco killed themselves but at the same time it was a gov't debacle (Clinton lead by the way). McVeigh wasn't a radical christian but an anti-gov't radical. Now the dum bass that did the Olympic bombing, abortion clinics and judges...Eric Rudolph was a radical christian terrorist.
Basically we have radicals of all kinds, it's the ones that put violance behind there beliefs that scare me. They become terrorist at that point and I think that we should stop them if they are a threat to our country and its freedoms.
I still stand by my statement of when radical islam moves it has has bloody boarders.
That's a fair point to make, and one I'll agree with you on. I think we all agree that radicalism in any form is seldom a good thing, regardless of religion, race or creed.
I still stand by my statement of when radical islam moves it has has bloody boarders.
That's a fair point to make, and one I'll agree with you on. I think we all agree that radicalism in any form is seldom a good thing, regardless of religion, race or creed.
I still stand by my statement of when radical islam moves it has has bloody boarders.
That's a fair point to make, and one I'll agree with you on. I think we all agree that radicalism in any form is seldom a good thing, regardless of religion, race or creed.
fair enough. I did agree that radical religious beliefs are not good. the abortion clinic bombings slipped my mind. good point.
most christian leader did stand up and say that this behavior was not representative of christianity. where were all the Muslim leaders when people were rioting and looting and trying to kill people over a CARTOON? (not even real people being killed as in an abortion clinic) Maybe they got lost in the hype but i just cant recall a single act of terrorism commited by Islamic radicals that every Muslim leader stood up and said its not right.
ok ill correct myself. Pakistani leaders made statements after the Benazir Bhutto assasination. I dont know enough about those leaders to know if they are religious leadres or just elected officials.
That's because you're watching the wrong news station. I've seen tons of coverage about Muslim leaders coming forth and saying that violence directly contradicts Islam.
That means you're watching Fox News. I watched CNN for a while, but I find it too liberal. I like the news on MSNBC. The only thing that bothers me about MSNBC is the fact that a lot of stuff comes from the Washington Post, which also leans left. I've never liked Fox News because it leans so hard to the right.
News nowadays is awful. It's sensationalized the same way that "reality" TV is sensationalized. They just filmed Extreme Makeover Home Edition in Charlotte, and i was interesting to get the behind-the-scenes look at everything.... like when they all show up to randomly "surprise" this family --- the family had been called weeks in advance and told the date and time that they would show up... then they filmed the "surprise" a half dozen times and had the family go back into the house and come running out looking all surprised... Had to keep taking it until they got it right.
"Investigative Journalism" is the worst for this. Facts are taken out of context in order to make a story more dramatic.
News nowadays is awful. It's sensationalized the same way that "reality" TV is sensationalized. They just filmed Extreme Makeover Home Edition in Charlotte, and i was interesting to get the behind-the-scenes look at everything.... like when they all show up to randomly "surprise" this family --- the family had been called weeks in advance and told the date and time that they would show up... then they filmed the "surprise" a half dozen times and had the family go back into the house and come running out looking all surprised... Had to keep taking it until they got it right.
"Investigative Journalism" is the worst for this. Facts are taken out of context in order to make a story more dramatic.
Not surprising at all.
People today want to be entertained not informed. I read The Economist, other than that I just kinda form my own opinions based on what I can pull out the the BS thrown at me on a daily basis.
Comments
whaddya know, something else we agree on.
The US going into other countries is just the icing on the cake. it has everything to do with who we are... AND what we do
Radical islam has had a "convert or die" mentality since before the US existed. they have always been a threat and always will be one. remember the crusades?
when Radical islam moves it has bloody boarders. It alwasy has and always will.
While the Crusades may have been a response to Muslim conquest throughout the lands, I'll remind you that it was not the Muslims who started it based on the idea of "taking back the holy land", and it was not the Muslims who offered indulgences to the soldiers who died in battle fighting for that cause. Christianity is hardly an innocent, and those times were a lot different than what they are now.
where are all "good" muslims when radical ismlam does something violent to innocents? where are they denouncing radical ismlam? why are the Islamic leaders not distancing themselves from the radical islam sect saying that this is not what islam is all about?
something doesnt add up. I wanna know why.
this is an argument that was around since before the crusades even. the land around Gaza has been faught over for thousands of years. the jews, muslams and christians all try and lay claim to parts of it. (more so the muslims and the jews)
I still stand by my statement of when radical islam moves it has has bloody boarders.
You want to talk about fairness in taxes? How about a fairness in the tax of human lives lost fighting terrorism. In that regard, the U.S. is playing the part of a wealth tax-paying citizen, while the rest of the world is on our welfare.
I would like you to point out to me any OTHER radical religions that are terrorizing the world right now.
this is from a non christian BTW
Eric Rudolph comes to mind. The KKK is primarily radical Christian, even against Christian faiths, in a manner very similar to radical Islamic groups turning against less-extreme Islamic faiths.
Abortion clinic bombings/shootings. The Radical Christian Activists in 2007 tried to blow up a church.
Most radical Christian violence is categorized as "hate crime" rather than "religious terrorism." I believe that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the radical Muslim and the radical Christian, and that a violent crime is inspired by their belief that the target is doing something wrong or evil. I find it disturbing that we use different terminology based on the race of the offender.
I wouldn't call the crusaders radical christians. They were fighting against the same people we are fighting today. Except today they are radicals. We are fighting over the same god but different interpretations. It's a bit assinine. But it is foretold in the bible. Waco killed themselves but at the same time it was a gov't debacle (Clinton lead by the way). McVeigh wasn't a radical christian but an anti-gov't radical. Now the dum bass that did the Olympic bombing, abortion clinics and judges...Eric Rudolph was a radical christian terrorist.
Basically we have radicals of all kinds, it's the ones that put violance behind there beliefs that scare me. They become terrorist at that point and I think that we should stop them if they are a threat to our country and its freedoms.
where were all the Muslim leaders when people were rioting and looting and trying to kill people over a CARTOON? (not even real people being killed as in an abortion clinic) Maybe they got lost in the hype but i just cant recall a single act of terrorism commited by Islamic radicals that every Muslim leader stood up and said its not right.
ok ill correct myself. Pakistani leaders made statements after the Benazir Bhutto assasination. I dont know enough about those leaders to know if they are religious leadres or just elected officials.
any thoughts?
"Investigative Journalism" is the worst for this. Facts are taken out of context in order to make a story more dramatic.
People today want to be entertained not informed. I read The Economist, other than that I just kinda form my own opinions based on what I can pull out the the BS thrown at me on a daily basis.