The Real Difference Between Libs And Conservatives

[LoArmistead]

We have to get rid of terrorists, but how? I want each and every one of you to post what you think we should do to defeat terrorism, whether it be by brute force or by peace talks. Before you post, if you want to avoid being flamed, be sure to make sure your history is correct and that your idea has not already been attempted in the past. Let's see who all has a better idea. (keep in mind they must be plausible, no over-the-top ideas that everyone knows won't work) If no better ideas are brought up...then we have no room to be complaining about something that we oursevles don't even know how to fix... fair enough? It's common courtesy, and basic common sense. :thumbs-up: May the contest begin.

[Guest Silenc3]

haha, funny stuff!

[BarneyGumble]

We can't defeat terrorism, there will always be terrorism or terrorists or political extremeists or whatever you want to call them.

[NCC10281982B]

Anyway, I'd take the conservative approach.

 

Lo, we've agreed that it my not be possable to completly stop terrists. We can certinally slow it down. Therefore, in a loose and literal sense Verran has a point.

 

We can all agree that action needs to be taken, correct? But we don't agree on what the action is. Just get it done! Guns or bombs will work.

[LoArmistead]

We can't defeat terrorism, there will always be terrorism or terrorists or political extremeists or whatever you want to call them.

551409[/snapback]

 

So we sit back and let them blow us to pieces Barney? There IS a way to defeat terrorism (just not a politically correct way ), and since your opinion is "we can't", I will ask you, "What should we do to keep the attacks away from us? What should we do to lessen them?"

[CoolMaster]

LOL that was a pretty funny but TRUE statement lol

 

my approach to terrorism is Prolly Allow them to elect a Official for their governement, Make an alliance with us to defeat the terrorists, with them helping of course. Then let them get on with rebuilding their economy, with our help to of course. but Keep a close eye on them aswell, as well as having some laws where we oversee any military operations they have.

Edited September 27, 2005 by CoolMaster

[cybergrunt69]

PS: You like disturbing the hive don't you Lo? B:)

551371[/snapback]

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a Winner!!!

 

 

 

 

 

That is the entire reason for this thread. Kinda pathetic, isn't it?

[NCC10281982B]

So shoot in the head or the leg?

[cchalogamer]

That made me think of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Sir Launcelot is running toward the castle and just keeps running and running. 

But to turn that into an analogy, he gets there, quite suddenly I might add, and inflicts great damage to the people of the castle. Why not run out and meet the terrorists(who we know are coming) on our own terms rather than sit and wait for them as the castle guards did and get slaughtered?

551398[/snapback]

That was my though on that comment, but hell neither Lo nor Verran would ever accept that in many ways they are both wrong. Yet we come to Lo's last challenge

I want each and every one of you to post what you think we should do to defeat terrorism

Great challenge, but one problem, how do we know it works? we don't unless we try it, and well If sitting idle and waitign as Verran spoke of earlier DOESN'T work, then isnt it a good thing that we have a man attempting to lead this country that will actually do something? Maybe what he is doing WILL be the right thing, maybee it WON'T, but unless someone tries it how can we say it doesn't work?

 

Now everyone go ahead and post your ideas, but jsut remember, It is irrelivant how right YOU think you are, someone else here is most likely going to tell you how stupid you are to think the way you do as soon as you hit the "Add Reply" button.

 

Another thing someone is sure to point out both peace talks and war (duh) so ill go ahead and say what is good and bad about both.

 

Peace talks first, the good: Usually nobody dies. It si sometiems effective assuming both people involved respect the opinions and reasoning that the other party uses. Lo and Verran both suck at this one because they are not open enough to the other side to fully understand the argument.

 

the bad about peace talks: They rarely work very well and usually even a "good end" involves people that were not present to make the decision pissed because they didnt get what they wanted and someone dies.

 

The good about War: In the event that one side is considered 100% justified, war can be a way to in the end bring peace to the world by forcing everyone to get along, I guess WWII is a so so example of this, Japan attacked the US durign their goal to take over the world more or less, and when they did so the US and other allied forces pretty much kicked their @$$ and now we all get along. (well kinda get along )

 

The bad about war: people die, enough said, the loss of life 100% SUCKS no way around it.

 

The bad of each idea as to how to combat anything is what i tend to look at first, then you ahve to weigh the liekly outcome with the cost. Most of the time there is no concrete answer for the situation.

 

 

 

 

And one last "unrelated" thing, wft is up with all this BS posting in the politics section (and yes this origional post was 100% BS Lo) when some of you ppl need to go and actually HELP other people on the site, a thread like this gets a crap load of posts yet someone that cant figure out why thier *insert hardware here* wont work gets one reply, they reply to that and the topic dies.

[Verran]

My opinion, which I gave a while ago when red asked, can be found here:

My solution:

 

Step 1) DON'T start wars that go against the UN in its entirity.

Step 2) Use the "proof" we discussed previously to find one of these WMD factories and raid it.

Step 3) Use this -actual- proof to convince the rest of the world to help us clear the country out.

 

Now I'm going to save some time and try to respond to the arguments that I know are forth-coming.

 

But we HAVE to fight back because....

Jesus, PLEASE spare me the punch/counterpunch examples. Yes, if you punch me in the face enough times, I will eventually punch you back. The only flaw to this analogy is that it doesn't cost me thousands of American lives to "punch you back".

 

Yes, we can't just stand there and take it. We also can't just charge in and hope everything works out OK. That's what we did, and now we look like morons. We're telling the whole world that they're actively making weapons, and yet we take over and find none. Support for the war is dropping lower by the day here in the US, and I can only imagine how other coutries look at the whole mess. Then on top of that, we whip out our figuritive penis and play world police, then look like further idiots when we can't even handle a hurricane in our -own- country. We do all of this by spending billions of federal dollars that we -don't have-. Maybe there's a more thoughtful way we could do this....

 

We couldn't raid them because that's against the rules

Yeah, so is declaring war against a country when the entire UN says we can't. Didn't stop us then...

 

 

I guess I just wonder why we couldn't go in as a raid and actually put all of this "proof" that we had to use. Like I said before, grab a special ops agent, put him on a plane with some binoculars and a rifle, and rent him a motorcycle when he gets there. Then, if we were to actually -catch- them with something, we would be the heroes, and everyone would support us in this fight.

 

You all look at it like we have no choice but to fight back, but I don't see that at all. You're not going to stop them, we know that. You can't kill them all, so the attacks will continue. All we've done is pre-paid for the next 9/11 scale attack.

 

But you're right Lo, we CAN defeat terrorism. All we have to do is kill everyone in the world besides you and GW. It's the only way to be sure. It's not pretty, but it's better than "sitting there and taking it".

[LoArmistead]

I had to dig through the pork, but tell me if I'm right. So I take it your idea of defeating, or at least dampening the effects of terrorism is to drop a spec ops agent behind enemy lines, rent him a motorcycle, and have him camp out in the country with a pair of binoculars until he sees a WMD rolling down the street, take a picture of it, then attack?

 

And one last "unrelated" thing, wft is up with all this BS posting in the politics section (and yes this origional post was 100% BS Lo) when some of you ppl need to go and actually HELP other people on the site, a thread like this gets a crap load of posts yet someone that cant figure out why thier *insert hardware here* wont work gets one reply, they reply to that and the topic dies.

 

That's a little overbearing. Just because people post here doesn't mean they can't/won't post in other threads too. I manage to post in other computer-related threads as well as keep up the fight in these political threads, so why can't everyone else? I check back here daily and if there are any new hardware-related threads that are unanswered, I'll do my best to answer them, and if I can't... I won't. My point is that I don't think having these BS political threads on here is stopping anybody's questions from being answered. If people continue ti post in only this thread, it stays at the top, but this ONE thread staying at the top doesn't cause other threads to drop lower on the list does it? If everyone posted in only this thread, all the other threads below it should stay the same and not drop to page 2 or 3, our of people's view. Since these threads are dropping to page 2 or 3, that means people other than the ones in this thread are also posting in other threads. The reason I post these BS threads is for fun, and for nothing else.

[BarneyGumble]

Lessen what attacks Lo? Exactly what attacks on US soil are we lessening?