Subject: Re: common ground

BartCop wrote:

>1. Why do people explode when I use the term "dove?"
>    If someone calls me a "hawk," I take that to mean I'm more willing to use military force than they are.
>    It follows then, that a person less willing to use the military is a dove by comparison.
>    Where's the personal slur these people are receiving?<<

Specifically, they get pissed because you insist on equating reluctance to bomb Afghanistan on Bush’s terms
as surrender on the part of those you would label doves.  You have practically equated the very word
with a desire to have Hadji come on in and rape our women.

Disagree, but nice shot with the term "Hadji."
(Have you considered doing your own home page?)
Thing is, I'm in so deep now, I may as well keep swinging.
Somebody will eventually figure out what I'm trying to say.

I'm not angry with the people preaching peace.
I'm angry with their lack of an alternative.
I get a couple of 40-page essays each day saying stuff like,
"OBL should be brought before a proper tribunal."

Well, gee, that's a little tooth-fairyish, don't you think?

Next thing you know, some religio-nut will say,
"Even if we don't get him on this Earth, God will punish him after he's dead."

No,  .........I say we punish him right now.

We're already to the point where the other dumb son of a bitch is willing to die for his cause.
What did Michael say in Godfather II?
"If history has taught us anything, if the attacker is willing to die, anybody can be gotten to."

The doves remind me a little bit of Ross Perot.
Doves want to "roll up their sleeves" and get terrorism.
Somewhere on today's The Latest is a Plan A and a Plan B distortion of my position.

Plan A is kicking Taliban ass.
Plan B is forming a committee to investigate the root causes in a historical perspective considering the
potential damage to the friends and neighbors and fellow worshippers of the mass murderering MF-ers..

I admit, I'm having a helluva time explaining this in print.
I'll bet if me & you had a beer I could explain it in less than 90 seconds.

That is specious bullshit, and it does not lend strength of reasoning to your arguments.

In light of the fact that hundreds of innocent Afghans, many of them women and children,
have been killed by the bombing over the last couple of weeks (and I must stress once again
that thousands upon thousands more will die as a result of our taking out their infrastructure),
I would submit that those of us who expressed concerns about whether bombing right away
was the thing to do or not have a very good point.
 

Scott, nobody is happy about innocent people dying - not even me.
If you have an alternative - we'd love to see the plan.
The Taliban puts their ammunition depots in populated neighborhoods
so if someone dies in the airstrikes they get to say, "See how terrible Americans are?"

If one lives in a very poor country where the leaders choose to spend all of the nation's resources
on weapons and people end up starving, that's very sad. I assume you feel bad for the people
stuck under the regime of the North Koreans, too, but what can we do about it?

What if North Korea was harboring thugs who blew up Los Angeles?
They have starving people in North Korea, right?
So you'd be reluctant to strike back there, too?

That doesn't make you bad, but I think it makes you wrong.