Bulldrek v3.0

PMWrestler wrote: So I couldn't care less if you hate me for saying that, because thats the way it is.

No. That's the way you think it is. There is a big, very unsubtle difference. Obviously you are a moron that can't differentiate between Afghans and a handful of guys that plowed an aeroplane into a few key buildings. You are the least qualified person to go to Afghanistan to help out with the unrest there.

*snicker* Thanks Buddha!

PMWrestler:: We're not poking fun at you for your loss (which is indeed tragic). Just your attitude towards Afghanis. With all the intolerance out there, is there really a need to add more?

And is our logic or rationality really going to make any difference at all? I doubt it. He feels justified in his opinion, and I doubt any amount of scorn will change that.

Yeah but we can continue to do it. That way we can look at him and say to ourselves "yes, we are good people, because we aren't like *him*". Having said how horrible it is, we now don't have to actually do anything about it..... (Sorry... it's election year, the political adds are starting to get to me)

MooCow
The cynical cow

hahaha. You guys can sit there, not affected by it and continue to say that, ridicule me, and think I'm a horrible person. But I guaruntee, you talk to any New York fireman right now, and you're going to get the same exact response as me. And I know that nobody on this board, including me, strike that... especially including me, is fit to lick thier boots, so I feel the opinion is pretty valid.
And btw....Bishop posted in the violence thread that he is aggressive so that he doesn't have to be violent. If we show these terrorist bastards what we do to people who hurt us like that, then maybe it won't happen as frequently, and we won't havre to go to war as much. So continue to poke fun of me with your pictures, and emoticons, but me, and most of the state of New York, are perfectly content to feel the way I do.

PMWrestler wrote: hahaha. You guys can sit there, not affected by it and continue to say that, ridicule me, and think I'm a horrible person. But I guaruntee, you talk to any New York fireman right now, and you're going to get the same exact response as me.

Note also that there is a not insignificant (although it's not large either) number of families of the WTC victims who are severely pissed off at Shrub Jr. for using their loss as a justification for a little "quid pro quo" bloodletting.

Bishop posted in the violence thread that he is aggressive so that he doesn't have to be violent.

Dropping tens of thousands of explosive munitions on one of the poorest countries in the world is "aggressive"? I'm not even going to ask what you think "violence" is.

If we show these terrorist bastards what we do to people who hurt us like that, then maybe it won't happen as frequently, and we won't have to go to war as much.

If the US stopped playing chess with world leaders in order to tap natural resources or further political agendas, there would be a lot less war all around.

So continue to poke fun of me with your pictures, and emoticons, but me, and most of the state of New York, are perfectly content to feel the way I do.

I had been perfectly content with a sigh and an understanding (if not approving) shake of the head, but, fascinatingly, aggression seems to perpetuate and escalate itself.

@Buddha & Moo: I'm as annoyed at|disappointed in you as I am at PMW, dude. Although I'll freely admit to getting a couple of chuckles from you.

I never said it wasn't violence...though maybe aggression wasn't the right word either. See, if we pound them the way we continue to do so, with such an intense bombardment(sp?) then perhaps other countries will think twice before screwing with us again. Hell, maybe all of these bombs aren't the right solution...but Bush's aggressive foreign policy is a lot better than Clinton's policy of posting soldiers outside embassies in hostile cities, with unloaded M16's, and other things he did to make our military the laughing stock of the world. Perhaps now the US can finally get some respect, and people will think twice about bombing us.

Well gee, this /had/ been a delightful thread. Thank you ever so much for pissing in it.

No one here fit to lick a fireman's boots? What the fuck is up with that? I don't know you, and you don't know me, so where you think you're getting off saying that, I sure as heck don't know. I have a shit ton of respect for the New York firefighters for 9/11, but while I'd say they were heroes, they're not gods. They're human beings like you or I, and I think a good many of them would like for you to remember that. They didn't get into their jobs because they think we're not fit to lick their boots. They got into their jobs because they have a respect for life and a sense of responsibility for their community that goes beyond the call of duty. All this talk about bombing a country that is mostly poor and trying to recover is a bunch of macho ass. Showing 'aggression' towards them would be like smacking around a rape victim because her asshole brother just shot your mother or your dog. That is low down and demeaning, and doesn't solve a damn thing.

If you lost loved ones on Sept. 11th, you have my sympathy. I'm sorry for your loss. But your anger is poorly targeted, and you should consider getting some counseling. God knows I thought about getting some for myself, and I wasn't even /there/ - but I do have friends in D.C., and I live close enough to it that if the folks on that plane had known what was going to happen like the folks on the Pennsylvania plane, they could very well have crashed right in my neck of the woods.

'Ragheads'. Bleeding christ.

Did I once say they wanted you to lick thier boots? No, I didn't. If you ask them, they would have your opinion of they aren't gods. But I know they are. SO until you've seen the stare in thier eyes when they leave the Pile, or a guy who's built like a cross between an NFL Linebacker and an NBA center break down in tears at his friends funeral, or smelt the death and decay on thier clothes as they come back home from the pile, then you have no right /NOT/ to call them gods.

So on the same line of thinking, what gives you the right to decide a whole bunch of innocent people should die for the sins of a few others who are only tangentially related?

PMWrestler wrote: If we show these terrorist bastards what we do to people who hurt us like that, then maybe it won't happen as frequently, and we won't havre to go to war as much.

While that seems like something somewhat rational to believe, practical experience doesn't bear that out. The events of September 11 are the /result/ of violence and degredation of these people, by us, by themselves, and by all sorts of people all over the place.

Violence isn't a deterrent. History at least shows us that. Violence begets violence.

*Points to the words of wisdom in his sig.*

Violence isn't a deterrent. History at least shows us that. Violence begets violence.

Then what do you suggest 3-2?

Violence isn't a deterrent. History at least shows us that. Violence begets violence.

Of course violence is a deterrant. We ended World War Two with an Atomic Bomb. The ultimate form of violence prevented millions more Japenese dieing than was absolutely neccesary.

The Cold War never turned "hot" because Russia and the US were afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction. Again, ultimate violence. So in some cases in history, violence, does prevent violence.....though I do have to say that in most cases, you're right. And maybe violence isn't the answer....but if not, then tell me what is? Because it seems to me that if we decide that we're not going to fight with anybody, or retaliate at all when someone pushes us....then eventually we won't have an America anymore.

I'd love to have been able to get to Hong Kong prior to the British handing it over. wow that'd have been a party.

I always have had a thing for oriental women so I'd love anywhere in the fareast.

I also would like to check out the south Pacific, though lord knows why?I don't tan for shit.

JohnnyRico wrote:

Violence isn't a deterrent. History at least shows us that. Violence begets violence.

Then what do you suggest 3-2?

Oh, I suggest violence, but it doesn't mean it'll get us anywhere. It's neither ideal, nor right. It's simply necessary. What the hell else are you going to do?

But violence has to be targeted. It has to have a purpose. Otherwise, it simply breeds resentment. Which it generally does anyway.

But I suggest violence. Not because it's effective, but because I think it's kind of fun.

PMWrestler wrote:

Violence isn't a deterrent. History at least shows us that. Violence begets violence.

Of course violence is a deterrant. We ended World War Two with an Atomic Bomb. The ultimate form of violence prevented millions more Japenese dieing than was absolutely neccesary.

Yes. That is /an/ example of a time when violence stopped violence. But there are about a million other examples of times when violence simply caused more of it. Like, say, at the beginning of World War II.

The Cold War never turned "hot" because Russia and the US were afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction.

That's not violence; that's the /threat/ of violence, which is another animal entirely.

If I shoot anyone who walks toward my house, I'm going to get the shit kicked out of me eventually by people who wanted to walk past my house, or loved those people who I shot, or just don't like me randomly shooting people. But if I put a sign in my lawn that says "No Trespassers," or, "I've got a gun, assholes," there's a lot greater chance that I'll live for two weeks.

And maybe violence isn't the answer....but if not, then tell me what is? Because it seems to me that if we decide that we're not going to fight with anybody, or retaliate at all when someone pushes us....then eventually we won't have an America anymore.

Of course violence is sometimes the answer. /Our/ answer, at any rate. But terrorism is not, which is exactly what you're pushing with your, "Kill all the ragheads" plan. You need to understand the virtue of a proportional response.

You also have to understand that, even though we're Americans who have been taught otherwise from day one, sometimes, violence isn't the answer. Terrorism has /never/ achieved its stated goals. But do you know what has? Non-violent protest.

I'm no peace-nik. By no stretch of the imagination do I think we shouldn't have the right to defend our country. But we could take a lesson from King and from Ghandhi, and see that sometimes, violence just makes dogs mean.

3278 wrote:

PMWrestler wrote:The Cold War never turned "hot" because Russia and the US were afraid of Mutually Assured Destruction.

That's not violence; that's the /threat/ of violence, which is another animal entirely.

That wasn't the threat of violence. That was the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction -- the eradication of all life on Earth and the transformation of the planet into a giant, irradiate monument to the stupidity of the human species.

Thank you. Now please carry this into S-Paul's Afghanistan thread, so we can keep it contained. Danke.

I want to follow a shark around for a year.

well, 32, you made some extremely good points, and definatley shot a few holes in my theory...I'm very happy to find someone who will argue this with me intelligently, so I hope we can keep this going on the Afghanistan thread.