I really don't mean to sound racist . . . .

#102
#102
I'm not voting for him because he's Muslim....
His lack of experience and policy views are enough for me
 
#103
#103
ksushalovesthevols said:
Catholics have a history of killing any and everyone in the name of God that spans a couple thousand years.

(And I say that as a devout practicing Catholic).
Click to expand...


What was the last year that happened? My point is that Muslims are killing each other like it's still the 14th and 15th century
 
#104
#104
jamesd1628 said:
And by the way, this kind of implies that, if he was a Muslim, you might think differently. To be honest, I would feel much better about the guy if he admitted to being a Muslim and took a very strong stance against the radical wing of the Muslim community that is responsible for 9/11 and so many other attacks.
Click to expand...
WOW! Great Quote!Welcome to the VN! Watchum!:)
 
#105
#105
emainvol said:
I am certainly not claiming that selfishness is not one of my primary reasons for agreement. I am poor, I will be going back to school, any extra money I can get will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Call the DEMS they will GIVE you some, call Hilliary,she can fix it to where you don't even have to work anymore.:)
 
#106
#106
vol_in_ar said:
What was the last year that happened? My point is that Muslims are killing each other like it's still the 14th and 15th century
Click to expand...

This is a stretch . . . but on some level it's not much different than the wackos that bomb abortion clinics.
 
#108
#108
ksushalovesthevols said:
"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Obama cited the diplomacy of late presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, who engaged the Soviet Union even as he called it the "evil empire."

Thank you. If Gorbachev and Reagan/Bush hadn't talked in the late 80's/early 90's, planet Earth would probably be uninhabitable by now.
Click to expand...

Slight problem with that... the Russians didn't want to kill themselves; the terrorists do. You can't compare the two.
 
#109
#109
You don't like the terrorists, so why does it matter if the means by which they choose to kill you also takes their life? The radical cold-ward era Russians had no less of a desire to kill All Americans than the radical Muslims do. Hell, it's even arguable they were willing to do it by employing suicidal means, since nuclear action on the part of the Russians would have triggered a nuclear answer from the US.
 
#111
#111
GAVol said:
We're talking apples and oranges here. There is a huge difference between talking to the former Soviet Union and talking to every 3rd World nutjob that starts yelling about a weapons program. While Reagan was talking to Gorbachev, he was not talking to Qadafi, Ortega, etc.
Click to expand...

no one is proposing talks with any nutjob who should demand them. when you contrast the situations, what is the difference. is it level of threat? if you believe the current administration then countries like Iran and North Korea are serious threats. I fail to see how a willingness to speak to such countries can be a negative, as opposed to just attack anyone we may feel threatened by?

vol_in_ar said:
I'm not voting for him because he's Muslim....
His lack of experience and policy views are enough for me
Click to expand...

that's good, since he isnt.
 
#112
#112
Reagan talking to Gorbachev vs. anyone talking to Mahmoud is a poor analogy.

1. Gorby was a reformer with those reforms being in a positive direction for the US. Talks made sense in this environment.

2. The USSR was more of an equal in world power than
Iran or North Korea.

3. Gorby was never as defiant or openly hostile to the US as Mahmoud and Kim Jong have been.

Refusing to have talks is simply a policy decision that attempts to influence via isolation. Maybe direct talks are a better way but that's arguable.
 
#113
#113
ksushalovesthevols said:
You don't like the terrorists, so why does it matter if the means by which they choose to kill you also takes their life? The radical cold-ward era Russians had no less of a desire to kill All Americans than the radical Muslims do. Hell, it's even arguable they were willing to do it by employing suicidal means, since nuclear action on the part of the Russians would have triggered a nuclear answer from the US.
Click to expand...

That is ridiculous... mutual destruction was assured if they even thought of launching against us, and that is one reason Reagan's peace through strength policy worked, although I'm sure you will never admit that. Sure, your "motherland" would have liked to kill us, but not at the risk of their own lives... they wanted power, not death. These terrorists are on a fatwa that states in order for them to get to heaven they have to kill themselves while taking out as many of us as they can. If you think that's comparable, please feel free to contact me about buying the Brooklyn Bridge.


And what difference does it make? I hope you honestly realize it makes all the difference in the world.
 
#114
#114
falseintellect said:
no one is proposing talks with any nutjob who should demand them. when you contrast the situations, what is the difference. is it level of threat? if you believe the current administration then countries like Iran and North Korea are serious threats. I fail to see how a willingness to speak to such countries can be a negative, as opposed to just attack anyone we may feel threatened by?



that's good, since he isnt.
Click to expand...

What would you say to him/them? Hi, we're not that bad, why do you want to kill us? All joking aside there are some rulers you can't reason with; why is that so hard for people to understand? The fact that I believe you can't simply talk with the leaders of Iran, etc doesn't mean I'm someone who just wants to blow up everything, it's being realistic.
 
#115
#115
Negotiations are far more complex than sitting down with a leader and saying "Hi, I'm nice and I think you're nice too. Let's not kill each other." You are grossly oversimplifying the potential dialogue.
 
#116
#116
BTW, is there any legitimate reason why you're alluding to my claim of Russia as my motherland in quotations? Is it supposed to be ironic or witty? Is this some sort of innuendo that my claim of my background somehow makes me less American?
 
#117
#117
"negotiations are tough and complex"

sounds eerily like the excuses I hear for the ineptitude and inaction of the UN.
 
#118
#118
Negotians ARE tough, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try them before resorting to more stringent means. Obviously every conflict is different and it won't work in all situations (i.e., clearly the violence in Kenya right now won't be stopped by someone going in and asking everyone to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya), but negotiations can be an appropriate perliminary measure in a number of situations, or they can become a part of an overall strategy of conflict resolution (this is the more realistic solution, imo).
 
#119
#119
our post Ike penchant for diplomacy hasn't served us very well. Our tendency to gab and expect good from all parties has even hurt our war efforts.
 
#120
#120
ksushalovesthevols said:
BTW, is there any legitimate reason why you're alluding to my claim of Russia as my motherland in quotations? Is it supposed to be ironic or witty? Is this some sort of innuendo that my claim of my background somehow makes me less American?
Click to expand...

If you want to take it that way, be my guest. You had called Russia your "motherland" in another post I read, so that's why I put it in there... if you want to read more into it than that, that's your right.
 
#121
#121
ksushalovesthevols said:
Negotians ARE tough, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try them before resorting to more stringent means. Obviously every conflict is different and it won't work in all situations (i.e., clearly the violence in Kenya right now won't be stopped by someone going in and asking everyone to sit in a circle and sing Kumbaya), but negotiations can be an appropriate perliminary measure in a number of situations, or they can become a part of an overall strategy of conflict resolution (this is the more realistic solution, imo).
Click to expand...

Negotions can only start when the two parties are sane and reasonable... I hope you're not telling me that the leaders of Iran and North Korea are sane and reasonable.
 
#123
#123
ksushalovesthevols said:
Negotiations are far more complex than sitting down with a leader and saying "Hi, I'm nice and I think you're nice too. Let's not kill each other." You are grossly oversimplifying the potential dialogue.
Click to expand...

OK, you're the PUSA and you're in front of the leader of Iran.. what would you say, since I'm oversimplifying it?
 
#125
#125
Nations from the time of Hammurabi through Alexanders on up until us have tried negotiating with these people. When will civilization learn that some cultures do not respond to dialogue.

It seems maybe we are paying attention to history and like Alexander, have come to the realization that the only thing they respect is being killed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top