Bill O'Reilly - Europeans are soft because they are weaned on Socialism - Page 4

Pax · March 29, 2004, 09:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
On topic:

What is wrong with trying a 'soft' approach? So far the 'hard' approach hasn't worked out very well.

In any case negotiating with terrorists can always buy some time, if nothing else.

Actually, I have a question. More like a thought experiment really. Why is it always presented in such a way, that making a deal with al- quada is impossible? The way I see it continuing in the same mode will only cost more lives.

Say for instance. Ok we will withdraw completely from the Mid east. Give the Palestinians their homeland. And pay the proper price for oil. This would include a new international monetary and financial order.

These 3 things, if they were implemented will have immensely little negative impact on the daily lives of the citizens of the western world. In fact in the long run it would make sense.

I know some might complain that it is unwise to make deals with terrorists. But the argument that giving in to terrorists will only mean more terrorists is not a good one, because combating terrorists also creates more terrorists. Perhaps quite a few more.

Well said!!

Kropotkin · March 29, 2004, 10:43

You're insane, you can't made deals with wahhabist maniacs.

Pax · March 29, 2004, 11:51

"Doctor current meds not working."

"Nurse, Increase Dosage"

Throw dollars at it, Throw bodies at it! That's Insane!

If it's not working then a new solution needs to be explored!

Kropotkin · March 29, 2004, 12:14

I'm not saying that the current policy of the 'war on terror' is sane. But that doesn't mean that you can expect to make deals with Al-Quadia. That's really 'appeasement' as it worst (and I do really hate the Bush-babies around here that uses that word as some sort of mantra). They're a small group of total wackos, they'll break the deal as soon as they see fit. A 'soft' policy might very well work against quite a lot of others in the middle east and muslim world, but not against al-quaida itself.

CharlesBHoff · March 29, 2004, 16:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
I'm not saying that the current policy of the 'war on terror' is sane. But that doesn't mean that you can expect to make deals with Al-Quadia. That's really 'appeasement' as it worst (and I do really hate the Bush-babies around here that uses that word as some sort of mantra). They're a small group of total wackos, they'll break the deal as soon as they see fit. A 'soft' policy might very well work against quite a lot of others in the middle east and muslim world, but not against al-quaida itself.

We never try to make than deal with AQ so you cannot say it will not work. I never brought into that idiot idear that you cannot make deal with terrorist.

CharlesBHoff · March 29, 2004, 16:52

Our idear of the government type of the ancient world is based on the modern conspect of government we have. Some of ancient government of the ancient world where not purely of one type, The King of Egypt wasnot than pure mon type of government there whele element of socialism in it as well as theocrat type of government.

Lawrence of Arabia · March 29, 2004, 16:59

fez doesnt believe in decentralized government. he wants all drug users to hang. that requires a strong central govt.

Giancarlo · March 29, 2004, 17:06

Being soft on terrorism is not an option. Afterall Clinton was that way for so many years.

Lawrence, decentralized means a smaller central government that enforces the laws. If you break the laws, goodbye.

Atahualpa · March 29, 2004, 17:32

is it just me or has no one noticed how being "weak" is sooo negative here. Like if being the tough guy all the time did any good.

Just look at how the tough Israelis are being to Palestinians and vice-versa. Wow I mean this has really solved the conflict now, nearly.

Lets hope is china gets very tough on Taiwan!

Stick your toughness up your butt!!!

Tripledoc · March 29, 2004, 18:39

BTW Spain has just decided to double its contingent in Afghanistan. How is this being soft on terrorism?

VJ · March 29, 2004, 21:33

CharlesBHoff = Tripledoc's drunk DL. It's freakin' obvious. I mean, just look at the timing, he always posts after Tripledoc and almost always supports him. Why hasn't a mod still run an IP check?

Quote:

Being soft on terrorism is not an option. Afterall Clinton was that way for so many years.

When Clinton tried to bomb Taleban back to the Stone age, he got bad press about it... he was supposedly trying to just cover the fact that he had sex with his assistant. After that, he stopped the bombing raids in Afganistan due to republican pressure... am I correct?

Bush Jr. supported Taliban during his early reign, when he tried to portray himself as a leader who had a 'hard line' on drugs... am I correct?

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both helped to become the leaders of their country and mainly supported and armed in their unsure early years in power by a republican president, Ronald Reagan... am I correct?

And still, it seems that most US citizens are imagining that the republican party is the one which is more actively fighting against the terrorists.

CharlesBHoff · March 29, 2004, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by VJ
CharlesBHoff = Tripledoc's drunk DL. It's freakin' obvious. I mean, just look at the timing, he always posts after Tripledoc and almost always supports him. Why hasn't a mod still run an IP check?

When Clinton tried to bomb Taleban back to the Stone age, he got bad press about it... he was supposedly trying to just cover the fact that he had sex with his assistant. After that, he stopped the bombing raids in Afganistan due to republican pressure... am I correct?

Bush Jr. supported Taliban during his early reign, when he tried to portray himself as a leader who had a 'hard line' on drugs... am I correct?

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both helped to become the leaders of their country and mainly supported and armed in their unsure early years in power by a republican president, Ronald Reagan... am I correct?

And still, it seems that most US citizens are imagining that the republican party is the one which is more actively fighting against the terrorists.

It is easyer to destory orginate crime than fighting terrorism. We strill have not won the war on drug yet and most like never win the war on drug. On Mafric arrest than destory one family afew more take they place. Terrorism is strong support in the Islam world look at Pakistan they are trying to combat terrorist inside Pakistan than the public is protecting against it and MMA is really to pull out of the government they have in Parliament.

DinoDoc · March 29, 2004, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by VJ
Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were both helped to become the leaders of their country and mainly supported and armed in their unsure early years in power by a republican president, Ronald Reagan... am I correct?

No, you aren't.

OBL wasn't a leader of a country and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

mrmitchell · March 29, 2004, 22:28

Quote:

Afterall Clinton was that way for so many years.

Not to mention that Bush's first terror-related meeting was on September 6.

(2001!)

mrmitchell · March 29, 2004, 22:29

Quote:

No, you aren't. OBL wasn't a leader of a country and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

No, but VJ is close. America gave ridiculous amounts of aid to all kinds of whackos in the Middle East, especially in the 1980's. Including Sodamn Insane and Osama bin Hidin.

VJ · March 29, 2004, 22:30

Quote:

OBL wasn't a leader of a country

Technically. You know what I mean, do you?

Quote:

and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

Fine, I just realised that I talked bs from the part that he was helped to become leader by Reagan -- found out Al-Bakr died already in '79, not in '81, as I falsely remembered. Hussein still would've lost the war against Iran quickly, if he hadn't received support from Reagan -- but that's kinda irrelevant unless you're an idealistic liberal, since if Khomeini would've conquered Iraq, the whole area would've exploded, and that would've destroyed the oil-dependant western economies, and THAT would've made a difference in the cold war, since after the death of Breznev, USSR would've had theoretical chances to win it, one way or another.
[/spam]

Umm, but trying to blame Clinton for not exterminating OBL is still hypocritical rhetoric (original counter-point to Fez's post), isn't it?

CharlesBHoff · March 29, 2004, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, you aren't.

OBL wasn't a leader of a country and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

We gave Hussein Chemical Weapon to use against Iran in the war they have going. We gave him bioweapons also. The Chemical Weapon and Bioweapon where destory by Iraq in 1992 an that the reason why we cannot find any now. Than this done unber Reagan term in the White House.

DinoDoc · March 29, 2004, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
No, but VJ is close. America gave ridiculous amounts of aid to all kinds of whackos in the Middle East, especially in the 1980's.

He's still incorrect. The support given to Iraq in the 80's was to ward off Iranian aggression and fully justified IMO. Also The US only supported the liberation movement already going on in Afghanistan.

Tripledoc · March 29, 2004, 22:42

Iranian Agression!

It was Saddam Hussein who invaded.

CharlesBHoff · March 29, 2004, 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's still incorrect. The support given to Iraq in the 80's was to ward off Iranian aggression and fully justified IMO. Also The US only supported the liberation movement already going on in Afghanistan.

I HATED TO BREAK THIS TO YOU IRAQ INVADE IRAN IN 1979 FIRST.

DinoDoc · March 29, 2004, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Iranian Agression!

It was Saddam Hussein who invaded.

Ruhollah Khomeini, on the other hand, was determined to extend his revolution across the Islamic world, starting with Iraq. By late 1979, Tehran was pushing the Kurdish and Shiite populations in Iraq to revolt and topple Saddam, and Iranian operatives were trying to assassinate senior Iraqi officials. Border clashes became increasingly frequent by April 1980, largely at Iran’s instigation.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=75476

VJ · March 29, 2004, 22:49

Quote:

Also The US only supported the liberation movement already going on in Afghanistan.

Uhh... getting credible information from the Internet is hard from subjects like this, and I don't want to browse all my history books just because of this. You know any good sites for obtaining actual information about this?

Quote:

The support given to Iraq in the 80's was to ward off Iranian aggression and fully justified IMO.

That takes a flexible definition of 'justified'... I would've probably taken the same course of action as Reagan took, but because the Iraq-Iran war was a result of FUBAR in US foreign policy during the Carter years (wasn't it?)... grey area, really.

EDIT: Result, not reason.

Kuciwalker · March 29, 2004, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Atahualpa
is it just me or has no one noticed how being "weak" is sooo negative here. Like if being the tough guy all the time did any good.

If brute force isn't working, you aren't using enough.

VJ · March 29, 2004, 22:55

Dennis, did you read my PM?

Kuciwalker · March 29, 2004, 22:58

Yes, I believe I responded to it as well

Tripledoc · March 29, 2004, 23:04

Regarding the Iranian/Iraqi war and who started it. It is practical that two different versions of history can be dug up whenever it suits the strategic interest.

However the argument that Iran started it, would similarily justify Hitlers invasion of Russia. After all the soviet governmnet had supported the German communists with weapons and training.

Also there is a big difference between covert warfare and open invasion.

If not then Iran taking the US embassy hostage would also be justified, since the US had continously meddled in Irans internal affairs.

But the bottom line is that no one is interested in one Muslim state gaining hegemony over the other for reasons that this might impede the cheap supply of oil.

VJ · March 29, 2004, 23:17

You believed wrong. My inbox is either broken or you haven't sent anything to it. C'mon, take just 3 typical sava comments off -- nobody actually reads a sig as big as that. The lonely "You're young and impressionable" -quote was much more efficient, if you're trying to have some readers to it.

Sikander · March 29, 2004, 23:18

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell

No, but VJ is close. America gave ridiculous amounts of aid to all kinds of whackos in the Middle East, especially in the 1980's. Including Sodamn Insane and Osama bin Hidin.

Would you care to support your position that America somehow backed OBL with some facts, or like everyone else who has stated this point over the past several years are you going down in flames too?

VJ · March 29, 2004, 23:30

Uhh... I'm going to sleep now. I hope Kucinich has cleaned his signature a little when I'll be spammin' here next time. Sikander, were you the one who was in Vietnam war? Or were you the one who was working for US army in the early 80's in a burst of Reagan idealism, receiving crappy wage all the time? I can't remember, suffering from memory loss already -- I guess I wasn't protecting my head enough from the various blows, received as a kid.

Funny though, I originally only opened this thread to learn who was Bill O'Reilly, and I still don't know it.

Urban Ranger · March 30, 2004, 03:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
No, you aren't.

OBL wasn't a leader of a country and Hussein was already in power by Reagan's term.

The US government, particularly the CIA, helped in the rise of the Ba'ath party.