You are being contentious and I really can’t figure out why. I say only that I will not sanction the US making the first strike and you continually turn this into a unilateral prohibition against the US ever making any strike. That is utterly false to what I have repeatedly said. Given this tendentious attitude displayed I realize it is impossible to have any kind of discussion. You will have things your way and that will be that.
Fine. You know where I stand (or perhaps, those reading know and you refuse to acknowledge it). Your posts hurl repeated calumnies at me which I have patiently borne and have now no interest in allowing you repeat.
God be with you and may He have mercy on your souls.
I am not being contentious. You are just not paying attention.
I say only that I will not sanction the US making the first strike and you continually turn this into a unilateral prohibition against the US ever making any strike.
I have no idea where you got this impression. MY poinit is that if we do not make the first strike then some of our people will die needlessly when the enemy attacks. And the enemy has promised (and demonstrated) that they will attack again and again until we no longer exist.
If it helps you to look at it this way, take 9-11, or the khobar towers (Saudi Arabia), or the USS Cole incident or any one of the other 1000s or so acts of moslem terrorism as the first strike. We have been fighting them piecemeal for decades and we are losing because we will not admit that it is a war between cultures and the only possible outcome is eradication of one of us. I'd much rather it be them. We kill far fewer innocents than islam does. Your posts hurl repeated calumnies at me which I have patiently borne and have now no interest in allowing you repeat.
I have not misrepresented anything that you have said. You have said that you refuse to make the first strike even if we know that the enemy will attack us. Essentially you are saying that you will sacrifice some of our people so that we don't have to make the first move.
If that bothers you perhaps you should think through the consequences of inaction in the face of certain attack
I am not being contentious. You are just not paying attention.
I say only that I will not sanction the US making the first strike and you continually turn this into a unilateral prohibition against the US ever making any strike.
I have no idea where you got this impression. MY point is that if we do not make the first strike then some of our people will die needlessly when the enemy attacks. And the enemy has promised (and demonstrated) that they will attack again and again until we no longer exist.
If it helps you to look at it this way, take 9-11, or the khobar towers (Saudi Arabia), or the USS Cole incident or any one of the other 1000s or so acts of moslem terrorism as the first strike. We have been fighting them piecemeal for decades and we are losing because we will not admit that it is a war between cultures and the only possible outcome is eradication of one of us. I'd much rather it be them. We kill far fewer innocents than islam does. Your posts hurl repeated calumnies at me which I have patiently borne and have now no interest in allowing you repeat.
I have not misrepresented anything that you have said. You have said that you refuse to make the first strike even if we know that the enemy will attack us. Essentially you are saying that you will sacrifice some of our people so that we don't have to make the first move.
If that bothers you perhaps you should think through the consequences of inaction in the face of certain attack