Posted on 08/24/2002 4:27:44 PM PDT by aculeus
When the white man dropped the burden, many innocent lives were crushed underneath.
We made a problem by ceasing our oppression of Africa? It always seemed like the Africans wanted the White Man out. I believe Mugabe has been pretty clear on that.
And where did America have colonies in Africa, anyway? Maybe the Europeans should speak to Mugabe. I won't hold my breath.
The whole thing is very Atlas Shrugged. When the "bad people" (whites, or capitalists) actually go away and stop "causing trouble", their "victims" get all upset because of the sudden onslaught of problems caused by the "bad people" no longer doing their "bad things". It's almost funny. Almost.
If you're not even going to try to make sense, I'll not bother even reading your stuff.
As a result of the corruption and lust for power some alot of furtile land sits idle while people starve. A starving population is much easier to control than a prosperious one.
Perhaps this is why the liberals in the US continue to try to drive businesses under?
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
The 'smoking hole' refers to political reality...I'm not the one charged with making that decision, so it matters very little what I would do.
If you really believe your argument, why are you not actively involved in gunning-down a third of the populace of the town where you live? After all, many of them have guns, and you know one of them is gonna go on a rampage and kill many, many people. It is your duty to prevent that, to protect all those other innocent women & children. Hop to it!
Sound a little ridiculous?
Yes, its a rediculous arguement. Its legal for US citizens to own "guns". As of 1991, it is illegal for Sadaam to possess WMDs. BTW, don't bring your gun to a WMD fight. Your arguement gets weaker with every post youmake. I'll be kind, just in case you actually believe the dribble you put out (as opposed to being a troll)
No, I'm not a troll. I honestly believe it is inherently wrong for us to attack someone before they attack us. If you wish to continue the personal-level gunfight analogy, if a man were pointing a gun at myself or someone else, I would intervene, as that represents a very real threat of deadly harm.
Prove to me, and the rest of America, that Hussein represents that same kind of immediate, obvious threat. If it could be done, this administration would have already done so.
Good Luck!
The only people the international court wishes to have sit before them are U.S. peace keeper troops (the U.S. is so "bellicose" don't cha know).
And let's not forget the enlightened Arab World.......
Well, they can try the U.N., but with Syria on the Human Rights panel, you might as well as have Sudan, Lybia, Cuba, Somalia, Iran, and China chime in as well.
Leroy, you are getting rediculous now. An AR-15 is not a WMD. BTW, I have a shotgun, rifle and 2 pistols. So if Mr. sawed-off shotgun shows up at my house, he's in for a surprise.
No, I'm not a troll. I honestly believe it is inherently wrong for us to attack someone before they attack us.
Ummmm, Leroy, we were already attacked. We've been attacked at least 1/2 dozen times in the last decade (OKC, US Cole, WTC x 2, Khobar Towers etc.). We're mad as hell and we'renot going to take it anymore. Especially from this two-bit psycho-dictator and the rest of the swarmy crowd.
Prove to me, and the rest of America, that Hussein represents that same kind of immediate, obvious threat. If it could be done, this administration would have already done so.
That's where you're wrong. You don't show the rest of the players at the table each card as its dealt to you. You wait til you see what kind of hand you have, make your bets and then you lay your cards on the table. Bush will shows us most of the cards before we go after Sadaam (at around T-1 minute, hopefully).
Q.E.D. It is not any more moral for the state to do that which you yourself would not.We've been attacked at least 1/2 dozen times in the last decade...
Prove that it was Hussein behind those, and I'll support whatever it takes to get to him; but merely being part of a disagreeable crowd is not sufficient cause for killing.Bush will shows us most of the cards before we go after Sadaam...
Until then, we're just supposed to trust him? After Waco, and Ruby Ridge (just to name two recent examples, that is something I can not do. Besides, we're not playing poker, here - the stakes are infinitely higher, and it is not a bluffing contest. We have the means to do whatever is necessary - what point is there in a bluff? If you're holding a royal flush, you could just turn the cards around and show 'em, with the rejoinder, "This is what's comin', if you don't lay your cards down, now." We're supposed to be seeking justice, not whatever we might 'win'.
Why that sounds eerily reminiscent of an author (whose name escapes me) who quoted #42 in a statement, nearly to the letter.Zimbabwe,I suppose they're one of those countries that wants more money from us at that Earth Conference in S. Africa,right?
You might well be right there Chuckie...it falls to logic that people elect a President who has the BEST INTERESTS of their nation on his/her agenda.
But I notice a strange silence from the 'back to Africa' group. Nothing from Calypso Louie, Fast Al Sharpton and the 'Right Reverend J.Jackson...hmmm...I guess sharks know when there is nothing but bones.
When you respond, it won't.
A side benefit will be our gaining sorely needed real estate for a time, allowing us to build up logistics support bases which we need "over there."
(Tx for the flare.)
It's good that you don't take yourself too seriously, but don't expect anybody else to, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.