definition of insanity - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #31 09-03-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

...It seems like the SECDEF made comments that were too close to home for some. The protestation seems to indicate complicity. To paraphrase Shakespeare "The Senator doth protest too much, methinks".

Give me a break. That speech didn't hit close to anything, let alone home.

That bitter, incompetent old man said:

Quote:

...We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

* With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?

These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly....

Those aren't the central questions of our time. They aren't even questions anyone is asking. Who said anything about appeasing terrorists? Seriously. Who said that? Nobody. That's who. And nobody is proposing anything that even resembles appeasement. The rest of those questions are equally phony.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but what Rumsfeld said is wrong and counter-productive.

peragro · #32 09-03-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Give me a break. That speech didn't hit close to anything, let alone home.

That bitter, incompetent old man said:Those aren't the central questions of our time. They aren't even questions anyone is asking. Who said anything about appeasing terrorists? Seriously. Who said that? Nobody. That's who. And nobody is proposing anything that even resembles appeasement. The rest of those questions are equally phony.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but what Rumsfeld said is wrong and counter-productive.

Quote:

..We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

* With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?
* Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?
* Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?
* And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world's troubles?

These are central questions of our time, and we must face them honestly....

Bullet 1 - Kofi Annan in Iran right now trying to appease them.
Foreign policy towards N Korea during the 90's was all about appeasment.
the latest appeasment has resulted in Syria being put in charge of disarming Hezbollah. This can only mean they get to sell/supply the same weapons twice with the blessing of the UN.
Of course, this is implicit for any American leader that would allow the UN final say in situations that directly effect our interests.
Withdrawal from Iraq a la Murtha or Kerry would not be appeasement, it would be surrender.

Bullet 2 - Again, the approach of the UN and John Kerry, Howard Dean and other various Democrats who believe that all the problems will be solved via this method.

Bullet 3 - This was the foreign policy and domestic policy with regard to terrorist attacks of the Clinton administration. It is still lauded by naive individuals as the correct approach to take. It's end result is exemplified by airplanes flying into towers on our soil.

Bullet 4 - the basis for this "mentality" completly ignores historical and current events. It is counterproductive and on the face of it directly ignores that there is a definitive enemy that wishes us dead. Rather it puts the onus on us - which is pointless.

I would submit that if what he said was wrong it wouldn't have engendered such denial from people like Harry Reid. It would have been simply ignored. It wasn't.

Honus · #33 09-03-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Bullet 1 - Kofi Annan in Iran right now trying to appease them.
Foreign policy towards N Korea during the 90's was all about appeasment.
the latest appeasment has resulted in Syria being put in charge of disarming Hezbollah. This can only mean they get to sell/supply the same weapons twice with the blessing of the UN.
Of course, this is implicit for any American leader that would allow the UN final say in situations that directly effect our interests.
Withdrawal from Iraq a la Murtha or Kerry would not be appeasement, it would be surrender.

Bullet 2 - Again, the approach of the UN and John Kerry, Howard Dean and other various Democrats who believe that all the problems will be solved via this method.

Bullet 3 - This was the foreign policy and domestic policy with regard to terrorist attacks of the Clinton administration. It is still lauded by naive individuals as the correct approach to take. It's end result is exemplified by airplanes flying into towers on our soil.

Bullet 4 - the basis for this "mentality" completly ignores historical and current events. It is counterproductive and on the face of it directly ignores that there is a definitive enemy that wishes us dead. Rather it puts the onus on us - which is pointless.

Once again you have given us a fact-free response. Got any links to anything that will establish any of that as anything more than your opinion? Your recitation might be dead accurate, I haven't done the research to check, but it sounds more like your interpretation of things.

Quote:

I would submit that if what he said was wrong it wouldn't have engendered such denial from people like Harry Reid. It would have been simply ignored. It wasn't.

So, I guess you read Harry Reid's mind and found that he actually believes what Rumsfeld had to say. As long as we are submitting things, I submit that if the Dems had remained silent following Rumsfeld's rant, there would be plenty of people saying that their silence shows their acceptance of what he says.

peragro · #34 09-03-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Once again you have given us a fact-free response. Got any links to anything that will establish any of that as anything more than your opinion? Your recitation might be dead accurate, I haven't done the research to check, but it sounds more like your interpretation of things.So, I guess you read Harry Reid's mind and found that he actually believes what Rumsfeld had to say. As long as we are submitting things, I submit that if the Dems had remained silent following Rumsfeld's rant, there would be plenty of people saying that their silence shows their acceptance of what he says.

I think my responses are adequate. Those are just the ones off the top of my head. It more than disproves your fact free opinionated response in #34.