A question at the heart of this "War on Terror" - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

All_Around_Brown · 01-09-2007, 12:21 PM

In the Real World fairy tale you mean its okay to lie to the American people so long as you get what you want politically? That its okay to deceive people into thinking there are enemies where there are not, and no enemies where there are even though that severely jeopardizes national security?

I see. Thats okay as its Machiavellian, a hallmark of the neoconservative school under Strauss.

I thought you were simply saying that the reason why we wont attack Pakistan although they harbor our enemies and refuse to give them up, is because they are a nuclear nation.

Kinda explains why North Korea and Iran are racing to develop nukes huh?

Real World · 01-09-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

In the Real World fairy tale you mean its okay to lie to the American people so long as you get what you want politically? That its okay to deceive people into thinking there are enemies where there are not, and no enemies where there are even though that severely jeopardizes national security?

I see. Thats okay as its Machiavellian, a hallmark of the neoconservative school under Strauss.

I thought you were simply saying that the reason why we wont attack Pakistan although they harbor our enemies and refuse to give them up, is because they are a nuclear nation.

Kinda explains why North Korea and Iran are racing to develop nukes huh?

I never said it was ok to do anything. I merely tried to explain to you, with examples, the how and why of lying versus misleading. I think every logical person would concede that every cause has an effect. Leaders have to weigh those prior to making a decision. When your dealing with a population, or in the United States' case, a world audience, you cannot be as honest as you might like to be. Again, ultimately the public becomes the judge and jury when such decisions are made.

Pakistan refuses to what?

As for Iran and North Korea, they've been trying to manufacture nukes for decades. You know what a decade is right?

All_Around_Brown · 01-09-2007, 12:55 PM

Can we have AQ Khan then?? We have to ask him a few questions.

Quote:

Pakistan’s controversial nuclear proliferator A Q Khan could not have acted alone, “without the awareness of the Pakistani government”, the Swedish Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission has said in a report.
Pakistan’s controversial nuclear proliferator A Q Khan could not have acted alone, “without the awareness of the Pakistani government”, the Swedish Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission has said in a report.

Coming from a commission headed by Hans Blix, a former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the report challenges the contention of Pakistan’s Musharraf regime and could fuel a fresh controversy by US think tanks who have constantly alleged official complicity in whatever Khan did.

A report on Blix’s findings, made public in Washington, was carried without comment by The Daily Times newspaper on Thursday. Among the beneficiaries of Khan’s proliferation, as per Western media reports, are North Korea, Iran, Libya and the radical Islamist network headed by Osama bin Laden.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanhe...6302006127.asp

Real World · 01-09-2007, 02:20 PM

Pakistan's bomb program took years to mature, but in 1998, on the back of Khan's labors, the country detonated five underground nuclear bombs. At a time of high tensions with India over the disputed region of Kashmir, the event turned Khan into a national hero. His glowering, wavy-haired portrait was hand-painted on the backs of trucks and buses all over the country. He was twice awarded Pakistan's highest civilian honor, the Hilal-e-Imtiaz medal. Celebrated in textbooks, he was probably Pakistan's most famous man.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5193-3,00.html

The man is a national hero there. If he ever passed him over to the US in a criminal manner, the public would revolt. It's obviously a less than desirable situation. The Paki's have been questioning him, but that obviously should be taken for what it's worth, although some of the info has been fruitfull. At any rate, it's not like the US is ever in any rush to allow foreign governments to question Americans of any kind, so should we be surprised when other countries do the same? Either way, the Paki's have been very helpfull when it comes to TWAT. Some feel they aren't as helpfull as they could be, others feel that they've been more helpfull than we could expect. When they give you the ok to bomb a Madrassa because it was housing AQ operatives, and 80people die, ask yourself how people here would react to the same.

wistahpatsfan · 01-09-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

...

Is that NEM right after the Pats lost to Denver last year?

wistahpatsfan · 01-09-2007, 03:15 PM

every time I hear a comparison between Bush and Jefferson, Washington, or FDR, I throw up in my mouth a little bit.

***Harry Boy*** · 01-09-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

It's not my fault if you can't understand how things work in the Real World. When FDR was president, he knew the US had to get involved on the Allies side, even though the public was greatly against it. He publically put forth that he was not going to get involved, even though he knew we would. Why didn't Roosevelt just say we had to? When this country was founded, Jefferson wrote in his letters that he knew Slavery would be an issue that would tear at the country. He knew blacks deserved the same "equality" which white men seeked. Yet, he, nor any of his peers, pushed to make every man equal. Why not? Probably because he knew that to large a portion of the country he hoped would support the cause to independence wouldn't. Or once independence was gained, they knew that such a course would certainly result is the disintegration of the union. Nothing is ever as simple as yes or no, black or white, coke or pepsi. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there is a fine line between lying and leading. Ultimately, each individual decides when it's which.

Thats common sense, thats reality, Bush Haters are blind to it, all they can see is that Bush made them look like fools, not once but twice.

Todays Liberal Democrat is filled with a "Vicious Burning Hate" that has never before been seen in this country, it is far worse than even the hatred held for Japan or Hitler was. Todays Hate Filled Liberal Democrat is as much of a threat to America as Al Queda is if not more.

The Liberal Democrat would be willing to see America FALL as long as it meant "Getting Bush".

TED KENNEDY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR MURDER--ROBERT BYRD SHOULD BE HUNG WITH HIS HOOD AND SHEET ON--CRAZY GORE SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN A FREEZER--HARRY REID SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE SEX WITH JANET RENO.

***PressCoverage*** · 01-09-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Boy

Thats common sense, thats reality, Bush Haters are blind to it, all they can see is that Bush made them look like fools, not once but twice.

Todays Liberal Democrat is filled with a "Vicious Burning Hate" that has never before been seen in this country, it is far worse than even the hatred held for Japan or Hitler was. Todays Hate Filled Liberal Democrat is as much of a threat to America as Al Queda is if not more.

The Liberal Democrat would be willing to see America FALL as long as it meant "Getting Bush".

TED KENNEDY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR MURDER--ROBERT BYRD SHOULD BE HUNG WITH HIS HOOD AND SHEET ON--CRAZY GORE SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN A FREEZER--HARRY REID SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE SEX WITH JANET RENO.

and you should be banned for not once contributing any relevant intellectual thought to any thread i've seen yet...

Real World · 01-09-2007, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

every time I hear a comparison between Bush and Jefferson, Washington, or FDR, I throw up in my mouth a little bit.

None of the above were perfect you know. Obviously GW doesn't compare, but some would argue the same about FDR. Lots of people have argued with me that he knowingly misled the public when it came to WW II. At any rate, Washington & Jefferson were special individuals, who does compare to them favorably? No one really. I've read alot of books about the creation of the constitution. My two favorite are Founding Brothers, and a Leap in the Dark. My only problem with the Founding Fathers is their tolerance of slavery. Obvioulsy, when you consider both the times, and the fragility our fledgling nation, you can see where tolerance may have been a necessary evil. Regardless, it still bugs me.

***Harry Boy*** · 01-09-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

and you should be banned for not once contributing any relevant intellectual thought to any thread i've seen yet...

Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever had a "relevant intellectual thought", I'll have to think about it, if I think I have, I think I'll post it.