Special Ops Paintball: 9/11 Tenth Anniversary - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

9/11 Tenth Anniversary How Things Were/How Things Have Changed/How Things Will Be Rate Topic: -----

#16 User is offline   Lt.Col.Vortex 

  • Death itself
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 25-November 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South east Georgia

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:50 PM

If you dont want to be apart of the war/ whatever is taking place...you have two potions: leave or defend what you think is right. Simple as that.

thanks for the link...LOL, I forgot till I read that...thought this was fitting :)

Attached File(s)


0

#17 User is offline   Cuy'val Dar  

  • 327 G.I.R. Bastogne Bulldogs
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 31-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula Louisiana
  • Brigade Name:MICHAEL J. CABOOSE

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:54 PM

Then there are the french who surrender before anything can start, so they are basicly neutral...
Posted Image

Doorbells? Seriously? That's the swear filter?
. -Pirate
"Authenticity bro, everyone voids their bowels when they die."
-Guy at end of paintball movie
0

#18 User is offline   Lt.Col.Vortex 

  • Death itself
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 25-November 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South east Georgia

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:57 PM

....the French are French. Webster defined them as something, but I can t post it on this forum :P
0

#19 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:59 PM

View PostLt.Col.Vortex, on 05 September 2011 - 09:50 PM, said:

If you dont want to be apart of the war/ whatever is taking place...you have two potions: leave or defend what you think is right. Simple as that.


A nation whose territory is not impacted by the war has no reason to "leave" their lands just because someone told them they should join a side.

As far as defense - the majority of neutral powers in the world keep up armed forces. They're not pacifists. They just don't want to get involved in wars that don't concern them. If you try and invade them, well....

Posted Image

And please, that's not a Swiss gun. The Swiss made excellent firearms, and maintained a heavily armed populace for decades. (I say made past tense only because Sig Sauer has had some QC problems, though they could be just limited to the US branch of Sig)
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#20 User is offline   Lt.Col.Vortex 

  • Death itself
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 25-November 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South east Georgia

Posted 05 September 2011 - 08:06 PM

I was speaking in the tense that if your country( or whatever) has been invaded in some way, and you sit on your hands and claim to be neutral......there is no such term. But I do agree with everything you just said though.

And I know thats not a real gun. I would never make fun of firearms( maybe the rounds, but never the guns themselves)
0

#21 User is offline   ike123 

  • Cha togar m' fhearg gun dýoladh
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 349
  • Joined: 23-May 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nutty Northside, CA
  • Brigade Name:ike

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:36 AM

View PostLt.Col.Vortex, on 05 September 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

I was speaking in the tense that if your country( or whatever) has been invaded in some way, and you sit on your hands and claim to be neutral......there is no such term. But I do agree with everything you just said though.

And I know thats not a real gun. I would never make fun of firearms( maybe the rounds, but never the guns themselves)


Still false. If it didn't effect the person in question, they liked where they were (meaning location), and didn't care who wins, why wouldn't they be neutral. Sure, most people would either defend or run, but there is still middle ground there.
Paintball isn't my hobby, it's my lifestyle. Go hard or go home.
0

#22 User is offline   MaDuce 

  • Grab your gun and bring the cat in.
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,054
  • Joined: 02-July 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Brigade Name:MaDuce

Posted 06 September 2011 - 01:46 AM

View PostThalion, on 05 September 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Ironically, we've been throwing more "allies" under the bus in 2011. First we put pressure on Mubarak to step down in Egypt (the same Mubarak that had maintained good relations with Israel and with the US) and then we, along with NATO, turned on Qaddafi in Libya.

The same Qaddafi that, following our invasion of Iraq, decided he was going to play ball with the US, help catch terrorist members in his country, and forget about his nuclear ambitions. He did everything we wanted him to then, and just because world opinion didn't like his flavor of enforcement we threw him under the bus.

It certainly seems that being an ally of the US is almost as dangerous as being our enemy. Perhaps worse.


Supporting monstrous dictators to serve our short-term interests has not been a viable strategy. It creates resentment among the people who will determine if that leader remains in power, democracy or not. Supporting a regime that tortures it's people does not ensure long-term stability. It's what drove the Iranians to Islamic revolution. Rather, we should attempt to ensure that the people of a country remain friendly to us. This doesn't mean placating them and entertaining their stupid desires, but rather leaving them the hell alone. All the pundits are worried the people of Egypt won't use their new freedom to elect a government we like. How dare they! Perhaps they'll make war with Israel! Pffff. If that is truly what the Egyptians want (not bread, electricity, medical care or jobs, no, war with Israel,) then I guess we can let Israel remind them why they brokered a treaty in the first place.

You want a theocracy? Fine you can have one. Just as long as your new leaders agree to allow you to choose a different government if you change your mind. <--- That should be our policy.

This post has been edited by MaDuce: 06 September 2011 - 01:48 AM

"Its very hard to grasp the idea at first but once you accept it, it makes A LOT of sense!" -- Minnesota Sn1p3r on conspiracy theories
"Everyone instantly jumps the conclusion that the government is out to get us." -- SWAT SAINT
"Bad Duce, bad." -- Ace-014
"Good man, Duce, good man." -- Tryon
"Also accepting female snipers." -- Lt.Col.Vortex
0

#23 User is offline   Warpaint 

  • "Well...Shall We?"
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,005
  • Joined: 05-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bucks County, PA
  • Brigade Name:Warpaint537

Posted 06 September 2011 - 06:22 AM

Quote

Quote

I was speaking in the tense that if your country( or whatever) has been invaded in some way, and you sit on your hands and claim to be neutral......there is no such term. But I do agree with everything you just said though.



Still false. If it didn't effect the person in question, they liked where they were (meaning location), and didn't care who wins, why wouldn't they be neutral. Sure, most people would either defend or run, but there is still middle ground there.



I think that unless you evacuate before invasion and occupation instead of repelling an invasion, you are no longer neutral because by accepting occupation of your country, you are now a subject of the occupying country, and you will be expected to cooperate, or you are or will be dead, which is the only true neutral state for mankind. You cannot lay claim to a land or enforce a boundary if you are truly neutral. Once you indicate what is yours and what is theirs, you have distinguished yourself from them, and this side and that side. The occupying force will not allow or accept neutrality. A person may elect not to fight back or resist when attacked, but they are no longer truly neutral once that has happened...your position has been decided for you. No man or woman will be truly neutral when a loved one is taken from them by an occupying force...you can choose not to act, but you are no longer truly neutral because instinct and the enemy will not allow that. Switzerland is neutral because they are allowed to be...other nations respect their right not to be involved...but almost every home in Switzerland is issued a weapon for national defense...indicating their neutrality only goes so far.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke ~ "Well...shall we?" ~ Hoot, Black Hawk Down
Posted Image
0

#24 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 06 September 2011 - 06:41 AM

View PostMaDuce, on 06 September 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

Supporting monstrous dictators to serve our short-term interests has not been a viable strategy. It creates resentment among the people who will determine if that leader remains in power, democracy or not. Supporting a regime that tortures it's people does not ensure long-term stability. It's what drove the Iranians to Islamic revolution.


I didn't mean to suggest that we should actively support them.

What we should have done is just said and done nothing. When Egypt rose up against Mubarak, rather than try to join the "bash Mubarak" crowd, we should have just said nothing, sat back, and watched. Going back to commerce with all, we wait and see who wins, then approach them for doing business.

As far as Libya goes, similar principle.

We worked with our temporary "allies" Mubarak and Qaddafi when they were in power, and got some things out of it. If they remained in power, we still do business with them. If they get tossed out, we work to establish trade relations with the new powers.

Quote

Rather, we should attempt to ensure that the people of a country remain friendly to us. This doesn't mean placating them and entertaining their stupid desires, but rather leaving them the hell alone.


I think we're agreeing in principle, but just had some misunderstanding about my comments regarding our allies that were also dictators. I was saying we had no business actively trying to remove them, especially after they helped us. I was not saying we belonged defending them from internal political uprising.

This post has been edited by Thalion: 06 September 2011 - 06:42 AM

Member of Team Akkadian

0

#25 User is offline   Cuy'val Dar  

  • 327 G.I.R. Bastogne Bulldogs
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 759
  • Joined: 31-May 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ponchatoula Louisiana
  • Brigade Name:MICHAEL J. CABOOSE

Posted 06 September 2011 - 03:22 PM

It seems that the US likes to take others internal affairs and make the ours. Well there's your problem...
Posted Image

Doorbells? Seriously? That's the swear filter?
. -Pirate
"Authenticity bro, everyone voids their bowels when they die."
-Guy at end of paintball movie
0

#26 User is offline   Warpaint 

  • "Well...Shall We?"
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,005
  • Joined: 05-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bucks County, PA
  • Brigade Name:Warpaint537

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:35 PM

View PostCuy'val Dar, on 06 September 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

It seems that the US likes to take others internal affairs and make the ours. Well there's your problem...


We haven't quite learned the difference between intervention and interference. We all know you can't let a big dude pound away on a little dude, especially in front of the little dude's wife and kids, even if the little dude has it coming. That said, while you might step and put the lid back on the open can of whoop-ass, you can't realistically expect your intervention to resolve all their differences, either. That's up to them. When it's a pair of equally matched dudes, sometimes you just try to get them to go outside so they don't break up the joint too much. I recommend you give 'em five minutes to teach each other a lesson, then you call the fire department to hose 'em down and cool 'em off...works like a charm.

This post has been edited by Warpaint: 06 September 2011 - 04:36 PM

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke ~ "Well...shall we?" ~ Hoot, Black Hawk Down
Posted Image
0

#27 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 06 September 2011 - 04:44 PM

View PostWarpaint, on 06 September 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

We all know you can't let a big dude pound away on a little dude, especially in front of the little dude's wife and kids, even if the little dude has it coming.


Yes you can.

If the big dude is on his property and the little dude is on the big dude's property, and if the little dude decides he doesn't need to respect the big dude's right to control his property (either by damaging it, by refusing to respect wishes of the big dude regarding what you can and can't do on his property, etc).

In that case, the big dude has full right to use reasonable force to make the little dude either comply with his requests or get off his property. If the little dude resists, it could well turn into that fight you describe.

We have no right to dictate to another government how to run its country within its own sovereign borders. We can choose to not do business with them if we really, really don't like what we see, but we have no right to actually intervene in a domestic issue.
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#28 User is offline   Warpaint 

  • "Well...Shall We?"
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,005
  • Joined: 05-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bucks County, PA
  • Brigade Name:Warpaint537

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:01 PM

View PostThalion, on 06 September 2011 - 07:44 PM, said:

View PostWarpaint, on 06 September 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

We all know you can't let a big dude pound away on a little dude, especially in front of the little dude's wife and kids, even if the little dude has it coming.


Yes you can.

If the big dude is on his property and the little dude is on the big dude's property, and if the little dude decides he doesn't need to respect the big dude's right to control his property (either by damaging it, by refusing to respect wishes of the big dude regarding what you can and can't do on his property, etc).

In that case, the big dude has full right to use reasonable force to make the little dude either comply with his requests or get off his property. If the little dude resists, it could well turn into that fight you describe.

We have no right to dictate to another government how to run its country within its own sovereign borders. We can choose to not do business with them if we really, really don't like what we see, but we have no right to actually intervene in a domestic issue.


I suppose...if that's the kind of person you are. Personally, I try not to associate with that kind of person much. It's immature and juvenile to try and justify beating a buttwipe to within an inch of their life. It sounds cool, and it sometimes impresses people who really aren't your friends anyway, but outside of those hollywood action pictures, in real life, both parties get a ride to the hoosegow and pay their dues before a judge. That's why there's so many laws against people settling their differences with violence. I'm not saying anyone has to take any crap off of anyone else, but that doesn't entitle you to beat the crap out of them either, regardless of where you are. Removing someone from my property could turn into a fight if I can't encourage the guy to leave and LE doesn't arrive before things get out of control. When I worked a bar with my dad, we had fights. We got their attention, told them to quiet down, and for the most part, that was it. We couldn't let people beat on each other...some were our friends, and we couldn't let them wreck the joint either. Sometimes we had to tell people to take their differences outside. Most would rather drink than fight, so they moved down the bar, We never shot any one with the shotgun or whacked them with the bat, because our lives weren't in danger. Obviously, we were concerned with using force reasonably, even though it was my dad's bar and if we wanted to be hard guys, we could have been more forceful. If they were really bad, we called the police and closed the bar. A couple of times there was a near riot outside, and the fire department came and washed the combatants away. I wish they had camera phones and YouTube back then...that was some funny stuff! There's a difference between self defense and presuming to teach someone a lesson. You quoted only part of my post, in an obvious attempt to make it sound like I'm supporting interfering in other nations's business or affairs, but you seem to have ignored the part where I plainly said there's a difference between intervention and interference. Again, I advocate intervention (not necessarily us, or just us), not interference. Maybe I should use smaller words.

This post has been edited by Warpaint: 06 September 2011 - 05:34 PM

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke ~ "Well...shall we?" ~ Hoot, Black Hawk Down
Posted Image
0

#29 User is offline   Thalion 

  • Probably in the Shooters Thread...
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,984
  • Joined: 22-January 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:32 PM

View PostWarpaint, on 06 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

I suppose...if that's the kind of person you are. Personally, I try not to associate with that kind of person much. It's immature and juvenile to try and justify beating a buttwipe to within an inch of their life. It sounds cool, and it sometimes impresses people who really aren't your friends anyway, but outside of those hollywood action pictures, in real life, both parties get a ride to the hoosegow and pay their dues before a judge.


My point wasn't to justify either side's actions, but rather to say that yes, you can sit back and do nothing and be a perfectly good person.

And as I said, reasonable force is acceptable. If one guy just talks trash and then sits there, and the other guy beats the snot out of him, well that wasn't reasonable force. However, if you intervene, it will be you that the police take into custody, and depending on your jurisdiction you could very well be charged yourself for trying to intervene in a fight that was not your own.

Moving away from the "2 dudes in a fight" analogy and going to the idea of nations. If it's justifiable to intervene inside a nation's domestic policy, then who's to define what is and is not justifiable intervention? Could, for example, the Chinese start dictating domestic economic policy to the US because we are bankrupt? Could Saudia Arabia try to dictate we adhere to Sharia?

What gives the US the right to intervene in another country's domestic policy if we are not to expect similar attempts of intervention?

Foreign policy/international affairs are a whole different animal, and we're not talking about those in this discussion. We are talking solely about policies that concern exclusively what happens within the boundaries of a sovereign nation.

Quote

That's why there's so many laws against people settling their differences with violence. I'm not saying anyone has to take any crap off of anyone else, but that doesn't entitle you to beat the crap out of them either, regardless of where you are. There's a difference between self defense and presuming to teach someone a lesson.


Given that nobody was talking about teaching anyone a lesson, I see no relevance of this discussion point. You are, intentionally or not, taking my post and twisting what was said to infer that I endorse actively using violence to "teach someone a lesson." I made no such claim. I said that we, one sovereign nation, have no right to try and run another sovereign nation.

In the case of Libya, in a civil war (because let's be honest, it was not the poor peaceful protesters against the evil oppressive regime -- it was an armed conflict) we have no business trying to impact the outcome of the fight. Yes, people died. It's war, and that is an unfortunate aspect of war and the human experience as a whole. But who are we to try and intervene on the benefit of either side? Before you say we just gave the little guy a fighting chance, we did not. We crushed Qaddafi's military for the rebels, in essence doing their dirty work.

For the record, I think "giving one side a fighting chance" is also uncalled for, if it's not our war.

Quote

You quoted only part of my post, in an obvious attempt to make it sound like I'm supporting interfering in other nations's business or affairs, but you seem to have ignored the part where I plainly said there's a difference between intervention and interference. Again, I advocate intervention (not necessarily us, or just us), not interference. Maybe I should use smaller words.


You're trying to call out what my intentions are, and falsely doing so for the hopes of discrediting my argument which disagrees with yours. If you're going to try and discredit my argument, try and take something in my points and show where it is wrong.

I read your whole post. I quoted the part that was relevant to what I said. It was clear to me what you were trying to say, and I was saying that we had no business intervening and we had no business interfering. In both cases, my argument holds the same - one nation has no right to do either to another nation with regards to that nation's domestic policy.

Use whatever words you like. I don't care. You made an analogy, I ran with it. Then you decided to call me out as trying to misrepresent your statement and claim I advocated excessive force, when all I was saying is that we had no business being involved (in any capacity) with another country's domestic policy.
Member of Team Akkadian

0

#30 User is offline   Warpaint 

  • "Well...Shall We?"
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,005
  • Joined: 05-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bucks County, PA
  • Brigade Name:Warpaint537

Posted 06 September 2011 - 07:42 PM

View PostThalion, on 06 September 2011 - 08:32 PM, said:

View PostWarpaint, on 06 September 2011 - 07:01 PM, said:

I suppose...if that's the kind of person you are. Personally, I try not to associate with that kind of person much. It's immature and juvenile to try and justify beating a buttwipe to within an inch of their life. It sounds cool, and it sometimes impresses people who really aren't your friends anyway, but outside of those hollywood action pictures, in real life, both parties get a ride to the hoosegow and pay their dues before a judge.


My point wasn't to justify either side's actions, but rather to say that yes, you can sit back and do nothing and be a perfectly good person.

Not in my book. Poop just gets worse. Then you end up getting involved because someone else's poop spills over into your yard. You can't really ignore bad things going on and say you're a perfectly good person. Intervention can be getting in between, or calling in the people responsible for doing so when it's unreasonable or risky for you to do so yourself..

And as I said, reasonable force is acceptable. If one guy just talks trash and then sits there, and the other guy beats the snot out of him, well that wasn't reasonable force. However, if you intervene, it will be you that the police take into custody, and depending on your jurisdiction you could very well be charged yourself for trying to intervene in a fight that was not your own.

See, that's why I gotta use smaller words. Intervene means taking an action to break something up. You can step in, or you can drop a dime. Just don't turn your back.

Moving away from the "2 dudes in a fight" analogy and going to the idea of nations. If it's justifiable to intervene inside a nation's domestic policy, then who's to define what is and is not justifiable intervention? Could, for example, the Chinese start dictating domestic economic policy to the US because we are bankrupt? Could Saudia Arabia try to dictate we adhere to Sharia?

See, you're talking interference. Intervention just breaks things up. Gets people to a table for discussion. Interference is dictating policy.

What gives the US the right to intervene in another country's domestic policy if we are not to expect similar attempts of intervention?

Not talking about intervening in their policy, but their behavior, particularly when it comes to human rights. It's a increasingly smaller world...if you want to sit at the table with the big people, you have demontrate some manners.

Foreign policy/international affairs are a whole different animal, and we're not talking about those in this discussion. We are talking solely about policies that concern exclusively what happens within the boundaries of a sovereign nation.

Actually, yes we are. I left the perspective open when I initiated this post. The subject is 9/11: Where we were/are/think we'll be, both literally and figuratively, from a personal and/or global perspective.

Quote

That's why there's so many laws against people settling their differences with violence. I'm not saying anyone has to take any crap off of anyone else, but that doesn't entitle you to beat the crap out of them either, regardless of where you are. There's a difference between self defense and presuming to teach someone a lesson.


Given that nobody was talking about teaching anyone a lesson, I see no relevance of this discussion point. You are, intentionally or not, taking my post and twisting what was said to infer that I endorse actively using violence to "teach someone a lesson." I made no such claim. I said that we, one sovereign nation, have no right to try and run another sovereign nation.

It's an insinuation...another one of those big words. Just because you don't see the relevance, doesn't mean it's not there. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. That's what you suggest, until that problem shows up on your front porch, then you are going to claim the Castle Doctrine, and apply "reasonable" force to deal with a buttwipe. Reasonable from who's perspective?


In the case of Libya, in a civil war (because let's be honest, it was not the poor peaceful protesters against the evil oppressive regime -- it was an armed conflict) we have no business trying to impact the outcome of the fight. Yes, people died. It's war, and that is an unfortunate aspect of war and the human experience as a whole. But who are we to try and intervene on the benefit of either side? Before you say we just gave the little guy a fighting chance, we did not. We crushed Qaddafi's military for the rebels, in essence doing their dirty work.

I don't know that we should interfere in another country's civil war. We might want to discourage it, perhaps offer some advice, and only intervene in event of human rights abuses. But, as I said before, we can't settle other people's differences, but if we're there when things get out of hand, we should do something, particularly to protect non-combatants or non-beligerents.

For the record, I think "giving one side a fighting chance" is also uncalled for, if it's not our war.

Intervention isn't about taking sides, it's about stopping carnage and damage. If it's not our war, we have no business "settling" it, but we should step in to make sure the kids don't put their eyes out with those sharp sticks.

Quote

You quoted only part of my post, in an obvious attempt to make it sound like I'm supporting interfering in other nations's business or affairs, but you seem to have ignored the part where I plainly said there's a difference between intervention and interference. Again, I advocate intervention (not necessarily us, or just us), not interference. Maybe I should use smaller words.


You're trying to call out what my intentions are, and falsely doing so for the hopes of discrediting my argument which disagrees with yours. If you're going to try and discredit my argument, try and take something in my points and show where it is wrong.

I'm not discrediting anything. I don't have to. If you think you're arguing a point, you're in the wrong forum. If you want to share your opinion, that's one thing. Opinion is based upon experience and perception. Ours are different, although not as much as you probably think.

I read your whole post. I quoted the part that was relevant to what I said. It was clear to me what you were trying to say, and I was saying that we had no business intervening and we had no business interfering. In both cases, my argument holds the same - one nation has no right to do either to another nation with regards to that nation's domestic policy.

Maybe you did, but you missed a critical part...the distinction between intervention and interference. You can pose an argument if you want, but that's not a relevant action...this isn't a debate forum. A common misperception.

Use whatever words you like. I don't care. You made an analogy, I ran with it. Then you decided to call me out as trying to misrepresent your statement and claim I advocated excessive force, when all I was saying is that we had no business being involved (in any capacity) with another country's domestic policy.


Because you did, although perhaps unintentionally. You don't get the distinction between intervention and interference I make and infer I advocate interference, which I clearly do not, either in philosophy, or practice. I don't use the words I like, I use the words from my vocabulary that best relate my opinion. Again, our opinion on interference is similar...but from MY experience, intervention frequently averts a larger problem later.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke ~ "Well...shall we?" ~ Hoot, Black Hawk Down
Posted Image
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users