Are they not justified in that? I do not condone of thier actions, but wouldn't Americans be up in arms if an Independent Cherokee state were created in the middle of America?

It was, in the Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) at the end of the Trail of Tears in 1838. I think we can all agree that hating Native Americans enough to try to exterminate them completely is very wrong.

Are they not justified in that? I do not condone of thier actions, but wouldn't Americans be up in arms if an Independent Cherokee state were created in the middle of America?

 

I'm not saying they are or aren't justified, just stating an opinion. But to answer your question, I can see why they might be bitter, but can't see the bitterness translated into the slaughter of innocent people throughout the decades however.

I'm not saying they are or aren't justified, just stating an opinion. But to answer your question, I can see why they might be bitter, but can't see the bitterness translated into the slaughter of innocent people throughout the decades however.

 

I can accept the bitterness they have, but as you have said, the translation into killing is beyond the line.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's the funniest thing I read on here in years.

 

The 'diplomacy' that we used with Qaddafi was to send F-111's and F-18's to destroy tactical sites around Tripoli, including Qaddafi's bunker in retaliation for his general terrorism and SCUD attacks and bombings in the Gulf of Sidra. The strike killed his adopted daughter, injured his two sons, and nearly killed him.

 

He had not been a terrorist since.

 

How old were his children..........Were they terrorists?

Did we attack North Korea? They disarmed their nuclear program and not one bomb was dropped. I guess they just decided to out of the goodness of their heart?

 

Except that they've restarted the program now.

Except that they've restarted the program now.

Didn't you hear, they don't have the resources or knowledge for a nuclear program so I wouldn't worry.

One thing everyone gets away from is why the Islamic Musilm terrorists are why they are. Its not politics, its religion. Does anyone here know what he Koran says about and commands the Muslim faith to do to the Infidels? Sooner we realize this is all about what faith you are and not on Politics the better we will be. Hearsay has the best idea. Kill them.

That is the problem with going over there and blowing up everything. We just may get leader xyz, but what are his kids going to be like, etc, etc.

 

Violence doesn't solve anything and by us resorting to violence to solve problems, we are no better than they are. I just hope that everyone votes for Mccain and then they can take responsibilty for 5 thousand more military deaths overseas in the next 4 years.

 

If 5,000 military deaths is the cost to avoid tens of thousands of U.S. civilian deaths and huge blows and disruptions to our economy and security, then most of those 5,000 dead military members will have probably felt their deaths were worthwhile. God bless our military members because they are willing to sacrifice their lives for their country.

"Talking" to terrorists and "negotiating" with terrorists are two vastly different concepts. I'm all for "talking" to terrorists, as in providing them fair warning that if they don't improve thier social skills and habits, they will be swiftly and permanently removed from the world's cultural gene pool. I see no merit at all in "negotiating" with these vermin, thereby adding validity to their murderous tactics upon innocent victims.

 

As far as me spouting "neo conservative" talking points:

• Neo-Con literally means "New Conservative" or reformed liberal who has grown disinterested in liberal thoughts, beliefs and methods and has come over to a more sensible (my view) way of looking at things.
  
• I've been a conservative my entire life... nothing "neo" here. :lol:
  
• I do not subscribe to "Neo-Con Weekly" to receive my latest talking points.
  
• I actually believe what I said about dealing with terrorists, totally separate from what any party or candidate or talk show host may represent.
  
• Sorry if you find my opinion cliche or disturbing.
  
• I must admit however, that I find your apparently more liberal views disturbing (and far more dangerous in the long run) as well.
  

 

A man breaks into my home in the middle of the night carrying a weapon intended to harm my family or me. Given adequate warning, I may tell him to stop and drop the weapon. I may give him the opportunity to leave my home. I may even listen to what he has to say AFTER he sets down his weapon. But if he takes another step toward my family-weapon in hand-I will arrange an immediate meeting with his Maker... no qualms, no second guessing. His choice, not mine.

 

"Talking" with terrorists is no different IMO. They need to stop hurting others first, then we can sit down and try to understand why they're so angry... not the other way around.

FWIW, I agree completely with everything you are saying. I never disagreed on your opinion, and I may be as conservative as you, or at least close. Ask anyone on this board if I am a liberal.

 

What I found disturbing is saying things like "perhaps they should be rendered faceless." It adds little to the discussion, and most likely further divides people from our side of the debate. If I was an undecided/liberal on this issue, hearing something like that would turn me away. And if you truly find my "more liberal" views (which, BTW, I don't have) more dangerous in the long run, then you simply wouldn't say things like that.

FWIW, I agree completely with everything you are saying. I never disagreed on your opinion, and I may be as conservative as you, or at least close. Ask anyone on this board if I am a liberal.

 

What I found disturbing is saying things like "perhaps they should be rendered faceless." It adds little to the discussion, and most likely further divides people from our side of the debate. If I was an undecided/liberal on this issue, hearing something like that would turn me away. And if you truly find my "more liberal" views (which, BTW, I don't have) more dangerous in the long run, then you simply wouldn't say things like that.

 

You get it. Thank you so much! :thumb:

 

BTW...cch is most certainly NOT a liberal!

I guess this is sort of tangent to the thread, but...here goes:

 

I don't consider myself liberal. I'm always amazed that I somehow wind up being classified liberal for the primary reason that I have never, even pre-war, supported our actions in Iraq. I have expressed my support of the action in Afghanistan, but somehow, because I thought/think that the action in Iraq was never about WMD, I am somehow "liberal".

You get it. Thank you so much! :thumb:

 

BTW...cch is most certainly NOT a liberal!

You thank me, then insult me. :irked: :lol:

 

Seriously though, I think conservatives would attract more votes if we weren't so horrible at making our positions seem attractive. Democrats are excellent at appealing to people's emotions.

I guess this is sort of tangent to the thread, but...here goes:

 

I don't consider myself liberal. I'm always amazed that I somehow wind up being classified liberal for the primary reason that I have never, even pre-war, supported our actions in Iraq. I have expressed my support of the action in Afghanistan, but somehow, because I thought/think that the action in Iraq was never about WMD, I am somehow "liberal".

I have called you a liberal before, but I was wrong. You are a moderate (from what I have read) but your liberal positions tend to fall on the more forefront issues- or you simply are louder with your liberal positions.

You thank me, then insult me. :irked: :lol:

 

Seriously though, I think conservatives would attract more votes if we weren't so horrible at making our positions seem attractive. Democrats are excellent at appealing to people's emotions.

 

I thought I was complimenting you! :lol: One of my big problems that I have to deal with on this board is not letting the sometimes ugly conservative comments steer me away from my middle position. It's hard when I find myself wanting to distance myself from some comments...and posters. But you are not one of those.

I have called you a liberal before, but I was wrong. You are a moderate (from what I have read) but your liberal positions tend to fall on the more forefront issues- or you simply are louder with your liberal positions.

 

 

I'm pretty vocal when I feel there is injustice. The war is one, and various other social issues are some others I may have somewhat liberal views on, compared with some other posters on the board. But, even then, I don't think I'm a "liberal" per se.