I can't see any reason why women should drive

On Sun, 01 May 2005 20:50:25 -0500, DTJ > wrote:


>
>Suppose a country was about to be invaded, and asked for our help.
>They are our ally. Should we uphold the treaty and help, or do as you
>say and let some asshole terrorist take them over?


Were the Soviets "right" when they went into Afghanistan in 1979-1980?
(At the "request" of the Marxist government that was being threatened
by Muslim rebels?)

Bernard farquart wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:

>>Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose the US government was an
>>absolute monarchy that didn't represent the people. Let's suppose that
>>the Mexican government wanted to establish a military base in southern
>>California. Let's assume that a substantial portion of the population
>>living in southern CA really didn't like the fact that Mexicans were
>>living in US land.
>>
>>Now, if some extremists from the southern CA population decided to bomb
>>the Mexican military barracks. Then, after a while, some Mexican
>>embassies in the US and Canada were bombed. Then after a little longer, a
>>major business complex along with a major military complex in Mexico were
>>attacked (bombed, planes flown into them, whatever), then do you still
>>think the Mexican government was right in not considering the local
>>populations attitudes before establishing their base?

> No godd**n it, they should be bombing the non representative
> government's buildings, not the mexicans, the problem is the
> govenrment that allows the situation, not the situation.

It takes 2 governments to allow a situtation. To say that the Mexican
government is totally blameless in this hypothetical scenario goes to
show that you're not thinking things through.

Besides, if you think about what the hypothetical situation corresponds
to IRL, then the extremists have also been attacking US government
forces as well (in the context of the hypothetical scenario).

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> As long as we remain wide open and unprepared, we will get hit by
> mentally unstable extremists whether we ignore the sentiments or not.

For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about
hijackers flying planes into their buildings. Why are we at risk when
most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa,
South America, Japan, etc.)? Why do we have terror alert levels when
other countries don't have to bother?

Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it
because of something we did (or are still doing)?

On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:10:11 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> As long as we remain wide open and unprepared, we will get hit by
>> mentally unstable extremists whether we ignore the sentiments or not.
>
>For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about
>hijackers flying planes into their buildings.

You sure about that?


> Why are we at risk when
>most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa,
>South America, Japan, etc.)?

Not at risk?


Those places that you mention have been dealing with terrorism much
longer than the US has been experiencing it


> Why do we have terror alert levels when
>other countries don't have to bother?
>

They may not have a silly color-coded alert system, but they are
concerned about terrorism in their own countries.

>Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it
>because of something we did (or are still doing)?

Yes, we are "special" in many ways and I'm sure that some things we've
done and probably are still doing serves as motivation for some
terrorists.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:11:06 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>> If the government doesn't represent the people, the people need to get
>> another government. Until such time as they do so, what the government
>> says is the way it goes.
>
>If we're willing to ignore the sentiment of the people, then we get hit
>by extremists.

Get real. Nobody gives a **** about the terrorists. We should
****ing nuke them all.

The people of the United States, on the other hand, want us in Saudi
Arabia, just like Saudi Arabia does.

>Personally, I would play it safe and try to consider regional attitudes
>before engaging in what was considered a widely unpopular action.

Widely is not the same thing as a few terrorists.

>Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose the US government was an

How about reality instead of your hyperbole.

Suppose a country was about to be invaded, and asked for our help.
They are our ally. Should we uphold the treaty and help, or do as you
say and let some asshole terrorist take them over?

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:30:02 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
> wrote:

>"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
>> No, but if the majority is against abortion, then that should be our
>> national policy (and vice versa).
>
>Please look up the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"

I guess he would support us if the majority thought we should kill all
sunni muslims.

In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:

> Here's a hypothetical situation: Suppose the US government was an
> absolute monarchy that didn't represent the people.

Considering the family ties in politics, one could call it that now.

> Let's suppose that
> the Mexican government wanted to establish a military base in southern
> California. Let's assume that a substantial portion of the population
> living in southern CA really didn't like the fact that Mexicans were
> living in US land.

We have that now, cept without the military base. The US government isn't
listening to the people and Mexican government is encouraging more people
to come to the USA.

> Now, if some extremists from the southern CA population decided to bomb
> the Mexican military barracks. Then, after a while, some Mexican
> embassies in the US and Canada were bombed. Then after a little longer,
> a major business complex along with a major military complex in Mexico
> were attacked (bombed, planes flown into them, whatever), then do you
> still think the Mexican government was right in not considering the
> local populations attitudes before establishing their base?

Look at what the political process is already doing to people who want to
stop mexicans from coming in. Such people would be arrested, imprisoned,
and possibly executed if there were actual violence involved.

In article >, Arif Khokar wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> As long as we remain wide open and unprepared, we will get hit by
>> mentally unstable extremists whether we ignore the sentiments or not.
>
> For some reason, most other countries don't have to worry about
> hijackers flying planes into their buildings. Why are we at risk when
> most of the rest of the world is not (Europe, Asia, Russia, Africa,
> South America, Japan, etc.)? Why do we have terror alert levels when
> other countries don't have to bother?

Please pay closer attention to the news. Europe appeases terrorists, then
the terrorists strike again. Russia has various problems. A great deal of
africa is at war within itself. Egypt has terrorist attacks etc. Lybia
sponsored terrorism. Elsewhere in africa people are being terrorized from
their farms. (this is part of the reason for famine) South America has
it's own interal problems. North Korea would kidnap Japanese citizens to
have them train operatives who then conduct terror attacks so Japan could
be blamed. There are some in asia who still want revenge on Japan.

The reason we have terror alert levels is to condition US citizens to
more authority and control. It's about oceania being at war. Other
nations either already have that power over their people or aren't
looking to change their nation one event after the next.

> Is it because we're "special," as some people have implied, or is it
> because of something we did (or are still doing)?

The US government does a number of things that are bad. But in some
cases the US is just the scape goat. Take what north korean children are
taught as an example. You'll need to be very specific, because it's going
to vary widely as to why.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:13:25 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>South America has
>it's own interal problems.

Which definitely include *narco*terrorism.
You've got the FARC and before that Pablo Escobar had a nasty habit of
blowing up judges and even once blew up a commercial airliner....


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ercocaine.html

NARRATOR:
In Colombia the money from drugs financed the car bomb attacks that
ripped through the cities. A new word was added to the vocabulary:
narco-terrorism.

The bomb that exploded outside the police headquarters, killed 63 and
wounded 600. Then, on November 27th, 1989, an Avianca jet blew up in
mid-air, killing 107 passengers and crew.

MAX MERMELSTEIN:
There were a couple of people that Escobar didn't want to reach their
destination, and he ordered the bomb placed on the plane.

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

> You've got the FARC and before that Pablo Escobar had a nasty habit of
> blowing up judges and even once blew up a commercial airliner....

yep. there are different sorts of things going on all over. And then
there are groups internal to the USA that are willing to conduct terror
attacks. What's interesting is some of the team-up.