On 21 Sep 2002 at 22:59, Dr Sebby wrote:
> [Joe Dees]
> it is quite simple; if you are against the proposition of the US
> defending herself by pre-emption, which is the only available
> effective means in a post-9/11 world where transnational terrorist
> organizations avail themselves of WMD's, then you are anti-american,
> or at least anti-americans, for you are opposing the US taking the
> only effective means available by means of which to protect her
> citizens from harm, which is tantamount to advocating, by default,
> that they be exposed to increased risks of harm.
>
> ...Joe, take a look at this post of yours above. these are the words
> of undiluted certainty regarding an issue which you fucking well know
> you dont hold the answers to, nor the access to the information which
> might give them to you. this paragraph of yours quite literally
> sounds like something penned by a blindered fanatic that has ceased
> thinking and is running on pure emotion. if we had leaders that were
> able to say such things and act alone, we'd be back in the damned dark
> ages - as soon as you start mistaking your guesses and opinions for
> absolute fact, you have strayed into the arena of nonsense and
> irrationality. oh and as far as your misplaced love of the
> nation-state still called the US of America...tell me this: who has
> more power/influence; coca-cola or half the worlds 3rd world nations?
> you are living in an archaic reality of the mind - one filled with
> romantic notions of solidarity, unity, cohesiveness, justice and
> service and all the rest of the crap which pretty much went out the
> door with the 50's and beaver cleaver. do you suppose for an instant
> that any of your beloved nation state's leaders give a shit about you?
> do you suppose they are doing anything besides looking after their
> own family dynasty's success and those of their friends? wake up
> dude. as thomas jefferson said, "if you think you can have a free
> democratic society without an educated public, you are sorely
> mistaken" - that pretty much ceased to be decades ago...and no efforts
> are being taken to change that fact, as you beloved bombs are being
> made. the voting public is so incredibly stupid at this point joe,
> that our leaders now for the most part occupy themselves with selfish
> motives and little else. once again, take a look at this ridiculous
> paragraph you wrote below...word for word. and tell me im wrong. and
> please stop making these absolute statements and drawing lines in the
> sand - your words at this point discourage thought and
> investigation...they are quite simply, of the unthinking fanatic sort
> now...emotional, unquestioning, absolute, unbending, aggressive, black
> and white, and full of labels = "anti-american" and all that crap
> youre calling everyone that wants to say, 'hmmn, lets give this a
> moments thought'. i suppose we shouldve nuked the USSR as well right?
> yeah, that sure turned out horrible didnt it? yes, i know they are
> different by miles but cant you see what im saying? you have stopped
> thinking...or trying to.
>
> drsebby.
>
I am being eminently rational. A simple cost-benefit analysis expressly
demonstrates that the probability x risk percentage of not acting before
saddam obtains or builds nukes is much higher than the probability x
risk percentage of action. We simply cannot risk a 9/11 tragedy
multiplied by a thousand.
>
> _________________________________________________________________ Join
> the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:24 MDT