Mrs. Wakely. Oh please never change. Your "insight" into events going on today give me more material then President Bush and Keith Olbermann ever could. Case in point:
"a healthy attitude towards firearms and a talent for explosives"
If you ever need a singles ad, I'd go with that.
Why Mrs. Wakely, I do believe you're trying to seduce me.
I favor stopping genocide in Darfur, with an alliance of nations. We can't do it ourselves, because... all our troops are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So you favor stopping genocide in Darfur, but only with an alliance of nations? So if say, Canada, says "no", you're willing to allow the people of Darfur to continue to be slaughtered? How very "enlightened" of you.
"So, what's the difference between bombing Japan and bombing Afghanistan?"
Well, let's see: at the end of WWII, Japan refused to surrender. They were displaying fanatical behavior, fighting to the death, or commiting suicide, rather than give up. The estimate was, it would take nearly 1 million American lives if we had to invade the Japanese mainland. After several warnings that we had a devastating weapon and were prepared to use it, our demands for surrender were still refused by Japan. Truman then authorized the use of two atomic bombs, one on Nagasaki, one on Hiroshima. Japan then surrendered unconditionally.
With the exception of 1 million US deaths, it sounds almost identical to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to me. Plus, you don't seem to mind it that between 300,000 and 500,000 people were killed in the blasts, but you DO mind it when 80,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. I guess the more dead the better? I fail to see your logic, but then again, I have a tendency to think.
To somehow compare that to your scenario is clearly deranged:
"After 9/11, we should have given the Taliban 24 hours to turn over Bin Laden, then we drop nuclear weapons on Afghanistan." The insanity of that speaks for itself. If you can't grasp the difference, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.
Really? We give them a chance to hand over Bin Laden, they refuse, they die. Simple, easy, and it let's the rest of the world know we're not fucking around.
"You say 'the facts are in' Saddam, yet you completely ignore he was planning attacks against us."
Really? With what? WMD? He didn't have any. Cooperating with Al Queda? He hated Al Queda. What exactly was he going to "attack" us with? His mustache?
19 people found a weakness in our society, exploited it with box cutters, pepper spray and timing, and killed 3,000 people. If you think Saddam doesn't have at least THAT in his arsenal of weaponry, you are dumber then I thought. It doesn't take missiles and warplanes to kill a lot of people. Because we live in a free and open society, we're going to be more vulnerable to terrorism then other countries. I've seen areas in my city that if exploited properly, could kill more people then on 9/11. You're making assumptions that the enemy isn't clever. It's that line of thinking that allowed Clinton to ignore Bin Laden. Never underestimate your enemies. It'll be the easiest way for them to kill you.
"If you're talking about 'having Bin Laden surrounded' in Tora Bora, you need to check your dates and times. Because that happened in December of 2001, LONG before the war in Iraq started. If you have a specific instance where we had him surrounded during the Iraq war, I'd be glad to hear it. But I want it from a 'credible news source' ."
Yes, my POINT is WE HAD HIM SURROUNDED BEFORE WE INVADED IRAQ. CATCH BIN LADEN? NO WAR IN IRAQ. LET HIM GO? YOU CAN STILL MOVE AHEAD WITH PLANS TO INVADE IRAQ, WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Why do you think Bush let him go? THE guy who attacked us on 9/11, to divert most of our resources to invade a country and topple a dictator who HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11?
If our military had been ALLOWED by Bush to catch Bin Laden in Tora Bora, do you think Bush would have received authorization from the congress to invade Iraq? Of course not.
You're assuming a lot there don't you think?
However, that's not what you said. You said the following:
We, in fact, had Bin Laden surrounded without nuclear weapons, but we diverted our forces to Iraq and let him go.
So, in other words, according to you, we had a ton of guys surrounding Bin Laden, then almost inexplicably, we took them off and they were shipped to Iraq. However, your thinking is flawed, in that Tora Bora was in December 2001, and we invaded Iraq in March of 2003. A VERY long time between events.
But please, continue to be a historical revisionist, it's very fun to show you where you are wrong time and time again. Oh and please say hello to everyone at Huffington Post! Yes, Mrs. Wakely, Google is your friend. So, you're an actor?? How odd, I figured you would be a little more eloquent for an actor.
Travis
9 comments:
Why Mrs. Wakely, are you implying a threat to me? I've grown accustomed to our cozy relationship, and now it appears that has turned south.
So now you're "watching", and I should "watch my back" because you "know who I am" and you can "see me" and you "have ways"?
Well Mrs. Wakely, tell the world who I am. Tell them what you see. Tell them all about me.
I won't watch my language, and I WON'T sit idly by if you want to be threatening. If you want a spirited debate, I'm up for that. However, you're simply coming across as a defeated internet keyboard warrior who's trying to imply that you have powers greater then you have.
So put up or shut up. Tell the world about who I am. I'm waiting.
Post a Comment