First strike and your out!

[tw]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Four *interminably* long posts full chock full of rants and name-calling, specious analogy and invalid parallels.

MaggieL - you have provided not one single fact to support your anti-American contention that international preemptive surprise attacks are acceptable. That same anti-American, warmonging thinking about VietNam should have cured America. You do remember VietNam - and why the Pentagon Papers demonstrated how much government lied - because government feared a threat that never did exist.

VietNam alone demonstrates lies of based upon unjustified fears. Unjustified fears are why this administration calls for preemptive attacks.

There is no name calling. Those who previously used your same thinking are listed. This bothers you? Are you upset that your same logic was also used by Curtis LeMay and Tojo? So instead of providing logic in response, you outrightly insult me or try to claim you are a victim of specious analogy? Four long posts demonstrate that you and Curtis LeMay have the same dangerous thoughts. Both, in defense, responded that they were comfortable with their positions. You should be feeling very uncomfortable since you have not provided a single reason, logical response, or historical example to support your comfortable position.

All you need do, for a start, is demonstrate where in history your mindset is not dangerous. You don't even do that. So again, instead, you cry the victim's claim of name calling and use the word 'rant' for waves of reasons and historical examples. That mindset is dangerous and anti-American; as demonstated by facts and historical example. Unfortunately, this same mindset exists in the current administration, which is why these posts, reasons, and lessons of history are so important.

Those who love war would advocate a surprise attack on the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. Neither you nor the administration can justify why any of those countries should be surprise attacked. You provide no support for your thoughts but then insult anothers who challenge your thinking? Insults are irrelevant. No supporting facts for advocating preemptive militarty attacks, when that contention is so danagerous, is simply unforgiveable. Stick to points of international discussion and stop with insults and personal victim claims. The latter are irrelevant to a dangerous proposal and mindset that surprise attacks are acceptable.