No food for fat people

Miserably...

I posted yesterday, on one of the deleted, That I think that should be the only role our federal government has. National defense, legitimate national defense.

Sometimes I think it's like firemen who are arsonists so they can be hero's..


Perhaps we were too busy getting to the bottom of the flax seed oil/MLB scandel to care.. Plus, Lindsy got arrested for DWI..

I'd also add that I'm not real keen on spending my life hell bent on vengence and passing it on for the next 16 generations.

 

Actually he is, in the video I posted of the debate, RP clearly states that America provoked the 9/11 attack.


In many interviews, RP has clearly stated that there has never been a use of military force outside of America that has been justified.


RP is a hands in his pockets kind of guy, I like some of his ideas, but he is too radical on things like blaming America for 9/11 to be considered a real option for President.

 

Pretty much every attack is provoked at some level. The primary goal of foreign policy is to protect our citizens from attacks. Certainly our presence in an area full of nutcases will provoke hatred among some of these nutcases. Arguing an attack was provoked does not justify the attack, or the attackers.

Neutrality is often the best option on the world stage. The old way of staging coups and assassinating opposition leaders was cheaper, in lives and money, than full scale invasions.

 

At the very least the attackers feel they are provoked whether that's the case or not. It's worth trying to understand why.

Sometimes apparent victims can be the perp, some people are very adept at truth twisting.. or at least somewhere farther up the scale than helpless, innocent victim.

 

That is like someone claiming they can't find a job because someone else is holding them back. Sure, it is possible to make an arguement like that but where will it get you?

Sometimes you have to step up and take action, I am not saying everything we have done has been 100% right, but we cannot allow ourselves to be frozen into inactivity and isolation policies out of fear for what some wacko group may do to us.

What would Hitler had done if everyone had remained neutral?

How about Russia?

True neutrality is the most difficult possition to take because it is the most against our nature as humans. We have ideas and beliefs that drive us to get involved in things.

Most of the time, not getting involved is still getting involved. If we had kept our distance with Russia, that would be a kind of support, and the rest of the world wouldsee our inaction as just that. If we stood by and watched Russia take them over, that could breed anger and hostility as well. There is always a way to twist perceptions and events into something bad if someone wants to so the most important thing to do is be sure we are proud of the actions we take. That is not to say we will always act in perfect ways, but we should truly know that we acted with good intenetions, not holding back our actions from fear of terrorist groups.

How do we know that?

Do we trust the words of people who feel good about blowing up a bus filled with children? Do these kinds of actions show a tendancy tword honesty? I don't believe we can trust their word, I believe they are manipulating the media and society to try and win the media war because they know they can never win a face to face war.

And sometimes people look for complicated things were most of the time the simplest answer is the correct answer. 2+2=4, no matter how complicated someone wants to make it seem.

All I can say is in my world, those willing to target innocents "exclusively" are bad people. There is something inside me that screams out against the notion of directly killing a child, but these terrorists not only kill children, but they will select them as a prefered target.


(By the way Wez, nice points)