Edwards: War on Terror is a Fake

[Jeremiah]

"People are talking about John Edwards and his latest idiotic pandering to the NutRoots: Edwards: Move Past ‘War on Terror’."

"NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a “global war on terror,” calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker” slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.

“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,” Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. “By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam.”

Oops, there I go, gettin’ all hoppin’ mad again. Why would I call this idiotic pandering? Because Edwards was for the war before he decided it didn’t exist:

Flashback video: Edwards pledges unity throughout this “war on terrorism”.

http://www.youtube.com/v/_yvg4utL07o&eurl=

"And while Edwards panders to the defeatist short-attention-span crowd and maneuvers for political power, Al Qaeda and the global jihad have no doubt about their objectives."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/22/new_al_qaeda_ta_mn.jpg

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/new_al_qaeda_ta.html

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25600_Edwards-_War_on_Terror_is_a_Fake&only

[Merfeller]

The man is ridiculous in every regard. He must really need those kook fringe votes...

[vinny_121_ND]

I want my 3 minutes back because edwards just pissed me off big time. People like him haven't done any homework on bin ladin and aQ.

fuming mad.

[Alpheus]

It's not his fault, when he hasn't been to a beauty salon in a week his mind starts to wonder and he stops thinking straight.
What a jackass.

[demotivater]

Well, he has nice hair, he's got that going for him. Tool.

[JJC]

Can you imagine if this cup cake or someone who thinks like him becomes the next president. I'm sure Bin Ladin and his boys are praying every day to Allah for a president like this guy.

[mi35d]

And of course, let's remember he just gave a speech on poverty and only charged $55,00 for his speaking fee.

[Ivo]

You know all the hijakers from 911 are still alive :roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

[BloodyTalon]

You know all the hijakers from 911 are still alive :roll:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Wow...you didn't even bother to read that old ass story. Not only does it say only 4 of the identities are in doubt, but BBC posted an update that this was about the confusion over the identity of the hijackers considering the fact that the WTC was still smoldering ruins by the time this story was published.

You fail. Thank you and come again.

[Ivo]

Note the rolling eyes I'm having a "discussion" with someone on a yahoo message board about the "mysteries" of 911 every time I quote an article dbunking his theory he cherry picks a line from the article or I get the its a government plant. If it wasn't such a serious subject it would be amusing.

[Limeyfellow]

Well to be honest, they been fighting such conflicts since a couple of years after the US became a Republic. All that has changed is they given it a new name.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

There's always been some kind of effort against terrorism going on - certainly ever since I was a kid.

Calling it a 'war' is bullsh1t though. It's just a typically intellectually dishonest attempt by the septics government to paint everyone who disagrees with aspects of how incompetently they run their 'war' as some kind of traitor to the fatherland.:roll:
Sieg Heil!

[dangerclose]

There's always been some kind of effort against terrorism going on - certainly ever since I was a kid.

Calling it a 'war' is bullsh1t though. It's just a typically intellectually dishonest attempt by the septics government to paint everyone who disagrees with aspects of how incompetently they run their 'war' as some kind of traitor to the fatherland.:roll:
Sieg Heil!


Wow that was profound. There's disagreement and then there's releasing wartime secrets.

[Russian_dude]

Well, the "WAR" part is definetly innacurate just like "war on drugs" or "war on poverty". Besides, US is waging war on countries that have fairly little to do with the actual terrorism directed against it. Why are American tanks not attacking Riyadh or invading North Waziristan?

Besides how can you wage war against a Political METHOD? Not an entity, not a process, but a method. Whats next, war FOR peace? War FOR equality?

[dangerclose]

Well, the "WAR" part is definetly innacurate just like "war on drugs" or "war on poverty". Besides, US is waging war on countries that have fairly little to do with the actual terrorism directed against it. Why are American tanks not attacking Riyadh or invading North Waziristan?

Besides how can you wage war against a Political METHOD? Not an entity, not a process, but a method. Whats next, war FOR peace? War FOR equality?

Psst .... it's a war on militant muslims but we can't just come out and call it that.

'War on Terror' is much more practical than 'Global Struggle Against Those Who Have Hijacked a Religion of Peace, Yes, a Religion of Peace'

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Wow that was profound. There's disagreement and then there's releasing wartime secrets.

Take a prize for stating the bleedin' obvious:roll:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Psst .... it's a war on militant muslims but we can't just come out and call it that.


Like he said then why aren't you invading Saudi Arabia or Waziristan?

Because it's a made-up, unnecessary artifically created ****-up.

I guess it's keeping a lot of numpties in fat government jobs in employment though.

[Mastermind]

I could not agree with ex STAB more. ! ! !

[Mu-Meson]

Paraphrasing Edwards: There is no war on terror because it is just what the terrorists want.

What a retard!

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Well, the "WAR" part is definetly innacurate just like "war on drugs" or "war on poverty". Besides, US is waging war on countries that have fairly little to do with the actual terrorism directed against it. Why are American tanks not attacking Riyadh or invading North Waziristan?

Besides how can you wage war against a Political METHOD? Not an entity, not a process, but a method. Whats next, war FOR peace? War FOR equality?

Well, what about Russia's war on Chechnya? I do believe, that is a legitimate war going on to battle islamist extremism.....

[Dasein]

Psst .... it's a war on militant muslims but we can't just come out and call it that.

Then why are we fighting the Ba'athists while maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia? The Ba'athists were by and large secularist, and the Al Qaeda types hated them as much as they hated us. Saddam Hussein would have made a useful ally in a war against terrorism or a war against radical Islam, so why take him out (when we could more easily manipulate him to serve our own ends)?

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Like he said then why aren't you invading Saudi Arabia or Waziristan?

Because it's a made-up, unnecessary artifically created ****-up.

I guess it's keeping a lot of numpties in fat government jobs in employment though.

I would have to agree with the fat numpties part, and I believe those a$$hats were just put into power by those who have a hard on for the war in Iraq, and the soldiers fighting it.

The reason why we are not outright invading Saudi Arabia and Waziristan, is because those countries are considered allies, and have somewhat of a handle on extremist groups. And whats not to say, we do not have personnel there in those places right now rooting out terror groups?

There is a legitimate war on terrorism, and it is being fought everyday, either behind the scenes, or in the media.

The USA will have units deployed, both civilian and military, to countries that request help battleing extremist elements, or inside other countries covertly without their knowledge.

Now, as for the circus being played out by the singing parrots foundation[congress & the senate], those idiots have just as much hindsight and foresight as a monkey playing checkers. They were all for the war on terror right after 9/11/2001, and were even willing to go as far as authorizing limited nuclear strikes against countries that harbored a terrorist group that did another first strike on the USA. And, they were more than eager to jump all over the reasons given to invade Iraq, when it was first proposed. Now, 4 years later, and the country in a mess, these ****weeds want to bail and run, all because of a corporate america contrived shyte storm against the invasion of Iraq, and the resulting circus all over the news from these arm chair generals. And the public just laps that stuff up like a puppy being whelped.

I kid you not. There is a legit war on terror going on. It will be going on for a very long time from now. And to listen to the likes of Edwards, Kerry, and Clinton, is not only a bad idea, but to go along with them, would be the equal to bending over and painting a target on all of our big, fat arses.

[Dasein]

Paraphrasing Edwards: There is no war on terror because it is just what the terrorists want.

What a retard!

How so? By playing up the threat of Al Qaeda, and turning them into this global terror network directly responsible for every local terror cell greatly strengthens Al Qaeda's image. Bush is the best propaganda mouthpiece for Al Qaeda ever - when Bush or any member of his adminsitration talks about the danger posed by Al Qaeda, it enhances Al Qaeda's image. So, the sensible thing to do would be to downplay the Global War on Terror and Al Qaeda rhetoric and find a new line, something that doesn't glamorize Al Qaeda, something that doesn't let the world know they're the biggest danger to the US.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

There's always been some kind of effort against terrorism going on - certainly ever since I was a kid.

Calling it a 'war' is bullsh1t though. It's just a typically intellectually dishonest attempt by the septics government to paint everyone who disagrees with aspects of how incompetently they run their 'war' as some kind of traitor to the fatherland.:roll:
Sieg Heil!

I'm sorry, did you just say "intellectually honest" in the same sentence as the rest of that claptrap? Why don't you tell us what definition of "war" the current situation does not meet?



1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8. Archaic. a battle.
–verb (used without object) 10. to make or carry on war; fight: to war with a neighboring nation.
9. to carry on active hostility or contention: Throughout her life she warred with sin and corruption.
10. to be in conflict or in a state of strong opposition: The temptation warred with his conscience.
–adjective 13. of, belonging to, used in, or due to war: war preparations; war hysteria.

[Dakota435]

Then why are we fighting the Ba'athists while maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia? The Ba'athists were by and large secularist, and the Al Qaeda types hated them as much as they hated us. Saddam Hussein would have made a useful ally in a war against terrorism or a war against radical Islam, so why take him out (when we could more easily manipulate him to serve our own ends)?

That policy was already sewn up by the French and Russians.

[Dakota435]

I'm sorry, did you just say "intellectually honest" in the same sentence s the rest of that claptrap? Why don't you tell us what definition of "war" the current situation does not meet?

Basic fact is, the that state of war, authorized by the UN and undertaken by the original Coalition in '91, was still in effect. The armistice signed was contingent on Saddam following its conditions, and he violated just about all of them, including the hundreds of times he fired on Coalition air patrols, kicking out inspectors, etc etc. The efforts to get new resolutions in '02 and 03 were just adding cover to what was already legal.

[Dasein]

That policy was already sewn up by the French and Russians.

SO why not continue with it? We gained nothing by upsetting the status quo.

[deagle]

lol, where has edwards been, espeically the last few years (and dont' tell me charging $55k for giving speeches all the time). Its a constant "war" or struggle that the world faces. 9/11 was the result of losing such a battle. and realisticially, they'll be more battles to be fought.

[budgie]

“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,”

This is exactly right. The 'GWOT' is a misnomer used to label whatever cause du jour the administration deems appropriate. they don't take it any more seriously than Edwards does. There are terrorists out there but it sould be patently obvious by now that the Bushies movements against them - especially since 2003 - have been increasingly misguided and ineffective: Afghanistan is still not secure; Iraq has become a proving ground for ever more AQ aspirationals and more and more terroists plot attacks against western targets. Far from stamping out terror, Bush's cockups have helped networks expand.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I'm sorry, did you just say "intellectually honest" in the same sentence as the rest of that claptrap? Why don't you tell us what definition of "war" the current situation does not meet?

Because as Budgie says above


The 'GWOT' is a misnomer used to label whatever cause du jour the administration deems appropriate.

[Van Gogh]

I think Edwards comments on whats going on were pretty much true and that you cannot ignore.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I would have to agree with the fat numpties part, and I believe those a$$hats were just put into power by those who have a hard on for the war in Iraq, and the soldiers fighting it.

The reason why we are not outright invading Saudi Arabia and Waziristan, is because those countries are considered allies, and have somewhat of a handle on extremist groups. And whats not to say, we do not have personnel there in those places right now rooting out terror groups?

You probably do and I bet if you do those personnel are finding that their efforts are continually undermined because the societies, governments and military of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are riddled with AQ members and fellow travellers - all the way to the top.

[Mastermind]

As I see it, the Iraqi problem is the big lump in the chute that has everything bollixed up. The huge Bush mistake (and to my credit I wrote him a letter at the very beginning outlining my view here) is that he stayed too long. The original mission should have been to just kick ass and get the F out ASAP. Iraq would have been hurled back to the stone age militarily...no doubt Iran would have filled the vacuum and that no doubt would have emboldend Iran...BUT...the Suni/Sheite problems would have been quadrupled bogging them down rather than us. The Arabs woudl have once again been threatened and would have done anything and everything to keep us appeased and in the game to check Iran. It's a NO BRAINER...but, instead, Bush went on this lunatic "Build a Democratic nation" angle that has absolutely no possibile hope of attaining success in a Muslim fired society....Democracy and Islam do not co-exist....it's like filling the ranks of the Boy Scouts with mafioso thugs...one ovewhelms the other instantly.

Now...the solution is to regroup and rethink the problem. Get the
F out.... Now. This would panic the existing Iraqi gvt, probably bring in a new dictator...Iran would attempt to fill the vacuum, and the sh1t would be on. Those nuts would be at each others throats for the rest of the century...nicely leaving us, by coincidence, alone.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Because as Budgie says above

Quote:
The 'GWOT' is a misnomer used to label whatever cause du jour the administration deems appropriate.


It's misnamed because it's misnamed? Or its' misnamed because it's misused? Nice. We can argue about the administration using the GWOT to justify everything from new tanks to new drapes for the Lincoln bedroom - but that doesn't mean that there isn't a GWOT. FDR probably used WWII to justify a new camo cigarette holder - but WWII was still a war...wasn't it?

By any rational definition of war, this is a war. Just ask our enemies - who, not by coincidence, also call it a war...and who will keep calling it a war, and will keep waging it as a war, even if we decide to start calling it Cap'n Twinkletime's Gumdrop Parade.

Bush & Co. don't need to call it a war. In fact, the US has not declared a war since WWII. The office of the President has all the authority it needs without declaring a war. They simply have the unhappy duty to call it what it is - a position I find far more beneficial than the string of administrations who desperately angled for ways to avoid dealing with the issue, and pretending it could be resolved with handshakes between uninvolved men in suits.

[Jobu]

SO why not continue with it? We gained nothing by upsetting the status quo.

The status quo was the USA being attacked every few years and doing nothing about it. WTC in '93, Khobar, USS Cole, etc.

It was no longer an option after 9/11.

[Dasein]

The status quo was the USA being attacked every few years and doing nothing about it. WTC in '93, Khobar, USS Cole, etc.

It was no longer an option after 9/11.

And what does that have to do with invading Iraq?

[dangerclose]

And what does that have to do with invading Iraq?


Saddam Hussein was implicated in the first WTC attack and President Clinton and Senator Kerry told us that he either had or was pursuing WMDs.

[Jobu]

And what does that have to do with invading Iraq?

Is this discussion about invading Iraq or is it about whether or not there is a Global War on Terror as Edwards brought up?

Stop trying to change the subject.

[Vandervahn]

As I see it, the Iraqi problem is the big lump in the chute that has everything bollixed up. The huge Bush mistake (and to my credit I wrote him a letter at the very beginning outlining my view here) is that he stayed too long. The original mission should have been to just kick ass and get the F out ASAP.

[...]

Now...the solution is to regroup and rethink the problem. Get the
F out.... Now. This would panic the existing Iraqi gvt, probably bring in a new dictator...Iran would attempt to fill the vacuum, and the sh1t would be on. Those nuts would be at each others throats for the rest of the century...nicely leaving us, by coincidence, alone.

Then why not cut all the crap and misery and don´t invade Iraq at all? Ease the sanctions on Hussein and point him to the east. Same effect, less costs and loss of prestige for the Murricans.

[Dasein]

Saddam Hussein was implicated in the first WTC attack and President Clinton and Senator Kerry told us that he either had or was pursuing WMDs.

It has been suggested that Ramzi Yousef was linked to Hussein, but not conclusively proven. Certain news outlets have tried to make more of this connection, but the evidence isn't there.

Iraq's pursuit of WMDs is not related to terrorism, and thus irrelevent to the discussion.



Is this discussion about invading Iraq or is it about whether or not there is a Global War on Terror as Edwards brought up?

So you admit that the invasion of Iraq is not part of the Global War on Terror?

[Firetxmi]

The reason why we are not outright invading Saudi Arabia and Waziristan, is because those countries are considered allies, and have somewhat of a handle on extremist groups.


Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, 2 from the UAE, 1 from Egypt, 1 from Lebanon.

Sure, Saudi Arabia has a handle on the whole terrorism thing. :roll:

I mean, only 79% of the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. What a farce.

[Dasein]

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, too...

The fact is, mid-east politics is far to complex and our need for oil conflicts with our stated goals of fighting terrorism to the point where talk of a Global War on Terror is simply a farce. There is no true GWOT, but rather various diverse military operations that are conducted using the GWOT as an excuse. There are far too many contradicitons and non sequitors with regards to US foreign policy to actually take talk of a GWOT seriously.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, too...

The fact is, mid-east politics is far to complex and our need for oil conflicts with our stated goals of fighting terrorism to the point where talk of a Global War on Terror is simply a farce. There is no true GWOT, but rather various diverse military operations that are conducted using the GWOT as an excuse. There are far too many contradicitons and non sequitors with regards to US foreign policy to actually take talk of a GWOT seriously.

Our democracy, and the world's economy would not tolerate doing what it takes to conduct a true GWOT. We therefore do what is possible. One can sit around, launching pedantic arguments that the current myriad of anti-terror actions around the world don't meet their definition of a GWOT - but just because it's not being waged the way they'd like does not mean it's not a global. war. on. terrorism.

[Firetxmi]

Our democracy, and the world's economy would not tolerate doing what it takes to conduct a true GWOT. We therefore do what is possible. One can sit around, launching pedantic arguments that the current myriad of anti-terror actions around the world don't meet their definition of a GWOT - but just because it's not being waged the way they'd like does not mean it's not a global. war. on. terrorism.

Maybe it should be renamed then:

HAGWOT (Half Assed Global War on Terrorism)

or maybe:

PCGWOT (Politically Convenient Global War on Terrorism)

or:

SGWOT (Semi-Global War on Terrorism)

:roll:

[Dakota435]

Maybe it should be renamed then:

HAGWOT (Half Assed Global War on Terrorism)

or maybe:

PCGWOT (Politically Convenient Global War on Terrorism)

or:

SGWOT (Semi-Global War on Terrorism)

:roll:

The name is really just a euphemism. It's not a war on terrorism at all. It's a war on radical Islam, plain and simple.

[Vandervahn]

And that is supposed to be a valid excuse for justifying all kinds of otherwise highly critizisable decisions, and also as the killer argument to denounce all opposition?

It´s only that the current administration has based 90% of its foreign policy, as well as a considerable amount of domestic decisions, on your so-called "euphemism". But hey, at least they aren´t liberal, right...

[pistol]

Our democracy, and the world's economy would not tolerate doing what it takes to conduct a true GWOT. We therefore do what is possible. One can sit around, launching pedantic arguments that the current myriad of anti-terror actions around the world don't meet their definition of a GWOT - but just because it's not being waged the way they'd like does not mean it's not a global. war. on. terrorism.

If by "what is possible", you mean sit on the Afghanistan-Pakistan boarder and watch the "terrists" stick their tongues out at us from the safety of Pakistan, then yea, I guess we do "what is possible". Who cares about Osama anyway?

[Dasein]

The name is really just a euphemism. It's not a war on terrorism at all. It's a war on radical Islam, plain and simple.

If that's the case, why go after Saddam Hussein - a Ba'athist and enemy of the radical Sunni and Shia Islamists, while keeping cozy with Saudi Arabia?

[Firetxmi]

If that's the case, why go after Saddam Hussein - a Ba'athist and enemy of the radical Sunni and Shia Islamists, while keeping cozy with Saudi Arabia?

My thought exactly. Its because it is the PCGWOT (refer to my earlier post)

[BugHunt]

The reason why we are not outright invading Saudi Arabia and Waziristan, is because those countries are considered allies, and have somewhat of a handle on extremist groups. And whats not to say, we do not have personnel there in those places right now rooting out terror groups?



Dude i think your SERIOUSLY wrong there m8 - both countries have serious problems with exporting extremist islamic ideologies. Infact it could be argued they are the SOURCES of all our Wahabist woes.

FS there was a recent Dispatches ("undercover mosques") showing the widespread posioning of mosques in Britain by Saudi arabain trained mullahs.....

Charities from Saudi Arabia are building mosques, pumping out literature DVDs and training speakers with there warped world view - all for free.

"Mainstream" flavour islam has a hard time competing as the radicals have so much (oil) money and resources....hard to have a islamic book shop when next door theres book shop GIVING its radical books away....


Pakistan is far from controlling there radical elements - ask any of our lot fighting in Afghanistan!



Of course all this is well known (or should be) at the decision making levels of government.

Which begs the question again - Why iraq? And why the stampede and the ill prepared invasion?

War on terror? BS.


You dont fight a fire in a house by flinging petrol into nieghbouring rooms (iraq) with no flames yet.....

[Dakota435]

If that's the case, why go after Saddam Hussein - a Ba'athist and enemy of the radical Sunni and Shia Islamists, while keeping cozy with Saudi Arabia?

I dunno, he had Zarqawi living there and gave the guy medical treatment and he had his people have number of meetings with Bin Laden's people.

But the real question is, why are you guys so upset that Saddam is gone? Why do you defend the sanctity of a vicious Stalinist regime? This is just baffling. Why do you think the current government is LESS legitimate than the Baathist regime? Why do you want to run away from the radical Islamists?

[Dakota435]

My thought exactly. Its because it is the PCGWOT (refer to my earlier post)

Because the Saudis didn't make overt war on their neighbors TWICE.

[Dasein]

Because the Saudis didn't make overt war on their neighbors TWICE.

So the Iran-Iraq war and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait are now acts of terrorism?

[Dakota435]

So the Iran-Iraq war and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait are now acts of terrorism?

I am talking about why Saddam's regime had no right to survive, not terrorism per se.

[Dasein]

But the real question is, why are you guys so upset that Saddam is gone? Why do you defend the sanctity of a vicious Stalinist regime? This is just baffling. Why do you think the current government is LESS legitimate than the Baathist regime? Why do you want to run away from the radical Islamists?

Where do you get this from? I do not see that the US has anything close to a comprehensive grand strategy to deal with terrorism, radical Isloam or the mid-east. All this talk of some global war on terrorism is therefore nothing but propaganda, self-delusion and grandstanding.

How did the invasion of Iraq, at the specific time it was conducted and under the circumstances it was undertaken advance the interests of the United States? Which interests did it advance and how? How does this invasion fit with the grand strategy of the US for the region, and for dealing with terrorism? Has the invasion succeded in advancing these interests and fulfilling this strategy?

[Dasein]

I am talking about why Saddam's regime had no right to survive, not terrorism per se.

A right to survive? Right according to whom? Iraq as a sovereign state answers to no one.

[Hollis]

I am talking about why Saddam's regime had no right to survive, not terrorism per se.


I would call "the Iran-Iraq war and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait are acts of terrorism?"

he should read what the Iraqi Army did to Kuwaitis men, women and children. Also in the Iran/Iraq war, the chemical weapons employed by Saddam's Army.

I would say using a high pressure air hose, and blowing a person's son guts up in front of his parents (via anal cavity) a act of terrorism.

Dakota, I can only wonder what a the goals would be of anyone supporting Saddam.

[Dasein]

HOLLiS, why do you consider those acts of terorrism, specifically, and not simply war crimes? Was My Lai an act of terrorism? What about area bombing of Japan and Germany? How does one distinguish legitimate attacks on civilians from war crimes from terrorism?

[Mastermind]

Then why not cut all the crap and misery and don´t invade Iraq at all? Ease the sanctions on Hussein and point him to the east. Same effect, less costs and loss of prestige for the Murricans.
Because...if anyone remembers, there was absolutely NO DOUBT in any circle what-so-ever he had weapons of mass destruction, had been continually shooting at coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, had voiced almost ovsessive support for the terrorists, had called for more of the same and there was credible evidence at the time that he was actively supporting terror orginzations.
Additionally, the US HAD to make a definitive show of support for our ME friends and allies, invading both Iraq and A-stan placed heavy coalition forces on both flanks of Iran, effectively plaing them in case Iran wanted to get stupid.

The problem was not the act of deposing Sadam or invading Iraq...the problem was what end game the mission would accomplish. Bush started out with full and unwavering support from both houses of congress, foreign allies and just damn near every free country in the world. Staying in past two years was a terriffic mistake...and the fact that there were no credible or effective deposits of WMD took the wind out of everyone's sails. The DemocRATS in congress, smarting from the election defeats, began using the war as a club to beat Bush to death with...and it worked. The Media moguls, already children of the DemocRATs could not help themselves in stubbing along as willing partners....the credibility problem was greatly worsened by Bush's faltering methodology, and the development of several embarrassing circumstances capitalized by his political enemies. The idiotic Abugrahib thing was outragous...and caused a distancing of Bush supporters. He should have turned all troops right around after re-establishing the Krud security, set up permanent lines of support for them through the Northern Alliance and got the F out for all but a few strategic re-posting bases...with the stern warning..."Do anything stupid again and we will be back.". But, the absolutly moronic decision to change the mission to one of "Democracy for Muslims" was so stupid as to be incredible. Now, here we are...bogged down, embarrassed, totaly unable to win anything and taking more and more casualties every day...and we have DemocRATs in charge of both houses of congress....well, that's a damn fine mess.

How do we clean it up? We take our lumps, begin a phase down...six months to reach less than ten percent of current ...maintain points of ready control, get the F out of Iraqi and A-stan politics, let them settle their war in any way they choose...and keep a very sharp eye on Iran.

We should adopt a position of "Punishment" for bad and "Reward" for good....keep our ships in the Gulf and make sure the economic engine is forever controlled by U.S. power. And begin a very involved program of detaching ourselves from the ME oil teat!

American prestige would suffer a bit, but the inaugeration of a new Administration in 09 will solve most of that trouble, no matter who it is...look at how France is being rehabilitated in US eyes with the Sarkozy election...same will be true with new Prez in US. Besides, Bush has been so villified, he will take most of the heat with him when he leaves the WH.

Forgiving anything? Apologizing? Never....just going on with something new that takes American G.I. targets away from the terrorists...and every single time they export their lunacy, we need to react quite heavily and decisivly...anyone ever learn a lesson form Israel, who has been fighting these bast(a)rds for the last 60 years? Well, it's about time!!!

[Kippari]

I first thought that the whole term "War on Terror" was a joke. Time and Mr. Bush told me otherwise after a while. Idk if US government thinks that they can give that black'n'white crap to their citizens and expect most of them to believe in it, but terms like these makes me want to womit. If I was an American I would see this term as an insult to my intellect. Same goes with the "Axis of Evil" thing.:) WTF? Why are they evil?

[Vandervahn]

...
American prestige would suffer a bit, but the inaugeration of a new Administration in 09 will solve most of that trouble, no matter who it is...look at how France is being rehabilitated in US eyes with the Sarkozy election...same will be true with new Prez in US. Besides, Bush has been so villified, he will take most of the heat with him when he leaves the WH. ...

...until that new President (or one of the next) feels an ideological calling again. In my puny opinion, your state´s foreign policy suffers from two conflicting peculiarities: firstly, an elaborate system of allies, vassals and puppets all over the world with an almost pathological angst of keeping neutrality, an opinion courtesy of Mr John Foster Dulles and practizised since Korea and the american meddling in french Indochina policy.

Secondly, a sometimes extreme switch in policy every 4-8 years as presidents ome and go, which basically makes the US support as untrustworthy to the same vassal governments as they are to you.

Now, to get to the point, the USA simply was and is not in the position to pull out of Iraq after the military victory - because of very practical reasons that no WMDs and, initially, Hussein had not been found, as well as no working "free" government has emerged - which effectively requires continous American presence since these were officially the main reasons for the invasion from the start.

Additionally, a premature pullout would have been devastating for exactly that worldwide vassal-ally system the USA had been building for decades. The view that the USA would feel compelled to clean up after a punishing expedition is vitally important, because all the cleptocrats, regional powers and warlords singing the american tune would be relatively safe from repercussions should they get " a little out of sync". A high threshhold and reluctance of America to commit to an invasion AND subsequent pacifying is a guarantee for their survival.

Without that guarantee how should they rely on american support given that the American policy toward them may change at the voters´ whim? Everyone knows they can´t succeed against an American invasion, so they have to rely on the relative safety that America wants to avoid the follow-on costs. An Iraq pullout would utterly trash that reliance, putting the interests of the USA in jeopardy everywhere.

Lastly, there IS a certain ignorance on behalf of the pro-retreating faction: How could anyone have EVER believed in Iraq not falling into a hole, regardless of the idiotic assurances and downplaying of the GOP? Just as recent examples, there had to be an international presence in Bosnia and Kosovo for more than ten years now to prevent the opposing factions of starting again - and these are nations without considerable wealth, land or power (oil) to achieve. Then again, though they may draw political profit from it now, its not entirely the democrats´ fault that the inevitable years-long presence in post-war Iraq hasn´t even remotely been considered or explained to the public by the government.

I hope I´m understandable, I feel my English is degrading :(

[loganinkosovo]

Lets see......."the war is fake" coming from a man that gets $400 haircuts, Charges $55,000 to universities to talk about Poverty, Took a very well payed ($500,000) job at a hedge fund to "Learn about Poverty", Is uncomfortable with Gays, Says he's for the poor and working class people, Hates his poor neighbor and wants him gone and is now receiving $50 million dollars from the recovery of some sunken treasure in the Atlantic ocean......

Who is FAKE now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301499_pf.html

http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/funds/followmoney/10358370.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/23/MNG6HQ00861.DTL

[Dakota435]

HOLLiS, why do you consider those acts of terorrism, specifically, and not simply war crimes? Was My Lai an act of terrorism? What about area bombing of Japan and Germany? How does one distinguish legitimate attacks on civilians from war crimes from terrorism?

Some of us are able to make a distinction from actions between states entered into total war to the finish like WWII, or in the case of something like My Lai, an out of the ordinary and rare action of troops run amok, while conducting in a defensive war to keep a state from being overpowered by an aggressor, as opposed to just attacking someone to take what they have.

Saddam certainly committed acts of terror on his own population as a matter of policy. And yet you defend the sanctity of his right to do so.

[Firetxmi]

Lets see......."the war is fake" coming from a man that gets $400 haircuts, Charges $55,000 to universities to talk about Poverty, Took a very well payed ($500,000) job at a hedge fund to "Learn about Poverty", Is uncomfortable with Gays, Says he's for the poor and working class people, Hates his poor neighbor and wants him gone and is now receiving $50 million dollars from the recovery of some sunken treasure in the Atlantic ocean......

Who is FAKE now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/23/AR2007052301499_pf.html

http://www.thestreet.com/_dm/funds/followmoney/10358370.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/05/23/MNG6HQ00861.DTL

He sounds more like a Republican to me...

[Mastermind]

Actually, a "Defensive" war should be much bloodier and ruthles than any offensive war. We are fighting for our survival or are we not? This makes absolutely no sense what we are doing now....it has no objective, no purpose, and there absolutely is no possible ending that can be to our favor...that is, what we are doing NOW. The only way I see us getting out of this is to create a postion of deterrence...to stand aside with a huge culb and wait. But, that does no good unless we domenstrate we are willing to actually use the club. That's why we should have left after only a few years....our search for Sadam was one of those, detective searches rather than a real military search. If we had wanted the guy sooner bad enough, we would have gotten him. But, all this "Check with the lawyers first." BS is what got us into this sink hole. We either fight a damn war or we don't. If we are not going to punsih another nation for supporting terror...then just shut the F up and get out... Our credibility is shot to hell now for us acting all pu$$ified. No one can take us seriously anymore.

[Dasein]

Some of us are able to make a distinction from actions between states entered into total war to the finish like WWII, or in the case of something like My Lai, an out of the ordinary and rare action of troops run amok, while conducting in a defensive war to keep a state from being overpowered by an aggressor, as opposed to just attacking someone to take what they have.

Are there objective and absolute standards for what might be considered just conduct in war? Do you believe the qualifications of jus in bello that are seen as part of the Christian doctrine of Just War are universally applicable? You seem to be good at making excuses for why the conduct of the United States should be excused or ignored, and frankly, it sounds like little more than moral relativism. If you're willing to defend vaporizing tens of thousands of people with atomic bombs and incinerating hundreds of thousands more with firebombing, why the moral outrage over Saddam's actions?


Saddam certainly committed acts of terror on his own population as a matter of policy. And yet you defend the sanctity of his right to do so.

If one defends a system of sovereign states, then of necessity of such a system, the sovereign has absolute authority to conduct the internal affairs of said state in whatever manner it sees fit. Do you contend that states are no longer sovereign, that there is a higher authority states must answer to? Must all states answer to this authority, or only those who cannot successfully resist its demands?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I dunno, he had Zarqawi living there and gave the guy medical treatment and he had his people have number of meetings with Bin Laden's people.

He appears to have spent some time in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. You may recall that was the area that Saddam hadn't controlled for the previous 12 years!!!:roll:

You don't seriously still believe all that BS about links between Saddam and AQ do you?

[Dakota435]

Are there objective and absolute standards for what might be considered just conduct in war? Do you believe the qualifications of jus in bello that are seen as part of the Christian doctrine of Just War are universally applicable? You seem to be good at making excuses for why the conduct of the United States should be excused or ignored, and frankly, it sounds like little more than moral relativism. If you're willing to defend vaporizing tens of thousands of people with atomic bombs and incinerating hundreds of thousands more with firebombing, why the moral outrage over Saddam's actions?

Good lord. The decision to bomb Japan had to take into account an alternative that was much worse; a very bloody and long term invasion. If you think the best choice was to do neither and sue for peace with the Japanese military regime in the summer of 1945 then you are just plain nuts.



If one defends a system of sovereign states, then of necessity of such a system, the sovereign has absolute authority to conduct the internal affairs of said state in whatever manner it sees fit. Do you contend that states are no longer sovereign, that there is a higher authority states must answer to? Must all states answer to this authority, or only those who cannot successfully resist its demands?

Iraq was a state in violation of the international armistice to end the war in 1991. Its sovereignty was forfeited in 1991 when it attacked Kuwait. The regime had agreed to various terms and conditions to end the fighting, to avoid annihilation. It violated the terms the first time it shot at coalition fighter patrols. You're now invoking the Treaty of Westphalia. What right did Saddam's regime have to the protections of the Treaty of Westphalia? This is completely nuts.

I don't think I will ever comprehend the postmodernist mind. It is suicidal.

[Vertibird]

War on Terror is a not a Fake. It's a brand.

[Dasein]

Good lord. The decision to bomb Japan had to take into account an alternative that was much worse; a very bloody and long term invasion. If you think the best choice was to do neither and sue for peace with the Japanese military regime in the summer of 1945 then you are just plain nuts.

And what of the larger campaign of strategic bombing - bombing raids which specifically targetted civilian populations and executed with methods designed to maximize damage and loss of life? What excuse will you find to defend those? At a larger level, do you subscribe to the doctrine of jus in bello as an absolute, that applies equally to the United States as it does to other states?

[Dakota435]

And what of the larger campaign of strategic bombing - bombing raids which specifically targetted civilian populations and executed with methods designed to maximize damage and loss of life? What excuse will you find to defend those? At a larger level, do you subscribe to the doctrine of jus in bello as an absolute, that applies equally to the United States as it does to other states?

Man you have no perspective on different historical contexts; you see everything from this moral absolutist tower.

WWII was total war dude. A civilizational fight to the finish involving entire societies. Not over until total defeat of one side or the other. A totally different context. And it was started by the Japanese and Germans, including the total war part. Both the Japanese and German regimes had widespread public support. In other words their entire societies sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Too f*cking bad for them boo hooo...

And it was their total defeat which made it possible to be rehabilitated into the modern states they are now. Modern Japan is largely the creation of the United States. What other country pounds an enemy to the dirt and then spends billions helping him up to be an independent success. Try to think of any other major power doing that. There are none.

I believe you are in Europe. Americans and Canadians came over and died in the thousands to rescue you from yourselves TWICE last century. I hope we don't do so again. You don't deserve it.

[Dasein]

I find it funny that you accuse me of being both an absolutist and a post-modernist.

You claim that because World War II was 'total war', this justifies the wholesale slaughter of civilians - does this only justify the slaughter of civilians by the US and UK, or by all participants? If the firebombing of Japan is permitted, why not the Rape of Nanking? Why not the Holocaust? I am having trouble figuring out how you make your moral distinctions - do you believe there are aboslute standards of just conduct in war, do you believe that military necessity trumps moral concerns or do you simply believe your country is always right regardless of the circumstances?

[TR1]

Well, what about Russia's war on Chechnya? I do believe, that is a legitimate war going on to battle islamist extremism.....

the first chechen war had nothing to do with islamic radicals....

[Dakota435]

I find it funny that you accuse me of being both an absolutist and a post-modernist.

You claim that because World War II was 'total war', this justifies the wholesale slaughter of civilians - does this only justify the slaughter of civilians by the US and UK, or by all participants? If the firebombing of Japan is permitted, why not the Rape of Nanking? Why not the Holocaust? I am having trouble figuring out how you make your moral distinctions - do you believe there are aboslute standards of just conduct in war, do you believe that military necessity trumps moral concerns or do you simply believe your country is always right regardless of the circumstances?

I believe that in the real world good people have to do bad things to stop other people from doing worse things. It doesn't make them bad people, and if good people aren't willing to do these things when necessary, then the bad people will have free reign.

You are putting the actions of the western powers on the same moral plane as Japanese and German actions. This is absurd and is true postmodernist thinking. Absolutism goes hand in hand. If party A does 95% bad things and party B does 20% bad things, expressly because of and to stop party A, party B is just as bad as party A. This thinking is what equates something like My Lai, which was a case of troops violating their own rules of combat because they went nuts, with the organized slaughter of civilians by the NVA in Hue during Tet specifically to eliminate them and terrorize the survivors, who had done nothing wrong. One was an abnormality and the other was official policy, and they are in two completely different universes.

So, if I understand your moral universe, if I injure someone who is attacking someone else in an unprovoked assault, I am just as bad as the attacker?

[BugHunt]

Maybe it should be renamed then:

HAGWOT (Half Assed Global War on Terrorism)

or maybe:

PCGWOT (Politically Convenient Global War on Terrorism)

or:

SGWOT (Semi-Global War on Terrorism)

:roll:

The War Against Terror was always my fave ;)

T.W.A.......

[Mastermind]

I find it funny that you accuse me of being both an absolutist and a post-modernist.

You claim that because World War II was 'total war', this justifies the wholesale slaughter of civilians - does this only justify the slaughter of civilians by the US and UK, or by all participants? If the firebombing of Japan is permitted, why not the Rape of Nanking? Why not the Holocaust? I am having trouble figuring out how you make your moral distinctions - do you believe there are aboslute standards of just conduct in war, do you believe that military necessity trumps moral concerns or do you simply believe your country is always right regardless of the circumstances?

You're picking the fruit without seeing the tree. Interesting question..."Does the rape of Nanking justify the fire bombing of Toyko and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" No...Yet, the nature of human beings tends to qualify one act as "value X" thus rendering "Value X to the 3rd power" as a justifiable result...but the conditions of 1945 added this ....if and only if the perpetrators of the Naking Rape, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Battan Death March, the wholsale slaughter of civilians in Manilla..etc., were to utterly surrender and stand responsibility for their actions.

You are assuming the Japanese were merely toying around with the idea of world conquest in everything they did after Nanking. They were not engaging any of the world demands that they give up their fight and stand responsibility for their actions. Thus, it follows, the world would have to force them into submission in order to bring them to justice and destroy the regime that perpetrated the atrocities. How was that to happen? With economic sanctions or letters of condemnation? Or perhaps a severe talking to would do the trick.

It is easy to place current world standards of international intercourse up against the fabric of the circumstances of WWII. That simply would never do ... in fact, our present standards have shown time and againt to be far inadequate for dealing with true rogue states. Look what happened in Bosnia....look at the effect modern day standards had in Rwanda. Utter failures. And Somalia is another example, as is the Sudan today. What do you say to those people who are butchered by ruthless tyrants daily? How would anyone deal with such tyrants...or piratanical regimes... with "sanctions"? What is to be said of the millions of lives saved...both Allied and Japanese by the bombing of entire cities...for without those acts, there most certainly would have been a blood bath of unprecedented proportions. We could have simply starved Japan into submission...causing the deaths of tens of millions. Would that have been preferable?

The terrible state of humanity is that among us, there are mad men...and among us there are litterally billions of people throughout the ages who have followed the orders of such mad men. Today we are faced with an entire class ...some say numbering more than a billion who commit the most horriffic atrocities in the name of a religion...you can never argue with a religon. That is a belief and the men who murder in the name of their God, do so seeking paradise. They will do this unto their own death, no matter what!

What should we do for them? Isolate them? Starve them? What would you do if it was your mother or sister they were burying up to her waste and then beating her to death with large stones? What if it was your brother or father they were grimly sawing off their head on television? These monsters do not reason..they do not negotiate...they do not waiver...just as the monsters of 1945 were willing to continue their murderous rampage regardless of the suffering of their people.

When peaceful means are finally proven to no longer be worthy of rendering your self defense against utter barbarians...what course then?

Actions of survival are not ever to be considered "moralistically"..they are to be considered by the scale of what ever is necessary and works. If the last male Cave Bear on Earth were coming into your cave with a hungry eye for you and your children, do you stop to think...

"Why, I can not morally destroy the last Cave Bear on Earth!

No...you pick up your spear and eradicate an entire species to save your family...and you do it without the slightest hesitation. That is how you judge fights for survival...and fights against tyranny and enslavement.

[name already taken]

War on Terror is a not a Fake. It's a brand.
A brand trademarked by Karl Rove, specialist in direct marketing.

[name already taken]

And what of the larger campaign of strategic bombing - bombing raids which specifically targetted civilian populations and executed with methods designed to maximize damage and loss of life? What excuse will you find to defend those? At a larger level, do you subscribe to the doctrine of jus in bello as an absolute, that applies equally to the United States as it does to other states?
The excuse of history of the war is being written by the winner.

That's been running since the beginning of times and it's the only excuse.

The losers are not left with any resource to make sense of what happened.

[Dakota435]

The losers are not left with any resource to make sense of what happened.

What on earth does that mean? The Germans and Japanese know exactly what happened to them and should have no problem making sense of it. They started wars of aggression and got the sh*t kicked out of them. Are you trying to imply they're somehow innocent?

[name already taken]

What on earth does that mean? The Germans and Japanese know exactly what happened to them and should have no problem making sense of it. They started wars of aggression and got the sh*t kicked out of them. Are you trying to imply they're somehow innocent?
I imply they had their reasons, like everybody else. Those reasons being right or wrong is matter of another debate.

Painting ourselves as being white and pure and our opponents as being pure devil has gone out of fashion some time ago.

[11 Bravo]

I imply they had their reasons, like everybody else. Those reasons being right or wrong is matter of another debate.

Painting ourselves as being white and pure and our opponents as being pure devil has gone out of fashion some time ago.


You imply "they had their reasons" with the absolute implication by you that is of a justifying bent - not a matter of another debate you silly git !.

Painting your enemy 'evil' whom happens to be in this case a radical heartless bucnh of religionistas slaughtering in the name of a god....has gone out of fashion you say ?. Seems like your thought process is out of fashion , and I'm being polite. Sounds to me you've been eating too much birdhead peckerhead soup through a straw.

[Dakota435]

I imply they had their reasons, like everybody else. Those reasons being right or wrong is matter of another debate.

Painting ourselves as being white and pure and our opponents as being pure devil has gone out of fashion some time ago.


Unbelievable. Just... unbelievable. You are unable to make any distinction on a moral plane between the axis and the allies. This is really incredible. If someone comes and beats the crap out of you to take something of yours, just because they felt like it, we should all just say, "well, they had their reasons.. who's to judge?"

[Merfeller]

I imply they had their reasons, like everybody else. Those reasons being right or wrong is matter of another debate.

Painting ourselves as being white and pure and our opponents as being pure devil has gone out of fashion some time ago.

Moral relativism at its finest, right here. No black, no white - ever. Just grey. Your statement actually is something I'd expect to hear about 50 years from now, with the 20th century and all we learned in it a distant memory.

[name already taken]

Unbelievable. Just... unbelievable. You are unable to make any distinction on a moral plane between the axis and the allies. This is really incredible. If someone comes and beats the crap out of you to take something of yours, just because they felt like it, we should all just say, "well, they had their reasons.. who's to judge?"
Do you speak German ? Japanese ?

If you don't, you don't have any grasp about what they think.

[Firetxmi]

Moral relativism at its finest, right here. No black, no white - ever. Just grey. Your statement actually is something I'd expect to hear about 50 years from now, with the 20th century and all we learned in it a distant memory.

Yes, but moral absolutism has no flaws.... :roll:

For example is murder wrong?

[Merfeller]

Yes, but moral absolutism has no flaws.... :roll:

For example is murder wrong?

Who said anything about absolutism? I'm no boy scout, don't get me wrong. Don't change the subject. I'm just saying that I know evil when I see it.

Murder? It's wrong. Technically.

[name already taken]

You imply "they had their reasons" with the absolute implication by you that is of a justifying bent - not a matter of another debate you silly git !.

Painting your enemy 'evil' whom happens to be in this case a radical heartless bucnh of religionistas slaughtering in the name of a god....has gone out of fashion you say ?. Seems like your thought process is out of fashion , and I'm being polite. Sounds to me you've been eating too much birdhead peckerhead soup through a straw.
Sorry being that silly, but this WW2 story started with the Boers war where Cecil Rhodes, pretty much a neocon of the time, built a railroad right to the heart of Dutch South African territory to steal their gold and (later discovered) diamond mines, acting on a rumor.


Cecil Rhodes, born in 1853, played a major political and economic role in colonial South Africa. He was a financier, statesman, and empire builder with a philosophy of mystical imperialism. A "Cape to Cairo" railroad that would "Paint the Map Red" was his dream for Africa, along with a reconciliation of the Boers and British under the British flag and a recovery of the American colonies for the British empire. As prime minister of the Colony of South Africa, he tried to achieve these dreams. Although successful in some regards, he ended up with many personal and political disappointments in his later years.

http://www.cusd.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/scramble/rhodes.htm

IMO the above not very pure, as a description of values.

This Boer War tension in the background facilitated the onset of the WW1 conflict. And WW2 happened because the Versailles peace treaty, settling the end of WW1 was an absolute shame, intended to set Germany back to stone age, and from which John Maynard Keynes, one of the British negociators, resigned as soon as he could.

The Versailles treaty was a bomb waiting to explode. And it exploded into Adolph Hitler's WW2.

So, who's right and who's wrong, I think things are complicated enough to give it some tought before saying we are white and they are black.

Because this kind of resoning can make history to repeat itself over and over. And really it can become boring to always have the same story to repeat itself over and over.

[Nizark]

Karl Rove....a.k.a Lord vader, a.k.a. Emperor Rove a.k.a, the man who owns the color red.

[name already taken]

Who said anything about absolutism? I'm no boy scout, don't get me wrong. Don't change the subject. I'm just saying that I know evil when I see it.

Murder? It's wrong. Technically.
I don't know about you but I can become evil anytime I want. The only reason I don't is it would get me in trouble.

I'd think that if someone is already in trouble and scared to lose his life, the reflex makes it impossible to avoid.

It's part of our survival kit. And not admitting it is hypocrisy.

That said, I think murder is something unnatural. (even when perpetrated by the state)

[Merfeller]

I don't know about you but I can become evil anytime I want. The only reason I don't is it would get me in trouble.

I'd think that if someone is already in trouble and scared to lose his life, the reflex makes it impossible to avoid. It's part of our survival kit.

I sort of agree, though we could quibble about the definition of the word evil. For instance, If I'm cornered and I know the person wants to kill me, I will try to kill him first. That's instinct, as you say. If someone kills my wife, I will kill him. That's revenge/murder and I would face the consquences. If I board a bus with explosives strapped to my body and I blow it up, killing everyone on board, that is evil. It's not a political statement, it's not freedom fighting or finding your voice in an oppressive society. It's evil. Surely this is not what you're talking about? Maybe you mean violent or mean spirited or vindictive? Evil is a powerful term, and an overused one, imo.

[name already taken]

I sort of agree, though we could quibble about the definition of the word evil. For instance, If I'm cornered and I know the person wants to kill me, I will try to kill him first. That's instinct, as you say. If someone kills my wife, I will kill him. That's revenge/murder and I would face the consquences. If I board a bus with explosives strapped to my body and I blow it up, killing everyone on board, that is evil. It's not a political statement, it's not freedom fighting or finding your voice in an oppressive society. It's evil. Surely this is not what you're talking about? Maybe you mean violent or mean spirited or vindictive? Evil is a powerful term, and an overused one, imo.
I agree.

The only thing I'm uneasy with is that some people say that the land of these terrorists is being stolen bit by bit by other interests...

And their religion is used as an excuse, for them, to act like evil. This is lower than animal behaviour.

Sometimes our great intelligence can bring us lower than animals.

But the fact is there is a reason why some humans choose to be lower than animals.

[Mastermind]

hoosing not to be "evil" simply becasue it would get you into "trouble" is not a moral stance...it is a selfish stance preserving your state of not being in trouble...it is a self serving postion of adjudged comfort and has nothing what-so-ever to do with morality. Good men and women are good because they know "goodness" is the way to preserve a "good" future for the children and to promote a peacful relationship with other human beings in their environment. Some do it for a sense of fulfillment...some do it to preserve their position in posterity...their reputation and their memory after they are gone.

We could argue all day the old question "What is good...what is evil." and never reach full agreement except at the extreems. But, we might achieve agreement on most behaviors that are evil.

Barbarity takes all forms...and throughout history, barbarity has only been defeated by meeting it with even more barbarity. That fact is unavoidable if you wish to protect and preserve your way of life from destruction.

[name already taken]

Barbarity takes all forms...and throughout history, barbarity has only been defeated by meeting it with even more barbarity. That fact is unavoidable if you wish to protect and preserve your way of life from destruction.
I am with you on this, mastermind, but let me differ on this: since the winner gets to write history, we don't know these barbarians were starving for years before they managed to attack us like barbarians.

History is written by the winner, so we don't know much about the motivations of those we qualify as "barbarians".

Sometimes they were nomads, and we were sedentarians, sometimes they were more civilised than us, but we had better weapons.

But that doesn't say anything about the superiority of one over the other. Except on a political level. Which means to which leader he's answering. Not more.

Since the earth is shrinking so fast because of the explosion of telecommunications, we'll be left with our bad mistakes to be known by everybody much more than before. And the consequences of our acts will come back to us much more than before.

Morality might undergo important changes, this being part of evolution.

But I will not follow everybody's mistakes. I will try to define the moral standards I will follow. This is something I define as freedom.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Lets see......."the war is fake" coming from a man that gets $400 haircuts, Charges $55,000 to universities to talk about Poverty, Took a very well payed ($500,000) job at a hedge fund to "Learn about Poverty", Is uncomfortable with Gays, Says he's for the poor and working class people, Hates his poor neighbor and wants him gone and is now receiving $50 million dollars from the recovery of some sunken treasure in the Atlantic ocean......

Who is FAKE now?
Hmm, a nice attempt to distract attention from the real questions after no better arguments were found.

[11 Bravo]

Hmm, a nice attempt to distract attention from the real questions after no better arguments were found.



Nice attempt ?. I think it quite personifies the ambulance chasing money bagger this man is.

News flash .... The war on terror says "Edwards is a fake".......

[Dasein]

Attacking Edward's personal character is an obvious and blatant ad hominem fallacy.

[Dakota435]

Attacking Edward's personal character is an obvious and blatant ad hominem fallacy.

Even when his character is that of a weasel?

My favorite Edwards/Kerry story is when they went to the Wendy's restaurant during the campaign and bought a bunch of food, for the cameras you see, then went to their bus and threw it out and ordered their normal pinky finger extended meals. They are both phonies of the highest order.

Edwards ruined OBGYN in his state chasing ambulances to make his millions.

[Merfeller]

Attacking Edward's personal character is an obvious and blatant ad hominem fallacy.

Are you kidding? It's straight out of the political playbook. Welcome to politics. When an aspiring president steps in it as often as Edwards does, his opponents pounce. Nothing new.

[Dasein]

I don't tihnk you realize what an ad hominem fallacy is. Edward's character has no bearing at all on the merits of his arguments. It is utterly irrelevent, and I fail to see why you'd hard on it so. Perhaps you are pandering to the ignorance of those who do fall for such fallacies?

[name already taken]

Even when his character is that of a weasel?

My favorite Edwards/Kerry story is when they went to the Wendy's restaurant during the campaign and bought a bunch of food, for the cameras you see, then went to their bus and threw it out and ordered their normal pinky finger extended meals. They are both phonies of the highest order.

Edwards ruined OBGYN in his state chasing ambulances to make his millions.
Source ?



.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Nice attempt ?. I think it quite personifies the ambulance chasing money bagger this man is.

News flash .... The war on terror says "Edwards is a fake".......
OK, so let us sum it up... The guy is incomfortable with gays and has a well-paid job, that is why his opinion about GWOT is flawed. Do I get your logic correctly?

That follows, if for some peculiar reason his job is a goner and his son makes a big coming out forcing his father to accept the members of the 3% community, BANG! the very same reasoning about GWOT of him will sudenly become acceptable.

Did I understand you right?

[D.U.C.K.S.]

I sort of agree, though we could quibble about the definition of the word evil. For instance, If I'm cornered and I know the person wants to kill me, I will try to kill him first. That's instinct, as you say. If someone kills my wife, I will kill him. That's revenge/murder and I would face the consquences. If I board a bus with explosives strapped to my body and I blow it up, killing everyone on board, that is evil. It's not a political statement, it's not freedom fighting or finding your voice in an oppressive society. It's evil. Hmm, one question for you, Merfeller.. What about boarding an aircraft and throwing a bomb on a populated area killing everyone in the nearest vicinity? How would you call that?

[Kippari]

Some of the American members don't seem to get the logic of terrorism and islamistic radicalism. The radical jihadists are no worse than for example crusaders of the 11th century. The reason they kill people is because it's not morally wrong in their way of thinking and in their culture. You are acting like it's all horrible and pure evil and they know that they are doing wrong. However, their way of life differs a lot from yours. They do what is necessary for them, just like you do what is necessary for you when you bombed radio stations in Iraq and killing a bunch of civilians at the same process.

As I see it, this conflict is on different level for the muslim radicals. You are in sustained conflict, while they are in all out total war. This conflict did not just happen because some vile clerics wanted to destroy your way of life. Anyway i'm not defending those terrorists or their actions, but I hope that you can take a look back and see what you did wrong in the past. The terrorists didn't create themselves. Remember, that what you think is morally wrong is just morally wrong for us.

[BloodyTalon]

Some of the American members don't seem to get the logic of terrorism and islamistic radicalism. The radical jihadists are no worse than for example crusaders of the 11th century. The reason they kill people is because it's not morally wrong in their way of thinking and in their culture. You are acting like it's all horrible and pure evil and they know that they are doing wrong. However, their way of life differs a lot from yours. They do what is necessary for them, just like you do what is necessary for you when you bombed radio stations in Iraq and killing a bunch of civilians at the same process.

As I see it, this conflict is on different level for the muslim radicals. You are in sustained conflict, while they are in all out total war. This conflict did not just happen because some vile clerics wanted to destroy your way of life. Anyway i'm not defending those terrorists or their actions, but I hope that you can take a look back and see what you did wrong in the past. The terrorists didn't create themselves. Remember, that what you think is morally wrong is just morally wrong for us.
Don't worry; you are. You're playing the "its not their fault, its because they have a different culture/it's all your fault" card. You're assuming that we shouldn't hold them to the same level of scrutiny that we do to any other nation or group because they are different from us, which frankly is more racist than calling them "sandn****rs".

Sure, Islamic extremists think that what they're doing is perfectly normal. So what? Addicts think that what they're doing is perfectly normal and that no would should try to help them. Should we just let junkies roam around endangering themselves and others because of a little buzz? Should we just allow Islamists to continue to deliberatley kill civilians because they think Allah tells them to do so?

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Don't worry; you are. You're playing the "its not their fault, its because they have a different culture/it's all your fault" card. You're assuming that we shouldn't hold them to the same level of scrutiny that we do to any other nation or group because they are different from us, which frankly is more racist than calling them "sandn****rs".

Sure, Islamic extremists think that what they're doing is perfectly normal. So what? Addicts think that what they're doing is perfectly normal and that no would should try to help them. Should we just let junkies roam around endangering themselves and others because of a little buzz? Should we just allow Islamists to continue to deliberatley kill civilians because they think Allah tells them to do so?The funny thing is that especially the people with strong opinions against the radicals are exactly the same, that would become radicals if they were born in Palestine instead of USA or Europe..

You are expecting muslims to be liberal by presenting them your radical point of view.. That won't work.

[BloodyTalon]

The funny thing is that especially the people with strong opinions against the radicals are exactly the same, that would become radicals if they were born in Palestine instead of USA or Europe..

You are expecting muslims to be liberal by presenting them your radical point of view.. That won't work.
I didn't know being against blowing yourself up in a civilian area for Allah counted as a "radical point of view". Thanks for lettting me know, oh enlightened and forward-thinking one! :)

[Merfeller]

Hmm, one question for you, Merfeller.. What about boarding an aircraft and throwing a bomb on a populated area killing everyone in the nearest vicinity? How would you call that?

What's the context? Is it a government waging a declared war against another government? Is it a terrorist group seizing control of a bomb and dropping it on a target city? Or maybe a group of psychopathic jihadists using the plane itself to knock over a skyscraper, hoping for maximum loss of life? I draw a distinction, though you may not.

[Merfeller]

Some of the American members don't seem to get the logic of terrorism and islamistic radicalism. The radical jihadists are no worse than for example crusaders of the 11th century. The reason they kill people is because it's not morally wrong in their way of thinking and in their culture. You are acting like it's all horrible and pure evil and they know that they are doing wrong. However, their way of life differs a lot from yours. They do what is necessary for them, just like you do what is necessary for you when you bombed radio stations in Iraq and killing a bunch of civilians at the same process.

As I see it, this conflict is on different level for the muslim radicals. You are in sustained conflict, while they are in all out total war. This conflict did not just happen because some vile clerics wanted to destroy your way of life. Anyway i'm not defending those terrorists or their actions, but I hope that you can take a look back and see what you did wrong in the past. The terrorists didn't create themselves. Remember, that what you think is morally wrong is just morally wrong for us.

This is true.

Look, of course everyone will analyze this conflict from their particular point of view. Why should we not in this case? Do you think negotiation is still an option?

[Dasein]

What's the context? Is it a government waging a declared war against another government? Is it a terrorist group seizing control of a bomb and dropping it on a target city? Or maybe a group of psychopathic jihadists using the plane itself to knock over a skyscraper, hoping for maximum loss of life? I draw a distinction, though you may not.

Bombing a civilian target is bombing a civilian target. It makes no difference if the bombing is part of a declared war or an act by a non-state organization outside of a declared war. Morally, the acts are the same.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

What's the context? Is it a government waging a declared war against another government? Is it a terrorist group seizing control of a bomb and dropping it on a target city? Or maybe a group of psychopathic jihadists using the plane itself to knock over a skyscraper, hoping for maximum loss of life? I draw a distinction, though you may not.
Well, imagine you lose your wife and children in a bomb attack on a department store performed by:

1. Iranian Air Force in a war on the US declared by president Ahmadinejad
2. Iranian terrorist group called Right Hand Of The Allah, seizing a light prop aircraft loaded with explosives

Do you draw distinction here, as well, or will your anger and pain be the same?

[D.U.C.K.S.]

I didn't know being against blowing yourself up in a civilian area for Allah counted as a "radical point of view". Thanks for lettting me know, oh enlightened and forward-thinking one! :)It is not about just being against blowing yourself up in civilian areas. Current wave of antipathy and generalized hatred towards Muslims involves all of them, not just those blowing themselves up.

[BloodyTalon]

Bombing a civilian target is bombing a civilian target. It makes no difference if the bombing is part of a declared war or an act by a non-state organization outside of a declared war. Morally, the acts are the same.
If that's the case, then a cop that accidently killed a bystander when trying to stop an armed robbery is no different then someone who murders his coworker in cold blood. Killing a civilian is killing a civilian, after all.

[Mastermind]

It's all forced relativism. Comparing the inadvertant deaths via military artillery or smart bombs against a wanton murder of innocent people on a bus by deliberate and planned means is nonsense....it is a ploy used to throw decient people off balance. The people who did the 9/11 attack, for just one example, slashing the throats of unsuspecting and defenseless airline stewardesses and pilots and then flying the plane loads of innocent people into buildings filled with more innocent people has absolutely no moral equivalent. It is pure evil, hate, and cold blooded murder.

To resist such evil with every means possible is not only necessary...it is an absolute rality of life. That in the course of that effort, some innocent people are killed is doubtlessly inevitable as sad as it is. If the United States and our allies were, in fact, fighting this war in true fassion as the terrorists, there would not be one single mud brick left standing unscorched in the entire Islamic world. Our casualty rates have skyrocketed in our silly and often absurd attempts to spare the lives of innocent people. We have actually allowed known mass murders (the Sader Event) to walk through our very ranks rather than cause needless slaughter of not only innocent people, but their religous monuments. The terrorists (now called sweet little "insurgents") have repeatedly used innocent people as cover, knowing our reluctance to fire when inncent people are in the line of fire.

All this rediculous "moral relavancy" will stop the day we finally wake up and realize we can no longer afford the luxury of sparing people who shield these animals. We will be forced to place the blame and the responsibility for the deaths of innocents squarly where it belongs...in the blood stained hands of the terrorists. Then, by comparison, what we have been doing so far will seem like a child's tea party.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

If the United States and our allies were, in fact, fighting this war in true fassion as the terrorists, there would not be one single mud brick left standing unscorched in the entire Islamic world. LOL. One attempt like that and you got entire Muslim population on your neck, not just separated insurgent cells. And with Saudis and Emirs subsequently pushing a big red STOP button, I wonder if you had enough fuel to complete a single operation, my friend. With hundreds of casualties daily and empty gas stations you got an anti-war revolution back home faster than you say cheese.

Don't overestimate your real capabilities.. They are far more limited than you realize. Do you really think that your government tries to reduce civilian casualties for some higher moral standards or pure love and passion towards Arabs? Come on!


Our casualty rates have skyrocketed in our silly and often absurd attempts to spare the lives of innocent people. We have actually allowed known mass murders (the Sader Event) to walk through our very ranks rather than cause needless slaughter of not only innocent people, but their religous monuments. Silly and absurd? Thank goodness your leaders have much more understanding of the situation there than you do. They at least realize that widespread support of the population is the only way to handle things. Not that they actually manage to keep that, but at least they try.


All this rediculous "moral relavancy" will stop the day we finally wake up and realize we can no longer afford the luxury of sparing people who shield these animals. We will be forced to place the blame and the responsibility for the deaths of innocents squarly where it belongs...in the blood stained hands of the terrorists. Then, by comparison, what we have been doing so far will seem like a child's tea party.A nice little speech written by another computer screen hero. OK, let us sit down together and wait for that day. But I suggest you get stockpiles of food together first, it will be an endlessly long waiting.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

If that's the case, then a cop that accidently killed a bystander when trying to stop an armed robbery is no different then someone who murders his coworker in cold blood. Killing a civilian is killing a civilian, after all.I am not sure whether you realize that but in civil law actually both are crimes. Yes, one is more severe than the other one, but you definitely spend a long time in prison in either case.

[Dasein]

If that's the case, then a cop that accidently killed a bystander when trying to stop an armed robbery is no different then someone who murders his coworker in cold blood. Killing a civilian is killing a civilian, after all.

We're not talking about accidental deaths, we're talking about intentional attacks on civilian targets. Let's say the bank robbers are holding hostages in the bank, so the cops decide to blow up the bank, killing the robbers and hostages alike. The intent, the cops say, was to kill the robbers, and it's not our fault the robbers were using human shields. That just makes them all that much worse. Would you accept the police acting like that? Would you ocnsider their actions morally acceptable?

[Brzezinski]

the war on terror is real..

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/3670/cheatergt5.gif

1979
Zbigniew Brzezinski: From 1977 to 1981, Zbigniew Brzezinski wasNational Security Advisor to the President of the United States.

inspecting a youg OSAMA BIN LADEN's weapon.

[BloodyTalon]

I am not sure whether you realize that but in civil law actually both are crimes. Yes, one is more severe than the other one, but you definitely spend a long time in prison in either case.
Actually, the cop would get a slap on the wrist, at most a suspension, unless there is proof that the civilian's death was do to neglect on the officer's part or he killed the civilian on purpose. The murderer would get a lengthy jail sentence or even death row.

But if we are to follow Dasein's logic that a murderer is a murderer no matter what the intent or target, then both should receive a lengthy sentence in a maximum security prison.

[BloodyTalon]

We're not talking about accidental deaths, we're talking about intentional attacks on civilian targets. Let's say the bank robbers are holding hostages in the bank, so the cops decide to blow up the bank, killing the robbers and hostages alike. The intent, the cops say, was to kill the robbers, and it's not our fault the robbers were using human shields. That just makes them all that much worse. Would you accept the police acting like that? Would you ocnsider their actions morally acceptable?
Nice job blowing the analogy out of proportion to try and prove your point. I'm not talking about some ridiculous, Jerry Bruckheimer-esque fallacy, i'm talking about when suspects have the tendency to use civilians as human shields. And there are unfortunate but luckily rare occasions that a cops kills a civilian in order to get to a suspect because that suspect was endangering more than just the unlucky bastard held at gunpoint.

Same applies for a war. The sad truth is that civilians get caught in the crossfire. Sometimes its on accident, sometimes one group in a war uses them as human shields, or there are moments when its the fault of the civilians. The difference is whether the civilians got in the way or were the intended target.

[Mastermind]

@Ducks...Do not underestimate our capacity for barbarity...We have it in us and we certainly have the means. Our hesitation to meet the aggressor with equal morality is due to our civility and our hatred of war. As for attempts at reducing civilian casualties in a war where "civilians" are in fact the enemy...remember, these nut jobs don't wear uniforms or honor a flag or a national identity....is not out of our "love of Arabs"...not by a long shot. It is out of or respect for human beings in general. And yes...Silly and absurd! Our leaders have , fortunately more wisdom than I do about restraint of power and control of emotion ...thank God...that's why they are leaders. I suppose, if I had my hand on the switch, I too, would shrink form using that awesome power for fear of the result. But, I have the luxury of voicing my heart...not managing massive power to destroy millions.

As for my "computer screen" hero status...sure...now days I am that. But, I have seen the beast in all his regalia. I have stood the wall and bled with my brothers many who did not come back as I was fortunate enough to do. I saw the people slaughtered in Hue. I saw children buried alive with their little hands barely above the dirt, as they clawed their last for air. I saw the disembowled women in Song Bey...not in pictures, mind you...but in the close and smelly real world of flies and the sickening, black bloated smell of death. I know what monsters are....and I know what they are capable of. I also know, we damn well better be prepared to do what we have to do to keep them at bay. I know they won't stop until they are stopped with force.

[name already taken]

@Ducks...Do not underestimate our capacity for barbarity...We have it in us and we certainly have the means. Our hesitation to meet the aggressor with equal morality is due to our civility and our hatred of war. As for attempts at reducing civilian casualties in a war where "civilians" are in fact the enemy...remember, these nut jobs don't wear uniforms or honor a flag or a national identity....is not out of our "love of Arabs"...not by a long shot. It is out of or respect for human beings in general. And yes...Silly and absurd! Our leaders have , fortunately more wisdom than I do about restraint of power and control of emotion ...thank God...that's why they are leaders. I suppose, if I had my hand on the switch, I too, would shrink form using that awesome power for fear of the result. But, I have the luxury of voicing my heart...not managing massive power to destroy millions.

As for my "computer screen" hero status...sure...now days I am that. But, I have seen the beast in all his regalia. I have stood the wall and bled with my brothers many who did not come back as I was fortunate enough to do. I saw the people slaughtered in Hue. I saw children buried alive with their little hands barely above the dirt, as they clawed their last for air. I saw the disembowled women in Song Bey...not in pictures, mind you...but in the close and smelly real world of flies and the sickening, black bloated smell of death. I know what monsters are....and I know what they are capable of. I also know, we damn well better be prepared to do what we have to do to keep them at bay. I know they won't stop until they are stopped with force.
The idea, here, would be not to underestimate the capacity of others for barbarity.

We all share a gene pool containing a million and a half years of barbarity and a few thousand years of civilisation.

Of course they can't be stopped until they're stopped by force. And we either. It's the million and a half years of barbarity we all carry who is at work.

It's much smarter not to get them started than to have to stop them.

[Dasein]

Nice job blowing the analogy out of proportion to try and prove your point. I'm not talking about some ridiculous, Jerry Bruckheimer-esque fallacy, i'm talking about when suspects have the tendency to use civilians as human shields. And there are unfortunate but luckily rare occasions that a cops kills a civilian in order to get to a suspect because that suspect was endangering more than just the unlucky bastard held at gunpoint.

Same applies for a war. The sad truth is that civilians get caught in the crossfire. Sometimes its on accident, sometimes one group in a war uses them as human shields, or there are moments when its the fault of the civilians. The difference is whether the civilians got in the way or were the intended target.

Very well, let's get back to real-world events. The firebombing of Japan during World War II was conducted in such a way as to intentionally maximize civilian casualties. Virtually every major Japanese city was bombed and hundreds of thousands died. There is no question this was an intentional, premeditated attack on civilian targets. Why would you not consider this to be the moral equivalent of an attack like those on 9/11?

[Brzezinski]

payback for 9/11?....

to who? where are the ones responsible?...

how many troops do they have?.

where are their boarders?.. 15 of the hijackers were from saudi arabia..... next on the list?... i doubt it..

http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2005/04/25/image690875x.jpg

[Mastermind]

The idea, here, would be not to underestimate the capacity of others for barbarity.

We all share a gene pool containing a million and a half years of barbarity and a few thousand years of civilisation.

Of course they can't be stopped until they're stopped by force. And we either. It's the million and a half years of barbarity we all carry who is at work.

It's much smarter not to get them started than to have to stop them.
Don't get them started? How exactly do you propose to do that miracle? What do you suppose got them started? In the case of these radical islamists...do you suppose they just woke up one day and suddenly realized there was "kill all infidels" in their relgion? Do you suppose they just suddenly decided..."Well, let's just go out and saw off the heads of some innocent people we snatch off the street." Or, "Hey, Ahab...since you're not doing anything today, let's strap on our suicide vests and detonate ourselves in a cafe filled with...hell, anyone who happens to be there when we walk in?"

Your grand illusion is that there is absolute control over every aspect of every life on this Earth. You don't have to be doing a damn thing and these guys go after you simply because you are breathing air they declare belongs to Allah.

This lunacy of a gang of religious zealots did not get kick started by Bush or by Clinton for that matter. It got started 1300 years ago by people we never heard of and who shure as hell never had an inking we were going to exist. "Don't get them started." Indeed....How? By simply surrending and bowing down to their murderous whims? By surrendering our children to them??! Get real.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Actually, the cop would get a slap on the wrist, at most a suspension, unless there is proof that the civilian's death was do to neglect on the officer's part or he killed the civilian on purpose. The murderer would get a lengthy jail sentence or even death row.What? In your part of the world a cop gets just a slap on the wrist for killing an innocent bystander? Pal, I don't know where exactly your whereabouts is but one thing is for certain - I am glad I don't live there..

[BloodyTalon]

What? In your part of the world a cop gets just a slap on the wrist for killing an innocent bystander? Pal, I don't know where exactly your whereabouts is but one thing is for certain - I am glad I don't live there..
If a suspect holds a civilian as a human shield while simultaneously threatening other peoplel, and the cop makes a decision to shoot the civilian to shoot the suspect and protect the other people in jeopardy, he will be penalized, but it won't even be close to a prison sentence.

[BloodyTalon]

Very well, let's get back to real-world events. The firebombing of Japan during World War II was conducted in such a way as to intentionally maximize civilian casualties. Virtually every major Japanese city was bombed and hundreds of thousands died. There is no question this was an intentional, premeditated attack on civilian targets. Why would you not consider this to be the moral equivalent of an attack like those on 9/11?
The firebombing is equally reprehensible. What the hell is your point though? Just because we have blood on our hands from the past means we have no right to respond to events on our own soil like 9/11? If that's the case, then no country should ever reserve the right to battle any outside threats.

[Brzezinski]

The firebombing is equally reprehensible. What the hell is your point though? Just because we have blood on our hands from the past means we have no right to respond to events on our own soil like 9/11?4 of the hijackers were from afghanistan, we bombed them back to the stone ages, dropped 350 tons of depleted uranium on them, installed our own former unocal employee as their president... havent we "responded" enough?

[D.U.C.K.S.]

@Ducks...Do not underestimate our capacity for barbarity...We have it in us and we certainly have the means. Our hesitation to meet the aggressor with equal morality is due to our civility and our hatred of war. You obviously still keep missing one important point.. In Iraq, YOU are the aggressor, not them.

Imagine a similar situation where Iraqi Army marched onto US soil. Would you call members of American domestic resistance as 'aggressors'?


As for attempts at reducing civilian casualties in a war where "civilians" are in fact the enemy...remember, these nut jobs don't wear uniforms or honor a flag or a national identity....is not out of our "love of Arabs"...not by a long shot. It is out of or respect for human beings in general. And yes...Silly and absurd! Our leaders have , fortunately more wisdom than I do about restraint of power and control of emotion ...thank God...that's why they are leaders. I suppose, if I had my hand on the switch, I too, would shrink form using that awesome power for fear of the result. But, I have the luxury of voicing my heart...not managing massive power to destroy millions. It is fairly long response from you so I will only concentrate on the last words. Your leaders surely manage the military power to kill millions. But they don't have political power to use it. Not in the war where a large share of worldwide, as well as US population doubts its sense, goals, as well as its moral aspects.


As for my "computer screen" hero status...sure...now days I am that. But, I have seen the beast in all his regalia. I have stood the wall and bled with my brothers many who did not come back as I was fortunate enough to do. I saw the people slaughtered in Hue. I saw children buried alive with their little hands barely above the dirt, as they clawed their last for air. I saw the disembowled women in Song Bey...not in pictures, mind you...but in the close and smelly real world of flies and the sickening, black bloated smell of death. I know what monsters are....and I know what they are capable of. I also know, we damn well better be prepared to do what we have to do to keep them at bay. I know they won't stop until they are stopped with force.First, I have deep respect and admiration to all soldiers which are courageous enough to put their lives on risk. And that also counts for you.

But OTOH, I think soldiers are the worst political leaders you can imagine. I think history has proven this point of me enough times. A well calculated diplomacy is a much more powerful tool than violence and rough force.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

If a suspect holds a civilian as a human shield while simultaneously threatening other peoplel, and the cop makes a decision to shoot the civilian to shoot the suspect and protect the other people in jeopardy, he will be penalized, but it won't even be close to a prison sentence.Wait wait. You said ''a bystander''. Don't twist it now...

[name already taken]

Don't get them started? How exactly do you propose to do that miracle? What do you suppose got them started? In the case of these radical islamists...do you suppose they just woke up one day and suddenly realized there was "kill all infidels" in their relgion? Do you suppose they just suddenly decided..."Well, let's just go out and saw off the heads of some innocent people we snatch off the street." Or, "Hey, Ahab...since you're not doing anything today, let's strap on our suicide vests and detonate ourselves in a cafe filled with...hell, anyone who happens to be there when we walk in?"

Your grand illusion is that there is absolute control over every aspect of every life on this Earth. You don't have to be doing a damn thing and these guys go after you simply because you are breathing air they declare belongs to Allah.

This lunacy of a gang of religious zealots did not get kick started by Bush or by Clinton for that matter. It got started 1300 years ago by people we never heard of and who shure as hell never had an inking we were going to exist. "Don't get them started." Indeed....How? By simply surrending and bowing down to their murderous whims? By surrendering our children to them??! Get real.
Having a pre-emptive war exterior policy is a form of jihadism, as far as I am concerned.

Fighting wars promoted by draft dodgers, certainly leaves something open to second tought, in my opinion.

It's enough to undermine any positive effort for decades.

I think you folks should read the definition of terrorism in your own laws and start the clean up in your own yard before lecturing others on morality.

And this cleanup should start right in the middle of the WhiteHouse.

[Brzezinski]

according to SECTION 802 of the patriot act i am a domestic terrorist...

no trial, no jury no hebeas corpus....

[BloodyTalon]

Wait wait. You said ''a bystander''. Don't twist it now...
bystander and civilian are the same thing.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

bystander and civilian are the same thing.A bystander and a human shield are not.

[BloodyTalon]

A bystander and a human shield are not.
You're the one who said bystander. I elaborated that its a civilian who becomes a human shield.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

You're the one who said bystander. I elaborated that its a civilian who becomes a human shield.
:):)Me? Let us read your original post then.. ;) Still insist on what you've just said?

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2528444&postcount=112

There is not a word about human shields there, pal... it is something you've made up much later after you started to lose on arguments.

[BloodyTalon]

:):)Me? Let us read your original post then.. ;) Still insist on me starting with bystanders? ;)

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2528444&postcount=112

There is not a word about human shields there, pal... it is something you've made up much later after you started to lose on arguments.
I meant civilian at that time.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

I meant civilian at that time.:) You know what? I think you should be the next president of the US.

Just like GWB first said ''Iraq must be invaded due to links to Al-Qaeda'', then ''I meant because of WMDs'' and a year after that ''I meant due to Saddam gasing Kurds'', you are every bit as effective in twisting and turning it your way. roflIs it some kind of national sport out there in the States?

[BloodyTalon]

:) You know what? I think you should be the next president of the US.

Just like GWB first said ''links to Al-Qaeda'', then ''I meant WMDs'' and then ''I meant Saddam gasing Kurds'', you are every bit as effective in twisting and turning it your way as himself. roflIs it some kind of national sport out there in the States?
Fine, I made a slip up. I wrote "bystander" instead of "civilian". Pardon me for being a stupid American instead of someone like you who makes no mistakes whatsoever.

And even if it was a bystander the point still stands. If it was clearly an accident, the cop would get nowhere near the same punishment of someone who murdered another person in cold blood.

[D.U.C.K.S.]

Fine, I made a slip up. I wrote "bystander" instead of "civilian". Pardon me for being a stupid American instead of someone like you who makes no mistakes whatsoever.

And even if it was a bystander the point still stands. If it was clearly an accident, the cop would get nowhere near the same punishment of someone who murdered another person in cold blood.Of course that is correct. But it would be a great hypocrisy to call all Israeli civilian victims as ''deliberate targets of a violent attack'' while all Palestinian victims just ''accidental bystanders''. Both side use similar nasty techniques. Israelis were known for guarding civilian masses while those being mass-executed by Lebanese Phalangists as soon as 1982, no need to spill the whole guilt just on HAMAS.

P.S. I never called you stupid.

[Smashed!]

Mastermind: Barbarism is some term that shouldn't be used in this case. Since indeed you already do the same. Now inflicting greater grief on these people?

I don't know in the past it didn't work, yet then a civil, heavily politicized government and a superpower was behind your immediate OPFOR, here it's only a bunch of lunatics with money.



Ducks: Glad to see honesty hasn't been sold out yet.

Now if we all stopped adding more fuel in the fire, let's don't speak about the NahOst problems for a while. Focus on Iraq, you need to get out of there some time.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

4 of the hijackers were from afghanistan, we bombed them back to the stone ages, dropped 350 tons of depleted uranium on them, installed our own former unocal employee as their president... havent we "responded" enough?

No they weren't.
IIRC
15 from Saudi
1 from Egypt
1 from Lebanon
2 from UAE

[Smashed!]

No they weren't.
IIRC
15 from Saudi
1 from Egypt
1 from Lebanon
2 from UAE


Does it really matter?p-) I mean they still bombed afghan****stan to a certain level. Not that it stood pretty high before...anyway.

When do you think dear leader brown will step in this HAGWOT? Saw your most dear leader Bliar complimenting his fellow Ghadaffi on his reforms. May 1000 oil wells blossom heh.

[Kippari]

Your grand illusion is that there is absolute control over every aspect of every life on this Earth. You don't have to be doing a damn thing and these guys go after you simply because you are breathing air they declare belongs to Allah.

This lunacy of a gang of religious zealots did not get kick started by Bush or by Clinton for that matter. It got started 1300 years ago by people we never heard of and who shure as hell never had an inking we were going to exist. "Don't get them started." Indeed....How? By simply surrending and bowing down to their murderous whims? By surrendering our children to them??! Get real.


Well, you still don't get it do you? How many suicide bombings were there before 1980's? Think about what caused a surge of these terrorist cells. I bet that these terrorist are just tools for some people who don't want their own culture to be weakened by western influence. The religion is just a tool to keep masses in check. Always has been, always will be. People need to believe in something. What do you think that a confused poor or young muslim man or woman with no cause will do, when a terrorist recruiter will come to offer you to sacrifice yourself for allah and get a ton of virgins with the same deal? It's an ideology, that differs from yours. There is a reason for why these people decide to sacrifice themselves and kill a bunch of civilians with nothing else wrong but their faith.

I have all respect for you to serve your country in hellholes like Vietnam. However, the Vietnam is little different of what you are doing now in Iraq. You were and are not there to save people from evil or darkness. You were there to promote your ideology and your own ways. South Vietnam for example was a dictatorship and North Vietnamese were pissed off people who were fighting for their own rights, atleast they thought they were.

My whole point, even if it sounds a bit extreme: Who the f*** are we to tell other people how to live? If we, and by that I mean western nations and others who wish to expand their sphere of influence, go around claiming their rights to other peoples business then we can expect for this kind of terrorism. It's nothing new really.