Originally posted by WheelyIs it easy? no. Have I done it? Yes. This war should not about who has the stomach. Americans have the stomach to totally annihilate a Country if we chose to. I only hope it never has to comes to that just to prove a point. Kind of a stupid thing to stand up and test. Claiming Americans have no stomach for War. What is sad though is that we have become the monster that they want us to be. I happen to like Americans for standing against needless killings and torture, not for standing up for it. But someone has said when in Rome do as the Romans. So when fighting a Terrorist I suppose we have to terrorise them until they stop using their tactics to Jihad themselves to death, fine. Just don't kill Americans when you do it. If they want suicide we will help them out. Do I wish it would stop? Yes, of course I do. Who has the stomach for peace? Apparently we may never find out. The only way to stop it is to stop it.
Thank you! My point exactly!!
If you passionately believe this behavior is wrong and there is no excuse for it then you have to have the stomach to hold that point of view, no matter how tough it gets. If you do the same thing yourself, or similar, then you have lost your principles, your passion for what is right and even the argument.
It's easy to s ...[text shortened]... of freedom and justice but it's not as easy to risk death yourself for these principles is it.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not blaming the soldiers. Well, not much at least.
But it is not a death sentence! A soldier that fires upon an enemy soldier is not being jury and executioner, he's being a soldier.
I think we may well criticize both sides for their justifications of waging a war, but that doesn't mean that their acts of war are unjustified. I don't know how to explain this better, but in any war people are going to get ...[text shortened]... a guerilla warfare, doesn't mean the side of the state has to use the police and the courts.
If the UK had fired missiles at houses that they thought IRA leaders were in, how would you feel about that? How about if the UK had fired missiles at those funding the IRA from the US? How would we feel about Turkey firing missiles at a Kurdish house they said might have had a PKK member in it?
We declared war on the State of Iraq (I think). We went into Iraq and knocked seven bells out of the Iraqi army. Zarqawi was not part of the Iraqi state. We have no idea what his organization really is and therefore can't be at war with it.
I would wager that the "unfortunate death of civilians" attitude we have is exactly what the guy was fighting us for in the first place.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI'm happy to say this as many times as required.
They're not stories -- he was the self-professed leader of al-Qaida in Iraq and celebrated throughout the Muslim world as a Jihadi. His exploits are common knowledge:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3483089.stm
In sum, he needed his ticket punched. God bless America and her men and women in uniform!
Whether the stories are true or not is not the point.
Originally posted by cashthetrashPlease read the posts before replying. Nobody said America doesn't have the stomach for war. America obviously DOES have the stomach war after all, she is involved in so many of them.
Is it easy? no. Have I done it? Yes. This war should not about who has the stomach. Americans have the stomach to totally annihilate a Country if we chose to. I only hope it never has to comes to that just to prove a point. Kind of a stupid thing to stand up and test. Claiming Americans have no stomach for War. What is sad though is that we have become ...[text shortened]... the stomach for peace? Apparently we may never find out. The only way to stop it is to stop it.
Do we have the stomach to stick to our principles of freedom and justice is what I said. I believe the answer is that we don't.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterCan you explain why this is about the tenth time the "painstaking" operation has been performed with all previous operations ending up with an enormous hole in some poor guys house and his friends and neighbours scattered around the countryside like so much confetti?
But it wasn't "random"; according to CNN, it was a "painstaking operation":
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html
Originally posted by jimslyp69And I said would you have rather we picked a different name. What is so hard for you to understand? I think a name like Poppy sniffer is a good propaganda name. I think Daisy fertiliser is a good name. Sometimes Propaganda is true.
Mmmm. Still don't get it. I said 'Phrases such as islamo-nazism are propaganda to bolster America's political agenda'.
I'm still none the wiser.
Originally posted by WheelySomeone did say Americans don't have the Stomach for war. That is exactly what the terrorist said in the beginning. You have a short memory or you were to young to remember one of the two. They thought we would just hit and run. Our principles are what they claimed is the reason we didn't have any stomach. So when we show them we do have stomach. And kill their people in the same way they were attacking ours. We come back and claim lack of principle. Give me a break go read my post. Try using some comprehension. We still believe in freedom and Justice. What we don't believe in is those who try to stop it. The world will never be free so long as Jihadist strap bombs to their bellies and kill just to have a thousand mythical Virgins.
Please read the posts before replying. Nobody said America doesn't have the stomach for war. America obviously DOES have the stomach war after all, she is involved in so many of them.
Do we have the stomach to stick to our principles of freedom and justice is what I said. I believe the answer is that we don't.
Originally posted by cashthetrashI'm sorry! I thought we supposed to be discssing what each of us had said. I didn't realize we were allowed to suddenly refer to something completely different with no warning or explanation of what we were talking about.
Someone did say Americans don't have the Stomach for war. That is exactly what the terrorist said in the beginning. You have a short memory or you were to young to remember one of the two. They thought we would just hit and run. Our principles are what they claimed is the reason we didn't have any stomach. So when we show them we do have stomach. And ki ...[text shortened]... g as Jihadist strap bombs to their bellies and kill just to have a thousand mythical Virgins.
Let me have a go....
No!!! If you do it that way, it'll only get upgraded at some point and nobody will remember to add the thing in again. I'd much prefer we do this in the /sbin/init.d scripts even if it is going to make it more complicated.
The idea of some moral equivalence between a terrorist organization (that televises the beheadings of non-combatantants and kills some 3,000 civilians in an attack on September 11) on one hand and the nations that send their professional soldiers to keep that terrorist organization from achieving its ends is simply assinine.
Governments have the right to defend themselves and their people. You do not stop a terrorist from murdering more innocent people by appealing to his sense of decency or fairplay. You kill him. When cowards like al-Zarqawi hide among the populace of whatever poor country they are parasitically sucking off of then, regrettably, other innocents may die, as they have in Iraq. It is not a morally superior option to keep taking it on the chin, as governments have a RESPONSIBILITY to defend their citizens.
The argument that the real blame in this whole matter is that the Northern hemisphere is living too high on the hog is specious. Wealth can spread to the southern hemisphere as well, and will in this day where investors can instantly invest their money in any venture anywhere via computer. This will not occur, however, until the poor and backward countries develop a system of laws and a respect for private ownership of property. Until then, any investor SHOULD be afraid of putting his money to work there.
The idea that killing al-Zarqawi does not make a difference is also specious. Ask al-Zarqawi what his next move will be now. Sure, someone else will take his place, and he will need to be dealt with, too. But leaving the al-Zarqawis of this world free to commit more atrocious acts against humanity is a coward's option. What will NOT killing him accomplish?
The point was made that Osama Bin Laden has not yet been caught or killed. Has his survival this long helped the nations that he has attacked? No. But it would seem obvious that he has been a whole lot more fond of sending out videotapes than sending out hit teams since he has had to go hide in some Pakistani cave. I'd say that this new Osama is better than the old one. His videos don't kill innocent people.
You kill terrorists because, if you don't, they kill you.
Originally posted by GottschalkWhile this sounds extremely convincing and well thought out, it is actually the same stuff we have regurgitated through the centuries to justify our own economic expansion and total lack of imagination when someone we don't like nor care to understand takes pot shots at us.
The idea of some moral equivalence between a terrorist organization (that televises the beheadings of non-combatantants and kills some 3,000 civilians in an attack on September 11) on one hand and the nations that send their professional soldiers to keep that terrorist organization from achieving its ends is simply assinine.
Governments have the right ...[text shortened]... eos don't kill innocent people.
You kill terrorists because, if you don't, they kill you.
Firstly of course, the post makes it look like the soldiers are in Iraq to combat terror, whatever that is. While it certainly has started to feel like that, you may remember that actually the soldiers went into Iraq on some trumped up pretense that our former buddy Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction to upset his neighbours.
You can't blame al-Zarqawi for hiding either, I know I would with a billion dollars worth of explosives going off all over the country in the hope they might get me.
"Regrettably innocents will die" is a beautiful phrase that can only be uttered by someone thousands of miles away from the possibility of it actually happening to them or their families.
Throughout history the idea that, by default, you kill people who are trying to kill you has achieved nothing except waste thousands of years of human development and it's almost disgusting that we still blindly head down that dead end. Sometimes, I'll admit you have no choice but you shouldn't like it, you shouldn't applaud it, you should be ashamed. Every bomb that goes off in Iraq or in the West is a direct result of this idea.
You don't change mindsets by force, you change them by example (assuming the midset you are trying to create is one worth having)
Originally posted by WheelyThe 9-11 attacks were not pot shots. They were an act of war.
it is actually the same stuff we have regurgitated through the centuries when someone takes pot shots at us.
the post makes it look like the soldiers are in Iraq to combat terror
trumped up pretense that our former buddy Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction
You can't blame al-Zarqawi for hiding either
"Regrettably innocents wi ...[text shortened]... t, you shouldn't applaud it, you should be ashamed.
You don't change mindsets by force
Ask al-Zarqawi, a terrorist, if American troops are not combatting terror.
Saddam said he still had the weapons and we knew that he did have them at some time (he used them on the Kurds). If the governments that attacked Saddam BELIEVED that he had weapons of mass destruction, then they would have been cowards to have NOT gone in. Whether they were right or not is beside the point. They believed they were and acted on their beliefs. Which, by the way, is what any of us do any time we take some action.
I am not blaming al-Zarqawi for hiding. I am blaming him for killing innocent civilians. I am blaming him for being a terrorist.
"Regrettably" 3,000 innocents died in the 9-11 attacks. None happened to be me or any of my family, you sanctimonious prat, but that does not mean that I have to glibly accept it.
Killing Hitler achieved the end of World War II and the genocide of the Jews. I would call that an accomplishment.
Clearly, you have no understanding whatsoever of ethics when you say that we "have no choice" sometimes, but that we should be ashamed. If we have no choice, then it makes no sense to be ashamed. The thing is, we do have a choice and the governments that have sought to protect their civilians made the right choice. When they decided to defend those lives that they are responsible to defend, I applaud that decision. I do not have to like what they do -- it is not a pretty thing that they do, after all -- but I want them to do it and do it right. When they achieve a victory in doing so, I applaud them again, and am not ashamed.
The fascist mindsets of Nazi Germany and Japan were not changed by the neutrality proclamations of Belgium and the Netherlands, but by the vigorous application of violence, up to and including nuclear weaponry. Mankind has never exerted so much force EVER. You don't see the Germans and Japanese agitating for war a whole big bunch now do you, Wheely?
Read a book. I'm done with you.
Originally posted by GottschalkGod...where to start...
The 9-11 attacks were not pot shots. They were an act of war.
Ask al-Zarqawi, a terrorist, if American troops are not combatting terror.
Saddam said he still had the weapons and we knew that he did have them at some time (he used them on the Kurds). If the governments that attacked Saddam BELIEVED that he had weapons of mass destruction, then they ...[text shortened]... gitating for war a whole big bunch now do you, Wheely?
Read a book. I'm done with you.
The 9-11 or September the 11th 2001 attacks as they should be referred to, were not an act of war at all. If anything they were a retaliation.
Al Zarqawi, although claiming (like Bin Ladin) credit for the attack, have never been tried or any such thing. Nobody knows who did what or exactly why.
Besides, before 9-11, al qaeda were a training facility (mostly in Pakistan), which means another government used them to get at the States (if that is the case at all...none of it proven).
1. Saddam denied having any more weapons of biological, chemical or nuclear intent. A fact backed up by the UN's authority on the matter.
2. The weapons Saddam used on the Kurds and the Iranians were supplied by the US.
Yeah, just ignore these last two facts at random...
The US army (aka government) has killed more civilians since 1944 than any other army in the world (estimates range up to the 6 million) and is the only army ever to have used nuclear technology. Why not blame then instead of an organisation which has reportadly killed less than 100 thousand (which is roughly 1/60th of the amount).
And...Hitler killed himself. Semantics, yes, buy accurate all the same.
Originally posted by GottschalkThere's no need to get upset about it, it's a debate.
The 9-11 attacks were not pot shots. They were an act of war.
Ask al-Zarqawi, a terrorist, if American troops are not combatting terror.
Saddam said he still had the weapons and we knew that he did have them at some time (he used them on the Kurds). If the governments that attacked Saddam BELIEVED that he had weapons of mass destruction, then they ...[text shortened]... gitating for war a whole big bunch now do you, Wheely?
Read a book. I'm done with you.
Your original post made a lot of well structured points that could easily be used as arguments for your point of view. Maybe your emotion has got to you because this post has gone a little wayward.
Nobody declared war on anybody after 9/11. Instead we attacked a country that we knew hadn't actually carried out the attacks. Maybe the US could be forgiven for that over reaction though as the 9/11 attacks were so terrible.
Contrary to your post, Saddam Hussein said many times that he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and he seems to have been telling the truth. The attacks on the Kurds was achieved with the weaponry you could make yourself after a short trip to your local super market. They were hardly going to threaten the US. And since when did we get all high and mighty about a country quietly killing off some of it's own population.
Personally, I do not believe that the governments that attacked Iraq did it because of WMD's but I think they hoped there were some there. However I have no evidence for that apart from some circumstantial evidence regarding Euros and Russian oil purchases.
You are blaming al-Zarqawi for killing innocent civilians but are happy to say that the death of innocent civilians is merely regrettable when it happens in Iraq.
We didn't kill Hitler so I'm not sure how that was supposed to have stopped the genocide of the Jews or the war. As usual, we had no interest in helping out a mass of oppressed people. When we finally heard about the death camps we chose not to bomb the hell out of them despite pleas from the Jews.
I see no contradiction in being ashamed of your inability to resolve a situation without having to kill someone.
Germany and Japan were countries, not a culture. It is possible to argue that Nazi Germany, at least, was a product of the attitude you are supporting.
No, Germany and Japan do not seem to be sueing for war, they are far more intelligent than that.