Originally posted by RagnorakOriginally posted by Ragnorak
D[/b]
In the eyes of the U.S., you are at war. Undoubtedly, a very dubious war on "terror", but you are at war, nonetheless. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between a soldier who kills 1 innocent person by beheading him, and a soldier who drops a bomb, which kills 50-100 innocents (remember a "precision missile" has a damage radius of 600 metres?
Mr. Ragnorak, I understand your point. Believe me I do. I wish there was a better way. If you could come up with a better way please do so and help out. Soldiers do the best they can but they are not perfect. It is sometimes very difficult to know in advance every detail of every mission until after completion. It doesn't always turn out as you wish it had. Understand though that Soldiers traveling half way around the world are out numbered. The enemy is hiding in under ground bunkers. Or in some places that a foot solder can't be reached with out being killed. They set mines and then go into their homes and hide next to their wives and kids and pretend to be innocent. And by the time the Soldiers get there chances are they will have moved somewhere else. Until you have experienced the fear and stress and frustration of war you really just don't know. When these missiles are launched you really don't know whats on the other end you just follow orders or stand in front of a firing squad. Rock or hard place situation. The Terrorist organizations declared war on America so it is not like we can declare war on a nation. No nation wants to take credit. It's not going to go away easy. They might hit your country next. They probably already have just not hard enough for you to want to do anything yet. We will see what happens when they do.
[B]I'd also like you to provide quotes of mine which show my "hatred" of Joe America. Upon rereading my posts, you'll notice I said that I considered people like the Ritter to be the Nazis, as opposed to the Muslims as he says, which he advocates the extermination of, in this post..."Indeed, the forces of Islamo-Nazism can not be negotiated with, nor can they be appeased, as Canada, England, Spain and Holland have found out to their dismay. The forces of Islamo-Nazism can only be killed." [/b]
I hope I am wrong about your anti American hatred. If I am I apologise. I believe you would know more about how you feel in your heart than I would. I am lazy and don't really want to sort out several years of your posts to prove or disprove my thoughts on that subject. I will let that one go unless someone else decides to pick it up. I'll keep my eyes open though.
I won't speak for Ritter. But I will say that I don't think he is talking about destroying a race or a religion. He is, in my opinion speaking of destroying an enemy of extreme radicals. They could always surrender and comply and it would all stop.
Don't be so weak minded as to be influenced by other people seeing something which wasn't there. It was Mochiron who first suggested that I had something against all americans. The only time I referred to Joe America was when I said that most americans think that Iraq had something to do with 9-11, providing a link to the Washington Post poll which said that 70% of americans thought that.
I will Apologise for being so weak minded as to think that a few people accused you of 70% anti American sentiment based on whatever evidence they dug up. But the truth is the Bush administration has fooled many people in many countries as well. I don't support that lie either. I believe several other nations said pretty much the same kinds of things too. I don't know the date of the article you produced or the date of the poll but would it surprise you to know that there are many people in the world who doesn't even know there is a war going on? There really is a propaganda machine in this thing. No doubt about it.
Unfortunately, it seems to be not only americans like yourself who have adopted the mind set, as initiated by Bush, that anybody who criticises american actions is an american hater and a terrorist.
I criticise some things about my Country pretty often. Why would I think that? That is what freedom is. The ability to express yourself. But we all know that your own Country could stand some bashing. Please feel free anytime. Bashing America and Americans is getting old. Oops I mean criticising. I mean I believe it is the most criticised nation on this forum. Isn't it possible to start a thread bashing your own for a change? There is a lot of flags out there lets go alphabetically.
D[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by cashthetrashMr. Ragnorak, I understand your point. Believe me I do. I wish there was a better way. If you could come up with a better way please do so and help out.
Originally posted by Ragnorak
[b]In the eyes of the U.S., you are at war. Undoubtedly, a very dubious war on "terror", but you are at war, nonetheless. I see absolutely no difference whatsoever between a soldier who kills 1 innocent person by beheading him, and a soldier who drops a bomb, which kills 50-100 innocents (remember a "precision mis ...[text shortened]... ften. Why would I think that? That is what freedom is. The ability to express yourself. B[/b]
Its easy. Let the U.S and British step aside, and allow a UN delegation to go in and keep the peace. The Iraqis would be happier due to the fact that the people imposing curfew aren't the same people who have bombed and killed their entire village. If there was still unrest, then I'd back whatever measures peacekeepers deem necessary to keep peace (which probably wouldn't include bombing hundreds of houses within a 600 metre radius to get 1 man).
As it is, I feel that the U.S. servicemen in Iraq represent an imperialistic nation who have illegally invaded another nation, and are blatant targets for Iraqi Freedom Fighters (remembering that Ireland has only been a nation for 90 years, after "terrorists" fought against the oppressive English rule which killed millions over its 800 years).
They might hit your country next.
My country is a legitimate target after allowing hundreds of prisoners to be flown around the world to be tortured on behalf of america. If my country is bombed, I would have to blame my government (which will NOT be reelected) as much as I'd blame the terrorists. Think about it trash, you're advocating torture and terror tactics in your earlier posts in this thread in the fight against "terrorists". Supporters of the "terrorists" probably think exactly as you do. "They did this, so morally we're entitled to do this, etc, etc..."
Tell me Cash, you speak about the freedom to express yourself without sanctions. You believe you have this in the u.s. Please explain why your government has introduced Free Speech Zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone). Surely the whole of the u.s. is a free speech zone. Also, if you decide that "democracy" (as represented by your two party system of oligarchs) wasn't for you, what mechanism is in place for you to replace your form of governance?
D
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirAnd how would you have explained that to the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Allied POWs in Japan? Some had been there for many years. "Hang on, boys and girls. We've got a major weapon here but it's too cruel for war. Just be patient. We're going to blockade for an indeterminate time to starve the enemy into submission. Of course, you'll be the first to starve but, hey, that's the breaks."
What a load of trailer trash bollocks... as per usual.
The allies could have set up a sea block around Japan and financially crushed them, instead of killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.
Japan was on the point of surrendering anyway...
Originally posted by DelmerI bet all the POWs are saying "Gee thanks, Del, for blaming me for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel. I owe you one!"
And how would you have explained that to the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Allied POWs in Japan? Some had been there for many years. "Hang on, boys and girls. We've got a major weapon here but it's too cruel for war. Just be patient. We're going to blockade for an indeterminate time to starve the enemy into submission. Of course, you'll be the first to starve but, hey, that's the breaks."
D
Originally posted by RagnorakMaybe...
I bet all the POWs are saying "Gee thanks, Del, for blaming me for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel. I owe you one!"
D
"...hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel..." ?
But maybe they are saying, "Gee thanks, Del, for considering our welfare first and the enemy's welfare second."
So what would you have told them, Rags? "We've got a new weapon that might end the war, but we aren't going to use it because we don't want you POWs to feel responsible for the 'deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel.'"
Originally posted by RagnorakOriginally posted by Ragnorak
D[/b]
Its easy. Let the U.S and British step aside, and allow a UN delegation to go in and keep the peace. The Iraqis would be happier due to the fact that the people imposing curfew aren't the same people who have bombed and killed their entire village. If there was still unrest, then I'd back whatever measures peacekeepers deem necessary to keep peace (which probably wouldn't include bombing hundreds of houses within a 600 metre radius to get 1 man).
It is not as simple as you say, Mr. Ragnorak. I wish it were. If you can remember any of the history. You will remember that Iraq made a full unconditional surrender after "Desert Storm" we pulled out and the so called UN peace keepers pulled out. Let's be more clear the UN was ordered out, by Saddam Insane along with the UN inspectors. The Iraqis thumbed their noses and claimed victory. Apparently it wasn't enough for them the first time. Then they started making threats of Nuclear and biological warfare against the US and Our Allies. They used WMD's before and the world believed them. We could only go by what they told us. This did not sound like an unconditional surrender to me. The terrorism escalated in the world because they became encouraged thinking they could chase the United States and the UN away. This is when they started making claims the United States were paper tigers and had no stomach for war. Next comes ships being attacked. We ignore. Several other incidents occur. We ignore. Then the 911 event. Mr. Ragnorak we would love for the UN to help out. But there is no way we will pull out as long as they continue to attack and threaten us. Hopefully the tactic of terrorism will vanish from the face of the earth. We can not trust them to stop if we do. This is not a war against Iraq. It is a war for Iraq. And against terrorism. They didn't really stop last time. They just pretended too, And the truth is the UN can't and won't be able to stop it alone. But hey jump in any time. Am I not saying Iraq was Guilty of 911? I don't really know. I don't think so. But I do know that there is a lot of killing going on for a Country that was supposed to have surrendered.
As it is, I feel that the U.S. servicemen in Iraq represent an imperialistic nation who have illegally invaded another nation, and are blatant targets for Iraqi Freedom Fighters (remembering that Ireland has only been a nation for 90 years, after "terrorists" fought against the oppressive English rule which killed millions over its 800 years).
Please correct me here if I am misunderstanding you here. I'm not sure, but it sounds like you are telling me you support terrorism. What your Country fought for I believe was for the freedom to have your own Country. There is a difference in what your Country fought for (I really don't know all the details in that.) It was a mess for both sides. But to be honest, I really do not know what our enemies want. It seems they just want to kill us if we are not a Muslim. That is too steep a price for many to give up.
I don't know how illegal the invasion was based on the fact they didn't meet the demands of the unconditional surrender. Based on the fact we had been attacked on our soil. Who was it that attacked us. At the time we weren't real sure. What George Bush knew or didn't know was not real clear to us then and still not completely clear. But it doesn't change the fact that we had to be sure.
My country is a legitimate target after allowing hundreds of prisoners to be flown around the world to be tortured on behalf of america. If my country is bombed, I would have to blame my government (which will NOT be reelected) as much as I'd blame the terrorists. Think about it trash, you're advocating torture and terror tactics in your earlier posts in this thread in the fight against "terrorists". Supporters of the "terrorists" probably think exactly as you do. "They did this, so morally we're entitled to do this, etc, etc..."
No Sir Ragnorak, I am not advocating torture and terror tactics. I think it is despicable and appalling. I am only saying that we are giving them what they claimed we didn't have the stomach for. I wish we could play by nicer rules. But these people have no rules and refuse to abide by any rules. It is not a sport where a referee blows a whistle and everyone stops and goes and plays patty cake waiting for the referees decision. We had our people tortured during "Dessert Storm". We didn't make the rules they did. They didn't honor the Geneva convention. Terrorists don't have kings and governments. Who do you make a treaty with? As much as I wish there were I am afraid there are no rules in this war. Yes it is a you kill my dog, I kill your cat kind of war. Tell you what go ask anyone over there if they are a terrorist and most will tell you they are not. How do you really know unless you find your leg blown off? Will children kill you. Yes they will. Will women kill you. Yes they will. They teach their children to count machine guns and rocket launchers in their schools like we teach ours to count apples and Oranges.
Tell me Cash, you speak about the freedom to express yourself without sanctions. You believe you have this in the u.s. Please explain why your government has introduced Free Speech Zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone). Surely the whole of the u.s. is a free speech zone. Also, if you decide that "democracy" (as represented by your two party system of oligarchs) wasn't for you, what mechanism is in place for you to replace your form of governance?
We have and always have had the right of Free speech. But with freedoms, comes responsibility. You have the freedom to lie under oath. But there are consequences if you do. You have the right to peaceful assembly. But you also had better do it on your own property or if you do it in a public place you may need to have a permit in order to obtain security. Speaking of security. Since our government officials are private citizens too, they have a right to security. There might just be a few people that might want to take a Pot shot at Mr. Bush. So a persons safety trumps the right to free speech within the distance of a rifle shot. Does that make since to you somehow?
To a certain degree we have self governance.
First of all we don't have just a two party system. We have had several parties through out our history. Replacing Government can come in many forms. By vote. By the passing of laws. By civil wars/revolution. Or simply move to another Country provided you were allowed in. Those are just some of the ways. No one is totally free even in a democracy. But it is the closest thing I know of. Sorry to ramble off but I found some really good stuff and I need to go eat now.
D[/b]
Originally posted by cashthetrashI know it's hard to remember which particular war was related to any particular reason these days but it was Afghanistan that was attacked following terrorist attacks on the US, not Iraq.
Originally posted by Ragnorak
[b]Its easy. Let the U.S and British step aside, and allow a UN delegation to go in and keep the peace. The Iraqis would be happier due to the fact that the people imposing curfew aren't the same people who have bombed and killed their entire village. If there was still unrest, then I'd back whatever measures p ...[text shortened]... really good stuff and I need to go eat now.
D[/b]
You have linked terrorism and Saddam Hussein but nobody else did before the war. You could argue that terrorism from Iraq only happened after Saddam was removed from power.
Originally posted by RagnorakYeah send in the UN (useless nuisance). What a putz!🙄
[b]Mr. Ragnorak, I understand your point. Believe me I do. I wish there was a better way. If you could come up with a better way please do so and help out.
Its easy. Let the U.S and British step aside, and allow a UN delegation to go in and keep the peace. The Iraqis would be happier due to the fact that the people imposing curfew aren't the same peo ...[text shortened]... what mechanism is in place for you to replace your form of governance?
D[/b]
Originally posted by RagnorakKeep up the STEAM. Rag..I dont think you are anti anything. just your stats are Stats.... used to justify your point of view that you already have finalized well before this 8 page thread. maybe your p. o'ed cause of my athiest story? Enjoy letting off ths STEAM......
I bet all the POWs are saying "Gee thanks, Del, for blaming me for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-military personnel. I owe you one!"
D
Originally posted by mochironIf you have nothing to contribute to the thread apart from poorly formed attacks on me, then why bother?
Keep up the STEAM. Rag..I dont think you are anti anything. just your stats are Stats.... used to justify your point of view that you already have finalized well before this 8 page thread. maybe your p. o'ed cause of my athiest story? Enjoy letting off ths STEAM......
D
