RE: are we really afraid?

RE: are we really afraid? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 11:23:40 AM)
"No but I think we need to make al qeada afraid by using nuclear weapons in eastern afganistan and western pakistan and flatten all those mountains there." "scorched earth policy works and saves on manpower" ....come on both of you.......do neither of you accept the existence of civilians? Nuking such an area would be a crime against humanity on a par, if not exceeding, the holocaust. As for scorched earth......that may have worked in a world where there wasn't such a thing as media attention and when the scorching was done by normal fire. Nuking an area as a scorched earth policy would make those who ordered it, those who carried it out and those who supported it war criminals. We appear to be in a war........terrible things happen in war, but there is a qualititive difference between a regrettable but necessary action and nuking two regions. i say this to you both, with absolute sincerity, such an act would make America the worst criminal in the planets history.

caitlyn -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 12:16:16 PM)
I can only hope that posts concerning the use of nukes, were sarcastic in nature. There is a certain possible (and please note that I did say possible) truth ... that difficulties both in Iraq and Afghanistan, are largely fueled by a certain large neighboring state bent on an agenda of stirring up trouble in both places ... trouble that is getting quite a large number of civilians killed nearly every day. To be objective, is to look at all the factors that combine to make this a problem. It isn't just the United States being in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is leading to these problems. These states were hostile to each other, long before we were involved. To ignore that, is to ignore the entire issue. This is what has lead some into a wait and see position on this entire issue. Many are not entirely convinced that with the greater power base in Iran coming to the forefront, there would not have been war in Iraq anyway ... and a war with a much greater toll on the innocents, then we see today. Many feel that something should be done to blunt the influence on Iran in the region. We have clearly backed ourselves into a diplomatic corner, such that diplomatic solutions no longer seem to be on the table. That just is, what it is. So, you will find many that support a military solution. You will find others that will insist that military solutions, solve nothing. These two sides will never agree, and that is the only thing we should really be afraid of, because it will lead to inactivity. Many people feel that doing something now, will be ugly and costly in lives, but doing nothing will lead to a much greater loss of lives in a few years.

ohbiguy32 -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 12:32:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom We were united after 9/11. Then Bush wanted to invade Iraq and when we asked to see the plan we were called traitors by Republicans. When we questioned attacks on our liberties, we were called traitors by Republicans. When Democrats vote their conscience, Cheney announces Democrats are emboldening the terrorists. So uh, yeah, we ain't united... Just one point here. Sadaam Husiene is responsible for the deaths of more people than Adolphe Hitler

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 12:44:48 PM)
Can you please give me a link that backs this assertion?

philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 2:22:55 PM)
"I can only hope that posts concerning the use of nukes, were sarcastic in nature." ...as do i Caitlyn, however to even suggest such atrocity demands that it be challenged. The poster ought to be ashamed. Would they see the funny side if a moslem suggested nuking America until it was a shiny pane of glass? Or would they merely point and say something along the lines of this is why we are at war? The blatant hypocrisy of someone trying simultaneously to suggest nuking another country, while maintaining that they are the 'good' guys is breathtaking. Clearly the poster has a right under free speech to say anything they want, but by advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a predominantly civilian population they lose any right to claim the moral or ethical high ground....... ........and going back to the OP, (mine btw lol), this is exactly what i mean. By taking down the WTC they have provoked americans into calling for atrocity. Now to many people in the middle east, it is things like that make the description of America, 'The Great Satan', true.

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 2:25:44 PM)
To be fair, very few Americans want to Nuke people, very few, only like a militant minority if you ask me. I see very few people that agree with those sentiments

caitlyn -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 2:35:57 PM)
There are a few posters on this board, that I would nuke in a minute. [;)][;)]

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 2:58:56 PM)
I was being sarcastic. Therefore I appologize for my offensive scorched earty policy comment. in a terrorist society I do wonder sometimes, how many true civilians are there? If a civilian harbors a terrorist, provides him with food, shelter, medicine and storage of his arms and ammunition, is s/he truely free of guilt? If terrorists kill, maime and wound civilians to gain control over them, then who is to blame? I can remember a time where toddlers and small children were being given grenades and explosives and sent to GI's for these explosive were detonated and it was considered the fault of the GI. Does that philosophy still exist today? Yes I have seen it in the protests on our streets during the invasion of afganistan where eggs, feces, rocks and other things were thrown at the reserves and national guard in my home town. I saw it when they stole my Blue Star Service Flag off my flagpole becasue I was the proud father of a soldier and who prayed that he never had to become a Gold Star Father. To put boots on the ground puts people at risk. Not to put boots on the ground puts people at risk. What is the right answer? I don't know.

KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 3:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn There are a few posters on this board, that I would nuke in a minute. [;)][;)] Caitlyn the old military way of staying that was by holding up 3 fingers and saying bigger and better wars LOL and justifying it as a well placed nuke solves a multitude of problems. LOL

Rule -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 7:23:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn There is a certain possible (and please note that I did say possible) truth ... that difficulties both in Iraq and Afghanistan, are largely fueled by a certain large neighboring state bent on an agenda of stirring up trouble in both places Hm, there are US troops in Afghanistan and in the second most oil rich country in the world Iraq, in Turkey and probably also in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and in former Soviet states as well. And Pakistan and Israel and Syria are extremely friendly to the US as well. Nearly all of those countries surround and border on one very oil-rich country that is not occupied by US troops: Iran. It is a classical military strategy to surround a location to be conquered before attacking it. It only requires an excuse to legitimize it. thought experiment Now what would be a good excuse? Iran is developing nuclear material. Suppose that we can arrange for some of that nuclear stuff to be shipped to Marocco - say as waste products. Suppose we mindfuck some Maroccan muslims into craziness and have them steal the stuff and ship it via Spain into Europe, where other muslims we mindfucked into craziness use it to make a 'dirty' nuclear bomb and then explode that bomb in one of the major cities (of course we will warn some of our friends to evacuate the city before that happens). We have a different section of the CIA reverse engineer the documented trail that leads back to Iran, proving their complicity. There it is, then: an excuse to attack Iran. Everyone will think that we are the good guys and that the Iranian muslims are the bad guys and we can have fun in Iran throwing bombs, killing people and taking the oil for our own.End of thought experiment

MmakeMme -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 7:25:51 PM)
~smiling~ Philo, your mind is always on. I love the way you think.

MistressWolfen -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 7:31:09 PM)
"Do I live in the UK or in Canada?... why would I remember their parlimentary rules? " I do not live in the United States of America, but I do feel that it behooves me to study and remember your parlimentary rules and party process...(albeit a slow study cause I is ole now)....I am rather surprised to see you state such julia..you have always struck me (from reading your posts) as an academic and knowledge seeker.

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 7:35:11 PM)
I wouldn't mind knowing parlimentary rules of any country, I asked why I should know them as anyone who goes to school here knows, we are not forced to learn things in our educational process On edit, we are not forced to learn a second language,... hell, we are barely required to read in some states... and that is the sad truth. Canada has better schools, what can I say? I also found this quote from another thread, so I am wondering what you mean by questioning me in the first place? I have several more years before I catch up to you in years and time to study things I do not need to know quote: I have just recently started to study your political system...and find it interesting if limiting. In Canada I hate 'em all and want Rick Mercer as PM...LOL. I grew up with a non-party system in the territories so will watch and learn from all ya all.

MistressWolfen -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 7:39:28 PM)
ahhhh......then I would forward for a better understanding of global processes? At least that is why I still try to study these foreign processes. We are forced to have certain knowledge basis in Canada before going up a grade, and every year (age appropriate) parlimentary systems and history of other countries is one of the stepping stones, I used to hate it as a child but now support it. shrugs *edited cause dyslexia is a dreadful disease

Aubre -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 9:34:00 PM)
Sharia sucks, and not in a good way.

CrappyDom -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 10:04:08 PM)
quote: in a terrorist society I do wonder sometimes, how many true civilians are there? If a civilian harbors a terrorist, provides him with food, shelter, medicine and storage of his arms and ammunition, is s/he truely free of guilt? If terrorists kill, maime and wound civilians to gain control over them, then who is to blame? Kendky, congratulations, you just reinvented the wheel, Osama's wheel. They picked a site that represented America's financial hold on the Arab world, money where the real power is.

MistressWolfen -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 10:13:56 PM)
omg julia...I am in NO way forwarding my school experience as superior shudders...just different

juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 10:16:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressWolfen omg julia...I am in NO way forwarding my school experience as superior shudders...just different You guys learn French, we bitch that our road signs and official documents are in Spanish, you learn all 50 of our states, our kids are not even aware that Canada has provinces, much less name them... sighs

MistressWolfen -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/13/2006 10:18:48 PM)
yeah I know..but hey shrugs I still want to learn about your political system and it's influences..in fact that is my academic dedication for this year grins...then I can argue all clever like wit the big boys like CD and them nods and nods

philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/14/2006 5:35:46 AM)
"To put boots on the ground puts people at risk. Not to put boots on the ground puts people at risk. What is the right answer? I don't know." Ken, thank you for your thoughtful and honest post. i hope you don't mind that, rather than quoting the whole thing, i have pasted in your closing question. It is an excellent question, and arguably the only important one. You know, or have at least guessed, that my military experience is virtually nil.....consisting of being in the Boy Scouts and playing a bit of Counterstrike. However, one thing has struck me throughout all my interactions with military personnel over the years. That is, when you come right down to it, risk is what a soldier signs up for. The difference between a civil engineer and a military one is nothing to do with the fact they both build bridges, its to do with the fact that the military one will do so while being shot at. As a society we (most of the time hopefully) recognise this. There are Remembrance days and parades. Museums and anniversaries. Here in the Uk, we wear a red poppy at certain times of the year. It is ubiquitous. The flip side of this is that the soldier has to accept that risk is part of the bargain. So when you ask about feet on the ground or not...to me the answer is simple. Feet on the ground may be risky, but it is the point. Soldiers aren't civilians. If Israel had gone into the Lebanon, not with artillary and rockets strikes, but had gone to the very door of a terrorist then i would have very little argument with their recent incursion. To stand off and shell areas which one knows contains civilians but also think may contain terrorists is to abdicate the moral high ground. To go into the dangerous place, and do the difficult thing, despite the risk, is to occupy the moral high ground. If we wish to win a War on Terror we must occupy that high ground, or we have lost as surely as if we just laid down now.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125