| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2006 04:56:31 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by bigalpha:
...I ask you, do you not think that someone who has engaged in "crimes against humanity" should be taken to a court of law? |
Agree completely - I must have missed the trial for Truman (US Pres) because I don't recall that from my history - remember he deliberately chose 2 civilian targets in Japan. There could be a number of more recent trials if you look at the evidence. The problem is that point of view from the "winner" is subjective - even for stuff that should be objective.
To be honest I cannot tell the difference in words & actions between some US leaders and the "terrorists" - apart from the fact they use different words for their favorite deity (or imaginary friend if you prefer).
To the last post - I absolutely an supportive to Rumsfeld been subject to war crimes trials. |
|
|
|
11/19/2006 07:05:36 PM · #152 |
Look, when a country goes to war it needs to try and kill as many of the enemy as it can. If not willing to do that there should be no attack at all. The military was held back in Korea and Viet-Nam and we lost those two wars. Iraq will be the same result. One day we will have to deal with N. Korea again and Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc, etc. Have you seen the hate the Muslims are teaching their children from the time they are born? If you haven't, you should research it. You atheists ,agnostics and liberal why can't we all get along hug everybody folks are on their hate list too.
Did I think we should have attacked Iraq? Yes, to get rid of the weapons we thought they had. We probably can agree Saddam was a ruthless evil leader but he did one thing right and that was he knew he must kill his enemies...all of them, which he did by the tens of thousands.
When the US started craw-fishing about the WMD's and changed to "liberating and establishing a free society" I knew then we would eventually have to just leave. I guess we will have to just wait and see. Freedom and democracy must be earned by those who want it....not handed to them by a foreign government. I don't think they want a democracy. They have had a heck of a long time to earn it and haven't tried as far as I can see.
It's a damn shame we have lost 3000 or so soldiers, most of them just being targets in a country full of people who want us dead. IF the ones who want freedom could be identified they could have been trained in USA and sent back home to do their own fighting.
"Crimes against humanity.... To be honest I cannot tell the difference in words & actions between some US leaders and the "terrorists" - apart from the fact they use different words for their favorite deity (or imaginary friend if you prefer)."
I'm shaking my head in disbelief. If you live long enough you will know the difference.
Message edited by author 2006-11-20 09:45:19. |
|
|
|
11/20/2006 09:20:47 AM · #153 |
Last night the National Geographic channel ran a program on an Islamic Terrorist who had been a Sargent in the US Army. The program seemed fairly blunt and to the point. Osama clearly believed and believes that America has "no stomach for war". For that, he appears correct.
Any country without the "stomach for war", will someday be an occupied and enslaved country.
I read this morning that Charlie Rangel is again espousing the Draft. His intent however is not to instill a "stomach for war", but rather to challenge Hawks to resist the action.
I sense we are weak, as the nation is too "considerate" of others views. The anomolies of this current engagement (ie Abu Ghraib and other embarrasments) are not the rule - only the exceptions. Relentless focus on the exceptions has served the mission of Osama and Al Queda. We will again run away from the enemy, for we have "no stomach for war". No stomach for civilian casualties (even though the enemy hides in their midst), no stomach for the maiming and fallout of battle (even though it is the same in all wars), no stomach for the death of warriors (even though this is the fewest casualties), no stomach for the truth and realities of warring. Yes Osama, we americans have no stomach for war. We will even chastise those who are trying to bring about your end. We will criticize those who identify the Muslim Faith as a part of the radical movement and further hide our heads in agnostic anti-faith rhetoric deposing our christian based roots. We after all, have no stomach for war.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2006 09:49:20 AM · #154 |
All of your post deserves repeating but I think this is key....
Originally posted by Flash:
Any country without the "stomach for war", will someday be an occupied and enslaved country. |
......by a people who "want to chop our heads off."
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 12:55:57 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Relentless focus on the exceptions has served the mission of Osama and Al Queda. |
I believe that the relentless focus on exceptions within the Islamic community has served the mission of GWB.
It is not a case of lack of stomach for war, but an injust war that causes us the problem. The war in Afghanistan is rarely questioned, the sacrifices sadly understood to be necessary. I would call for more troops, more force, greater involvement in that conflict.
In other cases, war is simply not the answer. In the ME, we are gradually moving towards diplomatic solutions. The wars are not, and probably cannot be won militarily. Every delay represents wasted life until a policy that stands a chance of success is adopted. In the ME, that means building relations with the states surrounding Iraq and encouraging international involvement and support (now belatedly a policy being adopted).
One recent example of diplomacy working far better than war was the Israeli/Lebanese confrontation. A month of war, thousands dead, billions upon billions of destruction, achieved nothing (the missiles continued to fly into Israel). Dozens of people here slagged off those few of us who criticised the war as unjustified and called for diplomacy, with calls for escalation. Then, a week of negotiations and the objective was achieved.
Thousands dead for... precisely nothing.
That is what I have no stomach for: the unjustified, wasteful and unnecessary deaths caused by the action or inaction of our warmongering leaders.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 01:28:04 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
IF the ones who want freedom could be identified they could have been trained in USA and sent back home to do their own fighting.
|
That sounds an awful lot like the recipe used for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 01:38:55 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by David Ey:
IF the ones who want freedom could be identified they could have been trained in USA and sent back home to do their own fighting.
|
That sounds an awful lot like the recipe used for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. |
More to the point, it sounds exactly like training terrorists and then reinserting them in their own country to wreak havoc; something we also used to do a lot of in South America with our CIA-run "School of the Americas"...
R. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 01:40:18 PM · #158 |
Saddam versus Castro - no rules fist fight to the death!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 02:12:09 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
More to the point, it sounds exactly like training terrorists and then reinserting them in their own country to wreak havoc; something we also used to do a lot of in South America with our CIA-run "School of the Americas"...
R. |
Along with more traditional methods of warfare such as mining the harbors ... that "school" still exists, under a new name. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 02:44:31 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
One recent example of diplomacy working far better than war was the Israeli/Lebanese confrontation. A month of war, thousands dead, billions upon billions of destruction, achieved nothing (the missiles continued to fly into Israel). Dozens of people here slagged off those few of us who criticised the war as unjustified and called for diplomacy, with calls for escalation. Then, a week of negotiations and the objective was achieved. |
Ah, but there were years of negotiations before the month of war, and they did not achieve the "objective". Earnest negotiations did not begin until after each side came to the conclusion that serious negotiations were in the best interests of both parties - because without it, they would both suffer greater and greater loss. Hence, the war provided the foundation that made effective negotiations the more desirable option.
It's kind of like a labor strike. It's only when both the strikers and the strikees have suffered enough that they are willing to negotiate an agreement that both can accept. Negotiations before the strike and the suffering are just gamesmanship. After the strike and the suffering negotiations are conducted in earnest, often aided by professional arbiters.
As Teddy Roosevelt used to say: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". I think that it's the big stick that makes the soft speech worth paying attention to. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:24:41 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by David Ey:
IF the ones who want freedom could be identified they could have been trained in USA and sent back home to do their own fighting.
|
That sounds an awful lot like the recipe used for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. |
More to the point, it sounds exactly like training terrorists and then reinserting them in their own country to wreak havoc; something we also used to do a lot of in South America with our CIA-run "School of the Americas"...
R. |
Good lord, that was tongue in cheek guys. No one can sort them out. There may only be six good ones anyway. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 03:27:38 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by David Ey:
IF the ones who want freedom could be identified they could have been trained in USA and sent back home to do their own fighting.
|
That sounds an awful lot like the recipe used for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. |
More to the point, it sounds exactly like training terrorists and then reinserting them in their own country to wreak havoc; something we also used to do a lot of in South America with our CIA-run "School of the Americas"...
R. |
Good lord, that was tongue in cheek guys. No one can sort them out. There may only be six good ones anyway. |
And sarcasm plays so well on the internet...
Sounds like you've already condemned them all and and willing, if not eager, to sacrifice the rest. |
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:25:01 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Earnest negotiations did not begin until after each side came to the conclusion that serious negotiations were in the best interests of both parties - because without it, they would both suffer greater and greater loss. Hence, the war provided the foundation that made effective negotiations the more desirable option. |
I agree that this conflict took place in the context of a much broader conflict. Maybe Israel did need to learn that military intervention would not achieve its objectives (and the coalition needs to learn the same in Iraq). However, the many people who ridiculed the idea of negotiating "with people/terrorists who cannot be negotiated with" and who consequently called for Lebanon to be wiped from the map were clearly wrong. Similarly, accusations of appeasementism of those who favoured a quick move to diplomacy were misplaced. The only effective solution was (and remains) a diplomatic one. [In that conflict, the destruction was wastefully protracted]. The desperate need for sophisticated diplomatic skills is being demonstrated time and time again in the current conflict.
While judiciously and accurately used force can be tremendously effective for the general good, we are witnessing it being used as a blunt and imprecise weapon by militarily arrogant regimes for very questionable purposes.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 20:25:45.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 08:38:21 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
We probably can agree Saddam was a ruthless evil leader but he did one thing right and that was he knew he must kill his enemies...all of them, which he did by the tens of thousands. |
I think that this is the one thing that he is convicted of as a crime against humanity. So "right" is a very contentious word to use in that context, especially if you are advocating that on one hand Saddam is evil, but on the other that other nations should adopt the most objectionable of his policies.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 20:38:44.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 09:47:20 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by David Ey:
We probably can agree Saddam was a ruthless evil leader but he did one thing right and that was he knew he must kill his enemies...all of them, which he did by the tens of thousands. |
I think that this is the one thing that he is convicted of as a crime against humanity. So "right" is a very contentious word to use in that context, especially if you are advocating that on one hand Saddam is evil, but on the other that other nations should adopt the most objectionable of his policies. |
What I meant by 'right thing' was, since he had such dangerous enemies in his own mind, the only 'right thing' for him to do was try and kill them all. I am not convinced he should be tried for these 'crimes' at all. When you are at war, the object should be to eliminate your enemy. Used to be only the looser was guilty of war crimes.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 09:48:27 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sounds like you've already condemned them all and and willing, if not eager, to sacrifice the rest. |
How many times have you seen groups of Muslims protesting the "radicals" for making the "death to America" or "destroy the White House" or "chop off the heads of all infidels"? You haven't. Have you not seen the hate speeches and sermons taught in their Mosques?....right here in the US as well as around the world? Do you not believe the video's of what they are teaching their children. They have taught hate and death to non-Muslims for years and we are now, as they are getting stronger, seeing the results of their teachings. Do you think it is a lie that women and children as well as adult males are willing to blow themselves up for Allah if they kill non-believers? I know of no other religion that even comes close to advocating the killing of others for a reward of virgins. (I wonder what the women are promised....oh, nothing I suppose since they are sub-human to the men.) I take their threats seriously! Negotiating with these animals is not an option. You will either convert to their belief or die. Unfortunately, not enough have the stomach to do what is necessary to save civilized people from their venomous hate. Our open borders have allowed our enemy to infiltrate our free state possibly beyond repair. We have the means to greatly weaken our enemy without setting a boot on foreign soil. A few days ago we lost a F16 and pilot in an area of "heavy concentration of insurgents". Why was this threat, and other known threats, not eliminated with the proper tools? Has it been responded to yet?
Oh well, enough of my rant. The thing is, I believe them when they say they want me dead and I am not willing to just sit back and let them do it.
On a side note, the six Emoms, what ever the heck that is, who were detained aboard the aircraft a few days ago were softening us up so they can get media sympathy and cause us to let our guard down.
Message edited by author 2006-11-29 21:50:02.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2006 09:48:50 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
When you are at war, the object should be to eliminate your enemy. Used to be only the looser was guilty of war crimes. |
Hello there, fellow dinosaur. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 04:07:38 AM · #168 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
How many times have you seen groups of Muslims protesting the "radicals" for making the "death to America" or "destroy the White House" or "chop off the heads of all infidels"? |
And how many times have you seen the massive majority of Muslims condemn and deplore these actions? You haven't? Maybe that is because condemnation is not nearly as newsworthy as the radical threats, nor politically useful and not highlighted by your political representatives. But maybe you would be interested to learn that a fatwa has been issued against terrorism and that it is widely condemned by most islamic interest groups.
While a high proportion of modern terrorism is perpetrated in the name of Islam, you should beware of falling into the trap of assuming that a majority of muslims are terrorists.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 04:07:56 AM · #169 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-11-30 04:08:11.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 10:34:07 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Sounds like you've already condemned them all and and willing, if not eager, to sacrifice the rest. |
How many times have you seen groups of Muslims protesting the "radicals" for making the "death to America" or "destroy the White House" or "chop off the heads of all infidels"? You haven't. Have you not seen the hate speeches and sermons taught in their Mosques?....right here in the US as well as around the world? Do you not believe the video's of what they are teaching their children. They have taught hate and death to non-Muslims for years and we are now, as they are getting stronger, seeing the results of their teachings. Do you think it is a lie that women and children as well as adult males are willing to blow themselves up for Allah if they kill non-believers? I know of no other religion that even comes close to advocating the killing of others for a reward of virgins. (I wonder what the women are promised....oh, nothing I suppose since they are sub-human to the men.) I take their threats seriously! Negotiating with these animals is not an option. You will either convert to their belief or die. Unfortunately, not enough have the stomach to do what is necessary to save civilized people from their venomous hate. Our open borders have allowed our enemy to infiltrate our free state possibly beyond repair. We have the means to greatly weaken our enemy without setting a boot on foreign soil. A few days ago we lost a F16 and pilot in an area of "heavy concentration of insurgents". Why was this threat, and other known threats, not eliminated with the proper tools? Has it been responded to yet?
Oh well, enough of my rant. The thing is, I believe them when they say they want me dead and I am not willing to just sit back and let them do it.
On a side note, the six Emoms, what ever the heck that is, who were detained aboard the aircraft a few days ago were softening us up so they can get media sympathy and cause us to let our guard down. |
However much arm waving and ranting you use, your willingness to "Kill them all and let God sort them out." makes you as bad as they are. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 11:44:51 AM · #171 |
| You won't think that way when they come to chop off your head, unless of course you wish to convert to Islam. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 12:48:08 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
On a side note, the six Emoms, what ever the heck that is, who were detained aboard the aircraft a few days ago were softening us up so they can get media sympathy and cause us to let our guard down. |
By Emoms, I presume you mean Imams. Translated into Christian terms: vicars, or bishops. Know your enemy, if you are determined to defeat them. It shouldn't be hard: they are very much the same as you. Substantially the same book, beliefs, prophets and concept of God.
If you think that people with a very slightly different take on essentially the same religion are scary, imagine what it must be like for those of us who see both Christianity and Islam as equally unrealistic: not one, but two parties warring on a disagreement over how some imaginary being might act and have acted hundreds or thousands of years ago. Now that's scary.
|
|
|
|
11/30/2006 02:47:18 PM · #173 |
| I see you have not read their book of religion, or mine either, if you think they closely compare. Good luck. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 03:31:34 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by David Ey:
On a side note, the six Emoms, what ever the heck that is, who were detained aboard the aircraft a few days ago were softening us up so they can get media sympathy and cause us to let our guard down. |
By Emoms, I presume you mean Imams. Translated into Christian terms: vicars, or bishops. Know your enemy, if you are determined to defeat them. It shouldn't be hard: they are very much the same as you. Substantially the same book, beliefs, prophets and concept of God.
If you think that people with a very slightly different take on essentially the same religion are scary, imagine what it must be like for those of us who see both Christianity and Islam as equally unrealistic: not one, but two parties warring on a disagreement over how some imaginary being might act and have acted hundreds or thousands of years ago. Now that's scary. |
For all of your words, it is apparent that you do not know that of which you speak. To state the Christians and Muslims ( adherent of Islam ) have "substantially the same book, beliefs, prophets and concept of God" is proof of that.
The Christian book is the Bible; the Muslim book is the Koran ( Qur'an ). The two books are NOT "substantially" the same.
The Christian belief is that Jesus Christ was the son of God, and the incarnation of God - that is both God and Man in one being; the Muslim belief is that Jesus was just another prophet. The two beliefs are NOT "substantially" the same.
The Christian prophets, for example, do NOT include Adam, or Noah, or Lot, or Muhammad, and DO include Sarah, Miriam, and Esther; the Muslim prophets DO include Adam, and Noah, and Lot, and Muhammad, and do NOT include Sarah, or Miriam, or Esther. The two sets of prophets are NOT "substantially" the same.
The Christian concept of God is a Triune God - Father, Son ( Jesus ), and Holy Spirit; the Muslim concept of God is a singular God - No Son, No Holy Spirit. The two concepts of God are NOT "substantially" the same.
If you truly believe that Christianity and Islam represent only a "slightly different take", then it is appears as though you haven't spent time looking into the differences between the two.
Know your enemy, if you are determined to defeat them. It shouldn't be hard. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 03:51:34 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You won't think that way when they come to chop off your head, unless of course you wish to convert to Islam. |
We're already "chopping off their heads" only we don't do it one at a time with a knife, we use machine guns, grenades and guided missiles.
How does that make us right and them wrong?
If I were them, I'd hate us too |
|
