With a few exceptions during WW-II ours has been a Nation that goes out of it's way to to fair and civil and to try to limit civilian loses.
Islam goes out of it's way to maim and kill innocent people from any walk of life.
After 9-11 we could have done as we did in Japan but burning Tokyo almost to the ground and obliterating two other Cities with A-bombs but we didn't and it has cost us dearly.
I don't believe at playing War as we have so far, and did in Vietnam.
You have to go to War to win and no half way half-assed measures or it ends up being drawn out into and endless quagmire and we finally give up and go home and thousands died for nothing and nothing changes other than the bad guys have time to regroup and come back another day even stronger.
Now we know the Taliban has told it's murderers to back off until Obama completes his retreat.
Once our troops are down in numbers where the Taliban no longer fear them They will kill off the Government in power and go right back to where they were before 9-11.
Obama is the stupidest idiot to ever come along. You never ever tell the enemy you plans. What does he have for brains?
Nothing I suspect.
One last thing for Aunt Spicker. It took far less than 100 to bring about the reality of 9-11.
Councilmans been drinking again.
World War Two references are so retarded in this instance its not even funny. You're not fighting a governmental entity.
In World War Two you were trying to defeat a country, to get that country to surrender, that country hard an army, navy, air force, mechanized units... These guys are a bunch of rag tag assholes hiding in caves and mountains and among civilian populations. You can nuke them all you want but here's the rub.
You measure the success of a mission by two things, was it successful and how few civilians did you hurt. They measure success by how many. And if you did nuke anywhere in the midle east you would open up pandoras box. The entire world would rise up against you for being so reckless.
Do the deaths of 3000 people at the hands of extremists deserve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Why are those lives any less meaningful Mr. ****ing Pro Life? Because they're not American?
IT's shameful, pathetic and downright idiotic that you can sit on your moral high horse passing out judgement on those who believe abortion should be legal, but at the same time feel its ok to commit mass murder in the name of revenge just because you value foreigners next to nothing.
I know I didn't just watch you justify killing a bunch of innocent civilians with nukes and in the same reply be so handily against killing a bunch of civilians with nukes. Please tell me you didn't. Dear God, I think you did. Your credibility just took a minuteman right up the tail pipe.
War is about more of the enemy dying than you dying. We were not attacked at Pearl Harbor by the civilian population of Japan. We were attacked by it's military. A little more organized than the taliban, but the same idea. No real difference. If you can justify us nuking Japan then using the same logic I can justify us nuking Afghanistan. See how that works? It's called all is fair in love and war.
Let's play a little game. You're a terrorist. You hate America. You and your terrorist brethren decide you want to attack the USA and you plan and accomplish 9/11. You see the USA retaliate with a large scale nuclear attack on your homeland, wiping it off the map and making it unlivable, if you even live through the nukes. Does that send a clear message that you don't want to **** with the USA when you're shooting AK-47's and they're slinging 100KT nuclear warheads?
What message does it send when we reply with a few bombs, lots of riff-raff between political parties here at home and a stronger more organized terror organization as a result? As a terrorist, I want scenario number 2. I sure as **** don't want to **** with scenario number 1.
What say you?
I know I didn't just watch you justify killing a bunch of innocent civilians with nukes and in the same reply be so handily against killing a bunch of civilians with nukes. Please tell me you didn't. Dear God, I think you did. Your credibility just took a minuteman right up the tail pipe.
War is about more of the enemy dying than you dying. We were not attacked at Pearl Harbor by the civilian population of Japan. We were attacked by it's military. A little more organized than the taliban, but the same idea. No real difference. If you can justify us nuking Japan then using the same logic I can justify us nuking Afghanistan. See how that works? It's called all is fair in love and war.
Let's play a little game. You're a terrorist. You hate America. You and your terrorist brethren decide you want to attack the USA and you plan and accomplish 9/11. You see the USA retaliate with a large scale nuclear attack on your homeland, wiping it off the map and making it unlivable, if you even live through the nukes. Does that send a clear message that you don't want to **** with the USA when you're shooting AK-47's and they're slinging 100KT nuclear warheads?
What message does it send when we reply with a few bombs, lots of riff-raff between political parties here at home and a stronger more organized terror organization as a result? As a terrorist, I want scenario number 2. I sure as **** don't want to **** with scenario number 1.
What say you?
Do the deaths of 3000 people at the hands of extremists deserve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians?
Civilian deaths caused by whom?
No Afghanis or Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. When you suggest nuking the terrorist's homeland, are you speaking of Saudi Arabia, since all but one were Saudi?
Ultimately? George Bush.
How many civilian deaths were caused by the terrorist targets hiding like cowards among civilian populations?
j-mac
How many of them would have been hiding there if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq? Basically zero. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it."
Did you support Saddam?
j-mac
Ultimately? George Bush.
George Bush ordered these people to be killed by American soldiers?
The only reason to link Afghanistan to Iraq is to muddy the understanding of both.
Is it your contention that Afghanistan was attacked unjustly?
Ultimately? George Bush.
LOL! Too bad you didn't convince George W and the GOP of that!
Is it your contention that Afghanistan was attacked unjustly?
j-mac
Yes, there was no need for a war against the Afghanis. The Afghanis did not attack us and were of no threat to us, just as the Iraqis did not attack us and were not a threat to the US.
We should have used our law enforcement agencies and special OPS to track down the Saudi criminals that attacked us on 9/11.
As the conservative think tank, the Rand Corp. pointed out in their analysis for the military, the war on terror was a failure.
I would part company with you on that one. Afghanistan was harboring our sworn enemeis and refused to expel them. They were providing them refuge to train for and plan attacks against us. IMO that war was justified.
George Bush ordered the invasion that created the conditions that allowed those civilians to be killed. You break it, you own it.
I would part company with you on that one. Afghanistan was harboring our sworn enemeis and refused to expel them. They were providing them refuge to train for and plan attacks against us. IMO that war was justified.
This is why I don't worry too much about religious creationists mandating the teaching of bogus crap in public schools. The outcomes of that experiment couldn't do any more damage to the mental faculties of American students than the education process did to yours.
George Bush is responsible for the murder that one Iraqi commits against another Iraqi. One has be a lunatic to be swayed by such "tight" and "well considered" reasoning.
This is why I don't worry too much about religious creationists mandating the teaching of bogus crap in public schools. The outcomes of that experiment couldn't do any more damage to the mental faculties of American students than the education process did to yours.
George Bush is responsible for the murder that one Iraqi commits against another Iraqi. One has be a lunatic to be swayed by such "tight" and "well considered" reasoning.
As would the majority of the country at the time. I still agree with the Rand Corp, that it was counter productive. As soon as we leave, it will continue to be available to terrorists. Besides, there are terrorists all over the world. I personally don't feel that waging war against all those countries would help anything either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?