- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,890
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
This is very silly. Obviously you can create a tally of wars that have defined endings and wars that do not, but at the end of the day more conflicts have been concluded than not. Moreover your examples work against you! In Vietnam the application of violence by the North Vietnamese resulted in the defeat of South Vietnam and the restoration of peace in the country. Was it a desired outcome? I'd say not, but it was a definite outcome. Likewise for Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Just as many times if not many more we have prevailed such as in Korea, the Gulf War, etc.
The simple point is that violence does not simply breed violence, it also often ends violence.
What a small minded and isolationist vision. The death of a Briton, an Indian, or a South Korean diminishes me as well. Perhaps not as much as my fellow American, but it stings. I want to build a better world, not construct a Festung America.
We're not talking about an organized government/country that's attacked another country and declared war and wears uniforms and such.
This is a totally different monster we're attempting to "fight".
You can not defeat them as you would defeat a country that's declared war on another country.
I can't believe you don't get that.
We'd be better off building schools, libraries, sewer and fresh water systems, and hospitals to fight terrorists, than trying to kill all the terrorists.
That is a common refrain but it is almost never true. The greater, or more sophisticated application of violence is more frequently the source of an end to conflict than any other measure.
This is merely the short termed view of things. Certainly all of our wars haven't stemmed humanity's impulse to kill each other and wars are oft met with future wars. It's not till sides learn they must quit that we actually make progress in controlling the violence. In the best of situations, violence can end future violence. In the majority of cases it causes more. Let's not forget we've been at war for over a decade, killed 10's of thousands of other humans and thousands of ourselves in the process. Not really ending conflict. And in this particular situation, our continued intervention and killing only aids terrorist anti-American propaganda and is used to fuel further recruits.
Ikari said:This is merely the short termed view of things. Certainly all of our wars haven't stemmed humanity's impulse to kill each other and wars are oft met with future wars. It's not till sides learn they must quit that we actually make progress in controlling the violence. In the best of situations, violence can end future violence. In the majority of cases it causes more. Let's not forget we've been at war for over a decade, killed 10's of thousands of other humans and thousands of ourselves in the process. Not really ending conflict. And in this particular situation, our continued intervention and killing only aids terrorist anti-American propaganda and is used to fuel further recruits.
Sherman123 said:That is a common refrain but it is almost never true. The greater, or more sophisticated application of violence is more frequently the source of an end to conflict than any other measure.
If it doesn't end the violence in the future, then obviously someone gave up too soon or didn't do it right.
10's of thousands of other human beings? Really, I thought over the last 50+ years we mainly only killed muslim extremist/terrorist, their supporters and some socialists. What do they have do do with human beings?
A criminal? We're talking about terrorists that have killed many innocent people and have every intention of continuing. And they are beyond the reach of any police force. If your neighbor is that, then you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry, but we've got hundreds to save and you've failed to police your own neighborhood. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. We still have a very large troop contingent in Afghanistan and we never had soldiers in Pakistan. This concerns Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. Perhaps you confused that?
How far away do I have to be not to be associated with this terrorist? 50 ft? 100 ft? 100 yards? 1/4 mile?What if he is driving by and I am farming? Is that my fault too?
How about if I just let you figure that out for yourself?
If you get blown away by the same missile that kills a terrorist you probably were hanging out with the wrong people.
You do understand this concept, eh?
If you hang out with bad guys don't complain when what happens to them affects you.
No I don't understand the concept that my life is forfeit just because there is a low life in the area. Our strikes are suppose to be "surgical". It is not surgical if innocents are being killed.
Our strikes are suppose to be "surgical". It is not surgical if innocents are being killed.No I don't understand the concept that my life is forfeit just because there is a low life in the area.
That's your problem and I have zero sympathy for you.
How about if I just let you figure that out for yourself?
If you get blown away by the same missile that kills a terrorist you probably were hanging out with the wrong people.
We really don't have problem since our country is not being terrorized by another.
You have a reality problem.
Why do people say these ridiculous things? Is it to get a rise out of other posters? Surely no thinking person thinks it doesn't matter how much collateral damage there is as long as you get the terrorist. Is it okay to blow up a hospital if you know a terrorist is in there? A mall? A cafe?
A street stand? Where do you draw the line?
The only reason I can think of is to ease their conscience when children get blown up for being to close to a suspected terroris. I guess those kids should know better than to pal around with terrorists.
For the most part the U.S. has been using drone strikes in remote areas. If you are a high ranking Al-Queda member, and you know this, then perhaps you try to stay in the cover of population centers.
Is it your position that where they are does not matter?
Let me ask you this, how many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?
I see everyone who put themselves next to that critter as a valid target and I won't shed a tear for them.
How you feel about this is your problem.
Why do people say these ridiculous things? Is it to get a rise out of other posters? Surely no thinking person thinks it doesn't matter how much collateral damage there is as long as you get the terrorist. Is it okay to blow up a hospital if you know a terrorist is in there? A mall? A cafe?
A street stand? Where do you draw the line?
The only reason I can think of is to ease their conscience when children get blown up for being to close to a suspected terroris. I guess those kids should know better than to pal around with terrorists.
For the most part the U.S. has been using drone strikes in remote areas. If you are a high ranking Al-Queda member, and you know this, then perhaps you try to stay in the cover of population centers.
Is it your position that where they are does not matter?
Let me ask you this, how many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?
Blue_State;1062492171[B said:[/B]]Please name the country or countries that are terrorizing the US.
I think you mean 'I see everyone who that critter puts himself near, as a valid target'
Spoken like a true terrorist.
Btw, I missed your answer -How many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?
What if you don't know they're AQ? You deserve to die?
If you don't know, do a little research.
I don't work for you.
You just made my list of people who tick me off.
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?