In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civilian

[David_N]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

He isn't "pro-life", he's "anti-abortion". There is a difference.

He, like most anti-abortion folks, call themselves pro life.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

Oh, I'm not saying that you're either with us or you're against us, but in this war, anyone who is supporting the terrorists, no matter how they self-describe, is against us. They just are. There are sides to this fight whether people like it or not and while I don't want to say it's along religious lines, certainly there are a vast majority of Muslims who have no love for the terrorists at all and would step up to fight against them at a moment's notice, there is a significant number who are only too happy to help the terrorists, either because they feel they have no choice or because they ultimately agree with their aims, and those people are just as much a problem as the guys carrying around machine guns. Of course, this is true of Christianity as well, there are lots of Christian groups who might openly oppose the crazies blowing up abortion clinics, or at least try to distance themselves from them, but at the end of the day support what they're doing and might send money to the groups who are doing it. It's reprehensible and I hate to say it, but we all know it's true. There are an unfortunate number of evangelical groups in America who were entirely behind Scott Lively's attempts to influence the government of Uganda to murder gays because of their religious beliefs. Sure, these people weren't out carrying around machine guns to try to force the issue, but they still supported it.

That support is absolutely a problem that has to be addressed because in these cases, reason goes straight out the window.

With the above, we are in agreement.

 

[Cephus]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

He, like most anti-abortion folks, call themselves pro life.

They can call themselves a tuna fish sandwich for all I care, that doesn't mean a thing.

 

[digsbe]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

I think people like misunderstanding things on purpose and then trying to bash the pro-life.

My stance is that if you engage in a military campaign you do it with full force and you do it right. Civilian casualties will happen, it's the sad reality of war. I think things should be done to limit civilian casualties, but the ultimate goal needs to be defeat of the enemy. Just doing air strikes won't cut it. We should respect life and minimize civilian death as much as possible, but in the same regard evil should be defeated with full force. Allowing ISIS or groups of evil to exist results in civilian death as well, they're out to kill innocents as obvious with terrorist attacks and skirmishes to take ground.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

I think people like misunderstanding things on purpose and then trying to bash the pro-life.

My stance is that if you engage in a military campaign you do it with full force and you do it right. Civilian casualties will happen, it's the sad reality of war. I think things should be done to limit civilian casualties, but the ultimate goal needs to be defeat of the enemy. Just doing air strikes won't cut it. We should respect life and minimize civilian death as much as possible, but in the same regard evil should be defeated with full force. Allowing ISIS or groups of evil to exist results in civilian death as well, they're out to kill innocents as obvious with terrorist attacks and skirmishes to take ground.

So when your side kills innocent people, it's a "sad reality of war". When the other side kills innocent people, it's "evil". Priceless.

 

[digsbe]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

So when your side kills innocent people, it's a "sad reality of war". When the other side kills innocent people, it's "evil". Priceless.

Who's the aggressor? There's a difference between the goal being to kill civilians and takeover the place versus stop an aggressive enemy and accept civilian casualties as a sad reality. You act as if either side is equal with the same motives.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

Who's the aggressor?

I don't believe that the answer to this question is simple. Given how entangled Western nations are in middle eastern affairs, any number of countries and groups could be considered the aggressor.

There's a difference between the goal being to kill civilians and takeover the place versus stop an aggressive enemy and accept civilian casualties as a sad reality. You act as if either side is equal with the same motives.

I believe that targeting civilians is more psychopathic than targeting fighters and killing civilians inadvertently, but I do not believe that my life or anyone else's is more valuable than the innocent civilians being killed by our or France's strikes on Syria and other places. When you just accept civilian fatalities as a "sad reality", you're elevating certain lives above others. In essence, you are saying, "I'm willing to let innocent people die so that I can live." I find that sickening - maybe even "evil".

 

[Risky Thicket]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

I've noticed that most of the people calling for indiscriminate bombing are "pro-life". The pro-life movement seems to full of bloodthirsty people. Someone should do a psychological profile of people in the pro-life movement to find out why so many of them are psychopaths.

Well we can start with Ted Cruz.

 

[joG]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

This is of course one of the reasons you can't win the war on terror through conventional means. Collateral damage will just help with their recruitment.

That all depends on the amount of collateral damage.

 

[Hicup]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

Using suicide bombers and not belonging to any one country is not a conventional enemy. What we need to do is to spend our money on intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. Right now terrorists are able to correlate their activities through the internet. Maybe this is where we need Anonymous.

Cruz is an idiot. If the police shoot up my house to kill a thief and in the process kill my two young children I will find a way to retaliate against the police.

What if there were to shoot up your house because of the terrorists inside making bombs, and they just didn't want to come out when asked politely? Wouldn't that be a more apt comparison?

Tim-

 

[a351]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

:shrug: He's right. Seems like most are focusing on the likeability of the messenger here.

 

[a351]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

So when your side kills innocent people, it's a "sad reality of war". When the other side kills innocent people, it's "evil". Priceless.

Killing innocents via collateral damage in order to win a war is not morally equitable to explicitly targeting innocents. That's where the difference lies.

 

[sangha]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

So when your side kills innocent people, it's a "sad reality of war". When the other side kills innocent people, it's "evil". Priceless.

"Our murders are always justified"

 

[sangha]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

Killing innocents via collateral damage in order to win a war is not morally equitable to explicitly targeting innocents. That's where the difference lies.

How is dropping bombs, knowing that they will kill innocents not "targeting innocents"?

 

[Thrilla]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

there can be very little collateral damage when bombing in ISIS controlled territory.

If there are "innocents" within the territory , ISIS has already massacred them , converted them.. or gained their tacit approval.

simply bombing them is a bad tactic, but not for the reason of "collateral damage"

 

[JumpinJack]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

This is of course one of the reasons you can't win the war on terror through conventional means. Collateral damage will just help with their recruitment.

Yes. It's the Israel-Palestine situation all over again. There's never a winner.

 

[JumpinJack]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

I disagree with most everything Ted Cruz says. However, regarding this subject, I have made very similar statements for years, and so have almost everyone that understands war and the only way to win a war. You cannot win a war unless you are prepared to do what is required to win. That includes, as Shakespeare wrote: Marcus Antonius says:



War is brutal and unethical at its basic levels. We should do everything we can to prevent civilian deaths ... HOWEVER, that should not be confused with what we do now, which is to tie the hands of the military and prevent them from overwhelming and killing the enemy.

Sometimes, we must look at, and balance, the potential for further death and suffering from an enemy left alive to fight, than the short term numbers of dead and/or injured.

We cannot win a war thinking about the peace - we can only win a war thinking about how to kill to enemy and destroying the capability of their successors to take up arms and join the fight. That's how Truman came to the choice of using the atomic bombs - and it worked.

Surround, overwhelm, kill and destroy. That's what war is. Precision targeting and prevention of collateral damage is fine and required if you're the police against civilians, but that mentality can and WILL create more deaths in the long run than being honest about the true cost of war and how to reduce the long-term expense (in lives - I'm not talking about money).

It's not an army. The islamic jihadists are part of the muslim world, the world over. In various countries. There is no military target to wipe them out. There are some targets where you can hit this one or that one, or this group or that group. But since it's an ideology and not a country, they just keep recruiting and coming, even stronger.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

It's not an army. The islamic jihadists are part of the muslim world, the world over. In various countries. There is no military target to wipe them out. There are some targets where you can hit this one or that one, or this group or that group. But since it's an ideology and not a country, they just keep recruiting and coming, even stronger.

The ideology and the people that espouse it are two different things. It is an army, with armor, troops, headquarters, lines of supply and so forth.

Obama is using the same argument to excuse his lack of willingness to attack with the full force and might of the US military. I can tell you that if the military is simply told, kill the enemy and control the areas we take to prevent a resurgence, we damn well can do that.

We had one arm tied behind our back by the Bush Administration and then we were castrated and made a drooling quadriplegic by the Obama Administration. The military knows how to win a war, if you just let them.

Please, PLEASE, do not believe the BS rhetoric from an administration that will say anything it needs to, no matter how idiotic and untrue, to give them political cover for refusing to fight.

 

[JumpinJack]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

The ideology and the people that espouse it are two different things. It is an army, with armor, troops, headquarters, lines of supply and so forth.

Obama is using the same argument to excuse his lack of willingness to attack with the full force and might of the US military. I can tell you that if the military is simply told, kill the enemy and control the areas we take to prevent a resurgence, we damn well can do that.

We had one arm tied behind our back by the Bush Administration and then we were castrated and made a drooling quadriplegic by the Obama Administration. The military knows how to win a war, if you just let them.

Please, PLEASE, do not believe the BS rhetoric from an administration that will say anything it needs to, no matter how idiotic and untrue, to give them political cover for refusing to fight.

No, it's not an army. It has some militarized parts, but many are ordinary people wearing skirts & holding weapons someone gave them. Some are kids. Some are untrained women. Some are suicide bombers, some are shooters. It's a gang, not an army.

No hotheads need apply in this situation. This is not the time to go off in an emotional heave-ho. The repercussions and the damage could be enormous, and we couldn't take it back.

The coalition is striking Syria right now.

I'm sure they have more experience that you or I do at these things. It's complicated. It is NOT an army or a country or a coalition of countries. These are people hiding amongst innocents, like the Palestinian "soldiers."

If we just go off on them, it'll be like Israel-Palestine, and will go on for eternity. There is a better way.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

No, it's not an army. It has some militarized parts, but many are ordinary people wearing skirts & holding weapons someone gave them. Some are kids. Some are untrained women. Some are suicide bombers, some are shooters. It's a gang, not an army.

No hotheads need apply in this situation. This is not the time to go off in an emotional heave-ho. The repercussions and the damage could be enormous, and we couldn't take it back.

The coalition is striking Syria right now.

I'm sure they have more experience that you or I do at these things. It's complicated. It is NOT an army or a country or a coalition of countries. These are people hiding amongst innocents, like the Palestinian "soldiers."

If we just go off on them, it'll be like Israel-Palestine, and will go on for eternity. There is a better way.

The coalition was hitting them long before they pulled off the Paris attacks - how'd that work out in deterring them?

I have over 30 years military experience in special operations forces deployments all around the world in close contact firefights and calling in airstrikes to forward area enemy positions. What do you have?

It would appear that your "better way" is to do basically nothing. Air strikes cannot win a war, or stop a determined enemy. If you believe otherwise, I suggest you learn more about the art of war. Of course, if you're one of those "No Boots On The Ground" folks, then even this conversation will make no difference to you.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

Killing innocents via collateral damage in order to win a war is not morally equitable to explicitly targeting innocents. That's where the difference lies.

I know where the difference lies. I don't find the difference particularly special.

 

[Pstreet1]

Re: In Response To Paris, Ted Cruz Calls For Airstrikes With More ‘Tolerance For Civi

I'm not a veteran, but it does appear that Obama regularly ignores the advice of the joint cheifs of staff and, instead, makes his decisions based on his vast knowledge of human nature, gained from being a community organizer, and his vast knowledge of military tactics (gained from being a community organizer?) and what works. Currently, we not striking Syria: 8 missions a day is absolutely nothing, and that's the effect they have achieved. When France bombed, they eliminated targets that shouldn't have been there for them to hit after our bombing for a year at the rate of 8 missions a day.

There are innocents among them, that's true. However, there were innocents in the Twin Towers/in Paris/in Boston/in Spain/in the Russian aircraft/in Benghazi. Isis counts on American reluctance to harm innocents and takes refuge in mosques/hospitals/schools/homes. At some point, the question has to be asked: Our innocents or their innocents?

It is also true we may take action which we cannot take back; it's not possible to lead a life or run a country being too afraid to make a decision that "we can't take back." We do the best we can with the information we have. It's obvious that Barack Obama's plan has had no successes--only, to use his own words, "setbacks."