36 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 06/01/2004
Posts: 1068
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Correct ... Afghanistan was openly warned to burp up Bin Laden and Omar, they didn't, and the country was blown away. Similarly Pakistan should be warned, and dealt with accordingly. Iran should be required to burp up their current maniac, or suffer. The Palestinians actually ELECTED Hamas, so they shouldn't complain when they get pounded. Even when these people are given the tools to elect who they want to - they pick maniacs.

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Hiroshima & Nagasaki
Serious Hunter wrote:
Correct ... Afghanistan was openly warned to burp up Bin Laden and Omar, they didn't, and the country was blown away. Similarly Pakistan should be warned, and dealt with accordingly. Iran should be required to burp up their current maniac, or suffer. The Palestinians actually ELECTED Hamas, so they shouldn't complain when they get pounded. Even when these people are given the tools to elect who they want to - they pick maniacs.

Yep!

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 06/01/2004
Posts: 1068
Hiroshima & Nagasaki
CVC wrote:
... while most of the world embraces life they embrace death.

Exactly! ... even when given free choice - they embrace death, hatred, violence. And if there is a fundamental difference between religion in the west, and that in the east, one says choose life - the other is a culture of death.

Offline
Location: Missouri/Arkansas
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 891
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

With regard to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, we did what we had to do.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 06/01/2004
Posts: 1068
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

The comments on this string have been very good ... common sense, non-politically correct, right to the point.

Continuing, kind of ...

My wife commented to me the other day ... "Do you think we are in WW III?". I thought a moment, and then said "No." (So I did think about it.) Then I thought (some more) ... hmmmm, maybe.

Depends on how one defines the `start' of such a war. WWII started long before we got involved.

Here's a succinct piece from another website ... and I will be even more succinct:

In the current Israeli-Hezbollah-Lebanon conflict, Israel, with precision weaponry, targeting combatants, has killed more civilians ... while Hezbollah with un-precision weaponry, targeting civilians, have killed by proportion more of their enemy soldiers.

Similarities drawn in Iraq and Afghanistan: http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=HOME%20DefenseWat...

With the intent to kill combatants to free the civilians, we have shredded thousands and thousands of them ... and are we winning? How many justifiable civilian deaths can occur and we still expect the civilians to be `on our side'?

And will Israel be better off with the current UN negotiated peace deal?

And so if any of these situations are indeed unresolved - have we indeed just begun in these conflicts, instead of ended them?

UGHHHHHHHH! I'm not trying to be pessimistic - but I do need reality checks.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

"Reality check" is the key term. Before anyone gets caught up in the media spin, they need to check facts. For example, Iraqi police casualties have been dropping pretty much steadily for over a year. Betcha didn't know that, did you? That's because the media wants carnage and Iraq (pre-Lebanon) was the flavor of the day. Don't believe me? Back in June the media was reporting how American casualties in Iraq during May had increased tremendously (76) -- over double the previous month (31). But what they never mentioned was that April's 31 was the lowest number in over 2 years, or that it had been the bottom of a six month downward trend. No -- good news doesn't get reported.

But don't take my word for it -- check http://icasualties.org/oif/

As for accusations that Iraq is a sidetrack with no link to the war on terror and an excuse for the bad guys to hate us, I seem to recall that 241 Marines died in 1983, the World Trade Center got bombed (the first time), embassies, Khobar Towers, the Cole, and 9/11 -- and we weren't in Iraq for any of them. Back then, Osama's stated reason was that we were in Saudi Arabia. Now we're out of Saudi and they're complaining about Iraq. If we leave Iraq it'll be something else. Neville Chamberlain thought Hitler would stop attacking people if we just fixed his grievances. Stupid then, stupid now.

All I know is that we haven't had a major terrorist attack in nearly 5 years -- check the record and let me know how long it's been since that's happened.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 06/01/2004
Posts: 1068
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

But regardless of casualty figures, going up or down, is the conflict resolved? I'd like to see zero casualties on our side and complete erradication on theirs (erradication is a term I borrow from my Special Forces brother Big smile ). But how?

Offline
Moderator
Location: texas
Joined: 04/23/2006
Posts: 482
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

The news today was full of accounts of doctored photos showing up on the various news media, especially al jazeera. Unfortunately, most of the terrorist types, just like the vietnamese did, hide amongst civilians, fight from behind divilians, because the pictures and numbers and bodies drive down morale amongst the good guys. They really do not care how many civilian martyrs are created because they have a goal and nothing decent is allowed to stand in its way. Another thought is that many of the women ( civilians) are at fault for teaching their children to hate so strongly in the name of Islam, or whatever other cause is involved, that there can be no peace as long as they are willing to teach hatred and death. In WW2, massive cibilian casualties were accepted as the price of crippling war supplies fabrication and destroying enemy morale. In the current middle east crises, to not expect civilian losses is extremely naive. Just like vietnam, that smiling kid may shoot you later that night and that young women may be carrying grenades to her men under the chador. There is no real way to wage war compassionately. As for resolving the conflict forever, not likely without the complete removal of one side or the other.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 06/01/2004
Posts: 1068
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

Good points. Problem with Iraq is that we got caught saying we were trying to help the average Iraqi civilian. We should have just left it with "cough up your WND or else" and left it at that.

A number of years ago a large building in town (the town where we used to live) caught fire. (It was large relative to the other buildings, yet small in global comparison.) It was near home and I know the alleys, so I was able to quickly get to the fireline. It was an old brick, concrete, steel building, with some stud infill walls. The fire was in an infill wall. It should have been put out by the time I got there with competent fire`fighters'. But, as I watched, more and more fire dept people arrived on the scene, and the fire grew and grew.

A female firefighter set up right next to me (nothing against females). And started spaying a huge volume of water into an upper story what-used-to-be-a-window.

The fire continued to grow in rage.

It occured to me that the air-entrained jet of precious deep well drinking water was in fact aiding the fire. I'm no expert on modern fire-fighting, but the high velocity jet of water was entraining a lot of air (as they naturally do - that's why they are white, not clear) ... the water probably instantly evaporated upon entry to the inferno ... and was carried upward with the cloud, doing nothing more than add oxygen to the fire.

The building was a complete loss, not surprisingly.

I hope we're not doing the same thing in Iraq.

Our guys are great fighters.

Let them fight without being targets, or bring them home and resume the aerial bombing campaign.

"Cough up your insurgents, or else."

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3206
Hiroshima & Nagasaki

It has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with Islamist thought. The underpinnings of their doctrine were built buy Sayyid Qutb in 1954. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

1. There is no god but God, and Muhammed is his prophet.
2. There is no law but God's law (Shari'a)
3. Any democratic society will at one point develop a law, however small, based on the will of the people instead of God's law.
4. Thus, democracy is against the will of God and therefore evil.
5. Furtheremore, any muslim leader who supports democracy is opposing God, and therefore is no longer muslim and may be killed without sin.

This philosophy fed the Muslim Brotherhood who killed Anwar Sadat. Osama's right-hand man Zawahiri is an Egyptian who spent time in prison as part of that plot. Zarqawi was big into this as well. This explains all the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence -- the Islamists hate democracy more than they hate us. It also explains how they can justify muslim-on-muslim violence, which is forbidden by the Koran.

And by the way, Osama has said that his goal is to reestablish a caliphate that rules the muslim world, to include all territories formerly held by the Moors (like Spain). They're on a mission to establish Shari'a throughout the world or achieve martyrdom trying.

Make no mistake -- they're the Mr. Goodwrench of enemies -- we can fight them now or fight them later. And if we don't take the fight to them, they'll bring it to us.