I want you to stay home, and stop making a mess of every damn place on earth you feel you have an interest in.
Americans are criticized for not travelling abroad enough, and when we do, we're told it would be better if we had just stayed home. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't!
Captain: "Ok private, you are going to be issued your new weapons"
Private: "What's that Sir?"
Captain: "Let's see here, let me check the list..... ah yes, a stick"
Private: "A stick Sir?!?"
Captain: "Yes, a stick"
Private: "But why Sir?"
Captain: "Well, seems some military dropout has taken up arms against us. In this case it's a stick. In order to keep things fair we can't have you shooting him or anything when you two meet, so you get a stick just like his. Now turn over that pistol and start whacking things with that stick."
hmm, i'm going to go with that's not what they had in mind.
Funny, on BBC they are only about 70 to 120, already being bombed from the air.
Yeah that's after we bombed them. We're getting sloppy if we left 120 out of 1000 still standing. We'll they have to leave something for the clean up crew.
Americans are criticized for not travelling abroad enough, and when we do, we're told it would be better if we had just stayed home. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't!
please travle! just leave the guns at home. And get another travel-guide then "Let's Go ...." because they really suck.
And it is important to remember that every Iraqi Solider is also a father, a brother, son or uncle to someone. Every one of them has a unique history and a dream for the future. I think they could have gotten rid of Saddam themselves when time was ready.
Do you think the Iraqis will accept an installed democracy built on the killing of thousands of their men?
I don't think for a minute that when G.W. Bush decided to turn his attention on Iraq that it was because he wanted to liberate the supressed people of that country. He had another adjenda entirely and we can only guess at what it is. It could be oil, it could be a 911 backlash, or even perhaps that he does have genuine belief that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction - who knows? I am still undecided about the moral justification for the war but now that it has begun, I say get in and get it done quickly. Casualties, Iraqi and coalition, are to be expected (does anyone seriously think that you can go to war and not lose anybody?).
One thing I am decided on is that GWB did not start this war to liberate anyone.
No, the job of a soldier is to defend your homeland. They are doing it. You are not.
Were our soldiers defending their homeland when they liberated your nation from Nazi Germany?
Evil bastards, we were.
Quote:
Fair is the opposite of unfair, as in unfair warfare, banned by international law.
I realize that fair is the opposite of unfair, bright boy, I'm asking what it means. How does that translate onto the battlefield, in your opinion?
Quote:
Not to many years ago the US did just that. Now you have gotten smarter. Smarter bombs and smarter PR people.
Yes.
Quote:
My motivation is pro-peace. I think about constantly. Like I've said before I love the US.
What peace do you advocate, new? The lovely peace the Iraqi people had before the war? How nice of you.
Do you think whining about "fairness" on the battlefield promotes peace in any way? Do you even think about what you say half the time? I'm curious.
A "fair" war would do nothing but cost both sides tens of thousands more lives. But you're interested in peace, right?
Quote:
For the last 50 years, the US has been the main agressor in the world. Soviet follows right behind, but they are no more. China and some other states are at a distant third.
Aggressor where? Vietnam? Where else?
The United States has also been the main peace-keeper for the last 20 years. I find it hilarious you rank the US above the Soviet Union in terms of aggression. You are obviously not using your brain. History is lost on you, it seems.
So should coalition forces just pack up and leave?
War is ALWAYS wrong whether the bodybags are filled with American, Iraqi, British or any other nationality. However I believe that there are times when there is no alternative. This war is not necessarily one of those times.
The time argument for the moral justification for this war has passed. It has begun and nothing can change that, my view is that if you're going to do, then do it properly. Fight the battle with all of your might and power to ensure that the enemy is defeated in the shortest amount of time possible and that there are fewer body bags filled on all sides.
Were our soldiers defending their homeland when they liberated your nation from Nazi Germany?
Well, Norway was mostly liberated by the soviets.
The US didn't join the war until attacked, so in a way you were defending your homeland. If that was right or wrong is another question. No one can predict how history would have been if you entered sooner or later. The point is that you did so out of self-protection. the Axis' were the aggersors.
Quote:
I realize that fair is the opposite of unfair, bright boy, I'm asking what it means. How does that translate onto the battlefield, in your opinion?
I was wondering about that as well. This is why I raised the question and posted the quote. So far I've gotten one or two serious responses.
Quote:
What peace do you advocate, new? The lovely peace the Iraqi people had before the war? How nice of you.
I advocate letting the iraqis free themselves, like you americans did. And don't think for a minute I condone the sanctions. Just remember that the US did.
Quote:
Do you think whining about "fairness" on the battlefield promotes peace in any way? Do you even think about what you say half the time? I'm curious.
I know "unfairness" in the battlefield does not. But my point was that slaughtering their soldiers is not a good way to win the iraqi hearts.
Quote:
A "fair" war would do nothing but cost both sides tens of thousands more lives. But you're interested in peace, right?
Right, without the idea of a "surgical war" we might not be in this shit at all.
Quote:
Aggressor where? Vietnam? Where else?
where to start? directly: Korea, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Philippines, Cambodia, Libya, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indirectly: Indonesia, Israel, Chile and on and on...
And then there is always the pre-WWII aggression, if we ever run out of topics...
Quote:
The United States has also been the main peace-keeper for the last 20 years. I find it hilarious you rank the US above the Soviet Union in terms of aggression. You are obviously not using your brain. History is lost on you, it seems.
The Us ranks above Soviet mainly because it has outlasted soviet historically in both directions...
So should coalition forces just pack up and leave?
Eureka!
ehh... You have a point. Things will be really f***ed up if you do. Saddam will win. But so did Ho-Chi-Minh. He is dead, and Vietnam is (finally) making rapid strides towards a modern and open economy. My guess is that democracy is closer than ever.
No, the job of a soldier is to defend your homeland. They are doing it. You are not.
on the contrary, a soldiers job is to wage war. that is what they are trained for, be it at home or abroad.
Quote:
Fair is the opposite of unfair, as in unfair warfare, banned by international law.
gee, thanks for the clarification. such as...
Quote:
Not to many years ago the US did just that. Now you have gotten smarter. Smarter bombs and smarter PR people. My motivation is pro-peace. I think about constantly. Like I've said before I love the US. For the last 50 years, the US has been the main agressor in the world. Soviet follows right behind, but they are no more. China and some other states are at a distant third.
50+ years ago we dropped 2 a-bombs on japan. are you suggesting that we shouldn't have? how many more american and japanese would have died if we would have invaded? conservative estimates place it in the millions. as far as being the aggressor, you have a point, some good and some bad. we've made our share of mistakes, but that doesn't stop us from doing what needs to be done from time to time. you and most of the rest of the world may feels it's ok to sit on your collective hands when thing get a little tough or uncomfortable, but that's ok the US will do the dirty work for you so you can have a clean conscience as usual.
I want you to stay home, and stop making a mess of every damn place on earth you feel you have an interest in.
actually, i agree. I personally think the US shoudl stick to themselves,and say screweveryone else. let everyone else kill themselves and starve themselves...and do whatever...
But of course, we actually did try that, and everyone complained then too.....
The US didn't join the war until attacked, so in a way you were defending your homeland. If that was right or wrong is another question. No one can predict how history would have been if you entered sooner or later. The point is that you did so out of self-protection. the Axis' were the aggersors.
Either way, you were liberated by someone other than yourselves. Perhaps the Allies should have allowed you to do it on your own.
Also, another question. Once the allies pushed germany out of the conquered nations, by your logic, shouldn't the war have ended there? Shouldn't the German people have been allowed the chance to change the regime on their own?
Quote:
Originally posted by New
I advocate letting the iraqis free themselves, like you americans did. And don't think for a minute I condone the sanctions. Just remember that the US did.
Like the brave people of Norway did? How about the French, they sure didn't need any outside help.
Quote:
Originally posted by New
I know "unfairness" in the battlefield does not. But my point was that slaughtering their soldiers is not a good way to win the iraqi hearts.
That's where the entire premise of your thread goes offline. Since the war is on and the US is trying to minimise civilian deaths (to even argue otherwise shows unbelievable ignorance), how are they supposed to win the war, other than by killing Iraqi soldiers that don't surrender? It is not a unfair, or banned by conventions of war to try and kill enemy soldier who continue to fight. But, if that's how you think a war works, perhaps that's why Norway was unable to liberate itself. In a war, soldier who choose to fight risk death...that's why it's called war. Even strictly following rules of engagement meant to minimise deaths and rules of war governing battle, soldier will still die.
Quote:
Originally posted by New
where to start? directly: Korea, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Philippines, Cambodia, Libya, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indirectly: Indonesia, Israel, Chile and on and on...
Korea? You mean the UN sanctioned action in Korea? That was America's fault too? Cuba? Sorry, USSR getting a foothold, obviously to threaten the US, isn't an act of US aggression. Afghanistan? You mean before or after it was invaded by the soviets? Lebabon? Before of after Syrian domination?
Of course you bring up Israel. The UK creates the state and it's the US fault. The Arabs attack them, and that's America's fault too? Paletinians bomb them (not to create a state, but to destroy the state of Israel) and that's America's fault too?
Sorry to break the news to you New, but not everyting bad is the fault of the US. Sometimes, others are as much or more to blame. Sometimes, you can't pin everything on 'US Aggression'
Quote:
Originally posted by New
The Us ranks above Soviet mainly because it has outlasted soviet historically in both directions...
The outlasted the USSR, so that means they were more often the aggressor? Nice logic.
on the contrary, a soldiers job is to wage war. that is what they are trained for, be it at home or abroad.
That's why most countries call them defending forces is it? Even Israel calls its army the Israeli Defence Force.
Quote:
50+ years ago we dropped 2 a-bombs on japan. are you suggesting that we shouldn't have? how many more american and japanese would have died if we would have invaded? conservative estimates place it in the millions. as far as being the aggressor, you have a point, some good and some bad. we've made our share of mistakes, but that doesn't stop us from doing what needs to be done from time to time. you and most of the rest of the world may feels it's ok to sit on your collective hands when thing get a little tough or uncomfortable, but that's ok the US will do the dirty work for you so you can have a clean conscience as usual.
Go ask a japanese if he or she thinks the bombs were necessary.
In my eyes you are repeating the very same mistakes as the colonial powers of Europe committed for several hundred years. In a modern context of course. digging yourself deeper down into the shit each time.
Did you know since WWII there have been a steady increase in US military actions and soldiers stationed abroad, almost at a year-to-year growth basis?
My part of the world (Scandinavia) don't have much dirty work to be done. we have a quite good track-record of solving things peacefully.
actually, i agree. I personally think the US shoudl stick to themselves,and say screweveryone else. let everyone else kill themselves and starve themselves...and do whatever...
But of course, we actually did try that, and everyone complained then too.....
Uh, that's because we got our ships sunk and our ports bombed.
If everyone who hated one annother would just ignore one another and never got in each other's way, then the world would be a fine place. I would have no objections if this could be done. But it can't. Thinking otherwise is more than a little naive. 6,000 years of history does tech some things besides the fall of empires.
Comments
Originally posted by New
I want you to stay home, and stop making a mess of every damn place on earth you feel you have an interest in.
Originally posted by alcimedes
Captain: "Ok private, you are going to be issued your new weapons"
Private: "What's that Sir?"
Captain: "Let's see here, let me check the list..... ah yes, a stick"
Private: "A stick Sir?!?"
Captain: "Yes, a stick"
Private: "But why Sir?"
Captain: "Well, seems some military dropout has taken up arms against us. In this case it's a stick. In order to keep things fair we can't have you shooting him or anything when you two meet, so you get a stick just like his. Now turn over that pistol and start whacking things with that stick."
hmm, i'm going to go with that's not what they had in mind.
Originally posted by New
Funny, on BBC they are only about 70 to 120, already being bombed from the air.
Yeah that's after we bombed them. We're getting sloppy if we left 120 out of 1000 still standing. We'll they have to leave something for the clean up crew.
Originally posted by Outsider
please travle! just leave the guns at home. And get another travel-guide then "Let's Go ...." because they really suck.
Originally posted by New
And it is important to remember that every Iraqi Solider is also a father, a brother, son or uncle to someone. Every one of them has a unique history and a dream for the future. I think they could have gotten rid of Saddam themselves when time was ready.
Do you think the Iraqis will accept an installed democracy built on the killing of thousands of their men?
I don't think for a minute that when G.W. Bush decided to turn his attention on Iraq that it was because he wanted to liberate the supressed people of that country. He had another adjenda entirely and we can only guess at what it is. It could be oil, it could be a 911 backlash, or even perhaps that he does have genuine belief that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction - who knows? I am still undecided about the moral justification for the war but now that it has begun, I say get in and get it done quickly. Casualties, Iraqi and coalition, are to be expected (does anyone seriously think that you can go to war and not lose anybody?).
One thing I am decided on is that GWB did not start this war to liberate anyone.
No, the job of a soldier is to defend your homeland. They are doing it. You are not.
Were our soldiers defending their homeland when they liberated your nation from Nazi Germany?
Evil bastards, we were.
Fair is the opposite of unfair, as in unfair warfare, banned by international law.
I realize that fair is the opposite of unfair, bright boy, I'm asking what it means. How does that translate onto the battlefield, in your opinion?
Not to many years ago the US did just that. Now you have gotten smarter. Smarter bombs and smarter PR people.
Yes.
My motivation is pro-peace. I think about constantly. Like I've said before I love the US.
What peace do you advocate, new? The lovely peace the Iraqi people had before the war? How nice of you.
Do you think whining about "fairness" on the battlefield promotes peace in any way? Do you even think about what you say half the time? I'm curious.
A "fair" war would do nothing but cost both sides tens of thousands more lives. But you're interested in peace, right?
For the last 50 years, the US has been the main agressor in the world. Soviet follows right behind, but they are no more. China and some other states are at a distant third.
Aggressor where? Vietnam? Where else?
The United States has also been the main peace-keeper for the last 20 years. I find it hilarious you rank the US above the Soviet Union in terms of aggression. You are obviously not using your brain. History is lost on you, it seems.
Originally posted by Happy Camper
I am still undecided about the moral justification for the war but now that it has begun, I say get in and get it done quickly.
This attitude is part of the problem I'm afraid! War is only wrong when too many american boys start coming home in bodybags.
War is ALWAYS wrong whether the bodybags are filled with American, Iraqi, British or any other nationality. However I believe that there are times when there is no alternative. This war is not necessarily one of those times.
The time argument for the moral justification for this war has passed. It has begun and nothing can change that, my view is that if you're going to do, then do it properly. Fight the battle with all of your might and power to ensure that the enemy is defeated in the shortest amount of time possible and that there are fewer body bags filled on all sides.
Originally posted by groverat
Were our soldiers defending their homeland when they liberated your nation from Nazi Germany?
Well, Norway was mostly liberated by the soviets.
The US didn't join the war until attacked, so in a way you were defending your homeland. If that was right or wrong is another question. No one can predict how history would have been if you entered sooner or later. The point is that you did so out of self-protection. the Axis' were the aggersors.
I realize that fair is the opposite of unfair, bright boy, I'm asking what it means. How does that translate onto the battlefield, in your opinion?
I was wondering about that as well. This is why I raised the question and posted the quote. So far I've gotten one or two serious responses.
What peace do you advocate, new? The lovely peace the Iraqi people had before the war? How nice of you.
I advocate letting the iraqis free themselves, like you americans did. And don't think for a minute I condone the sanctions. Just remember that the US did.
Do you think whining about "fairness" on the battlefield promotes peace in any way? Do you even think about what you say half the time? I'm curious.
I know "unfairness" in the battlefield does not. But my point was that slaughtering their soldiers is not a good way to win the iraqi hearts.
A "fair" war would do nothing but cost both sides tens of thousands more lives. But you're interested in peace, right?
Right, without the idea of a "surgical war" we might not be in this shit at all.
Aggressor where? Vietnam? Where else?
where to start? directly: Korea, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Philippines, Cambodia, Libya, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indirectly: Indonesia, Israel, Chile and on and on...
And then there is always the pre-WWII aggression, if we ever run out of topics...
The United States has also been the main peace-keeper for the last 20 years. I find it hilarious you rank the US above the Soviet Union in terms of aggression. You are obviously not using your brain. History is lost on you, it seems.
The Us ranks above Soviet mainly because it has outlasted soviet historically in both directions...
Originally posted by Happy Camper
So should coalition forces just pack up and leave?
Eureka!
ehh... You have a point. Things will be really f***ed up if you do. Saddam will win. But so did Ho-Chi-Minh. He is dead, and Vietnam is (finally) making rapid strides towards a modern and open economy. My guess is that democracy is closer than ever.
Originally posted by New
No, the job of a soldier is to defend your homeland. They are doing it. You are not.
on the contrary, a soldiers job is to wage war. that is what they are trained for, be it at home or abroad.
Fair is the opposite of unfair, as in unfair warfare, banned by international law.
gee, thanks for the clarification. such as...
Not to many years ago the US did just that. Now you have gotten smarter. Smarter bombs and smarter PR people. My motivation is pro-peace. I think about constantly. Like I've said before I love the US. For the last 50 years, the US has been the main agressor in the world. Soviet follows right behind, but they are no more. China and some other states are at a distant third.
50+ years ago we dropped 2 a-bombs on japan. are you suggesting that we shouldn't have? how many more american and japanese would have died if we would have invaded? conservative estimates place it in the millions. as far as being the aggressor, you have a point, some good and some bad. we've made our share of mistakes, but that doesn't stop us from doing what needs to be done from time to time. you and most of the rest of the world may feels it's ok to sit on your collective hands when thing get a little tough or uncomfortable, but that's ok the US will do the dirty work for you so you can have a clean conscience as usual.
Originally posted by New
where to start? directly: Korea, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Philippines, Cambodia, Libya, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indirectly: Indonesia, Israel, Chile and on and on...
Groverat never answers when you point this out.
You left out Haiti.
"We're sorry, but we've changed our minds."
Originally posted by Harald
Groverat never answers when you point this out.
You left out Haiti.
oh, shit, sorry. And my work is even hosting a seminar with Haitian union members this week...
Originally posted by New
I want you to stay home, and stop making a mess of every damn place on earth you feel you have an interest in.
actually, i agree. I personally think the US shoudl stick to themselves,and say screweveryone else. let everyone else kill themselves and starve themselves...and do whatever...
But of course, we actually did try that, and everyone complained then too.....
Originally posted by New
Well, Norway was mostly liberated by the soviets.
The US didn't join the war until attacked, so in a way you were defending your homeland. If that was right or wrong is another question. No one can predict how history would have been if you entered sooner or later. The point is that you did so out of self-protection. the Axis' were the aggersors.
Either way, you were liberated by someone other than yourselves. Perhaps the Allies should have allowed you to do it on your own.
Also, another question. Once the allies pushed germany out of the conquered nations, by your logic, shouldn't the war have ended there? Shouldn't the German people have been allowed the chance to change the regime on their own?
Originally posted by New
I advocate letting the iraqis free themselves, like you americans did. And don't think for a minute I condone the sanctions. Just remember that the US did.
Like the brave people of Norway did? How about the French, they sure didn't need any outside help.
Originally posted by New
I know "unfairness" in the battlefield does not. But my point was that slaughtering their soldiers is not a good way to win the iraqi hearts.
That's where the entire premise of your thread goes offline. Since the war is on and the US is trying to minimise civilian deaths (to even argue otherwise shows unbelievable ignorance), how are they supposed to win the war, other than by killing Iraqi soldiers that don't surrender? It is not a unfair, or banned by conventions of war to try and kill enemy soldier who continue to fight. But, if that's how you think a war works, perhaps that's why Norway was unable to liberate itself. In a war, soldier who choose to fight risk death...that's why it's called war. Even strictly following rules of engagement meant to minimise deaths and rules of war governing battle, soldier will still die.
Originally posted by New
where to start? directly: Korea, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia, Philippines, Cambodia, Libya, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Indirectly: Indonesia, Israel, Chile and on and on...
Korea? You mean the UN sanctioned action in Korea? That was America's fault too? Cuba? Sorry, USSR getting a foothold, obviously to threaten the US, isn't an act of US aggression. Afghanistan? You mean before or after it was invaded by the soviets? Lebabon? Before of after Syrian domination?
Of course you bring up Israel. The UK creates the state and it's the US fault. The Arabs attack them, and that's America's fault too? Paletinians bomb them (not to create a state, but to destroy the state of Israel) and that's America's fault too?
Sorry to break the news to you New, but not everyting bad is the fault of the US. Sometimes, others are as much or more to blame. Sometimes, you can't pin everything on 'US Aggression'
Originally posted by New
The Us ranks above Soviet mainly because it has outlasted soviet historically in both directions...
The outlasted the USSR, so that means they were more often the aggressor? Nice logic.
Originally posted by running with scissors
on the contrary, a soldiers job is to wage war. that is what they are trained for, be it at home or abroad.
That's why most countries call them defending forces is it? Even Israel calls its army the Israeli Defence Force.
50+ years ago we dropped 2 a-bombs on japan. are you suggesting that we shouldn't have? how many more american and japanese would have died if we would have invaded? conservative estimates place it in the millions. as far as being the aggressor, you have a point, some good and some bad. we've made our share of mistakes, but that doesn't stop us from doing what needs to be done from time to time. you and most of the rest of the world may feels it's ok to sit on your collective hands when thing get a little tough or uncomfortable, but that's ok the US will do the dirty work for you so you can have a clean conscience as usual.
Go ask a japanese if he or she thinks the bombs were necessary.
In my eyes you are repeating the very same mistakes as the colonial powers of Europe committed for several hundred years. In a modern context of course. digging yourself deeper down into the shit each time.
Did you know since WWII there have been a steady increase in US military actions and soldiers stationed abroad, almost at a year-to-year growth basis?
My part of the world (Scandinavia) don't have much dirty work to be done. we have a quite good track-record of solving things peacefully.
Spread food, not bombs
Spread economic relief, not the jail of intrest
Originally posted by The General
actually, i agree. I personally think the US shoudl stick to themselves,and say screweveryone else. let everyone else kill themselves and starve themselves...and do whatever...
But of course, we actually did try that, and everyone complained then too.....
Uh, that's because we got our ships sunk and our ports bombed.
If everyone who hated one annother would just ignore one another and never got in each other's way, then the world would be a fine place. I would have no objections if this could be done. But it can't. Thinking otherwise is more than a little naive. 6,000 years of history does tech some things besides the fall of empires.