The Energon Pub

Menbailee wrote:Loki asserted that an American withdrawal from Iraq would result in greater violence, and complained of liberal hypocrisy in decrying the deaths of innocence while calling for a pullout. I presented evidence that Iraqis, the people whose voice should ultimately determine what happens in the own country, believe that American withdrawal, on the contrary, would decrease violence. The Americans have gained a reputation as conquerors rather than as liberators and as people who do not much respect the lives of those they claim to protect, as Ikavadas and Loki have made manifest to us. Much of the violence is thus nationalist in nature.

I don't know what news casts you've been watching, but here in the real world the violence has been Iraq against each other. If the US pulls out, bloodshed will increase, but the liberal left will find this acceptable because it no longer involves them. How is that any more acceptable than the situation now? It's a hypocritical arguement.

Loki responded, as far as I can tell, with a critique of the notion that the will of the people should determine the actions of government, on grounds that popular opinion can never make up its mind. The Iraqi will for Americans to depart has remained constant since the invasion, so consistency is not the issue here. I am beginning to feel uncertain what democracy means to Loki.

Again, I don't know what world you live in, but here in the real world we don't live in a democracy, where mob rules. It's called a republic (you know, it's in the constitution!) If the President followed every poll to determine his next political move, we would forever be mired in the mud of the "popular opinion". And again, I don't know what news cast you've been watching but Iraq popularity polls are about as accurate as US popularity polls (it all depends on who you're polling. I can have a 100% approval rating that states that cheese should be outlawed, all I have to do is find a bunch of people that don't like cheese). But people like to conveniently forget that we're there with the support of the democratically elected government.

That uncertainty grows with his argument that Democrats have overstepped their bounds in attempting to have a say in the war. To argue that Congress declares war and that the President then wages it on his terms until such time that he considers the war concluded interprets the Constitution in a creative way indeed. To stop or shape a war through its control of funding is the legislature's job. To suppose it is not grants the President the kind of power which the framers of the Constitution specifically wished to deny any single individual.

Oh dear. Congress does NOT have the right to micromanage a war, there is only one commander in chief, and that is the President. Show me one part of the constitution that give congress the right to manage troops. Congress has found a way to end-run around the President's power to manage the war by threatening the purse string if he doesn't do what they want.

That and Pelosi seems to think she's speaking for people that she has no right to speak up for, then yeah, I think they've overstepped their bounds.

Makes me wonder if Congress even bothered to read the Constitution.

AfterImage wrote:You're very funny, y'know that? Do you make this stuff up yourself, or do you all just buy it at some local Propaganda barn?

You do realise that Al-Qaeda maintains a large number of 'schools', or Madrasas, in the country of Pakistan, right? There, they take children off the streets, and indoctrinate them in Terrorist dogma. One of the things they teach these kids is that the West is run entirely by Jews. Yup, you heard me right. George Dubya' is a card carrying Zionist.

These particular terrorists (recalling that there are many, MANY, terrorist factions in the world, many of whom have an axe to grind with the states) can't hate America for being 'everything they're not', mostly because they haven't the slightest idea what America is really like.

What part of "Because 1) you don't believe in their religion" did you NOT understand, laughing-boy?

Start figuring out what the HELL is really going on. Infiltrate Al-Qaeda! Assassinate its leaders en-masse! Sabatage those Madrassas! And, for all the Gods' sakes: KILL that idiot Ghorbanifar!

But that would go against the sensibilities of the left. WE have no right to do that, or is that arguement only convienent when it works for you to pick and choose?

Loki asserts that American departure from Iraq will increase violence. An immediate, pell-mell pullout would have this effect, since it would create a rapid change in an unstable environment. What we have been doing also clearly is not working. A graduated pullout with a radical transition in the roll of remaining troops might help. I encourage anyone interested to read the evaluations of our own experts, not to mention those of Iraq, on the effect of our troops on Iraqi security. If I believed the argument that our presence helped matters held any weight, I would certainly side with Loki, at least as far as keeping our troops in Iraq. Ultimately, however, the political voice that matters here should be that of the Iraqis.

If Loki intends to correct someone on democracy versus republic, he should begin with the President. Political scientists generally use the word democracy to describe the panoply of parliamentary, republican, and other governments in which leaders are decided by votes. In any case, Loki repeats his argument that popular opinion sways this way and that, and that polls are unreliable. Polls conducted by our own Coalition forces since the beginning of our occupation have shown the Iraqis want us gone. Or were there tens of thousands of Shiites marching for us to stay today? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Elected representatives who sway with every single poll will not get far. Elected representatives who need not heed one of the strongest and most consistently voiced wishes of their people work for a sham of a democracy. Or do you think our Coalition, which has gone so far as to shut down newspapers publishing anti-American sentiment, would give Iraqis the chance to vote for anti-Coalition representatives?

And a sham of a democracy is what our government would be if Congress failed to act to extricate us from Iraq. What Loki calls an "end-run" is precisely what the framers of the Constitution built into the legislature: power of the purse. It's called a check on the power of the President. The President, of course, can veto a bill, but if funding disappears, he can't proceed with whatever he intends. That's the very idea. The legislative branch of the United States of America can and always has passed laws concerning the structuring and actions of the military. I strongly encourage Loki to read about Constitutional history, as this system of checks and balances is fundamental to the way our government is intended to work.

Loki120 wrote:


Oh dear. Congress does NOT have the right to micromanage a war, there is only one commander in chief, and that is the President. Show me one part of the constitution that give congress the right to manage troops. Congress has found a way to end-run around the President's power to manage the war by threatening the purse string if he doesn't do what they want.

That and Pelosi seems to think she's speaking for people that she has no right to speak up for, then yeah, I think they've overstepped their bounds.

Seeing as Bush has shown a serious lack of military prowess so far, I wouldn't be crowing about this fact. Frankly, this 'war' has emphasised the inherant flaws of allowing a politician sole power to micromanage a war.

AfterImage wrote:You're very funny, y'know that? Do you make this stuff up yourself, or do you all just buy it at some local Propaganda barn?

You do realise that Al-Qaeda maintains a large number of 'schools', or Madrasas, in the country of Pakistan, right? There, they take children off the streets, and indoctrinate them in Terrorist dogma. One of the things they teach these kids is that the West is run entirely by Jews. Yup, you heard me right. George Dubya' is a card carrying Zionist.

These particular terrorists (recalling that there are many, MANY, terrorist factions in the world, many of whom have an axe to grind with the states) can't hate America for being 'everything they're not', mostly because they haven't the slightest idea what America is really like.

What part of "Because 1) you don't believe in their religion" did you NOT understand, laughing-boy?

The part where they're being brainwashed into believing that they're fighting a Zionist Nation? The part where the country where they train is still treated as an untouchable ally? The major part where the real driving force behind the terrorists is - gasp- TERROR, not a particular religion? Pick one. And stop letting them force that A Flat on you.

Start figuring out what the HELL is really going on. Infiltrate Al-Qaeda! Assassinate its leaders en-masse! Sabatage those Madrassas! And, for all the Gods' sakes: KILL that idiot Ghorbanifar!

But that would go against the sensibilities of the left. WE have no right to do that, or is that arguement only convienent when it works for you to pick and choose?

There's a difference between assassinating a small cabal of criminals via espionage, and invading one country after another, laying waste to the country side, and coming up empty. Do you keep a battleaxe next to your couch to swat flies with?

Dark Zarak proves points #2 in my post before this perfectly. To him, war is so horrible that literally no conditions exist in which he will ever have the will to fight and conduct one properly.

War isn't about the moral high ground, war is about winning. You can sort your morals after victory and debate it then. Please provide an example where morality has ever won a battle, let alone a war. Even the most moral of men understood that war has no boundaries. From Marcus Aurelius slaughtering the German hordes on the frontier of the Rhine to Washington ordering the execution of British POWs after hearing about how the Brits killed American POWs captured at Bunker Hill.

The U.K. was soundly embarrassed by Iran. Had I been in charge of U.K. military forces and knew I could operate uninhibited I would have lied, cheated, stolen, whatever it took to get those men and women home but the second they land on British soil I would have set up a complete naval blockade, would have leveled all utilities in the entire country, and would have vaporized the refinery.

Had they pushed the issue I would have extended the strikes to civilian and religious targets just to send the message that nothing is off limits and no where is safe.

Is kidnapping soldiers and sailors grounds for war? Abso-f*cking-lutely. Considering how much damage modern nations can do to a country without one soldier ever setting foot on enemy soil there is no reason to sit there and be bullied by madmen and tyrants.

Seriously, it comes down to the west just not having the balls to win a war in this day and age. Simple as that. I don't think current western society will recover from it to be honest.

lkavadas wrote:Dark Zarak proves points #2 in my post before this perfectly. To him, war is so horrible that literally no conditions exist in which he will ever have the will to fight and conduct one properly.

War isn't about the moral high ground, war is about winning. You can sort your morals after victory and debate it then. Please provide an example where morality has ever won a battle, let alone a war. Even the most moral of men understood that war has no boundaries. From Marcus Aurelius slaughtering the German hordes on the frontier of the Rhine to Washington ordering the execution of British POWs after hearing about how the Brits killed American POWs captured at Bunker Hill.

The U.K. was soundly embarrassed by Iran. Had I been in charge of U.K. military forces and knew I could operate uninhibited I would have lied, cheated, stolen, whatever it took to get those men and women home but the second they land on British soil I would have set up a complete naval blockade, would have leveled all utilities in the entire country, and would have vaporized the refinery.

Had they pushed the issue I would have extended the strikes to civilian and religious targets just to send the message that nothing is off limits and no where is safe.

Is kidnapping soldiers and sailors grounds for war? Abso-f*cking-lutely. Considering how much damage modern nations can do to a country without one soldier ever setting foot on enemy soil there is no reason to sit there and be bullied by madmen and tyrants.

Seriously, it comes down to the west just not having the balls to win a war in this day and age. Simple as that. I don't think current western society will recover from it to be honest.

and again i demand the release of all british patriots held in guantamano. oh and Iran probably would like those 5 people the US is still holding from that raid on there consul in Irbil. is kidnapping Consuls grounds for war?

sorry but britain's had over two decades of terrorist action from the IRA on our on soil, military action didn't work, against them, and it's highly unlikely it would work against a group even more indoctrinated with their ideals(whatever they may be) when the US has had 20 years of bombings on it's home soil maybe then it can tell us what to do. when was the last time you actually won a war without our help?

this is ideological warfare, you win it by taking their hearts and minds, and that's rather hard to do when their dead and you've orphaned their children,

Iran's not exactly a push over military wise either it's got the infrastructure to desighn and manufacture it's own jets, tanks, and submarines, invasion wouldn't be like in iraq, we wouldn't be fighting decade old eqiupment this time, not to mention being second largest oil producing country in the world(who rememebers the OPEC in the seventies, fancy trying to keep peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wage war in iraq while our own infrastructure is crippled by lack of oil). not mentioning the very modern russian built air defence system they got january.

also who's heard of Pakistan? well they do have the bomb, and guess what their prez said a while back on military action against Iran? "If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not only in the region, but the whole world"

and whose heard of the Non-Alighned movement? their basically the countries that didn't alighn east or west in the cold war, together they make up the majority of the world population, and they are the majority of the not quite 200 members of the UN,nearly a year ago they made a written statment pretty much saying they where firmly on Iran's side

and why on earth would we wage war with a country that the US is determined to go war with? why risk our soldiers lives when you're happy to throw away yours?

Tammuz wrote:

lkavadas wrote:Dark Zarak proves points #2 in my post before this perfectly. To him, war is so horrible that literally no conditions exist in which he will ever have the will to fight and conduct one properly.

War isn't about the moral high ground, war is about winning. You can sort your morals after victory and debate it then. Please provide an example where morality has ever won a battle, let alone a war. Even the most moral of men understood that war has no boundaries. From Marcus Aurelius slaughtering the German hordes on the frontier of the Rhine to Washington ordering the execution of British POWs after hearing about how the Brits killed American POWs captured at Bunker Hill.

The U.K. was soundly embarrassed by Iran. Had I been in charge of U.K. military forces and knew I could operate uninhibited I would have lied, cheated, stolen, whatever it took to get those men and women home but the second they land on British soil I would have set up a complete naval blockade, would have leveled all utilities in the entire country, and would have vaporized the refinery.

Had they pushed the issue I would have extended the strikes to civilian and religious targets just to send the message that nothing is off limits and no where is safe.

Is kidnapping soldiers and sailors grounds for war? Abso-f*cking-lutely. Considering how much damage modern nations can do to a country without one soldier ever setting foot on enemy soil there is no reason to sit there and be bullied by madmen and tyrants.

Seriously, it comes down to the west just not having the balls to win a war in this day and age. Simple as that. I don't think current western society will recover from it to be honest.

and again i demand the release of all british patriots held in guantamano. oh and Iran probably would like those 5 people the US is still holding from that raid on there consul in Irbil. is kidnapping Consuls grounds for war?

sorry but britain's had over two decades of terrorist action from the IRA on our on soil, military action didn't work, against them, and it's highly unlikely it would work against a group even more indoctrinated with their ideals(whatever they may be) when the US has had 20 years of bombings on it's home soil maybe then it can tell us what to do. when was the last time you actually won a war without our help?

this is ideological warfare, you win it by taking their hearts and minds, and that's rather hard to do when their dead and you've orphaned their children,

Iran's not exactly a push over military wise either it's got the infrastructure to desighn and manufacture it's own jets, tanks, and submarines, invasion wouldn't be like in iraq, we wouldn't be fighting decade old eqiupment this time, not to mention being second largest oil producing country in the world(who rememebers the OPEC in the seventies, fancy trying to keep peace in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wage war in iraq while our own infrastructure is crippled by lack of oil). not mentioning the very modern russian built air defence system they got january.

also who's heard of Pakistan? well they do have the bomb, and guess what their prez said a while back on military action against Iran? "If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not only in the region, but the whole world"

and whose heard of the Non-Alighned movement? their basically the countries that didn't alighn east or west in the cold war, together they make up the majority of the world population, and they are the majority of the not quite 200 members of the UN,nearly a year ago they made a written statment pretty much saying they where firmly on Iran's side

and why on earth would we wage war with a country that the US is determined to go war with? why risk our soldiers lives when you're happy to throw away yours?

Excuse me, Tammuz, but it seems most, if not all, of those "British patriots" were captured as ununiformed combatants in Afghanistan, and it seems that the Iranian building in question both was under suspition of aiding insurgents andactually had diplomatic status, though if you have more recent sources, please add.

As well, I'll agree with winning hearts and minds, but that's hard to do when being blown up by imported men and shells. Overtly targeting a populous is just stupid due to social backlash, if not just immoral, but keeping casualties from properly waging war is even more so unintelligible-- death comes with the territory.

As well, I personally think the "war without Britain's help" thing is a non-issue, for Britain and the US have been insanely close one throughout the past century. Both the British and the US, despite what we both like to claim, have our morals and ideologies in the same general corner.

On the contrary, the Non-Aligned Movement is a severely fractured system whose members are just about only in agreement that they each individually don't want to be attacked, which can be claimed for all states, and includes states whose past and current actions can hardly be considered upright:

wikipedia.com wrote:While the organization was intended to be as close an alliance as NATO or the Warsaw Pact, it has little cohesion and many of its members were actually quite closely aligned with one or another of the great powers. For example, Cuba was closely aligned with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War era. India was effectively aligned with the Soviet Union against China for many years. Additionally, some members were involved in serious conflicts with other members (e.g. India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq). The movement fractured from its own internal contradictions when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. While the client states of the Soviet Union fully supported the invasion, other members (particularly the Muslim states) of the movement found it impossible to do so.

The Non-Aligned Movement has struggled to find relevance since the end of the Cold War. The successor states of Yugoslavia, a founding member, have expressed little interest in the NAM since the country's break-up, and in 2004, Malta and Cyprus ceased to be members of the NAM when they joined the European Union.

Not to say we should be bloodthirsty, but war in itself is not something that should be thought of as the utmost evil. If war with Iran (which is starting to seem inevitable) comes, it comes, and must be accepted with both cool composure and bold determination. It should not be overtly sought, nor shrunk from if necessary for world stability...man, I'm starting to sound circumloquate.

On a side note, all of this not to say we've been perfect in our global pursuits in the past-- far from it. I personally think, if we truly had the consideration of the world at large in our international policy, we'd have ditched Turkey as an ally over ten years ago...

On the topic of war, I've been thinking it would do some good to carry out "urban-bombings" on Iran with Persian and Arabic transcripts of John Locke.

but at NAM havannah summit last year, they did indeed all sign thew written statment opposing the western inteference with Iran, and i really do not think giving them something to rally round is a good idea.

it just annoys me when someone whose entire foreigh policy is taken from swordfish tells us we should genocidally invade and start a war just to save face, without even considering the economic and strategic power of the invaded nation.

as to people not wearing uniforms, neither of our elected leaders wear them and we'd get pretty irate if either of them where taken by a foreighn power. attacking an embassy or consul on the suspicion of hostility, any different than capturing soldiers suspected of hostility?
more recent story about the april 11 incident

the problem with the Iran hostage situation is that both parties state they where in different positions over a line which hasn't been properly established in a decade, Being that iraq and iran haven't been very chummy it's no surprise they didn't carry out the joint survey to clearly mark the line, both parties can give GPS data, backing up their claims. the only thing that is certain about the area is that neither state has the power to stop and search the other states vessels in the said grey area.

ther just isn't enough facts to be able to make a clear judgement, and i'm not going to beleive my government just becuase they are my government.

The last thing the british need is to be hauled up to the hague becuase it turns out we killed millions of civilians becuase of a GPS malfunction.

Tammuz wrote:it just annoys me when someone whose entire foreigh policy is taken from swordfish tells us we should genocidally invade and start a war just to save face, without even considering the economic and strategic power of the invaded nation.

Y'know, I really take offense to this statement. Where the hell does your foreign policy come from, the internet? Excuse me, but I've spent half of my adult life fighting the war in Iraq (I'm 22, have done two tours and will be returning in four months for my third) so please don't blow smoke up everybody's ass about how I devised my foreign policy.

You don't know dick about this war and you never will. Keep your bullshit comments like that to yourself. People don't come more ignorant or devoid of actual life experiences than you. When you actually decide to do something to benefit human society and not just yourself instead of sitting on your ass on a Transformers website then you can come back and lecture me about how the world is supposed to be run. kthxbye

so which bit of

Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

do you disagree with?

Tammuz wrote:so which bit of

Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

do you disagree with?

Sounds solid to me.

It is true that the US will be "safe" when you've murdered everyone who'd want to oppose you and thusly intimidated the rest into subservience.

Sounds about as horrific a plan as regular terrorism, though.

Tammuz wrote:so which bit of

Anyone who impinges on America's freedom. Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

do you disagree with?

All of it because it's fiction. You don't fight terrorism with terrorism unless you want to fail. Terrorism doesn't destroy your enemy and thus it is a worthless tool to combat terrorism with. Besides, that was all Hollywood covert bullshit made up to be an interesting movie. This is real life. You don't beat around the bush by sending agents out in reprisal actions. That solves nothing. This is a war of societies, not of men.

How do you reason with someone who will behead innocent people on live television? How do you reason with someone who will murder his family members for dishonoring the family name? How do you reason with someone who considers "dishonor" something as trivial as some eye liner and a pair of jeans? How do you reason with someone who will load a vehicle up with his sister's children just to make the vehicle seem less suspect and then blow the vehicle with the children inside? How do you reason with people who have for decades admitted they want to enact genocide against Jews and burn the entire nation of Israel to the ground?

You can't reason with them because they are not rational human beings. These are not people that you can sit down with and talk things out. No man in the world will ever be able to persuade them otherwise through sheer force of personality. It will never happen.

That leaves us with the only option; war. I, for one, have no intention of letting the world slip under the control of societies which don't even believe in educating women, that advocates genocide, and have absolutely no regard for human life; not even a child's.

You might be perfectly content to sit on your ass and let this happen but luckily for the world there are people like myself and my fellow soldiers who can still differentiate between absolute good and absolute evil, because they still exist.

Some things good men know are innate. This is one of them.

lkavadas wrote:
That leaves us with the only option; war. I, for one, have no intention of letting the world slip under the control of societies which don't even believe in educating women, that advocates genocide, and have absolutely no regard for human life; not even a child's.

didn't you preiviously post?

lkavadas wrote:Had they pushed the issue I would have extended the strikes to civilian and religious targets just to send the message that nothing is off limits and no where is safe.

lkavadas wrote:You might be perfectly content to sit on your ass and let this happen but luckily for the world there are people like myself and my fellow soldiers who can still differentiate between absolute good and absolute evil, because they still exist.

ah absolutism, so where does attacking a mosque full of women and children fall on your moral compass?

can you prove absolute good actually exists? have some evidence of it? or absolute evil for that matter? perhaps you could even give a comprehensive definition of either?

oh but you preiviously said war isn't about the moral highground so how can you appeal to absolute good as an authority for your actions?

lkavadas wrote:Dark Zarak proves points #2 in my post before this perfectly. To him, war is so horrible that literally no conditions exist in which he will ever have the will to fight and conduct one properly.

Please don't presume you know my opinions. And I do not prove point #2. I told you already, don't call me spineless just because I don't like war.

I'll have you know that when we went after the Taliban in 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom I think it was called, I was all for it, because I despised those assholes so much. I had spend the entire year of 2000 wishing someone would step in and do something, and we did.

And the collateral damage was worse than our own losses on 9/11. This angered me but I still think it was a good thing we went in there. There were posters all over campus of Afghan women saying "Not in Our Name". These really pissed me off, because I understood war was the only thing the Taliban would understand. And lo and behold, it worked.

Also, if the United States was invaded tomorrow by a sovereign nation, I would want to fight. I have no training and would probably hide, but I would still want to fight them and maybe even would if provoked right, and the means were available.

Defense and offense are two different things. I'm not a pussy because I don't support waging war. Note the difference. Defense is taking up arms when you are threatened, not starting ****. It boils down to politics then. I don't think there was a reason to go in, thus the war was waged and I don't like it, thus you say I'm spineless because of my political bent, which is f*cking retarded and childish.

Don't call me spineless, and don't call me a pussy. There is a difference between defending yourself and waging a whole new war. If you agree with that war fine. Hell, I admire your reasons you listed (which I quote below), because I hate all that too. But don't call me spineless for not jumping on the military bandwagon. I don't have to support the president to love my country.

lkavadas wrote:How do you reason with someone who will behead innocent people on live television? How do you reason with someone who will murder his family members for dishonoring the family name? How do you reason with someone who considers "dishonor" something as trivial as some eye liner and a pair of jeans? How do you reason with someone who will load a vehicle up with his sister's children just to make the vehicle seem less suspect and then blow the vehicle with the children inside? How do you reason with people who have for decades admitted they want to enact genocide against Jews and burn the entire nation of Israel to the ground?

You can't reason with them because they are not rational human beings.

Okay, that's all true, and I totally agree with it.

My problem is simply this:

Not every single person in Iraq is like that. After all, not every person in America voted for the same person and not every person in America believes the same thing. It would be insulting to us to be all labeled as one thing.

People need to start caring that innocents are dying. I understand it happens, but just because it's a reality doesn't make it justifiable. Okay, maybe there are situations where it is justifiable, and it gets done. To this I say people need to at least sympathize with the tragedy.

And don't go crying that I said sympathize with the enemy's death. I didn't. I have no sympathy for someone who would kill his own mother or daughter because she was raped. I have sympathy for the average joes who wouldn't do that, and still get killed.

What shocks me about all this is not the gruesome details.

What shocks me is that so many people act angry and insulted when the subject of actually giving a **** about innocent civilians is brought up.

They aggressively act like I'm a pussy for caring, as if me thinking that way is a threat to them. And they don't have to.

Why not say: "God-damn it, we had to blow all of them away to get those guys.", instead of "F*ck them all, they're all horrible people, even the three year olds."?

It's the complete and total lack of empathy I'm seeing from so many people that gets me. That and the lumping together, and the prejudice. And the rascism that it all boils down to.

In third person, I personally see all of you're thinking is more close than the three of you let on.

The Avatar of Man wrote:In third person, I personally see all of you're thinking is more close than the three of you let on.

What three?

Dark Zarak wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:In third person, I personally see all of you're thinking is more close than the three of you let on.

What three?

Well... 4. Zarak, Tammuz, lkavadas, and Loki.

I'm not so sure about that.

I just want to hear them say all the slaughter is regrettable and wrong. They can do their jobs and I can do mine. I don't know how things work in war, but I do know that I'm sick unto death of nobody giving a ****.

Tammuz wrote:

lkavadas wrote:
That leaves us with the only option; war. I, for one, have no intention of letting the world slip under the control of societies which don't even believe in educating women, that advocates genocide, and have absolutely no regard for human life; not even a child's.

didn't you preiviously post?

lkavadas wrote:Had they pushed the issue I would have extended the strikes to civilian and religious targets just to send the message that nothing is off limits and no where is safe.

You left out the part where I said "If I was in charge of the U.K." The U.K. simply does not have sufficient strength or resources to invade or destroy an entire nation by itself.

ah absolutism, so where does attacking a mosque full of women and children fall on your moral compass?

If unprovoked and completely without valid reason I would say it would be a pretty bad and immoral action.

can you prove absolute good actually exists? have some evidence of it? or absolute evil for that matter? perhaps you could even give a comprehensive definition of either?

I can prove their existence just as well as you think you can disprove it.

Good
Evil

Pretty simple, huh?

oh but you preiviously said war isn't about the moral highground so how can you appeal to absolute good as an authority for your actions?

Because it depends on what your fighting for, not how you fight it. Obviously there have to be some boundaries and restraint and they should be exercised as they are needed or when advantageous but even with that mind you must still do everything in your power to win. Victory is most important and it will always be most important.

It's as simple as that. I think your confusing what I would be willing to do to win with always exercising the greatest amount of destructive force regardless of circumstances.

If I could avoid unnecessary casualties and exercise restraint on methods and tactics and still be reasonably assured that I will be victorious I would, but if the enemy pushes the issue I'll push back hard enough to pop his head out of his asshole and turn him inside out.

Dark Zarak wrote:--stuff--

You really missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not here to argue justification for a war. Even having fought in Iraq for two years I completely agree, it's a pretty worthless war and one that never needed to happen.

That aside, failure, especially in war, is so horrible and devastating that regardless of the "why" I feel that you still need to do everything in your power to win it because of the alternative (failure).

Do I actually think your spineless? Yes. The majority of human beings are. You said yourself that if we were invaded you might fight only if you had the means.

The difference between you and I is that I would fight no matter what and without means if it came to that. You would simply give up.

That's the difference between you and I.

so we have to wage a war becuase some people don't hold the lives of women and children as sacrosanct, but in order to wage this war wwe must kill these women and children?

those definitions seem to be quite(read entirely) subjective.

you'll do anything necassary to win, i don't think that preventing a genocide by commiting a genocide is woth it.

the means do not justify the ends.

EDIT: imagine if Kennedy had taken that line in the cold war, we'd have all been nuked.

lkavadas wrote:You really missed the point I was trying to make. I'm not here to argue justification for a war. Even having fought in Iraq for two years I completely agree, it's a pretty worthless war and one that never needed to happen.

That aside, failure, especially in war, is so horrible and devastating that regardless of the "why" I feel that you still need to do everything in your power to win it because of the alternative (failure).

Thank you.

lkavadas wrote:Do I actually think your spineless? Yes. The majority of human beings are. You said yourself that if we were invaded you might fight only if you had the means.

The difference between you and I is that I would fight no matter what and without means if it came to that. You would simply give up.

That's the difference between you and I.

I suggest you change your profile motto buddy. Are you for real or what?

So you're saying that if an army of invaders was rolling through the streets in tanks, and you had no weapons or armor, you'd start throwing rocks and stand in front with your hand out Tienemin Square style? Please.

I have no training. At all. I've spent a grand total of 90 minutes firing a gun. Out of 26 years. It was a Smith and Wesson 40 caliber pistol. (Hell, I probably got that wrong.) It was by far the spookiest thing I've ever done. But sometimes I think about getting a gun and going to the range and really getting good at it, because I can, and just in case.

If there was an invading army in the streets, and I had a sniper rifle, I'd get to work. Anything else would be foolhardy and a waste of time and effort, in my state. I'd probably die, but I'd still do it.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of courage?

How does one fight, if one does not have the means to fight?

Also, what is considered "good" and what is considered "evil" is entirely subjective. I know which kinds of behaviour I like, tolerate, dislike and abhor (and I have my reasons) but "good" and "evil" are not universal forces. They are properties invented by humanity. There really aren't two sides struggling for dominance of the universe, one standing for all that is nice and the other for all that isn't.

The most we get is gravity or electromagnetism, and those don't have any discernable opinion on much of anything.

Tammuz wrote:so we have to wage a war becuase some people don't hold the lives of women and children as sacrosanct, but in order to wage this war wwe must kill these women and children?

The reason "why" we go to war isn't the issue. I'm not arguing that. What matters to me is winning no matter what. The list of the acts committed by our enemy I provided was to establish that they have absolutely no regard for human life and are therefore completely irrational. It was my evidence as to why we need to win this war because if we don't what the hell else are we going to do, ask nicely? There is simply no alternative method to establishing peace in the region.

As I said before, diplomacy is based entirely off the assumption that the party you are speaking with thinks and acts rationally. Our enemy doesn't possess one ounce of rationality.

those definitions seem to be quite(read entirely) subjective.

you'll do anything necassary to win, i don't think that preventing a genocide by commiting a genocide is woth it.

the means do not justify the ends.

EDIT: imagine if Kennedy had taken that line in the cold war, we'd have all been nuked.

For one, you don't need to commit genocide to pacify and subjugate nations. Once enough of a nation is destroyed and no longer has any capacity to resist is all you need for victory.

As for Kennedy, look at what I said earlier in this post. Who was Kennedy dealing with? A rational government that understood the consequences of it's actions.

Look at our current enemy. Do you think they care about any consequences in this life as long as they're all fooled into believing they're off to paradise with 72 virgins?

The U.S.S.R. and Islamo-extremist terrorists have absolutely nothing in common and therefore cannot be compared.

And you have to think about the future of the region. Failure in Iraq creates a huge strategic threat to the west. You'll basically have six large consequences:

1. The Shi'ites will entirely slaughter their former Sunni oppressors. On top of that entire ethnic group being wiped from the human gene pool it's also reasonable to assume that the slaughter will most likely extend to the Kurds in the north as for whatever reason everyone in the middle east simply hates Kurds as much as they hate Jews. So without victory you've dictated the fates of roughly a third of the population of Iraq.

2. Iraq will most likely become a client state of Iran. Hell, if I were Ahmadinejad I'd line up the troops and roll right into Iraq. Iran is almost entirely Shi'ite and the Iraqi Shi'ites (again, majority of the country)would be throwing rose pedals in front of the Iranian troops. People in the middle east really don't have a sense of nationality. All they care about is religion and their ethnicity. The majority Shi'ites would welcome Iranian dominion with open arms.

3. Increased terrorism. What does the failure prove to the terrorists? That terrorism is working, and let's face it, terrorism has worked wonderfully for the Islamo-extremists. Because of terrorism they've managed to dictate national elections in both Spain and Italy and they have huge influence in both France and Germany. Not to mention the irony that it's pushed the American public at large from the leaders who will do the most to protect them which in the U.S. are the Republicans.

4. At this point it's no secret that the recently elected DFL officials' owe their positions to terrorists in Iraq. Every time something goes wrong there they can smile and think about the new votes they just picked up. That's why they're so adamant about establishing a troop withdrawal timetable (date of total defeat). Defeat in Iraq will give them the presidency in the next election and they're ramrodding that bill through the senate just as good reports start coming from Baghdad about Petraeus' new strategy and the (moderate) success of the troop surge. If they can legislate defeat in Iraq they'll pick up more seats in congress and the white house as well.

5. An America led by the DFLers will be ridiculously weak in responding to terrorism. We saw this during the Clinton years when we had to suffer through the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. What was the American response to all of those actions combined? Umm, yeah, we shot a few cruise missiles into a pharmaceutical factory. Hooray.

The complete and total lack of response by the U.S.A. is what emboldened Al Qaeda into ramping up bigger and bigger operations and is what's ultimately responsible for the attacks on 9/11. I don't want another 9/11.

6. Israel. Need I even say more? It's the only country in the middle east which offers it's citizens freedom of religion. The consequences of American failure will not fall on America, they will fall on Israel and they will fall very hard.

And that's why the only acceptable outcome in Iraq is victory. It's very, very important.

the reason why Is the issue I'm discussing, I'm arguing against Invading IRAN, not IRAQ, becuase i completely disagree that the UK should invade a country over them taking hostages from an undefined region that may or may not in fact be there territory, JUST to save Face.

The list of the acts committed by our enemy I provided was to establish that they have absolutely no regard for human life and are therefore completely irrational.

i'm fairly sure i've heard at least one anti-american terrorist organisation say something very similiar

For one, you don't need to commit genocide to pacify and subjugate nations. Once enough of a nation is destroyed and no longer has any capacity to resist is all you need for victory.

your not fighting against a nation, your fighting against an idea, and the problem is everytime you use force you just play into the "irrational terrorists" hands, every time you detain one for for questioning, you just prove to them that their beleifs are right. Us invading iran would just be a massive confirmation of their Ideology.

Look at our current enemy. Do you think they care about any consequences in this life as long as they're all fooled into believing they're off to paradise with 72 virgins?

I can prove thats existence just as well as you think you can disprove it.


oh the irony that both you use your enemies appeal to absolute good as authority to wage war as criticism of there rational ability when just a few post earlier you yourself used the ver same argument to lend credence to your point of view