Onward ? Into Waziristan!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

The solution is to bomb 'em all. You don’t go hunting cockroaches one at a time — you fucking bug bomb 'em.

Iran should be a prarie by now, where we let a few buffalo roam. Damnned Jimmy Carter…

We all agree that the enemy should be sought out and destroyed without mercy. What this quote implies is that not only our enemies, but all surrounding civilians and non-combatants be destroyed too. The “them” in “bomb’em all” refers to all inhabitants of the Islamic world, and compares them to “cockroaches”. All inhabitants, meaning the innocent women and children in the region along with the terrorists, are “cockroaches” because of where they live (or their ethnicity).

[/quote]

Since the people of those countries, and their respective governments, won’t root out the terrorists, they are implicitly supporting their actions. I realize that most people there are pretty powerless, as in any country. Yet, we see no massive demonstrations against the bombings in Iraq or Afghanistan. A few speak out, sure, at the risk of their lives. For them, I have empathy. For the vast majority who simply don’t care or simply go on about their business, I say: in the name of your religion, murderers are operating. What are you doing about it? Nothing?

42

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We bomb Afghan villages when our troops and helecopters come under fire from them.

Do you seriously believe this crap or are you pulling my legs?

[/quote]

Your other post was profound. But.

Do you think we attack villages and shoot civilians for the hell of it or for fun? I don’t think generals sit around and say, “it’s a boring day, let’s blow up a village for no reason.”

I repeat: If it wasn’t for terrorists killing civilians in the US, we would not be blowing up villages in Afghanistan for any reason.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I realize that most people there are pretty powerless, as in any country. Yet, we see no massive demonstrations against the bombings in Iraq or Afghanistan. A few speak out, sure, at the risk of their lives. For them, I have empathy. For the vast majority who simply don’t care or simply go on about their business, I say: in the name of your religion, murderers are operating. What are you doing about it? Nothing?
[/quote]

I agree with this. More people protested over the Pope’s remarks which were taken out of context than protest over muslim terrorist violence anywhere in the world.

44

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Going the vroom route, and having them sit on the Oprah couch and listen to how the FEEL solves nothing. They respect power. We have not showed any.
[/quote]

Is there any chance at all you are going to stop typing your little political fantasies out for us all to read?

I’m sure you’d love it if your words described anything approaching my position on the matter, because it would be trivially easy to knock down, but, as usual, you fall far short of the mark.

The word pathetic comes to mind.

Perhaps you could argue my actual positions on topics instead of taking the easy way out and playing make believe?

I know, or believe, from previous discussion, that you feel the ends justify the means, but I suspect the majority of citizens living in most democracies do not. WWII sort of laid the groundwork for never letting that type of attitude and behavior loose again.

Anyway, no, I’m not trying to make a ridiculous comparison. I’m trying to outline the basis for not simply taking the lowest road or easiest road available. And, as you know, it has sweet fuck all to do with Oprah and her couch.

The question is, and I’ve put it forth before, do you actually believe in democracy or don’t you? If you do, then you need to respect the opinions of others who don’t believe as you do based on the principle of one person one vote. It’s that simple.

And, if possible, perhaps you could avoid ducking out on a technicality based on the fact that I myself am not a US citizen? The principle remains the same.

45

[quote]vroom wrote:
more whining bullshit…[/quote]

Do you have anything to say wrt to the subject at hand? If not, maybe you should do some of your “shut the fuck up” exercises.

Just so you know - I was not trying to insult you. We are waging a war and trying to be nice while we do it. It fits in with your view of understanding the other side so we can blame ourselves, so I used you and your glorious tree.

Now do you have anything to say about the subject at hand?

I didn’t think so.

46

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
There’s a world of difference between being a Christian and believing in fighting to protect yourself and loved ones (which are totally compatible) and labeling your enemies (or even just those in their general area) “cockroaches.”

I’ll accept judgment from a power higher than you. If I am wrong - then I will face my due. But you sitting in judgment is a joke.

I’d like to know where a godless asshole such as yourself finds the power to sit in judgment of anyone.
[/quote]

It wasn’t even directed at you, I was referring to Headhunter, but I’ve been a Christian for most of my life, imperfectly, like all of us.

You obviously have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. We are losing in Iraq because we “have no balls” and should just be mercilessly bombing anyone in the vicinity of our enemies? This is retarded on so many levels:

  1. We are not fighting an army or a nation, in either Iraq or Afghanistan, or in the “war on terror” period. We are fighting terrorists, militias, insurgents, etc. They are very rarely visible targets. There is not much to put firepower on. This is not a conventional war. Do you understand this at all?

  2. Our enemies hide among the civilian population, who we would have to kill massive numbers of to get at even a small percentage of our enemies. Let’s round up and say we’ve lost 7,000 people, military and civilian combined, to Islamic terrorism. So we should then slaughter hundreds of thousands to get at maybe an equivalent number of enemies? But apparently worrying about non-American life is a sign of having a vagina, right?

  3. Killing massive numbers of civilians and destroying the country is exactly what we’re trying NOT to do in Iraq. The goal is to build a stable, democratic (unlikely) Muslim nation in the Middle East. We’re trying to put the state back together, not tear it down. If you can’t even grasp this, maybe you should just stop ever talking about the war and spare your listeners a few minutes of their lives.

  4. The whole fucking challenge of this kind of war is that the high-tech, firepower-heavy military we have built is largely blunted. Even if we decided we’d be more barbaric than our enemies and attempt to bomb whole countries into submission, all we’d be doing is creating more terrorists than we killed. See Vietnam, the Balkans in WWII, the Soviets in Afghanistan, etc., if you can be bothered to pick up a book and actually try to learn something before speaking.

Rejecting carpet-bombing of countries we’re supposed to be rebuilding does not imply surrender, as any moron can figure out. John Paul Vann in Vietnam referred to what was needed as “selective killing,” the man with a rifle killing his enemy while doing as little harm as possible to the surrounding civilian population. Given how aggressively stupid all of your posts on this topic have been, I kind of doubt you’ve heard of him.

But go on, toss out some overheated attacks, call me a pussy, and posture from behind your keyboard about how we should be ruthlessly killing innocents. The politics forum has really missed your wisdom.

47

Peter Beaumont paints a gloomy picture of the American troops in Iraq.

According to the article, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute’s (the “war czar” guy), deems bringing back the draft worth a look. That’s kinda good actually. Maybe when it’ll affect you and your kids, you will realize how fucking insane this whole adventure is.

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The solution is to bomb 'em all. You don’t go hunting cockroaches one at a time — you fucking bug bomb 'em.

Iran should be a prarie by now, where we let a few buffalo roam. Damnned Jimmy Carter…

[/quote]

Headhunter, your new screen name should be “Arnald Amalaricus.” We can call you AA for short.

49

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
There’s a world of difference between being a Christian and believing in fighting to protect yourself and loved ones (which are totally compatible) and labeling your enemies (or even just those in their general area) “cockroaches.”

I’ll accept judgment from a power higher than you. If I am wrong - then I will face my due. But you sitting in judgment is a joke.

I’d like to know where a godless asshole such as yourself finds the power to sit in judgment of anyone.

But I digress… WWII was the last time anyone entered a war to win. I think a visit to those times, and those goals are exactly what we need.

Maybe you are of the kiss ass clan. I am not. Destroying the enemy is not a bad thing, regardless of what you might say. I say it would save lives, and end the fighting mch sooner than your plan of apeasement, or Bush’s plan to wage a friendly war.

We destroyed Europe. We should destroy the ME just as purposefully.

Why do you have a problem with that? Are you affraid of winning? You must be to be such a pussy-filled apologist.

I’m pretty sure that, all things held equal, you will be judged far more harshly for the size of your vagina, than I will for my desire to destroy an enemy.

IF you have a problem with that - please offer an intelligent response. Your straw man festival may have been popular recently - but I refuse to buy a ticket.

[/quote]

Say you have leveled the middle East.

1 billion Muslims are left and pray for revenge and the Djhad is officially on, because the Umma itself is in danger.

In the midst of worldwide economic chaos, with Israel fighting for her life, suddenly a small nuke goes off in Washington, carefully timed to wipe out the President, Vice President and large parts of Congress and Senate; think an inauguration ceremony.

You have an idea where it came from, but the Holy Islamic Alliance has allready enough nuclear capability to wipe out the 20 largest US cities and other then the USSR they REALLY mean it and they spend 40% of GDP on further military development.

The European Union allready has left the NATO and has ordered all American soldiers and personnel of her soil.

The EU, Russia and China declare that they want none of this but will respond in kind if attacked, people are dancing in the streets all over the world because Big Satan has been kicked in the nuts.

Massive protests and civil unrest in the United States, some people want no part in the third holocaust, others dress in para military uniforms and hunt those peacenicks down.

Martial law is declared, the economic crises worsens.

Your next move would be?

50

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
2. Our enemies hide among the civilian population, who we would have to kill massive numbers of to get at even a small percentage of our enemies. Let’s round up and say we’ve lost 7,000 people, military and civilian combined, to Islamic terrorism. So we should then slaughter hundreds of thousands to get at maybe an equivalent number of enemies? But apparently worrying about non-American life is a sign of having a vagina, right?

  1. Killing massive numbers of civilians and destroying the country is exactly what we’re trying NOT to do in Iraq. The goal is to build a stable, democratic (unlikely) Muslim nation in the Middle East. We’re trying to put the state back together, not tear it down. If you can’t even grasp this, maybe you should just stop ever talking about the war and spare your listeners a few minutes of their lives.
    [/quote]

You made some good points - but I would like to address these two in particular.

You guys want it both ways. Either the people over there have nothing to lose - which is being proclaimed very loudly by the anti-war crowd - or they do have something to lose. You can’t conveniently argue on both sides.

The more villages we destroy, the more mosques we blow up give our enemy that many less places to hide.

It is not rocket science. It is not social engineering. It is war.

The US has fought this war ass backwards. It should have been waged with extreme prejudice. They already hate us over there, so why are we trying to be nice? That should come after the borders are sealed, and the cockraoches have been exterminated.

I don’t know why you have a problem calling the radical islamo-fascist murderers cockroaches. You describe them as such, why do words mean so much?

You think the war is wrong. I think the war is wrong. You want to make everyone get along. I want to exterminate the problem. Your plan hasn’t worked since Carter showed everyone his cooch back in the late 70’s. It’s time for a change. Its time to eliminate the enemy. It’s time to do what we should have done 30 years ago.

If you don’t like what I have to say - then don’t read my posts.

51

[quote]Orion wrote:

The European Union allready has left the NATO and has ordered all American soldiers and personnel of her soil. [/quote]

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Isn’t there anything we can do to get our asses thrown out earlier?

People want to bitch and moan about how evil we are, all the while enjoying the protection we provide them.

You make references to another holocaust. No one is talking about that…unless you are now equating fighting to win with genocide.

52

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You guys want it both ways. Either the people over there have nothing to lose - which is being proclaimed very loudly by the anti-war crowd - or they do have something to lose. You can’t conveniently argue on both sides. [/quote]

Listen up kiddo, “the people over there” have lives, kids, and are not interested in dying any time soon. They are, for the most part, no different from you and me.

Now, there is a minority of god-crazed murderers who actually long for the moment they’ll be blown up. That type is by no mean restricted to the Middle-East. For all we know, there might be one living right next door to you. Those who willingly sacrifice their lives in an attempt to take out as many people as possible are the the ones with nothing to lose.

Your statement equating all inhabitants of the ME with terrorists is simply absurd.

What kind of fcsked up world is it where “Shock and Awe” becomes synonymous of “being nice”?

Yes, they already hate you over there. But if you look carefully, they’re not the only ones. Nobody likes a bully.

Back off a second. You can call the murderers anything you like, from cockroaches to cocksuckers. Nobody will raise as much as an eyebrow for that. But when you start referring to regular folks as roaches based on nothing more than their ethnicity, place of residence, or faith you’re bound to run into trouble. Let me remind you of the context the word has first been employed in this thread:

[i]HH wrote:

The solution is to bomb 'em all. You don’t go hunting cockroaches one at a time — you fucking bug bomb 'em.

Iran should be a prarie by now, where we let a few buffalo roam.[/i]

By any (and I mean ANY!) interpretation, HH called all the Iranians roaches. That is indefensible.

53

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Isn’t there anything we can do to get our asses thrown out earlier? [/quote]

Your theory doesn’t add up. If it’s a good thing to get the troops out, why do you need anyone to throw you out?

If you don’t want your troops there, vote for someone who’ll get them out. How hard is that?

54

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Orion wrote:

The European Union allready has left the NATO and has ordered all American soldiers and personnel of her soil.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Isn’t there anything we can do to get our asses thrown out earlier?

People want to bitch and moan about how evil we are, all the while enjoying the protection we provide them.

You make references to another holocaust. No one is talking about that…unless you are now equating fighting to win with genocide.

[/quote]

That is all you respond to?

I`d have no problem with the US leaving Europe, you never had troops or installations in Austria anyway.

Why you, or anyone thinks the EU needs American protection is a mistery to me.

The whole Middle East would have to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syriam Lybia, maybe Pakistan.

Some of them are your allies. You propose to kill them all to get to the insurgents and terrorists in their midst.

That would a) be a genocide and b) unite the whole world against you and c) lead to the rise of fascism in the US if they react in kind.

It would also further inpoverish your nation, lead to a world wide depression and to a EU and China that are armed to the teeth and challenge the US as the leading nation with the backing af nearly the whole developing world.

Get it in your head:

You can´t fight a war against an abstract concept. Not against poverty, not against immigration and not against terrorism.

55

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Just so you know - I was not trying to insult you. We are waging a war and trying to be nice while we do it. It fits in with your view of understanding the other side so we can blame ourselves, so I used you and your glorious tree.[/quote]

Rainjack, all you have is drive by insults. Carry on.

56

[quote]orion wrote:
That is all you respond to?[/quote]

It’s the only thing you wrote worthy of a response.

[quote]I`d have no problem with the US leaving Europe, you never had troops or installations in Austria anyway.

Why you, or anyone thinks the EU needs American protection is a mistery to me.[/quote]

Me, too. perhaps it allows the state to focus more of your tax money on social welfare, and less on an actual defense program.

I don’t think it is needed. I think we should have pulled out back in the 80’s.

[quote]The whole Middle East would have to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Syriam Lybia, maybe Pakistan.

Some of them are your allies. You propose to kill them all to get to the insurgents and terrorists in their midst.

That would a) be a genocide and b) unite the whole world against you and c) lead to the rise of fascism in the US if they react in kind.[/quote]

You are under the mistaken notion that I think we should eliminate all inhabitants of the area. You are wrong. That is why your fantasy story is not worth consideration: You base it on whatyou want me to say - not what I said.

[quote]It would also further inpoverish your nation, lead to a world wide depression and to a EU and China that are armed to the teeth and challenge the US as the leading nation with the backing af nearly the whole developing world.

Get it in your head:

You can´t fight a war against an abstract concept. Not against poverty, not against immigration and not against terrorism. [/quote]

Further impoverish? Once again - you and your friends want to play on both sides of the fence. Either we are the most self-indulgent, wasteful country on the planet, or we are impoverished. Pick one. What we are doing now, and have been doing is the wrong approach. I have said this from the beginning.

Terrorism is not an abstract concept. Exterminating vermin is not an abstract concept. The two are far more similar than you want to admit.

57

[quote]lixy wrote:
Your statement equating all inhabitants of the ME with terrorists is simply absurd.
[/quote]

You are a liar. Show me where I ever said that, or even implied that all inhabitants of the ME are terrorists.

As for the rest of your post - it is predicated on the above lie, and is not worthy of consideration.

58

[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Just so you know - I was not trying to insult you. We are waging a war and trying to be nice while we do it. It fits in with your view of understanding the other side so we can blame ourselves, so I used you and your glorious tree.

Rainjack, all you have is drive by insults. Carry on.[/quote]

Go buy some more kleenex, and perhaps think before you post.

59

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Isn’t there anything we can do to get our asses thrown out earlier?

Your theory doesn’t add up. If it’s a good thing to get the troops out, why do you need anyone to throw you out?

If you don’t want your troops there, vote for someone who’ll get them out. How hard is that?[/quote]

I try to vote that way every time I get a chance. But thanks for the heads up. I don’t think I would have had that idea had you not enlightened me.

The only good aspect to NATO is the allowance of former soviet bloc countries.

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
Your statement equating all inhabitants of the ME with terrorists is simply absurd.

You are a liar. Show me where I ever said that, or even implied that all inhabitants of the ME are terrorists.

As for the rest of your post - it is predicated on the above lie, and is not worthy of consideration.

[/quote]

I will give this to RJ- he didn’t say that. In the same fashion that not all Germans were Nazis, but I’m sure some got killed during the 24 hour bombing raids, not all are terrorists, but in an all out war innocents will always die.

Whether or not that is worth it remains to be seen, for I am still of the opinion that I’d rather see a thousand dead Muslims than one member of my own family dead. If innocents dying protected us in the way it destroyed Germany/Hanoi, I’d be all for it. But I dont know that it will work.