Oarsman makes some excellent points. I’d like to add that only the threat of absolute destruction caused the Japanese to surrender. Even then, some fanatics wanted to fight on, until cooler heads prevailed. I suppose the terrorists will probably fight on, even after we obliterate Iran, though. Maybe terrorism is some freaky kind of death wish?
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
We’re going to threaten them by going “Oh yeah, well if you keep killing you’re own innocent civilians, we’re going to kill more of them!”??
huh? we are not the ones taking the war to the streets, they are. It’s unfortunate that innocents die in these battles, but that’s the reality of war. Your sense of perspective is shocking - please go back and look at the numbers of civilian casualties in the previous two world wars, and then come talk to me about wide-scale slaughter.
[/quote]
Seriously, WTF are you talking about? You quoted my response to Headhunter’s plan of randomly bombing countries in the middle east, seeming to agree with him. So how would this solve any problems? Do you even know what percentage of the population in these countries support the insurgents in Iraq?
And please spare me the BS about civilian casualties from WW2, there are almost no similarities between this war and that one.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
you still haven’t answered my original question… a terrorist cell just wiped out Toronto - what do you do?
[/quote]
What is the point of this question?
I think that scenario is highly unlikely, and since it looks like the conservatives will be winning the election, I think you can definitely expect security to be stepped up around major cities like that.
Since the Iranian government seems bent on the destruction of Israel and most likely supports the insurgency in Iraq, I hope Canada can be a part of overthrowing that regime along with hopefully a couple more European countries this time. I think most of Iran’s population is fed up with their draconian laws, their aggressive rhetoric and their economic ineptitude.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Seriously, WTF are you talking about? You quoted my response to Headhunter’s plan of randomly bombing countries in the middle east, seeming to agree with him. [/quote]
no, I was quoting your response to they kill our civilians, so we kill theirs. That’s what I was responding to. My point is that in any modern war, civilians are going to be in the way. Gone are the days of combat in large, empty battlefields.
War is truly hell. People die. Face it. Crying like a bitch when an innocent civilian dies does not negate the fact that these people want to destroy us and are willing to kill their own people to do it.
[quote]
So how would this solve any problems? [/quote]
It doesn’t, and that’s the tragedy. However, we have no alternative. The “alternative” suggested by the left is NOT AN ALTERNATIVE. Pulling out of the Middle East and putting your head in the sand and hoping it all goes away is not only cowardly, but irresponsible and basically guaranteeing your civilization’s own demise at some point in the future. What do you think would happen if we pull out now? Iraq becomes a black hole for terrorist activity, backed by Iran, who will soon begin to put their crosshairs once again on the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Leaving at this point is not an option for the immediate future.
You cannot dialogue with these people - basically it comes down to this - they wanted a war - we gave it to them. Better fight it in their backyard than in ours.
[quote]
Do you even know what percentage of the population in these countries support the insurgents in Iraq?[/quote]
does anyone really know? I’m sure it’s a small minority but not as much as the Left thinks. Remember, they have killed more innocent Iraqis than our troops have. Much, much more. Think about it - if the Iraqi people didn’t want us there - the U.S. body count would be much, much, higher. I would also figure the fighting would be much more widespread than in a few isolated areas.
[quote]
And please spare me the BS about civilian casualties from WW2, there are almost no similarities between this war and that one.[/quote]
yes there is. What part of the push into Europe after D-Day wasn’t fought in cities… or how about the battle for Stalingrad? what the hell is so different about those combats and what is going on in Iraq? Not much if you think about it. The point is that when fighting enters populated urban areas, innocents ARE going to die.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
What is the point of this question? [/quote]
you’re still ducking the question. stop qualifying it with predictors of current politics and just answer the hypothetical.
The point of my question is twofold:
I want you to suggest an alternative to the American response to 9/11 like event - which, from your responses, I gather you were opposed to.
The other point of the question is that all i hear is bitching and moaning from the anti-war / anti-Bush crowd and yet I never hear any actual solutions from them.
Seriously, I hate war as much as the next guy, but when I consider the circumstances and the lessons of history I don’t really see what other choice we had.
So, I guess I’m curious to hear how someone with your viewpoint would handle a similar situation.
Thus the hypothetical: AGAIN:
You are the PM of Canada, and a middle-east sponsored terrorist cell wipes Toronto off the face of the earth…
what is your response in a nutshell?
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
What is the point of this question?
you’re still ducking the question. stop qualifying it with predictors of current politics and just answer the hypothetical.
The point of my question is that I want you to suggest an alternative to the American response to 9/11 like event - which, from your responses, I gather you were opposed to.
Thus the hypothetical: AGAIN:
You are the PM of Canada, and a terrorist cell wipes Toronto off the face of the earth…
what is your response in a nutshell?
[/quote]
In a nutshell, tighten security, taking measures similar to what the Americans have done, increase funding for the military, and increase our presence in the middle east. I’m in favour of overthrowing regimes that sponsor terrorism, and putting immense political pressure on countries that produce a high number of terrorists to do something about the problem instead of fostering hatred for the west.
Now I have a question for you: what is your solution to the problem of militant Islam? And please try and make your answer a little more complex than “bomb them terrorist countries.”
given your response - our solutions don’t seem very different. Based on that response I’m assuming you didn’t believe Saddam was sponsoring terrorists? Flesh it out a bit, because, again based on your answer, I don’t understand why you would be so opposed to the war.
As to your question: unfortunately, there is no solution.
well, no solution from our end at least, other than defending ourselves and keeping them on the defensive.
the change will have to come from their side - we cannot make them give up militant Islam - they have to do it themselves - the only thing we can do to keep them from overrunning us is to keep hitting them so fucking hard, that they (the more moderate among them) will be forced to reconsider why the hell they are doing this.
That, unfortunately, is the only way I can see. And I fear, in a future, it may not be enough.
For example, I don’t think the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will ever end until one side completely obliterates the other. The Palestinians as soon as you give them a bit of land, will soon come looking for more. This, I believe is why Israel does not budge(or very begrudgingly) on that issue.
Like I said, history has taught us you cannot bargain with a fanatical opponent, which is why this situation is so dangerous and scary.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
Flesh it out a bit, because, again based on your answer, I don’t understand why you would be so opposed to the war.
[/quote]
Who said I was opposed to the war?
I agree that a big change has to come from their side, but we have to help them with that. They don’t have a huge number of resources and their economies are managed by governments that are replete with corruption.
I think in the end the Iraq situation will turn out well for the west. The people in that region cannot honestly side with the insurgents who have done nothing but murder people indiscriminately.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘hitting them so fucking hard’. I really hope you mean just the insurgents. It’s of paramount importance that we don’t jeapordize the potential alliance with the general population of these countries.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Who said I was opposed to the war?[/quote]
I guess I stand corrected then.
Find where the terrorists are hiding and keep them on the run - make any nations who are even thinking about terrorists think twice about doing so due to the threat of the use of force. Send the message that they will get slapped for playing ball with Bin Laden al-Zarqawi and others of his ilk.
As long as they are on the run, the better it is for us.
you can only slap so many before u run out of hands.
Here comes the clue train…
The arabic world and the terrorists are not one and the same.
While terrorists, as opposed to the general islamic person, are dangerous in various ways, it isn’t like they have an ability to challenge a country.
China is a threat because they are playing a long term strategic game, while nobody else is. If they don’t end up as a friendly country, instead of an enemy, then the shit will eventually hit the fan.
As for Iran, again, the general populace does not consist of terrorists. I find it hard to understand how terrorism gets equated to various states and populations at some times but not at others.
Make up your minds.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I find it hard to understand…
[/quote]
And it shows.
Heh, typical. Rainjack, you and your cronies often ignore the points people make in favor of making mean spirited little meaningless jabs.
Too bad you (collectively) really have no thoughts of your own…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Heh, typical. Rainjack, you and your cronies often ignore the points people make in favor of making mean spirited little meaningless jabs.
Too bad you (collectively) really have no thoughts of your own…[/quote]
You have written the book on personal attacks. Are you the pot or the kettle?
Hello? Wasn’t there a topic in here other than “I hate vroom”?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know about that. I think one of the major reasons for moving in to Iraq was to have an outpost from which to monitor Iran and be able to more effectively watch, manage, and act if necessary. That and oil. Liberation of the Iraqi people was just a nice bonus if indeed they end up a lot better off than under Saddam.
I agree with this for the most part. Iraq is indeed the most logical country to invade of the three members of the Axis of Evil.
It seems, however, that most people on here are ignorant of the fact that Israel has previously unilaterally attacked Iraq (1981) with surgical bombing runs to destroy Iraqi nuclear capabilities. To think that they won’t repeat the same action Iran is short sighted at best.
Israel will play our game, and sit down and shut up only so long. Then when they feel that their safety is in danger, they will strike with or without the U.S.'s blessing. And I don’t blame them one bit.
[/quote]
I would agree.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Here comes the clue train…
The arabic world and the terrorists are not one and the same.
While terrorists, as opposed to the general islamic person, are dangerous in various ways, it isn’t like they have an ability to challenge a country.
China is a threat because they are playing a long term strategic game, while nobody else is. If they don’t end up as a friendly country, instead of an enemy, then the shit will eventually hit the fan.
As for Iran, again, the general populace does not consist of terrorists. I find it hard to understand how terrorism gets equated to various states and populations at some times but not at others.
Make up your minds.[/quote]
Valid points. However, there is more state-sanctioned (or perhaps ‘state-accepted’ is a better term)terrorism in the Arab World than any other countries that I can think of. And, correspondingly, less condemnation and legitimate efforts to end the activities of terrorist groups
Does anyone here understand cultural relativism?
The fanatics, terrorists, insurgents (insert own name here) are our enemy and we want to wipe them off the map.
The U.S. is said foe’s enemy and they want to wipe us off the map.
They feel the same way you do. Just because you want to wipe them off the map doesn’t give the U.S. the right to do so. If that was the case, we’d be written off right with them.
[quote]Bronto wrote:
Does anyone here understand cultural relativism?
The fanatics, terrorists, insurgents (insert own name here) are our enemy and we want to wipe them off the map.
The U.S. is said foe’s enemy and they want to wipe us off the map.
They feel the same way you do. Just because you want to wipe them off the map doesn’t give the U.S. the right to do so. If that was the case, we’d be written off right with them.[/quote]
Not really. This is hardly cultural relativism the way anthropologists would traditionally understand it. And to the extent that it is, it doesn’t matter. They want to kill innocent people because they despise and disagree with our culture and belief system in the midguided belief that this will change how we live our lives. We want to stop them BECAUSE they want to kill our citizens. We absolutely have the right to do this.
I question whether they care enough about our culture and belief systems to do anything. However, they do care about what they believe the effects that our culture has on them…