Thread: The 'Veil'

Misguided? More like going to any length to get someone's troops out of their region. The difference is that Western societies don't have the stomach for bloodshed (which is why Western armies are destined to fail time and time again in regions of the world where they are neither welcome or fail to win the hearts of the people that are supposedly being liberated).

If they want democracy they should earn it like every other nation has. Giving them something they don't want is a waste of resources, time, and people's lives. It's no more effective than my sticking a gun at your head and forcing you to eat something I happen to like. At the rate we're going we'd have been better off with another WTC terrorist attack versus the 3000+ lives we've given up in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

Originally Posted by surasak

The underlying characteristic is the same: put your life forward for a cause.

Isn't that the reason why people join the military? "To die for your country." Dying for a cause isn't that much different is it?...

Not the same. A soldier will give up his life, but, he hopes that that situation will never happen.
A suicide bomber knows he will die.

Exactly - a suicide bomber blows himself up. He doesn't rely on the "enemy" killing him or hope that he'll survive this "attack".

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

...
PS. I'm pissed.

And yet, still make more sense than most.

Originally Posted by surasak

Misguided? More like going to any length to get someone's troops out of their region. The difference is that Western societies don't have the stomach for bloodshed (which is why Western armies are destined to fail time and time again in regions of the world where they are neither welcome or fail to win the hearts of the people that are supposedly being liberated).

If they want democracy they should earn it like every other nation has. Giving them something they don't want is a waste of resources, time, and people's lives. It's no more effective than my sticking a gun at your head and forcing you to eat something I happen to like. At the rate we're going we'd have been better off with another WTC terrorist attack versus the 3000+ lives we've given up in Iraq.

I actually agree with a lot of this. So what do we - the West - lose if we let them "sort it out" amongst themselves?

As I've said many times it's not our responsibility to sort it out for them. Problems of the world require cooperation.

It's interesting the Western mentality sometimes: interfere in other nations' internal affairs, criticize them about human rights, yet ignore those right in our own borders who are poor, destitute, lack health care, and unable to enjoy the same freedom many of us.

I was in Dubai the other day and I saw these half-vailed old women with what looked like metal face guards over their nose and above their mouths..... WTF is that all about?

[quote=RDN;201685]

Originally Posted by surasak

So what do we - the West - lose if we let them "sort it out" amongst themselves?

Oil. Lots of oil.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

The strategic objective on both sides was to break the will of the opposing forces to fight

And this is exactly what terrorism hopes to accomplish, which makes it no different than total war, just the methods being different. It's the poor man nuclear bomb.

Wars are silly. Anything goes. It's the legalization of murders. Any murders. Suicide bombing is one example of a successful strategy. It's as legitimate as bombing civilians from a hi-tech bomber

Your are almost lucid enough for me to agree with you.
Except for the fact that a "hi-tech" bomber doesn't specifically target civilians for maximum media impact.
The USA systematically pull their shot's to avoid killing civilians.

It's a pretty cool technology we have. Even our city busters have that capability. You know, so that we can intentionally kill only soldiers. Missiles and bombs that avoid all civilians. Classic.

If the U.S. wanted to avoid civilians the military would go in and move them out prior to bombing.

Originally Posted by surasak

It's a pretty cool technology we have. Even our city busters have that capability. You know, so that we can intentionally kill only soldiers. Missiles and bombs that avoid all civilians. Classic.

If the U.S. wanted to avoid civilians the military would go in and move them out prior to bombing.

Have your ever seen americans intentionally target crowded markets or other places where civilians congregate?
Your terrorist apologist tendencies are nauseating.

^ yes.

The carpet bombing of Hanoi wasn't exactly precision stuff but more often than not the Americans have the sense - or money - to use proxies to carry out murder for them. American funded governments, militias and death squads, acting on direct orders from Washington, have the blood of millions and millions on their hands.

Originally Posted by Gerontion

The carpet bombing of Hanoi wasn't exactly precision stuff but more often than not the Americans have the sense - or money - to use proxies to carry out murder for them. American funded governments, militias and death squads, acting on direct orders from Washington, have the blood of millions and millions on their hands.

We aren't discussing 30 year old history. Try to stay on topic if your intellect
allows it.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's called sectarian violence which is pretty normal in such times. Iraqis are divided thus a sectarian violence, thanks to the Bush administration.

I don't think the sectarian killing is the Bush administration's fault.

I think it's the fault of the people that are doing the killing.

Muslims, and the Islamic world are responsible for almost all (but not 100% all) of their own problems.

I believe most of this is because they follow the Islamic religion.

Come on Snaff. Was there any sectarian thing going on in Iraq before the American invasion?

Uday Hussein had no military role in Saddam's regime so was, by definition, a civilian. He was killed by the US in a targeted attack. Sometimes civilians are targeted by both terrorists and the legal enactors of political violence: soveriegn states.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

We aren't discussing 30 year old history. Try to stay on topic if your intellect allows it.

Why mistake. My intellect is obviously so limited that I failed to understand that "ever" doesn't mean, as all us stupid English speakers think, at any previous point in time but in fact means somewhat less than 30 years. Out of interest, just how long is "ever"?

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Uday Hussein had no military role in Saddam's regime so was, by definition, a civilian. He was killed by the US in a targeted attack. Sometimes civilians are targeted by both terrorists and the legal enactors of political violence: soveriegn states.

That's right. Poor old Uday Hussein was a poor innocent victim.

Originally Posted by surasak

It's a pretty cool technology we have. Even our city busters have that capability. You know, so that we can intentionally kill only soldiers. Missiles and bombs that avoid all civilians. Classic.

If the U.S. wanted to avoid civilians the military would go in and move them out prior to bombing.

It is not the responsibility of the U. S. Army or the government to do anything about civilians, women, children, etc that belong to the other side. No we should not target them, however, it is the enemies responsibility to provide safe haven for it's civilians, women and children. You know bomb shelters, things like that. Hell man, if they don't care about there own, why should we - BOMBS AWAY!

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by mad_dog

Uday Hussein had no military role in Saddam's regime so was, by definition, a civilian. He was killed by the US in a targeted attack. Sometimes civilians are targeted by both terrorists and the legal enactors of political violence: soveriegn states.

That's right. Poor old Uday Hussein was a poor innocent victim.

I'm not saying that Earl I am saying he was a civilian. He may have been a rotten old soul but that isn't justification to kill him if he was a civilian. Right???

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Originally Posted by surasak

It's a pretty cool technology we have. Even our city busters have that capability. You know, so that we can intentionally kill only soldiers. Missiles and bombs that avoid all civilians. Classic.

If the U.S. wanted to avoid civilians the military would go in and move them out prior to bombing.

Have your ever seen americans intentionally target crowded markets or other places where civilians congregate?
Your terrorist apologist tendencies are nauseating.

Yes.

Weren't we discussing "the veil".

Did you know that veil can be rearranged to spell 'evil?'

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

The USA systematically pull their shot's to avoid killing civilians.

Wrong. Again. When you bombed Baghdad in that "shock and awe" campaign, you were definitely targetting civilians,

Originally Posted by ceburat

Hell man, if they don't care about there own, why should we - BOMBS AWAY!

God, I just love those compassionate Christians. They must have been something really different under the Inquisition.