THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Foxfyre wrote:

I would have no problem with leveling Fallujah if it would end the war. It was such extreme measures in WWII that produced a white flag from the Japanese and ended the worst of WWII hostilities to the enormous benefit of their country and ours.

I think it would only make the situation worse. I have no idea what you mean by "if it would end the war". Do you mean that if you had a crystal ball you could take a position?

Japan was an entirely different situation. You had a population firmly behind the Hiro Hito. We only had to convince him.

In Iraq we are supposedly trying to "win the hearts and minds and spread freedom". There is no leadership to surrender.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You know what Au? I am simply not concerned about the feelings of the insurgents. For centuries people have avoided antagonizing bullies in hopes the bullies wouldn't hurt them. Well the bullies hurt us, and I'm no longer in favor of placating them on the very thin theory that if we just back off, they'll stop being bullies.

This last post sounds like an argument to justify acts of terror against the United States.

Foxfyre and Bin Ladin are sounding awfully alike these days.

Whose side are you on again?

0 Replies

Foxfyre
Who is talking about the feelings of the insurgents. It is the people we came to "liberate" I speak of. The more infrastructure we destroy and people we kill the greater the opposition of the Iraqi population we promote and encounter. We need them with not against us.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You know what Au? I am simply not concerned about the feelings of the insurgents. For centuries people have avoided antagonizing bullies in hopes the bullies wouldn't hurt them. Well the bullies hurt us, and I'm no longer in favor of placating them on the very thin theory that if we just back off, they'll stop being bullies.

This last post sounds like an argument to justify acts of terror against the United States.

Foxfyre and Bin Ladin are sounding awfully alike these days.

Whose side are you on again?

Explain how "acts of terror" against the US would be justified? Confused

0 Replies

ebrown's post was pretty clear on who's side he's on I think, and it isn't ours.

0 Replies

Quote:

For centuries people have avoided antagonizing bullies in hopes the bullies wouldn't hurt them. Well the bullies hurt us, and I'm no longer in favor of placating them on the very thin theory that if we just back off, they'll stop being bullies.

This is basically what Bin Ladin is saying to gain support for his terrorism.

The question you are not answering is this... are brutal, violent attacks that kill civilians justified by how evil you think your enemy is?

I am strongly opposed to this type of violence in any circumstance.

I reject wholeheartedly the rhetoric of Bin Ladin, Bush and Foxfyre.

I am not on an any of your "sides".

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
You know what Au? I am simply not concerned about the feelings of the insurgents. For centuries people have avoided antagonizing bullies in hopes the bullies wouldn't hurt them. Well the bullies hurt us, and I'm no longer in favor of placating them on the very thin theory that if we just back off, they'll stop being bullies.

This last post sounds like an argument to justify acts of terror against the United States.

Foxfyre and Bin Ladin are sounding awfully alike these days.

Whose side are you on again?

Explain how "acts of terror" against the US would be justified?

Foxfyre wrote:

For centuries people have avoided antagonizing bullies in hopes the bullies wouldn't hurt them. Well the bullies hurt us, and I'm no longer in favor of placating them on the very thin theory that if we just back off, they'll stop being bullies.

0 Replies

Okay I'll accept that you guys would have left the torture chambers and rape rooms in Iraq intact and would have left Jews at Auschwitz and declare it immoral to fight war in any place at any time if there is any chance that civilians may be killed. Never mind how many are being killed without war.

You make me so ever much more glad that Bush won the election however. Smile

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Quote:

For centuries people have avoided antagonizing bullies in hopes the bullies wouldn't hurt them. Well the bullies hurt us, and I'm no longer in favor of placating them on the very thin theory that if we just back off, they'll stop being bullies.

This is basically what Bin Ladin is saying to gain support for his terrorism.

The question you are not answering is this... are brutal, violent attacks that kill civilians justified by how evil you think your enemy is?

I am strongly opposed to this type of violence in any circumstance.

I reject wholeheartedly the rhetoric of Bin Ladin, Bush and Foxfyre.

I am not on an any of your "sides".

Don't try and grey the distinction between violence aimed at an armed enemy, and violence aimed at innocent civilians. That is the essential difference between war and terrorism. Civilians might die in the former; civilians certainly will die in the latter, because that is its goal.

The US military is not targeting civilians. The insurgency in Iraq has purposefully placed itself in highly populated areas. They do that no doubt for purposes of self-preservation, but they also know the US will not normally level a residential neighborhood. Fallujah is out of control, and should have been dealt with long ago. Warnings have been given, the civilians should get the hell out, leaving the enemy. If the civilians don't get out, maybe they aren't "civilians" after all.

0 Replies

Fox Exaggerates:

Quote:

Okay I'll accept that you guys would have left the torture chambers and rape rooms in Iraq intact and would have left Jews at Auschwitz and declare it immoral to fight war in any place at any time if there is any chance that civilians may be killed. Never mind how many are being killed without war.

Appealing to extremes is a logical fallacy. But I'm sure you knew that already, didn't you, Fox?

Quote:

As far as Fallujah goes, I agree with Michael Savage that we should level a mosque used as a military command or strike post and we shouldn't be reluctant to level a neighborhood harboring the enemy. But if you have listened to Michael Savage, you know he advocates ordering the civilians out before leveling it.

I don't believe that you believe the Iraqis are real people. Because if you actually did, you wouldn't go around saying things like this and pretending to be a supporter for freedom and justice at the same time.

We are not going to win a war against the people of Iraq through violence. Period. You have to realize that a good percentage of the people we are fighting are the citizens of the country we were supposed to be helping. What do you want to do, kill them all? Level thousand-year old cities because the boys inside them won't play nice? Jesus, you DO sound more and more like Bin Laden every day....

The fanatics in America are legitimizing the fanatics in the middle east, do you realize this?

The rest of us are just caught in the middle...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay I'll accept that you guys would have left the torture chambers and rape rooms in Iraq intact and would have left Jews at Auschwitz and declare it immoral to fight war in any place at any time if there is any chance that civilians may be killed. Never mind how many are being killed without war.

You make me so ever much more glad that Bush won the election however.

Your comprehension problem is showing again. We were discussing IRAQ, not Germany. NOone said not any place at any time. We are discussing the very ill advised decision to invade IRAQ with no plan for winning the peace. Faith that we would be greeted with rose petals does not cut it for leadership. The generals knew better, but when they spoke up, they were dismissed.

0 Replies

They didn't distinguish Mesquite. It's wrong to kill civilians for any reason is the gist I got.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

When the blood bath for Fallujah, al Ramadi, al Qaim, and Latifya is over, do you think the situation will be improved or worsened? Note that is a very clear, black and white type question for those of you with black and white mental processes.

0 Replies

IF the bleeding heart liberals in the U.S. are unable to make it too politically incorrect, IF congress and the people stand behind the President with a mandate to end this honorably, expediently, and successfully, then yes, I think we will see a free and prosperous Iraq and I think we'll see that accomplished with far fewer innocent lives than are paid to win the huge majority of free and prosperous democracies.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

IF the bleeding heart liberals in the U.S. are unable to make it too politically incorrect, IF congress and the people stand behind the President with a mandate to end this honorably, expediently, and successfully, then yes, I think we will see a free and prosperous Iraq and I think we'll see that accomplished with far fewer innocent lives than are paid to win the huge majority of free and prosperous democracies.

If a frog had wings, he would not bump his ass along the ground.

My question had to do with the coming bloodbath for Fallujah, al Ramadi, al Qaim, and Latifya. Do you think it will improve or worsen the situation we find ourselves in. Just your opinion please.

0 Replies

Yes Mesquite, IF the factors in my previous post are implemented.

0 Replies

Scroll

0 Replies

Don't try to grey that catastrophic result of US actions in Iraq and the disaster that is about to take place in Fallujah.

Civilians will die (not might) and civilians are dying.

What about the civilians who are opposed to the US attack on their city. What should they do? They should abandon their homes because the US military is threatening to kill them?

I heard an interview with Fallawi this morning basically saying as much.... "if you don't turn over the insurgents and leave the city, you will be killed".

The most tragic thing is that the inhabitants of Fallujah are paying this terrible price for the most trivial of reasons. Bush needs his "elections" to take place so he can further his mythic vision of neo-con righteousness.

"If the civilians don't get out, maybe they aren't civilians after all..." If the inhabitants of Fallujah we are supposed to be "liberating" don't want us there... what the hell are we doing there?

Maybe if we kill enough of their children, they will see things our way.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Don't try to grey that catastrophic result of US actions in Iraq and the disaster that is about to take place in Fallujah.

Civilians will die (not might) and civilians are dying.

What about the civilians who are opposed to the US attack on their city. What should they do? They should abandon their homes because the US military is threatening to kill them?

If they are wise. Otherwise, they do have the alternative of turning in Zarqawi, but they have tellingly declined that opportunity.

0 Replies

Aren't these the people we are supposed to be liberating?

"Surrender or Die so we can give you freedom". Now I get it.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know