NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3725760.stm

woah, thats harsh, she's now a widow

Oh, another wedding party?

If there is some butchering going on, could I get a couple of porterhouse steaks? :mp5:

So a terrorist was getting married and was killed....is there a problem?

So a terrorist was getting married and was killed....is there a problem?

There isn't currently any hard proof that he was a terrorist.

'However, in a statement the US military insisted: "Credible intelligence sources confirmed Zarqawi leaders were meeting at the safe-house at the time of the strike." '
And credible intelligence sources also said there were WMD's...

Oh, another wedding party?

Every time we launch an air strike at a terrorist gathering, it always seems to hit a wedding party. Maybe the ground crews should take the smart bombs off the "wedding party" seeking setting and switch to the "terrorist/bad guy" seeking setting.

NOOO! They've butchered the wedding party? I was gonna vote for them :(

So a terrorist was getting married and was killed....is there a problem?

My God.. and I thought you were only a brainwashed fool.. now it appears you're beyond that..

Bomb a wedding party today, be happy tomorrow...
I shake my head in disbelief at such atrocities, which are in defiance of the international rules of warfare. But it is nothing new. The US decide that dead civilians en masse are acceptable losses if one terrorist dies in a bombing strike.

Bomb a wedding party today, be happy tomorrow...
I shake my head in disbelief at such atrocities, which are in defiance of the international rules of warfare. But it is nothing new. The US decide that dead civilians en masse are acceptable losses if one terrorist dies in a bombing strike.
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic" - Jozef Stalin

Bomb a wedding party today, be happy tomorrow...
I shake my head in disbelief at such atrocities, which are in defiance of the international rules of warfare. But it is nothing new. The US decide that dead civilians en masse are acceptable losses if one terrorist dies in a bombing strike.
So why don't you volunteer to go into Iraq and personally shoot the terrorists, so we don't have to use bombs anymore? Or ask them all very nicely to surrender. Besides, last time we hit a "wedding party" it was just a big cover up.

I don't want to go to Iraq. I have no business there. Neither does the US/UK or any other foreigner who is there to profit from the war.

I don't want to go to Iraq. I have no business there. Neither does the US/UK or any other foreigner who is there to profit from the war.
Seeing as how we're 120 billion in the hole, I don't see how we're profiting.

Seeing as how we're 120 billion in the hole, I don't see how we're profiting.
The country as a whole not (right now). Individuals and corporations, yes.
I think the real profit of this war is territorial gain and cheap oil for the US which will bring back the money spent so far handily.

The country as a whole not (right now). Individuals and corporations, yes.
I think the real profit of this war is territorial gain and cheap oil for the US which will bring back the money spent so far handily.
SOME individuals and SOME corporations

The country as a whole not (right now). Individuals and corporations, yes.
I think the real profit of this war is territorial gain and cheap oil for the US which will bring back the money spent so far handily.
Oil is cheap now. When you consider how amazingly energy-rich, useful, and portable it is, you should feel lucky you can get it for $2 a gallon.

*shrug* I think those who execute foreigners in Iraq do not execute them for their deeds, but for who they are and the message they can send to their respective home countries/populations/families. I've seen the video of Eugene Armstrong being beheaded - a gruesome deed, but they kidnap/behead people of certain nationalities for specific reasons.

Oil is cheap now. When you consider how amazingly energy-rich, useful, and portable it is, you should feel lucky you can get it for $2 a gallon.
Oil costs $51 a barrel currently. The prize has risen sharply throughout the year. However this is due to OPEC being at it's production limit and world oil consumption ever rising (especially in China). Needless wars eating up lots of gasoline do not help this trend either.

Edit: Misspelled :)

Oil costs $51 a gallon currently. The prize has risen sharply throughout the year. However this is due to OPEC being at it's production limit and world oil consumption ever rising (especially in China). Needless wars eating up lots of gasoline do not help this trend either.
HAHAHAHA. Unless you buy a barrel with one gallon of oil, you don't know what you're talking about.

Why attack from the air when you could just as easily send troops into the suspected buildings? What are those soldiers doing there on the ground if the military is still dropping bombs from overhead? This violent campaign needs to come to and end.

Why attack from the air when you could just as easily send troops into the suspected buildings? What are those soldiers doing there on the ground if the military is still dropping bombs from overhead? This violent campaign needs to come to and end.
Airplanes are just surgical artillery. You shell the defenses, send in the marines. Army tactics 101.

So a terrorist was getting married and was killed....is there a problem?

You sir, are an idiot.
Please shoot yourself directly through the temple, across both hemispheres of your brain, minimizing your chance of survival. In any case, if you do survive, you will probably wind up smarter. Perhaps it will jolt a braincell or two into working.
That is all. :)

Oil is cheap now. When you consider how amazingly energy-rich, useful, and portable it is, you should feel lucky you can get it for $2 a gallon.

Not when it was $1.20 before the invasion. I don't see how an eighty cent price spike can backup the argument that we invaded them for cheaper oil.

Lol, butchered a wedding party? How do you butcher something that ain't even alive?

If there is some butchering going on, could I get a couple of porterhouse steaks? :mp5:
This war stuff is humorous to you? Would you feel the same way if it was Americans that had been "butchered"? :(

Not when it was $1.20 before the invasion. I don't see how an eighty cent price spike can backup the argument that we invaded them for cheaper oil.
The contention is that the US invaded for the oil. Not necessarily cheaper oil.

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation

shit man. that is unfortunate. i dont think i can say anything else because i really cant understand the situation fully, and i dont wanna be an ignorant prick. thats sad though.

The contention is that the US invaded for the oil. Not necessarily cheaper oil.

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation
That's a big negatron! Take the spin off, and through a straight ball.
Operation

Iraqi

Freedom

You can't spell oil with an F, so you Flunked!

Bomb a wedding party today, be happy tomorrow...
I shake my head in disbelief at such atrocities, which are in defiance of the international rules of warfare. But it is nothing new. The US decide that dead civilians en masse are acceptable losses if one terrorist dies in a bombing strike.


Funny how a German lectures us about the "rules of warfare".

I understand that people are mad about how much this war has cost and how many American soliders have died since this all started but no one squabbles about how many lives were lost in WWII and no one gets mad about what we spent in that war. How is Saddam and different thatn Hitler?

This war stuff is humorous to you? Would you feel the same way if it was Americans that had been "butchered"? :(

Listen hoser, while I was in the IDF, I had to fight these losers on a regular basis. It has not been proven that it was even a wedding party. Also, these cowards use civilians (willingly or not) as human shields. It is naive of you to think that these jokers should not be hit (so that they can maybe one day blow up a school) so as to spare a few "innocent" civilians.

Silly people like you want to deal with terrorists. The only thing to do is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice. You can't make deals with maniacs, it has never worked, and it never will.

PS-Enjoy your poutine.

This war stuff is humorous to you? Would you feel the same way if it was Americans that had been "butchered"? :(


It is humorous how you peaceniks like to hide your heads in the sand. These radical muslims have wanted our deaths for years, it didn't start with Bush. Do you know what it's like to walk through town, looking over your shoulder for danger every time you go out? How it feels to not be able to go someplace because they don't have armed guards, and metal detectors? How it feels to see pieces of children and babies on the ground? How it feels to be condemned by the world for defending your basic human rights against many nations that want to erase your country from the face of the earth?

It is funny how the press spins this bs of how these people are the victims. They started this battle, we (Israel) want to live in peace, but our existence is a thorn in their side. They brought this upon themselves, and we should return the favor tenfold! :mp5:

How is Saddam and different thatn Hitler?

Oh, boy. Flamebait!

The country as a whole not (right now). Individuals and corporations, yes.
I think the real profit of this war is territorial gain and cheap oil for the US which will bring back the money spent so far handily.

Well according to a representative from factcheck.org it's a real stretch to say that Halliburton is making a profit from this. There goes another conspiracy theory down the drain ;).

edit: it still amazes me that there's such indifference to what's going on in Sudan right now. It's the worst humanitarian disaster in the world

Oh, another wedding party?
The first "wedding party" was a cover for a terrorist meeting. Out of the entire group of attendants, only two were women, and the rest were men of Iraqi millitary age. They were fully equipped with AK's, and repeatedly shot into the air at passing US Aircraft. Doesn't sound like a wedding party to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same thing. American forces won't just randomly blow up a gathering of people just because it looks suspicious. There must be reason behind it, there always must be. Don't believe anything you read that sounds a bit fishy unless you look into it a lot farther. For example, Rense.com. Don't ever believe anything you ever read on that site, it's almost entirely 100% fabricated. That man will write stories about how US Snipers are picking-off children in the streets of Falluja for fun, which is entirely false. He's also anti-semitic and a racist. What I'm saying is, don't believe everything the media says, or you'll get a skewed or possibly entirely false idea of what's really going on.

If the Iraqis were in our postion they would've done the same thing.They couldn't care less if we were terrorist or not.

Bomb a wedding party today, be happy tomorrow...
I shake my head in disbelief at such atrocities, which are in defiance of the international rules of warfare. But it is nothing new. The US decide that dead civilians en masse are acceptable losses if one terrorist dies in a bombing strike.
Seriously, BFD. There is no possibility that everybody there didn't know that there were terrorists with them. You can't win a war without killing a few people. We'd get this one over with a LOT faster if we even began to be "cruel" with them.

If the Iraqis were in our postion they would've done the same thing.They couldn't care less if we were terrorist or not.
Spydudes is entirely correct. They could give a @#$% wether they kill a few of our civilians. If I were in charge, I'd take an eye for an eye, and an eye for a tooth from those people.

Spydudes is entirely correct. They could give a @#$% wether they kill a few of our civilians. If I were in charge, I'd take an eye for an eye, and an eye for a tooth from those people.


Halleluha!!!

I don't want to go to Iraq. I have no business there. Neither does the US/UK or any other foreigner who is there to profit from the war.

dangit! we are profiting OMG dont let it be so!

and were is my share?

and i think we did the wedding party a favor... better to die happy, than to end up with a divorce and she took everything and the dog..

Spydudes is entirely correct. They could give a @#$% wether they kill a few of our civilians. If I were in charge, I'd take an eye for an eye, and an eye for a tooth from those people.
then they have alot of eyes and teeth to pick out of the american forces cause INCLUDING sept 11 victims we have killed 10,000 more of them than they us

then they have alot of eyes and teeth to pick out of the american forces cause INCLUDING sept 11 victims we have killed 10,000 more of them than they us
If you mean the War in Iraq and its consequences have killed 10k more Iraqis than Americans in Sept. 11, yes.

If you mean Americans themselves have killed 10k more Iraqis than Americans on Sept. 11, no.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3725760.stm

What did you expact from those gay US millitary bastards :rolleyes:

If true then this kind of thing is terrible but I don't really see it as a wider dilemma, the deaths of innocents is sadly inevitable, be it in a Iraqi house that gets bombed or at the opening of a sewage works (40 people killed including 35 Iraqi children by Iraqi suicide bombers).

One thing that did annoy me though, was a British news report speaking about an American offensive into an Iraqi area (I forget the place), it stated that "over 50 Iraqis were killed, including one civilian".

I wondered if that meant that the other 49 were militants/terrorists.

Humanitarianism has to be hard sometimes, not deferential and ""peace-loving"" to the point of absurdity.

If you mean the War in Iraq and its consequences have killed 10k more Iraqis than Americans in Sept. 11, yes.

If you mean Americans themselves have killed 10k more Iraqis than Americans on Sept. 11, no.


Nicely put.

The country as a whole not (right now). Individuals and corporations, yes.
I think the real profit of this war is territorial gain and cheap oil for the US which will bring back the money spent so far handily.
Cheap oil, eh? I guess that's why I am paying more for gas now than I was in March 2003?

Oh, another wedding party?
In the immortal words of Donald Rumsfeld, "Bad people have parties too." :rolleyes:

Edited for angry malicious content.

Funny how a German lectures us about the "rules of warfare".


That is very low, you fascist republican asshole, how about the US history and the killing of millions of Native Americans? Wich rules did you use then?
Does anybody blaims you for what your ancesters did?

BTW, the Wehrmacht used the same rules against the allies on the Western front in WWII that were used against them. But yeah, morons like you have a agenda and don't know shit about WWII.

I find it much more horrifying that people are saying "Even if it was a wedding party, they deserved it!"

It's like God was making them, and paused in mid work. "Hmmm...Heart, cold dead stone. Heart, cold dead stone...let's gooooo stone!"

Cheap oil, eh? I guess that's why I am paying more for gas now than I was in March 2003?
Now yes. In the longterm, I am sure Iraq's newfound US buddyship and liberty will serve the US well.

If there is some butchering going on, could I get a couple of porterhouse steaks?

This war stuff is humorous to you? Would you feel the same way if it was Americans that had been "butchered"?

Listen hoser, while I was in the IDF, I had to fight these losers on a regular basis.
I ask you a straight forward question and you launch into a personal attack? If you think cutting Iraqis into “porterhouse steaks” is witty or humourous, then you really do have a problem?

What makes these people “losers” and you a winner?


It has not been proven that it was even a wedding party.
So based on circumstantial evidence, you are willing to condone the death of these people? Should the same set of rules be applied to Israelis?


Also, these cowards use civilians (willingly or not) as human shields. It is naive of you to think that these jokers should not be hit (so that they can maybe one day blow up a school) so as to spare a few "innocent" civilians.
I suppose that Israel has never been condemned for doing exactly the same thing?


Silly people like you want to deal with terrorists. The only thing to do is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice. You can't make deals with maniacs, it has never worked, and it never will.
I guess President Clinton was a “silly” person too? Perhaps you don’t want peace? Perhaps you enjoy killing?

PS-Enjoy your poutine.
I am not French-Canadian, and have never eaten poutine, but thanks anyways.


It is humorous how you peaceniks like to hide your heads in the sand. These radical muslims have wanted our deaths for years, it didn't start with Bush. Do you know what it's like to walk through town, looking over your shoulder for danger every time you go out? How it feels to not be able to go someplace because they don't have armed guards, and metal detectors? How it feels to see pieces of children and babies on the ground? How it feels to be condemned by the world for defending your basic human rights against many nations that want to erase your country from the face of the earth?I suppose that the Palestinians have no “human rights” either, especially when you bulldoze their houses and settlements? Do they not also have the right to a peaceful co-existence?

I guess as long as you want to “exterminate them with extreme prejudice”, then they are going to seek the same fate for you?

It is funny how the press spins this bs of how these people are the victims. They started this battle, we (Israel) want to live in peace, but our existence is a thorn in their side. They brought this upon themselves, and we should return the favor tenfold!The victims are on both sides of the fence?

Who started this is of no consequence. What the world wants to know is who is going to end it, and is it going to be a peaceful resolution or a bloodbath?

I guess as long as you want to “exterminate them with extreme prejudice”, then they are going to seek the same fate for you?

I will end this with a quote I borrowed from another web site:

”The special suffering of the Jews in this century, and throughout history, is real. But it is not a credit card. You don't earn suffering points which can be cashed in for the right to oppress another people.”

Seriously, BFD. There is no possibility that everybody there didn't know that there were terrorists with them. You can't win a war without killing a few people. We'd get this one over with a LOT faster if we even began to be "cruel" with them.

Really now? It'd be over sooner eh? Why don't we ask the Isreali's, they've tried cruelty, and I'm pretty sure they're still at war. No one thinks the Russians are "soft" but Chechans and Afgani's didn't stop fighting. The IRA and the British tried unsavory tactics and still fought for years, Al-queda was as cruel as any and they didn't achive many objectives did they? How about the Apartied South Africa? What about the Warlords in Somalia? What about the Taliban? What about Cambodia? What about Vietnam? What about Japan fighting China? What about German cruelties in WW2? What about Japanese brutality in WW2?

This list could go on forever. I've studied war from every angle I can, every goddam day for years now; Cruelty does not win wars, cannot win wars, and indeed only in the tiny percentage of cases where it has produced more favorable outcomes than unfavorable, they typically cause heavy long-term damage to both the aggressor and the victim.

Quite frankly I'm insulted you even had the nerve to say that; let alone the tone you put it in, in your post. You were flat wrong, every aspect of your statement of false, your tone of writing was twisted and evil, and you persume knowledge far above your station. I would strongly advise anyone who actually thinks that Cruelty can positively effect a war effort to follow this doctrine; Sit down, shut up, and read many books about war from those who've won, those who've lost, both those in the trenches and in the map room. Come back only when you know what the hell you are talking about.

Then, you can give an informed opinion on a delicate subject; not shooting your mouth off to sound tough.

i find it funny that with no evidence that this was a wedding party some are as inclined to believe it as much as some are inclined to believe that it was a safehouse.

the truth is we don't know the truth and probably never will because when the truth is found out the media wont cover it.

I would have thought that the Americans would have learnt the heavy-handed approach doesn't work. In Vietnam, as you bombed the crap out the Vietnamese, you just aided the VC by sending them more recruits. And then you lost (well, it was also partially due to failing popular support, but it still ain't good).

We Brits have also seen how a heavy-handed approach usually comes to nothing. As a result, we now try to win the minds of the people - we were doing quite a good job in Basra, but then it went tits up. I think what we have to do is leave Iraq as soon as possible, or at least give them control of our troops to some degree - what good will it do a sovereign nation if foreign powers just bomb who they want without asking? But we must leave it more stable than it is now - we truly screwed up Afghanistan, we can't do that again.

Niccolo Medici wrote:

"Cruelty does not win wars, cannot win wars"

Hey Niccolo, I'd assume from your name you are familiar with Florentine history and particularly The Prince? An enormous point of that very work is the superiority of fear to love, of the occasional necessity of tyranny and evil not simply for the sake of such, but to achieve the greater and nobler end of stability, strength, and continued sovereignty. Rome was way beyond what would be considered cruel by today's standards, yet I heard they had a tiny bit of military success? Belisarius, Marcus Agrippa, Flavius Aetius, Alaric, Hannibal Barca, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Oda Nobunaga, Ieyasu, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Temuchen, Tamerlane (Timor).....these were not "nice men"; good lord, look at Pisarro and Hernando Cortes. Countless others I could name exist, and a great number never brought ruin to themself or their legacy through such strategy. Fear is insanely effective and detrimental to the psychological fortitude of towns under siege, as a prime example, and siege warfare was far, far more common than open-field battles throughout history, especially the medieval age. Rome had been known to cut off the heads of forces trying to save besieged towns, coat them with sulphur and occasionally poison, and loft them with onagers into the towns. Imagine your grandmother's flaming head coming through the window, blowing your house up, and spreading poison all over. How much longer would you want to hold up? Cruelty for the sake of cruelty is wrong and is guaranteed to backfire, and you are right, has done so, but appropriately timed "judicious application of force" (cruelty) can and has been extremely effective when used properly historically speaking. Good lord, look where it got Atilla with Theodosius II.

Cesare Borgia, Duke Valentino, is perhaps the best example of the incredible effectiveness of such strategy. He handled the Girolamo Savonorola situation perfectly, the Caterina Sforza situation perfectly, his counter-betrayal of Paolo Vitelli and other commanders at Urbino was mastery. His ultimate failure had nothing to do with his policies but rather the untimely demise of his father, Rodrigo Borgia (Pope Alexander), the accession of Giuliano della Rovere (Pope Julius), a friend to the Orsini and staunch enemy of the Borgia clan despite Cesare's incredible annexation of papal territories to the Romagna, as well as Cesare's own, even more untimely near-fatal illness. He was later betrayed by Gonzalo de Cordoba, again not his fault. I can see you like to play the historical intellectual angle, which is cool, but reading a few books and proclaiming omniscience does not make it so, nor automatically qualify a position. Your reference to that guy "speaking above his station" and attempt at insinuating some sort of professorial superiority is not only undermined by your typo-laden writing style, but a lack of support for your opinions besides the fact that you are a regular self-proclaimed Stephen Ambrose :P

You should've named yourself after Lorenzo de Medici btw, "Il Magnifico" is a much cooler figure :P

Dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air are the terrorits tactics of cowards -- it kills far more civilians and rallies more support for the 'enemy' than anything else. It is immoral and can never be justified.

Agreed

I wonder, what is the difference between a patriot and a terrorist? What does the patriot do when his country is occupied?
Guerillas during WW2, fighting against German occupation in France, Norway, etc...Terrorists? Imagine your country occupied, how would you act? As a terrorist or as a patriot? What is the difference? And by the way, can anyone of you literati define a terrorist?

How many innocent people is it justifiable to kill, just to get at one terrorist, or to avenge one terrorist act? 5? 50? 500?

Seeing as how we're 120 billion in the hole, I don't see how we're profiting.

It's a money laundering scheme. Tax-payer money goes over to iraq, gets fed to companies in which Bush's friends own stock (CACI, KBR, Haliburton) and the money comes back to his friends tax free. Why do you think that the second biggest military force in Iraq is mercenaries? The companies that got these no-bid contracts are working for cost+. Meaning that if a truck gets a flat tire the company bills us for the cost of a whole new truck plus a percentage of a truck. We're 120 billion in the hole Bush and his friends are doing just fine. When he gets out of office (god willing) next month he'll be set up in a million dollar a month job as a foot stool tester for one of the companies that he made rich enough to buy Iraq if this whole invasion thing doesn't work.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/few.html

Fitting :)


Or how about this?

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/question.html

It's a money laundering scheme.

You have it 100% correct!

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"
—Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense -- CBS News, January 2002

Kinda reminds me of the missing assets from the Enron and WorldCom scandles... they still haven't been able to track down that money.

Actually, it's exactly like those scandles -- it even involves the same people!





http://solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm

Mistakes are made during war, so if the point of this was to appeal to the masses, saying "Look! See what happens in war!," it should not be a new revelation.

These were not the first innocents to die and they will not be the last.

Niccolo Medici wrote:

"Cruelty does not win wars, cannot win wars"

Hey Niccolo, I'd assume from your name you are familiar with Florentine history and particularly The Prince? An enormous point of that very work is the superiority of fear to love, of the occasional necessity of tyranny and evil not simply for the sake of such, but to achieve the greater and nobler end of stability, strength, and continued sovereignty. Rome was way beyond what would be considered cruel by today's standards, yet I heard they had a tiny bit of military success? Belisarius, Marcus Agrippa, Flavius Aetius, Alaric, Hannibal Barca, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Oda Nobunaga, Ieyasu, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Temuchen, Tamerlane (Timor).....these were not "nice men"; good lord, look at Pisarro and Hernando Cortes. Countless others I could name exist, and a great number never brought ruin to themself or their legacy through such strategy. Fear is insanely effective and detrimental to the psychological fortitude of towns under siege, as a prime example, and siege warfare was far, far more common than open-field battles throughout history, especially the medieval age. Rome had been known to cut off the heads of forces trying to save besieged towns, coat them with sulphur and occasionally poison, and loft them with onagers into the towns. Imagine your grandmother's flaming head coming through the window, blowing your house up, and spreading poison all over. How much longer would you want to hold up? Cruelty for the sake of cruelty is wrong and is guaranteed to backfire, and you are right, has done so, but appropriately timed "judicious application of force" (cruelty) can and has been extremely effective when used properly historically speaking. Good lord, look where it got Atilla with Theodosius II.

I can see you like to play the historical intellectual angle, which is cool, but reading a few books and proclaiming omniscience does not make it so, nor automatically qualify a position. Your reference to that guy "speaking above his station" and attempt at insinuating some sort of professorial superiority is not only undermined by your typo-laden writing style, but a lack of support for your opinions besides the fact that you are a regular self-proclaimed Stephen Ambrose :P

You should've named yourself after Lorenzo de Medici btw, "Il Magnifico" is a much cooler figure :P

**laughs** Ah, perhaps so. Writing such a sloppy rant does tend to weaken one's case. However; I stand behind my positions, I have evidence to back it up, but the rant was long enough as it was without me going into lengthy lists of details.

Forgive the typos, I wrote it at around 4am my time, so I wasn't up to par for a serious debate. Your comments are well-justified, and I will hasten to correct such mistakes in the future.

Yes, "In a choice between love and fear, for a Prince, it is better to be feared." Mind you, it says that when you must choose between the two, it also applies to the theoretical Prince, not to all situations, and that the passage actually deals with one's OWN domain, or those domains which the Prince occupies. That's a lot of caveats to consider, a lot of limitations on the theory that applications of terror on foes is superior to having them love you, and it specifically states that it is better to have both love and fear on one's side.

Alright, you bring up Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi...and you claim they weren't ruined? Oda was assassinated by vassal with ties to a defeated foe whom he treated very poorly, Hideyoshi was paranoid about assassination throughout his small rule, and his heir lasted only long enough to be set aside by Tokugawa. That is not a very persuasive example of setting up a long-term sustainable state.

Conquer your foes, create a successful state. Two very different goals? Rome is perhaps your best example; they were cruel, but they were also magnanimous in victory quite often, granting citizenship and the like (this is of course also covered in the Prince). However they were plagued by uprisings and rebellions, long standing resentments kept Rome divided internally throughout its history.

I agree that within the context of the battle, gains can be won through application of cruelty. You agree that cruelty can backfire if not used wisely. I would love to discuss the application of siege tactics to the issue of the war in Iraq, but it would probably require a separate discussion so we don't get entangled in definitions of grand strategy and theater-specific tactics. Let me know if you're game.

then they have alot of eyes and teeth to pick out of the american forces cause INCLUDING sept 11 victims we have killed 10,000 more of them than they us
Eye for a tooth in-action. >:)

That is very low, you fascist republican asshole, how about the US history and the killing of millions of Native Americans? Wich rules did you use then?
Does anybody blaims you for what your ancesters did?

BTW, the Wehrmacht used the same rules against the allies on the Western front in WWII that were used against them. But yeah, morons like you have a agenda and don't know shit about WWII.
Ooh, you say that like it's a bad thing.. ;)
I could just turn that around and call you a libertarian democrat pantywaste.. But I won't sink that low. :)

That is very low, you fascist republican asshole, how about the US history and the killing of millions of Native Americans? Wich rules did you use then?
Does anybody blaims you for what your ancesters did?

BTW, the Wehrmacht used the same rules against the allies on the Western front in WWII that were used against them. But yeah, morons like you have a agenda and don't know shit about WWII.

Hey if the indians wanted their lands, they should have fought harder.

For you info I know more "shit" about WWII then you'll ever hope to know.
A few million indians killed, can you back that up?
Guess it's easy to say such things over the internet. Big man!

BTW-I am formerly of the Jewish faith so I know a thing or two about the rules of war.

Strange how yanks seem to think this sort of thing is funny. The same people that speak of 9/11 in a hushed whisper...

I ask you a straight forward question and you launch into a personal attack? If you think cutting Iraqis into “porterhouse steaks” is witty or humourous, then you really do have a problem?

What makes these people “losers” and you a winner?


So based on circumstantial evidence, you are willing to condone the death of these people? Should the same set of rules be applied to Israelis?


I suppose that Israel has never been condemned for doing exactly the same thing?


I guess President Clinton was a “silly” person too? Perhaps you don’t want peace? Perhaps you enjoy killing?

I am not French-Canadian, and have never eaten poutine, but thanks anyways.

I suppose that the Palestinians have no “human rights” either, especially when you bulldoze their houses and settlements? Do they not also have the right to a peaceful co-existence?

I guess as long as you want to “exterminate them with extreme prejudice”, then they are going to seek the same fate for you?
The victims are on both sides of the fence?

Who started this is of no consequence. What the world wants to know is who is going to end it, and is it going to be a peaceful resolution or a bloodbath?

I guess as long as you want to “exterminate them with extreme prejudice”, then they are going to seek the same fate for you?

I will end this with a quote I borrowed from another web site:

”The special suffering of the Jews in this century, and throughout history, is real. But it is not a credit card. You don't earn suffering points which can be cashed in for the right to oppress another people.”

Yes you did ask a question, and yes my personal attack was so harsh, here have a kleenex. I made a funny with the steak question, as it said their was a butchering. I was having a cookout.

Terrorists are losers. First the leaders who brainwash the young people who blow themselves up are cowards. Second, they like to target kids. Third, they are the ones who break cease-fire agreements. Real winners, well coming from someone like you that is obvious. I am not a loser as I do not blow up innocent children, nor do I break cease-fires.

When has Israel used human shields to hide cowards? The exact same thing, come on defrost your noodle. Yeah Israeli suicide bombers are always blowing up Palestinian Pizzaria's.

Clinton was a pussy when it came to terrorists. Treating them as criminals instead of the beasts they are. He was quite silly, look as his choice of women on the side. Killing is necessary at times. I have no problem dealing death to those deserving of it.

Well, when sniper fire, rockets, and terrorists come from these houses, what would you do? Pull a Canada and tell them to stop because they are not nice?
The only reason the Israelis do what they have to do is that Palestinian leaders do not want peace. A Palestinian state would be a good idea, but where would you put it? How could you possibly get the Palestinian leaders to agree on this?

Extermination with extreme prejudice is all you can do sometimes. The number one thing should be to exterminate Arafat. He is the cause of all of this crap (as basically the father of modern terrorism).

There isn't currently any hard proof that he was a terrorist.

'However, in a statement the US military insisted: "Credible intelligence sources confirmed Zarqawi leaders were meeting at the safe-house at the time of the strike." '
And credible intelligence sources also said there were WMD's...


lets be fair. Credible sources said that they hadnt found any weapons. Bush and Cheney and Blair made that bit up.

Probably the same as this time...

Its like the sample at the beginning of the 9th track on Lamb of God's new album, this guy going on about how he's killed loads of innocents, but that doesnt matter, he hasnt found a terrorist yet, but they might have been. So who cares.

Its not real, but its got the mentality right.

Bomb a wedding party today, be happy tomorrow...
I shake my head in disbelief at such atrocities, which are in defiance of the international rules of warfare. But it is nothing new. The US decide that dead civilians en masse are acceptable losses if one terrorist dies in a bombing strike.

seeing as you are from Dresden, do you really think that if the United States was willing to kill a mass of civilians to get at a few terrorists that the city of Baghdad, or any other city in Iraq, would still exist?

About a dozen nuclear weapons and Iraq is no longer a problem to anyone, although the radiation would be tough on Iran and Arabia

Think about the level of restraint the US is using, after 9/11, which killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor ultimately led to Dresden and Hiroshima.

Then lecture America about our brutality

seeing as you are from Dresden, do you really think that if the United States was willing to kill a mass of civilians to get at a few terrorists that the city of Baghdad, or any other city in Iraq, would still exist?

About a dozen nuclear weapons and Iraq is no longer a problem to anyone, although the radiation would be tough on Iran and Arabia

Think about the level of restraint the US is using, after 9/11, which killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor and Pearl Harbor ultimately led to Dresden and Hiroshima.

Then lecture America about our brutality


Where are the WMD's kiddo? That's why you went to war (in real because your own oilpits aren't that good anymore and because of making tricky dick and his Halliburton friends richer).

Hell even Hitler was more honoust the the Texan swastika guy.

Then lecture America about our brutality
Yes. Cause it was not the US that supported Saddam when Iran was the big boogy man who needed to be kept busy. And this support didn't lead to massive deaths. IT WAS THE FRENCH!!!!

It's hard for me to be sad about this. I'm sorry, but when it comes to foreign policy, I think objectively.

Hey if the indians wanted their lands, they should have fought harder.

...

BTW-I am formerly of the Jewish faith so I know a thing or two about the rules of war.

1. You are joking, right?
2. Do all those ´formerly of the Jewish faith' know much about the rules of war?
3. What is there to know about the rules of war? The Geneva Convention perhaps?

The United States did not bomb this "wedding party" for no reason. They probably susupected there were terrorists there. Maybe there even were.

But we never should have been in Iraq in the first place. There can never be a war without atrocities on both sides. In World War II, supposedly our most just war, an american unit calling themselves "Roosevelt's butchers" slaughtered any German they captured. And boasted about it. Were we right to enter world war 2? Abosulutely. If there was anybody who needed his ass kicked, it was Hitler.

Which is why, if we must go to war, we had sure as hell better have a HELL of a good reason.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. He did, and would have continued to do, terrible things to his people.

But so do many governments that the United States support.

World War II? Our allies were being devastated, and the Japanese attacked our country. And that's not even mentioning the Jews. Justified? Yes. Korea? A friendly country was attacked by our sworn enemies. Justified? Yes. Vietnam? A country friendly to us (however corrupt) was attacked by our mortal enemies. Justified? Yes. Desert Storm? A country friendly to us was attacked. Justified? yes.

Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? No. Breeding ground for terrorists? No. Justified? Absolutely not.

However.... if i was a general commanding forces in Iraq, you can bet i would have bombed that gathering (whatever it was) if i thought I would be able to take out terrorists and protect my troops.

Atrocities will continue to happen in this war on both sides. Israel has comitted atrocities... but i still support them. War itself is an atrocity. Bush and his all his pro-war cronies should have thought about that. Even if saddam had WMDs, he was not right to enter that country.

But as stupid as we were in going in, now we have to stay. We have a duty to fix the mess we made. And trust me, before its over, (if it is ever over) alot more innocent iraqis will be dead. Yet this is what we have to do.

Killing a wedding party is terrible. So is executing people on television, and flying planes into buildings. We did what we had to do. Sadly. Welcome to war.

Which brings me to the next part... terrorists are not cowards. They are brave, brave men. They do what they believe in. Delibrately targeting children is one of the most terrible acts someone can do... but from there point, they have no choice. If the United States thought it could a WIN a war by bombing children... we sure as hell would. (not that i support that) And the terrorists believe they can gain eternal life in heaven by killing children for Islam. Thats how brainwashed they are... by leaders who believe that bullshit themselves. US citizens should not think that all terrorists are just whackos- there are reasons for everything they do.

Im trying to look at this as objectively as i can.

I support the United States because they are "my team." I live here. I hate terrorists. But if i lived over there, it would be the other way around.

PS. If the indians wanted their lands, they should have FOUGHT HARDER???? Who are you kidding, man? The indians fought with every breath they had left, both diplomatically and militarily. But even if all the tribes that tried to coexist with whites had fought, and even if they had armed every man, woman, and child, those poor dudes who have been massacred.

PPS. Hope i didnt come off sounding too "pro terrorism"

well i agree the war was a mistake, but i think most likely there WERE some WMDS. They probably trucked em over to Iran (yes they hate each other but it wouldn't have to be with Iranian government permission) or Syria. But obviously, there is no way to know.

However, the killing of civilians always has and always will happen. But to say things like "funny, the same credible information said that there were WMDs" is ridiculous. If the military never acted on credible information, then there would be far more military casualities. we can't just stand around with our dicks the sand. we must be proactive against the insurgency there.

The contention is that the US invaded for the oil. Not necessarily cheaper oil.

Operation

Iraqi

Liberation

CH:

Again!

Its Operation Iraqi FREEDOM!!!!!!! O I F

Listen hoser, while I was in the IDF, I had to fight these losers on a regular basis. It has not been proven that it was even a wedding party. Also, these cowards use civilians (willingly or not) as human shields. It is naive of you to think that these jokers should not be hit (so that they can maybe one day blow up a school) so as to spare a few "innocent" civilians.

Silly people like you want to deal with terrorists. The only thing to do is to exterminate them with extreme prejudice. You can't make deals with maniacs, it has never worked, and it never will.

PS-Enjoy your poutine.

And hide in Mosques, Schools, hospitols and the world gets mad when we hit these places that we're getting shot at from even though under the Articals of War, are legal Targets.

Just goes to show that "surgical strikes" are an oxymoron. The only true surgical strike is a guy with a sniper rifle. We should resurrect the CIA assasin guys.

That is very low, you fascist republican asshole, how about the US history and the killing of millions of Native Americans? Wich rules did you use then?
Does anybody blaims you for what your ancesters did?

Could say the samething about the British, the Spaniards, the Portugese, the Germans, the Dutch or have the world forgotten about the European colonies in Africa?

BTW, the Wehrmacht used the same rules against the allies on the Western front in WWII that were used against them. But yeah, morons like you have a agenda and don't know shit about WWII.

I know alot of WWII! Your right about that but they didn't on the Eastern Front. They tried to follow the rules of war with American, British, and allied forces but DID NOT with their USSR Prisoners.

Sorry, but...

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: WHY THE FRICK ARE OUR TROOPS STILL IN IRAQ!? ISN'T IT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!? Dammit..... :confused:

Sorry, but...

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: WHY THE FRICK ARE OUR TROOPS STILL IN IRAQ!? ISN'T IT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!? Dammit..... :confused:

no, it is not mission accomplished. you would actually trust bush when he says that? :rolleyes:

Sorry, but...

:mp5: :sniper: :gundge: WHY THE FRICK ARE OUR TROOPS STILL IN IRAQ!? ISN'T IT MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!? Dammit..... :confused:

Mission was accomplished.

Now we're in the rebuilding phase of the operation.

Nobody said that this phase would be easy.

I wonder, what is the difference between a patriot and a terrorist? What does the patriot do when his country is occupied?
Guerillas during WW2, fighting against German occupation in France, Norway, etc...Terrorists? Imagine your country occupied, how would you act? As a terrorist or as a patriot? What is the difference? And by the way, can anyone of you literati define a terrorist?

Funny your brought that up! Hitting civilians on purpose is terrorist but hitting military targets is not. If you kill civilians intentionally, your a terrorist, if you dont and harm military personel and civilians on accident, your not.

How many innocent people is it justifiable to kill, just to get at one terrorist, or to avenge one terrorist act? 5? 50? 500?

Could say the same of WWII!

Where are the WMD's kiddo? That's why you went to war (in real because your own oilpits aren't that good anymore and because of making tricky dick and his Halliburton friends richer).

Hell even Hitler was more honoust the the Texan swastika guy.

In Syria or didn't you know of the massive amounts of truck convoys into Syria?

So much for precision and good intelligence. Wrong at war in wrong place at wrong time, with no exit strategy. I think the Better Bush (H.W. was better than t3h Shrubzzor) would agree- this whole op has been stupid. If you can't get out, don't go in- otherwise you'll be "precision striking" left and right, with several thousand troops out and quite a bit of money burned before you finally make a disorderly retreat. And those actions breed unpopularity. Which results in more extremists trying to bomb you. After which you go in and try to take over their country. Repeat.

Not when it was $1.20 before the invasion. I don't see how an eighty cent price spike can backup the argument that we invaded them for cheaper oil.

Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn he was being sarcastic

In RL (real life), as an rich upper class American who served 8 years in our military (through the "Gulf War I", "Panamanian Thingy", and "Destruction of the Evil Empire Which Was Grenada"), I can honestly state:

We are dumb. Americans, in general. it is our unique & flavorful contribution to the tainted soup that is "civilized humanity" to be as naive, "back & white", UNcultured, ruthless, giving, caring, religious, apathetic, greedy, saintly, & bloodthirsty as possible at any given turn in human events.

Why?

We are a country founded on 2 basic bedrocks, 2 basic cultures, neither of which have ever, or will ever, mesh at all. We now possess "Culture 3.), discussed below:

Culture 1.) (came out of) Massachussetts Bay Colony:
(Plymouth, Providence, Boston - North Church)
Founded by religio-freaks out of England, Scotland, Ireland booted from the Old World. All about burning, killing, and ENDING anyone not about - Puritanism. Strangely, also the best-educated, most intellectually tolerant of those white-folk who landed in what is today the U.S. 1640-2005. A curiously schizoid breed.

Culture 2.) (came out of) White Trash south of the Mason-Dixon Line:
The Virginia Culture: (Jamestown, Roanoke Island, Sir Walter Raleigh, Nathaniel Bacon, etc. etc.)
Founded by many greedy bastards out of England, Ireland, Scotland, and the rest of the white English (somewhat) speaking Western Europe, out to make as many $$$$ for their own benefit as quickly as possible. Would shamelessly use religious beliefs to their advantage if it enhanced PROFIT (not 'prophet'). (See "Slavery", p. 183, or "American Indian treaties made w/US govt. & broken 5mins later by same greedy arseholes", p. 376)

Culture 3.) (today) Deeply Schizoid.

This has been American Culture 101, brought to you by "The Ghost of FDR".

Some Americans (myself among) detest our actions, as a country, in Iraq. On the other hand, I don't see a better solution to "911", or an American leader with the testicular fortitude to put forward a better path for the American People or the World to embrace. The movie "Clerks" summed up my feelings best with the quote-

"I love parties. I hate people. Ironic, isn't it?"

We are, America, in "UBER-Kapital-Letters" I mean, deeply schizophrenic in our relations to all that outside our borders. Always have been, and I'm sincerely hoping always won't be.

That's my 2cent bottle-top deposit :)

-Rooseveltium

NOOO! They've butchered the wedding party? I was gonna vote for them :(

I know! Where will Iraqi politics be without the wedding party?

Oh well, lets look into the Birthday party.

The country as a whole not (right now). Individuals and corporations, yes.
I think the real profit of this war is territorial gain and cheap oil for the US which will bring back the money spent so far handily.
Umm...what territory will we be gaining, exactly?

You know, there would be a sharp decline in "oops" killings of "wedding parties" if the arabs would learn that it's not smart to shoot off a bunch of AKs to celebrate in a war zone.

As for why we use aircraft instead of just sending in soldiers...well, it's because we value life. Our lives, not theirs. It's smarter, safer, and easier to bomb the fuck out of something and then go in and mop up with infantry.

What's the big moral deal? Some people need killin' And, just FYI, I'm in the Air Force, so don't tell me to "enlist and go over there then if you think that way" :sniper:

geez. another one?

there was one before the summer where they killed the bride and groom as well as half the family members on both sides. apparantly they concentrated their attacks on the building where the women and children were sleeping in the other one...

There isn't currently any hard proof that he was a terrorist.
And there is hard proof that it was a "wedding party"? I seem to recall at least one such "wedding party" that was proven to be fake in Afghanistan.