Winstonm Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 News item from 30 July 2006: BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. plane launched an airstrike Sunday against a building used by al-Qaida in Iraq, killing two militants, the U.S. military said. A car bomb exploded near the U.S. consulate in Kirkuk, killing two Iraqis and wounding seven others, Iraqi police said. There you have it in a nutshell - why the war cannot be won. The U.S. sends out a billion dollar airplane loaded with millions of dollars of weapons and manages to kill two - count them two - of the enemy. Meanwhile, the enemy sends out a 1970 VW bug worth about twelve dollars, loaded with a few hundred dollars of explosives and matches the U.S. death count and gets on top of that a bonus of 7 wounded. It's simple - the Iraqui economy is too strong and will overwhelm the American's ability to finance the war. The U.S. will go the same road as the U.S.S.R., trying to match firepower with firepower. Is there no hope? Yes, there is one chance. The U.S. should hire the mafia to wage war on Iraq. The answer is clear: the mafia understands "whacks" where apparently the U.S. Army does not. The mafia knows that if you want two guys to permanently disappear, you don't send a billion dollars in hardware to do the job - no, all you have to do is pay some gorilla 5 grand and point the way - then let the guy know you have hired another gorilla to take care of him in case he didn't get the job done. 10K gets the same results as a billion. Sure, 10K is a lot more than the $324 spent by Al-quida, but the U.S. can afford this kind of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 even cheaper option, pull out all together and let them wipe themselves out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 even cheaper option, pull out all together and let them wipe themselves out You do realize that whatever they are fighting over...the fight will end up in London and not stop at the Mideast borders? The Times had an article saying in 10-20 years sections of London will be under Islamic law not English Common Law. The editors later pulled the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rona_ Posted July 30, 2006 Report Share Posted July 30, 2006 Just a suggestion, but maybe you guys should just stick to playing bridge? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted July 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Just a suggestion, but maybe you guys should just stick to playing bridge? :)Yeah, well, we're not very good at that, either. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Because in a war, no one wins, people just die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 IF no one wins in war, this just seems another argument for appeasement or peace at all costs. Do you really think Peace at all costs is the way to go? Do you not think the world would be even worse without the Revolutionary War, Civil War, or WWII just to name a few? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 "Peace at all costs" is excactly what the US is aiming at. Spending billions of bugs in a desperate attempt to restore peace. The alternative is Wayne's solution: just withdraw and let the idiots kill eachother. Less idealistic, but cheaper and (IMHO) more realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Such a sad commentary on the human condition (whether appropriate or not). Sunnis and Shia fight not because one likes Mohammed's cousin more than his son, but because the "leaders" (much like western leaders too) tell us that we are right and they are wrong and we need to establish our supremacy to validate our position. What is required is intelligence, rationality and common sense. Unfortunately all of these are in short supply and anything but common.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Just a suggestion, but maybe you guys should just stick to playing bridge? :blink:Yeah, well, we're not very good at that, either. :blink: yeah, what he said there's a 3rd alternative... when committing troops to battle, do battle... when fighting a war, fight a war... the u.s. army is not suited to perform policing duties, but they are very very good at killing people and destroying things if you're gonna fight a war, well then FIGHT the damn thing... iow, treat every battle in which american troops are utilized as if it was the battle of the bulge, or gettysburg, or normandy.... fight to win and write the history later... it must be the morally right thing to do, since might makes right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 The problem with you approach, Jimmy, is that there is no enemy army to fight against. Do you really mean that the U.S. troops are not good at policing? Well, the maybe the U.S. government should have thought twice before they concured Iraq and thereby contracted for the task of policing the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 The key to understanding Iraq.....can you say "Haliburton"? Or the billions being spent on "private" security forces? Once again the power brokers and their political puppets galivant across the globe war-mongering and making money at the risk and peril of innocents as well as the guilty. For millennia, tribal factions and religious sects have been fighting, its just that nobody except some gun-runners made any money from it. The military-industrial complex is now exploiting these situations and maximizing profit for shareholders like any good corporate entity. Wake up! Refuse to buy into the jingoistic prattle. Resist and reform! Tell your elected representatives and everyone else that killing and destruction are bad and if they support it you will no longer support them. They are the enemy, not the women and children of Lebanon or Baghdad who are being mutilated and killed. Love thy neighbour. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 The problem with you approach, Jimmy, is that there is no enemy army to fight against. Do you really mean that the U.S. troops are not good at policing? they are lousy at policing... *police* are good at policing, soldiers are good at blowing things up... that's why i agree with you about iraq... if you're gonna use force, use force let's look at what's happening in lebanon, but first an analogy... imagine there's a guy i can't stand, and while walking down the street, arm in arm with my wife, i see him approach... i quickly pull my wife in front of me, reach over her shoulder, and stick my fingers in his eyes... hezbollah hides missles in residential neighborhoods, in the homes of families, they launch from those areas... they hide behind women and children *hoping* for retaliation that kills "innocents" ... the same thing is going on in iraq... the terrorists (called 'insurrgents' by the more politically evolved) operate from neighborhoods and houses that contain women and children, then they dare anyone to retaliate when attacked... dresden, berlin, london, all bombed because a war was waging... civilians were killed by the thousands, but place the blame where it rightly goes - on the ones who start the conflict and then expect those who support them to be safe... if you know where the enemy is, and if you are at war with this enemy, then attack... civilians are *not* the target, but neither are they shields... if a group uses them as shields, nobody should be surprised when they become accidental targets... so yes, there is an enemy to fight... we know who they are, we just don't have the will to wage war... Love thy neighbour. Do unto others as you would have them do unto youtheocracy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 in essence what is going on in Iraq happens every day in the USA....look at the ghettos in US big city towns, US Police forces cant control them...so how could the Army be expected to do the same in Iraq. I am sure that since 911 many more times people have been killed in the US by guns than what happened on 911...Bush politics wants us to be afraid of the terrorists when we should really be afraid of ourselves and especially him(bush)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 in essence what is going on in Iraq happens every day in the USA....look at the ghettos in US big city towns, US Police forces cant control them...so how could the Army be expected to do the same in Iraq. I am sure that since 911 many more times people have been killed in the US by guns than what happened on 911...Bush politics wants us to be afraid of the terrorists when we should really be afraid of ourselves and especially him(bush)! I knew it was ourselves at fault. This clears up alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 News item from 30 July 2006: BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. plane launched an airstrike Sunday against a building used by al-Qaida in Iraq, killing two militants, the U.S. military said. A car bomb exploded near the U.S. consulate in Kirkuk, killing two Iraqis and wounding seven others, Iraqi police said. There you have it in a nutshell - why the war cannot be won. The U.S. sends out a billion dollar airplane loaded with millions of dollars of weapons and manages to kill two - count them two - of the enemy. Meanwhile, the enemy sends out a 1970 VW bug worth about twelve dollars, loaded with a few hundred dollars of explosives and matches the U.S. death count and gets on top of that a bonus of 7 wounded. It's simple - the Iraqui economy is too strong and will overwhelm the American's ability to finance the war. The U.S. will go the same road as the U.S.S.R., trying to match firepower with firepower. Is there no hope? Yes, there is one chance. The U.S. should hire the mafia to wage war on Iraq. The answer is clear: the mafia understands "whacks" where apparently the U.S. Army does not. The mafia knows that if you want two guys to permanently disappear, you don't send a billion dollars in hardware to do the job - no, all you have to do is pay some gorilla 5 grand and point the way - then let the guy know you have hired another gorilla to take care of him in case he didn't get the job done. 10K gets the same results as a billion. Sure, 10K is a lot more than the $324 spent by Al-quida, but the U.S. can afford this kind of war. Or, go and purchase 20 economy class tickets on coast to coast flights and crash em into large buildings. Even a better ROI than the VW Bug. Iraq is the modern Vietnam. Its too bad we have lost all of our credibility. Fortunately Iran has quieted down, and I have heard anything from N. Korea lately. Not saying "NO" to Israel and bombing Lebanon is another misstep. Hillary isn't the answer, but W isn't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 hezbollah hides missles in residential neighborhoods, in the homes of families, they launch from those areas... they hide behind women and children *hoping* for retaliation that kills "innocents" ... the same thing is going on in iraq... the terrorists (called 'insurrgents' by the more politically evolved) operate from neighborhoods and houses that contain women and children, then they dare anyone to retaliate when attacked... Love thy neighbour. Do unto others as you would have them do unto youtheocracy? Hmmmmn, were not the original "Minute Men" patriots and heroes? Weren't they hiding in residential areas and fighting a "geurrila" style war against a "mighty" opponent? Eventually the victor determines the heroes. No amount of washing, however, can remove the bloodstains from the tapestry of history. Not a theocracy, just humanity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 Hmmmmn, were not the original "Minute Men" patriots and heroes? Weren't they hiding in residential areas and fighting a "geurrila" style war against a "mighty" opponent? yes they were, and yes they did... and yes, the british waged war the way it should be waged (assuming one is in a war)... they lost the war, but it wasn't because they were attempting 'surgical strikes' or avoiding military targets hiding behind women and children... my point is, if you're gonna lose a war then lose a *war* Eventually the victor determines the heroes.yes, and writes the history and decides morality... might makes right, after all No amount of washing, however, can remove the bloodstains from the tapestry of history. Not a theocracy, just humanityactually, no... humanity can be defined by the portrait it paints with blood... to expect more is to be deluded... even when zefram cochrane, who is due to be born in 20 years or so, finally invents the warp engine i doubt it will have any effect on humanity's bloodthirstiness... we'll just expand the boundaries... heads up, klingons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 there's a 3rd alternative... when committing troops to battle, do battle... when fighting a war, fight a war... the u.s. army is not suited to perform policing duties, but they are very very good at killing people and destroying things if you're gonna fight a war, well then FIGHT the damn thing... iow, treat every battle in which american troops are utilized as if it was the battle of the bulge, or gettysburg, or normandy.... fight to win and write the history later... it must be the morally right thing to do, since might makes right There are a few key points missing in your lastest little bloodthirsty tirade... Most notably, just who should the US be killing? I agree with you. the US army is very good at killing people and destroying things. However, this doesn't do much good unless one knows just who one is supposed to be killing... Indeed, some people would argue that taking actions that lead to the death of 100,000 odd Iraqis in response to the actions of a bunch of Saudi suicide bombers suggests that we aren't particular good at choosing targets. In all serious, names and addresses would be very useful... All this discussion about total war and might makes right almost looks like a justification for fairly haphazard genocide. Guess I don't have a good understanding of this whole "Prince of Peace" / turn the other cheek notion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted July 31, 2006 Report Share Posted July 31, 2006 there's a 3rd alternative... when committing troops to battle, do battle... when fighting a war, fight a war... the u.s. army is not suited to perform policing duties, but they are very very good at killing people and destroying things if you're gonna fight a war, well then FIGHT the damn thing... iow, treat every battle in which american troops are utilized as if it was the battle of the bulge, or gettysburg, or normandy.... fight to win and write the history later... it must be the morally right thing to do, since might makes right There are a few key points missing in your lastest little bloodthirsty tirade...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Most notably, just who should the US be killing? I agree with you. the US army is very good at killing people and destroying things. However, this doesn't do much good unless one knows just who one is supposed to be killing...we (or at least i was) are talking about war, richard... as in (like i said above) dresden, berlin, and london... in a war, you kill those who attack your soldiers and/or those who aid and abet the attackers... it's simple but only IF you're in a war... Indeed, some people would argue that taking actions that lead to the death of 100,000 odd Iraqis in response to the actions of a bunch of Saudi suicide bombers suggests that we aren't particular good at choosing targets.no argument here... i'm not talking about whether we should or should not be there (we should not, imo), but on how to fight a war if one is in a war (from the point of view of the warring nation) In all honesty, all this discussion about total war and might makes right almost looks like a justification for fairly haphazard genocide.but richard, if there really *is* no such thing as objective morality, might does make right... i'm not justifying anything, i'm simply stating an opinion from a worldly perspective - that is, if a war is to be waged, then wage a war Guess I don't have a good understanding of this whole "Prince of Peace" / turn the other cheek notion...i think you do, but it gets confusing when we think christians can or should wage any kind of war... everything i've written on this subject is from one point of view, one context - that of one nation waging war on another...there are other ways of looking at things, and i can do that also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted August 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 See, you guys and ladies are coming around to my point of view. If you want a few hundred terrorsts whacked, don't send the army - send Jimmy the Rat and Pete the Nose with an offer they can't refuse..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 Jimmy, you didn't answer Richard's question - who should the U.S. army attack, in your opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 Jimmy, you didn't answer Richard's question - who should the U.S. army attack, in your opinion? sorry helene, i thought i did.. or at least i meant to when i wrote, "in a war, you kill those who attack your soldiers and/or those who aid and abet the attackers... it's simple but only IF you're in a war..." as an example, look at israel in lebanon... and even they don't seem fully committed to this 'i'm in a war, let me win it as quickly as possible' philosophy... when civilians die in a war, it's my view that the side that started the conflict is to blame... iraq had a peaceful election, poll after poll shows that its citizens want peace and want democracy, yet some have decided not to allow it... those few are known, their location is known, their supporters are known, yet fear of negative international press prevents the usa from actually carrying the fight to them this is my opinion from the perspective of a country at war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 Hmmmmn, were not the original "Minute Men" patriots and heroes? Weren't they hiding in residential areas and fighting a "geurrila" style war against a "mighty" opponent? yes they were, and yes they did... and yes, the british waged war the way it should be waged (assuming one is in a war)... they lost the war, but it wasn't because they were attempting 'surgical strikes' or avoiding military targets hiding behind women and children... my point is, if you're gonna lose a war then lose a *war* Eventually the victor determines the heroes.yes, and writes the history and decides morality... might makes right, after all No amount of washing, however, can remove the bloodstains from the tapestry of history. Not a theocracy, just humanityactually, no... humanity can be defined by the portrait it paints with blood... to expect more is to be deluded... even when zefram cochrane, who is due to be born in 20 years or so, finally invents the warp engine i doubt it will have any effect on humanity's bloodthirstiness... we'll just expand the boundaries... heads up, klingons Sadly, a mindset that results in a maintenance of the status quo. I believe the term should then be "inhumanity" reflecting the powerful yet unfortunate aspects of our nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 Sadly, a mindset that results in a maintenance of the status quo. al, the only mindset i have concerning man's inhumanity to man comes from the lessons of history, and from the fact that man has in him a sin nature... in this world we only have the way things should be and the way things are... man is what he is, and no amount of wishing he was something else will make it so we, most of us, can envision a better way... but none of us can envision *how* to make a better way - not without either destroying man's ability to freely choose or replacing one set of evil deeds with another Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.