Thank God For War

[Nutrider99]

At the risk of offending those of you whom I have not yet offended, let me simply state the following. Thank God for war.

War is, of course, the ultimate obscenity in which man works feverishly to destroy his enemies. It is also the conduit by which evil is defeated. For example, had the Crusades succeeded, the billion people enslaved by Islam, the religion of the damned, would have not had this false religion jammed down their throat at the point of a sword. War brought freedom to America and by extension, the greatest beacon for freedom and democracy on the planet. War ended the scourge of Nazism and twice removed an oppressive enemy from Europe.

Man's aversion to war and the development of nuclear weapons allowed the second world war to end with unfinished business; namely, that Stalin was still alive. Over the next 50 years. "peace" cost the lives of over 200 million people. Can anyone imagine the same body count had Patton's tanks continued to roll East? What if a well placed Phoenix team had taken him out?

In Afghanistan today, 25 million people are struggling to adapt to a new world they had never envisioned for themselves, a world of freedom and democracy. In Iraq, an elected government has taken the place of a totalitarian regime. Are these things good? Usually even the most rabid of leftist idiots will admit that the results are positive, despite their insistence that we had no right to defend ourselves by eliminating the regimes which fund, train and support our enemies. They say that we should negotiate with dictators, something which does not ever work because no dictator negotiates in good faith.

There will never be peace in the Korean peninsula so long as North Korea exists. The first step is to eliminate the madman and free the North Korean people from the enslavement to the poverty of totalitarian control. The next step is for one Korea to be formed with a democratically elected government and a viable economic system. No nation that cannot feed its people can ever call itself a military power. This cannot happen by appealing to the finer instincts of a tyrant who has no fine instincts. Kim Jung Ill must die or go the way of Saddam Hussein. There will never be peace with such people in power, and with nuclear weapons in the hands of such evil.

Peace, true peace, lie only on the other side of victory. Victory lies on the other side of war. Thank God for war. It brings us the only path to peace. It brings down the tyrants and empowers the people. It offers stability to a world made unsafe by madmen with WMD. There is a better world ahead, but people like Saddam Hussein will not live to see it. The sooner we get there the more lives we save. The silly, stupid anti-war protestors aren't intelligent enough to see what they support by opposing the removal of evil. America was never given the choice to fight or not fight. We were given the choice of venues. We chose to take the war to the Middle East. The democreeps prefer to fight the war on our city streets. The next major battle in the war will occur in November. Defeat the enemy. Do NOT allow democreeps to ever hold power in America again.

[Aussie]

The results of war may be beneficial. But war itself is hell. War is not desirable. If there was a better option, we should take it. If there isn't, war should be waged in a solemn manner befitting of the knowledge that people are going to die.

Perhaps the title of your thread should be: Thank God for some results of wars.

[DesertFox]

The true subject of this thread is, "Thank God for people with the guts to go to war," which is inherent in the Nut's title.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: It is despots like Hitler & Stalin that make war necessary. The leftist peaceniks fail to grasp that. They think it's the fault of freedom-loving people who dare to defend themselves from the despots.

[DoctorDoom]

The results of war may be beneficial. But war itself is hell."War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

War is not desirable. If there was a better option, we should take it."Es kann der Frömmste nicht im Frieden bleiben, Wenn es dem bösen Nachbar nicht gefällt." (The gentlest man cannot live in peace if it does not please his wicked neighbor.)
-- Friedrich von Schiller, Wilhelm Tell, IV, iii, 124

If there isn't, war should be waged in a solemn manner befitting of the knowledge that people are going to die.Are you of the impression that wars are fought because people think that they're fun??? Kid, you have a lot of growing up to do.

Perhaps the title of your thread should be: Thank God for some results of wars.That would be meaningless. Of course war has negative aspects. If it didn't, it wouldn't be hell.

Given the fact that the USofA is the most powerful nation in history, with a military that eclipses all others, the rarity of US involvement in military action is surpassingly commendable. The one thing that is appalling is the restraint that is being forced on our military by pussy-whipped, jelly-spined, weak-kneed appeasers and compromisers.

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.

For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.

Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.White Guilt and the Western Past (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318)

IMO, holding back is bullshit. When we go to war, it should be to win, which is achieved by either annihilating the enemy or so crushing his power and spirit that he can no longer fight. Iraq is an example of war as conducted by liberals and traitors. Terrorists are murdering our guys and their own people, and what do we do? We shamefully harass our own soldiers for trivialities, and the treasonous RATs in power try their utmost to cut them off at the knees by insulting and degrading them, demanding that we cut & run, and giving aid and comfort to the barbarians who are murdering them.

The sooner those treacherous sons of bitches are convinced that it's not a fugging soccer match, and that the enemy wants all of us dead, the sooner the gloves will come off and we'll do the kind of fighting that took down Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo.

As for you, kid, you have no worries. No one wants to attack Australia.

[Nutrider99]

So a question to the peanut gallery.

Knowing what we now know about the children in prison, the mass graves, the rape rooms, the obvious connections with terrorist organizations, the secreted WMD, Hussein's nuclear ambitions, the quest for long range missiles, the treason of the left and its alliance with our enemies, the criminal actions of the UN in the oil for food scam, the treachery of France in selling Iraq the Silkworm missile that destroyed an American tank AFTER they signed Resolution 1441, the torture chambers, Zarqawi, and the painful cost of victory, is there anyone here who would NOT support the decision to go escalate hostilities (since we were already at war) with Iraq?

[Rhino]

At the risk of offending those of you whom I have not yet offended......LOL! It's always good to have a goal!

[Rhino]

.........in selling Iraq the Silkworm missile that destroyed an American tank.......When did a Silkworm destroy a tank? It's an antiship missile, and the only use I recall was when they hit that Kuwaiti shopping center with one in Gulf War I. I haven't heard of one hitting a tank. That would have to be one helluva lucky shot. If you're referring to the Silkworm that hit the tanker Sea Isle City, that was Iran, not Iraq.

...is there anyone here who would NOT support the decision to go escalate hostilities (since we were already at war) with Iraq?You mean the original decision to escalate to an invasion, or a new decision to escalate further now? I always supported the original decision.

[Book]

Nutrider I hereby award you with my honorary 'History Revisionist' Award.

For example, had the Crusades succeeded, the billion people enslaved by Islam, the religion of the damned, would have not had this false religion jammed down their throat at the point of a sword. Instead they would have had Christianity jammed down their throat at the point of a sword. The crusades is hardly a good example if you are trying to validate war.

"the greatest beacon for freedom and democracy on the planet." - Oh my, that is the single most hilarious statement I've ever heard. It's true enough if you live in America but you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the world outside of America that would agree with you.

[DoctorDoom]

Nutrider I hereby award you with my honorary 'History Revisionist' Award.

Instead they would have had Christianity jammed down their throat at the point of a sword. The crusades is hardly a good example if you are trying to validate war.You have just earned the 2006 History & Religion Ignorance awards.

"the greatest beacon for freedom and democracy on the planet."Oh my, that is the single most hilarious statement I've ever heard. It's true enough if you live in America but you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the world outside of America that would agree with you.Honeymoon's over, Europissant.

Extract your head from its posterior portal of repose and buy a clue. The US is not only "the greatest beacon for freedom and democracy on the planet", but the greatest nation in history. Evidence?

More than 1.2 million legal and illegal immigrants combined now settle in the United States each year.

The number of immigrants living in the United States has more than tripled since 1970, from 9.6 million to 28.4 million. As a percentage of the U.S. population, immigrants have more than doubled, from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 10.4 percent in 2000.

By historical standards, the number of immigrants living in the United States is unprecedented. Even at the peak of the great wave of early 20th century immigration, the number of immigrants living in the United States was less than half what it is today (13.5 million in 1910).

Immigration has become the determinate factor in population growth. The 11.2 million immigrants who indicated they arrived between 1990 and 2000 plus the 6.4 million children born to immigrants in the United States during the 1990s are equal to almost 70 percent of U.S. population growth over the last 10 years.Immigrants in the United States — 2000 (http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back101.html)

Perhaps you in your infinite wisdom will tell us why 1.2 million of those people that you define as "anyone in the world outside of America" come to America each year, when they, according to your ignorant, kneejerk liberal PoV, have only contempt for America. Tell of the loathing that the LEGAL immigrants of the 41 million (28.4 + 2.1 x 6) in the US have for this nation. Explain the detestation of America that coursed through the veins of the 604,280 immigrants who became US citizens in 2005 (Naturalizations: 2005 (http://www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/2005NatzFlowRpt.pdf) - PDF file).

Fact: there are liberal arseholes like you world-wide, but ...

World POPClock Projection (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html)

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Bureau of the Census, the total population of the World, projected to 07/14/06 at 15:39 GMT (EST+5) is: 6,528,277,956.

U.S. POPClock Projection (http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html)

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 07/14/06 at 15:39 GMT (EST+5) is: 299,216,372

... your hatred of America does NOT define the opinion of every one of the 6,229,061,584 people "in the world outside of America" whom you included in your blanket statement.

You might want to reg at DUh, where clueless libs congregate to reinforce each other's ignorance and foolishness, and conservatives aren't allowed to present logic, facts and reason. You'd fit in well.

[Maggie_T]

That's it. The Doc has won my "Uber Poster for Life" award. :)

[Riverboat]

. . . you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the world outside of America that would agree with you.You mean the ones risking their lives by the thousands to come here? Or the ones holding onto power with force?

[Book]

You have just earned the 2006 History & Religion Ignorance awards. How so? I'm quite familiar with the crusades. It was part of my studies.



Beacon? http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1797771,00.html

[Rhino]

It's true enough if you live in America but you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the world outside of America that would agree with you.
I've personally met quite a few, and the overwhelming number of people wanting to emigrate here just proves it. What rock have you been hiding under?

[Maggie_T]

:unsmile: It is despots like Hitler & Stalin that make war necessary. The leftist peaceniks fail to grasp that. They think it's the fault of freedom-loving people who dare to defend themselves from the despots.

Absolutely.

Leftist peaceniks are cowards. Not only physical cowards, but cowards in general.

Going to war means having the guts to make the decision (and this works both for the person sending his fellow citizens to war, and those who volunteer for the military). Leftists don't have the guts to consider anything more complicated than "Who am I going to sleep with tonight?" (that's why they leave everything else in the hands of Nanny Government), let alone fighting for freedom.

IMO, as long as there are despots and/or lunatics - like Amadinwhatshisname and Kim Young (Mentally) Il - there's always going to be wars. They will always force the USA to go to war (since we seem to be the only ones with the guts to do it) in order to defend the pussies of this world (you know; our so-called "allies").

Therapy and group-hugs don't work with the despots and lunatics of this world. And it's not that lefties are too stupid to realize that. It's that they are too cowardly to even consider it, much less admit it.

[Wolfcounsel]

"You might want to reg at DUh, where clueless libs congregate to reinforce each other's ignorance and foolishness, and conservatives aren't allowed to present logic, facts and reason. You'd fit in well." --DoctorDoom, to Book

I think Dumbasses Underground must be getting jam-packed by now with all these winners reaching posting age.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DoctorDoom]

How so? I'm quite familiar with the crusades. It was part of my studies.At which Islamic university (http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Islam/Education/College_and_University/) did you study?

My principle objection is to this arrant, Christian-bashing nonsense:

Instead they would have had Christianity jammed down their throat at the point of a sword. The crusades is hardly a good example if you are trying to validate war.The statement shines a harsh, unflattering light on your ignorance of Christianity and Islam. Fact: many acts of violence and oppression have been carried out by people under the banner of Christianity. However, they have done so in brazen violation of Christian scripture and the teachings of Christ Jesus. OTOH, the acts of violence and oppression carried out by Muslims are in zealous obedience to and enforcement of the Koran and the teachings of Mo the Pedo.

IOW, "Christians" are killers and oppressors despite the doctrines of Christianity. Muslims are killers and oppressors because of the doctrines of Islam.

Christianity has NEVER been spread at swordpoint. Islam's spread is largely by war and enslavement.

As for your history expertise:

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.The Real History of the Crusades (http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm)

Read and learn, troll.

[cerberus]

At the risk of offending those of you whom I have not yet offended, let me simply state the following. Thank God for war.
Clearly written by someone that doesn't have to actually fight the wars he calls for. One is never thankful for war and it must always be the last resort; any true warrior who has seen the horrors of combat will tell you that. War is brutal, evil and themost barbaric activity man conducts. I am ashamed that we as a species engage in it, and disgusted that nations devote their hard earned treasure toward it and send young men to die in it. It is a great waste. Those who laud it so are invariably those that will not fight it, but send others to do the brutality; young men who should not have see such things.


That being said, I recognize that war is often a terrible necessity and stand ready to fight it. There are times when all other paths are closed and the way of the gun is all that remains. The result may be better outcome for many, and all we can hope for is we stand on the side of the angels and fight with dignity and honor. But to say that warfare is the only path to peace are fools or warmongers. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. Before you are so anxious to send your nation to war and other men to die for your cause so noble remember that your opponent thinks his goals no less noble, his cause no less rightious and he is willing to sacrifice his young men for his ideal, not matter how twisted; and it is always the soldier and civilian that pay, rarely the leader. War should always be despised, dreaded, feared. The body should shudder at the implication of its undertaking even if as the spirit hardens to its occasional necessity.
As is the case in most things, others have said it better in times past...

General Smedley Butler -War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.


Sen. Robert La Follette - Before the war is ended, the war party assumes the divine right to denounce and silence all opposition to war as unpatriotic and cowardly.

Ben Franklin - I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats...

Phillip Caputo - I guess every generation is doomed to fight its war...suffer the loss of the same old illusions, and learn the same old lessons on its own.

Mary Roberts Rinehart - I hate those men who would send into war youth to fight and die for them; the pride and cowardice of those old men, making their wars that boys must die.

William Cowper - War's a game, which, were their subjects wise, Kings would not play at.

Gen. William Westmoreland - War is fear cloaked in courage.

from St. Augustine's 'City of God' - Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.

from St. Augustine's 'City of God' - It is far easier to make war than peace.

Robert Lynd -The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions.


James Madison - Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

Ken Gillespie - War doesn't make boys men, it makes men dead.

Sir Winston Churchill - The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

Butler Shaffer - In this war – as in others – I am less interested in honoring the dead than in preventing the dead.

General William Tecumseh Sherman - It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell.
Gen. ShermanYou cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.
Gen. Sherman againIn our Country . . . one class of men makes war and leaves another to fight it out.”
Ellen Key - The worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being
Asimov - Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Col. Jaomes A. Donovan - The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory.
William Ellery ChanningThe cry has been that when war is declared, all opposition should be hushed. A sentiment more unworthy of a free country could hardly be propagated.
John Kenneth Galbraith - War remains the decisive human failure.
Lyndon B. Johnson - The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure.
John McCain - War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality.
Erasmus - War is delightful to the inexperienced.
G.K. Chesterton - A man who says that no patriot should attack the war until it is over...is saying no good son should warn his mother of a cliff until she has fallen.
Gen. Robert E. Lee - What a cruel thing is war...to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
Lao TzuHow could man rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men?
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower - I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.
Robert A. Taft - Far from establishing liberty throughout the world, war has actually encouraged and built up the development of dictatorships and has only restored liberty in limited areas at the cost of untold hardship, of human suffering, of death and destruction beyond the conception of our fathers.
Thomas Carlyle - War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battle.
Camus - We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives...inside ourselves.

Antoine De Saint-Exupery - War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus.
Stanley Baldwin - War would end if the dead could return
Hemingway - No weapon has ever settled a moral problem. It can impose a solution but it cannot guarantee it to be a just one
H.G. Wells - It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not pay with their own.
Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower - When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.

David Friedman - The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.

[Rhino]

Hating war and not thinking it necessary are two different things. I had a military career and war was the last thing I wanted. I lost my father to a war. But, like nutrider, I sometimes thank God that it is available, for the alternatives are unthinkable. Despite quaint notions, "why can't we all just get along" doesn't work in the real world.

[Nutrider99]

Clearly written by someone that doesn't have to actually fight the wars he calls for.
I figured most people would be able to comprehend that this is not an advocation of war. Well, maybe not Book, but he's just plain stupid so who cares what he thinks? The fact is that war is sometimes necessary to defeat evil, as it is necessary today. Even as we pontificate, the fourth world war wages around us. What is the root cause this time? Same as always. Hatred. Evil. The desire to subjugate and kill others rather than to live in peace with them.

Can you live in peace with your neighbor if he is at war with you? There are many in this country who seem to think so. If your neighbor is an enemy, the only way to have a lasting peace is to remove the threat he poses. Thus, true peace lies only on the other side of victory. We removed the oligarchy that controlled Japan, and the people have prospered in freedom. We removed Hitler, and the people have prospered in freedom. We lost our will to free the people of South Vietnam, and millions died because of it.

When evil rages around you and you do not fight it, you become part of it. If a woman is being raped on your doorstep, do you come to her aid or refuse to get involved? If a nation is raped on your borders, do you come to their aid or refuse to get involved? When terrorists send rockets at civilian targets in Israel, should Israel allow it, or seek out and destroy their enemies? When Iran and Syria openly support terrorists, do we ignore them, or remove the threat? Stupid people pretend that we can reason with the unreasonable- that we can strike a bargain in good faith with the practitioners of evil. History has proven that we cannot.

No, it is not with glee that I look at the current global situation, but with the resolute determination that once again America must stand, this time possibly alone, against the radical Islamists who believe that the path to Heaven is though the murder of innocents. You cannot negotiate with such people. You must hunt them down and kill them.

[The_Sonarman]

Cerebus, I can find little to argue with in your last post. I once was in the ranks of "those that have to pay the price" of the decision makers. I hate taking life, and I hate putting our young active duty lads and lasses in harms way. I'd prefer it if old burned out hasbeens such as myself shouldered that burden.

I hate each and every day we have young folk sweating in Iraq and Afghanistan, some injured and some killed every month. I and every other vet herein will be the first to rejoice at the end of the shooting and dying. I don't want war in any form..... not for the cost in equipment and such.... I don't give a damn about that cost. I hate the cost in blood. The problem is, it repeatedly gets inflicted upon the USA. "We" just don't back down and take violent outrages inflicted upon us after some point in time.

I'd be very happy if "we" (ie. the USA) were just left alone. That isn't the case. "We" get railroaded into conflicts all the time.

BTW, the Crusades were over and done with hundreds of years ago. Perhaps the Mohammedans are still hacked off about the outcome, perhaps not. I couldn't care less one way or the other. What happened hundreds of years ago is no justification of feral Islamic types butchering and killing their own, or us. If those who are initiating the killing want to come kill "The Infidels", the Infidels are thoroughly justified in killing them right back in self defense, using any and all weapons.

That being said.....

Achieving peace and quiet for humankind isn't going to be accomplished by singing Kumbayah, donning of sackcloth and picking flowers, and emanating "good vibes". My generation "thought" that's all one needed in it's misguided, pampered youth. "Peace" is achieved by rough men with weapons. Crude force and violence are the only things some of our enemies understand.

I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't right now. It hasn't been that way since the beginning of human history, either. Maybe someday that will change, but I don't see it changing for the next hundred years, minimum.

So, we have two choices. "We" can sit back and watch Western Civilization destroyed by those who won't allow "us" to exist, or "we" can kill those attackers. Israel has been beset with these animals from the day Israel was voted into existence by the UN. They chose not to perish. I vote the same way. There is no third choice.

[Book]

Hating war and not thinking it necessary are two different things. I had a military career and war was the last thing I wanted. I lost my father to a war. But, like nutrider, I sometimes thank God that it is available, for the alternatives are unthinkable. Despite quaint notions, "why can't we all just get along" doesn't work in the real world.
There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along.

[Wolfcounsel]

"There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along." --Book

Can you get along with some psycho about to slaughter your loved ones in front of you after he ties you to a tree?<!-- / message -->

[Book]

"There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along." --Book

Can you get along with some psycho about to slaughter your loved ones in front of you after he ties you to a tree?<!-- / message --> Wow, you must live in a rough neighbourhood. :rolleyes:

[Wolfcounsel]

"Wow, you must live in a rough neighbourhood. :rolleyes:" --Book

It's very safe where I live. Almost everybody is armed to the teeth. Now answer my question, please.<!-- / message -->

[Book]

can't answer a question I don't know the answer to.

It's very safe in my neighbourhood too. And absolutely nobody has anything more dangerous than a steak knife. Guns don't make you safe.

[Wolfcounsel]

"can't answer a question I don't know the answer to.

It's very safe in my neighbourhood too. And absolutely nobody has anything more dangerous than a steak knife. Guns don't make you safe." --Book

Why do you need steak knives in a safe neighborhood? Mind if I rephrase my previous question?

If the ONLY way you can stop a psycho from tying you up so that he can slaughter your loved ones in front of you is to kill him, would you kill him?

You may stop playing my game anytime, by the way.

<!-- / message -->

[The_Sonarman]

There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along.

Yes, and some day that will come to pass. I respect the pacifists.... I even wish I could be one. However, I've seen the cesspools of this world, and my days of naivete and innocence are decades past.

There is "turning the other cheek" when someone insults you, or causes you to have a car accident.

There is also "turning the other cheek" when one kills and maims your child, or someone else's child. I would like to think "we" would attempt to prevent such. History is littered with the bodies of those who "turned the other cheek" to evil (ie. Nazi Germany's extermination of the Jews). Had we Allies (ie. "The Strong") not stopped that with direct force and violence, the Nazis may well have completed their task and there would be no more European Jews. Very likely, Britain and the US would also have been subjugated in turn as well.

I would think it preferrable that "if" we have the capability, "we" will come to the rescue of our neighbors (ie. the Iraqis) when they are being butchered by their government leaders. "Neighbors" aren't just people across the street from you, or next door.... they are also people you might never have met, or aren't even the same skin color. Peace and verbal harangue didn't stop Saddam's murder and torture of his people. Men with weapons did.

[Wolfcounsel]

"I respect the pacifists.... I even wish I could be one." --The_Sonarman

If I live to be a thousand, I will never respect pacifists. The word "pacifist" is simply the politically correct word for "COWARD". I like "peacemaker" better. Sometimes you have to kick the living crap out of someone in order for peace to exist.

[The_Sonarman]

Perhaps I should have said "I envy" the pacifists. I envy their innocence and ignorance of a violent world, Wolf. I've lost that, long ago as I got zapped in the head by reality.

As to "being safe in one's neighborhood without weapons"..... that's mainly a factor of one's local police force who do have weapons, and their effectiveness at keeping the peace. I for one don't rely on the local police solely. It doesn't matter if you're in the US, the UK, or France, etc. In the UK, the Bobbies are trained to use their helmets as weapons. I've also seen them walking in Heathrow Airport carrying submachineguns. So.... one may well be "safe" without weapons.... it's someone else who is armed providing that safety.

[Wyatt_Junker]

There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along.

Rodney King?

[Nutrider99]

"There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along." --Book <!-- / message -->
That is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read. Jesus wasn't nailed to a tree because He believed we could all get along, Jesus was sacrificed for the redemption of man. He KNEW good could never co-exist with evil. He told how brother will rise against brother. He spoke of wars and of persecution.

People who know absolutely nothing about Christ or Christianity should eight keep their ignorance to themselves or possibly LEARN what they are talking about!

[DesertFox]

What the Riding Nut said.

[Wyatt_Junker]

War is brutal, evil and themost barbaric activity man conducts. I am ashamed that we as a species engage in it, and disgusted that nations devote their hard earned treasure toward it and send young men to die in it. It is a great waste.


As are the Jews?

http://history.grand-forks.k12.nd.us/ndhistory/LessonImages/Sources/Pictures/holocaust%202.jpg


As seen on Oprah: The Holocaust, better than the South Beach Diet!



Those who laud it so are invariably those that will not fight it, but send others to do the brutality; young men who should not have see such things.

Joan Baez liner notes ROCK.


That being said, I recognize that war is often a terrible necessity and stand ready to fight it. There are times when all other paths are closed and the way of the gun is all that remains.


And the last sentence of scribbing your 9th grade book report is finally done.

So, what's next? Recess? A puppet show? Watching reruns of Whose The Boss?

[Wyatt_Junker]

Besides, I think we're all missing the point. War is fun. Stabbing gook head with a stick and making a tetherball out of it can be extremely satisfying.

War. Its the new cola.

[DesertFox]

Well, war IS fun if you're winning. All America's wars have been fun because we won them all.

Oh, wait, I forgot. We told the world somebody else won the Vietnam war.

[Rhino]

It's very safe in my neighbourhood too. And absolutely nobody has anything more dangerous than a steak knife.Are you the only one in the neighborhood? Otherwise, I wouldn't be so sure.

Guns don't make you safe.A gun can make you safer. Nothing can make you totally safe. If they couldn't make you safer, policemen wouldn't carry them.

[Timberwolf]

Book...you really must be the most heinously ignorant person I've ever read. I truly pity you.

[DesertFox]

Tee, you musta not read pinqy lately.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Nutrider99:
I figured most people would be able to comprehend that this is not an advocation of war. Well, maybe not Book, but he's just plain stupid so who cares what he thinks?

:moo: Don't look now, but your original post is being parodied at FSTDT. Apparently, their comprehension skills are also lacking.

[DesertFox]

To FSTDT, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a fundie.

[Peachdiane]

On Runescape, there is a guy (Zezima) who is #1. He's constantly ridiculed. "He has no life... he needs to get laid... he couldn't get laid by his own hand, he this and that....." And I always say, "At least he isn't spending his time on FSTDT."

Talk about losers.

[Timberwolf]

FSTDT?? What's that stand for?? Freaks Soiled Their Diapers Today??

[Peachdiane]

Or Fags Started To Download Tripe....

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DesertFox:
To FSTDT, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a fundie.

:moo: Lately, they've been so desperate for something "darned" to quote a fundie on, they've been quoting 12-year-olds from My Space dot com. No, I'm not kidding.

:moo: Okay, back to the topic.

[DoctorDoom]

... they've been quoting 12-year-olds from My Space dot com. No, I'm not kidding.Maybe those neuronically-challenged asswarts at "that site" are trying to better themselves by quoting those who are a thousand times more mature and intelligent than themselves and hoping that a bit of it sinks in.

[Timberwolf]

Getting anything to sink into concrete is a chore, Doc...one usually needs a jackhammer...

[Nutrider99]

Don't look now, but your original post is being parodied at FSTDT. Apparently, their comprehension skills are also lacking.
My post was intended to inspire thought. Those at FSTDT are incapable of thought, which is why they come here and steal our posts.

[Book]

Are you the only one in the neighborhood? Otherwise, I wouldn't be so sure.

A gun can make you safer. Nothing can make you totally safe. If they couldn't make you safer, policemen wouldn't carry them.
It is illegal to own a firearm where I live. And the police don't have guns. Personally, having lived in South Africa (where guns are legal) I can honestly say it feels much safer living without the threat of guns being drawn.

btw Wolfie, when I said steak knife I didn't mean people carry them as a weapon. I mean the only dangerous weapon people here have is the knife in the kitchen cutlery drawer.

[Wolfcounsel]

"btw Wolfie, when I said steak knife I didn't mean people carry them as a weapon. I mean the only dangerous weapon people here have is the knife in the kitchen cutlery drawer." --Book

Yes. Bad attempt at humor. You said it is illegal to own a firearm where you live. Am I to assume that the bad guys don't hang around there in your area, or, are the police that good that they scare them away? I know the steak knives won't even make them jump in fear, or even fart.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Book:
It is illegal to own a firearm where I live. And the police don't have guns. Personally, having lived in South Africa (where guns are legal) I can honestly say it feels much safer living without the threat of guns being drawn.

:unsmile: Really! My wife is from Indonesia, where only the military & police have guns. Whenever one must stop in traffic (jams are frequent, since Jakarta is the most densely populated city in the world; even the rural parts of Java are thickly populated), one had better have a good air conditioning system, because it's necessary to keep windows rolled up, & doors locked. The thugs in the street know that nobody in the car will have a gun, which makes their knives stronger.

[DesertFox]

Book, a question: If bad guys are all around, and especially if they carry knives or guns, would you feel safer

a. carrying a gun yourself?

b. not carrying a gun yourself?

[Nutrider99]

To FSTDT, everyone who doesn't agree with them is a fundie.
To illustrate how absolutely brain dead those people are, I visited their site and was surprised to learn that the Christians started the Crusades by trying to TAKE BACK the Holy Lands from the Islamists.

[Black Phoenix]

It's very safe in my neighbourhood too. And absolutely nobody has anything more dangerous than a steak knife. Guns don't make you safe.

Actually they do. Why do you think cops carry them? Actually guns are sited as ending most potential conflicts, without any shots fired. Think about it. Without a doubt, potential violence is the best negotiating tool. Only a fool eliminates choices for solving a problem, before understanding said problem himself. (You'll notice, no, I did not say you have to actually experience the problem.)

It's pacifism that protects no one. This comes from a man who's studied both Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Gandhi's followers often starved, and many were shot and suffered very violent deaths. Gandhi himself, professing like many, that those who live by the sword, die by it (no I don't think he coined the term) was shot, thus dying by the sword. Gandhi's effort barely kept India out of WWII though prevented no suffering by the Indian people, nor did anything to hault aggression against them. In all, in his absense, India could even have helped end that dark war sooner.

King also died by gun shot, like Gandhi, before he died, living from one jail cell to another. Thank goodness he was in America, so no, most of the atrocities that Gandhi saw, never came to King's eyes.

As long as there are no threats anyway, guns and pacifism both are null as defense... since you've nothing to defend against.

However, once a real threat is established, talking rarely works. Once a man gets what he wants from you, he'll just go on to threaten someone else. Perhaps you will save your life, and the life of your family, but likely the next won't be so lucky. If someone has made up his mind to live a life of violence against his neighbor's, he has to be stopped. And to do that, generally, he has to either be contained, or killed.

How niave is it, to believe that the evil are only that way by lack of knowledge? We're told a man was abused as a child, so, he sets out to abuse others, since he sees no wrong in it... but how much sense does that really make? Who better to know abuse than one whom has seen it? Indeed, abused children who don't grow up to be crooks, often grow up to be leaders in the struggle against abuse. This rather serves to dispell the myth that the wicked are evil because they've been hurt. Also, is it not often those, whom live in a lap of luxury, having every request granted, and having their "self esteem" fed every day, whom generally turn out to be power hungry?

Consider those under powerful religious obligation to never kill nor engage in conflict, instead obligating them to extreme pacifism and "respect for all life". They often live isolated from the world, and some become so obsessed with not killing, that they fear eating... even breathing, lest they kill small organisms. It is not true that their lives never see violence, often they do, and any lack of it, is only accounted for by their isolation. They do not escape any pain, in fact the extreme of their beliefs CAUSES suffering. And unless you follow their beliefs yourself, and even then, generally they don't even appear to do anyone any good to anyone.


There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along.


Hopeless you are. You know this, yes?

Jesus died on the cross the turn the tide of a WAR. Not only was Lord Jehovah anything but a pacifist in the old testament, Jesus himself never took a compromiser's way out, and even engaged in violence. Jesus came to DESTROY the power of the devil, and his actions on the cross were often described as crushing the serpent's head with a rock.

Jesus did not advocate peace... I don't think even once did He so much as give a speech on it. He advocated love and kindness, but not as a substitute for standing up for what was right. (The forgotten verse: "go and sin no more") Indeed, loving your enemies was not a new concept in the Jewish beliefs, but neither was the merit of killing.

(What's a FSTDT?)


It is illegal to own a firearm where I live. And the police don't have guns. Personally, having lived in South Africa (where guns are legal) I can honestly say it feels much safer living without the threat of guns being drawn.



Not having guns helped so much during Apartide didn't it, speaking of South Africa and all? Actually violence was avoided by neither side. Those whom had the guns generally had all the power, but those whom didn't... often weren't angels themselves.

Here in America it's true, many criminals commit crime at gun point, however most of those are obtained illegally, and legal weapons generally prevent more crime than they ever cause.

Another durty little secret is, often knife crime is more popular than gun crime. For one, kinves are easier to come by, and require far less skill. In the end, I also need no stats to tell you, a man stabbed six times, is no better off than one shot six times... but at least the gun is out of bullets.

Yes, your six year old can accidentally shoot himself... but would you hand your kid a blow tourch either? You wanna illegalize those? Shouldn't parents be told to keep ALL extremely dangerous objects away from their kids, until they can be properly trained to recognize danger? (Recomend you do that training in a timely manner though... like before the tyke can reach the stove top.)

[DoctorDoom]

The FSTiDioTs are the rejects from DUh that couldn't meet Foreskinner's standards.

[Wyatt_Junker]

To illustrate how absolutely brain dead those people are, I visited their site and was surprised to learn that the Christians started the Crusades by trying to TAKE BACK the Holy Lands from the Islamists.

Atheists are like George Plimpton who bend down to feed their dog brouschetta lightly applied across a baugette slice. Its a tender moment really. Almost humanizing the creature. They probably even spoon their Cocker Spaniel in bed with the reacharound, smelling their index finger in-between positional changes. And philanthropy? They want to feel the charity rise up within them, so they donate a small sum to Poetry Weekly and call it a serious movement of their conscious at work.

They remind me of Hindus who let fat cows, bellies dragging with fresh made cous cous, walk right pass starving street hobos. Let the bovines eat fresh lobster and the homeless can fend for themselves. Besides, the homeless stink, are uncouth and shout inanities. For some reason, the lost elements of society are only left up to the Christians. Damn those do-gooders! They always show us our pimples.

At this point, the a-hole-list says I do charity work! Sure. Sure you do, a-hole-list. You're a great person. You're even wonderful at times, the way your metered charity spills out like vomit from an anorexic's runny mouth.

I suppose Mother Theresa alone shattering a nation of 1 billion's entire ethos of caste is a ruinous concept for them. What other elements of Christianity can we lambaste? Oh yeah, God fried Sodom! There. Eat that Xian. Yer god sucks.

I like FSTD or AIDS or whatever the hell its called. Having no god, they must post hollow masturbatory nietzsche-ian nonsense into small cups at the fertility clinic, hoping to conceive an idea.

Their childish cosmology can be summed up thus: The void is preferable to the non-void because the romanticism of solipsism requires the brave introspection of 'the individual' not knowing that they have actually formed just another church themselves. They have become what they hate. They are nothing more than a bunch of ironic dickslaps, door knob polishers and armchair intellectuals.

I read them whenever I want to hear what it sounds like when the spiritually poor pray. Its like someone performing ASL into a megaphone. The faster they move their hands, the quicker the quiet becomes.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Black Phoenix:
If someone has made up his mind to live a life of violence against his neighbor's, he has to be stopped. And to do that, generally, he has to either be contained, or killed.

"Es kann der Frömmste nicht im Frieden bleiben, Wenn es dem bösen Nachbar nicht gefällt." (The gentlest man cannot live in peace if it does not please his wicked neighbor.)

:unsmile: Exactly.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

There was once a man nailed to a tree for believing we could all get along.

You're out of your tree. Christ's crucifixion and resurrection was a call to arms. Only imbeciles prattle such nonsense; Christ was not an imbecile.

[DesertFox]

Lefties rilly, RILLY don't like it when Christians don't play the lay-down-and-die routine.

[Black Phoenix]

On Gandhi and King... I think I did an injustice many are guilty of without realizing it... however I am, so perhaps I should feel a little guilty.

Both of them saw much suffering, that much is true, but it was not a grand overbearing much compared to what political disagreements normally lead to.

In King's case, what he was fighting was segregation. Wrong perhaps, but certainly a lesser evil when you consider what prejudice normally leads to (think:Kurds/Saddam). Actually mutual tolerance was inevitable. Black people certainly weren't fans, and, contrary to popular belief, many whites didn't apreciate racism either (that was true even before they banned slavery... but there's a whole new rabbit to chase there!). The reason most of King's protests didn't see violence is one: people saw what he was doing as protected speech and two: that itself implies people weren't hard core racist enough to be violent against him anyway, and three: the American people, being a Christian nation... had a heart.

Even those "evil" segregationalist didn't want to see blood any more than the next guy, (unless you bring in the KKK and various others... they most deffinitely needed to be shot).

King was not dealing with ruthless Nazi's, but with a people who were never that cruel to begin with, and in any case, mostly desired his dreams themselves.

Gandhi did see violence and bloodshed unfortunately. Actually, it was because of that bloodshed that he was so effective. (No wonder in his beliefs, ahemsha was earned by suffering.) The British people, themselves not overly cruel and cold hearted, even their soldiers, couldn't stand the idea of blood shed of people whom weren't shooting back. The atrocities, which were actually few in number, were gawked at by the British people and caused public outcries. Indeed, it was the hearts of the British people, not only the efforts of Gandhi's protestors, that gave Gandhi his success in helping to end British dominance.

In both cases, there were up and downs to the stratigies of both men, but in the end, we should never forget the enviornments in which they were operating.

In King's case, he was absolutely correct that violence was not needed to end segregation. That likely would only have helped to regrow dying racist views.

No, I can't say the same for Gandhi. Yes, his actions worked, but actually an uprising of the Indian subcontinient, containing several times the population of all British colonies and the mother nation combined... probably would have been effective to... I'm just guessing there. And no, I don't really believe much was solved by keeping the Indian people out of World War Two. In fact, the only things that kept them from being swept over was A: the times they stopped listening to pacifist and struck back and B: the allies were desperate to keep that big of a population and land mass from the Japanese.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

Book...you really must be the most heinously ignorant person I've ever read. I truly pity you.

No. He's not merely stupid. He's a coward and a morally bankrupt fop.

[DesertFox]

Fop? FOP?

Dang, Moon, you haulin' out the heavy stuff.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I must be slipping.

The books of the world are the great saints of reason, the warriors of peace and love. For such, no injustice is too grave, no atrocity, too vile that the stench can't be covered up by a shower of daisies and kisses.

[cerberus]

Hey Sonarman, thanks for the response. I never said war was unnecessary, quite the opposite, but my point is it's never to be enjoyed, never celebrated, never never never something to be thankful for.
Are there wars that must be fought? Yes. Are there people that need to die so the rest of us can live in peace? Yes. Is that a horrific statment on the nature of man that we should stive to end? Again yes.
My problem here is some people, namely those who don't actually have to fight wars are quick to call for them. It just really irks me that those who are so quick to call for it over and over and over aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting. War is seen as some 'easy' solution to some problems that are intractable. I am particulary peeved when they say things like "war is the only path to peace." Sometimes it is, but often its not. Never-ending war isnt' going to fix our problems in the Middle East; its not going to end hatred against Israel, or fix the problems in Africa. War should always be the final hammer in the statesman's toolbox, not the first item he grabs for. And there are more than two choices for our foreign policy in this world, but it takes patience, imagination, ingenuity, flexibility and all the subtle gifts that don't revolve around precision airstrikes.

[Peachdiane]

I do see your point, but my problem is so many bash America and say she needs to be more peaceful. Say what???

Peaceniks have learned nothing from Neville Chamberlain. He had this grand idea of peace and sought an agreement which Hitler ignored. Neville failed because he did not realize the evil he was dealing with.

Us 'warmongers' realize the evil and realize it is impossible to deal with such evil. Thank God for war.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

War should always be the final hammer in the statesman's toolbox, not the first item he grabs for. And there are more than two choices for our foreign policy in this world, but it takes patience, imagination, ingenuity, flexibility and all the subtle gifts that don't revolve around precision airstrikes.

On another thread, discussing Bush's North Korean, six-party-talks policy, a number of folks -- including you and some of our resident Bush-bashing, young conservative purists -- argue that Bush's approach is a failure. Never mind that his approach is the only truly patient, imaginative, ingenuous and flexible course of diplomacy that would logically lead to the sort of actions you folks insist Bush should be taking. My solid, unimpeachable analysis of the situation clearly demonstrates that all of you are dead wrong, that your complaints amount to nothing more than a criticism of Bush's poor communication skills and his failure to command the agenda in the press, that your complaints blind you from the fact that the administration's approach is precisely the right vehicle and that the actions you all propose the administration take immediately are premature.

North Korea is avoiding the six-party-talks precisely because it cannot so readily control or manipulate the outcomes. That it pulled out and stupidly launched missiles is good, not bad. That it just recently -- without giving it any real consideration -- rejected the regional power's counter proposal is good, not bad. Russia and China have moved closer to our position and the Japanese and the South Koreans -- the people themselves -- are pissed. That is good, not bad.

The only action that will resolve matters in the Middle East is the utter annihilation of those Islamic fanatics who are bent on the destruction of Israel. Short of that we pound the states that support terrorism into submission, and the best place to start is with Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon's government, of course, is simply too weak to destroy or contain Hezbullah, Israel is not. Syria is the intermediate source of their military backing anyway. As I see it, we should hope for an escalation of hostilities, one that brings Syria and Israel into direct conflict. I think the United States should at that point join with Israel and flatten Syria's industrial-military infrastructure and cut if off from Iran completely. Planes don't fly, ships don't sail, from Iran to Syria ever again.

Then let Iran -- isolated and impotent -- stew.

Liberals always talk big right up to the moment before its time to really get tough, to pull the trigger. It’s too bad that some conservatives on this board -- with little understanding about the true way of things -- inadvertently take up their talking points.

[Wolfcounsel]

One time a belligerent nation should be warned, if it has not yet taken any lives. After that, overwhelming firepower on their asses until they surrender or die. That is the only way to peace, and any weenies out there who don't like that can chew a bag of prunes and sing me a few choruses (chori?) of Kumbaya.:evilgrin:

[cerberus]

On another thread, discussing Bush's North Korean, six-party-talks policy, a number of folks -- including you and some of our resident Bush-bashing, young conservative purists -- argue that Bush's approach is a failure. Never mind that his approach is the only truly patient, imaginative, ingenuous and flexible course of diplomacy that would logically lead to the sort of actions you folks insist Bush should be taking. My solid, unimpeachable analysis of the situation clearly demonstrates that all of you are dead wrong, that your complaints amount to nothing more than a criticism of Bush's poor communication skills and his failure to command the agenda in the press, that your complaints blind you from the fact that the administration's approach is precisely the right vehicle and that the actions you all propose the administration take immediately are premature. :icon133: This is a joke right? "patient, imaginative, ingenuous and flexible" policy?!? Your arguement is biased, circular, unsubstantiated by facts, and evidently without experience or analytical heft. But I suppose it's nice to see you are so very full of your own opinoin though. :rolleyes: You want to go round-and-round on the failure on the North Korea policy, that's fine with me. We can go back to the other thread, or even better, start a new one and I'll be there.

The only action that will resolve matters in the Middle East is the utter annihilation of those Islamic fanatics who are bent on the destruction of Israel. So here we almost agree. There are those people who are totally and blindly bent on the destruction of Israel and they probably need to be killed. I'm ok with that. But then you go on....

Short of that we pound the states that support terrorism into submission, and the best place to start is with Syria and Lebanon. Lebanon's government, of course, is simply to weak to destroy or contain Hezbullah, Israel is not. Syria is the intermediate source of their military backing anyway. As I see it, we should hope for an escalation of hostilities, one that brings Syria and Israel into direct conflict. I think the United States should at that point join with Israel and flatten its industrial-military infrastructure and cut if off from Iran completely. Planes don't fly, ships don't sail, from Iran to Syria ever again. Now see the problem is that this is not a realistic policy. You are all for taking all the time in the world with North Korea, as Bush is doing, but want to engage in full-scale war with Syria and in Lebanon against Hizbollah while currently engaged in Iraq. What a terrible idea. Our "allies" in the area (Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan etc) are always forced to walk a tightrope between helping us and not appeasing their populations vis-a-vis the Israel issue. This kind of direct action would force them to codemn us and side with their "Arab brothers". It would feed every stupid Zionist conspiracy theory those people float around and believe. Any currency we might have would be burned. That sort of foolishness could eventually even cause us to get kicked out of Qatar and Bahrain and those governments really like us. The fragile Iraqi government would be also probably be forced to demand a revocation of the all SOFA agreements and the immediate withdrawal of US forces leaving Iraq ripe for civil war and Iranian proxy influence.
Under these conditions Iran won't stew, they'll act, and at that point without much regional opposition.
The Middle East is a tinder-box and we don't have many good options, and it must be handled with great care and a long-term vision.

In any event, this thread is supposed to be about "thank god for war" and while I can see you clearly relish the idea, unless you are suiting up to go fight this conflict you are calling for yourself, you might want to think a bit harder on it. And certainly don't 'thank god' when we are forced to fight.

[Nutrider99]

The Middle East is a tinder-box and we don't have many good options, and it must be handled with great care and a long-term vision.
Absolutely. And what is the long term vision?

The radical Islamists have promised that they will never live in peace with Israel, and will not rest until Israel is destroyed. So then we have two options. 1. Israel is destroyed, or 2. The radical Islamists are destroyed. If you believe that Israel should be destroyed, read no further. You are a damn fool, and no amount of reason will ever get through to you. If you don't believe that Israel should be destroyed, then the only logical alternative is to remove the threat of the radical Islamists.

The first order of business is to remove the state sanction that these terrorists currently enjoy. Nations like Syria and Iran are controlled by terrorist elements who have raped those nations of their resources and used them for terrorism. The full resources of these nations have no focus other than the destruction of Israel and the establishment of sharia law worldwide. If you believe that these nations can be reasoned with, read no further. You are a damn fool, and no amount of reason will ever get through to you.

If we decide that we need to remove the terrorists from power, then we need to decide on a time line. Every day these nations continue to exist as they are, two things happen. More people are killed by random acts of terror, and these nations continue to work toward more destructive WMD. Nuclear and biological weapons are strongly desired by the terrorists. To acquire these weapons, all that is required is desire, which they have, money, which they have, and time, which they are being given. The longer we wait to address the problem, the more dangerous these nations become. If you believe that we should wait until these terrorist dominated nations should be given time to become even more dangerous, possibly with nuclear weapons, read no further. You are a damn fool, and no amount of reason will ever get through to you.

So our choices are clear. We do nothing and eventually lose millions of lives to nuclear armed terrorists, or we move forward and lose thousands of lives. We did not set the conditions. We did not define the enemy. We tried to avoid conflict at the cost of letting these animals become a threat to the civilized world. Fifty years ago concentrated cleansing fire could have made this threat non-existent at very litle cost. Twenty-five years ago, we could have eliminated the threat at a cost that would have been small by comparison. Now, even the Russians and Chinese are learning that these animals are not things to be taken lightly. These 16th century monsters are intent on taking over the world, just like Hitler was in the last century. Like Hitler, they are counting on our aversion to war to enable them to amass great world power. Like NAZI Germany, they are willing to use the mass murder of innocents as a tool to further their cause.

The time is now to unite, to rise up and to destroy these vermin before it's too late. These are not just ragheaded subhumans who have sex with camels. These vermin represent a very real threat to the civilized world. We cannot co-exist with them. We must either submit to them, or destroy them.

[The_Sonarman]

It is illegal to own a firearm where I live. And the police don't have guns. Personally, having lived in South Africa (where guns are legal) I can honestly say it feels much safer living without the threat of guns being drawn.

btw Wolfie, when I said steak knife I didn't mean people carry them as a weapon. I mean the only dangerous weapon people here have is the knife in the kitchen cutlery drawer.

The safety (or lack thereof) is a reflection on how effective the police and judicial system are in a given area.

Beyond that, an unarmed populace is just begging to be subjugated someday. The worst combination I can think of is:

a. Plenty of commodities (gold, silver, tin, etc., available to be mined)
b. Unarmed population
c. Weak military
d. Hostile, greedy neighbor nation with stronger military

Good luck. I'd rather put my trust in Dan Wesson and Samuel Colt.

[The_Sonarman]

Hey Sonarman, thanks for the response. I never said war was unnecessary, quite the opposite, but my point is it's never to be enjoyed, never celebrated, never never never something to be thankful for.
I can understand that. Understand that once I get rolling, my larger posts rarely stay on subject.

I assume you mean more on a "national" level. I assure you I was personally very thankful to have survived an armed encounter or two, and that they did not.

=cerberus]Are there wars that must be fought? Yes. Are there people that need to die so the rest of us can live in peace? Yes. Is that a horrific statment on the nature of man that we should stive to end? Again yes.
The World still isn't pacified enough that the more peaceable, free nations are left alone by the third world cesspools. I'm very interested to see if Iraq can be the "showcase" democratic arab nation the Bush Strategy.... and if that will be the start of toppling the remaining Arab dictatorships.

My problem here is some people, namely those who don't actually have to fight wars are quick to call for them. It just really irks me that those who are so quick to call for it over and over and over aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting. War is seen as some 'easy' solution to some problems that are intractable.
Having fought one, I'd rather never have our lads and lasses in another. I've even preached US neutrality, hauling up the national drawbridge and us staying home. Simplistic view, unworkable in today's world.

Never-ending war isnt' going to fix our problems in the Middle East; its not going to end hatred against Israel, or fix the problems in Africa.
I think Israel just might finally be on the road to sorting out a couple problems. The US has interfered with the Israelis wiping out some of their more virulent foes for a long time, which has allowed those enemies to flourish (Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.). I think Israel is going to do a proper job on crippling those organizations this time.

Israel doesn't have a choice. The only thing their foes understand is violence and death.

War should always be the final hammer in the statesman's toolbox, not the first item he grabs for.
True, and it's also the admission statesmen / politicians have completely failed to resolve foreign affairs another way.

[Timberwolf]

Hey Sonarman, thanks for the response. I never said war was unnecessary, quite the opposite, but my point is it's never to be enjoyed, never celebrated, never never never something to be thankful for.
Au contraire, mon ami...one is quite thankful for war when it is the vehicle by which one is given one's freedom.

Are there wars that must be fought? Yes. Are there people that need to die so the rest of us can live in peace? Yes. Is that a horrific statment on the nature of man that we should stive to end? Again yes.
Absolutely. No disagreement there.

My problem here is some people, namely those who don't actually have to fight wars are quick to call for them. It just really irks me that those who are so quick to call for it over and over and over aren't the ones doing the heavy lifting. War is seen as some 'easy' solution to some problems that are intractable. I am particulary peeved when they say things like "war is the only path to peace." Sometimes it is, but often its not.
Absolutely. That is why we try diplomacy first.

Never-ending war isnt' going to fix our problems in the Middle East; its not going to end hatred against Israel, or fix the problems in Africa.
That may be...but, it will be a START in fixing those problems in the ME; a START to ending the lives of those who do not wish to live in peace with their neighbors; and a START by permenantly removing from power those dictators in Africa who enslave and suppress their own people.

War should always be the final hammer in the statesman's toolbox, not the first item he grabs for. And there are more than two choices for our foreign policy in this world, but it takes patience, imagination, ingenuity, flexibility and all the subtle gifts that don't revolve around precision airstrikes.
How much patience are we to exhibit? The ELEVEN YEARS of waiting for Saddam to disarm himself wasn't long enough? The THIRTY-FOUR YEARS of negotiating peace with islamo-fascist terrorists? Only to find that they're NOT INTERESTED in peace, yet?

This war on terrorism is three DECADES overdue.

[Wyatt_Junker]

This war on terrorism is three DECADES overdue.

I think what Cerb really means when he says...

The Middle East is a tinder-box and we don't have many good options, and it must be handled with great care(like your balls) and a long-term vision.


...is that we should give it more time. Apparently 1400 years +/- hasn't been long enough.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

:icon133: This is a joke right? "patient, imaginative, ingenuous and flexible" policy?!? Your arguement is biased, circular, unsubstantiated by facts, and evidently without experience or analytical heft. But I suppose it's nice to see you are so very full of your own opinoin though. :rolleyes: You want to go round-and-round on the failure on the North Korea policy, that's fine with me. We can go back to the other thread, or even better, start a new one and I'll be there.

Utter bullshit! You have yet to even put a name on precisely how the policy has failed. You prattle about any number of actions that the administration should be taking in place of the very vehicle -- six-party talks! -- that is currently bringing matters to a head, making those kinds of actions politically viable.

"North Korea is firing their missiles!" he exclaimed standing in a puddle of piss, his panties all soiled.

Precisely!

The South Korean people are taking their displeasure to the streets -- after years of appeasement -- like never before! The Japanese are seething! The pertinent powers of the world -- including Russia and China, having no other choice at this point really -- have issued a resolution demanding that North Korea dismantle its nuclear weapons program. Let North Korea fire some more missiles, and let’s see just how long Russia and China can continue to resist real sanctions behind that resolution. The current resolution now even provides for an internationally recognized vehicle through which the U.S., for example, might interdict, seize and destroy weaponry exported to or from North Korea. True or not, right or wrong, that's what the administration is claiming. That's where this is headed.

As I said before, liberals like you talk big, but you remain clueless as to how events and circumstances must arise and coalesce in order to make more assertive actions viable and enforceable. And just like all liberals, as soon as things reach the point of serious consequences, you piss your pants.

“Kim Jong Il is firing his missiles! The policy has failed!”

Clueless.

So here we almost agree. There are those people who are totally and blindly bent on the destruction of Israel and they probably need to be killed. I'm ok with that. But then you go on....

Oooooh, big talk again, but . . .

Now see the problem is that this is not a realistic policy. You are all for taking all the time in the world with North Korea, as Bush is doing

No, not all the time in the world, you intellectually dishonest little prick. We insist, as the administration has done from the beginning, that North Korea submit to a six-party resolution, the very last thing it wants to do as it cannot readily control or manipulate outcomes. So it pulls out and fires off missiles! So what? We squeeze it even harder, as we are doing now, with the sort of international support -- and mounting -- for imposing consequences that would have been unsustainable six years ago, let alone a year ago. Shut the hell up! Clearly you are wrong.

And now comes the "but".

. . . but want to engage in full-scale war with Syria and in Lebanon against Hizbollah while currently engaged in Iraq.

Big talk right up to the moment of real action and then . . . another puddle of piss.


What a terrible idea. Our "allies" in the area (Saudi, Kuwait, Jordan etc) are always forced to walk a tightrope between helping us and not appeasing their populations vis-a-vis the Israel issue. This kind of direct action would force them to codemn us and side with their "Arab brothers". It would feed every stupid Zionist conspiracy theory those people float around and believe. Any currency we might have would be burned. That sort of foolishness could eventually even cause us to get kicked out of Qatar and Bahrain and those governments really like us. The fragile Iraqi government would be also probably be forced to demand a revocation of the all SOFA agreements and the immediate withdrawal of US forces leaving Iraq ripe for civil war and Iranian proxy influence.

Under these conditions Iran won't stew, they'll act, and at that point without much regional opposition.

The Middle East is a tinder-box and we don't have many good options, and it must be handled with great care and a long-term vision.

Uh-huh. Excuses, excuses without end. Well, before we get to your "long-term" <strike>vacillation</strike> "vision" let's get your panties changed and that puddle of piss you're standing in cleaned up. Then we can all have a good laugh at your never-ending approach as the body count continues to mount, as the Christians and Sunnis of Lebanon continue to be held hostage by Syria and Hezbullah.

In any event, this thread is supposed to be about "thank god for war" and while I can see you clearly relish the idea, unless you are suiting up to go fight this conflict you are calling for yourself, you might want to think a bit harder on it. And certainly don't 'thank god' when we are forced to fight.

You be glad of the distance between us, glad that I'm but a series of blips on your screen, for this is just about the time I'd bitch slap you for the whore you are. I've looked the dragon in the eye and humped that terrain. My outrage comes from a broken heart, from many tears and prays; it comes from a fury that has arisen from a dark and lonely place in the face of a seemingly endless torrent of death and suffering that mercilessly perverts and tramples the lives of countless innocents. It comes from a murderous fury, every bit as merciless and uncompromising. It demands justice and calls for the annihilation of every swinging dick and jane with a rag on its head and obscenities on its tongue. It would consume the whores of Islam, those keening bitches, who proclaim their willingness to give the lives of not only their raping and pillaging men, but those of their children, future rapists and pillagers, to the "resistance." It would happily oblige them and then erase every trace of their existence from the face of the earth. Animals, barbarians all.

Like I said, liberals are all for fine and fancy talk -- "long-term visions" after 60 years already, mind you! -- while the babies are burning and the heavens weep.

[Book]

Yes. Bad attempt at humor. You said it is illegal to own a firearm where you live. Am I to assume that the bad guys don't hang around there in your area, or, are the police that good that they scare them away? I know the steak knives won't even make them jump in fear, or even fart. No, there are probably bad guys in my area, however they don't have guns. It's quite simple. Firearms are illegal therefore no-one sells them, therefore the bad guys don't have access to them. I know this is difficult for you to understand, coming from a country where guns are so pervasive that they give them away in cereal boxes.

[Bluemoon_Rising]

I think what Cerb really means when he says...

...is that we should give it more time. Apparently 1400 years +/- hasn't been long enough.

cerb never really means anything.

He advocates that we pull our military out of South Korea, the idea here being that we force South Korea to fend for itself and to stop appeasing Kim Jong Il. Yeah, Carter tried that once. Also, we should get real tough with China -- trade sanctions, seize their assets in the United States and such, forcing China to cut North Korea loose. Here's the catch, Bush should have done these things six years ago instead of ending bilateral diplomacy with the North Koreans -- which is effectively the discontinuation of the failed, detente-like approach of the past. Yeah, and the world have gone right along with these kinds of measures -- would have quite naturally accepted the idea of arming Japan, for example -- without a hitch. Safe.

Naturally, had Bush taken these kinds of actions six years ago, cerb would have declared Bush's actions to be unnecessarily provocative, sending all the wrong messages, needlessly escalating our troubled relations. Safe.

But now that Bush's approach has in fact isolated North Korea and has for the first time compelled Russia and China to move toward our position, now that the sort of actions that were absolutely beyond reach six years ago are viable, thought to be naturally appropriate and logically necessary by the international community, Bush gets no credit at all. Indeed, his policy is a failure. Safe.

cerb sort of recognizes the undeniable fact that the only way to deal with persons that are mindlessly bent on the destruction of others is to destroy them first, but . . . the steps that must necessarily be taken in order to destroy such persons are, alas, untenable. Safe.

In short, everything evil that happens in the world is the fault of those who are trying to do something about it, and those who would never do anything at all, like cerb, know everything there is to know about what to do when it's impossible to do it (safe) or deny credit where credit is due and find yet something else to do when it is (safe).

[Book]

Book, a question: If bad guys are all around, and especially if they carry knives or guns, would you feel safer

a. carrying a gun yourself?

b. not carrying a gun yourself? Having never owned nor carried a gun I couldn't possibly say whether I would feel safer or not.

[Black Phoenix]

No, there are probably bad guys in my area, however they don't have guns. It's quite simple. Firearms are illegal therefore no-one sells them, therefore the bad guys don't have access to them. I know this is difficult for you to understand, coming from a country where guns are so pervasive that they give them away in cereal boxes.

You are aware that considering all the American gun restrictions, three day waiting periods, increasing of jail terms if guns are used in a crime, panic over gun shows... handed out in cereal boxes? Oh yea, sure, why not?

I honestly don't see how you think these one liners get you anywhere, but so far, in this thread they're all you've posted.

Are you also so niave as to believe that making owning a gun a crime keeps criminals from having them? Buddy... what's 2+2?

You ever consider that your lack of violent encounters, like mine, could be accounted for by dumb luck?

[Rhino]

It is illegal to own a firearm where I live. And the police don't have guns.Wanna bet?

Personally, having lived in South Africa (where guns are legal) I can honestly say it feels much safer living without the threat of guns being drawn.And it's never dawned on you that the difference in danger levels might have absolutely nothing to do with guns? Would you feel safer in Switzerland? Everybody has guns there and they're one of the safest countries in the world, even safer than yours. You have fallen victim to an easy, simplistic, superficial conclusion that many people fall victim too. Unfortunately, it's statistically proven to be the wrong conclusion. The presence of guns does not raise the danger from crime. If it were that simple, crime could have been largely solved a long time ago.

http://www.gunbancon.com/sheeple.jpg

[Nutrider99]

In regards to the situation in Lebanon, the time has come for Hezbollah to be destroyed and for democracy to be restored. Syrian sponsored terrorists have held control of that nation for too long. Israel needs to move in with ground forces and route out the terrorists which the UN is too chicken shit to do while American aircraft carriers provide air cover and destroy every Syrian aircraft that deploys. Immediately after Lebanon is secured, American, British and UN (Un Needed) forces should be sent in to stabilize the region while democracy can supplant the oligarchy Syria installed. When the UN moves in, Israel should pull out.

Simultaneously, American forces should be massed near the Iraq / Iran border to prepare for an invasion. Iran will be unable to launch an assault against Israel if they see the American attack is imminent. If this doesn’t keep Iran out of it, then we simply have to advance the liberation of Iraq on our timetable.

Regarding North Korea, anyone who believes we should engage in bi-lateral talks with North Korea is an idiot. This concerns Asia, and it would not be in the best interests of America to appear to ride roughshod over that part of the world. The six-party talks are the way to go. Ultimately, it will be necessary to eliminate Kim Jung Ill. There is no place in the world for people like him.

[cerberus]

Absolutely. And what is the long term vision?What indeed?

The radical Islamists have promised that they will never live in peace with Israel, and will not rest until Israel is destroyed. So then we have two options. 1. Israel is destroyed, or 2. The radical Islamists are destroyed. If you believe that Israel should be destroyed, read no further. You are a damn fool, and no amount of reason will ever get through to you. If you don't believe that Israel should be destroyed, then the only logical alternative is to remove the threat of the radical Islamists. They are generally a very small minority and could be dealt with without plunging the entire region into a fireball, IMO.

The first order of business is to remove the state sanction that these terrorists currently enjoy. Nations like Syria and Iran are controlled by terrorist elements who have raped those nations of their resources and used them for terrorism. The full resources of these nations have no focus other than the destruction of Israel and the establishment of sharia law worldwide. If you believe that these nations can be reasoned with, read no further. You are a damn fool, and no amount of reason will ever get through to you. While I agree both are sponsors of terror that hate Israel, I feel compelled to point out that Syria is a secular nation with no intention of imposing Sharia law. And while both nations are threatening Israel, I also wouldn't say thier "full resources" have been devoted soley to the cause of crushing Israel. Finally, at least Syria can sort-of be reasoned/negotiated with. Under massive international pressure they will negotiate and comply with many demands (see their withdrawal of troops from Lebanon after protests and international pressure). Iran, also to an extent is subject to coercion given the proper pressure.

If we decide that we need to remove the terrorists from power, then we need to decide on a time line. Every day these nations continue to exist as they are, two things happen. More people are killed by random acts of terror, and these nations continue to work toward more destructive WMD. Nuclear and biological weapons are strongly desired by the terrorists. To acquire these weapons, all that is required is desire, which they have, money, which they have, and time, which they are being given. The longer we wait to address the problem, the more dangerous these nations become. If you believe that we should wait until these terrorist dominated nations should be given time to become even more dangerous, possibly with nuclear weapons, read no further. You are a damn fool, and no amount of reason will ever get through to you. Well, its more than money, time and desire because if that were true, nations like Libya or Iran would already have a bomb. The links between these states and terrorists like Hizbollah or Hamas are often more complicated and there are more avenues that are available then carpet bombing. And generally speaking these nations aren't "terroist dominated" they simply use terrorists when it's convenient to do their dirty work; Afghanistan under the Taliban, THAT was an example of a nation truly dominated by terrorists.

So our choices are clear. We do nothing and eventually lose millions of lives to nuclear armed terrorists, or we move forward and lose thousands of lives. We did not set the conditions. We did not define the enemy. We tried to avoid conflict at the cost of letting these animals become a threat to the civilized world. Fifty years ago concentrated cleansing fire could have made this threat non-existent at very litle cost. Twenty-five years ago, we could have eliminated the threat at a cost that would have been small by comparison. Now, even the Russians and Chinese are learning that these animals are not things to be taken lightly. These 16th century monsters are intent on taking over the world, just like Hitler was in the last century. Like Hitler, they are counting on our aversion to war to enable them to amass great world power. Like NAZI Germany, they are willing to use the mass murder of innocents as a tool to further their cause.See, now, this is the problem. You fall back to two of your very bad habits in making an arguement, namely: proclaiming a false dichotomy (either we surrender and die OR we kill 'em all!) and engaging in unnecessary hyperbole (they are little Hitler clones), neither of which is true. Rhetorically it may feel very good, but from an analytic discussion or policy standpoint, it gets us nowhere.

The time is now to unite, to rise up and to destroy these vermin before it's too late. These are not just ragheaded subhumans who have sex with camels. These vermin represent a very real threat to the civilized world. We cannot co-exist with them. We must either submit to them, or destroy them. Well the key is to formulate a policy that both eliminates terrorists now and also lays a groudwork for the future that discourages people in the future from engaging in terror as a means to an end. Unless you are one of the psycotics on this board that seriously advocates killing every Arab in the world and/or turning the ME into a sheet of black glass, doing that is a difficult proposition.

[Wolfcounsel]

"there are probably bad guys in my area, however they don't have guns. It's quite simple. Firearms are illegal therefore no-one sells them, therefore the bad guys don't have access to them. I know this is difficult for you to understand, coming from a country where guns are so pervasive that they give them away in cereal boxes." --Book

And I know this is difficult for you to understand. I once had a conversation with a pacifist. He thought by dying at the hands of a psycho, and his loved ones dying by the same hands, they would have achieved victory, because they did not cave in to the demands of a demented monster, and he achieved nothing.

Firearms are illegal, and therefore nobody sells them? Really? How about drugs? Nobody sells those either, I'll bet. How about terrorism? Is that illegal in your area also? Good, if true. I might move there so that I don't ever have to deal with those terrrible fellows.

Give me a break, Book.:evilgrin:
<!-- / message -->

[Bluemoon_Rising]

In regards to the situation in Lebanon, the time has come for Hezbollah to be destroyed and for democracy to be restored. Syrian sponsored terrorists have held control of that nation for too long. Israel needs to move in with ground forces and route out the terrorists which the UN is too chicken shit to do while American aircraft carriers provide air cover and destroy every Syrian aircraft that deploys. Immediately after Lebanon is secured, American, British and UN (Un Needed) forces should be sent in to stabilize the region while democracy can supplant the oligarchy Syria installed. When the UN moves in, Israel should pull out.

This strikes me as just about right. Although I think it would be better that an international ground force of the willing -- which essentially means the United States, Great Britian and Australia -- go in and first secure the Lebanese-Syrian boarder as British and American warplanes secure the sky. I’m for bypassing the U.N., though that is unlikely to happen. If such a force goes in at all it is likely to be under the U.N.’s blue helmet.

The vast majority of the Lebanese population -- comprised of Christians, Sunnis and Druze -- is sane and peaceful. The Israelis and the members of the coalition can hunt down and destroy Hezbullah and that segment of the Shiite population that is willing to actively oppose them. Also, it is paramount that Syria be completely cut off from Iran on the seas and in the air.

Let's be clear, if we were to make such a move, we would be at war with Syria, as there is no way that it would not eventually force our hand with some foolish provocation or another. Hence, as for Syria, we make it impossible for it to fly and destroy its air force on the ground as we rain hellfire and brimstone down on its governmental and military-industrial infrastructure. In short, we bring the hell to which it has subjected Lebanon for three decades to its people and the Ba'athist, al-Assad regime.

As for its destiny, I would that Syria’s population be left to sort things out for itself. As I see it, we can help to suppress the regime's military from the air and provide arms to the various factions that comprise the regime's principle opposition within -- beginning with the fundamentalist Sunnis, the "Muslim Brotherhood"; The Druze and Kurdish Muslims; and the Armenian Orthodox and Assyrian Christians. The Muslim Brotherhood despises the Alawi Muslims, regarding al-Assad and his cronies to be heretics. It made a serious attempt to overthrow the Ba'ath Party between 1975 and 1983, and it would gleefully take up arms against an embattled Alawi regime. Also, and what might strike some as being counterintuitive, the Sunni fundamentalists of Syria genuinely respect serious Christians and devout Druze and Kurdish Muslims.

Simultaneously, American forces should be massed near the Iraq / Iran border to prepare for an invasion. Iran will be unable to launch an assault against Israel if they see the American attack is imminent. If this doesn’t keep Iran out of it, then we simply have to advance the liberation of Iraq on our timetable.

If Iran gets froggy, so be it. We jump down its throat on our terms. Of course, cerb is of the opinion that folks like you and I are idiots, that we perhaps do not anticipate the necessity of countering certain Iranian actions within a larger conflict or would stupidly spark one as if that were necessarily a bad thing to do. Dolt. Instead of striking while the iron is hot and testing the possibility that Iran might in fact capitulate in the face of dire and imminent consequences without further/more serious military action required -- and such a possibility in my estimation is not necessarily as unlikely as it may seem today -- he would have us pursue a mysterious "long-term vision" until Iran is armed with nukes. The idea of actually calling Ahmadinejad's bluff is not nuanced enough; it is foolishly unappreciative of the larger complications associated with the indigenous political realities with which our "friends" in the region must contend. Apparently cerb is also under the impression that we were born yesterday.

However, I have one suggestion. If it were to become necessary, I would rather that we use continuous and carefully targeted air strikes to simply harass and destabilize Iran's mullah regime as we aggressively encourage the democratic opposition within. I don't think it would be wise to mount a serious incursion into Iranian territory while Iraq remains as unstable as it currently is.

Regarding North Korea, anyone who believes we should engage in bi-lateral talks with North Korea is an idiot. This concerns Asia, and it would not be in the best interests of America to appear to ride roughshod over that part of the world. The six-party talks are the way to go. Ultimately, it will be necessary to eliminate Kim Jung Ill. There is no place in the world for people like him.

cerb gets that much; he opposes bilateral talks as well, but he would have had us running "roughshod over that part of the world" in ways that would have been unsustainable, let alone practically possible, beginning at least six years ago. Ditto some of our young, Bush-bashing conservative purists. To be fair, the convictions and instincts of the latter, unlike those of cerb, are solid and sincere. It's just that the actions they would take are premature. The administration's six-party approach, especially in what is potentially an even more explosive and dangerous dynamic, is absolutely correct and is gradually working its magic.

BTW, Americon, if you're reading this, the answer to your question is this: while the war on terrorism is the current threat, and quite a dangerous one at that, a break out of serious tensions in Asia could much more quickly escalate into a world war the world's major, nuclear-armed powers. Shudder. Increasingly assertive actions against Kim Jong Il must at least appear to be naturally/logically imperative and realistically sustainable by a converging international consensus over time. The six-party approach is moving things in that direction.

I say again, it is Bush's poor communication skills and the results of his failure to effectively command and define the agenda in the media that tends to blind well-meaning conservatives and disingenuous louts on the left to the fact that his approach is the right one, one that is working. It is seriously unfortunate that the Bush administration is not more confrontational with the media. If only Bush were faster on his feet and were to consistently respond to his critics in the manner in which I suggested on the other thread, America’s perception of his policy would be dramatically different and he would stay well ahead of the leftist establishment’s constant and treasonous attempts to undermine it.

It is good that Kim Jong Il fears the outcome of six-party talks, a regional resolution; it is good that he pulled out of them and is foolishly fomenting growing opposition within the international community against his regime, not bad.

Fire more missiles, moron.

[Book]

Firearms are illegal, and therefore nobody sells them? Really? How about drugs? Nobody sells those either, I'll bet.
<!-- / message --> You really don't get it do you. Nobody has guns because nobody needs them. It's a supply and demand thing. Drugs are in demand, therefore people supply them. I feel sorry for you that you live in a world of terror, that you lie awake at night hugging your 'semi' automatic rifle in the hope that it will defend you from that coked up demon in your closet.

[Lubbock]

Give it up, Wolfie. You can't reason with the intentional delusional.

[Wolfcounsel]

"You really don't get it do you. Nobody has guns because nobody needs them. It's a supply and demand thing. Drugs are in demand, therefore people supply them. I feel sorry for you that you live in a world of terror, that you lie awake at night hugging your 'semi' automatic rifle in the hope that it will defend you from that coked up demon in your closet.<!-- / message -->" --Book

So there is this supply and demand thing for firearms, and also for drugs. A practically-zero gun area with a drug use problem. Remind me to strike your area off my vacation list for this summer.

My wife and I usually stay out in the backyard in a mosquito tent, after a night of barbecue, beer and music. We have a four-foot chainlink fence around the yard. Good sleeping if you ask me.

We do have a well-known motto at our place:

COME IN PEACE OR BE CARRIED OUT IN PIECES

[Foquet]

That has to be one of the most irrational and mentally challenged posts I have read in a long time.

"Nobody has guns because nobody needs them. It's a supply and demand thing. Drugs are in demand, therefore people supply them."

That is like saying no one needs a condom simply because a whore is down the street, so therefore you have no need to worry about little bodily invaders crawling around your body because you slept with her.

BTW, you obviously never lived in a big city, if you think that guns and drugs have no connection. Demand or not.

As for the world a terror that you so simply talked about, I cannot understand how liberals can sleep, breathe or even step outside of their homes without having a coronary, since to them, everything is a "crisis" and that is something that they cling to that 100 times harder than trying to pry a steak from Rosie O'Donnell's lips. From "global warming", ozone holes, spotted owls, butter on movie theatre popcorn to smelling ciggy smoke 100 miles away, it is no wonder that liberals abort themsevles at such a high rate. That much tension within a liberal household would cause a tsnaumi, since the Earth can only support many Chicken Littles.

You really don't get it do you. Nobody has guns because nobody needs them. It's a supply and demand thing. Drugs are in demand, therefore people supply them. I feel sorry for you that you live in a world of terror, that you lie awake at night hugging your 'semi' automatic rifle in the hope that it will defend you from that coked up demon in your closet.

[DoctorDoom]

Guys, the Comic Book is a Europissant. And we all know that Europissants are vastly superior and more civilized than the American cowboys. They disarm the people, abolish capital punishment, and cringe in fear as crime runs amok. And so civilized are they that the UK is now letting felons off with a warning.

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.

The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

A caution counts as a criminal record but means the offender does not face a court appearance which would be likely to end in a fine, a community punishment or jail.'Let burglars off with caution', police told (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770)

Doesn't that just make ya want to emigrate to Europe?

[Bluemoon_Rising]

No, there are probably bad guys in my area, however they don't have guns. It's quite simple. Firearms are illegal therefore no-one sells them, therefore the bad guys don't have access to them. I know this is difficult for you to understand, coming from a country where guns are so pervasive that they give them away in cereal boxes.

What country are we talking about here, Great Britain?

If so -- you are clueless. Assault and property crimes went through the roof in Great Britain following the ban on privately owned firearms. And you can be absolutely sure that "bad guys" can always get their hands on firearms anywhere in the world. I don't believe you for a moment.

Further, based on your silly statement about "cereal boxes", I imagine your view of the American landscape is mostly informed by the American cinema, rather than first-hand experience. It is not a country of incessant and pervasive cowboy shoot-'em-ups. The vast majority of America's citizenry bears firearms responsibly, and the "bad guys" in America certainly do not acquire their firearms by legal means.

As for turning over to the state what is ultimately the peoples' responsibility -- the safeguarding of their liberty -- most Americans are not willing to trade the last remaining means of checking the ambitions of the state for a false sense of security.

[Lubbock]

And we responsible gun owners better be keping a real close eye on the UN. That bunch of Buzzards are out to take every last legal weapon out of the hands of gun owners in this nation.

Better watch those Buzzards! They're circling.

[cerberus]

I can understand that. Understand that once I get rolling, my larger posts rarely stay on subject.

I assume you mean more on a "national" level. I assure you I was personally very thankful to have survived an armed encounter or two, and that they did not. ...and so are we, but were you actually thankful that you had to engage in it in the first place? That's my point; not that it isn't necessary, but that it should't be relished.

The World still isn't pacified enough that the more peaceable, free nations are left alone by the third world cesspools. I'm very interested to see if Iraq can be the "showcase" democratic arab nation the Bush Strategy.... and if that will be the start of toppling the remaining Arab dictatorships. Don't hold your breath......

Having fought one, I'd rather never have our lads and lasses in another. I've even preached US neutrality, hauling up the national drawbridge and us staying home. Simplistic view, unworkable in today's world. True, but consistant.


I think Israel just might finally be on the road to sorting out a couple problems. The US has interfered with the Israelis wiping out some of their more virulent foes for a long time, which has allowed those enemies to flourish (Hamas, Hesbollah, etc.). I think Israel is going to do a proper job on crippling those organizations this time.

Israel doesn't have a choice. The only thing their foes understand is violence and death.
I wasn't talking about Israel per se so I don't know where you are going with this. I was more referring to us, but either way, I don't think there is a 'military solution' that will lead to long-term peace.

True, and it's also the admission statesmen / politicians have completely failed to resolve foreign affairs another way. Indeed my friend, indeed.

[DesertFox]

That's my point; not that it isn't necessary, but that it should't be relished.Just so somebody knows: Combat is a blast when you got his murderous ass right where you want it and are administering what the mf has coming. It's even better when he puts up a real fight, but that hardly ever happens; America's enemies only put up a real fight when the cameras are a-rolling, and for some reason the cameras never roll where the real shit's hitting the real fan. And that's because America always kicks ass and takes names where the real stuff comes down.

[Foquet]

Hence...our still being a superpower.

[Black Phoenix]

You really don't get it do you. Nobody has guns because nobody needs them. It's a supply and demand thing. Drugs are in demand, therefore people supply them. I feel sorry for you that you live in a world of terror, that you lie awake at night hugging your 'semi' automatic rifle in the hope that it will defend you from that coked up demon in your closet.

Us paranoid? :roar:

This coming from a liberal right? You believe in global warming? You believe Bush is attempting to either take over the world, or drain its resouces for the sake of oil company executives that are his old buddies? You believe your life is in danger every time a smoker enters the room? You believe America, (you living here is irrelivent) is a behind the curtain dictatorship, mass fooling its citizens and fixing elections? Oh yea, you libs are all on top of getting a grip!

Militants have fears just like everyone else on the planet. Only difference is, generally someone is labeled militant, or something along those lines, when they take action to either fight or secure against their fears. True it can be taken too far, but only a fool prepares for nothing, and hopes for the best whilst believing in