Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

[Phillip Tanaka]

Tell them that. Go on. Tell a soldier of your country who fights for your life, as well as the lives of everyone else in your country and the way of life your country enjoys that they should find something better to do.

 

[WildWeasel]

Fighting for life is so cliché. I demand something new and exciting. They should play chess for my life or listen to music for my life.

 

[TC]

You aren't worth the effort, and you know it!

 

[WildWeasel]

Well, that was my original point, but I didn't want to come off as a pity whore.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by WildWeasel
Fighting for life is so cliché. I demand something new and exciting. They should play chess for my life or listen to music for my life.

Hey, I'd love it if conflict was settled through something like basketball or soccer or some other international sport. And I'm sure a lot of other people would want that as well. But the problem is, especially with terrorists, especially since they don't conform to any one nationality, that those who wage war such as Bush or Saddam or Binladen feel that the loss of life, nay the extinction of their enemy's people, is how they prove their point.

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by Quarto
Well, I suppose blowing up schools is always a good way to change an education system . It may be difficult to simultaneously bomb a nation and persuade it to like you. Truth be told, I think that when the WTC was bombed, the terrorists were actually counting on an American response.

Of course. It's a win win situation. They blow up a major commercial centre in NY, kill thousands of people and prove that the US is not untouchable. Meanwhile if the US doesn't provide a military response then they show that the big bad US is not as powerful as they claim to be and that they are cowards who can be destroyed for all their evil deeds. If they do then the US is still big , bad and evil and needs to be wiped out.

Both scenarios IMHO make for good proaganda for recruiting more wackos. And since this is is international news everybody knows about it and is watching the USes response; if they aren't careful then instant wackos recruited in countries which have Taliban sympathizers.

 

[steampunk]

Originally posted by Aries
yeah, they hoped we would withdraw from world affairs, not go over there and kick their ass

Considering that these guys are composed of cells not a centrally orgnised group, kicking their ass in one place but not every other place does little good. The one you don't get simply pack up and move.

 

[Cam]

Originally posted by steampunk
Both scenarios IMHO make for good proaganda for recruiting more wackos. And since this is is international news everybody knows about it and is watching the USes response; if they aren't careful then instant wackos recruited in countries which have Taliban sympathizers.

Don't forget, it works two ways. The wackos you speak of can also be nationalist warmongers who join the US armed forces. People who shoot first and ask questions later. Just the kind of cowboys the US needs, right?

(note my heavy use of sarcasm)

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Aries
no, i'm not saying that. what i'm saying is take a look at those two pres. responses to terrorist attacks. bush did something, while clinton didn't. and actually, the UN was responsible for somalia. clinton is just responsible for pulling our guys out just cause things weren't looking great at the moment. and i'd be the last to say ignore our enemies just cause they haven't attacked

Bush had his chance to react to the attacks that took place during the Clinton administration, and he did not. He reacted after the WTC attack? Wow, big surprise there. There is no doubt that Clinton would have reacted too - any president that ignores 3,000 casualties would be pretty much out of a job.

Oh, and as for Somalia, the UN's responsibility is a myth. The food distribution operation was about as horridly mismanaged as UN operations in the early 90s could get, but it was the US that decided to actually intervene in the civil war.

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
I''ve said it before, but since you were too lazy to go back and read it, I'll say it again. Soldiers fight for your life to badmouth them. Killers will kill you if you badmouth them. Am I making myself clear, or am I going to have to start throwing about the F word?

please tell me that was intended for napoleon, not me

Originally posted by steampunk
Considering that these guys are composed of cells not a centrally orgnised group, kicking their ass in one place but not every other place does little good. The one you don't get simply pack up and move.

doesn't matter. my point was that the reaction those subhuman bastards wanted wasn't the one they got

Originally posted by Cam
Don't forget, it works two ways. The wackos you speak of can also be nationalist warmongers who join the US armed forces. People who shoot first and ask questions later. Just the kind of cowboys the US needs, right?

well, it IS the job of the military to shoot first and ask questions later. also, it doesn't matter how many 'nationalist warmongers' join the military, cause the military doesn't dictate policy. and since when is someone who has pride in his country a 'wacko'?

Originally posted by Quarto
Bush had his chance to react to the attacks that took place during the Clinton administration, and he did not. He reacted after the WTC attack? Wow, big surprise there. There is no doubt that Clinton would have reacted too - any president that ignores 3,000 casualties would be pretty much out of a job.

yes, bush didn't do anything about the previous attacks, i never said otherwise. am i saying that's right, hell no. but forget about numbers of casualties and just look at their responses to terrorist attacks-clinton didn't do anything effective about them, while bush did

Oh, and as for Somalia, the UN's responsibility is a myth. The food distribution operation was about as horridly mismanaged as UN operations in the early 90s could get, but it was the US that decided to actually intervene in the civil war.

actually, the UN did intervene in the civil war. But when clinton pulled out US forces, that's when the whole country went into even deeper shit, casue the UN couldn't do anything without US forces. so, yes, somalia was the UN's responsibility. now, the incident depicted in Black Hawk Down, yes, that was completely american, but it was hardly a debacle.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Originally posted by Aries
please tell me that was intended for napoleon, not me

Since you agree with kicking murdering soldiers kicking the crap out of terrorists, that was directed at our favourite French midget ruler.

In fact, I'll put everybody on the spot right now. Let's say you were walking down the street, and suddenly you encountered Osama Bin Laden. He sees you, and raises his beloved AK-47 up to kill you. Now you had a weapon too, a Beretta M92 SF. Issued to murdering soldiers. Would you, yes or no, use that murdering weapon and in an act of self defense, use it to murder Bin Laden, who was just about to kill you?

 

[WildWeasel]

Killing in self-defense is murder?

 

[Aries]

Originally posted by WildWeasel
Killing in self-defense is murder?

according to napoleon

as for the question posed by phillip, he'd be a dead cowardly subhuman bastard if i was in that situation

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Ask Napoleon.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

Where is everyone?

Originally posted by Aries
as for the question posed by phillip, he'd be a dead cowardly subhuman bastard if i was in that situation

*Dares Bin Laden character in Rogue Spear\SWAT 3\Quake\
Unreal to go ahead, make my day.*

That should answer it.

 

[Cam]

Originally posted by Aries
well, it IS the job of the military to shoot first and ask questions later. also, it doesn't matter how many 'nationalist warmongers' join the military, cause the military doesn't dictate policy. and since when is someone who has pride in his country a 'wacko'?

I don't know about you man, but I would prefer if my nation's armed forces thinks about what they are about to do before they do it.

I think you've confused nationalism with patriotism. Or maybe not--the American definition of nationalism has become skewed. If you compared nationalism in an American (New World) dictionary with nationalism in an English dictionary you'd probably notice that the American dictionary lacks the key piece: too great a love for one's nation.

Nationalism spawns feelings of superiority (as many proud Americans have exhibited in this discussion already) and in the past can be seen in examples such as Nazi Germany. It was one of the major factors of WW1 (or was it 2?). I don't know if they teach that in US high school level history classes though--since the American definition of nationalism is now synonymous with patriotism.

Perhaps being a nationalist isn't enough to make you a "wacko" but nationalist beliefs are certainly far more dangerous than patriotism.

I chose the word nationalism just to see if anybody would respond in the way you did. If you are an example of the rest of American society, then many may not know this difference. Guess it's true what they say--history is doomed to repeat itself.

 

[Cam]

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka
I'll put everybody on the spot right now. Let's say you were walking down the street, and suddenly you encountered Osama Bin Laden. He sees you, and raises his beloved AK-47 up to kill you. Now you had a weapon too, a Beretta M92 SF. Issued to murdering soldiers. Would you, yes or no, use that murdering weapon and in an act of self defense, use it to murder Bin Laden, who was just about to kill you?

I don't think it's fair to compare that situation with armed soldiers invading a sovereign nation. Key word sovereign. It's been stated by Napoleon before.

How would you feel if Russian soldiers invaded the US and wanted to bomb the countryside because Chechnyan rebels were living in the suburbs?

Anyway, the obvious answer would be yes, you would act in self defense. But soldiers sent onto foreign territory are not defending their homeland, they're an invasion force. I think what Napoleon is saying is that they are murderers because they invaded a country and killed their countrymen.

 

[Phillip Tanaka]

That's true. But I would be willing to put my neck on the line and say that most of the countries us on the chatzone are from would marshall their armies to stop harm from coming to either them or their allies, to the best of their knowledge. Some incidents could not have been seen, but I do think the majority of countries in the world try their best. So the example with self defense is accurate, from a certain point of view.

 

[WildWeasel]

I would just like to take this opportunity to curse Hades for creating this forum.

Thank you. You may now continue your ranting.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Aries
doesn't matter. my point was that the reaction those subhuman bastards wanted wasn't the one they got

Then you missed my point - they wanted this war. There is no other explanation. Do you really think that an organisation capable of planning and executing an attack as complex as what you saw on September 11th is too stupid to realise what the results of this attack will be? Do you think that Osama Bin Laden expected the US to surrender or withdraw from world affairs? If yes, then you are making the biggest mistake one can make in a war - underestimating your enemy.

yes, bush didn't do anything about the previous attacks, i never said otherwise. am i saying that's right, hell no. but forget about numbers of casualties and just look at their responses to terrorist attacks-clinton didn't do anything effective about them, while bush did.

Ok, let's forget about the numbers of casualties. But let's forget the casualty numbers on both sides - after all, if we throw away one side of the equation, then the other side is also unnecessary.
Bush's response - bomb Afghanistan, let Osama Bin Laden get away.
Clinton's response - bomb Afghanistan, let Osama Bin Laden get away.

Hmmmm...

actually, the UN did intervene in the civil war. But when clinton pulled out US forces, that's when the whole country went into even deeper shit, casue the UN couldn't do anything without US forces. so, yes, somalia was the UN's responsibility.

No... the UN intervened in the drought. They brought in food. They distributed this food. Local forces made distribution difficult (and eventually downright impossible), but that was all that the UN was interested in. Yes, they had armed forces, but they were there to guard the UN staff and compounds. It was the US that decided to go after Aidid. The campaign that followed was run by the US military, not by the UN.

now, the incident depicted in Black Hawk Down, yes, that was completely american, but it was hardly a debacle.

If you count the number of dead Americans, it was indeed a nearly-irrelevant incident. But it was a debacle because of its wider ramifications - the UN got the blame, and the US has been reluctant to help out in UN operations ever since.