Ray doesn't do sarcasm.
In the case I brought up, the Yezidi. There are a couple hundred thousand of them in Iraq, so we should be able to just kill them all.
I lose track sometimes of who are the good guys.. my apology. You anology was pretty funny..
I agree occupation is a problem. We invaded Germany; wouldn't call it an occupation. We never occupied Japan - we just killed alot of them.
Radical Islamists wasn't the problem in Iraq (although it probably is now).
I think killing a WHOLE bunch of radical islamists, if we could figure out how to, would be an effective deterrent to them. Can't get 'em all in one place, at one time, however.
Thank you.
can't be too hard to find them, can it?
"...Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...Bomb, Bomb Iran..."[/MIRROR CHECK]
Are you kidding me? We had twice as many troops in Japan after WWII than we ever had in Iraq and formally occupied it for six years. We still have troops in both countries.
We had the main group of them in Afghanistan.Radical Islamists wasn't the problem in Iraq (although it probably is now).
I think killing a WHOLE bunch of radical islamists, if we could figure out how to, would be an effective deterrent to them. Can't get 'em all in one place, at one time, however.
Separating them from people who have not vowed to destroy us is very difficult.
You might not have noticed; we don't fire-bomb cities randomly anymore; separating the wheat from the chaffe; that's what we're about, now. It's more humane, more defensible, but not as effective.
We bombed EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE in both Germany and Japan until each of those countries gave up, cried uncle, whatever you want to call it.
There is still certainly "collateral damage" now, but it is nothing like the carpet bombing massacres that took place in WWII; 50 MILLION + people died in that war!
With the more modern sensibilities (and I don't think they are a bad thing, btw) surgical warfare is what we are left with (although we fight an enemy without that sensibility - fortunately they don't have the means to do much about it).
My bad, I should have been more clear; I was thinking in terms of when Shintoism "gave up"; which was when the Emperor (God) did. Before they stopped fighting, we didn't occupy.
The analogy doesn't hold, however, we can't get Mohammed to surrender, can we?
I think many of the Radicals were in Afghanistan; but it was far too easy for them to move over to friendly territory in Pakistan. Also, I think there are plenty in other countries and areas. Syria, Iran, Palestine, Great Britain....We had the main group of them in Afghanistan.
Like you said. How do you tell the good guys from the
bad guys, or women or children for that matter, when
no one wears a uniform and all of the above have been
proven to be used to blow you up.
One other difference between WWII and now. If you
were captured during WWII out of uniform, on both sides,
it was presumed you were involved in espionage and
tried as such and executed with few questions ask.
But we occupied and fundamentally transformed their society with over 300,000 troops to make sure it happened.My bad, I should have been more clear; I was thinking in terms of when Shintoism "gave up"; which was when the Emperor (God) did. Before they stopped fighting, we didn't occupy.Yes, because we tried to outsource the job of eliminating the Arab radicals to folks who really didn't care that much about them.I think many of the Radicals were in Afghanistan; but it was far too easy for them to move over to friendly territory in Pakistan.
that's a perfect example of how antiquated neocons have become.
Agreed; but what was germane to my original argument works; about whether you could make an ideology surrender - we could, but with different means than we are capable of utilizing now (at least I think that was the original point, I'm frankly confused; if we need to still debate, get me up to speed, and I'll run with it).
Yes.
Your post makes absolutely no sense. antiquated. That
was a fact. And it is a fact, terrorist do not wear uniforms
and people in civilian clothes caught in their situation
are still considered involved in espionage under
international norms. Get real in your arguments.
Has anybody thought a better solution than total anhiliation?
I haven't.
that's the point ray. their theory of military action no longer exist in this theater. go to a movie house, the drive-in is dead.
Is there a Darfur Genocide Awareness Week? And if so, what would Yoni and the Iraquettes suggest we do about THAT? I'm guessing...
...which is not a goddamn thing.
I'd like to end that .
No oil there.
What a strange coincidence.
I'd be in favor of systematically assassinating the leaders and supporters of the Janjaweed until they stop their killling, destroying their command and control structures with Tomahawk missiles, etc...
Unfortunately, the left is opposed to black ops. They'd rather we send in our best and brightest into the middle of an intractable genocide where both sides are so desperate we'd have no ally.
Since when are Tomahawk missiles black ops?Add another few sides and you have Iraq.They'd rather we send in our best and brightest into the middle of an intractable genocide where both sides are so desperate we'd have no ally.
Tomahawk missles? How very Clintonian of you.
If it is an intractable genocide, then offing a couple of chief-du-jours isn't going to stop it. But it's all academic anyway; our best and brightest are already booked in a desperate, intractable cluster .
So... moving past the rhetoric, and personal attacks that distract us from the main topic of conversation... do you actually support the 'bad' soldiers that executed innocent people? Where do you stand on that? (and please, I could not care less what you think about me or anybody else in this forum, so you can save the personal attacks until you run out of intelligent things to say ...)
If you want to go for the head, we could start by trying to find Bin Laden, blackops or not. I mean, it's been 6 years and counting...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)