Forums

Feed The topics in Internet Marketing that you should be reading right now
New Threads with the newest replies
Top Threads voted as the best by the Warrior Forum Community

Marketplace

Warrior Special Offers

Exclusive products and services available only at Warrior Forum

Get great deals on Internet Marketing Products, Services, Trainings and other Offers at the world's largest Internet marketing marketplace

23

140 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

140 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is It OK to Kill Wanted Criminal If Innocents Get Killed In Process?

by thunderbird

Posted: 13 years ago 115 replies

OFF TOPIC

|

We could kill a lot of society's most wanted criminals with modern methods, but sometimes civilians would get killed in the process. Do you feel that it would be worth eliminating criminals if children and other civilians sometimes got killing in doing so?

That is the rationale for using drones in Pakistan to kill intended targets:
Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes - Salon.com

13 years ago

Of 746 people listed as killed in the drone strikes outlined in the document, at least 147 of the dead are clearly stated to be civilian victims, 94 of those are said to be children.

Jesus....that number is high. It's not worth it for even 1 civilian to be killed.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386181].message }}

13 years ago

I think it depends on how many people they've already killed - and their likelihood of killing more in the future. It may be a lesser of two evils.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386184].message }}

13 years ago

Re: Is It OK to Kill Wanted Criminal If Innocents Get Killed In Process?

Would you push that button if it was your wife/kids/sister/mother/whatever that was going to be one of the "acceptable casualties"?

It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when you don't know any of the innocent victims.

If you're OK with innocent people being killed in the name of our cause, you're no different than the terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of theirs.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387097].message }}

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Would you push that button if it was your wife/kids/sister/mother/whatever that was going to be one of the "acceptable casualties"?

It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when you don't know any of the innocent victims.

If you're OK with innocent people being killed in the name of our cause, you're no different than the terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of theirs.

Likewise, if you were a native who put faith in American support, for example if you were a translator for ISAF or in one of the Afghan militia/popular defense program, you would probably be singing to a different tune.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387130].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

View Post

Likewise, if you were a native who put faith in American support, for example if you were a translator for ISAF or in one of the Afghan militia/popular defense program, you would probably be singing to a different tune.

Really? So you're saying if the United States was being run by corrupt leaders (other than Obama and his cronies, lol) and another country had troops here to help us overthrow the government, I would be OK with that foreign military flying drones overhead and blowing up innocent people as long as they took out one or two bad guys in the process? I think not.

Thanks

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387292].message }}

13 years ago

It isn't a yes/no or black/white issue.

Let's say we pulled out of Afghanistan right now. How many Afghani civilians and children would be killed by the Taliban and Al Queda out of revenge? We are the first country since Alexander the Great (300 BC) to hold Afghanistan. And the only reason we can do this is because the Afghanis want us there. Many claim that 100,000's of Afghanis could die if we left.

It's a bad situation with no easy answers and it isn't as simple as counting the people killed by drones.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386204].message }}

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

View Post

It isn't a yes/no or black/white issue.

Let's say we pulled out of Afghanistan right now. How many Afghani civilians and children would be killed by the Taliban and Al Queda out of revenge? We are the first country since Alexander the Great (300 BC) to hold Afghanistan. And the only reason we can do this is because the Afghanis want us there. Many claim that 100,000's of Afghanis could die if we left.

It's a bad situation with no easy answers and it isn't as simple as counting the people killed by drones.

You forgot about the greatest conquerors of all.

Afghanistan - Mongol Rule = 1220-1506

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386570].message }}

13 years ago

It looks like trying to shape their society in ways more acceptable to the West is failing:
Afghanistan's pioneering female MP seeks asylum as progress for women unravels - Telegraph

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386230].message }}

Banned 13 years ago

that woman looks like the matron from the Addams family.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386319].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

View Post

that woman looks like the matron from the Addams family.

I do see the resemblance. I hope she gets asylum somewhere rather than becoming a martyr.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386324].message }}

13 years ago

Why does the media always claim that the people around a terrorist are "innocent civilians?" Technically the terrorists are civilians since they don't wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians like the military does. IMHO, if the people are hiding or helping terrorists they make themselves targets too. Unfortunately there is sometimes real collateral damage and while it sucks it's acceptable. We try to minimize it as much as we can but in war it's often not avoidable.

Personally, I would have nuked the taliban back in the day and I doubt the casualties would have been as high as they've been due to extended fighting. Nuking Japan saved more lives than it took because it ended the conflict.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386398].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

Why does the media always claim that the people around a terrorist are "innocent civilians?" Technically the terrorists are civilians since they don't wear uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians like the military does. IMHO, if the people are hiding or helping terrorists they make themselves targets too. Unfortunately there is sometimes real collateral damage and while it sucks it's acceptable. We try to minimize it as much as we can but in war it's often not avoidable.

Personally, I would have nuked the taliban back in the day and I doubt the casualties would have been as high as they've been due to extended fighting. Nuking Japan saved more lives than it took because it ended the conflict.

The media doesn't actually much focus on civilian casualties of drone attacks. Several of the people killed were children. So, why are you avoiding the original question? Would it be ok to do that in the United States, say, on Hells Angels and their wives and children, with "collateral damage" on unrelated bystanders in their vicinity?

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386402].message }}

socialentry Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I do see the resemblance. I hope she gets asylum somewhere rather than becoming a martyr.

let us hope so... My guess is that at the very least, she will be granted a seat on a military plane if (when...?) Kabul falls.It would be embarrassing for the US if she didn't.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386435].message }}

13 years ago

NO. It's NOT okay to kill someone who has done nothing wrong just because they accidentally end up in proximity to a criminal. If that were the case, we should just nuke the whole area where the problems are and say to hell with the people who led their lives as good people and are just unfortunate enough to have these thugs among them.

Don't forget -right now the US is murdering a lot of other people's kids, and it might not be long before other powers are asking whether it's okay to kill us to get at our leaders or military. You wanna die because we have jackasses in office who are using our military to commit atrocities to human sensibilities elsewhere? I sure don't.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386471].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

View Post

The media doesn't actually much focus on civilian casualties of drone attacks. Several of the people killed were children. So, why are you avoiding the original question? Would it be ok to do that in the United States, say, on Hells Angels and their wives and children, with "collateral damage" on unrelated bystanders in their vicinity?

Those are not the same though, using drones in pakistan is not the same as going after criminals here. You're trying to make them morally equivalent but they're not.

To answer your question though; no, it wouldn't be OK to go after a common criminal in the US with a drone strike.

That doesn't mean it's not OK to go after an enemy terrorist in another country with one though. It's sad when there is collateral damage but that doesn't make the target less legit.

Originally Posted by HeySal

View Post

NO. It's NOT okay to kill someone who has done nothing wrong just because they accidentally end up in proximity to a criminal. If that were the case, we should just nuke the whole area where the problems are and say to hell with the people who led their lives as good people and are just unfortunate enough to have these thugs among them.

Don't forget -right now the US is murdering a lot of other people's kids, and it might not be long before other powers are asking whether it's okay to kill us to get at our leaders or military. You wanna die because we have jackasses in office who are using our military to commit atrocities to human sensibilities elsewhere? I sure don't.

I said collateral damage is sometimes acceptable, not OK. It's OK to target the enemy. I already said that I think we should have nuked Kabul and I explained that nuking Japan, while it had high collateral damage actually saved more lives that it took. Collateral damage is unfortunate, which is why we try to avoid it and minimize it when we can, but sometimes it's acceptable.

Murdering? Atrocities? :rolleyes: While there are always regrettable individual incidents, that's not US/military policy. Many have given their lives to avoid collateral damage and you act like it's the norm. Way to insult my military brothers and sisters...

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386577].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

Murdering? Atrocities? :rolleyes: While there are always regrettable individual incidents, that's not US/military policy. Many have given their lives to avoid collateral damage and you act like it's the norm. Way to insult my military brothers and sisters...

It needn't be policy for it to be the result.

There is a difference between office and troops.

If you aren't questioning the people at the top, you aren't questioning anything.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386588].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

It needn't be policy for it to be the result.

There is a difference between office and troops.

If you aren't questioning the people at the top, you aren't questioning anything.

:rolleyes:
The unintentional occasional result is not an excuse to do nothing.

"The fact that slaughter (war) is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but it does not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." -- Carl von Clausewitz

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386598].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

:rolleyes:
The unintentional occasional result is not an excuse to do nothing.

Yet your analogy however did not encompass an unintentional situation, rather premeditated decisions based upon an ultimatum....

We needn't blunt swords but question why we have them in the first place, and indeed, again those answers are likely to be found at the top.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386615].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

Yet your analogy however did not encompass an unintentional situation, rather premeditated decisions based upon an ultimatum....

We needn't blunt swords but question why we have them in the first place, and indeed, again those answers are likely to be found at the top.

Nonsense. I just don't assume that "regrettable individual incidents" are all a conspiracy from "the top." I chalk most of them up to "the fog of war" or individual/small groups of bad actors.

The questioning of "why we need them" is addressed by taking war more seriously.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386635].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

Nonsense. I just don't assume that "regrettable individual incidents" are all a conspiracy from "the top." I chalk most of them up to "the fog of war" or individual/small groups of bad actors.

The questioning of "why we need them" is addressed by taking war more seriously.

Your presented ultimatum was to kill millions or dozens so my retort can't be nonsense. You missed out "unintentional" this time around so you've whittled somewhat.

I didn't suggest conspiracy. I said that the answers are likely to be found at the top, however apparent or volatile they may or not be, rather than on the lower levels which you appeared to place together with office as a single and equal military entity when you jumped to defense to claim that questioning and / or complaining was insulting to the entire institution.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386678].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

Your presented ultimatum was to kill millions or dozens so my retort can't be nonsense. You missed out "unintentional" this time around so you've whittled somewhat.

I didn't suggest conspiracy. I said that the answers are likely to be found at the top, however apparent or volatile they may or not be, rather than on the lower levels which you appeared to place together with office as a single and equal military entity when you jumped to defense to claim that questioning and / or complaining was insulting to the entire institution.

Oh you were talking about one thing but you quoted something else, go figure...

It is a similar analogy to tbirds though. The killing of dozens would be unintentional in the sense that they're not the actual target.

How about answering the question? Do you let the terrorist get to Phoenix or order the drone strike?

How would the "top" have an answer as to why a rogue soldier did something he wasn't supposed to do? Wouldn't you need to ask the bad actor? Do you think that the "top" micromanages every second of everyone in theater?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386690].message }}

13 years ago

There's a very thin line between intention (or lack of it) and plain inevitability.

I'm still surprised that it's your analogy that I'm asked to answer on the assumption that those two possible choices are the only ones.

A rogue soldier might break into the evening news but he sure isn't going to be a make or break of the status quo.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386732].message }}

Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

There's a very thin line between intention (or lack of it) and plain inevitability.

I'm still surprised that it's your analogy that I'm asked to answer on the assumption that those two possible choices are the only ones.

A rogue soldier might break into the evening news but he sure isn't going to be a make or break of the status quo.

But what if the rogue soldier decided to make a coup?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386738].message }}

Daniel Evans 13 years ago

Originally Posted by socialentry

But what if the rogue soldier decided to make a coup?

As long as it's Winter Vegetable!

A syndicate might be underestimating the powers that are.....

They might disrupt things while the upper hand regains its place. The kids in Britain learned similar soon enough after their few days of fun stealing iphones and Air Max's....
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386757].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

There's a very thin line between intention (or lack of it) and plain inevitability.

I'm still surprised that it's your analogy that I'm asked to answer on the assumption that those two possible choices are the only ones.

A rogue soldier might break into the evening news but he sure isn't going to be a make or break of the status quo.

I knew you wouldn't want to answer...again.

tbirds OP said:
"Do you feel that it would be worth eliminating criminals if children and other civilians sometimes got killing in doing so?"

His follow up questions was:
"Would it be ok to do that in the United States, say, on Hells Angels and their wives and children, with "collateral damage" on unrelated bystanders in their vicinity?"

I just changed the scenario...

So, how about answering my question?

Originally Posted by socialentry

View Post

But what if the rogue soldier decided to make a coup?

Then he'd get in trouble...as he should.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386773].message }}

socialentry Banned 13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

How about you answer my question if you want answers to yours?

I'm not interested in talking to you brah.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386777].message }}
- GrowTutor 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by socialentry
  
  I'm not interested in talking to you brah.
  
  Pupule bruddahs cant hang...brah.
  
  This is a discussion forum, everyone is allowed to comment. If you can't debate what I have to say then you might want to ad me to your ignore list but I'll reply to whatever I want.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386795].message }}

13 years ago

GrowTutor, your question wasn't accepted since it was bound to only two possible outcomes.

Instead you need to question yourself the following based on the fact that you accept both of your answers which involve death of innocent people:

"What solution / answer could I come up with that eliminates need to risk the lives of innocent people?".

That stands as my only offering.

When you've understood the value in that question, you can begin to ask yourself about how ingenious the people at the top actually are in contrast to your fine self and why I was unwilling to be bound by your own thinking which appeared to be in direct dictation from elsewhere.

If someone posts with a circumstance it's always better to try and improve upon the circumstance constructively rather than present something in a slightly different format that really doesn't improve anything.

You won't move mountains, granted, but I've noted you are a fan of quotes, so no doubt you've heard the one by Buddha and worldly changes which I won't take the liberty to reiterate in respect of your intellect.....

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386813].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

To the OP's question. It's so complicated...there are thousands of different scenarios...thousands of different points-of-view that are from decent, thinking people.

To me, killing is murder. If you are protecting a loved one from immediate danger, it's self defense. But taking any life is insanity, to me.

And trying to justify killing an innocent person...because they are standing next to a target is, in my opinion, the act of an insane person.

So....if the people are not your family or neighbors...it's OK?
If they aren't Americans...it's OK?

How would you explain these deaths to the family? What do you think you could say that would make them OK with it?

What if your brother or daughter were among the bystanders? Would you still be waving a flag?

Would drone strikes be OK in Kentucky? Your state? No. It would be murder of innocents. It would be impossible to justify. Well, innocent people live all over the world, not just in our town.

I know how this sounds to some people. It sounds naive, I know. I even know the arguments that will come forth.

But taking a life is murder to me. In a war...it's just many more murders.
There is no glory in war, or in conflict.

The first one to fire is the first one to run out of ideas.
I don't want to argue or debate. It's just how I feel.

[ 4 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386910].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

GrowTutor, your question wasn't accepted since it was bound to only two possible outcomes.

Yeah, I thought not...

I don't blame you for running away, the answer doesn't help your argument either way...

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

To me, killing is murder. If you are protecting a loved one from immediate danger, it's self defense. But taking any life is insanity, to me.

What if your brother or daughter were among the bystanders? Would you still be waving a flag?

So, self-defense is murder and insanity now? If all killing is murder then so is self-defense. If there's an exception to "murder" for self-defense or self and "loved ones" then how far does that exception go? Protecting a neighbor?

If that question is based on *my* scenario, yes. I'd be devastated but I'd understand.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386981].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387239].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

Again, this isn't a debate or a discussion. I just gave my point of view. I understand several points of view. I just gave the one that reflects my opinion.

That's exactly what forums and the various topics are for, to discuss and debate things.

I'm just trying to understand your "point of view" which is why I ask questions. If you can't/don't want to explain your POV you certainly don't have to try. Since you've asked questions in your posts I assumed that questions back was fair.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387251].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

That's exactly what forums and the various topics are for, to discuss and debate things.

I'm just trying to understand your "point of view" which is why I ask questions. If you can't/don't want to explain your POV you certainly don't have to try. Since you've asked questions in your posts I assumed that questions back was fair.

That's fair. But explaining it further wouldn't have a point. I'm not trying to convince anyone, (although reading my post again, it sounds like it). It was just a thought. I would consider it a favor if I could just drop it. I would delete my post, but people have already quoted it, and it would serve no purpose.

Added later;
I thought about it, and I should say what I mean.
If someone is breaking into my home, they get shot.
If I can save someone from getting murdered, the murderer will probably get shot.
Someone attacking my family? Maybe worse than shot.

But...I wouldn't bomb the whole street just to make sure that one guy dies. I wouldn't bomb the whole town. I wouldn't shoot his relatives. If he was Irish, I wouldn't go to war with Ireland.
I wouldn't shoot a person for planning to shoot someone else.

Do I think soldiers are murderers? No. They are following orders. But if I shot someone in another country that wasn't trying right then to shoot me? I would consider it murder. And that's why I would never do it. Orders or not. Country or not. Soldier or not. It's just the way I think.

There.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387266].message }}

13 years ago

Claude, I deleted my post because you said you didn't want to discuss this.

OK, you still are calling soldiers murderers then if you say someone who kills someone who isn't currently trying to personally kill them. I disagree with that. What about a Navy pilot who bombed targets in WW2, or any other war? Or in a more current example, how about in the specific case of a known al qaeda terrorist who we know is in a certain place but would be dangerous for our soldiers to go in and kill? Should we just let them go on planning to attack us? If not and we decide to bomb them why is that any different than the ww2 example?

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

Do I think soldiers are murderers? No. They are following orders. But if I shot someone in another country that wasn't trying right then to shoot me? I would consider it murder.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8389917].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

Claude, I deleted my post because you said you didn't want to discuss this.

OK, you still are calling soldiers murderers then if you say someone who kills someone who isn't currently trying to personally kill them. I disagree with that. What about a Navy pilot who bombed targets in WW2, or any other war?

I understand your point of view. Nearly all of my friends share it, that's why I don't tell them what I've posted here.

To me, the pilot who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima shares responsibility for 100,000 murders. I know the reaction you have to that, but that's my opinion.
Could you drop a bomb on 100,000 innocent people? What argument would cause you to be OK with that? How wold you explain that to your family?

You have to understand that I never served in the military. And I have no "Us VS them" mentality. Had I served, I'm sure my viewpoint would be different. In fact, I know it would. But I haven't had that experience.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

Or in a more current example, how about in the specific case of a known al qaeda terrorist who we know is in a certain place but would be dangerous for our soldiers to go in and kill? Should we just let them go on planning to attack us? If not and we decide to bomb them why is that any different than the ww2 example?

What about police? If a known murderer is located, but it would be dangerous to send police in...is it OK for the police to bomb the apartment building the criminal is in?

The terrorists on 9/11 are guilty of 3,000 murders, aren't they? If someone said "They are soldiers fighting for their country"...would that be OK then?
Is it worse that they were religious zealots?

The bombers of Pearl Harbor are guilty of murdering thousands of soldiers, aren't they? If someone said to you "Pearl harbor was OK, because the pilots were just following orders" would that make sense to you?

Soldiers are following orders. Just like hit men are just following orders. Who is guilty? See, to me...killing is either self defense or it's a crime. And taking another life..when that person is not, right then, trying to kill you..is a crime.

Would I have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima? At 20 years old, no, unless a gun was to my head. Today? No, gun to my head or not.

See, to me..the guy with the gun to my head demanding that I kill 100,000 people? That man is insane. Even entertaining the idea, is insane in my view.

I honestly don't know enough about the purpose of being in other countries with our military, so my opinion on the reasons for war wouldn't be valid.

The questions I ask are rhetorical. They are there just to show my thinking process. And they are questions I ask myself.

My Father, who was a proud Marine....and a great Dad....if he were still alive, I would never say any of this. Anywhere.

But your an intelligent guy, and you asked. I respect your point of view. I just have a different one.

Added a little later; A few things that amaze me. I have two Japanese friends that were in the detainment camps in the US during WW2. (as children) Their property was seized..and the US killed several of their relatives.

They hold no grudge. I asked. I just know that if it happened to me, I wouldn't forgive so easily.

I have a customer who was a General in the Vietnamese army. He is now fast friends with warriors he met in battle, trying to kill him. I think I understand. He's an impressive man.

And I think "If I was in battle, and I knew that he was a good man, had a family, and later we would be good friends...what would I do? I don't know.

But 100,000 innocents? I do know.

I also know that, in battle, you are fighting for the guy next to you. I understand, and I tear up sometimes thinking about these things. Anyway, you asked.

And I watch the presidents. Most wars are to save face...or to get re-elected, or to make voters happy. Sending thousands of people to they deaths...on both sides...to look good politically. To show that you are a President that won't back down? To insure your "legacy"?

How could anyone live with that?

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390124].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

View Post

Actually, there are multiple ways to stop this person without having to resort
to a drone strike. Off the top of my head.

You like, the others, just don't want to answer the question because it doesn't fit your political agenda.

Too funny...

Originally Posted by Daniel Evans

View Post

It's a closed case in my eyes.

[Dons running shoes and runs away...]

Of course it is, you won't answer because, like above, the answer doesn't fit your political agenda as much as the OP's questions do.

Too bad people can't debate anymore...

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

View Post

@GrowTutor, I think that your Kool-Aid is starting to puddle in your keyboard.

Time to make an addition to the old Ignore List.

Some people are just not worth having in my life.

Joe Mobley

I appreciate that, now I won't have to waste my time with those that have nothing worthwile to add to a topic.

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

Your posts tell me you're either ignorant or blind when it comes to our foreign affairs.

When there is a problem, you find out what caused the problem and fix the cause, you don't continue doing the same thing that caused it and think that is the fix.

It's not about blaming America first, it's about looking at the facts.
Sad is the wrong word, angry would be a better choice. Yes I was angry at what the terrorist did on 9/11. Yes I wanted justice. But justice to me is not killing people who had nothing to do with it. Justice is not invading countries that had nothing to do with it. I do not support terrorist, but I also don't support actions that create more of them.

That's what you've been reduced to? Fine...

When dealing with rational people, yes, you do try to find a reason, but not with psychopaths. If your crazy neighbor is threatening to firebomb your house because he thinks you have a dinosaur inside, you don't hire a dino-exterminator. You don't ponder whether or not Charles Manson had a good reason and maybe he was right.

Only the ignorant think that you can have a war where only the bad guys get killed. It's unfortunate, I know, but that's not an excuse to not do anything. Since I assume that you're not completely ignorant, then what's left? Surrender? Capitulate? Cut and run? Ignore their attacks like we did before 9/11? Will cowering in a corner make the monsters go away? Convert to Islam and accept their domination? In your expert military opinion how do you do it where nobody but the bad guys get killed?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390127].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

You like, the others, just don't want to answer the question because it doesn't fit your political agenda.

Too funny...

Of course it is, you won't answer because, like above, the answer doesn't fit your political agenda as much as the OP's questions do.

Too bad people can't debate anymore...

I appreciate that, now I won't have to waste my time with those that have nothing worthwile to add to a topic.

That's what you've been reduced to? Fine...

When dealing with rational people, yes, you do try to find a reason, but not with psychopaths. If your crazy neighbor is threatening to firebomb your house because he thinks you have a dinosaur inside, you don't hire a dino-exterminator. You don't ponder whether or not Charles Manson had a good reason and maybe he was right.

Only the ignorant think that you can have a war where only the bad guys get killed. It's unfortunate, I know, but that's not an excuse to not do anything. Since I assume that you're not completely ignorant, then what's left? Surrender? Capitulate? Cut and run? Ignore their attacks like we did before 9/11? Will cowering in a corner make the monsters go away? Convert to Islam and accept their domination? In your expert military opinion how do you do it where nobody but the bad guys get killed?

You really should study the history of our involvement in the Middle East.
Until you have an understanding of that, it's pointless to discuss this with you any more.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390204].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

You really should study the history of our involvement in the Middle East.
Until you have an understanding of that, it's pointless to discuss this with you any more.

I have, so what's your next excuse? :rolleyes:

Truth hurt?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390226].message }}

ThomM 13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

I have, so what's your next excuse? :rolleyes:

Truth hurt?

Don't know, you haven't spoken any yet:rolleyes:
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390241].message }}
- GrowTutor 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Don't know, you haven't spoken any yet:rolleyes:
  
  Denial isn't a river in Egypt...
  
  I don't blame you for avoiding the tough questions, it seems a lot of anti-WOT people just don't have good answers...they only have emotional turmoil.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390264].message }}
  
  Joe Mobley 13 years ago
  
  Yep... the Ignore List is working well. :rolleyes:
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390301].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

Claude, I deleted my post because you said you didn't want to discuss this.

OK, you still are calling soldiers murderers then if you say someone who kills someone who isn't currently trying to personally kill them. I disagree with that. What about a Navy pilot who bombed targets in WW2, or any other war? Or in a more current example, how about in the specific case of a known al qaeda terrorist who we know is in a certain place but would be dangerous for our soldiers to go in and kill? Should we just let them go on planning to attack us? If not and we decide to bomb them why is that any different than the ww2 example?

Murder is a legal term while killing is a more general term meaning taking someone's life intentionally. Strictly speaking, killing done during wars (with the exception of blatant war crimes) is not murder. This doesn't justify killing done in war, however, unless you believe that all guilt is absolved by the familiar "I was just obeying orders" mentality.

People often quote the Bible, "Thou shalt not kill." I'm no Bible scholar, but from what I understand a more correct translation would be "Thou shalt not murder." The Old Testament is full of "justified" killings, as it was written in a time of widespread and accepted tribal violence. So the commandment is saying not to kill within your own tribe --unless of course, the person "deserves" it for violating another rule. People today who say it's fine to kill for your country are operating from this same archaic moral code.

I'm not saying that someone in the military who kills during wartime is on the moral level of someone who kills on the street while committing a crime or out of rage. The former is legal, socially acceptable killing while the latter is literally murder. Many street crimes are committed by psychopaths, whereas most wartime killings are committed by people who believe they are doing the right thing -even though they may be following orders given by psychopaths.

I'm hoping, however, that society will soon evolve to a place where this distinction is seen as something arbitrary rather than absolute. For this to happen, people need to take responsibility for their own actions.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390176].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

View Post

Murder is a legal term while killing is a more general term meaning taking someone's life intentionally. Strictly speaking, killing done during wars (with the exception of blatant war crimes) is not murder.

Actually, I get that. And I understand why there is a difference. But to me, there is no difference, or at least very little difference.

I've given this serious thought. If my son were killed in another country, to me it would be murder. The person who shot him, murdered him.

I wouldn't have pride that my son served. I wouldn't think "He gave his life for his country" I would be thinking "Someone out there murdered my son". And "Someone else put my son in harms way."

I have no idea if I would even speak those words, but that's what I would be thinking...for the rest of my life.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390230].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

I wouldn't have pride that my son served. I wouldn't think "He gave his life for his country" I would be thinking "Someone out there murdered my son". And "Someone else put my son in harms way."

I have no idea if I would even speak those words, but that's what I would be thinking...for the rest of my life.

If your son joined the military and was fighting in another country, would you have any pride or would it be disappointment? Would he be a murderer? Would you call him a baby-killer when he came back? Maybe spit on him? If you wouldn't say or do it, would you think it?

Has anyone in your immediate family served in the past 80 years? If so, did they join or were they drafted, before we got rid of the draft?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390257].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

If your son joined the military and was fighting in another country, would you have any pride or would it be disappointment? Would he be a murderer? Would you call him a baby-killer when he came back? Maybe spit on him? If you wouldn't say or do it, would you think it?

Has anyone in your immediate family served in the past 80 years? If so, did they join or were they drafted, before we got rid of the draft?

The question "Would he be a murderer" is actually valid, I think. Yes. Would I be thinking "Baby killer?" No. I wouldn't think that at all, unless he told me that he killed babies.

My love for my son would mean more to me than any violent act he carried out. But I wouldn't take pride in the fact that people died because of him. I would just be very relieved that he survived.
In fact, that's a great aim, in my mind...wanting everyone to survive.

When I'm using the word "Murder" in these posts, I don't mean premeditated murder (except for the person giving the order) I mean it more like manslaughter. In the heat of the moment.

Most of my uncles and relatives served. Most enlisted. Most were in the Marines, on both sides of my family. A few died in battle. Most didn't.

I know I opened myself up for this. But keep it civil.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390307].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

<snip>

I know I opened myself up for this. But keep it civil.

You're quite a diplomat. It's as if you're representing your country in a volatile region, while you're really representing your opinion to a volatile and belligerent person.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390358].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

View Post

You're quite a diplomat. It's as if you're representing your country in a volatile region, while you're really representing your opinion to a volatile and belligerent person.

That's good insight, I think.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390405].message }}

socialentry Banned 13 years ago

'You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.' -Leon Trotsky.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390386].message }}
Joe Mobley 13 years ago

Claude,

I think you are being youthfully optimistic.

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

But keep it civil.

It has been my experience that emotionally needy people are not capable of such personal discipline.

This is a variation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

"Ignorance Begets Confidence: The Dunning-Kruger Effect"

I call it "Stupid... and to dumb to know it!"

See if you don't recognize a couple of our recent guest to the insane asylum in this video.

illusion of superiority - YouTube

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390486].message }}

Daniel Evans 13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

I don't blame you for running away

You see that seven word sentence speaks so clearly for your disposition and really sums up your take on the topic so brilliantly it couldn't be more perfect.

Believe it or not, some situations in life do demand placing logic before ego and "Running away", (granted sometimes in a looser sense of the word) rather than committing to ongoing brash and thoughtless attack that may result in a situation less desired.

Unless people meet with this revelation, they only continue fighting with themselves defining their own problems.

It's a closed case in my eyes.

[Dons running shoes and runs away...]
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388670].message }}
- Joe Mobley 13 years ago
  
  @GrowTutor, I think that your Kool-Aid is starting to puddle in your keyboard.
  
  Time to make an addition to the old Ignore List.
  
  Some people are just not worth having in my life.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388699].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

To the OP's question. It's so complicated...there are thousands of different scenarios...thousands of different points-of-view that are from decent, thinking people.

To me, killing is murder. If you are protecting a loved one from immediate danger, it's self defense. But taking any life is insanity, to me.

And trying to justify killing an innocent person...because they are standing next to a target is, in my opinion, the act of an insane person.

So....if the people are not your family or neighbors...it's OK?
If they aren't Americans...it's OK?

How would you explain these deaths to the family? What do you think you could say that would make them OK with it?

What if your brother or daughter were among the bystanders? Would you still be waving a flag?

Would drone strikes be OK in Kentucky? Your state? No. It would be murder of innocents. It would be impossible to justify. Well, innocent people live all over the world, not just in our town.

I know how this sounds to some people. It sounds naive, I know. I even know the arguments that will come forth.

But taking a life is murder to me. In a war...it's just many more murders.
There is no glory in war, or in conflict.

The first one to fire is the first one to run out of ideas.
I don't want to argue or debate. It's just how I feel.

If you could go back in time, and you had one shot at killing Hitler before he murdered millions of jews, but the only way you could do it was by taking out him and a room full of innocent people around him, would you do it?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387084].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

View Post

If you could go back in time, and you had one shot at killing Hitler before he murdered millions of jews, but the only way you could do it was by taking out him and a room full of innocent people around him, would you do it?

Gary; I was just offering my personal opinion. I'm not debating this.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

I'm not going to call any of our soldiers from world war 2 murders, or for any war we have had , unless they did something that can legally be called murder. There's a clear difference.

Tim; with all respect, to you there is a difference. And I'm not debating this. I offered my own point of view. Yours is just as valid. But I would see it in a different way.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that they should see it my way. It's just the lens I see it through.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

No problem Claude. If you want to call all veterans of all wars murders that is fine. I won't debate it either.

You took it personally. that's why it's been years since I've told anyone my opinion on wars or how they are fought.. This isn't the place for me. Really.

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

So, self-defense is murder and insanity now? If all killing is murder then so is self-defense. If there's an exception to "murder" for self-defense or self and "loved ones" then how far does that exception go? Protecting a neighbor?

If that question is based on *my* scenario, yes. I'd be devastated but I'd understand.

Again, this isn't a debate or a discussion. I just gave my point of view. I understand several points of view. I just gave the one that reflects my opinion.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387220].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

...To me, killing is murder...
But taking a life is murder to me...
It's just how I feel.

I feel the same way Claude.

And I really don't want to turn what I'm going to say next into a religious thing either as many atheists and agnostics I know and care about that still use it as a moral guideline that will help keep them out of trouble with themselves, family, friends, and neighbors.

As you've probably guessed, I'm talking about the 10 Commandments, more specifically, the 6th commandment ~ Thou shalt not kill ~ or in today's terms, you should not murder.

That's it plain and simple. There are no exceptions included like you should not murder unless some vile man raped your daughter or unless some thug stole your wallet, or unless some moron killed your brother. You get the gist, just you shall not murder.

It leaves no room for debates such as what we are having now or have had in the past, it leaves no room for tons of changing laws like the stand your ground law and the countless trials, etc. that clog up our legal systems and create media circuses.

Sure I would want to go kill someone because they killed someone in my family or that raped me or my daughter. You betcha I'd want to, but that commandment holds me back and in the long run saves me more trouble, pain and turmoil I'd already be suffering, in the long run.

Why can't we as a society just have the simplicity of that commandment or law?

And like you, I don't want to debate this either. It's just how I feel.

Terra

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390359].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

The question "Would he be a murderer" is actually valid, I think. Yes. Would I be thinking "Baby killer?" No. I wouldn't think that at all, unless he told me that he killed babies.

My love for my son would mean more to me than any violent act he carried out. But I wouldn't take pride in the fact that people died because of him. I would just be very relieved that he survived.
In fact, that's a great aim, in my mind...wanting everyone to survive.

When I'm using the word "Murder" in these posts, I don't mean premeditated murder (except for the person giving the order) I mean it more like manslaughter. In the heat of the moment.

Most of my uncles and relatives served. Most enlisted. Most were in the Marines, on both sides of my family. A few died in battle. Most didn't.

I know I opened myself up for this. But keep it civil.

OK, he'd be a murderer - Check.
What if one of the grenades he threw in a building (because a "bad guy" was in there shooting at him and his squad threw a window) accidentally (not the target) killed a baby that he didn't know was in there? Would he be a baby-killer then?

You never answered but I assume that you wouldn't *call* him a murderer or baby killer but you would *think* that about him "for the rest of your life." Is that right? I assume you wouldn't spit on him either.

Unfortunately that was exactly what many Vietnam vets went through and there have even been cases of modern vets going through that when they came back.

You say "murder" and "manslaughter" but what about killing so they don't get killed. Self-defense or not for soldiers?

I appreciate your family's service. Honestly, I do.

I always try to keep it civil when people are civil with me...

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

View Post

As you've probably guessed, I'm talking about the 10 Commandments, more specifically, the 6th commandment ~ Thou shalt not kill ~ or in today's terms, you should not murder.

That's the problem though, there's a difference between killing and murdering. That's why the original Hebrew translation is not "kill" even if that's how some bibles have it translated.

Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390416].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

OK, he'd be a murderer - Check.
What if one of the grenades he threw in a building (because a "bad guy" was in there shooting at him and his squad threw a window) accidentally (not the target) killed a baby that he didn't know was in there? Would he be a baby-killer then?

You never answered but I assume that you wouldn't *call* him a murderer or baby killer but you would *think* that about him "for the rest of your life." Is that right? I assume you wouldn't spit on him either.

Unfortunately that was exactly what many Vietnam vets went through and there have even been cases of modern vets going through that when they came back.

You say "murder" and "manslaughter" but what about killing so they don't get killed. Self-defense or not for soldiers?

I appreciate your family's service. Honestly, I do.

I always try to keep it civil when people are civil with me...

That's the problem though, there's a difference between killing and murdering. That's why the original Hebrew translation is not "kill" even if that's how some bibles have it translated.

Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?

All I can say is that you are reading what I'm posting, through eyes that are seeing something other than my intent. I think you have a viewpoint that is very familiar to me. But I know that really, this isn't a discussion. And I'm willing to accept that.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390505].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

All I can say is that you are reading what I'm posting, through eyes that are seeing something other than my intent. I think you have a viewpoint that is very familiar to me. But I know that really, this isn't a discussion. And I'm willing to accept that.

I've given you every chance to clarify your intent if it's not being interpreted correctly. I can only go by what you write.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390575].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

OK, he'd be a murderer - Check.
What if one of the grenades he threw in a building (because a "bad guy" was in there shooting at him and his squad threw a window) accidentally (not the target) killed a baby that he didn't know was in there? Would he be a baby-killer then?

You never answered but I assume that you wouldn't *call* him a murderer or baby killer but you would *think* that about him "for the rest of your life." Is that right? I assume you wouldn't spit on him either.

Unfortunately that was exactly what many Vietnam vets went through and there have even been cases of modern vets going through that when they came back.

You say "murder" and "manslaughter" but what about killing so they don't get killed. Self-defense or not for soldiers?

I appreciate your family's service. Honestly, I do.

I always try to keep it civil when people are civil with me...

That's the problem though, there's a difference between killing and murdering. That's why the original Hebrew translation is not "kill" even if that's how some bibles have it translated.

Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?

The self defense argument is a little hard to use when you're fighting thousands of miles from home.

I brought up the same point about the commandments several posts ago, but for a different reason. Has it ever occurred to you that a moral code from 5,000 or so years ago might need some rethinking today? And if not, would you agree with all of the rules and punishments in the Old Testament, such as stoning people for adultery -just to name one example.

Religion aside, I'm not saying we should dismiss everything in the Bible. But perhaps it's time to update that commandment to truly mean "Thou shalt not kill."

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390510].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

View Post

The self defense argument is a little hard to use when you're fighting thousands of miles from home.

I brought up the same point about the commandments several posts ago, but for a different reason. Has it ever occurred to you that a moral code from 5,000 or so years ago might need some rethinking today? And if not, would you agree with all of the rules and punishments in the Old Testament, such as stoning people for adultery -just to name one example.

Religion aside, I'm not saying we should dismiss everything in the Bible. But perhaps it's time to update that commandment to truly mean "Thou shalt not kill."

No, it's not. I can think of several examples where the distance from your home has nothing to do with it.

What if his son was guarding an engineering team that was fixing sewers, water supply or power lines and came under attack. Is that not self-defense even to you?

You're saying God's Commandments need updating? The 10 Commandments are God's laws, the rest are man's laws. Even Jesus said to render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. Which is to say that you still have to abide by mans' rules but they don't replace or overturn God's rules. Have you not noticed that many laws around the world are based on many of the 10 Commandments? They're pretty universal...and timeless.

You might want to read the link I provided before. Kill and murder are not the same and neither God nor Jesus forbade killing in all instances, even if *you* think that They should have. Self-defense is a natural right and while some may not like it, it's never wrong imho.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390560].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

No, it's not. I can think of several examples where the distance from your home has nothing to do with it.

What if his son was guarding an engineering team that was fixing sewers, water supply or power lines and came under attack. Is that not self-defense even to you?

You're saying God's Commandments need updating? The 10 Commandments are God's laws, the rest are man's laws. Even Jesus said to render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. Which is to say that you still have to abide by mans' rules but they don't replace or overturn God's rules. Have you not noticed that many laws around the world are based on many of the 10 Commandments? They're pretty universal...and timeless.

You might want to read the link I provided before. Kill and murder are not the same and neither God nor Jesus forbade killing in all instances, even if *you* think that They should have. Self-defense is a natural right and while some may not like it, it's never wrong imho.

You seem to be mainly trolling in this thread, trying to argue one point after another and then changing the context as you please. Debating the Bible is likely to get this thread shut down, but I'll only say that the commandments and everything else in those books was written and interpreted by humans. There's no definitive way to know what "God's law" is --even theologians from the same church debate these questions endlessly.

Now you've changed the scenario from war to guarding engineers? I was talking about combat in foreign countries. I'm not against self defense, but I can't define aggressive wars that way. No, I wouldn't call it murder if someone was simply defending a peaceful action as you described, but that's not the point.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390589].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

View Post

You seem to be mainly trolling in this thread, trying to argue one point after another and then changing the context as you please. Debating the Bible is likely to get this thread shut down, but I'll only say that the commandments and everything else was written and interpreted by humans. There's no definitive way to know what "God's law is --even theologians from the same church debate these questions endlessly.

Now you've changed the scenario from war to guarding engineers? I was talking about combat in foreign countries. I'm not against self defense, but I can't define aggressive wars that way. No, I wouldn't call it murder if someone was simply defending a peaceful action as you described, but that's not the point.

It also says no political discussions but evidently there's either leeway or it's only bad when people that you don't agree with do it. I didn't bring up the Bible, I replied to a post that did and your reply that also talked about it. Why is it OK for you and others but not me? Because I don't agree with you? I see who the trolls are; it's those than can't handle nor debate another point of view. :rolleyes:

Guarding engineers is part of what we're doing. Your post said nothing about war, it just said, basically, if you're away from home it's not self-defense.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390612].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

That's the problem though, there's a difference between killing and murdering. That's why the original Hebrew translation is not "kill" even if that's how some bibles have it translated.

Why is "You shall not murder" in the Ten Commandments?

I am well aware of that and even pondered for a moment in discussing it, however, since I didn't want to take this down the "religious" path, I left it alone.

That is also why although there are other things that I'd like to say regarding the matter, I won't. I do have a tendency to obey rules and honor and respect my friendships, so again, I won't.

Terra

[ 2 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390737].message }}

13 years ago

A respectable opinion.

Joe Mobley

Originally Posted by MissTerraK

View Post

I feel the same way Claude.

And I really don't want to turn what I'm going to say next into a religious thing either as many atheists and agnostics I know and care about that still use it as a moral guideline that will help keep them out of trouble with themselves, family, friends, and neighbors.

As you've probably guessed, I'm talking about the 10 Commandments, more specifically, the 6th commandment ~ Thou shalt not kill ~ or in today's terms, you should not murder.

That's it plain and simple. There are no exceptions included like you should not murder unless some vile man raped your daughter or unless some thug stole your wallet, or unless some moron killed your brother. You get the gist, just you shall not murder.

It leaves no room for debates such as what we are having now or have had in the past, it leaves no room for tons of changing laws like the stand your ground law and the countless trials, etc. that clog up our legal systems and create media circuses.

Sure I would want to go kill someone because they killed someone in my family or that raped me or my daughter. You betcha I'd want to, but that commandment holds me back and in the long run saves me more trouble, pain and turmoil I'd already be suffering, in the long run.

Why can't we as a society just have the simplicity of that commandment or law?

And like you, I don't want to debate this either. It's just how I feel.

Terra

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390495].message }}

13 years ago

Let's back up a little bit...

We are in Vietnam-istan because???

And... what has to happen for us to call the task done?

And... it's costing your children and grandchildren how much?

And, how many US lives has it cost? Will it cost? Wounded soldiers?

If the US wants to kill somebody over there, send Special Forces over and kill the b^startds. Like it or not, they are excellent at that. Zero to a very few innocent victimes. Job done. Problem solved.

But quit bullsh^tting me and saying that we need to be at war to "keep us safe!" I hated that song in the 70's. I'm not buying the Tali-bop version of it now.

Joe Mobley

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

.

Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386941].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

View Post

If the US wants to kill somebody over there, send Special Forces over and kill the b^startds. Like it or not, they are excellent at that. Zero to a very few innocent victimes. Job done. Problem solved.

A simplistic attempt at solving a difficult problem and it's just not that simple. If you think that we're *not* using special forces, you're mistaken. We have a limited number of operators and big jobs can't always be solved by a small group. If spec ops could do it on their own, it would already be over. Another problem is that even the operators often have their hands tied with strict rules of engagement.

I hate losing my military brothers and sisters but we join/joined to serve and protect our country. There is no draft, it's an all volunteer force and I appreciate what they do...

Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387006].message }}

13 years ago

Not to long ago I watched an interview with a young man from Yemen who was educated in the U.S.
As he said when the drone strikes kill innocent adults and children, they do something the Taliban has been having a hard time doing. Giving the Taliban new recruits.
It's a very simple thing to understand.
If someone killed any of my family or friends, they would be my enemy for life and I would do anything possible to get revenge.
When our government kills an innocent person with a drone strike, they make all that persons family and friends enemies.

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387018].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

It's a very simple thing to understand.
If someone killed any of my family or friends, they would be my enemy for life and I would do anything possible to get revenge.

I guess that either you didn't lose any friends or family on 9/11 (or during any fighting/terrorist attack before OR after) or you don't really mean "anything possible." Which is it?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387040].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

I guess that either you didn't lose any friends or family on 9/11 (or during any fighting/terrorist attack before OR after) or you don't really mean "anything possible." Which is it?

How many of those killed in Yemen where responsible for 9-11?
I do believe we have already killed everyone involved with that.
You do know we have been meddling in the affairs of almost every country in the Middle East for over 60 years don't you?
It was our CIA that trained and armed the Taliban in the first place.
We've installed leaders and then had them killed when they strayed from our game plan for them. All at the expense of the common people.
9/11 effected my life just as it has every American's. But it is still not an excuse for us to kill children and innocent people who had nothing to do with it. When we do, we are no better then the ones who where responsible for the innocent lives lost that day.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387086].message }}

13 years ago

you don't really mean

You don't get to decide what others mean or don't mean - or what their opinion should be. Demanding answers to loaded questions is right fighting and nothing more.

In the two days since joining you've moved from personal opinions and reasoned responses to rude replies and rather personal insults. Not a good path to take. Just sayin....

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387105].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Joe Mobley

View Post

And I'm simplistic?

Yes.

Originally Posted by garyv

View Post

If you could go back in time, and you had one shot at killing Hitler before he murdered millions of jews, but the only way you could do it was by taking out him and a room full of innocent people around him, would you do it?

I think that's an actual question from "The Book of Questions." Did you read it too?

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

How many of those killed in Yemen where responsible for 9-11?
I do believe we have already killed everyone involved with that.
You do know we have been meddling in the affairs of almost every country in the Middle East for over 60 years don't you?

How many people killed on 9/11 were responsible for meddling and how is that an excuse?

Originally Posted by thunderbird

View Post

Noam Chomsky:

Of course the drone campaign is creating potential terrorists, and you can easily understand why. I mean, if you were walking through the streets of Geneva and you don't know whether five minutes from now there's going to be an explosion across the street that's run a couple thousand of miles away and it will blow away some people and who ever else happens to be around-- you're terrorized. And you don't like it. And you may decide to react."

So, when terrorists kill Americans it's justified but when we kill them it's not justified it's creating more? Why isn't it that they create more drone strikes by attacking Americans?

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Would you push that button if it was your wife/kids/sister/mother/whatever that was going to be one of the "acceptable casualties"?

It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when you don't know any of the innocent victims.

If you're OK with innocent people being killed in the name of our cause, you're no different than the terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of theirs.

Spoken like a true moral relativist. As if they're the same?

Originally Posted by Kay King

View Post

You don't get to decide what others mean or don't mean - or what their opinion should be. Demanding answers to loaded questions is right fighting and nothing more.

In the two days since joining you've moved from personal opinions and reasoned responses to rude replies and rather personal insults. Not a good path to take. Just sayin....

I didn't say what he meant, I *asked* which it was, it can't be both. I asked him to clarify.

I don't think the number of days I've been here should matter and there's nothing rude or attacking in asking a follow up statement to his comment. Don't have a hissy fit...just saying. :rolleyes:

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387147].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

<snip>

So, when terrorists kill Americans it's justified but when we kill them it's not justified it's creating more? Why isn't it that they create more drone strikes by attacking Americans?
<snip>

Pose your question to Noam Chomsky who said that. He's the man to represent his opinion, not me.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387431].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

Not to long ago I watched an interview with a young man from Yemen who was educated in the U.S.
As he said when the drone strikes kill innocent adults and children, they do something the Taliban has been having a hard time doing. Giving the Taliban new recruits.
It's a very simple thing to understand.
If someone killed any of my family or friends, they would be my enemy for life and I would do anything possible to get revenge.
When our government kills an innocent person with a drone strike, they make all that persons family and friends enemies.

I believe that you may have put it even more clearly and succinctly than Noam Chomsky did:

Noam Chomsky "Snowden Should Be Honored for...

[quote]Noam Chomsky said, "The plea of the US government in this case for the surveillance and so on, is that it's security against terror. But at the very same moment the US policy is designed in a way to increase terror. The US itself is carrying out the most awesome international terrorist campaign, ever, I suppose-- the drones and special forces campaign. That's a major terrorist campaign, all over the world, and it's also generating terrorists. You can read that and hear that from the highest sources, General McChrystal and scholars and all, so on.

Of course the drone campaign is creating potential terrorists, and you can easily understand why. I mean, if you were walking through the streets of Geneva and you don't know whether five minutes from now there's going to be an explosion across the street that's run a couple thousand of miles away and it will blow away some people and who ever else happens to be around-- you're terrorized. And you don't like it. And you may decide to react. That's happening all over the regions that are subjected to the Obama terror campaign."/quote]

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387090].message }}

Joe Mobley 13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

I hate losing my military brothers and sisters but we join/joined to serve and protect our country.

And I'm simplistic?

Joe Mobley
- Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387072].message }}
hardraysnight 13 years ago

I hate losing my military brothers and sisters but we join/joined to serve and protect our country. There is no draft, it's an all volunteer force and I appreciate what they do...[/quote]

pray tell, how is a presence in afghanistan serving and protecting your country?
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
These guys helped me with the feedback for my site
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387221].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

On the other hand we where responsible for installing the Shah in Iran and Hussian in Iraq to name just two. Both killed innocents in their countries and both forced many into poverty.

1) I know Iranianians that wish they had the Shah back so that's not the best example considering many wish Carter would have stopped the overthrow in 1979 and seeing what they have now makes a case for meddling.

2) The US is not responsible for the criminal acts of Saddam either. Just because we supported him when they were fighting Iran doesn't make us responsible for everything he does. You're blaming the wrong people.

If you hire a guy to cut your lawn and he uses that money to build a bomb are you responsible for that bombing?

Originally Posted by hardraysnight

View Post

pray tell, how is a presence in afghanistan serving and protection your country?

Every terrorist killed there is one less that can come here someday.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387222].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

1) I know Iranianians that wish they had the Shah back so that's not the best example considering many wish Carter would have stopped the overthrow in 1979 and seeing what they have now makes a case for meddling.

2) The US is not responsible for the criminal acts of Saddam either. Just because we supported him when they were fighting Iran doesn't make us responsible for everything he does. You're blaming the wrong people.

If you hire a guy to cut your lawn and he uses that money to build a bomb are you responsible for that bombing?

Every terrorist killed there is one less that can come here someday.

Naturally you missed the point.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387241].message }}

GrowTutor 13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Naturally you missed the point.

No, I got your point, it just doesn't hold water so I offered a counter-point...
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387254].message }}
- ThomM 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by GrowTutor
  
  No, I got your point, it just doesn't hold water so I offered a counter-point...
  
  No you don't get my point. If it doesn't hold water as you say, then why has the CIA come up with a term for it? Even they understand that our meddling over there is responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. They call it "blow back". Maybe you should read up on it some time. Here's a short version Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387335].message }}

hardraysnight 13 years ago

Every terrorist killed there is one less that can come here someday.[/QUOTE]

fine, so i can go bop off antivivesectionists because i dont support antivive sectionism

sorry cats, just an example

hello spotty, possum and snowball
- Thanks
Signature
These guys helped me with the feedback for my site
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387403].message }}

13 years ago

Let me change tbirds "the book of questions" type analogy a bit:

Let's say a terrorist sneaks a WMD across the border. He's driving it toward Phoenix (population 1.5 million in the city and over 4 million metro) with the intention of detonating it and killing millions. We know where he is, now, is in an unpopulated part of the desert but there are other cars on the road with him. The only way to stop him BEFORE he gets to Phoenix is a drone strike. A drone strike would likely kill several unaware US and Mexican citizens.

Do you let him get to Phoenix and kill millions or do you use the drone and maybe kill dozens?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386595].message }}

Steven Wagenheim

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

Let me change tbirds "the book of questions" type analogy a bit:

Let's say a terrorist sneaks a WMD across the border. He's driving it toward Phoenix (population 1.5 million in the city and over 4 million metro) with the intention of detonating it and killing millions. We know where he is, now, is in an unpopulated part of the desert but there are other cars on the road with him. The only way to stop him BEFORE he gets to Phoenix is a drone strike. A drone strike would likely kill several unaware US and Mexican citizens.

Do you let him get to Phoenix and kill millions or do you use the drone and maybe kill dozens?

Actually, there are multiple ways to stop this person without having to resort
to a drone strike. Off the top of my head.

You know what road he's on. You know where he's headed. You simply send
out the police, army, whatever you have to, block off the road, surround him,
evacuate the area in the meantime, and then have a fighter jet zero in on him.

One casualty. And I'm not even a military strategist and I could come up
with that alternative. I am sure there are others.

Putting artificial constraints on things is a poor way to make a point.

People don't need to die. What needs to happen is a new thought process.

And if by some chance a police officer or military person was killed during
this incident, at least it's not an innocent bystander. These are trained
people who do their jobs knowing that they may be killed in action.

I refuse to accept your scenario as being biased and irrational.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388527].message }}

13 years ago

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -William Blackstone

When the media talks about "terrorists" it's usually engaging in propaganda. Notice that drone attacks usually kill "militants" or "terrorists" rather than "people." It's well known that the CIA helped to arm the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. Over the next few decades they went from being allies to terrorists. Killing "terrorists" also breeds more terrorists.

When you try to take a utilitarian view of this kind of question you end up on some morally shaky ground (defining utilitarian as trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number). This type of policy may sound good in theory, but it's really lacking in any true humanism. It doesn't value individual lives, only thinking in terms of numbers.

For example, did nuking Japan ultimately save lives? I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else. But I wouldn't want the karma of being the one to have dropped one of those bombs no matter how many lives it supposedly saved. That type of cold, calculating reasoning ends up serving totalitarian ends.

When it comes to Afghanistan, the real question is: do we even belong there or have any legitimate interests there? If it wasn't for oil and maybe the international drug trade as well (which the CIA is connected to) there would never have been any long term intervention there.

Governments and power brokers have their own agendas and these seldom have anything to do with protecting people or promoting justice. They create conditions that produce crime and terrorism and then we are supposed to be grateful when they take drastic measures to stamp these out.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386638].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by LarryC

View Post

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." -William Blackstone

When the media talks about "terrorists" it's usually engaging in propaganda. Notice that drone attacks usually kill "militants" or "terrorists" rather than "people." It's well known that the CIA helped to arm the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden when they were fighting the Soviets. Over the next few decades they went from being allies to terrorists. Killing "terrorists" also breeds more terrorists.

When you try to take a utilitarian view of this kind of question you end up on some morally shaky ground (defining utilitarian as trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number). This type of policy may sound good in theory, but it's really lacking in any true humanism. It doesn't value individual lives, only thinking in terms of numbers.

For example, did nuking Japan ultimately save lives? I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else. But I wouldn't want the karma of being the one to have dropped one of those bombs no matter how many lives it supposedly saved. That type of cold, calculating reasoning ends up serving totalitarian ends.

When it comes to Afghanistan, the real question is: do we even belong there or have any legitimate interests there? If it wasn't for oil and maybe the international drug trade as well (which the CIA is connected to) there would never have been any long term intervention there.

Governments and power brokers have their own agendas and these seldom have anything to do with protecting people or promoting justice. They create conditions that produce crime and terrorism and then we are supposed to be grateful when they take drastic measures to stamp these out.

"War is evil, but it is often the lesser evil." -- George Orwell

The media reports I see on drone attacks always talk about the militants as civilians.

It's true that we helped militant rebels which later became the taliban fight the Russians who were our enemy at the time. We didn't expect them to turn genocidal and become an enemy. Sometimes a former enemy becomes an ally and sometimes it works the other way around.

Karma? Really?

Oil, drugs and CIA... :rolleyes:

Seriously, in your mind, it couldn't have been that they were harboring and training AQ? Do you believe that if the taliban had capitulated to the demand to give up OBL and stop providing safe haven to AQ that we still would have invaded for their non-existent oil? Do you really believe that the US would make up an excuse to invade Afghanistan just to restart poppy production? Actually it was the taliban that the changed their ban on opium in order to get funds to fight the coalition. Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

Conspiracy theorists... :rolleyes:

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8386674].message }}

13 years ago

Picking the lesser of two evils does NOT make you the same as a terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. If I could go back in time and take out Osama knowing that he'd soon put into motion the events that caused 9-11 I'd do that. Even if that meant someone in my family was near by him and would be killed as well. To me you'd be more evil not to do something.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387137].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

View Post

Picking the lesser of two evils does NOT make you the same as a terrorist by any stretch of the imagination. If I could go back in time and take out Osama knowing that he'd soon put into motion the events that caused 9-11 I'd do that. Even if that meant someone in my family was near by him and would be killed as well. To me you'd be more evil not to do something.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

The terrorist in the planes are dead. The man who planned it is dead. Ben Liden is dead. Yes we are now no better then the terrorist when we are killing innocent people. Yes we are creating enemies by killing innocent people. If those terrorist who planned 9/11 where from Europe or the Americas and where of a different faith, we would have handled it differently. We would not be attacking a European country and killing innocents there. We would of demanded justice for those who committed the act.

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387170].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

9/11 effected my life just as it has every American's. But it is still not an excuse for us to kill children and innocent people who had nothing to do with it. When we do, we are no better then the ones who where responsible for the innocent lives lost that day.

But...what you said was that if your friends or family were killed you would do ANYTHING possible for revenge. Does anything possible not include going after all terrorists or drone strikes on militants looking to kill more?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387165].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

But...what you said was that if your friends or family were killed you would do ANYTHING possible for revenge. Does anything possible not include going after all terrorists or drone strikes on militants looking to kill more?

No it would mean I would seek revenge on those who committed the act.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387175].message }}

GrowTutor 13 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

No it would mean I would seek revenge on those who committed the act.

OK, by "committed the act" (using 9/11 still) would that just be the terrorists on the planes? Would that be just the bosses (OBL etc) that planned and approved it? Would that include anybody involved even in the slightest? Would that be anybody belonging to the same terrorist group (AQ) too?

Would it include other terrorists groups that have the same ideology or only those that have actually attacked and killed your friends and family?

Would it have to literally be friends and family...only?
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387195].message }}
ThomM 13 years ago

How many people killed on 9/11 were responsible for meddling and how is that an excuse?

How many people in the Middle East have been suppling arms and training to radicals in the U.S. and over throwing our government?
How many people in the U.S have the leaders they installed here been killed or forced into poverty?
Oh that's right NONE.
On the other hand we where responsible for installing the Shah in Iran and Hussian in Iraq to name just two. Both killed innocents in their countries and both forced many into poverty.
- Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387196].message }}

13 years ago

Here's a dose of reality for everyone, and why the "war on terror" will fail. Yes, I said we will fail. We will not win this war, and we will lose ourselves and everything we once stood for in the process. Keep in mind I'm saying this as a conservative Libertarian, not some liberal douche who opposes all wars because of some touchy-feely belief that everyone can fart rainbows and "just get along" if the right people in charge. What I'm saying is the way we are dealing with the problem only guarantees failure as an outcome.

Terrorists attack us because they don't want us having a presence in their countries. Period. They don't "hate our freedoms", or "hate that we exist", they hate that we're sticking our noses in their part of the world. They see themselves and us much in the same way the American colonists saw the British during the revolutionary war: Invaders/a generally unwelcome influence on their land.

This isn't an Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan thing... From THEIR (the terrorists) perspective, we've been the "Invaders" since our first embassy was built on their soil and they have one goal: either defeat us by making us leave, or defeat us by taking us down. I say we shut down our embassies, pull out our troops, pull out our financial aid, and leave with only this message:

You can have your little hole in the wall countries and we won't interfere, but know this - if you ever attack any U.S. interests, on our own soil or anywhere else in the world, we won't send over any troops, we won't have diplomatic discussions, we'll just kick back in central command and have a few beers while we push buttons until there is nothing left of your favorite holy sites. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but if you break this deal so help me you'll wish you hadn't. If you think we're kidding, Google Hiroshima. Deal? We good?

Problem solved. They got what they wanted (us off their land), and we can wash our hands of them and their problems. Let the rest of the world deal with them. The absence of war doesn't have to be peace - the assurance of destruction works too.

We create more terrorists with every drone strike, every troop deployment, every influential Ambassador. But the real bottom line is we're trying to be "diplomatic" and reason with a bunch of religious fanatics who think the most honorable way to die is to blow themselves to smithereens in the name of Jihad so they can bang 72 virgins in the afterlife.

You can't reason with crazy.

The truth is we don't need them. We don't need a presence in their countries, as long as there is a general standing order that anyone who encroaches on our policy of neutrality will be destroyed. If you question whether or not that policy will work, ask Japan.

There you go guys, the formula for World Peace, and my week is just beginning.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387354].message }}

13 years ago

Hmm, aren't the "conservative Libertarians" the douches who "opposes all wars because of some touchy-feely belief that everyone can fart rainbows and "just get along"? Yep. I think that is right because you couldn't of been referring to FDR or JFK, both liberal icons.

Your whole solution to world peace is simplistic at best.

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Keep in mind I'm saying this as a conservative Libertarian, not some liberal douche who opposes all wars because of some touchy-feely belief that everyone can fart rainbows and "just get along" if the right people in charge.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387415].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

Hmm, aren't the "conservative Libertarians" the douches who "opposes all wars because of some touchy-feely belief that everyone can fart rainbows and "just get along"? Yep. I think that is right because you couldn't of been referring to FDR or JFK, both liberal icons.

Your whole solution to world peace is simplistic at best.

Everything JFK stood for goes against modern liberal beliefs, but that's going off topic... But no, Libertarians oppose wars when we have no business fighting them. We have enough problems at home to solve, we're on the brink of financial collapse, and we have the audacity to think we're qualified to tell other countries how they should be run... that's a problem for me. Libertarians don't think everyone can get along ... we just don't care if everyone gets along, so long as they aren't interfering with each other. Other people's problems are their business.

You're right, it's a very simple solution.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387432].message }}

13 years ago

BS, but he does go against what your definition of a liberal is just like fdr does.

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Everything JFK stood for goes against modern liberal beliefs,

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387501].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

View Post

BS, but he does go against what your definition of a liberal is just like fdr does.

Right, so the fact that he claimed our foreign policies weren't aggressive enough, invaded Cuba, dispatched the Navy to go after the Soviets, brought Catholicism into the mainstream, was a supporter of Keynesian economics and very pro business, cut income taxes by nearly 40%, etc. Oh, and there's the whole "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" tagline, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the left seems to want today...

Yeah, he sure was liberal. :rolleyes: He was a moderate conservative with a handful of liberal views at best. Kind of like John McCain.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387510].message }}

13 years ago

JFK would be called a Marxist by today's right. He considered himself a liberal and was in favor of Medicare 5 years before it became law. Your example's of his foriegn policy decisions just support my point that your original definition of a liberal is bunk.

John F Kennedy argues for universal healthcare -...

""I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies.

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy"

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Right, so the fact that he claimed our foreign policies weren't aggressive enough, invaded Cuba, dispatched the Navy to go after the Soviets, brought Catholicism into the mainstream, was a supporter of Keynesian economics and very pro business, cut income taxes by nearly 40%, etc. Oh, and there's the whole "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" tagline, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the left seems to want today...

Yeah, he sure was liberal. :rolleyes: He was a moderate conservative with a handful of liberal views at best. Kind of like John McCain.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387579].message }}

ronrule 13 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

JFK would be called a Marxist by today's right. He considered himself a liberal and was in favor of Medicare 5 years before it became law.

You're using a 50+ year old definition of the word liberal, which isn't the same extreme the modern left has taken it to. I mean, that would be like saying "Democrats are racist" or "Democrats hate women" because prior to Johnson the Democrats were the pro-segregation party and the Republicans were the ones supporting womens rights. Remember Susan B Anthony proudly declaring after winning the right to vote how she was going to go vote Republican? Parties and meanings change. I'm not saying Kennedy didn't have any left-leaning views, but by any modern definition Kennedy was far more conservative than liberal. And either way, this is still completely off topic...
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387592].message }}
- TimPhelan 13 years ago
  
  The extremists these days are the ones on the right who would do away with what FDR did and what Kennedy wanted to do.
  
  Originally Posted by ronrule
  
  You're using a 50+ year old definition of the word liberal, which isn't the same extreme the modern left has taken it to.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388010].message }}
  
  GrowTutor 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  The extremists these days are the ones on the right who would do away with what FDR did and what Kennedy wanted to do.
  
  The extremists on the left today consider it extreme conservatism to want do away with what FDR did..like the marijuana tax act of 1937?
  
  They want to do away with things that JFK wanted...like lowering taxes when the economy was bad?
  
  Those darn pot smoking, tax raising, extremist conservatives...on the right.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388096].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

That's fair. But explaining it further wouldn't have a point. I'm not trying to convince anyone, (although reading my post again, it sounds like it). It was just a thought. I would consider it a favor if I could just drop it. I would delete my post, but people have already quoted it, and it would serve no purpose.

OK...

Originally Posted by ThomM

View Post

No you don't get my point. If it doesn't hold water as you say, then why has the CIA come up with a term for it? Even they understand that our meddling over there is responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. They call it "blow back". Maybe you should read up on it some time. Here's a short version Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't tell me what I get or don't get. Your just being arrogant and without reason.

I know what blowback is I'm just not a "blame America first" kind of guy. Sure, you can say that the 1979 hostage taking was blowback for supporting the Shah, it was, but that doesn't change the fact that supporting the Shah was the right thing and wetting your panties worrying about bad people doing bad things because we stopped some of them from doing bad things is no reason not to stop them.

Blaming America for Saddam doing bad things after we backed him against Iran is ridiculous.

Going after terrorists groups after 9/11 (we should have done it sooner) was and IS the right thing regardless if it makes terrorists, their supporters, pacifists (and you) sad.

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Here's a dose of reality for everyone, and why the "war on terror" will fail. Yes, I said we will fail. We will not win this war, and we will lose ourselves and everything we once stood for in the process.

This isn't an Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan thing... From THEIR (the terrorists) perspective, we've been the "Invaders" since our first embassy was built on their soil and they have one goal: either defeat us by making us leave, or defeat us by taking us down. I say we shut down our embassies, pull out our troops, pull out our financial aid, and leave with only this message:

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "win" and "lose." If winning means killing, capturing or changing the mind of *every* one of them, then you're absolutely right. These "war on X" type wars aren't like fighting Germany or Japan in WWII.

There's your problem; you care what *their* side of it is more than our side of it. I don't care what Charles Manson's side was, he was a psychopath as are the terrorists. They didn't care that we were in Beirut with the permission of their government when they blew up the barracks there in 1983, that's not an invasion. Why should we take unreasonable psychopaths desires into consideration? Why should we run from that instead of attacking it? That kind of "blame America first"/"cut and run" thinking is EXACTLY why Ron Paul was rejected the last two times he ran.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387436].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

View Post

Pose your question to Noam Chomsky who said that. He's the man to represent his opinion, not me.

Maybe you shouldn't quote him in support of your opinion then.

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Everything JFK stood for goes against modern liberal beliefs, but that's going off topic... But no, Libertarians oppose wars when we have no business fighting them. We have enough problems at home to solve, we're on the brink of financial collapse, and we have the audacity to think we're qualified to tell other countries how they should be run... that's a problem for me. Libertarians don't think everyone can get along ... we just don't care if everyone gets along, so long as they aren't interfering with each other. Other people's problems are their business.

You're right, it's a very simple solution.

JFK was far more conservative than today's liberals, no doubt. Libertarians are still socially liberal and fiscally conservative though and that's why they get rejected by the other two major parties. Conservatives won't support the social liberalism and liberals won't support the fiscal conservatism.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387448].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

Maybe you shouldn't quote him in support of your opinion then.

JFK was far more conservative than today's liberals, no doubt. Libertarians are still socially liberal and fiscally conservative though and that's why they get rejected by the other two major parties. Conservatives won't support the social liberalism and liberals won't support the fiscal conservatism.

And Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan and even "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater were far more liberal than today's conservatives.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387523].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "win" and "lose." If winning means killing, capturing or changing the mind of *every* one of them, then you're absolutely right. These "war on X" type wars aren't like fighting Germany or Japan in WWII.

There's your problem; you care what *their* side of it is more than our side of it. I don't care what Charles Manson's side was, he was a psychopath as are the terrorists. They didn't care that we were in Beirut with the permission of their government when they blew up the barracks there in 1983, that's not an invasion. Why should we take unreasonable psychopaths desires into consideration? Why should we run from that instead of attacking it? That kind of "blame America first"/"cut and run" thinking is EXACTLY why Ron Paul was rejected the last two times he ran.

There's a difference between "cut and run" where you give up and go home, and an actual plan that addresses what the real problem is and solves it.

Say some country, I dunno, China, just decided to start building military bases on U.S. soil, and then started sending over troops. You know, just to help us out with all of our current financial and political problems, and keep the peace and help make our culture more like theirs. Do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't be taking EVERY OPPORTUNITY to pick them off one by one, and that if you had the ABILITY to escalate it and take the fight back to them on THEIR land that you wouldn't? I would. And it wouldn't matter one bit to me if our government "allowed them here", especially if I knew the only reason they allowed it was because we didn't have the military might to fight back.

It also wouldn't matter to me how many times the invading Chinese troops said "Nah dude, we aren't invaders, we're just trying to help. Here, look see, we built you a school and a new power plant." I would blow both of them up, and every other piece of infrastructure the invaders tried to establish. And I know you would too.

All I'm saying is lets just consider for a moment that the reason the terrorists SAY they attack us - because they want us to remove our presence and influence from their countries - actually IS the reason they attack us. How can you not identify with that? Our government injected itself into their countries and cultures decades ago, and they had no ability to do anything about it. Nor do their political leaders have the ability to do anything about it today. Everyone just maintains the status quo. We will never not be SEEN as invaders, just like anyone doing to us what we're doing to other countries wouldn't be seen as invaders here.

Why is it we keep finding evidence of all of the leaders of the countries that harbor terrorists being in league with the terrorists, acting against U.S. interests? Maybe it's because they are? That they're directly and decisively working WITH the terrorists to help them get us out of their countries, because "politically" their hands are tied?

Think about it, man ... everything I am saying makes perfect sense, and for good reason. We can keep waving the "Go team America" flag like a bunch of idiots, or we can listen to the people who are attacking us tell us why they're doing it and reconsider our foreign policy, because we sure as shit wouldn't tolerate it if another country was doing the exact same thing to us.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387454].message }}

Claude Whitacre

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

There's a difference between "cut and run" where you give up and go home, and an actual plan that addresses what the real problem is and solves it.

Say some country, I dunno, China, just decided to start building military bases on U.S. soil, and then started sending over troops. You know, just to help us out with all of our current financial and political problems, and keep the peace and help make our culture more like theirs. Do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't be taking EVERY OPPORTUNITY to pick them off one by one, and that if you had the ABILITY to escalate it and take the fight back to them on THEIR land that you wouldn't? I would. And it wouldn't matter one bit to me if our government "allowed them here", especially if I knew the only reason they allowed it was because we didn't have the military might to fight back.

It also wouldn't matter to me how many times the invading Chinese troops said "Nah dude, we aren't invaders, we're just trying to help. Here, look see, we built you a school and a new power plant." I would blow both of them up, and every other piece of infrastructure the invaders tried to establish. And I know you would too.

All I'm saying is lets just consider for a moment that the reason the terrorists SAY they attack us - because they want us to remove our presence and influence from their countries - actually IS the reason they attack us. How can you not identify that? Our government injected itself into their countries and cultures decades ago, and they had no ability to do anything about it. Nor do their political leaders have the ability to do anything about it today. Everyone just maintains the status quo. We will never not be SEEN as invaders, just like anyone doing to us what we're doing to other countries wouldn't be seen as invaders here.

Ron; I can't fault your point of view on this. You make a compelling argument. Your last three posts mirror my own opinion. Now, I have to go back to farting rainbows.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387469].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

View Post

Ron; I can't fault your point of view on this. You make a compelling argument. Your last three posts mirror my own opinion. Now, I have to go back to farting rainbows.

lol, sorry I don't mean any offense I know you're a left-leaning guy.

I feel like our own domestic party politics have just caused people to pick sides, without actually looking at why we're fighting in the first place. The left thinks we should be in Afghanistan, but not have gone into Iraq, and is kind of just "anti everything" but offers no solutions. Meanwhile the Right offers only one solution, nuke our enemies, screw the innocents, and shove an American flag up the survivors asses. And while left vs. right constantly argue about how we should be fighting a war, no one ever said "Um, why are they attacking us in the first place?"

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387502].message }}

Claude Whitacre 13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

lol, sorry I don't mean any offense I know you're a left-leaning guy.

Ron; I was joking. No offence taken. Maybe a little left on some social issues. But I think drinking the Kool-Aid on either side is bad judgement. I watch MSNBC, and FOX.....and the flaws in reasoning on both sides is staggering.

Rachael Maddow is about as far left as you can get. But watching her sell an idea is a thing of beauty. Even though I may disagree with everything she says.

I'm an atheist, but watching a Billy Graham sermon can bring tears to my eyes.

And to be honest, I have little opinion on foreign affairs. I just don't study it enough to have a valid opinion. A reasoned argument that I disagree with is far more attractive to me than someone agreeing with me...for no reason.

Anyway, I'm a little impressed with most of the posts here. A more savvy than average crowd. Even the guys I don't agree with.

Claude "Sucking up to the enemy is my only defense" Whitacre
- Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8388778].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

There's a difference between "cut and run" where you give up and go home, and an actual plan that addresses what the real problem is and solves it.

Say some country, I dunno, China, just decided to start building military bases on U.S. soil, and then started sending over troops. You know, just to help us out with all of our current financial and political problems, and keep the peace and help make our culture more like theirs. Do you mean to tell me that you wouldn't be taking EVERY OPPORTUNITY to pick them off one by one, and that if you had the ABILITY to escalate it and take the fight back to them on THEIR land that you wouldn't? I would. And it wouldn't matter one bit to me if our government "allowed them here", especially if I knew the only reason they allowed it was because we didn't have the military might to fight back.

It also wouldn't matter to me how many times the invading Chinese troops said "Nah dude, we aren't invaders, we're just trying to help. Here, look see, we built you a school and a new power plant." I would blow both of them up, and every other piece of infrastructure the invaders tried to establish. And I know you would too.

All I'm saying is lets just consider for a moment that the reason the terrorists SAY they attack us - because they want us to remove our presence and influence from their countries - actually IS the reason they attack us. How can you not identify with that? Our government injected itself into their countries and cultures decades ago, and they had no ability to do anything about it. Nor do their political leaders have the ability to do anything about it today. Everyone just maintains the status quo. We will never not be SEEN as invaders, just like anyone doing to us what we're doing to other countries wouldn't be seen as invaders here.

Why is it we keep finding evidence of all of the leaders of the countries that harbor terrorists being in league with the terrorists, acting against U.S. interests? Maybe it's because they are? That they're directly and decisively working WITH the terrorists to help them get us out of their countries, because "politically" their hands are tied?

Think about it, man ... everything I am saying makes perfect sense, and for good reason. We can keep waving the "Go team America" flag like a bunch of idiots, or we can listen to the people who are attacking us tell us why they're doing it and reconsider our foreign policy, because we sure as shit wouldn't tolerate it if another country was doing the exact same thing to us.

Running away doesn't solve a problem where psychopaths are involved. Saddam thought we were bluffing, OBL said that the reason he thought we wouldn't do anything about 9/11 was because we didn't do anything about earlier attacks. When it comes to terrorists you're not talking about reasonable people.

Horrible example; we'd never allow foreign bases here because we have a strong military unlike almost every middle eastern country. Additionally, China aren't the badasses some people think they are. They've got a lot of troops and nukes but they're just not that militarily advanced. They're NOT going to invade. If we DID *invite* China here then they're guests, not invaders and they'd abide by our restrictions and leave when they were told. End of story. If you can't see a difference maybe that's why you think the terrorists reasons are....reasonable.

I don't care why they say they attacked us anymore than I care why Manson went helter skelter. They have no right to demand we leave places where we're invited and wanted. That's what sunk RP, he cared about what the wrong side wanted too much. Next they'll want us all to convert to Islam. Are you going to consider that too? You can't reason with psychopaths.

That's what did in the taliban...they picked the wrong side. Saddam supported terror, Iran still supports terror, Syria, others, but there also countries that don't and if they invite us there and want us there are we supposed to say "no, we don't want to anger the psychopaths?" Is your vision of America so weak that we can't risk pissing off the terrorists? Remember, in the psychopaths eyes, weakness breeds aggression.

Common sense isn't that common these day. Again, RP though he could win with that kind of "we suck/are idiots" foreign policy so you might want to rethink what makes sense or not. To me it makes no sense. My plan would be far more aggressive and that would make them think twice.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387558].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

Horrible example; we'd never allow foreign bases here because we have a strong military unlike almost every middle eastern country.

You're kind of making my point for me with this...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387575].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

You're kind of making my point for me with this...

No, you just imagine I said something I didn't. Our government would never allow China to build a military base here and they would never try to invade.

If they did (they wouldn't) get invited they'd be guests.

You think China being our guest is the same as us being a guest in other countries?

Are you saying that if China was invited by our government that you'd strap on bombs and start a jihad blowing up women and children in Chinese preschools and buses and be justified?

See? That's why moral relativism fails and your analogy is poor. You think they're the same thing and they're not.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387691].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

No, you just imagine I said something I didn't. Our government would never allow China to build a military base here and they would never try to invade.

If they did (they wouldn't) get invited they'd be guests.

You think China being our guest is the same as us being a guest in other countries?

Are you saying that if China was invited by our government that you'd strap on bombs and start a jihad blowing up women and children in Chinese preschools and buses and be justified?

See? That's why moral relativism fails and your analogy is poor. You think they're the same thing and they're not.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

-
Ron Rule
http://ronrule.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387710].message }}

GrowTutor 13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well that would explain the "you're making my point" posts...and the poor China analogy.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387762].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by GrowTutor

View Post

OK...

You can't tell me what I get or don't get. Your just being arrogant and without reason.

I know what blowback is I'm just not a "blame America first" kind of guy. Sure, you can say that the 1979 hostage taking was blowback for supporting the Shah, it was, but that doesn't change the fact that supporting the Shah was the right thing and wetting your panties worrying about bad people doing bad things because we stopped some of them from doing bad things is no reason not to stop them.

Blaming America for Saddam doing bad things after we backed him against Iran is ridiculous.

Going after terrorists groups after 9/11 (we should have done it sooner) was and IS the right thing regardless if it makes terrorists, their supporters, pacifists (and you) sad.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "win" and "lose." If winning means killing, capturing or changing the mind of *every* one of them, then you're absolutely right. These "war on X" type wars aren't like fighting Germany or Japan in WWII.

There's your problem; you care what *their* side of it is more than our side of it. I don't care what Charles Manson's side was, he was a psychopath as are the terrorists. They didn't care that we were in Beirut with the permission of their government when they blew up the barracks there in 1983, that's not an invasion. Why should we take unreasonable psychopaths desires into consideration? Why should we run from that instead of attacking it? That kind of "blame America first"/"cut and run" thinking is EXACTLY why Ron Paul was rejected the last two times he ran.

You're right I can't, but your own posts certainly do.
Your posts tell me you're either ignorant or blind when it comes to our foreign affairs.
When there is a problem, you find out what caused the problem and fix the cause, you don't continue doing the same thing that caused it and think that is the fix.
It's not about blaming America first, it's about looking at the facts.

Going after terrorists groups after 9/11 (we should have done it sooner) was and IS the right thing regardless if it makes terrorists, their supporters, pacifists (and you) sad.

Sad is the wrong word, angry would be a better choice. Yes I was angry at what the terrorist did on 9/11. Yes I wanted justice. But justice to me is not killing people who had nothing to do with it. Justice is not invading countries that had nothing to do with it. I do not support terrorist, but I also don't support actions that create more of them.

There's your problem; you care what *their* side of it is more than our side of it.

You started your post with "You can't tell me what I get or don't get. Your just being arrogant and without reason" and then you assume what my problem is and what I care about? You say I'm without reason because I look at the facts and use the facts in my argument?If I didn't care about my country I wouldn't speak out against our failed foreign policy that creates people that hate us. I don't care what they do in their countries, I don't care if a Muslim, Christian, or space alien rules their country. I do care about our country continuing to do things that put us in danger and that erode our freedoms and rights.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8389017].message }}

13 years ago

Originally Posted by ronrule

View Post

Here's a dose of reality for everyone, and why the "war on terror" will fail. Yes, I said we will fail. We will not win this war, and we will lose ourselves and everything we once stood for in the process. Keep in mind I'm saying this as a conservative Libertarian, not some liberal douche who opposes all wars because of some touchy-feely belief that everyone can fart rainbows and "just get along" if the right people in charge. What I'm saying is the way we are dealing with the problem only guarantees failure as an outcome.

Terrorists attack us because they don't want us having a presence in their countries. Period. They don't "hate our freedoms", or "hate that we exist", they hate that we're sticking our noses in their part of the world. They see themselves and us much in the same way the American colonists saw the British during the revolutionary war: Invaders/a generally unwelcome influence on their land.

This isn't an Obama or Bush or Clinton or Reagan thing... From THEIR (the terrorists) perspective, we've been the "Invaders" since our first embassy was built on their soil and they have one goal: either defeat us by making us leave, or defeat us by taking us down. I say we shut down our embassies, pull out our troops, pull out our financial aid, and leave with only this message:

You can have your little hole in the wall countries and we won't interfere, but know this - if you ever attack any U.S. interests, on our own soil or anywhere else in the world, we won't send over any troops, we won't have diplomatic discussions, we'll just kick back in central command and have a few beers while we push buttons until there is nothing left of your favorite holy sites. You leave us alone, we'll leave you alone, but if you break this deal so help me you'll wish you hadn't. If you think we're kidding, Google Hiroshima. Deal? We good?

Problem solved. They got what they wanted (us off their land), and we can wash our hands of them and their problems. Let the rest of the world deal with them. The absence of war doesn't have to be peace - the assurance of destruction works too.

We create more terrorists with every drone strike, every troop deployment, every influential Ambassador. But the real bottom line is we're trying to be "diplomatic" and reason with a bunch of religious fanatics who think the most honorable way to die is to blow themselves to smithereens in the name of Jihad so they can bang 72 virgins in the afterlife.

You can't reason with crazy.

The truth is we don't need them. We don't need a presence in their countries, as long as there is a general standing order that anyone who encroaches on our policy of neutrality will be destroyed. If you question whether or not that policy will work, ask Japan.

There you go guys, the formula for World Peace, and my week is just beginning.

Oh hell. You just made me wish you were on the Presidential Ballot for 2016 - or at least already in the house.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8387630].message }}

HeySal 13 years ago

Actually - whole populations let a few individuals decide what masses of humans are going to die for. Frankly, in a perfect world people would just tell leaders who wanted to go kill masses of humans for any reason "tough crap, go fight it yourself".

I just don't get it how a few people can be so willing to let one or two humans push them into mindless slaughter. Intelligent life forms, my sweet ass.
- Thanks
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390165].message }}
USA 13 years ago

Collateral damage is often unavoidable in war, even with today's "smart" weapons.

In the case of an all out war, such as in WWII, yes, civilians are legitimate targets. When your whole country is at stake, it's us or them, and destroying their industries, food supplies, utilities etc,. is vital for victory.

War should always be a last resort, but when it is deemed necessary to engage the enemy, you should always use your big guns first so to speak. I'm more concerned about limiting causalities to my own troops than their civilians!

Sorry... I've been over there. I think they are a threat to our future, so I believe in destroying their future. It might sound cruel, but that's war.

We are generally acting on good intel and sometimes you have to make the call to hit a target, even when you know civilians will be harmed, rather than let a high value target escape.

These jokers aren't criminals in my opinion. This is not a police action. This is war. If these stone age savages don't want their woman and children harmed, then they shouldn't hide behind them (women and children make poor body armor), or strap bombs onto them and send them our way. If they don't care for their own, then I don't.

The country who trains and sponsors most these dirtbags used to make their own 5 to 10 year boys walk through and clear mine fields when they were fighting Iraq, long before we were involved over there.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390630].message }}
USA 13 years ago

When speaking of criminals, I believe in the old ways, of convicting them in absentia. If the crime warrants it, then the issuing of the death penalty.

Wanted... Dead or Alive!!

A good man's life shouldn't be risked in their apprehension. Kill them first, then ask questions.

In a law enforcement situation.... The answer to the OPs original question is NO!! The protection of the civilian is of the utmost concern, even if it lets a criminal escape. We'll get him sooner or later.

But in war... that's a different story... read my previous post.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8390647].message }}

Trending Topics

1 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Google Adding Ads to AI?

EllietheMarketer 2 hours ago in AI

Recently in googles latest marketing event, they said they will be adding ads to AI queries in the near future. What do you guys think about this? I knew they ... [read more]

Reply
Share
1 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

I burned through a $550 budget

Andrea Pisunini 5 hours ago in Ad Networks

Hello everyone. I've run into the following problem. I'm part of an affiliate program for an AI adult-content service. The tool turns photos into adult videos in high quality. Previously, ... [read more]

1 Reply
Share
3 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

What if we banned Google?

sunray 1 day ago in Internet Marketing

Here are the AdSense revenue percentages for one of my websites: Direct (mostly DuckDuckGo): 41.9% Yahoo: 24.1% Bing: 17.5% Google: 13.8% Other: 2.7% What strikes me is that Google's contribution ... [read more]

Reply
Share
17 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is sleep overrated ??

discrat 1 week ago in Off Topic

i know it is important, vitally important. But the mantra that you must get at least 8 hours of solid sleep a night is a notion perpetuated by the media, ... [read more]

9 Replies
Share
14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

How to make affiliates sell my product??

50DoRo 1 week ago in Internet Marketing

Hi everyone, I'm a new vendor. I just created my first product, and I haven't made an offer on w+ yet, and I seek advice on how to attract affiliates ... [read more]

8 Replies
Share

Advertise with Us