*DAMN R6 Forum

83 American heroes dead in first 12 days of April.

560 American's wounded. 2 missing.

May the wounded heal, the missing be found, and the dead rest in peace.

That's 678 U.S. troops had died since the war began.

540 dead since May 1, when President Bush declared mission accomplished.

And 220 dead since Saddam Hussein was captured on Dec. 13, an event Bush said would mark the end of the enemy insurgancy.




George Bush and his buddies are going to hell for this.

You know, I was really okay with this tribute to our dead....right up until the part where you had to go and throw politics into it.

Damn you to hell for that, Sixhits.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Hey GS in your opinion, how many American soldier's lives is it gonna take? Where are YOU drawing the line?

If they are giving their lives for us, then our duty is to be damned sure it's for the right cause. I'm not so sure it is enough cause, and that's where we disagree. In full respect of the soldiers that are fighting and that have died, I can't help but question the recent actions of our government.

why are you damning people to hell?  

A lot more soldiers have died than that actually, because they don't count the soldiers that get wounded in battle and die in hospitals. :(

We, can just get out and leave because we lost a few men, if we don't finish this war wat were the point of the men dying if not for the people of iraq, we must free the iraq's people, we cant leave a half dead country and call it quits!!!!

Look, one soldier's death is a tragedy.  I have personally weeped over the graves of ONE-FOURTH of my entire Ranger School Class since this thing started.  ONE-FOURTH!  1 out of 4 of every person I was in Ranger School with is DEAD.  But let me tell you this, those men and women want to be there.  They are happy that they can participate in bringing freedom to a nation that hasn't known it.  They believe that what the U.S. is doing there is just and is the right thing to do.  I too, believe that it is the right thing to do, and if I were still in uniform, I would be right there with them.

Oh, and I damn anyone to hell that uses the death of a soldier for political gain.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

dead soldiers have nothing to do with politics, they did the ultimate sacrifice because they were told to. A life loss is always painfull.

I think whats in everybody's mind, especially the soldier's family, is whether military action HAD to be taken against Irak (we now know that the answer is no), and if yes, why did we go to war so soon, unprepared (it looks like the bush admin did not plan as it should have been planed).

Now things are done, they 're no way but straight ahead.

It is obvious that you are a soldier GS.... You think like one, both for good and for bad. But the rest of us see politics in the tragic(but sometimes necessary) death of soldiers. Did Bush think politics when he invaded? Yes he did...draw your own conclusions.

Bobby...It is too early to say if history will judge this war unnecessary.......All we can do is wait and hope for some good to come out of the tragic deaths of iraqi civillians and the soldiers serving those nations participating.....be it polish, brittish, american or norwegian for that matter.......

I wish I never see a war with my own eyes.....

GS, i have a question at the end of the military homepage u have it says u work at a ford store for cars, but it says ur a lt general i dont get that, and did u really go to ranger school and halo and all the other stufff, im just wondering

with all due respect, GS is way too young to be a Lt general.

No, I'm not a LtGen....that was my rank when I was in the clans [DoF], |A|, and |GM|.

Yes, I did go to Ranger School, Air Assault School, and I did go through HALO training.  I was in the U.S. Army from 1990 to 1994.  I also served in the U.S. Air Force from 1994 to 1998.  I got out as a Staff Sgt.

Yes, I am currently a Ford Fleet Sales Manager.  I have been in the automobile business since I left the military in 1998.  Here is the website to my dealership if you would like to take a look:

www.butchoustaletford.com

If you go to the tab that says "New Vehicles" and then click on "Sales Staff", you will see my position....2nd from the top.

That's terrible. I take that back: 1/4th is beyond terrible. It's one of the most horrendous things I've heard.

Start damning Bush to hell then. Every chance he gets he politicizes their sacrifice.

So I'm fucking pissed. I'm enraged. I'm not the one using their deaths for political gain. I'm the one calling out the hypocracy of those that do.

I am particularly incensed that those that planed for the after affects of our invasion were so far off the mark. I'm incensed that bullshit chickenhawks in the Pentagon and White House are arguing over details and nuances while American blood is spilled and no plan is in place to help them. And I'm really really pissed that politicians are telling me this is a good thing, ultimately, when they themselves can't say what they hope to achieve ... other than amorphus, sweeping changes that will make everything just fine.

If these guys and girls died for a purpose that was tangible I would be able to take their deaths with a grain of salt. For example, if they tied killing bin Laden. But what, just what, is the point in Iraq? Iraq is in turmoil. Bin Laden roams free. And on the other side of the world N. Korea is a nuclear power (did you hear how we are pulling troops out of the DMZ? Bush's sure tough on rogue states with Nukes, ain't he?). These are just the tip of the iceberg.

Despite spending billions in Iraq we've failed to change the situation there in our benefit. We've kicked Saddam's nuts but failed to follow through. Instead, we've poured money down a black hole. Instead, we've poured American blood down a black hole. And we can't pull out cause then things would be even more fucked up.

We're the god damned kid who stuck his finger in the dike to plug a leak, but in doing so made the crack wider. We can't turn and run cause if we do the dike we leak out. But we can't stay cause soon the crack will widen and the dike will burst. Then we and everything we've worked for will wash away.

It is the inconscionable waste of lives on a process that has no firm goal with constant shifting and waffling reasons why we're undertaking it that pisses me off, ghost. Just think like this: if it was Clinton in office would you be so hard up on this undertaking? Would you see the critiquing of the war as political or moral?

Why does everyone bash on the government, we all know they make bad decisions but the question you have to ask yourself is, if u had the job what would you do? Nothing? So that the lives taken in 9/11 attacks would have no redemption? Oh well.

Rebel we all agree its a difficult job, but if you do it, you take responsability for it.

Regarding 9/11, there is only one person thats directly responsible, and that person is still at large after 3 years. Its a shame.

No1 ever said it would be easy....i just feel that even tho we are saying we are in it alone, we are still bound by world wide laws that permit us from getting the job done the way we want to. I mean we could probably find the bastard and get it over with in a couple months if we did it the right way, even if the "right" way is immoral, but who said war is moral? All im sayin is, dont blame Bush for the problems, cause if u were pres you wouldnt want people on your ass.

9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq or Saddam Hussain... Although it appears that it is pumped into every damn americans head that it was as a way of justifying the war in Iraq.

Is any one going to cry and weep for the hundreds and hundreds of innocent Iraqi Civilians caught up in this conflict? who wern't doing a job, who had no choice?

What is happening in iraq now was forseen years ago before the invasion.. but perticular people in high places just didn't listen. They got the inpression that you can invade a country and secure it just by driving your colum of tanks through a few hundred miles of desert.... IF a proper plan had been put into place, and the necessary preparotory work done for the aftermath of the invasion, in rebuilding iraq and helping the population then we would not be in this situation. And given the current situation, staying in iraq is causing the loss of lives on all sides, and pulling out of iraq would also cause the loss of lives, in the long term many many many more.

All this could have been avoided... I hear so many people saying "i told you so". But the poor bastards be they military or civilian, from any part of the world, who are caught up in this nightmare, they don't have that choice.

it's more like "Iraq and Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11"

Well, have you ever really seen a modern government handle a war any differently.  Some of this is funny where you keep banging the drum about poor planning, and stupid reasons and so on and so forth.  Read books on WWI, WWII, korea and vietnam and you won't see much different there.  Shit, if you have to, go watch M*A*S*H* and it will tell you how bad the planning was for that war and so on and so forth.  Rebel has a point when he says put yourself in that position and make the calls on the information being given to you.  

For shits sake, you really think whoever else goes in office can just wave his magic wand and clean up the mess.  Besides this, we are at this current point in history because previous administrations didn't really do much themselves.  So basically blame all of the voters while you are handing out the blame.  We elect the son's of bitches (and yes Bush was elected according to our laws, so don't bring that BS up).  So everyone who voted just go home and kick yourself in the ass.

FahQ,
The Bush people made some serious mistakes in Iraq after they defeated Saddam, which is the main reason that things are fucked up the way they are right now. If they had demobilized the army properly and made sure former soldiers got reintegrated socially and economically, for example, they wouldnt be facing a cohort of angy unemployed young iraqis with military training and weapons. Pretty much every aspect of post conflict reconstruction was bungled and its pretty much obvious by now that they had no plan whatsoever for what would happen after the war. I was in favor of the US ousting Saddam and still think something needed to be done, but when i look at how it all got handled i wanna vomit. Its not the handling of the war that im concerned about (it was remarkaby "clean" compared to other modern wars), but rather the handling of the post conflict situation, which compared to what happened after WW2 and Korea, was totally incoherent. Nobody said it would be easy, but even the most basic things got screwed up, so I definatly blame Bush for whats happening.

I'm saying take action now, it's election time.  It's taken the US less than four years to fuck up foriegn relations, smother a surplus, incite more anti-americanism, and break down environmental regulations. That's not improvement, not damage control, that's taking considerable steps backwards.   I'm going to "pre-empt" my blaming ten years from now and say... "because of bush admin, our education is worst than ever, economy sucks, all my friends have moved to and live happily in canada/new zealand, prices of goods have doubled because of inflation, i can't afford to send my kids to college or cover health insurance for my family, one company owns every channel and radio station and all say the same thing, we're stuck in a never ending war in the middle east (or violence is still out of control), no one likes us, gas prices are 6$ a gallon, and I don't have any clean water to drink from."  and that is not even the worst case scenario. God aweful adolescent leaders such as Bush are an embarassment, and shows how fucked up our country is as a whole.  

Is blaming everyone right? maybe.  the mass uneducation of americans is the cause for delinguent election choices.  And in that case, education and freedom of speech should be priority numero uno.  Maybe all the education spending done during the clinton years will kick in this election round.

Dude, if you will go live in Canada or New Zealand right now, I will buy your plane ticket.  But you can NEVER come back.

A great big reply would have gone here but Abe and Ssickboy just about covered it.

Of course i don't think some new president/or whatever can come in and wave his wand - hell its far to late now. Things have been fucked up so badly i currently cannot see any kind of resolution to the problem.

The fact that bush has just appeard to have doubled back on the Roadmap in the middle east in talking about the Israeli Illigal settlements 'remaining' ... and that Blair didn't stand up against him on this makes me sick... The sooner we get both these ass holes out of their positions of power the better.



Um your point being? Hell yeah i bang my drum about how the war aganist Iraq was fucked up... I certainly wont argue against the fact that Vietnam was also a massive fuck up... or korea..
I can't put myself in the positions of power as i don't know that i know what they knew when those decisions were made... However If thats the best that could be done given the 'information given' then thats the worst fucking example intellegence gathering i have ever seen.

Bush and his war council thought as far as capturing Saddam and the destruction of his regime.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

Dude, you make me sick.  Just how the fuck are the Israeli settlements "illegal"???  The Israelis are the ones that got attacked from all sides.....they are perfectly just in keeping that land.

People like you need to eat shit and die.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

i wonder whats more effective to make my leftish points:

1.  spewing out my opinions and beliefs about progressivism and such like everyone else,
2.  or openly display another conservative gun tot'n identity similar to you ghostsniper.

 

Why do we waste our time fighting about politics?!

garsh tootin, you liber'al pussies should all be shot.  Bush is a hero to the american people.  He is hands down the finest, smartest leader to walk this earth.  Besides Jesus Christ of course.  mark my words the history books will show 30 years later.  

I trust no one.  And don't care.  Get in my way, you die.  That's my right.  all u raghead lovin euro's need to back off cause we're number 1.  If it were'nt fer us, you be speakin german.  Free food? fuck'em. we don't give hand-outs.  you want a good living.  earn-it.  If you don't know how to screw the system then thats your loss and you deserve to starve.  If powel can do it then any african american can.  it's simple law says don't do drugs, don't steal.  If u can't abide then you deserve jail time, matter of fact I don't know why we waste tax dollars on prisons to feed you, all evil doers should be shot on site.

and weapons of mass destruction are there.  We know they're there, cause he used them.  we gave 'em to him, so we all know he has 'em.  just got to find them.  might take years.  If not then we should plant them, cause we all know he had 'em.

terrorists are terrorists and those that support them are terrorists too.  They were born evil and they will die evil.  Palestinians are all terrorists and deserve nothing!

and don't get me started on communists.


(omg I feel ssick)




 

LOL... Well Ghost, oh shit! its not GS lol. could have hardly have told your posts apart ;) lol. I wish you had seen part of the press conferenece he gave the other day with blair... Somebody asked the question "what mistakes do you think you made in iraq and what would you do differently" (or basically along those lines) The poor ape man didn't konw what to say! He just stared into the distance while his two brain cells fizzled out into insignificnace. How could he answer a question that his advisors didn't repare and answer for him for! Boy, gee, well we didn't do anything wrong in iraqi, but hey one day somthing might come to me about HOW WE FUCKED IT ALL UP.



Hahaha... hahaha. Try pulling  your head out of your ass and taking a good look rather than looking at such a narrow minded view that only takes into account what you want to know and what fits in with what you believe.
You support Sharon then? The guy who is considered responsible for the horrific slaughter of civilians, the massacres in jenin and elsewhere? The guy they said was unfit to have any position in goverment?
He intentionally sparked all this off by that stupid visit to the wailing wall.... HE wanted to start this.

But hey i can't type any more... i need to go find some shit to eat so i can die lol. Grow up. Go polish your guns and sit in your little bubble of milteristic conservative christian fundamentalism. You make me laugh and cry.

ps... ssickboy you did pretty good :) you want some bleach to clean your mouth out now?

What the....Is this the best you can come up with? So you feel that 30 years of oppression hasnt done the trick? that Israel has systematicly tortured and killed palestinians that opposed them? Have they not refused to follow UN resolutions? Dont you believe that it was wrong to give away palestine to Jews in the first place when the palestinians were told that brittain would give them that land? Perhaps it is time to try something new...like putting down the weapons?? Oh yeah....Israel will perish if they do.......heard it before...the same rant over and over again....HOW THE HELL DO WE KNOW? violence over and over again til nothing is left......that make me sleepless....and what scares me most is men that condone this.

Eat shit and die.....you lost the discussion there....men who cant argue anymore tend to go for insults....I am truly sorry for you for I believe you can do better.

Christianity is the reason for most wars in history......and we base our religion on a forgiving god? If you ask me he must have died 2000 years ago, because I see no love in this world.

I am tired and wish only to sleep in peace.

ooh brutha you forgot:

peace

-Brutha out.


Ah the sun is shining...

Guys, it really doesn't matter if YOU believe it or not.  God gave that land to Israel THOUSANDS of years ago.  It was theirs long before the world decided to give it back to them.  One day you will all stand before the Judgement Seat of GOD.  At that time, it will no longer matter whether or not you believed.  It will be too late then.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Actaully it does matter if I believe or not.  that is the problem.  Your god, or their god might have given them this land, but then this other god promised it to a whole different set of people.  who's god is right?  NEITHER.  the indians were RIGHT!!  Displacing and killing people in the name of God is freakin psycho!  

there is nothing greater than the universe, the earth, life, and what connects the three together (the intangible).  that is god.  And in my world you can live here and believe what ever you want (that's the yin & yang) , but apparently in your world and in theirs no one else is welcome.  Cause god says so?  that's fucked and it won't happen.  your so called "god" (faith) has given you a narrow impression of what life has to offer and teach.  

christianity is like a bad glitch that won't change or go away.

thats is so true.

Christians did it ages ago, Muslims and Jews are still doing it: one day they'll realize, eventually.

Fuck me GS. Get yourself sectioned. You need to see someone about this. Your freaking grip on reality seems pretty damn strained if thats your outlook on things. Fuck i though that people like you were sectioned under the mental health act.

Yeah....about christianity:

FACT: Christians have during modern history raped and plundered in Gods name

FACT: Christianity rewrote the words of "God" to suit their own goal

FACT: The new testament, the foundation of christianity is not written by the ppl it is suposed to be written by....Most forged to "fit" what is suposed to be said by the apostles.

FACT: one of the commandment is saying "thou shalt not kill"......look at first line.

Now....if any "god" who lived by the rules that is said to be the foundation of christianity still existed he would have acted on that a long time ago....and certain ppl would have been removed from the gene pool. Hopefully rightwing christians would be the first ones to go.....they are nothing but fundamentalist...and NO better than suicide bombers....they are just better equipped.

The way I see it the problem with the war in Iraq, the Israel/Palestine issue, Afganistan and a hell of a lot of other places is religion.

Religion mixed with fanatic and fundamentalist feelings.

So if people just did what their religions said and made peace I guess the world would look very different.

So make up, be friends and stop hating each other because of opinions and feelings.

It's politics which brings death to soldiers you damn fool!!

here is an informative web site for casualties in Irag

That's nice.  So when are the Americans going to move back to Europe and give the Native Americans the land that god gave them.

Don't let that door hit all of yall in the ass on the way out either =D.

Actually, I know I've said this before, but most Native Americans (the ones not trying to get something for nothing that is) don't have a problem with the europeans kicking them off their land.  Native Americans were doing it to each other long before the Europeans came along.  There are things that are terrible that went on, things that were just wrong (the breaking of treaties over and over, the genocide that went on against many nations).  But just the taking of the land, shit, look up Native American history before speaking about it.

Ugh, I hate how you all bring politics into this and complain about soldiers deaths.  War is terrible...war isn't something that we should all want to experience...but people who JOIN the military...(no they aren't drafted)...know what the hell they're getting themseleves in to.  If not...well...surprise surprise.  You're a soldier.  You should know what it is.  Im not saying soldiers are expendable but quit complaining about it.  They are serving their country the way so many soldiers from all other countries have done for thousands of years.  And Bush isn't sending these guys to their deaths.  He isn't the only one saying "OK lets attack this town here and bomb these guys over here and let me fly a jet over there."  Theres a reason why there is a separation of powers in the Gov't, kiddos.  Oh and by the way...all of you who say "I can't stand the government!  It sucks!" etc and etc...go fuck yourselves, Ok?  The only reason you're able to say that shit is because of the govenment, thanks.  How about you show a little support instead of being a big pussy and bitching about everything.  Thank god that you don't live in some of these other shithole countries who are a LOT worse off than us.  Ugh...whatever...Im done.  And Im sure I'll get some irate jackass to reply to this and in advance...go fuck yourself.  

Chillin the Most,
Chad
- *DAMN Postal Worker -

You get the point LM is trying to get across there right Bucc?

Yes Sack, but I'm trying to lighten up all the talk of killing for a religion.  It's no better or worse than killing for a nation really, or a woman, or money.

People will call it what they like, but what it comes down to is they are all making war or killing for a way of life.  The way of life they want.

The problems come when some assholes want to impose their way of life on everyone else.  Yes, most of the major nations and religions are all guilty of it.

hmmm,  who you talkin too "kiddo"?  there's no one here saying that.  


i agree, all of those things would be crazy to kill over.  crazy i tell ya.  ssick in the head type.  And then to have your own fair way of life imposed upon by someone taking advantage of you, it makes total sense to defend your right as a human being.  Who in iraq is imposing upon us?  "blah blah blah"... oh Sadam was imposing upon the rest of the middle east.  But then why isn't the other countries involved, the UN?  Why are we there mostly alone?  Everyone else stupid?  

our soldiers are saying "we're here to free iraq"

does a free iraq = no terrorism?  If not, then are we spending our resources and soldiers lives for the right cause?  Cause we might be  making things worse.


and...?  like who?  keep goin!                          

Christianity. Each time its fucking Christianity. And fucking ass holes who believe that their fucking 'god' gave them this and gave them that which means they are supior to others who do not believe or who's believes differs from their own. So many wars it would take to long to mention them... and so many times it comes down to fighting religions... Now... now we just seem to be trying to change any body who live differently from us.



You surprise me... my reading of NA history has been rather different. Ok to start with it wasn't a problem - and people traded and things went ok... they even joined in as the british and the french tried to beat the shit out of each other ;0)
But as for not minding about having all their land taken, their buffalo killed and their way of life destroyed, about the deseases the white men brought... and how they were shoved into little reservations... my reading was they didn't exactly appreicate that. But i think i get ya point.



might be defintatly have ....

It may just be me, but isn't this a paradox we see quite to often in the U.S. today? Freedom of speech as long as it is what the government says...and if otherwise you are an idiot?

Then I think I prefer those other "shithole" coutnries".....at least the government is open about the rapage of its ppl.

First...to Ssickboy...listen pal, you can't tell me that you've never heard any of these little punks saying that around here (or any other place).  I know I've had this exact same discussion on other forums and its always the same.  Some jackass comes in mouthing off as soon as I post something like that, so I figured Id just tell them in advance to shut it.  

And Brotha...I think I already replied in advance to that one, lol.  Oh and rapage of its people?  ...Did I miss something?  

welcome to the (modern?) damn political discussions.  I haven't seen that problem in here.  And I actually welcome those ill-informed types/punks to come get involved.  This isn't some lame rocket science exluding people.  

BFG, that's because you read the popular, liberal history, not Native American history.  

If you take say, right here where I live.  The last Native American Tribe to control it would have been the First Nations or the Shawnee.  But before them you had the Chipawa, before them, the Huron.  

The history you are reading starts in the 1600's, but the Native Americans were fighting each other long before that.

But even in the stuff from the 1600's to 1812, you can find how tribes aligned according to their tribal rivalries with other Native Americans.  Iroquis and Hurons, being huge rivals, naturally picked different sides in the French Indian wars.

Before the Sioux were kicked out of the Black Hills by the white man, they kicked out Crow, which kicked out Ute, which kicked out etc.  The Native American tribes competed for the resources just like the whites did when they came.  

The things that offended the indians was the waste of the whites, killing hundreds and thousands of buffalo at a time, only taking skins and tongues, leaving the rest to rot in the sun.  Like the breaking of treaties, over and over again.  But not just being moved.  That was a way of life for them already.  Nothing new.

America, and it's presidents

Reading most of these posts has given me some hope again, that the average American citizen (what is the average American citizen? Currently, he/she seems to me an abstraction of a collection of predjudices i have collected, enlighten me), might begin to think for him/herself again, though perhaps the posts (from BFG, Losemoney, Ssickboy, and cohorts) come from a small splinter of a minority?

"Good & Evil"

Doing the "right thing" (here's to abstractions), may not be as hard as it is made out to be. Imagine yourself in the position of another person, that phenomenon is called EMPATHY, and is sadly lacking the world nowadays (even as a write this, I realize the hypocrisy of that statement, but at least I strive to better myself).
History tends to repeat itself, and i believe we are rapidly moving again to a time of religious wars (or perhaps the wars started with the advent of the first religion never ended),
for religion requires a blind belief (blind, as no evidence can be shown),
to believe blindly, imo. must be a fanatic, to at least some extent.
fanaticism, is the easiest state of mind to be abused by "evil" men (what is evil? as long as some humanity survives, the survival of the fittest has been applied, what's more, even if we all die (god forbid ;D), we'd obviously not have been the fittest, being too dumb no to self destruct),
fanaticism is easily abused, as once one believes something blindly, he must trust his peers in the belief system to tell him/her what the current beliefs are (please save the discussion of religion evolving or not for later),
so, i feel justified in claiming religion (especially monotheism) is one of the biggest mistakes humanity has ever made, being the perfect excuse to kill for.

Israel & Palestinians

Both sides are led exclusively by blind, radical IDIOTS. There is no solution, but it's still a stupid fucking situation (any vicious circle is stupid).

On a personal note

I do not expect anyone to take the trouble of decyphering my horrible syntax, so this discussion should not be affected by me.
Please realize this post is very subjective, like every post i have read on this forum, so to add even more subjectivity to this witches' brew: everything is to some extent subjective. Even the universe as we see it, has been subjectified by our eyes, sending signals to the brain, thus perceiving it individually: http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=subjective (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?r=2&q=subjective)  (one might argue the thesaurus is incorrect, but wouldnt that just be proving my case?)

and last, but not least, please take everything in post personally. or don't.

THINK FOR YOURSELF SHMUCK!

Peace (really, not GS's gun-toting kind with mutually assured destruction ensuring a cold war kind of unstable peace).
MacMan

(just my 2 eurocents)

Well Bucc, that doesn't make the taking of their land any more justifiable.  But hey there must have been a lot of vacant land since the estimated population of the native americans was 1,500,000 at the time of European contact and by 1907 the population had dwindled to a mere a 400,00.  And I have studied native American history thank you.  Anyway this   has nothing to do with the point of my post.  


So why does god believe that the Israelis deserve that land more than the Palestinians?  Does god think that the Israelis are superior to the palestians?  If so doesn't that make god a bit erm... racist?  Oh is it because the Palestians are Muslims?  Well then god must be a pretty intolerant being, and I think it is every educated person's duty to oppose what they believe is unethical and I believe that intolerance, be it racial or religious, is unethical. And why should we as men intervene on the issue on god's behalf, we are men not archangels.

I only have a few minutes so I'll have to keep this brief. There is so much to reply to, respond about...

In short, I think our arguments break down to defending these two perspectives on what it is to have freedom:

Some of us want freedom in order to exercise it.

Some of us want freedom in order to exercise it, but only for themselves and only in the ways they think are appropriate.

I am firmly convinced that George W. Bush would on an honest day asert that it is the second reason I propsed that is the reason he wants freedom.

I am worried that the state of Isreal under it's current leadership has been brought towards just that sort of "freedom" as well - our freedom, not yours. But I honestly think Isreal is not my problem. As an American, I say let and the Palestinians burn their own house down around them. But we must cease to support one side or the other. Both are devils in their own way.

Brutha, get your fuckin facts straight.  The West Bank and Gaza were taken by Israel because of Palistinian violence towards them.  Israel does not systematically kill Palistinians, and definitely does not toruture them.  The only Palistinians that Israel kills are ones who have carried out or planned attacks against Israelis.  Its called self defense Brutha, and everybody has a right to it.


Give me a break.  Hamas and other Palisinian terrorist groups want Israel gone.  That is a fact that even they have admitted openly.  Attacks started against Israelis way before they took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Hamas will keep carrying out attacks against innocent civilians until Israel is no more.  Conversely, Israel does not want the Palistinians gone.  All they want is for the attacks to stop, and the violence towards the Palistinians is only an effort to halt attacks on Israeli citizens.  The only reason Israel is still in existance is because they are fighting back.

You guys better be glad that Israel does not react to things the way the United States does.  Because if that were the U.S. sitting in that spot in the Middle East, and along came all those countries attacking us, you would be talking about the new states of Egypt, Syria, Lebenan, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia that the U.S. just added to the Union.  I for one am pretty pissed off that the world tries to hold Israel back from properly defending itself.

Peace (through the use of Global Thermal Nuclear Warfare, if need be)  ;)

-GhostSniper Out.

I just tried backing my girlfriend's cat, Wanda, into a corner.  I was pushing and pushing, not letting her go anywhere.  I even had a grip on Wanda's neck just to make sure she couldn't squeaze out. Even though she didn't like it, she relented.  I kept pushing really tight.  and you know what happened ...  The sweetest nicest cat I've ever known left a nice deep gash on my chest, yelped a sound I will never forget, and I witnessed for the first time a very dark instinctual side to Wanda.  

Why did I do this?  A vision of god told me to get in the cage and call it my home.  I mean It was my cage, I bought it for her.  

Now if Wanda was as wise just as she is sweet, she should have done nothing, sacrificed herself.  The Animal Cruelty, or Humane Society would have arrested me, fined me, and made it illegal for humans to fit in cages.  Her sacrifice might have benefited cat's rights around the world, maybe not.  But can you really expect all kitties to be as perfectly saint-like?  

So I'm still in the cage as I write this.  But I'm not goin anywhere, I'm stuck, and she's pissed.  What's next?  Any solutions?  

haha

Nice to see that someone finally sees the Israeli side of things....


----- Added Portion -----
I think people have been missing my point.

To clarify: Ssick has laid out exactly what happened to the Jews thousands of years ago and has been happening to them since.

Not that it matters.

The world governing body has given the Israelies the right to the land. Sucks for the palestinians but hey, shit happens. NOTHING gives any group of people the right to target INNOCENT civilians. Particularly through the dishonorable ways the palestinians have...

Ssickboy that has to be one of the best ways to sum up the conflict i have ever seen... it just fits so bloody well.



Hahaha. good one. oh... oh you were seriouse? you mean you actually believe this shit? OMG you really are f*cking insane! Well hell we should be properly arming the Palistinians so we can help them defend themselves. lol

ok lol well " I for one am pretty pissed off that the world is not helping the palistinians from properly defending themselves."

But hey its all Great. Israel just murdered two more palistinians, the religious and political leaders of hamas... And there are now 1000more people wanting to take their shoes and pick up their weapons to contine the fight. But israel is so fucking short sighted they don't see they are just making it worse...

But its all fine... Israeli blockades and the wall are helping turn the west bank into a open prison... hey you could call it a getto i guess... funny that. a group of people in a enclosed guarded enclave... ghetto... germany .... WWII.... the comparison has been made several times before.

Although I strongly support Israel, I do happen to agree with you on this BFG.  Although I don't see Israel's actions as morally or ethically wrong, I don't think Sharon is doing what is best for the country.  He has made a number of poor descisions, and I don't dispute that.  Killing the leaders of Hamas can only do them harm.  I find it very disturbing that yes, every time they kill a Hamas leader, more and more people join the cause against them.  I don't think it is right to compare the West Bank or Gaza to a ghetto though...that is going too far.  The ghettos during WWII were created for the purpose of genocide.  That is not what Israel is doing.

And ssickboy, that is a very good analogy.  You are quite creative.  :)

And what, the palestians are just supposed to lay down and die?  Or leave? Or give up?  No they will fight back, and does anyone find that surprising?  How else are the palestians supposed to combat the Israelis?  Head on when the Israelis have one of the most advanced militarys in the world?  Nope that is like suicide. The only way they can fight back is by using "terorism" and innocent people will die.  Sucks for the Israelis but hey, shit happens.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were Anti-Semitic.  Sounds like Hitler could have used you back in the 40's to help out his cause.  I hear there are some Neo-Nazi organizations that could use your help.  Why don't you go join one of them?

Anything written that's not in favor of Israel is anti-semitic?  And it must be un-patriotic too.  So what does that make him?  A terrorist?  AND... GS the anti-semitism laid the discrimination against Jews, but it was the brutal fascism that carried out the executions.  And you my friend win in the fascsist contest.  


- glad you enjoyed the cat story, i enjoyed writing that too.  

IT was only a matter of time wasn't it... It had to be said by someone... Its the imfamouse "if you don't agree with what israel is doing then your are Anti-semitic" .. yada yada yada you love hitler etc..

You must be fucking kidding GS. Its funny every time i look at it the way Israel is treating the palistinians looks more and more like how the Nazi's treated the jews. Gaza is being turned into a fucking open prision. Israel still seems to believe it has the right to murder people in order to 'defend itself'.  This bloody under siege mentality that is going on with 'poor israel' under attack from the world and desperatly tryinig to defend itself from the Anti-semetic world is bloody bullshit

And of course it must be noted that it wasn't just the jewish population who were targeted. The Gypsys were all but wiped out, anyone with mental disorders, the homeless etc, it goes on and on.

Ssickboy... said it before and will say it again. That bloody cat inalergy was bloody perfect.

lol....I see my sarcasm was lost on you guys.

I'll never understand people who support the murder of innocent civilians. What happened to peaceful protest? If the palestinians laid down their arms and marched in the streets singing Kum-Bay-Ah the UN would shit a solution so fast it'd make your head spin.

But peace is not what either side wants. Peace is what the innocent israelis civilians want. Peace is what the innocent palestinian civilians want. Their leaders want war. Their leaders can't see past the barrels of their own guns. And their own people pay for it every day.

Killing has become a way of life for groups like Hamas and Al Aqusa Martyr's brigade. They know no other way. Does it make it right? HELL NO. Attacks on Israeli citizens does give Israel the right to do anything in it's power to stop the attacks, however. The whole thing is a goddamned tragedy, but right now the Israelis are in the right. They are merely defending themselves.

Let me put it simply. One small group of palestinians is bent on wholesale murder of innocent civilians. The Israelis only want to stop that from happening. Who is wrong here?



One other note: To say you support the intentional murder of innocent civilians lowers you to a level I can't imagine being at. You preach peace but when it comes down to it, you're willing to murder women and children in cold blood to get your way. What does that say about your humanity?

dont you find it ironic that Hamas was created by Israelis to fight Arafat's OLP ?

see that the big problem with saying anything against Israel: you're antisemitic if you do.

And when the U.S. kills civilians it's called liberation.

You forgot to mention the settlements that Israel wants.  I'm not sure what the current statis is on that, but last I heard or read, Israel wasn't willing to give anything up.  Their reasoning?  mixed.  but to have that extra space for defense is understandable yet not available, they can't keep sqeazing palestinians further out.  What's missing is a neutrality.  The settlements cannot stay, they're not right.  israel needs to learn to live without them.  Meanwhile Palestine is all fucked up.  Some sort of nuetral force needs to maintain those borders until things settle down, and palestine re-developed.  that's my solution.  close the border and bring relief.  

btw Kerry is a huge supporter of the Israeli cause.  I don't get it.  

Ah, I knew someone would illustrate my point for me, it was only a matter of time....

Ok, what you're forgetting here is the concept of "intent". Bucc has talked about this before but apparently you skipped class that day so here's a quick refresher.



in?tent ?Pronunciation Key??(n-tnt)
n.

1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose.

2. Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.

3. Meaning; purport.


Now, to answer your question. The difference between when terrorists kill civilians and when the US kills civilians, it's a simple matter of intent. The US does not want to kill any innocent civilians. It is not their intent to do so. Any deaths that happen as a result of US actions are accidental, or unintentional. The terrorists knowingly target innocent civilians for the express purpose of causing terror in the general population. They kill innocent civilians for the purpose of scaring other innocent civilians into giving in to their demands.

Here's another scenario:

Let's say that there's a man driving around town shooting random people demanding for his buddy to be released from jail. This man is clearly in the wrong isn't he? Ok, now let's say that the police are shooting at the man trying to stop him from killing anybody else and that some innocent bystanders are hit during the exchange of gunfire. It was not the cops intent to shoot the bystanders but it happened. It's tragic, but it's not the same as intending to kill someone.

You can see how the cops are justified in their actions and the random shooter is not, correct? No matter what the reason for his buddy's being in jail, he has no right to shoot random people.

I cannot make this difference any more clear. If you still fail to understand this basic concept you'll have to ask someone else to explain it to you, you're beyond my help...

yeah yeah heard got it, yada yada.  but niether are a completely justified. thankfully cops are not shooting innocent bystanders at alarming levels.  Your point solves very little.  There are still 10,000 Iraqi's dead, and almost 700 americans in a war that was unneccarily brutal, and seemingly far from over.  This is because of an illogical wreckless wielding of power.  I'm all for making the world a better place for everyone, safe and secure.  But this is not the way.  The US created the UN way back when we as a government had a different mind set and better understanding of how to approach living within a worldwide community and making it a better place.   Wiping out and dis-regarding the rest of the world is one way to do it, and thats the path we're on.  I don't see us winning it.  

I don't remember how we got into a debate over the legitamacy of Isreal's occupation of Palestian lands. At the end of the day that occupation, whether one supports it or not, is the root of much of America's problems in the Middle East. Some would argue it is the axis on which all our problems in the Middle East spin, from terrorism to fundamentalism to oil price fluctuation.

The truth is both sides have legit claims. Both sides have commited unspeakable acts. And neither side is truly willing to explore a compromise.

I actually find much to hope for in Sharon's newest proposal.

However, his actions for the past years have shown him to be as much of a militant, brutal murder as any Hamas leader - so I take his olive leaf proposal with a grain of salt. The war he fights in one not based in thoughtful policy, but in revenge.

Sharon's proposed withdrawl from the Isreali settlements and recognising of a Palestinian state has two glaring afronts to Palestinians: one, it denies them the Right of Return or due compensation (this is in reference to the creation of the state of Isreal, when people of Palestine were thrown out of their homes), and two, it lets Isreal annex the West Bank. Sharon's deal, for all the good stuff it offers the Palestinians, has more "stick" than "carrot": it's a non-starter.

This proposal comes from the mouth of a man who Palestinians consider to be a war criminal. For them, it's promises written in sand. And Bush backs it. This leads me to a greater observation about today's American policy, one which is broad and grand in scale.

I don't think of the Isrealis as killing civilians: I just think they are fighting a war. I begrudge them not those deaths, just like I don't view American soldiers in Iraq as murders for doing what they are there to do.

I just think those that sent them there are ultimately doing us a disservice.

In Isreal, by fighting like for like: you kill our people, we assasinate your leaders, some of whom just happen to be the holiest men among you, and in doing so we will not trouble ourselves too much over civilians.

In Iraq, by have no idea what to do with a conquered nation.

With Isreal and Palestine, America has now VERY clearly picked our pony. Stack that with our clumsy handling of the lead up to Iraq, the unilateral with us or against us approach to the worldwide problem of terrorism, the lumping of disperate nations into one muddy concept - the axis of evil; the failure to properly plan for and execute policy after war in Iraq and in the occupation of Afghanistan, the misleading of the general public about the motivations for war, the misuse of appropriated funds, the deliberate alienation of the UN. The list goes on and on but ultimately ties straight back into the same shit we've seen for years in Isreal: we, like Sharon, refuse to provide real solutions, only violent responses.

With Bush formally picking sides we can expect the war between Isreal and Palestine to expand to include us. Such proclaimations. after years of tacit support politically and open military support will serve to unite our oppenents. The leader of Egypt announced today his impression that Arabs hate Americans more now than ever before: this is not an improvement. And this cannot be chalked up to us supposedly winning the war on terrorism or that Arabs hate freedom more than ever or some other bullshit. We have earned that hatred and deserve it.

The anger of our enemies, indeed of those who are not even our enemies, is not due to them hating us as a people persay, but due to how we as a people represent ourselves: as a war-crazy cowboy nation disinterested in the opinions of others, willing to ignore international opinion at random, willing to support rogue nations and dictators on one hand and invade some with the other, spout rhetoric of freedom but practice tryanny, and use our immense force as we choose rather than as we should.

Americans are the biggest hypocrites in the world and the world knows it. Our current leadership has made a mockery of us instead of building a worldwide consenus on the issues of our day. Worse, many peoples want to make us suffer for our actions, as they themselves have suffered. Do you think the average Iraqi's view on America has been improved? Do you think nations will be more or less inclined to treat with us? Do you think the legitamacy of our interests and concerns are understood or scoffed at? Do we have any honest allies left, or are all only mercenary countries, ones who cut loose when we need them most? Do you think our proclaimations on freedom convince anyone?

And for what? Why do we support the dictators in Bruma, in Pakistan, but invade Iraq? While the Palestinians and Isrealis murder each other we declare our support for an Isreali victory. While Pakistan arms North Korea and Iran with nukes we invade Iraq. We lump terrorism with anything we disagree with. As more and more Iraqi's die in the fighting around Iraq we tell the world they are a grateful populace eager for liberation. Why do we sit on our haunches while North Korea arms itself and flaunts treaties and broken promises? We are not safer. We are not better off. We are over exposed in parts of the world were we are at greatest risk. True enemies like North Korea are free to do as they will, and thus the world can see our cowboy bravado is bullshit. Even our snubing of the UN rings hollow since we've begged them to help guide a transfer of power in Iraq, a tranfer we have no clue how to do ourselves.

Instead of proving to the world how potent American might is we have revealed our own impotency. The bad will Bush's lies and bravado has wraught will take years to overcome. And the root of so much anger, the Palestinian question and Sharon's proposed solution, will be remembered as an American folly.

American policy and rhetoric is almost comical in its absurdity. It's time for a change.

Oh, I agree totally. We should never have gone to Iraq. Certainly not at the time we did and we're doing a damn fine job fucking up the "reconstruction" as well.

My point was related more to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it applies elsewhere too. It's not that neither side is completly justified, it's that it's NEVER ok to target innocent civilians, no matter the circumstance.

Part of me wants to point you to the fire bombing of Japan during World War II. Or the bombing of cities - civilians - in Germany in that same war.

Innocence is a matter of one's perspective on the circumstance.

For example, I would not consider bin Laden's family innocent.

It was Curtis LeMay, no pussy-footed liberal, who once said, "If the other guys had won the war, I'd have been prosecuted as a war crimminal.' LeMay was the commander of US Pacific bomber forces and developed the strategy of fire bombing Japan's wooden cities. The casualties were horendous.

And you know what? I'm glad he did it. I'm glad we nuked them, too. We won in large part because  of those actions, those murdering of civilians.

And so I disagree that killing civilians is always the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it is  purposeful, if never moral. But what war is moral? In that sense I understand why people turn to terrorism and the killing of civilians. And when it's American civilizans it makes me convinced they must burn, balls cut off, sacks stuffed in their mouths, as someone like Ghost Sniper uses a red-hot bowie knife to one by one cut their tendons, bleeding them to death.

My troubles with Bush is that the battles he fought have gained us nothing (much the same can be said of Sharon, the father of Isreali fascism). Afghanistan grows opium and finances terrorism still. Bin Laden breaths and his organization is just as deadly as three years ago. Just what the fuck is Bush doing?  Iraq is a sad distraction from the fight we must fight. Thus the costs on both sides are wasted. We've gained nothing from invading Iraq that we couldn't have gotten elsewise. Worse, we've sacrificed so much; politically, militarily, monetarily, and in good will. How has this help us in the essential conflcit of our time, the war on terrorism? Well, it gives terrorists lots of easy, juicy targets.

And as we spend money and blood in the sands of a worthless nation, our home is left doors open, waiting for the next strike to come.  

First I am going to make this jam packed statement: "Those Palestinians that suicide bomb IDF soldiers are not terrorist but patriots and freedom fighters." Israel was given to the Israelis by a foreign source. Should we let the UN make Washington give Texas back to the Mexicans because they were there before the Anglo-Americans? Who is the UN in the first place to enforce the creation of such an ambomination like Israel is. Sounds to me like World Government where all nations are inferior and must sacrifice sovreignty. Maybe I am just some Russian nutcase, but I would rather die fighting than live in a world where the UN is above all nations.

it was scary enough to live in a perfectly free texas,  it would a nightmare to witness texas freedom fighters...  Oh wait,  HAHA! I am in this nightmare.  omg, how'd that psycho get in office!?

I hear ya Alaric,  I've read through bucc making the same points, and it's frustrating.  The point made breaks down like this: X is bad, but Y is Y and not X.... and thats where it's left, leaving this spin that makes Y sound ok.  I think sixhits lays out a interesting take on it.

X, Y, and Z's, they're all bad.  We need to get back to the A, B, C's

And if all they did was bomb IDF soldiers I would agree with you. Bombing cafes and nightclubs is not the same as bombing uniformed personnel of government.


Sixhits, yeah I see your point. And I too agree with the firebombings and nukings of Japan. It was nasty shit, but it had to be done to save lives, both Japanese and American.

I think that's the real difference here, once again. I believe we did that to the Japanese with the overall intent of saving lives. I don't think the same can be said for the terrorists.

So Israel responds by rocketing civilian neighborhoods that are around a suspected terrorist, and then they bulldoze entire neighborhood of Palestinians? Sounds like they are doing a good job defending themselves by destroying the Palestinians whole infastructure.

Doesn't McNamara comment on the firebombings directly in the movie "fog of war."  If I remember correctly, he takes a some of the blame and resents the whole act among many other moments.  Matter of fact his participation in the movie reminds me a lot of all the books coming out trying to get the record straight, specifically to make a point in reaction to our current policies.  sorry off topic, and in response to those who say people like Richard Clarke are all about profit.  

ok found a link. check it out, click on "1945."  http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/indexFlash.html

good site to preview the film.  Also click on "synopsis" and scroll down a little to the 2nd point.  It has more about the fire bombing.  

omg!  so you can close this forum down now.  Go check out that site inside and out, even DL'd the lesson plan.  It's every bit on topic to this thread.  

http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/indexFlash.html

A war is a war, there are no rules.  America itself has targeted innocent civilians, as sixhits said, in the 2nd world war.  The theory behind it was to break the will of the people.  The Germans first did it in the battle of Britain. Hitler diverted the main focus of the bombing from the English airfields, which was highly effective, and told them to bomb london, expecting the British to fold.  The plan backfired and the British were more determined to defeat Germany than ever, and thankfully the Brits turned the tide and won the battle of Britain.  The same thing happened in 9/11, instead of America's will being broken, you saw more American flags outside of houses than ever, I expect the same in Isreal. Really terrorism is an ineffective weapon, instead of crushing the enemy it seems to unite them, but it's the only thing the Palestinians have. Economic sanctions is a tool America uses to cripple nations, but what it effectively does is deprives Innocent civilians of medicine, how is that any different? I don't support the killing of anyone but I do say if you have been wronged you are alowed to fight back with what ever weapons you can get your hands on. I am not willing to murder anyone, the closest I have come to murder is by paying the taxes that have bought the bullets, and bombs, and guns that are killing people all over the world, and in that way I am not innocent.  You support the Palestians being kicked out of their homes but can't deal with the consequences, so I'll steal a line from you and say: shit happens.

Well...Shit happens is just not right. Let me recap the situation in short words: Palestine is occupied and want to be free, they dont have enough weapons so they use suicide bombers to to destroy anything israeli, ppl or property. Israel was attacked and won the folowing war and is now an occupant of the lands they conquerred. Israel wont give all up since they think they deserve it, but are willing to negotiate peace with Palestine if they lay down their weapons, while they defend themselves by killing terrorist leaders, and civilians in the same strikes, and destroying infrastructure to send a message that says: we will not tolerate an attack on Israel. Well then, which side has right? It seems that ppl bring morality and ethics into this matter without asking what are the ethical principles involved. It doesnt really matter what your gut says, because everybody agrees that a life lost is a tragedy. One ethical principle could be that you shal not take life. A nice principle that is, but it is a war so it needs to be polished a little. So let us use you shal not kill civilian life. There is still a problem here, as you cant really tell suicide bombers from civillians, so again we need to look at that line. Perhaps you shal not kill civillians if you can avoid it. Now we can say we have ONE principle. This will give us a tool to which we can say that suicide bombings, as long as it harms civilian life, is wrong. It also means that Israel is breaking the same principle when they use rockets to kill leaders of palestinian resistance movments, because they harm civilians. This is ONE principle as i said, and the discussion must go further to state wether the destruction of property is wrong or not, and then we would have to see what is gained or lost by such actions.

I do not like the situation in Israel and Palestine any more then most ppl, but it is too easy to say what is wrong or what is right........hell...its easier to say what is wrong, than what is right. And I admit that I have been one of the worst to yell words of wisdom, without giving the reasons that are the basis of my argument.........

What the Isrealis do often boarders on willful murder. But in the end it's not that much different, and surely much less violent, than what the US did to Japan. Or what the Japanese did to the Chinese (if you want to see a list of horrors take a look at what Japanese soldiers did in China).

And your right about the infrastructure - that's their plan, destroy it. It's one step away from their own version of the final solution. Not like the Palestinians wouldn't do the same to them if they could.

So I again say, let those fools burn their house down. The US must disengage.

I think the only principal being played out between Isreal and Palestine is this: Might makes right.

And so they each die.

First, war does have rules even if they're not always followed.

Second, I wonder why I waste my time writing these posts when no one reads them. I said the US firebombed the Japanese in and effort to SAVE lives. The same cannot be said for terrorists, either palestinian or others.

Third, you can't blame the US for what a country's leader fails to do. There has always been enough aid provided to sanctioned countries to fulfill humanitarian needs. Those country's leaders have chosen to spend that money on weapons instead. Is that our fault?

Fourth, terrorism is a very effective weapon, always has been. Fear and indimidation are the oldest tricks in the book, for a recent example let's point to the current situation in Iraq. Through terrorism, Al Qaeda has not only influenced the elections in Spain, they have also caused that country (as well as two others) to pull their troops out of Iraq. In return, Al Qaeda has promised no further attacks against Spain. Successful terrorism in action.

Five, I never said I supported kicking Palestinians out of their homes so stop putting words in my mouth. I said Israel has a right to defend themselves. Those are two very different things. Also, just because I say that Israel has a right to defend themselves does not mean I support every action Israel has taken, their hands are bloody too. But that does not change the fact that the targeting of innocent civilians by hamas and other palestinian terrorists groups is inherently wrong, nor does it change the fact that Israel has a right to defend themselves from such attacks. (This point is also my response to Cossack)

On a related point, too many of you see the world as black and white. That a someone who voices support for one part of the Israeli policy supports everything Israel does. This is not a world where you are either with us or against us. This is a world where doing one thing right does not mean you are doing everything right (or doing one thing wrong means you are doing everything wrong). There is no group of people on this planet who are always right or always wrong. Treat each issue as independant, rather than affiliated with one group or another.

just to clarify - the US did so in order to save American lives. I'm pretty sure that's the point you're making.

And Japanese lives too. Imagine how many more Japanese would have been killed had the invasion of Japan gone ahead as planned.

But, yes, the first goal was to save American lives. Which it should be considering the survival of our country is at stake, oh, and the fact the Japanese started it all...

thats a difficult argument though is it not? to justify the bombing and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians... to protect troops. - to justify it in any way. to intentionally target civilians for whatever reason seems hard to justify.

Perhaps the palestinian bombers feel it is the same way - they kill Israeli civilians to save palestinian civilians.

"Perhaps the palestinian bombers feel it is the same way"

That's the point I've been trying to figure how to make.

As for killing civilians ... in war, everyone is a target. I find it hard to validate putting limitations on what one can or cannot do in war. This is because you are expecting the other side to do the same - often they will not. And I don't want my guys to be fighting with the proverbial hand tied behind the back (no matter how much I don't want them to be fighting to begin with).

I think what it comes down to is what are the objectives of the conflict? With those objectives, what are the most efficient ways of securing them?

For the US in WWII, the objective was the unconditional surrender of Japan. A secondary objective was to minimize American casualties. In that frame, nuking Japan made sense. In it's own way, nuking Japan and burning cities was moral.

This is why I keep harping on Perspective and why I am so upset with the Bush regime. It seems clear to me that the frame of reference from which Bush runs the war and leads our nation is not the same as mine, and I think, not the right one to use. Ditto for Sharon. And ditto for Arafat.

Unilaterial policy is almost never the right policy. As our founders said, united we stand, devided we fall. Bush's policy is that of dividing the world into little bits and pieces of "for us" and "against us", almost at a whim, with little thought to the real world consequences. Clearly, little thought was expunged on what would happen after we kicked Saddam out on his ass. Compare this to the occupation of Japan and Germany after WWII and you might begin to see just how ridiculous the notion of Bush-as-leader really is.

Save them from what? From losing their homes? That's justification for taking action against the Israeli military and police forces, but to murder civilians for loss of property?

It should be noted that these terrorists also use their own people as human shields, hiding in their mosques and neighborhoods. Doesn't really sound like they are trying to save their lives does it?

I'll say again that the palestinians do have a legitimage grivance, but they're going about resovling it in the wrong way. And I think that's more due to a few bad apples than the majority of palestinians.

perhaps, but what you say here is that they are fighting on equal terms, which is not right. But this is simplifying things.

Um, huh? Ironic? OLP? PLO?  I'm not sure what you are talking about or why that would be ironic, but maybe I'm just a noob.  Please explain.

By using the atomic bomb, the U.S. killed a few thousand civillians....perhaps some more than that, but to say that it may have, in the long run, saved more japaneese civilians compared to an invasion of Japan is borderline insane. Now let me ask you a question, How do you know that, on what calculation do you base your statment on? Do you even know the long term damage that warcrime did on japan? Yes, Japan started the war, but not with a nuclear bomb, not even with a little bomb against civilinans. Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered for a long time because of those bombs, the blast itself and the radioactive fallout that harmed the city for a long time after the war. I believe that U.S.A. opened pandoras box by inventing the bomb(I know it would have been invented sooner or later, but the U.S. invented it) and the world was changed forever. Hopefully will WMD's never be used again. But know this, I am not blaming americans today their governments crimes back in 1945.

The bombings of Bremen was almost equally horrific, allthough the aftermath didnt proove to be as bad. Perhaps Truman and "bomber" harris should have been convicted of warcrimes....I know they would have been today.

If a world war is fought again, i hope it will be conventional.

Just as a side note to all these war crimes posts.....

Only the winners decide what were war crimes.

Oh, and whoever said that the atomic bomb only killed a few thousand people....

The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan killed over 250,000 people.  Now then, military estimates show that an invasion of the Japanese Islands would have resulted in over 1,000,000 Japanese deaths, not to mention the hundred thousand or more U.S. deaths.

So personally, I say fuck the Imperialist Japanese and anybody with the mindset that says we shouldn't have dropped the bombs.....we didn't start that war.....but we sure as fuck knew how to end it.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Homes? just their homes? No. We are talking about peoples Homes, their families, their lives... their loved ones. their children, their society... their nationality.
Fighting for the right to live and breath.

if another true all out war is fought (WWIII) it will undoubtedly go nuclear.  there are no 2 ways about it.  in ww3 everybody dies

YES!  It's like in America's Army when I am using the RPG....and somebody sneaks up on me so I fire it into a wall, killing both the enemy and myself.  If EVERYBODY dies in WWIII....then that means not only will I die, but people like voodoo, Typhy, BFG, and Bill Gates will die, too!

I like it!

Bring on the Global Thermal Nuclear Weapons!

w00t!

Estimates range, but I think you're being, um, conservative.

Truman was issued a report before he used the nukes that the American's were looking at towards one million American dead in an invasion and several million Japanese dead. A good book to read to get a handle on the numbers and the disposition of material and men is FLYBOYS.

I think ppl today don't appreciate the Japanese mindset at the time - literally, the entire country was mobilized to die killing Americans.

God, I hope I never turn a corner on you with an RPG...

Yeah there are treaties to protect people.  However these rules are pretty hollow, everyone breaks international laws and treaties.


So they killed civilians who weren't prepared to die to save the lives of soldiers who are.  Sounds just as bad to me. It is a tough moral question that people have been asking since the end of the war.  I have to say I agree with you that it did save lives, but can we ever be sure?


Point well taken. Although I dont think that economic sanctions is the best solution, if there were a way to topple the people at the top I'd be all for it, and so would the government I guess.  It does illustrate that some of the leaders of nations don't give a fuck about their people and are only out for themselves.


I believe that people are being pulled out of Iraq because they are realizing that they really have no business being there (the terrorist attacks were vital in making that realization however).  Terrorism is a good way of achieving objectives, but no wars have been won purely through terrorism, although in Iraq it's beginning to look that way...


Well I decided to put those words in your mouth when you said:


I never said I was willing to murder anyone.  You are guilty of doing exactly what you are critizing other people of doing, you assumed that since I didn't condemn Palestine for terrorism that I supported terrorism.  Well I do not support people people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing theselves up along with women and children, but I do think it is understandable why people would do it in such a hopeless situation.

It is a tragic and complex situation.  I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone does, in the end it is up to those who are doing the killing to stop and to compromise, which doesn't look like it is going to happen anytime soon with the people who are in charge.

gs, there are far more important things in life than  just killing a few people who piss you off online.  think of it this way. you nuke  the world, not only do you an i die, but then your wife dies and your family as well.  if they aren't lucky enough to die in the initial salvo, they will suffer and die a slow and horrible death during the ensuing nuclear winter. everything that is good in the world, everything that is beautiful, will wither, rot and die.  are you ready to condemn 6 billion people for the sake of just those 4?  if you are, i should start calling you antichrist in stead of gs

I wonder somtimes whether we have been blurring the difference between terrorism (we can't even agree on what that is) and Gurrilla (shocking spelling) warfare... A lot of soldiers have been killed in iraq - not from terrorist attacks, but from boobytraps, bombs and ambush's.

It might just be me, but would you not think that the military "estimated" the death toll to be that high just to get to test the atomic bomb in a war? Well...as I said, might just be me, because the military never has lied about anything. We all know that the military never tested the effects on ppl after the war, so why during a war?

they did test on humans. here's a good site. take a look at all the test movies.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/news&pubs/photos&films/testfilms.htm

***Looks at subject heading...Looks at thread......Looks confused***

The israelis have become pretty concious about avoiding killing civilian bystanders when they send rockets after the leaders of the "palestinian resistance". And these people know they are marked targets, so they deliberatly surround themselves with civlians in order to getting blown up, as alaric mentioned. And since we are talking about civilian casualties, lets also not forget that about half of the victims on the israeli side are women and children, while over 90% of the palestinian victims are adult males. For all the criticism you can make of Israels heavy handed approach towards security, you cant deny that it has been effective in curbing the flow of suicide attacks; they catch would be bombers all the time, but there have been few succesful attacks recently.

Under the Oslo accords, The PLO (OLP is the french acronym btw) has the responsibility to reign in on militants and terrorist in the areas under their authority, which NEVER happened. Hamas people and other terrorists get arrested sometimes, but they are released within days. And this was both before and after israel destroyed much of the PLO/PAs capabilities. With all the money the PLO gets from Europe, the arab world and the US, they have had the means to reform themselves into a responsible government, but that never happened either. Just like Israel acts against israeli terrorists and extremists who try to use violence, the PLO needs to do somthing about palestinian terrorists. Instead, they have actually encouraged violence and many of its members directly fund, support and organize suicide bombings. If theyre not going to do it, the IDF will......and, as you all know, they wont be 'delicate' about it.

To brotha and losemoney: You guys should really read up on what happened in 48/49, 67 and again in 73, instead of getting all your background from CNN. The whole story is a little more nuanced. THe palestinians could have had a state for a while if the people leading them hadent consitently acted like assholes.

love to see where you got those figures from.... Would that be counting the acts of genoside in some of the refugee camps or not? since when were those figures tallied?

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=440

a study that compares non-combatant deaths and deaths by gender for both groups. and yes, it only includes victims of the most recent outbreak of violence (since 2000) aka. the al aqsa intifada. It does show that while most of the palestinians killed were male combatants, 80% of the israelis killed have been non combatants, of which 40% were women and girls. That was the point i was trying to make.

As for the "acts of genoside" that you are speaking of (i assume youre referring to the sabra and shatilla massacres), they occured in the late 80s and were carried out by lebanese maronite phalangist militias, not israelis, although Sharon (Min of Def at the time) was judged to be 'indirectly responsible' (or something like that) for the atrocities because the IDF was in control of the areas where they took place and did nothing to stop the lebanese. The lebanese christians had their own reasons for hating the palestinians.

There has been a recent incident in Jininn.

Look, I did numerous research papers on this subject on the way to getting my FIRST degree in History.  The number I put up there, 1,000,000 dead was the LOWEST that ANYBODY said would have died on the Japanese side if we had invaded the country.  What, do you think I just pull these numbers out of my ass?  If I say something on this forum, it is because I personally have some understanding of the topic, whether through my own research, my own life, or from direct first person accounts.  You guys keep forgetting I'm not some 14 year old looking all this shit up on the internet or believing everything I see on T.V.

Some of you really need to leave the house every now and then and find out a little about history on your own.  Go take a trip to Hiroshima (as I have done), talk to Brig Gen Paul Tibbets (as I have done), read through the official documents at the National Archives (as I have done), or at the very least go talk to some of the other MILLIONS of people who fought in that war.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Cossack,
There was a lot of investigation into what happened in Jenin and there was no evidence of any atrocities, crimes against humanity or  'acts of genocide'. The palestinian fighters used civilian buildings as cover for ambushes against IDF troops entering the camp and the soldiers responded by pretty much levelling a block of houses within the next couple of days. Some 50 palestinian militants were killed in the process. There is no evidence that suggests the IDF deliberatly targeted civilians or did anything like that. Also, keep in mind that we are talking about very densly populated areas that the fighters use as cover and that these places are extremely hostile environments for the IDF (think of Falluja for the US Army and multiply by 30). Bottom line is, there was no massacre in Jenin, despite what arab and palestinian propaganda will have you think.

Btw. In that report i posted the link to, they also point out that other palestinians were responsible for the death of253 of the palestinians killed (about 1/8 of the total). Thought that was kindof interesting.

Abe you should register for these forums and post more often!

But all the important info comes from your conversations with God, right?  He's mentioned you to me.  He says you're not a very good listener.    

he's right. you should.

Sure, God told me to "nuke 'em til they glow."  As I have yet to get my hands on any nuclear weapons, I would say that God simply hasn't given me the means to do what he wants me to do.

 :)

In sum, Ghost is right on this one.

In sum, I am afraid of Ghost.

In sum, Sixhits agrees that I am sometimes right, but he hopes he never runs into me in a dark alley somewhere.   ;)

That about sums it up.

GS i cannot belive you are saying that 250,00 deaths + radiation to people is justified. 1,000,000 deaths by invasion is just rediculous by the time our ships would be offshore japan they would have surrendered. I too have been to Hiroshima and they are quite positive toward Americans and they forgive us for what we had done. which is not the case for us, most people still dont like the japanese for what they did at pearl harbor and that was a MILITARY target not an overpopulated city such as hiroshima.

And personaly i cant belive your saying this after visiting the museum there of the monstrosities that the Atomic bomb did. ( this is if you went there )

GS im not trying to attack you here it just seems like theres is some weird logic that i cant get at of how you view these events.

It's okay....you would have to have a 180 IQ like me to get my logic.  ;)

I think you're flat out wrong.

There was no assurance that Japan would cave, either due to fire bombing, economic woe, or nuclear weapons. Japan was well known as a fanatical nation, bent on national extinction or victory. By '45 there was no middle ground, at least not for the military leaders. The emperor was not being informed of the force disposition - all his military leaders were telling him that an invasion was a good thing. It would give them the chance to kill Americans is such numbers that they might sue for peace, allowing the Empire to survive. The incredible amount of men and material gathered in the two invasion beaches - one on the plain just east of Tokyo, the other on the nearest southern island - were brimming with troops, suicide boats, suicide frogmen, suicide jet-powered-bombs, suicide planes, and well thought out and positioned death fields. The entire able bodied populace was being trained for enmass bambo lance charges. Children were being trained to strack bombs to there backs and crawl under tanks. I think you fail to grasp the extremes to which events were leading. It was going to be a slaughter on both sides.

Frankly, thank goodness we nuked them. The nukes caused fewer civilian deaths than any signal fire bombing. In fact it was actually less damaging to use a nuke over a fleet of B-29s dropping incindiary bombs. That, and we showed our hand to Russia.

In anyevent: we are aruging revisionist history - would the Japanese have surrendered without the nukes? Conditionally, yes, they had already made peace overs. But unconditionally? No. They would never have surrendered unless a meaningless death was assured. The nukes assured a pointless, meaningless death for all Japanese.

So lets just say it was the otherway round... The americans did a sudden attack on the Japanese fleet... pear harbour, and it drags the japs into the war they didn't want to deal with.
... The tides turn and the Japanese push towards america....

.... The jap's Drop two nuclear bombs, on new york and i dunno, washiton lets say - They kill several of hundreds of thousands of people, -- the number who are injured or who's health will be sevearly affected and lead to later pain suffering and death is innumerable.

Japan wins the war - and they justify their actions by saying - hell well we would have shot and killed a lot of your civilians when we invaded you so actually we did you a favor by using WMD's and murdering several hundred thousand people. you should say thankyou.

....

     And those hypothetical Japanese would be right.

You people are all acting so taboo with nuclear weapons. The fact of the matter is that it won the war for the US, preventing what would have been a costly invasion of the Japanese mainland to both sides. To prove my point, look at what happened on precursor invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, two relatively unpopulated areas - both sides suffered mass casualties. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have easily surpassed the number of casualties from these two invasions 4x due to the fortifications and the shear number of troops needed to land and set up a working beachead, then capture cities one by one until the military was crushed.

Back to the taboo thing about Nuclear weapons...you people are so blinded when it comes to war and casualty counts. If you want to find out what a true hell was, you should spend your time to investigate the Dresden firebombings which on some accounts killed more than 300,000 people.

Was using sarcasm to make a point, but I can understand that it sometimes gets lost in the text.

GS. The reason for us forgetting that you are not some 14 year old watching TV and bringing everything up in the forum, is that your points sometimes go too far. We cannot believe an adult would say the things that you do sometimes. Irony or not.

As for the bombings, you assume the death toll would be higher, and I assume it would be lower. The problem here is that all argument are based on assuption because we simply cannot know what would be he truth. America dropped the bomb, and in retrospect I feel that it was wrong. Simply because this bomb affected civillians.

Yeah, I've gotta start watching that more.  Comes from my sick sense of humor developed while I was in the military (Specifically in the Army).  When you train for years in tactics to kill other humans, it really does twist what seems funny to you.  ;)

But hey, just try to get in my head more and see things the way I see them and then you'll be okay!  :)

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Amazing isn't it. We are just fucking disguesting. as a species we are so bloody evil its astonishing... to think how much money, how much time and effort goes in to hurting and killing others. People dont even seem to think twice about it now. You read in the papers (or maybe not) about a war here, or a war there, a few thousand dead, or a few hundred thousand, people maimed, raped, slaugtered in their beds... but u become numb to it, we just don't think about..


Taboo? Ok like brutha lets put it simply. I find is sickoning that the US dropped the two nuclear bombs and murderd hundreds of thousands of people. They were not troops (on the whole)... they had little choice. I find is digusting how countries spend so much money and effort in their military, in their ability to murder other people. I find it disguesting how germany bombed london and killed so many civilians, and how Britain bombed dresden and other German cities and killed so many civilians.
I find it disguesting how al-quieda murdered so many people on september the 11th, and accross the globe i find it disgusting how many people were killed by saddamn in iraq, or how many people the US killed in Vietnam among others.

I find it disguesting that people are so willing to kill, so willing to hate and i find it astonishing how little we care.

Why don't we think about it? We should think about it more. Think about what implications your actions have, think about what you do and how it effects others. We live in societys that orientate around Money, Greed, Compertition, our societies revolve around looking after number one, f*ck everyone else as long as your ok. Dosn't matter about your neighbours if your ok, dosn't matter about the rest of the world as long as your corner of it is ok.

And our countries spend millions (some of them billions and some of them hundreds of billions) on inproving our effectivness and ability to Kill.

This world is so fucking disguesting i can't quite find the words to describe what i think.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
here is the link, don't know why it didn't post earlier. If you
really give a shit about either side in this conflict, you will take
some time and look at it carefully.  It's a good tribute.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/ (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/)

You are a classical leftist peacenik who doesn't think of any context whatsoever when making statements about history. I advise you to look up several facts of the WWII Pacific theatre operations including American firebombing of major cities, and the invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, then consider the possible results that would have happened if American troops had to invade and create beacheads, then march across Japan much like they did in France and Germany.

After you spend the time looking up that information, consider this: During the time of World War II, killing civilians were casualties of war, not "murder." Attacking the civilian population was a time tested and proven way to defeat hostile enemy nations because it put pressure on the rulers of the nation to either end the war or to achieve total swift victory (WWII Japan as an example of the first, WWII Britain as an example of the latter). Also lost in your leftist psychobabble is that you don't even know what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. Hiroshima was a large military-industrial complex and home to Japan's southern defense forces while Nagasaki was a major arms factory as well as the major naval shipyard and harbor on the Japanese mainland.

Here is a map of the proposed U.S. invasion of Japan codenamed Operation Downfall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation_Downfall.jpg). Look at how many beacheads the US wanted to establish and imagine the shear amount of casualties that would have insued. At landing points around Tokyo and Kyushu, the Japanese had over 900,000 army and mainland defense forces ready to execute their "Decisive Battle" strategy - to kill as many Americans as possible to force us to to cave into a conditional peace treaty. So how many lives do you think were saved by dropping the two Atomic Bombs now?

EDIT: link

Why thankyou lol, could be a lot worse.


Um i don't think u got my point... Killing civilians in order to save Soldiers... thats what im getting act.

..... and a very large population of civilians... 200+ thousand of whome were killed.

I hate to be the one to have to tell you this BFG, but there probably wasn't a single innocent non-war producing civilian in all of Japan during WWII.  The Japanese were experts at having families build war materials in their own homes, then bring the items to larger places where they were built on more, then finally making their way to large factories that put it all together into airplanes, ships, and other arms.  If you can condone bombing a factory that is producing warplanes, then you also can not turn around and condone the U.S. for bombing population centers....those very civilian populations were turning out more war goods in their own homes than all of the factories combined.

So go think about that for a while.  By the way, this little secret during WWII is why the U.S. Air commanders (namely Jimmy Doolittle in Europe and Curtis LeMay in the Pacific) had no problem fire bombing large civilian populations....EVERYBODY was helping in the war effort!

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

The Atomic Bomb was also a way to make Japan (or atleast part of it) not under the Soviet Union. Right after Nagasaki the Soviets invaded Manchuria and Korea in a very short amount of time. If the Americans invaded the Soviets probablly would have taken Hokkaido. They already had the Kuril Islands it would only be a short hop skip over. This would prevent a North Japan and a South Japan. I think it would have the same result as Korea and Vietnam.

There are many ways we can spin the resolution of WWII. But it comes down to the fact that the winners write the history books, so the losers always seem like they deserved it.

It the hundreds of thousands of Japanese who died in WWII deserve to die? No. But did killing them help the US win the war? Yes.

When all it said and done, I want the US to win it's wars and I want the other guy to lose.

In regards to Iraq, I think we've fucked up and should get the hell out - we're not fighting that war for the right reasons. That's the essence of my dissent on Iraq. Now, as for Afghanistan, I think we need to be there and being there is good. So I think that Iraq is doubley stupid: it's a meaningless war and it distracts us from the real objective, controling Afghanistan.

Problem is... to move out now in the state things are in would create a massive power vacume - giveing control and leverage to the very people that the US is trying to stop from getting a grasp.
however the way things are going... stay put and you make it worse

I'm feeling mood today, but ...

Let Iraq burn.

ok.... and provide a stronghold for Islamic terrorists etc to set up, exactly one of the reasons why the ivasion happened 'apparenlty'. In turn helping to destabalise the region even more, not to mention having a totally reverse effect than was hoped for

... not to mention the poor bastards who live there and have had their lives blown up.

I know, I know BFG. I'm just frustated at it all. I can't see a path out that works. It's the architypical quagmire.