don_of_manhattan Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 OW...you left yourself open to a lot of darts...easily pointed and tossed ones too. A veritable flurry. I'll get my shots in now. No troops are "expendable". That is simplistic, bitter, and a very mean thing to say. That said, there are also acceptable risks for the mission. Once again, America, most of it, lives by soundbites, and has not seen more than a few dead American Soldiers or Marines for quite some time. There are two entire generations of America, both of them tuned into the violence, as long as it is a video game, a rap song, or a movie - and ignoring the reality of life. So, the "troops" are less "expendable" if they die on our soil? Along with your wife, children, friends? The mindset of this country truly frightens me. Y'all make it so much harder. You really do. 351312[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_of_manhattan Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 OW...you left yourself open to a lot of darts...easily pointed and tossed ones too. A veritable flurry. I'll get my shots in now. No troops are "expendable". That is simplistic, bitter, and a very mean thing to say. That said, there are also acceptable risks for the mission. Once again, America, most of it, lives by soundbites, and has not seen more than a few dead American Soldiers or Marines for quite some time. There are two entire generations of America, both of them tuned into the violence, as long as it is a video game, a rap song, or a movie - and ignoring the reality of life. So, the "troops" are less "expendable" if they die on our soil? Along with your wife, children, friends? The mindset of this country truly frightens me. Y'all make it so much harder. You really do. 351312[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 What about the 1600 Americans who have died over there for nothing. 351318[/snapback] You dont know enough to know that you dont know enough. The only thing that you do know is, You're an idiot. You're a sad piece of an American. If you are one at that........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 You dont know enough to know that you dont know enough. The only thing that you do know is, You're an idiot. You're a sad piece of an American. If you are one at that........... 351324[/snapback] Well, maybe we should wait until he figures out the nuances of actually posting, unless repeating mine two or three times is some new nouveau art form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 OW...you left yourself open to a lot of darts...easily pointed and tossed ones too. A veritable flurry. I'll get my shots in now. No troops are "expendable". That is simplistic, bitter, and a very mean thing to say. That said, there are also acceptable risks for the mission. Once again, America, most of it, lives by soundbites, and has not seen more than a few dead American Soldiers or Marines for quite some time. There are two entire generations of America, both of them tuned into the violence, as long as it is a video game, a rap song, or a movie - and ignoring the reality of life. So, the "troops" are less "expendable" if they die on our soil? Along with your wife, children, friends? The mindset of this country truly frightens me. Y'all make it so much harder. You really do. 351312[/snapback] So the acceptable risks for this mission are that hopefully 10 years from now we'll have democracy all over the middle east, and the freedom loving Iraqis, Iranian's, Syrians, etc will rise up against the Al Qaeda's of the world stomp out terrorism. Is that what we're hoping for? To me, that is not a calculated risk. It's a hope and a prayer at the expense of our soldiers lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 So the acceptable risks for this mission are that hopefully 10 years from now we'll have democracy all over the middle east, and the freedom loving Iraqis, Iranian's, Syrians, etc will rise up against the Al Qaeda's of the world stomp out terrorism. Is that what we're hoping for? To me, that is not a calculated risk. It's a hope and a prayer at the expense of our soldiers lives. 351349[/snapback] No, that's not it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Well, maybe we should wait until he figures out the nuances of actually posting, unless repeating mine two or three times is some new nouveau art form. 351328[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Since you don't have to, that makes it pretty easy, doesn't it? 351234[/snapback] I guess it does?... Never really thought of it that way. If anything is easy or not, just doesn't matter to me. The bottom line is trusting that our leadership will do the right thing... And frankly, that I DO NOT have. I don't mind that we don't agree... No matter what life throws at me, I just don't see that changing... I guess we can just end it at that? Take care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 I guess it does?... Never really thought of it that way. If anything is easy or not, just doesn't matter to me. The bottom line is trusting that our leadership will do the right thing... And frankly, that I DO NOT have. I don't mind that we don't agree... No matter what life throws at me, I just don't see that changing... I guess we can just end it at that? Take care. 351443[/snapback] Fair enough. One of the hardest things to do sometimes is agree to disagree. You take care as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Americans are all that matter? It's too bad you feel that way - I thought they were human beings as well. What about the 1600 Americans who have died over there for nothing. You can't justify a bad war by losing valiant soldiers - that is what makes fighting a meaningless war so wrong. I fear that we will leave that place and it will turn out just like Vietnam - we could have accomplished that with far less than 50,000 dead Americans. 351318[/snapback] As a long time lurker on PPP, a small word of advice.... If you have a clear agenda, and you obviously do by using phrases such as: "What about the 1600 Americans who have died over there for nothing" or: "You can't justify a bad war by losing valiant soldiers - that is what makes fighting a meaningless war so wrong" you may as well be saying FLIGHTSUIT! HALLIBURTON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 don of Manhattan, If you really are from there, how can you say what you did while daily looking at the current void where 3000 Americans died at once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 When this country allows the draconian security provisions and the suspension of civil rights required for adequate security, it might get a little easier. I get teh feeling that your intentions are honorable and you simply want to rid a rough world of some very bad people; that's a noble objective and I take no issue with it. However, I think there is a significant portion of the United States that doesn't believe that the sacrifice of personal freedoms is a means worthy of an end that is nigh impossible. Our federal government is already corrupted, possible irreversably, and already wields far too much power. Giving a corrupted institution even more power, particulary when its motives are highly questionable, strikes me as a dubious local solution to a global problem. While freedom without security strikes me as more of the natural order of the world, security without freedom is a pointless existence to me. Live free or die Give me liberty or give me death These are long-standing tenets of the American way of life and I am not ready to abandoned them because I'm afraid of a few shltheads. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 don of Manhattan,If you really are from there, how can you say what you did while daily looking at the current void where 3000 Americans died at once? 351494[/snapback] Not to sound snotty... But, what you said is really a personal choice... Some people might get through tough situations better. You could tug on my heart strings all day also... And it won't get you anywhere. Am I cold bastard? I don't think so... But, if people want to think that, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 I get teh feeling that your intentions are honorable and you simply want to rid a rough world of some very bad people; that's a noble objective and I take no issue with it.However, I think there is a significant portion of the United States that doesn't believe that the sacrifice of personal freedoms is a means worthy of an end that is nigh impossible. Our federal government is already corrupted, possible irreversably, and already wields far too much power. Giving a corrupted institution even more power, particulary when its motives are highly questionable, strikes me as a dubious local solution to a global problem. While freedom without security strikes me as more of the natural order of the world, security without freedom is a pointless existence to me. Live free or die Give me liberty or give me death These are long-standing tenets of the American way of life and I am not ready to abandoned them because I'm afraid of a few shltheads. Cya 351505[/snapback] Exactly Simon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 If you look back at history, it seems that the British empire's descent began when the ground rules changed. At the time when controlling the seas meant so much, the British were well nigh unbeatable. But then came the American Revolution. Much has been said about the colonists hiding behind trees whilst the Brits marched in formation in bright red coats...but even before that (until the French entered on the colonists' side) the Brits were doomed simply because the war was on land. The colonies had "militias", but no naval capability to speak of at the beginning. So all the Brits' ships and naval expertise meant little. Fast forward to now. "Terrorism". The US military might is based on the ability to intimidate the hell out of people with our superior weaponry, and if necessary making good on the threat. But the terrorists, like the colonists, don't play by those rules. I remember an exterminator telling me once: if you see a cockroach in your house, remember this - that there are millions more in the walls, because they don't come out until it gets too crowded in there. Same thing with terrorists. You may see a handful but the rest are hidding, massing, mutating, and multiplying. Applying the US military approach would be akin blowing the house to kingdom come to get rid of the cockroaches. Any exterminator will tell you that just means the roaches go next door. You'll kill some, but enough will live to go elsewhere and colonize. And pesticides are likewise temporary, because the little beasts develop immunity and mutate... People can bluster, bomb, threaten tear your hair out, but it just MAY be there there are other ways to snuff out terror at its roots. Military might is going to be part of it. But conducting wars on other people's turfs - blowing the house to kingdom come - will just create more, and like roaches they'll adjust their tactics and continue to grow in number and strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 If you look back at history, it seems that the British empire's descent began when the ground rules changed. At the time when controlling the seas meant so much, the British were well nigh unbeatable. But then came the American Revolution. Much has been said about the colonists hiding behind trees whilst the Brits marched in formation in bright red coats...but even before that (until the French entered on the colonists' side) the Brits were doomed simply because the war was on land. The colonies had "militias", but no naval capability to speak of at the beginning. So all the Brits' ships and naval expertise meant little. Fast forward to now. "Terrorism". The US military might is based on the ability to intimidate the hell out of people with our superior weaponry, and if necessary making good on the threat. But the terrorists, like the colonists, don't play by those rules. I remember an exterminator telling me once: if you see a cockroach in your house, remember this - that there are millions more in the walls, because they don't come out until it gets too crowded in there. Same thing with terrorists. You may see a handful but the rest are hidding, massing, mutating, and multiplying. Applying the US military approach would be akin blowing the house to kingdom come to get rid of the cockroaches. Any exterminator will tell you that just means the roaches go next door. You'll kill some, but enough will live to go elsewhere and colonize. And pesticides are likewise temporary, because the little beasts develop immunity and mutate... People can bluster, bomb, threaten tear your hair out, but it just MAY be there there are other ways to snuff out terror at its roots. Military might is going to be part of it. But conducting wars on other people's turfs - blowing the house to kingdom come - will just create more, and like roaches they'll adjust their tactics and continue to grow in number and strength. 351547[/snapback] i usually take your posts with a grain of salt, but this time i totally agree with ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Small disclaimer: I never meant that the "draconian security" was the way to go. I'm saying that is what it would take to be even marginally effective. since we aren't going there, a different technique has to be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 i usually take your posts with a grain of salt, but this time i totally agree with ya 351558[/snapback] Debbie has her moments...but, that's why I love her. The only thing I'll toss in is the "transformation" aspect that is going on, and has been discussed, even here. Our military is re-structuring, to meet the new threats. Unfortunately, it just doesn't happen fast enough for most people - including the military, many of who would like to not see it happen at all. As with anything else, be it politics, business - there is always going to be a faction that wants to "Command" a combat division with lots of tanks and guns, ala Patton. The new way of doing things is much more cerebral, and one might have a two star general who could have been a division commander in charge of 120 people sitting behind computers. They often don't like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 Holy crap. I go away for a few days and look what happens. All I'm saying is that quite a few people are dying at the hands of terrorists. I'm not saying that Iraq is worse off. I'm speaking about the war on terror, not the added benefit of Saddam being overthrown. Saddam being overthrown is a good thing. 12K people dying at the hands of idiots is not. Situations can have both good and bad. All I'm saying is that we are not winning the war on terror. Do people understand that it's OK to think that Iraq is better off than before, yet we are still losing the war on terror? One of the very frustrating things about this board and all of America is the inability to take a view of something that isn't black or white. Example: Liberals think GWB can do nothing right. Republicans think he can do no wrong. Screwball. Yes, I shouldn't have called someone a mongoloid for making an idiotic post. I should just state that the post and point of view was stupid. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAL Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Yes, I shouldn't have called someone a mongoloid for making an idiotic post. I should just state that the post and point of view was stupid. My bad. 352841[/snapback] Don't worry Todd, you weren't the only one that the sarcasm was lost on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts