IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2010 Author Posted June 30, 2010 Undocumented immigrants.Your position has been eliminated. Pre owned vehicle. Dysfunctional family. Deferred success. Custodial Engineer. Affordable Care Act.
Magox Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Or TNT or machine guns. Lets go back to the good old days when we hacked our enemys to pieces. Dead is Dead, and I don't believe they care how they got that way. What amazes me is that people subscribe or believe that it's ok to kill innocent people in order to help achieve their mission, whether through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in civilian locations or terrorism. Over 250,000 people died within months of Hiroshima and Nagasake, many of them innocent bystandards, who had no choice in the matter. And you think it was ok to do that. Sorry, I will never ever believe that this was a good idea. NEVER!! It sickens me, and anyone who believes that this was ok sickens me as well. It's no better than terrorism from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesnt have the capabilities that our military does, so they use any means possible to achieve their mission, and in their view the best option is to kill soft targets and hurt us psychologically, whats worse about us, is that we did have an option, we had the option to go for more targeted strikes even at the expense of our military. Instead we opted for the GAME OVER OPTION, without regards to the innocent people of Japan. There is a reason why Patreaus and McChrystal have a counter insurgency plan. The reason is so that we dont slaughter so many innocent lives as opposed to outright crushing them, which of course would be even more counterproductive than the strategy we have today. A Big part of the plan is to win the confidence of their people and a part of that strategy is to kill the least amount of innocent lives possible, even if that means endangering more of our troops lives. Whatever, if you think nukes are ok, then thats just who you are.
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Would you do it to save American lives? No, because it opens a Pandora's box that can't be closed.
John Adams Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Would you do it to save American lives? I'm practical enough to understand things like this happen. If I'm running down a hall after bin Laden and the hall splits and a nearby bad guy knows what way he went, I'll probably beat it out of him. But that doesn't make it right and I should be accountable for torturing the guy.
Adam Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 What amazes me is that people subscribe or believe that it's ok to kill innocent people in order to help achieve their mission, whether through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in civilian locations or terrorism. Over 250,000 people died within months of Hiroshima and Nagasake, many of them innocent bystandards, who had no choice in the matter. And you think it was ok to do that. Sorry, I will never ever believe that this was a good idea. NEVER!! It sickens me, and anyone who believes that this was ok sickens me as well. It's no better than terrorism from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesnt have the capabilities that our military does, so they use any means possible to achieve their mission, and in their view the best option is to kill soft targets and hurt us psychologically, whats worse about us, is that we did have an option, we had the option to go for more targeted strikes even at the expense of our military. Instead we opted for the GAME OVER OPTION, without regards to the innocent people of Japan. There is a reason why Patreaus and McChrystal have a counter insurgency plan. The reason is so that we dont slaughter so many innocent lives as opposed to outright crushing them, which of course would be even more counterproductive than the strategy we have today. A Big part of the plan is to win the confidence of their people and a part of that strategy is to kill the least amount of innocent lives possible, even if that means endangering more of our troops lives. Whatever, if you think nukes are ok, then thats just who you are. If there were more people like you, the world will be a better place. Unfortunately, it is fill of sickos and wackos
DrFishfinder Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Affordable Care Act. We're switching to "disasters?"
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Would you do it to save American lives? Everyone dies. "Saving" a life is just delaying the inevitable.
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 What amazes me is that people subscribe or believe that it's ok to kill innocent people in order to help achieve their mission, whether through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in civilian locations or terrorism. Over 250,000 people died within months of Hiroshima and Nagasake, many of them innocent bystandards, who had no choice in the matter. And you think it was ok to do that. Sorry, I will never ever believe that this was a good idea. NEVER!! It sickens me, and anyone who believes that this was ok sickens me as well. It's no better than terrorism from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesnt have the capabilities that our military does, so they use any means possible to achieve their mission, and in their view the best option is to kill soft targets and hurt us psychologically, whats worse about us, is that we did have an option, we had the option to go for more targeted strikes even at the expense of our military. Instead we opted for the GAME OVER OPTION, without regards to the innocent people of Japan. There is a reason why Patreaus and McChrystal have a counter insurgency plan. The reason is so that we dont slaughter so many innocent lives as opposed to outright crushing them, which of course would be even more counterproductive than the strategy we have today. A Big part of the plan is to win the confidence of their people and a part of that strategy is to kill the least amount of innocent lives possible, even if that means endangering more of our troops lives. Whatever, if you think nukes are ok, then thats just who you are. Please outline how you would have finished the war with Japan w/o killing civilians. This will be a fascinating read.
Magox Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 Please outline how you would have finished the war with Japan w/o killing civilians. This will be a fascinating read. Yes, because that is exactly what I said. No where did I say "w/o killing civilians." Heres what I said: What amazes me is that people subscribe or believe that it's ok to kill innocent people in order to help achieve their mission, whether through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in civilian locations or terrorism. I said through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in CIVILIAN LOCATIONS or terrorism. In other words, you know that when you decide to go with one of these options, you know that innocent civilian people will die. I think thats pretty clear. is that we did have an option, we had the option to go for more targeted strikes even at the expense of our military. Instead we opted for the GAME OVER OPTION, without regards to the innocent people of Japan. Again, I used the words TARGETED strikes, meaning not a broad strike that could endanger even more innocent civilian lives. I also said at the expense of our military, meaning that I understand the implications of endangering our own troops. In my view, innocent people are innocent people, no matter what country you come from. When you join the army, marines, navy or airforce, you know what it is that you signed up for. You know that once you begin recieving those government checks and you put on that uniform that the likelihood of you dying goes up dramatically. You understand that you will do the governments bidding no matter if it is correct or not, BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR. So if the government decides that they want to go to war with another country, even if we shouldnt have, well tough ****, thats what you signed up for. People are people in my eyes, no matter what the nationality, and if we decide to go to war with another nation, then in my view, we at least better not INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people. I understand the concept of civilian casualties, VERY WELL. And I understand that it will happen, as unfortunate as that may be, but once a government makes the decisions to kill innocent people PURPOSELY to advance their agenda, then thats when it becomes unforgivable. Are we understanding each other? There is a reason why Patreaus and McChrystal have a counter insurgency plan. The reason is so that we dont slaughter so many innocent lives as opposed to outright crushing them, which of course would be even more counterproductive than the strategy we have today. At least this strategy is something that I can live with. Why? Because avoiding killing innocent people is at the heart of their strategy. This is a big reason why Patreaus is one of the best generals we've had in quite a while. Its called evolution.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Yes, because that is exactly what I said. No where did I say "w/o killing civilians." Heres what I said: I said through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in CIVILIAN LOCATIONS or terrorism. In other words, you know that when you decide to go with one of these options, you know that innocent civilian people will die. I think thats pretty clear. Again, I used the words TARGETED strikes, meaning not a broad strike that could endanger even more innocent civilian lives. I also said at the expense of our military, meaning that I understand the implications of endangering our own troops. In my view, innocent people are innocent people, no matter what country you come from. When you join the army, marines, navy or airforce, you know what it is that you signed up for. You know that once you begin recieving those government checks and you put on that uniform that the likelihood of you dying goes up dramatically. You understand that you will do the governments bidding no matter if it is correct or not, BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU SIGNED UP FOR. So if the government decides that they want to go to war with another country, even if we shouldnt have, well tough ****, thats what you signed up for. People are people in my eyes, no matter what the nationality, and if we decide to go to war with another nation, then in my view, we at least better not INTENTIONALLY kill innocent people. I understand the concept of civilian casualties, VERY WELL. And I understand that it will happen, as unfortunate as that may be, but once a government makes the decisions to kill innocent people PURPOSELY to advance their agenda, then thats when it becomes unforgivable. Are we understanding each other? At least this strategy is something that I can live with. Why? Because avoiding killing innocent people is at the heart of their strategy. This is a big reason why Patreaus is one of the best generals we've had in quite a while. Its called evolution. You are a hell of a guy. Now if we could just put you back to 1945 and have you invent laser/gps bombs carpet bombing would have been unnecessary.Oh and the the big fat wart on your post is we did not decide to declare war on Japan. Remember Pearl harbor?
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 You are a hell of a guy. Now if we could just put you back to 1945 and have you invent laser/gps bombs carpet bombing would have been unnecessary.Oh and the the big fat wart on your post is we did not decide to declare war on Japan. Remember Pearl harbor? I understand that they initiated the war with us, and I also understand that they killed many innocent people, and that black mark will always stay with them, that still doesnt excuse or justify us killing over 250,000 people, in which the vast majority of them being innocent. Sorry, you and I will not see eye to eye on this issue.
/dev/null Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I understand that they initiated the war with us, and I also understand that they killed many innocent people, and that black mark will always stay with them, that still doesnt excuse or justify us killing over 250,000 people, in which the vast majority of them being innocent. Sorry, you and I will not see eye to eye on this issue. Besides the fact that the casualty estimates for Operation Downfall ran in the millions for both sides
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Besides the fact that the casualty estimates for Operation Downfall ran in the millions for both sides I knew this guy in South America who knocked up this girl, didnt love her she didnt love him, but her parents basically made them get married for the simple fact that he knocked her up and it was "the right thing to do". Now they are miserable, together. Lesson: One erroneous decision deserves another.... yup great way to live.
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I understand that they initiated the war with us, and I also understand that they killed many innocent people, and that black mark will always stay with them, that still doesnt excuse or justify us killing over 250,000 people, in which the vast majority of them being innocent. Sorry, you and I will not see eye to eye on this issue. That is actually a rather shallow interpretation of a complex subject.
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 What amazes me is that people subscribe or believe that it's ok to kill innocent people in order to help achieve their mission, whether through nukes, aerial or naval attacks in civilian locations or terrorism. Over 250,000 people died within months of Hiroshima and Nagasake, many of them innocent bystandards, who had no choice in the matter. And you think it was ok to do that. Sorry, I will never ever believe that this was a good idea. NEVER!! It sickens me, and anyone who believes that this was ok sickens me as well. It's no better than terrorism from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda doesnt have the capabilities that our military does, so they use any means possible to achieve their mission, and in their view the best option is to kill soft targets and hurt us psychologically, whats worse about us, is that we did have an option, we had the option to go for more targeted strikes even at the expense of our military. Instead we opted for the GAME OVER OPTION, without regards to the innocent people of Japan. There is a reason why Patreaus and McChrystal have a counter insurgency plan. The reason is so that we dont slaughter so many innocent lives as opposed to outright crushing them, which of course would be even more counterproductive than the strategy we have today. A Big part of the plan is to win the confidence of their people and a part of that strategy is to kill the least amount of innocent lives possible, even if that means endangering more of our troops lives. Whatever, if you think nukes are ok, then thats just who you are. Please outline how you would have finished the war with Japan w/o killing civilians. This will be a fascinating read. I don't believe you answered the question.
OCinBuffalo Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I understand that they initiated the war with us, and I also understand that they killed many innocent people, and that black mark will always stay with them, that still doesnt excuse or justify us killing over 250,000 people, in which the vast majority of them being innocent. Sorry, you and I will not see eye to eye on this issue. The problem here, ONCE AGAIN, is the logic of this argument. I have to keep slapping this dopey thing down every 6 months. I want to know who keeps recycling it. Look, the choice was not kill 250,000, or, don't kill 250,000. That was never the choice, nor was it even close to realistic. This argument is based on historical cherry picking. And making this argument work is only possible if you take the entire situation out of the historical context in which it belongs. Air Force General Curtis LeMay easily killed 250,000 civilians, probably more, and possibly 2x as many, with his fire bombing of 60+ Japanese cities PRIOR to us dropping the atomic bombs. His rationale was simple: end the war as fast as he could. But, in all honesty, the man was as close to a raving lunatic we have ever had as a general officer. He treated the bombing as his personal punishment of the Japanese for daring to attack America. How come we never hear anything about this firebombing from the dopes that make the Hiroshima/Nagaski argument? The firebombing certainly killed more people, and was certainly the cause of 10x the suffering. And for Pete's sake, if there ever was a Evil Villain-type to go after, and hold up as the face of it all, it is LeMay. Answer: because whoever is spreading this crap has an agenda, and has no interest in teaching history properly. And what is the agenda? The objective is to create an unbeatable argument = "yeah, but, the USA is the only country to use nuclear weapons(= jackass justification), so,(insert somebody else)'s (insert bad behavior) is OK". This way, no matter what we do militarily, NONE of it is ever justified. We can have the largest military in the world, but, if we use it for anything, we are immoral, because we dropped the bomb. So now our military doesn't matter. :lol: Like I said, this is a jackass argument. Anybody else smell Europeans on this?
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 I don't believe you answered the question. I never said "w/o" you did. And I'm pretty sure that I implied that if a country is willing to go to war, that you should regard innocent human life. Did I not? You have your view, I have mine.
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 That is actually a rather shallow interpretation of a complex subject. I don't give a **** if it's "shallow" or not, the explanation is simple and I stand by it.
Magox Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 We can have the largest military in the world, but, if we use it for anything, we are immoral, because we dropped the bomb. So now our military doesn't matter. :lol: Like I said, this is a jackass argument.Anybody else smell Europeans on this? Oh please OC, does anyone here take you seriously?
3rdnlng Posted July 1, 2010 Posted July 1, 2010 Oh please OC, does anyone here take you seriously? Yes. Just as I take you seriously. Have you noticed that there is a debate here between mostly conservative minded people that has by-and-large been civil and the debate has been based on reason and earnest opinions? No "Bush bad", Cheney is a blowhard, evil corporations, you must be a racist if you don't agree with Obama, blah blah, blah schit from the people you usually debate? So, yes I think OC has earned the right to be taken seriously, just like most of the other people that have been involved in this conversation.
Recommended Posts