Amnesty International condemns US

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
I wish I had the answer with regard to how to deal these fanatics. I feel very strongly in my belief that our activity in Iraq, is not something these extremists fear. In fact, I believe we are just making is easy for them to kill Americans, which is exactly what they want.
Peace
I don't think they fear it either, now that we have gone soft on how we fight. In WWII we had to wage war on the fanatic Nazis and Bushi, the Axis militaries, and the civilian populations, in order to defeat them. It is one of the unpleasant lessons we learned before WWII, but had to turn into action, because we were in a war we absolutly had to win. I fear we may have to resort to it again.
P.S.
Don't argue with me anymore Bub, because my local paper says I'm a hero now...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

That statement could be a reference to all the wars/conflicts since WWII. Especially Korea, and Vietnam. It is very difficult to fight some of the people in a given country, much eaiser to fight them all..........Just goes to show the kinder, gentler, PC correct country we've become is not suited to wage war. Our daily loses from this conflict are totally unnecessary if we really wanted to just win..........PC and war do not mix well.............MP
I comletely agree.
I don't think they fear it either, now that we have gone soft on how we fight. In WWII we had to wage war on the fanatic Nazis and Bushi, the Axis militaries, and the civilian populations, in order to defeat them. It is one of the unpleasant lessons we learned before WWII, but had to turn into action, because we were in a war we absolutly had to win. I fear we may have to resort to it again.
Our response to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, was the most severe in history. Apprximately 200,000 deaths from 2 bombs. IMO, to use this type of force in Iraq, would be a huge mistake.
The position that all involved with Islam must die in order to eliminate Islamic extremists, is more extreme than those we are at war with. Aren't we as a Country opposed to such terrorist/extremeist activity? Such an act on the part of the US, would understandably assure similar attacks on US soil.
IMO, the US is not in a position to attmpt a conventional takeover of Iraq and/or Iran. Our Army is too small and too tired. Unleashing a nuclear attack anywhere in the world, will lead to our demise, and probabally WWIII. There are more than enough nuclear warheads, floating around the world to bring an end to civilization as we know it. The use of nuclear force, in the Mid-East, or anywhere else in the world, IMO is not an option.
I don't ever see myself ever standing behind a "we must kill them before they try to kill us" approach. IMO, it's un-American and against much of this Country stands for.
Heavy stuff, period.
The preceding shall not be construed as an argument , in any way.
Have a good day, my friend
Peace

[eliminatedsprinter]

I comletely agree.
Our response to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, was the most severe in history. Apprximately 200,000 deaths from 2 bombs. IMO, to use this type of force in Iraq, would be a huge mistake.
The position that all involved with Islam must die in order to eliminate Islamic extremists, is more extreme than those we are at war with. Aren't we as a Country opposed to such terrorist/extremeist activity? Such an act on the part of the US, would understandably assure similar attacks on US soil.
IMO, the US is not in a position to attmpt a conventional takeover of Iraq and/or Iran. Our Army is too small and too tired. Unleashing a nuclear attack anywhere in the world, will lead to our demise, and probabally WWIII. There are more than enough nuclear warheads, floating around the world to bring an end to civilization as we know it. The use of nuclear force, in the Mid-East, or anywhere else in the world, IMO is not an option.
I don't ever see myself ever standing behind a "we must kill them before they try to kill us" approach. IMO, it's un-American and against much of this Country stands for.
Heavy stuff, period.
The preceding shall not be construed as an argument , in any way.
Have a good day, my friend
Peace
Of course. I've never said we should nuke Iraq. What I am suggesting is we should have handled the occupation of Iraq like we did the occupation of Germany and we should try to do it as much like that as we can now.
Nobody is suggesting killing all who are involved with Islam, that would be as nutty as those we are fighting (as nutty, not more nutty, they would wipe us all out if they could). All who are involved with Islam is over a billion people. Nobody would advocate a genocide like that. Why would you mention such a thing??
In addition, we didn't nuke Japan as a response to Pearl Harbor. We did it to save the estimated 2,000,000 Americian and 10,000,000 Japanese lives a land invasion would have cost. Before we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy we had killed as many as 300,000 Japanese in just one nights fire bombing raids in Tokyo. It was a case of choosing one horrific choice over another even more horrific choice. If I were in Truman's shoes and confronted with his choice I would have had to have made the same choice he did. My fear is that if we continue to fight Islamism (not Islam) soft like we have, our kids or grandkids may have to make the same types of horrible choices.
P.S. This is no argument or even a request to a policy maker, it's just a discussion for the purpose of exchanging ideas among fellow boaters.

[Steve 1]

When I read twisted tripe like this “ Our response to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, was the most severe in history. Apprximately 200,000 deaths from 2 bombs” there can be no reasonable dialog with its author .

[Moneypitt]

I don't ever see myself ever standing behind a "we must kill them before they try to kill us" approach. IMO, it's un-American and against much of this Country stands for.
Heavy stuff, period.
The preceding shall not be construed as an argument , in any way.
Have a good day, my friend
Peace
Wasn't there some discussion about the lack of response from our fighters during the 9/11 attack?? I think there was criticism because we didn't do exactly what you said above?? You can't see yourself supporting preemptive defenses, and it would be un American?? I think it would be very un American not to defend our country against a coming attack. When we dropped the "bomb" on Japan, we were at WAR with Japan. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we were NOT at WAR with Japan.....At that time Japan was alot like Iraq in as much as they were more than willing to die for their cause based on some perceived reward after death. Alot like the zealots we're fighting now. Based on what you've said above, we shouldn't stop Iran or Iraq from developing Nukes?? At what ever cost??? If we have to make those countries big holes in the ground to stop them, that is what we have to do. And yes, alot of innocent sheep, (citizens) of those countries will be killed. Would you perfer to wait until that happens here? Then retaliate??. Maybe you could clairify you statement a little bit...............MP

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Of course. I've never said we should nuke Iraq. What I am suggesting is we should have handled the occupation of Iraq like we did the occupation of Germany and we should try to do it as much like that as we can now.
Nobody is suggesting killing all who are involved with Islam, that would be as nutty as those we are fighting (as nutty, not more nutty, they would wipe us all out if they could). All who are involved with Islam is over a billion people. Nobody would advocate a genocide like that. Why would you mention such a thing??
In addition, we didn't nuke Japan as a response to Pearl Harbor. We did it to save the estimated 2,000,000 Americian and 10,000,000 Japanese lives a land invasion would have cost. Before we dropped Fat Man and Little Boy we had killed as many as 300,000 Japanese in just one nights fire bombing raids in Tokyo. It was a case of choosing one horrific choice over another even more horrific choice. If I were in Truman's shoes and confronted with his choice I would have had to have made the same choice he did. My fear is that if we continue to fight Islamism (not Islam) soft like we have, our kids or grandkids may have to make the same types of horrible choices.
P.S. This is no argument or even a request to a policy maker, it's just a discussion for the purpose of exchanging ideas among fellow boaters.
ES
I guess I shouldn't have concluded that you were referring to nuking Iraq.
We had more than a million troops in Germany after WWII. The size of our military now and then is significantly different. We simply don't have WWII type of man power with our volunteer army of today.
I mentioned wiping out Islam, because IMO, there is no way to pick out the radical terrorist type from their non-terrorist counterparts. WWII was between Countries and armys, a war of a conventional nature. We are fighting a select few in Iraq. In many cases, the only time we know who the enemy is after is after the US has suffered losses. IMO, our efforts in Iraq, have little or no chance of ending terrorism, and the result, thus far have been to the contrary, more terrorist activity world wide.
ES and everyone else
My comment about our response to Pearl Harbor, was lame and without factual basis. I will due better with regard to making such uneducated comments in the future
I refreshed my memory regarding our declaration of war on Japan, being our response to Pearl Harbor, and the the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki not coming until 4 years an 8 months after war was declared.
Wasn't there some discussion about the lack of response from our fighters during the 9/11 attack?? I think there was criticism because we didn't do exactly what you said above?? You can't see yourself supporting preemptive defenses, and it would be un American?? I think it would be very un American not to defend our country against a coming attack. When we dropped the "bomb" on Japan, we were at WAR with Japan. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we were NOT at WAR with Japan.....At that time Japan was alot like Iraq in as much as they were more than willing to die for their cause based on some perceived reward after death. Alot like the zealots we're fighting now. Based on what you've said above, we shouldn't stop Iran or Iraq from developing Nukes?? At what ever cost??? If we have to make those countries big holes in the ground to stop them, that is what we have to do. And yes, alot of innocent sheep, (citizens) of those countries will be killed. Would you perfer to wait until that happens here? Then retaliate??. Maybe you could clairify you statement a little bit...............MP
My point should have been more clear,
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
I don't ever see myself ever standing behind a "we must kill them before they try to kill us" approach. IMO, it's un-American and against much of this Country stands for.
In a case in which we know there is an attack comming, of course we must defend ourselves. My point was that many in this country believe that our actions in Iraq, are in some way, defensive. IMO, our actions in Afghanistan were proper, defensive and in response to 9/11.
There is no evidence that Iraq, was planning an attack on the US just as there is no evidence that Iran is planning to attack the US. I don't support killing those who might someday, consider attacking this Country, would have said it better.
As I already stated my comment about the US bombing Japan, was wrong.
The issue of other Countries developing nukes, is a difficult one for me. It seems a bit hypocritical
to believe that we have the right to stop other Countries from developing what we possess thousands of. Of course I understand the threat what nukes in the hands of crazy's is. IMO, the folks in the Mid-East view the US as the crazys. As long as the US has the bomb, other Countreis are going to desire similar military strength. Nukes cannot be veiwed as an alternative by this or any other Country, IMO
This is a discussion for the purpose of exchanging ideas among fellow boaters.

[Old Texan]

My comment about our response to Pearl Harbor, was lame and without factual basis. I will due better with regard to making such uneducated comments in the future
I suppose we can consider this as a start. Now if you will consider there is quite a difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism we'll begin to progress a little further.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I suppose we can consider this as a start. Now if you will consider there is quite a difference between Islam and Islamic terrorism we'll begin to progress a little further.
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
The position that all involved with Islam must die in order to eliminate Islamic extremists, is more extreme than those we are at war with
Wouldn't the above suggest to you that I am aware of the difference?
Peace

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
The position that all involved with Islam must die in order to eliminate Islamic extremists, is more extreme than those we are at war with
Wouldn't the above suggest to you that I am aware of the difference?
Peace
Actually it was an implication that I didn't know the differance.
What scares me the most, is that it is becoming increasingly clear, that Islam it'self is having a big problem telling the differance.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Actually it was an implication that I didn't know the differance.
What scares me the most, is that it is becoming increasingly clear, that Islam it'self is having a big problem telling the differance.
I thought Tex was making that comment to me.
May have something to do with the US military knowing who the enemy is.
Talks that occurred between the US and Iran, may be the beginning of something positive.