So how much things are "improving" in the muslim w
No offense John, but - puppies and sunshine?JohnSmith wrote:I'm more in mind of the joke from "Master and Commander,"
- Which weevil do you choose, the big strong weevil, or the small weevil?
- Well, the larger I suppose.
- No! you must always choose the lesser of the two weevils!
I can't argue that the US has been nicer to surrendering countries. You've earned that bit of praise for sure. But. You might have peace after bombing the crap out of everybody else, but everybody else will be fighting each other. Unless you want to occupy and keep the peace. In which case you end up with guerrilla warfare. And we've seen how easy it is to suppress that.
hIf you want world peace you are going to need a world policeman.
No. No nononono. Nay and nada. See, that little thought keeps worming into the collective American brain, and it's that idea that makes me want to take up arms against you.
You don't get to crown yourself king of the playground. Not even if you think you're right. Not even if you're often nice to small children. Not even if you've got the biggest stick. You'll fail if you try, because people hate being coerced by threat.
As far as I know decimation was more a Roman practice and a quite older one. Maybe you are reminding the 1917 mutinies after which 50 soldiers were court-martialled and shot to make an example.
Ah yeah, it is only 50 now. I see. I guess if you give it a couple more decades, it never happened.
LOL
On rape being one of the spoils of war:
Yeah, in some armys. The Germans were very strict with that though. Rapists and looters were courtmarshalled and shot.
Of course Holywood will tell you otherwise.
Just trying to stick to facts. If you think this wikipedia entry was rewritten by some Winston Smith, please tell me, with a reference.Skipjack wrote:Ah yeah, it is only 50 now. I see. I guess if you give it a couple more decades, it never happened.
The Generals who ordered that were disgraceful criminals. How should we characterize those who sent to death the millions? What is unique about WWI is that it had no legitimate purpose, actually a war of the powerful against the people.
I know it as the "Joshua Stategem". Wipe out / annihilate / genocide thy enemies. Seems to be threatened against any enemy of Isreal in the past 4000 years or so. It has also been applied whenever they had the capability to apply it.DavidWillard wrote:Then there's Medina., Riyah, Damascus,,.. The Jericho Option.The trouble is you can only destroy Mecca once.
The US should not be complicit in the appearant ongoing, millenia long effort by the Isreali semites to wipe out all other semites.
What Betruger, you don't like puppies?
Really, I find the whole thing pretty simple. I can't accept genocide as a viable strategy, and that's what you guys propose as a 'good' idea for dealing with terrorists. Because when you start the bombing, the whole area is going to come after you with blood on their minds.
choff, it doesn't matter what they'd do if they had power. It's like asking, ok, what would that murderer do if he were the police officer. It doesn't matter, we should do things the right way.
No Simon. Not that good a job. You're engaged in a few hopeless wars, had lots of your own people shot retaking a hill a dozen times, and set up governments that you like better whenever convenient. Often they are dictatorships. More often than not, you leave confusion and disorder in your wake. In 70 years, assuming that the US is still around, I imagine things will be the same.
The world has not crowned you king. Don't you get it? You're actually the most loathed country. Not even so much because of your actions, which are occasionally sane, but because you believe so strongly that you're better than everyone else.
Really, I find the whole thing pretty simple. I can't accept genocide as a viable strategy, and that's what you guys propose as a 'good' idea for dealing with terrorists. Because when you start the bombing, the whole area is going to come after you with blood on their minds.
choff, it doesn't matter what they'd do if they had power. It's like asking, ok, what would that murderer do if he were the police officer. It doesn't matter, we should do things the right way.
No Simon. Not that good a job. You're engaged in a few hopeless wars, had lots of your own people shot retaking a hill a dozen times, and set up governments that you like better whenever convenient. Often they are dictatorships. More often than not, you leave confusion and disorder in your wake. In 70 years, assuming that the US is still around, I imagine things will be the same.
The world has not crowned you king. Don't you get it? You're actually the most loathed country. Not even so much because of your actions, which are occasionally sane, but because you believe so strongly that you're better than everyone else.
Sorry I cant right now. I only know this from my grandfather. He was quite young during that time, but he was smart and he did get a lot of things. Anyway, he cited this quite often as an example of the how horrible war can be and how it usually is fought on the backs of the common people.If you think this wikipedia entry was rewritten by some Winston Smith, please tell me, with a reference.
"I can't accept genocide as a viable strategy, and that's what you guys propose as a 'good' idea for dealing with terrorists."
How spectacularly mendacious of you! Nuking one city, or even 20 or 30, is not genocide. Extinction is neither sought, nor possible in even the most extreme such scenario.
It is likely to provoke a crisis of confidence among the jihadists and their apologists and enablers which results in them no longer posing an intolerable threat.
Which would be a high price for them to pay for being forced in reasonableness, but it's I'm quite willing to make them pay if it comes to it.
Islam as it has been commonly practiced for it's first 1200 years is not compatible with the existence of a free people anywhere on the planet, leave far alone one resulting from the American Revolution.
I will not tolerate the extinction or alteration of my culture for their benefit, instead I propose they must change or be assailed until they change.
Genocide has nothing to do with it when the question is between unjust surrender on our part or peacefulness forced on them by us. They'll stop long before it gets to that point.
How spectacularly mendacious of you! Nuking one city, or even 20 or 30, is not genocide. Extinction is neither sought, nor possible in even the most extreme such scenario.
It is likely to provoke a crisis of confidence among the jihadists and their apologists and enablers which results in them no longer posing an intolerable threat.
Which would be a high price for them to pay for being forced in reasonableness, but it's I'm quite willing to make them pay if it comes to it.
Islam as it has been commonly practiced for it's first 1200 years is not compatible with the existence of a free people anywhere on the planet, leave far alone one resulting from the American Revolution.
I will not tolerate the extinction or alteration of my culture for their benefit, instead I propose they must change or be assailed until they change.
Genocide has nothing to do with it when the question is between unjust surrender on our part or peacefulness forced on them by us. They'll stop long before it gets to that point.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
Nice word, had to look it up.
Mendacious; given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
While we're at it, let's look up the other word, shall we?
Genocide; the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Ok, let's look even deeper. Wikipedia says:
'Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"'
Your stated goal is to wipe Islam from the face of the planet, as they pose an 'intolerable threat.' (I disagree. Like I said earlier, we have far more deaths by car accident than by terrorist act. Cars are not an intolerable threat.)
So. Guess you used the wrong word. Care to make a retraction?
As to the effectiveness, did the jews go away after they lost Jerusalem? Seat of their religion and all that. Nope. Heck, look at both sides in all of the crusades. Mass slaughter through tons of cities, and neither side ever gave up.
Here's a nice little quote from the christian side in roman times:
"The blood of the martyr is the seed of the church." I'd say the same is true for other religions.
We are not being destroyed. I don't think we should make any legal accommodation for religion, I don't think we should change how we act or think, but if you want freedom, you have to give others freedom too. And freedom is risky.
Mendacious; given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth
While we're at it, let's look up the other word, shall we?
Genocide; the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
Ok, let's look even deeper. Wikipedia says:
'Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"'
Your stated goal is to wipe Islam from the face of the planet, as they pose an 'intolerable threat.' (I disagree. Like I said earlier, we have far more deaths by car accident than by terrorist act. Cars are not an intolerable threat.)
So. Guess you used the wrong word. Care to make a retraction?
As to the effectiveness, did the jews go away after they lost Jerusalem? Seat of their religion and all that. Nope. Heck, look at both sides in all of the crusades. Mass slaughter through tons of cities, and neither side ever gave up.
Here's a nice little quote from the christian side in roman times:
"The blood of the martyr is the seed of the church." I'd say the same is true for other religions.
We are not being destroyed. I don't think we should make any legal accommodation for religion, I don't think we should change how we act or think, but if you want freedom, you have to give others freedom too. And freedom is risky.
The only thing stopping the Israelis from leveling Gaza and driving the vast majority of its people into Egypt is forbearance.KitemanSA wrote:I know it as the "Joshua Stategem". Wipe out / annihilate / genocide thy enemies. Seems to be threatened against any enemy of Isreal in the past 4000 years or so. It has also been applied whenever they had the capability to apply it.DavidWillard wrote:Then there's Medina., Riyah, Damascus,,.. The Jericho Option.The trouble is you can only destroy Mecca once.
The US should not be complicit in the appearant ongoing, millenia long effort by the Isreali semites to wipe out all other semites.
Assume your thesis is true. Please explain why it doesn't match actual practice?
Estimates are that Israel has 200 nukes. What keeps them from wiping out all the major cities of the ME?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Uh. Explain why Iraqis are not attacking Americans en mass? Didn't get the memo?I can't accept genocide as a viable strategy, and that's what you guys propose as a 'good' idea for dealing with terrorists. Because when you start the bombing, the whole area is going to come after you with blood on their minds.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I vote. More armaments please. I think a fleet of 18 CBGs vs 12 is a good idea. Two more divisions of Marines and about 4 more Army divisions for starters. Then we will need heavy lift aircraft and high speed (50 knot) sea transport. Plus a mix of about 500 bomber and fighter aircraft. And 10,000 armed drones.The world has not crowned you king. Don't you get it? You're actually the most loathed country.
With attitudes like yours we may have to defend ourselves.
And there is the odd chance that war production might get the economy rolling again. It is the only FDR policy we have yet to try.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I was referring to nuking religious targets. Though I notice that occupying troops keep getting hit with IEDs. Somebody sure wants you out.
Good for you, vote for the military/industrial complex. I think you're out of your gourd if you do, but it's your country. Your military can already take out just about any country short of china, so why you feel so insecure is a mystery to me.
Attitudes like mine occur because nobody can tell where your defense ends and offense begins.
As an aside, I support precision strike aerial drones. As long as you go by a policy of better to lose a drone than make a mistake. Maybe then we wouldn't have friendly fire incidents and the stupid term 'acceptable civilian casualties' could be junked.
Good for you, vote for the military/industrial complex. I think you're out of your gourd if you do, but it's your country. Your military can already take out just about any country short of china, so why you feel so insecure is a mystery to me.
Attitudes like mine occur because nobody can tell where your defense ends and offense begins.
As an aside, I support precision strike aerial drones. As long as you go by a policy of better to lose a drone than make a mistake. Maybe then we wouldn't have friendly fire incidents and the stupid term 'acceptable civilian casualties' could be junked.