View Full Version : Do the people of America
have the stomach to win this war? Look at all the past wars that we won. We did not try and be nice and please the world community. No we did what it took to win the war.
So does America and Americans have what it take to when this war?
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Ulysses S. Grant
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. William T. Sherman
The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. George Orwel
The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. George Patton
War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory. Georges Clemenceau
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill
sparks
12-20-2006, 04:07 AM
have the stomach to win this war? Look at all the past wars that we won. We did not try and be nice and please the world community. No we did what it took to win the war.
So does America and Americans have what it take to when this war?
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Ulysses S. Grant
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. William T. Sherman
The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. George Orwel
The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. George Patton
War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory. Georges Clemenceau
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill
Personally speaking, I'd have to say "no"...I don't have the stomach for doing whatever it takes just to win a war. There are more important things in life other than "winning". Such as preserving humanity and treating our fellow man with respect. We're all God's creatures no matter whether we call Him God, Jesus or Allah. Life is precious and diplomacy is an artform.
Ringo
12-20-2006, 06:58 AM
I always love the word WE, as if WE had one damn thing to with the situation!
Do the MEN & WOMEN of our Armned Forces have the will, yes. Do many of the true Patriots, God fearing adults of this Nation as far as backing our troops, yes! Liberals and America bashers no, they never have been, as they are referred to as Freedom Leechers, and ME comes first and foremost!
I would say if it weren't for men like Patton, Ike, Grant, Washington, and others with leadership abilities and courage, we may all be blithering idiots or speaking French or other wussie tounges!
Where do YOU stand?
The people of America also need to have the stomach and will.
If we don't then when the military does something people think is "to harsh" then the people whine and complain that America looks bad tothe World comminity and when people complain the politicians take that as there que to protest and keep things from happening.
As for me I couldn't give a damn what the world community thought about America and I support the troops fully. That means I back them to do whatever is necessary to win.
How about you?
TrueBlue
12-20-2006, 07:07 AM
How do you define "winning"? Could our military subdue the people of the country? Of course they could. But that would require massive casualities among our own people and the people that we supposedly went to liberate. As a military problem it's simple. The problem is, this is not simply a military problem. That is why the US has traditionally had a policy of not starting wars. Because if someone attacks us, we are justified in self-defense. The US gets into trouble when the explanations for war are more complex-or perhaps convoluted would be a better term.
Winning is defeating the enemy.
Personally speaking, I'd have to say "no"...I don't have the stomach for doing whatever it takes just to win a war. There are more important things in life other than "winning". Such as preserving humanity and treating our fellow man with respect. We're all God's creatures no matter whether we call Him God, Jesus or Allah. Life is precious and diplomacy is an artform.
What a typical, defeatist liberal remark! So you're saying that you'd rather live in tyranny rather than fight it? The only reason you're not living under a dictatorship or communism right now, and able to post on message boards like this one, is because other brave Americans had the ''stomach'' for winning a war. Freedom isn't free!
sparks
12-20-2006, 08:31 AM
What a typical, defeatist liberal remark! So you're saying that you'd rather live in tyranny rather than fight it? The only reason you're not living under a dictatorship or communism right now, and able to post on message boards like this one, is because other brave Americans had the ''stomach'' for winning a war. Freedom isn't free!
Ummmm...I don't think we're currently living under tyranny. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? That is unless you consider living under the administration of GWB as tyranny...now that I might buy! :lmao
Ummmm...I don't think we're currently living under tyranny. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch? That is unless you consider living under the administration of GWB as tyranny...now that I might buy! :lmao
My post went right over your head evidently. Go back and read it again, maybe this time you'll get it.
sparks
12-20-2006, 08:52 AM
My post went right over your head evidently. Go back and read it again, maybe this time you'll get it.
The original question pertained to the current war...no?
Not just the current war, but all wars.
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:04 AM
Not just the current war, but all wars.
I think it depends on the war and what the ultimate goal is. Not all wars are justified, nor necessary. Diplomacy is an artform.
Do you think all wars in history were justified? And did the correct side win in all the wars that were fought?
The question is for this war and future wars.
No, I do not have the stomach to continue this war indefinitely. I like Bush's new strategy of sending MORE troops. I think it is what should have been done 2 years ago. If the additional troops cannot help the Iraqi gov't become stable, I don't know what should be done. I strongly believe that we cannot carry on like we have been over there.
OK how about future wars. Lets say we are attacked by another country, China for example, do you think America has the stomach to fight it like a war should be fought?
Or will the people of America worry about the perception of the world community first?
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:37 AM
No, I do not have the stomach to continue this war indefinitely. I like Bush's new strategy of sending MORE troops. I think it is what should have been done 2 years ago. If the additional troops cannot help the Iraqi gov't become stable, I don't know what should be done. I strongly believe that we cannot carry on like we have been over there.
I think the strategy is a huge mistake myself. It's obvious what we're doing isn't working, so what do we do? Send more soldiers and do more of the same only with redoubled effort! To me it just doesn't make sense and I'm sure it will lead to more casualties.
I hope I'm wrong.
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:39 AM
OK how about future wars. Lets say we are attacked by another country, China for example, do you think America has the stomach to fight it like a war should be fought?
Or will the people of America worry about the perception of the world community first?
If indeed we were facing oppression and tyranny within our own boarders I'm sure we'd all want to do whatever was necessary to ensure our freedoms.
However, our freedoms were never threatened with the situation in Iraq. At least I never viewed it as such.
Sparks question. What would your strategy be?
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:40 AM
I think the strategy is a huge mistake myself. It's obvious what we're doing isn't working, so what do we do? Send more soldiers and do more of the same only with redoubled effort! To me it just doesn't make sense and I'm sure it will lead to more casualties.
I hope I'm wrong.
Not to mention even more national debt.
I think it depends on the war and what the ultimate goal is. Not all wars are justified, nor necessary. Diplomacy is an artform.
Do you think all wars in history were justified? And did the correct side win in all the wars that were fought?
I think all wars are fought over money, territory or religion, sometimes all three. Were all wars in history justified? I'm sure they were to the people that had to fight them or there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. God is on the side of the strongest battalion.
As far as the present war, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq unless we were going in there to wipe them off the map, and not for the purpose of setting up a new democracy, so I can't really say that it is justifiable. Afghanistan on the other hand, is justified, IMO. That being said, I feel that now that we're there, we should finish what we started, if for no other reason than to show the terrorists that we're not weak. By establishing a time line, it shows the terrorists that all they have to do to defeat us is to hang on until we withdraw. I think we need to win this war by any means necessary.
Semantics
12-20-2006, 09:41 AM
OK how about future wars. Lets say we are attacked by another country, China for example, do you think America has the stomach to fight it like a war should be fought?
Or will the people of America worry about the perception of the world community first?
In that type of scenario, I do not believe that we would worry about appearances.
It's easy to do so now while most of us sit in the comfort and safety of our homes. We have the luxury of worrying about perception.
If indeed we were facing oppression and tyranny within our own boarders I'm sure we'd all want to do whatever was necessary to ensure our freedoms.
However, our freedoms were never threatened with the situation in Iraq. At least I never viewed it as such.
Yes but we are now at war with them (actually it is a police action not a war)
Pulling out would cause more harm than good at this point in time.
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:42 AM
Sparks question. What would your strategy be?
Pull out...the sooner the better and let the country fight their own civil war. Unless we're prepared to spend a generation or more policing Iraq I believe it's gonna happen eventually anyway. Why put off the inevitable while placing our own country further into debt?
Pull out...the sooner the better and let the country fight their own civil war. Unless we're prepared to spend a generation or more policing Iraq I believe it's gonna happen eventually anyway. Why put off the inevitable while placing our own country further into debt?
Pull out. It doesn't work in preventing pregnancy or in winning a war.
You do know that if we pull out now then we will be back there fighting sometime in the future.
Just one note I think going into Iraq was a mistake, especially since good Ole Rummey, Chenney, and Bush choose to ignore the troop request of his generals at the beginning.
You do know that if we pull out now then we will be back there fighting sometime in the future.
Just one note I think going into Iraq was a mistake, especially since good Ole Rummey, Chenney, and Bush choose to ignore the troop request of his generals at the beginning.
You are making way too much sense for some people to grasp! :lmao
I'm just a simple country boy that just looks at thing with a little common sense.
Common sense now there is a funny word. It implies that being common most everyone has it. We all know that is not he case.
It should have been called uncommmon sense
Semantics
12-20-2006, 09:51 AM
You are making way too much sense for some people to grasp! :lmao
So are you. I actually agreed with your posts.
It's official- the world is coming to an end. :lol
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:52 AM
I supported going into Afghanistan but never thought Iraq was justified. We've made a mess of it and honestly, I'm not sure it can be fixed.
Many say that there is already a civil war going on, although the White House doesn't like to use that "language" in describing the situation in Iraq. How long are we willing to stay? 40 years? 50 years? Cause I don't think a couple more years is gonna actually fix anything on any permanent level.
Kitka
12-20-2006, 09:53 AM
Personally speaking, I'd have to say "no"...I don't have the stomach for doing whatever it takes just to win a war. There are more important things in life other than "winning". Such as preserving humanity and treating our fellow man with respect. We're all God's creatures no matter whether we call Him God, Jesus or Allah. Life is precious and diplomacy is an artform.
You have said it perfectly! I have nothing I could add :)
sparks
12-20-2006, 09:54 AM
I'm just a simple country boy that just looks at thing with a little common sense.
Common sense now there is a funny word. It implies that being common most everyone has it. We all know that is not he case.
It should have been called uncommmon sense
LOL! LOL! LOL!
Just a little bit of history here.
The Revolutionary war (the one where we won our independence) took 12 years to win, also we had outside help in winning it (anyone wanna take a guess at who it was?)
Semantics
12-20-2006, 09:58 AM
Just a little bit of history here.
The Revolutionary war (the one where we won our independence) took 12 years to win, also we had outside help in winning it (anyone wanna take a guess at who it was?)
France. So beloved by our conservative members. :wink
Hey I have no problem with the French. I love their food, especially their cheese. The only thing I don't like about them is their whine opps I mean wine
Just a little bit of history here.
The Revolutionary war (the one where we won our independence) took 12 years to win, also we had outside help in winning it (anyone wanna take a guess at who it was?)
France, of course. We suffered crushing losses, but it was well worth it in the end.
Semantics
12-20-2006, 10:01 AM
Hey I have no problem with the French. I love their food, especially their cheese. The only thing I don't like about them is their whine opps I mean wine
So you weren't dumping out your wine or boycotting french fries? :rofl
cassandra
12-20-2006, 10:01 AM
I do not think that the world can handle fighting a war as a war should be fought. I think that there is much more to lose. People are not bringing cannons over on ships any longer. Or flying planes that can release single atomic bombs. There are nukes out there that would desimate this planet. So my answer is two-fold.
I do think that we should have been fighting a actual war over there. Not just sitting around waiting on whatever the heck we are waiting on.
I do not think that the world can handle a out and out war given the weapons of mass destruction that are available.
The present day French are nothing like their ancestors. I am part French, but I don't claim kin with that country, although I do love their food and wine. It is also a beautiful country with the exception of the rude people that live within it's borders.
So you weren't dumping out your wine or boycotting french fries? :rofl
Uhh no
Ya'll do know that technically Iraq isn't a war?
Semantics
12-20-2006, 10:12 AM
Ya'll do know that technically Iraq isn't a war?
Hey, we all saw the mission accomplished sign. :wink
It's a pretty violent occupation.
sparks
12-20-2006, 10:12 AM
I do not think that the world can handle fighting a war as a war should be fought. I think that there is much more to lose. People are not bringing cannons over on ships any longer. Or flying planes that can release single atomic bombs. There are nukes out there that would desimate this planet. So my answer is two-fold.
I do think that we should have been fighting a actual war over there. Not just sitting around waiting on whatever the heck we are waiting on.
I do not think that the world can handle a out and out war given the weapons of mass destruction that are available.
Mutually assured destruction.
sparks
12-20-2006, 10:13 AM
Hey, we all saw the mission accomplished sign. :wink
It's a pretty violent occupation.
LOL! LOL! LOL! For what it was worth! :rofl
Hey, we all saw the mission accomplished sign. :wink
Yeah that one had me going huh when it was said. I was think mission accomplished but then way are we atill fighting?
It's a pretty violent occupation.
The fact is though Congress has never offically declared this a war.
We did accomplish what we set out to do, which was to take out Saddam. The hardest part has been in trying to establish a democracy in a country that doesn't even know the meaning of the word, nor is it ever going to, it seems.
Semantics
12-20-2006, 10:18 AM
The fact is though Congress has never offically declared this a war.
Technicalities. :roll
At least that's what they'd say, considering so many of them use the "war" in their talking points. :lol
We did accomplish what we set out to do, which was to take out Saddam. The hardest part has been in trying to establish a democracy in a country that doesn't even know the meaning of the word, nor is it ever going to, it seems.
See that is where I got confused, the mission then techinally wasn't accomplished. Just a major objectve in the mission was
Technicalities. :roll
At least that's what they'd say, considering so many of them use the "war" in their talking points. :lol
Yes that get me going everytime
It IS a war, just not a declared one.
Oh I nkow it is a war, the soldiers know it is a war, the people of America know it is one as do the Iraqis, hell even the UN and the terrorist/insurgents know it is one. Only people that apparently don't know it is one is our elected officals that are running the "war"
TrueBlue
12-20-2006, 11:23 AM
We had no justification for wiping the Iraqis off the map.
We are a superpower, but even a superpower can't do everything.
I understand that the Saudis are upset that we are contemplating a pullout. Let them send their military in to establish order.
Who said anything about wiping them off the map.
Hmm Freudian Slip maybe?
TrueBlue
12-20-2006, 11:34 AM
I think all wars are fought over money, territory or religion, sometimes all three. Were all wars in history justified? I'm sure they were to the people that had to fight them or there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. God is on the side of the strongest battalion.
As far as the present war, I don't think we should have gone into Iraq unless we were going in there to wipe them off the map, and not for the purpose of setting up a new democracy, so I can't really say that it is justifiable. Afghanistan on the other hand, is justified, IMO. That being said, I feel that now that we're there, we should finish what we started, if for no other reason than to show the terrorists that we're not weak. By establishing a time line, it shows the terrorists that all they have to do to defeat us is to hang on until we withdraw. I think we need to win this war by any means necessary.
FYI, AYFR. :)
Ahhh I see, well I never said it and I thought you were talkin to me. Sorry
OK how about future wars. Lets say we are attacked by another country, China for example, do you think America has the stomach to fight it like a war should be fought?
Or will the people of America worry about the perception of the world community first?
No, I don't think Americans have the stomach to fight a war the way it should be fought. That is evident from the posts here.
Speaking only for myself. When it comes to war, I believe in hitting them fast and hard. Only after control has been established should we ease up.
Personally, I find myself in a quandry over the loss of life. On one hand, I feel like our military has been careful in avoiding civilian casualties to a fault (ie- appeasing the PC crowd). However, the loss of life from stretching a war out is unacceptable. Intuitively, I feel like lingering on the battlefield creates more death in the long run for all parties involved.
Hopefully, our commanders have learned somethig from the Iraq situation so we will be prepared to do what's necessary should a war with China ever occur. The only way we could win against China is to be a bit ruthless at the beginning. We didn't do that in Iraq or Afghanastan and we are paying for it now.
In my view, Bush has it all wrong. We went in with light shows, rounded up some insurgents, and sent them for torture. That is wrong on so many levels that I can't even get into them all here. It would have been better to eliminate the enemy on the battlefield from the get go. I know that sounds cold but it is the best way when fighting a war.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 11:57 AM
Personally speaking, I'd have to say "no"...I don't have the stomach for doing whatever it takes just to win a war. There are more important things in life other than "winning". Such as preserving humanity and treating our fellow man with respect. We're all God's creatures no matter whether we call Him God, Jesus or Allah. Life is precious and diplomacy is an artform.
This comment is exactly why women are not taken seriously in national politics.
If you are fighting a war NOTHING is more important than winning it.
On the perception of the world community...
Somebody who is worried about that should heed my previous post on war. There are always going to be negative perceptions about an aggresor country. Confine the damage to the battlefield and limit the ongoing criticism. The things we have done since the war supposedly ended are much worse than what would have happened if we'd unleashed more aggressively in the beginning.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 12:00 PM
The people of America also need to have the stomach and will.
If we don't then when the military does something people think is "to harsh" then the people whine and complain that America looks bad tothe World comminity and when people complain the politicians take that as there que to protest and keep things from happening.
As for me I couldn't give a damn what the world community thought about America and I support the troops fully. That means I back them to do whatever is necessary to win.
How about you?
In every war until Viet Nam the military and the government controlled everything reported about it.
If WWII had been reported the same way as VN and Iraq we may not have won.
And if people think we are being brutal in Iraq then they need to read a couple of books on how we fought WWII under FDR.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 12:03 PM
Pull out...the sooner the better and let the country fight their own civil war. Unless we're prepared to spend a generation or more policing Iraq I believe it's gonna happen eventually anyway. Why put off the inevitable while placing our own country further into debt?
You have no clue what the consequences of letting that happen are, do you?
We have been anything but brutal in Iraq (with the exceptions of the torture AFTER the fact).
The people causing the most death right now are insurgents. Not our military.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 12:08 PM
I supported going into Afghanistan but never thought Iraq was justified. We've made a mess of it and honestly, I'm not sure it can be fixed.
Many say that there is already a civil war going on, although the White House doesn't like to use that "language" in describing the situation in Iraq. How long are we willing to stay? 40 years? 50 years? Cause I don't think a couple more years is gonna actually fix anything on any permanent level.
WWII ended n 1945, we are still in Germany and Japan. N. Korea kind of ended in 1953, we are still there.
What kind of slaughter do you think is going to happen if we leave?
sparks
12-20-2006, 12:10 PM
WWII ended n 1945, we are still in Germany and Japan. N. Korea kind of ended in 1953, we are still there.
What kind of slaughter do you think is going to happen if we leave?
So are you saying you're prepared to spend 50 or 60 years in Iraq? Because I truly believe that's what it's gonna take to make any sort of real, lasting difference.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 12:13 PM
No, I don't think Americans have the stomach to fight a war the way it should be fought. That is evident from the posts here.
Speaking only for myself. When it comes to war, I believe in hitting them fast and hard. Only after control has been established should we ease up.
Personally, I find myself in a quandry over the loss of life. On one hand, I feel like our military has been careful in avoiding civilian casualties to a fault (ie- appeasing the PC crowd). However, the loss of life from stretching a war out is unacceptable. Intuitively, I feel like lingering on the battlefield creates more death in the long run for all parties involved.
Hopefully, our commanders have learned somethig from the Iraq situation so we will be prepared to do what's necessary should a war with China ever occur. The only way we could win against China is to be a bit ruthless at the beginning. We didn't do that in Iraq or Afghanastan and we are paying for it now.
In my view, Bush has it all wrong. We went in with light shows, rounded up some insurgents, and sent them for torture. That is wrong on so many levels that I can't even get into them all here. It would have been better to eliminate the enemy on the battlefield from the get go. I know that sounds cold but it is the best way when fighting a war.
Do you have a cluse of how many civilians were killed in WWII?
sparks
12-20-2006, 12:16 PM
Do you have a cluse of how many civilians were killed in WWII?
I really don't know a figure, but I imagine the death toll was quite high. What's your point?
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 12:16 PM
So are you saying you're prepared to spend 50 or 60 years in Iraq? Because I truly believe that's what it's gonna take to make any sort of real, lasting difference.
We could pull out of Germany and Japan and redeploy to Iraq.
But it could take a couple of decades to deal with the morons in Iraq.
It would be easier if we devastated them first as we did Germany and Japan.
Do you have a cluse of how many civilians were killed in WWII?
I am not talking about WWII.
When England put these peaceful Muslims together in one place they knew it was a cock fight (Sunni's and Shit heads) and as if this wasn't enough dissention they spred Kurds on top of that, whom they both hate. Yep, I'd say all the ingredients are there for a down home Islamic revival. :rofl
You can't expect any civilized people to have a positive impact on an entire land of barbaric assholes. To get results you have to kill them all and restock the place with desireables. :wave
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 01:53 PM
I really don't know a figure, but I imagine the death toll was quite high. What's your point?
My point is war is a bitch. You can't fight it and worry about the civilians in the country you are attacking and win.
In Japan we destroyed (with napalm) 30% of the private residences in the country. We destroyed over 70% of the industrial capacity.
We killed more in 1 night fire bombing Tokyo than both Hiroshima and Naugasaki (sp) combined.
We killed over half a million Japanese civilians and that was without ever invading their country.
All this done with the approval of FDR. All of this information was never reported at home because the people running the war knew if it did the civilian population would not be able to handle it.
The reason we are not 'winning' in Iraq is because no one can win a war fighting with both hands and 1 foot tied behind their backs.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 01:54 PM
I am not talking about WWII.
Of course you aren't because you don't want to fight a war to win as we did in WWII.
You cannot win a war the way we are forced to fight it today.
You can't expect any civilized people to have a positive impact on an entire land of barbaric assholes. To get results you have to kill them all and restock the place with desireables. :wave
That's not working out so well in Israel right now, is it? :whistle
The idea of 'killing them all' is unacceptable to me and much of the world. I reject it as much as I reject some of your other hostile rhetoric about Muslims.
Of course you aren't because you don't want to fight a war to win as we did in WWII.
You cannot win a war the way we are forced to fight it today.
williamj, you need to reread my post that you quoted. Obviously, you DID NOT. Now, scamper off and read what I really said instead of assuming you know what I think. :headpat
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 02:59 PM
williamj, you need to reread my post that you quoted. Obviously, you DID NOT. Now, scamper off and read what I really said instead of assuming you know what I think.
I agree, I focused on one part without considering the whole.
It would seem we agree that the way to fight a war is to do it ruthlessly to limit the time it takes. That a shorter brutal war , in the long run, kills less.
But many of the people in our country will not go along with something like that. They would not have in WWII if they had had imbed reporters then.
I don't think the first amendment should apply to the reporting of the fighting of a war until it is over then all should be open for reporting.
Another thing to note, I don't believe torture (as policy) was done.
Unless your definition of torture is different than mine.
A touchstone on this one is that I don't think water boarding is torture. I don't think putting a gun in the mouth of a prisoner and threatening to pull the trigger is torture. I don't think slapping them around is torture. I don't think depriving them of sleep is torture.
Pulling the trigger is torture. Breaking their bones is torture. Cutting them is torture.
I agree, I focused on one part without considering the whole.
It would seem we agree that the way to fight a war is to do it ruthlessly to limit the time it takes. That a shorter brutal war , in the long run, kills less.
But many of the people in our country will not go along with something like that. They would not have in WWII if they had had imbed reporters then.
I don't think the first amendment should apply to the reporting of the fighting of a war until it is over then all should be open for reporting.
It would be better if reporters weren't on the battlefield but I don't agree with restricting their freedoms. I'm willing to bet that if we went in like we SHOULD and didn't pussyfoot around, there would be a lot less journalists out there. They wouldn't want to go into a real war zone.
Another thing to note, I don't believe torture (as policy) was done.
Unless your definition of torture is different than mine.
Now there's the sticking point, WJ. That is a semantical game. So they didn't write it down in the procedure manual. It still happened, was widely known about, and little was done to stop it. Who is to blame? I don't know but passing the buck and saying 'it wasn't policy' isn't going to cut it this time.
Yes, I'd say our definitions of torture differ.
A touchstone on this one is that I don't think water boarding is torture. I don't think putting a gun in the mouth of a prisoner and threatening to pull the trigger is torture. I don't think slapping them around is torture. I don't think depriving them of sleep is torture.
Pulling the trigger is torture. Breaking their bones is torture. Cutting them is torture.
You don't think a person can be mentally tortured? Come on now, WJ.
It appears you think as long as the 'enemy combatants' still have all their digits when we're done with them that it's ok. I hope that you will take a hard look at what you're saying and one day consider the fact that waterboarding and other physical abuse, while not brutal, is still torture.
TrueBlue
12-20-2006, 05:29 PM
I agree, I focused on one part without considering the whole.
It would seem we agree that the way to fight a war is to do it ruthlessly to limit the time it takes. That a shorter brutal war , in the long run, kills less.
We'd be in worse shape, not better, had we been brutal to the civilian population. You are forgetting how the outside world would have reacted.
But many of the people in our country will not go along with something like that. They would not have in WWII if they had had imbed reporters then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Pyle
I don't think the first amendment should apply to the reporting of the fighting of a war until it is over then all should be open for reporting.
That is an absolutely totalitarian idea. During war we need factual information even more than in peace.
Another thing to note, I don't believe torture (as policy) was done.
Unless your definition of torture is different than mine.
A touchstone on this one is that I don't think water boarding is torture. I don't think putting a gun in the mouth of a prisoner and threatening to pull the trigger is torture. I don't think slapping them around is torture. I don't think depriving them of sleep is torture.
Pulling the trigger is torture. Breaking their bones is torture. Cutting them is torture.
Torture absolutely was done. Sodomizing someone with a broom handle is torture. Being naked and attacked by a dog is torture. Waterboarding is torture. Being chained to a chair and left in a room until you tear out your own hair is torture. Being beaten to death is torture. Torture was done.
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 06:55 PM
It would be better if reporters weren't on the battlefield but I don't agree with restricting their freedoms. I'm willing to bet that if we went in like we SHOULD and didn't pussyfoot around, there would be a lot less journalists out there. They wouldn't want to go into a real war zone.
Now there's the sticking point, WJ. That is a semantical game. So they didn't write it down in the procedure manual. It still happened, was widely known about, and little was done to stop it. Who is to blame? I don't know but passing the buck and saying 'it wasn't policy' isn't going to cut it this time.
Yes, I'd say our definitions of torture differ.
You don't think a person can be mentally tortured? Come on now, WJ.
It appears you think as long as the 'enemy combatants' still have all their digits when we're done with them that it's ok. I hope that you will take a hard look at what you're saying and one day consider the fact that waterboarding and other physical abuse, while not brutal, is still torture.
I had stuff like that done to me during seer training in 1976.
It is not torture in my opinion and my opinion is the only one I care about.
What would you consider mental torture?
WilliamJ
12-20-2006, 06:59 PM
We'd be in worse shape, not better, had we been brutal to the civilian population. You are forgetting how the outside world would have reacted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Pyle
That is an absolutely totalitarian idea. During war we need factual information even more than in peace.
Torture absolutely was done. Sodomizing someone with a broom handle is torture. Being naked and attacked by a dog is torture. Waterboarding is torture. Being chained to a chair and left in a room until you tear out your own hair is torture. Being beaten to death is torture. Torture was done.
Ernie Pyle was allowed to report nothing not approved by the war department, dose that mean FDR ran a totalitarian government?
All those things you mentioned were done but other than waterboarding, none was done as a matter of policy. The fact that several people are in jail is proof of that.
Torture is done in every war by both sides, always has been that way always will be.
TrueBlue
12-20-2006, 07:39 PM
Ernie Pyle was allowed to report nothing not approved by the war department, dose that mean FDR ran a totalitarian government?
All those things you mentioned were done but other than waterboarding, none was done as a matter of policy. The fact that several people are in jail is proof of that.
Torture is done in every war by both sides, always has been that way always will be.
What is being reported by the imbeded reporters that you oppose?
Several people are scapegoats, Cisco, for those higher up.
What you are referencing that happened to you is not at the same level as what happened at Abu G.
LucaBrazi
12-20-2006, 08:46 PM
Just a little bit of history here.
The Revolutionary war (the one where we won our independence) took 12 years to win, also we had outside help in winning it (anyone wanna take a guess at who it was?)
It started in 1775 and the fighting ended in Yorktown in 1781. The Treaty of Paris officially ended the war in 1783 . . . so six or eight years depending upon how you interpret it. Also, we did get help from France, but it was more along the lines of the enemy of my enemy is my friend and not some grand gesture towards democracy and liberty.
have the stomach to win this war? Look at all the past wars that we won. We did not try and be nice and please the world community. No we did what it took to win the war.
So does America and Americans have what it take to when this war?
The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on. Ulysses S. Grant
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. William T. Sherman
The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. George Orwel
The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his. George Patton
War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory. Georges Clemenceau
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill
At best war is very bad. At worst it is impossible.
Getting into a war for all of the wrong reasons and then telling those who love their country enough to speak up that they are unpatriotic is not freedom.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by his country." Theodore Roosevelt
Just as in Vietnam, I don't know how we will know when we have won a war that we got into on false information.
WilliamJ
12-21-2006, 12:18 AM
What is being reported by the imbeded reporters that you oppose?
Several people are scapegoats, Cisco, for those higher up.
What you are referencing that happened to you is not at the same level as what happened at Abu G.
There you go making assertions without proof again.
Tell me, what did the press report casualties on a daily basis for WWII? Did they go in and interview the families of civilians killed in bombing raids? Did they critisize the tactics used by the military?
No they did not. As a matter of fact the government supressed ANY story that might hurt moral or support for the war back home. That is a fact.
That is what I would like to see happen here for about 1 year. Let them do their job without the press causing problems for them.
BTW - You have no idea what they did to me in my training. I will tell you a couple of things they did. The tied me to a chair, put a bag over my head. Then the reduced the temp in the room. They did not let me sleep for over 2 days. I got slapped around quite a bit.
And that is how they train rangers.
Ringo
12-21-2006, 12:05 PM
How do you define "winning"? Could our military subdue the people of the country? Of course they could. But that would require massive casualities among our own people and the people that we supposedly went to liberate. As a military problem it's simple. The problem is, this is not simply a military problem. That is why the US has traditionally had a policy of not starting wars. Because if someone attacks us, we are justified in self-defense. The US gets into trouble when the explanations for war are more complex-or perhaps convoluted would be a better term.
#1 TB we are not fighting the "people of the Country", just the chickenshit Al Queda and a few Shites who want to run Iraq!
Casualties?? Once the US commits to all out warfare the chickenshit Terrorists will tuck tail as they know they are dead, and the Shites will raise their White Flags just like the Gulf War, as they are cowards to begin with!!
TB, is that your husband before bed in that Avatar?? I didn't know you were into........:heart
TrueBlue
12-21-2006, 01:10 PM
There you go making assertions without proof again.
What assertions without proof?
Tell me, what did the press report casualties on a daily basis for WWII? Did they go in and interview the families of civilians killed in bombing raids? Did they critisize the tactics used by the military?
No they did not. As a matter of fact the government supressed ANY story that might hurt moral or support for the war back home. That is a fact.
That is what I would like to see happen here for about 1 year. Let them do their job without the press causing problems for them.
And you claim to be a libertarian?
Give me a break! That is repression. In Vietnam, the government lied about the casualty rates. That was wrong.
Many people seem to be under the impression that if we didn't tell the Muslims about Abu G, they'd never had known. That's totally wrong-they'd know, and we wouldn't.
Without a free press, we are no longer a free society. The founders knew that. Only vital information should ever be surpressed. If things are not going well in a war funded with my tax dollars, then I need to know how that war is going.
BTW - You have no idea what they did to me in my training. I will tell you a couple of things they did. The tied me to a chair, put a bag over my head. Then the reduced the temp in the room. They did not let me sleep for over 2 days. I got slapped around quite a bit.
And that is how they train rangers.
I do have an idea what they did, Cisco. I know that you were stressed by this, my uncle went through similar training exercises. But we both know it isn't like Abu G. They used interrogation tactics, and not torture.
TrueBlue
12-21-2006, 01:12 PM
#1 TB we are not fighting the "people of the Country", just the chickenshit Al Queda and a few Shites who want to run Iraq!
Casualties?? Once the US commits to all out warfare the chickenshit Terrorists will tuck tail as they know they are dead, and the Shites will raise their White Flags just like the Gulf War, as they are cowards to begin with!!
TB, is that your husband before bed in that Avatar?? I didn't know you were into........:heart
Ringo, you can borrow the outfit if you like.
Ringo
12-22-2006, 12:00 PM
Ringo, you can borrow the outfit if you like.
Nah, I am just a boring candlelight, saloon sultry music, moonlight dancing type and I only know about 15 straight Hetro positions. This helps though as it keeps my Love calender to only 2 or 3 times a week.:kiss
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.