Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Thoughts About American War and Stupidity

DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 1:47:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Salute the ones who died
The ones that give their lives
So we don"t have to sacrifice
All the things we love
Like our chicken fried"

There are a time when a statement is made that exhibits such a breathtaking lack of reverence and solemnity that it borders on the supremely stupid. The quote above is from a song by the Zac Brown Band. An otherwise inoffensive song that will be soon forgotten.

Being country music, the songwriters thought to add a condescending salute to the brave men and women who gave their lives so that we can maintain our way of life. Unknown to the Zac Brown Band, there are no US military personnel that have given their lives in order to maintain the things that we love, like "chicken fry" for fat Southern women at truck driver buffets.

I want to try and ensure that my opinion in this matter is clear. I am very disturbed by the brainless attitude that most of my countrymen seem to have towards the subject of death. This lyric is not a "tribute." It presents a glorified misrepresentation of terror and pain.

If a reader of this thread has a beloved son or daughter who was killed or maimed in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, your child suffered and killed for nothing but incompetence and corruption. Their sacrifices did not matter, and were not important. If your child had not died "answering the call," then the United States would be completely unchanged.

Your loss was not a "sacrifice for your country," it was a political killing that advanced a political cause that you do not agree with or support.

They killed and died in in support of the incompetent Iraqi regime and the corrupt Karzai regime in Afghanistan. They did not suffer and fight for "freedom," because the regimes that their suffering created are not "free."

They were killed for political reasons by people who were killing for a different set of political reasons, who would have died at the hands of our American chicken fry killers if they had not killed your child first.

I will be honest. I am glad that anyone who was willing to kill for "Chicken fry" died on their battlefields. I am glad that they "sacrificed" and "gave their lives," but I salute the people that killed them.

It is time that we ended the glorification of death and war. If we do not want to treat the subject with reverent dread, then it is best that we simply sit down and watch "Honey Boo-Boo" over a plate of chicken fry and not discuss the subject of war at all.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sad but true, war is a racket.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's also amazing how much flack this position gets, no one in the mainstream is willing to take it, not conservative nor liberal. It's all so easy to see though, over a decade later and what do we have to show for our war in Afghanistan? Absolutely nothing but more military bases.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:50:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 2:38:30 PM, lewis20 wrote:
It's also amazing how much flack this position gets, no one in the mainstream is willing to take it, not conservative nor liberal. It's all so easy to see though, over a decade later and what do we have to show for our war in Afghanistan? Absolutely nothing but more military bases.

Yes, and even many of these bases are being sold off or abandoned.

The awesome scope of the destruction and fear is paralyzing. The gains are, at best debatable. I would not have proudly offered my family to the good graces of cluster bombs for the political improvements these wars made in America.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:43:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.

Are we all aware that "terrorist" is a political tactic, and not a nationality?

Since there are two threads that I am interested in, that both follow much the same conversation, I will plagiarize myself.

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:43:58 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.

Are we all aware that "terrorist" is a political tactic, and not a nationality?

Since there are two threads that I am interested in, that both follow much the same conversation, I will plagiarize myself.

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.

In America's case, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the terrorists and they primarily live in the Middle East. Therefore, we go there and we kill them. These two organizations pose threats to American lives, regardless of whatever it is called, they must be killed.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:43:58 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.

Are we all aware that "terrorist" is a political tactic, and not a nationality?

Since there are two threads that I am interested in, that both follow much the same conversation, I will plagiarize myself.

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.

In America's case, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the terrorists and they primarily live in the Middle East. Therefore, we go there and we kill them. These two organizations pose threats to American lives, regardless of whatever it is called, they must be killed.

Who are these humans who must be killed? Why must we kill them first? Isn't the fact that we are killing them before they kill us a good reason for them to kill us before we kill them for planning to kill us first?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:44:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who are these humans who must be killed? Why must we kill them first? Isn't the fact that we are killing them before they kill us a good reason for them to kill us before we kill them for planning to kill us first?

It is not a matter of payback, or whatever your idea is. Your idea is a misconception. It is the job of our leaders to keep America safe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban pose a threat to our citizens safety, thus, they must die. Furthermore, these two extremist organizations will not stop trying to terrorize and kill us, even if we stop fighting them. Remember, they do not hate us because we kill them, they hate us because we are made up of Christians, offer freedom of religion, have women's rights, and our general lifestyle is offensive to them.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:43:58 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.

Are we all aware that "terrorist" is a political tactic, and not a nationality?

Since there are two threads that I am interested in, that both follow much the same conversation, I will plagiarize myself.

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.

In America's case, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the terrorists and they primarily live in the Middle East. Therefore, we go there and we kill them. These two organizations pose threats to American lives, regardless of whatever it is called, they must be killed.

The Taliban are terrorists? Better call up Obama and let him know, we're in negotiations to turn Afghanistan back over the the Taliban.
Truth is the taliban want nothing to do with America.
The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:39:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:43:58 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.

Are we all aware that "terrorist" is a political tactic, and not a nationality?

Since there are two threads that I am interested in, that both follow much the same conversation, I will plagiarize myself.

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.

In America's case, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the terrorists and they primarily live in the Middle East. Therefore, we go there and we kill them. These two organizations pose threats to American lives, regardless of whatever it is called, they must be killed.


The Taliban are terrorists? Better call up Obama and let him know, we're in negotiations to turn Afghanistan back over the the Taliban.
Truth is the taliban want nothing to do with America.
The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.

As long as a threat is posed to America, all war we get involved in is justified.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:25:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:44:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Who are these humans who must be killed? Why must we kill them first? Isn't the fact that we are killing them before they kill us a good reason for them to kill us before we kill them for planning to kill us first?

It is not a matter of payback, or whatever your idea is. Your idea is a misconception. It is the job of our leaders to keep America safe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban pose a threat to our citizens safety, thus, they must die. Furthermore, these two extremist organizations will not stop trying to terrorize and kill us, even if we stop fighting them. Remember, they do not hate us because we kill them, they hate us because we are made up of Christians, offer freedom of religion, have women's rights, and our general lifestyle is offensive to them.

My hedonistic, liberal lifestyle is offensive to the Texas Legislature, as is my support of women's rights and insistence on religious liberty.

The state of Texas has also killed many, many more Texans than the Taliban.

Are you sure that your reasons for wanting Asians and Middle Eastern persons to die violent deaths are only justified for these specific characteristics?
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:49:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:25:53 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:44:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Who are these humans who must be killed? Why must we kill them first? Isn't the fact that we are killing them before they kill us a good reason for them to kill us before we kill them for planning to kill us first?

It is not a matter of payback, or whatever your idea is. Your idea is a misconception. It is the job of our leaders to keep America safe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban pose a threat to our citizens safety, thus, they must die. Furthermore, these two extremist organizations will not stop trying to terrorize and kill us, even if we stop fighting them. Remember, they do not hate us because we kill them, they hate us because we are made up of Christians, offer freedom of religion, have women's rights, and our general lifestyle is offensive to them.

My hedonistic, liberal lifestyle is offensive to the Texas Legislature, as is my support of women's rights and insistence on religious liberty.
But you are American, the Muslim extremists are not.

The state of Texas has also killed many, many more Texans than the Taliban.

Yes, they have killed killers, people who took away the freedom of American citizens by killing them.
Are you sure that your reasons for wanting Asians and Middle Eastern persons to die violent deaths are only justified for these specific characteristics?

These extremists killed how many Americans on 9/11. If we do not give them "violent deaths" how can we ensure that 9/11 will not happen again? These people pose a threat to the American citizens, they must die.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:19:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:49:02 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:25:53 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:44:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Who are these humans who must be killed? Why must we kill them first? Isn't the fact that we are killing them before they kill us a good reason for them to kill us before we kill them for planning to kill us first?

It is not a matter of payback, or whatever your idea is. Your idea is a misconception. It is the job of our leaders to keep America safe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban pose a threat to our citizens safety, thus, they must die. Furthermore, these two extremist organizations will not stop trying to terrorize and kill us, even if we stop fighting them. Remember, they do not hate us because we kill them, they hate us because we are made up of Christians, offer freedom of religion, have women's rights, and our general lifestyle is offensive to them.

My hedonistic, liberal lifestyle is offensive to the Texas Legislature, as is my support of women's rights and insistence on religious liberty.
But you are American, the Muslim extremists are not.

The state of Texas has also killed many, many more Texans than the Taliban.

Yes, they have killed killers, people who took away the freedom of American citizens by killing them.
Are you sure that your reasons for wanting Asians and Middle Eastern persons to die violent deaths are only justified for these specific characteristics?

These extremists killed how many Americans on 9/11. If we do not give them "violent deaths" how can we ensure that 9/11 will not happen again? These people pose a threat to the American citizens, they must die.

Are you aware that all of the men who hijacked and crashed the airplanes on 9/11 died in those same attacks?

Are you certain that there is no other way to arrest the other conspirators and financiers of this attack - than by killing hundreds of thousands of human beings who had nothing to do with those attacks?

Does your outrage extend to other causes of American deaths? Are you willing to kill thousands of insurance company employees? Industrial polluters? Cigarette makers? Gun owners?

You still have not explained your position: why kill these specific innocent people, and not some other group of people who were also not involved in 9/11?
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:41:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 9:49:02 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 9:25:53 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:44:08 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Who are these humans who must be killed? Why must we kill them first? Isn't the fact that we are killing them before they kill us a good reason for them to kill us before we kill them for planning to kill us first?

It is not a matter of payback, or whatever your idea is. Your idea is a misconception. It is the job of our leaders to keep America safe. Al Qaeda and the Taliban pose a threat to our citizens safety, thus, they must die. Furthermore, these two extremist organizations will not stop trying to terrorize and kill us, even if we stop fighting them. Remember, they do not hate us because we kill them, they hate us because we are made up of Christians, offer freedom of religion, have women's rights, and our general lifestyle is offensive to them.

My hedonistic, liberal lifestyle is offensive to the Texas Legislature, as is my support of women's rights and insistence on religious liberty.
But you are American, the Muslim extremists are not.

I hope you're being sarcastic right now.

The state of Texas has also killed many, many more Texans than the Taliban.

Yes, they have killed killers, people who took away the freedom of American citizens by killing them.
Are you sure that your reasons for wanting Asians and Middle Eastern persons to die violent deaths are only justified for these specific characteristics?

These extremists killed how many Americans on 9/11. If we do not give them "violent deaths" how can we ensure that 9/11 will not happen again? These people pose a threat to the American citizens, they must die.

I don't know if you're being serious, but the problem with your position is that you don't recognize how many Taliban America is birthing by continuing to slaughter all it deems the 'Taliban'. The whole strategy of war on terror is more to pacify the American population and give an impression of 'fighting for their rights' rather than any actual conviction.

A trillion down the line, and after the death of more than 7,000 troops [and that's just American], America has achieved nothing, except maybe global discomfort. And civil disillusionment.

And the sad thing is, America is such a strong diplomatic player, it can achieve SO much more effectiveness if it just manipulates the economic wheels of the global order.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:41:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:39:05 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:43:58 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:27:43 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:
Yes, another 9/11 happens because we do not stand against terror, there will be no more fried chicken for the deceased. Therefore, by fighting, we are defending the freedom (lives) of Americans. God bless the USA.

Are we all aware that "terrorist" is a political tactic, and not a nationality?

Since there are two threads that I am interested in, that both follow much the same conversation, I will plagiarize myself.

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.

In America's case, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are the terrorists and they primarily live in the Middle East. Therefore, we go there and we kill them. These two organizations pose threats to American lives, regardless of whatever it is called, they must be killed.


The Taliban are terrorists? Better call up Obama and let him know, we're in negotiations to turn Afghanistan back over the the Taliban.
Truth is the taliban want nothing to do with America.
The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.

As long as a threat is posed to America, all war we get involved in is justified.

You clearly didn't read what I just said, mainly that the Taliban don't pose a threat to Americans.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 8:50:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When the rich and powerful are the ones who die and are maimed by going to war, then war might end.

But it's great when you can benefit from a war yet not suffer the negative consequences of it. That's what the peasants are for. Why do they always send the poor ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 9:56:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.

What if it justifies EVERY war we get ourselves into?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 3:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 9:56:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.

What if it justifies EVERY war we get ourselves into?

Again with "terrorists."

I personally do not like to differentiate between "military" and "political," as these separate terms describe the same thing.

With that in mind, terrorism is a political/military tactic, like trench warfare and flanking maneuvers. A "terrorist" is the person employing the tactic, in exactly the same way the man on the .50 Cal is a "gunner."

Let us alter the sentence, just so, and replace the word "terrorist" with another political/military tactic, and see how stupid the arguments sound to those who understand this.

"The snipers are all over. Iraq is home to sniper networks, so we needed to invade in order to make the world safe from sharpshooters."

"We need to profile Muslims, because they might be forced-marchers."

"The scourge of grenadiers is a threat to civilization, therefore, we must preemptively attack nations that harbor grenade launchers, and grenade launching technology."

"You are either with us, or you are with the Artillerymen."

"Not all Muslims practice strategic withdrawal. But all strategic withdrawalists are Muslim."

"Partisan saboteurs might one day sabotage our power supply, so we need to bomb nations where the saboteurs hide."
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 4:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 8:50:02 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
When the rich and powerful are the ones who die and are maimed by going to war, then war might end.

But it's great when you can benefit from a war yet not suffer the negative consequences of it. That's what the peasants are for. Why do they always send the poor ?

I cannot help but be happy that others see this fact. Brandon Troy once said, that "if every foot soldier threw down his rifle, war would end." Who would fight these wars if the warmongers and war millionaires were required to fight their own wars themselves?

To counter the nonsense about "let's go to war for cold beer and chicken fry," I would like to point out another lyric, from another song. This one praises the threat of nuclear holocaust, but in a way that is much less Satanic.

"War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If that's the only thing that keeps the peace...

Then thank God for the bomb"
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 6:58:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 3:55:36 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/28/2013 9:56:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.

What if it justifies EVERY war we get ourselves into?

Again with "terrorists."

I personally do not like to differentiate between "military" and "political," as these separate terms describe the same thing.

With that in mind, terrorism is a political/military tactic, like trench warfare and flanking maneuvers. A "terrorist" is the person employing the tactic, in exactly the same way the man on the .50 Cal is a "gunner."

Let us alter the sentence, just so, and replace the word "terrorist" with another political/military tactic, and see how stupid the arguments sound to those who understand this.

"The snipers are all over. Iraq is home to sniper networks, so we needed to invade in order to make the world safe from sharpshooters."

"We need to profile Muslims, because they might be forced-marchers."

"The scourge of grenadiers is a threat to civilization, therefore, we must preemptively attack nations that harbor grenade launchers, and grenade launching technology."

"You are either with us, or you are with the Artillerymen."

"Not all Muslims practice strategic withdrawal. But all strategic withdrawalists are Muslim."

"Partisan saboteurs might one day sabotage our power supply, so we need to bomb nations where the saboteurs hide."

I agree with the theme you're outlining, but I disagree with how you're applying it. Yes terrorism is just a politico/military tactic, but the point is that terrorism was used against us, and that it constituted a threat. So, how I would rephrase your statements:

"The threat is all over. Iraq is home to this threat, so we needed to invade in order to make the world safe from this threat."

"We need to profile Muslims, because they might be a threat."

"Threats are a threat to civilization, therefore, we must preemptively attack nations that harbor threats, and threat-creating technology."

"You are either with us, or you are with the threat."

"Not all Muslims practice ???. But all ??? are Muslim." (you weren't making any sense here)

"Threats might one day pose a threat, so we need to bomb nations where the threats hide."
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 7:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 6:58:45 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/28/2013 3:55:36 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/28/2013 9:56:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/27/2013 8:29:57 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:48:34 PM, Cowboy0108 wrote:

The terrorists are all over, doesn't justify any of the wars we got ourselves into.

What if it justifies EVERY war we get ourselves into?

Again with "terrorists."

I personally do not like to differentiate between "military" and "political," as these separate terms describe the same thing.

With that in mind, terrorism is a political/military tactic, like trench warfare and flanking maneuvers. A "terrorist" is the person employing the tactic, in exactly the same way the man on the .50 Cal is a "gunner."

Let us alter the sentence, just so, and replace the word "terrorist" with another political/military tactic, and see how stupid the arguments sound to those who understand this.

"The snipers are all over. Iraq is home to sniper networks, so we needed to invade in order to make the world safe from sharpshooters."

"We need to profile Muslims, because they might be forced-marchers."

"The scourge of grenadiers is a threat to civilization, therefore, we must preemptively attack nations that harbor grenade launchers, and grenade launching technology."

"You are either with us, or you are with the Artillerymen."

"Not all Muslims practice strategic withdrawal. But all strategic withdrawalists are Muslim."

"Partisan saboteurs might one day sabotage our power supply, so we need to bomb nations where the saboteurs hide."

I agree with the theme you're outlining, but I disagree with how you're applying it. Yes terrorism is just a politico/military tactic, but the point is that terrorism was used against us, and that it constituted a threat. So, how I would rephrase your statements:

"The threat is all over. Iraq is home to this threat, so we needed to invade in order to make the world safe from this threat."

"We need to profile Muslims, because they might be a threat."

"Threats are a threat to civilization, therefore, we must preemptively attack nations that harbor threats, and threat-creating technology."

"You are either with us, or you are with the threat."

"Not all Muslims practice ???. But all ??? are Muslim." (you weren't making any sense here)

"Threats might one day pose a threat, so we need to bomb nations where the threats hide."

I all but squealed like a delighted pig while I was reading this. Brilliant!
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 7:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Not all Muslims practice strategic withdrawal. But all strategic withdrawalists are Muslim."

A common slogan that I hear in Texas is:

"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

I replaced the word "terrorist" with another term for "retreat;" which was 'Strategic withdrawal.' Military men will tell us that the term strategic withdrawal, or 'fighting withdrawal' is more flattering than "tear @ss out of there."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 4:32:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 1:55:30 PM, ararmer1919 wrote:
Hello :)

Hi! =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?