# Genocide



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

It is purported that ISIS is crucifying Christian adults, slitting non-believer's throats and even decapitating children. They believe in legal genocide of Christians.

The link contains some very graphic, disturbing images, and you may not wish to view them...

http://www.catholic.org/news/international/middle_east/story.php?id=56481

What should we do with people who do such evil acts?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Jolly said:


> It is purported that ISIS is crucifying Christian adults, slitting non-believer's throats and even decapitating children. They believe in legal genocide of Christians.
> 
> The link contains some very graphic, disturbing images, and you may not wish to view them...
> 
> ...


Kill them all, or invite them to the White House for dinner!


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Yep, there's nothing for them but killing them. You don't negotiate with people like that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I know I'm impressed with the results of the Iraq war.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I know I'm impressed with the results of the Iraq war.


If we were allowed to really fight, it would have been over in a week! It's a shame were not allowed to win anymore!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

When you try to fight a war w/o killing people you wind up with things like this. Can you even imagine what Japan and Germany would have been like if we had fought WWII the way we have "fought" the last few "wars"?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

watcher said:


> When you try to fight a war w/o killing people you wind up with things like this. Can you even imagine what Japan and Germany would have been like if we had fought WWII the way we have "fought" the last few "wars"?




Hard for some people to believe it's really that simple, isn't it?:hrm:
There was quite a bit of genocide going on in that war too, WWII, with both Germany and Japan.
We didn't negotiate, mediate, or concentrate on winning hearts and minds. After Pearl harbor it was pretty much go for their jugular and don't stop until they are utterly destroyed.
Savage, but effective. 
Only done when absolutely necessary but the results speak for themselves.
Not a peep out of either one since, huh?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> When you try to fight a war w/o killing people you wind up with things like this. Can you even imagine what Japan and Germany would have been like if we had fought WWII the way we have "fought" the last few "wars"?


It wasn't my impression that Fallujah was fought without killing people.


----------



## sniper69 (Sep 23, 2007)

Jolly said:


> It is purported that ISIS is crucifying Christian adults, slitting non-believer's throats and even decapitating children. They believe in legal genocide of Christians.
> 
> The link contains some very graphic, disturbing images, and you may not wish to view them...
> 
> ...


Well we can look at it a couple of ways. We can say we're not the worlds policemen and ignore it as it isn't here in our country. OR we can go in and kill 'em all. If we cleaned the likes of ISIS out of the gene pool, the world would be a better place.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I know I'm impressed with the results of the Iraq war.


Nevada, you are a real piece of work. Seriously, I wish I could express what I think of you. You take the time in a thread about possible genocide, the beheading of children to throw out some snarky political remark? 

Real class buddy. You just defined yourself.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Interesting that large scale, brutal genocide, have been happening in South Africa, for decades, but gets crickets, since they are poor heathen blacks.

Now that it's Christians getting hacked to death, it's time to invade and clear out the riff-raff, once for all. All hands on deck.

At least the priorities are straight.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Let's see, Israel has a country on it's border, Gaza, that is dedicated to wiping Israel off the map and killing all the jews. A terroist organization, Hamas, is based in that country and attacks Israel every chance it gets. The people of Gaza support the terrorist organization, even when civilians get killed in large numbers. They rely on world pressure to prevent Israel from really going after them hard. If I were the premier of Israel. I would give the residents of Gaza 24 hours to evacuate and then level the whole area, killing whoever stayed. Gaza would become a no mans land as a buffer. If any other bordering countries want to play they would suffer the same fate.

We have an opportunity right now to wipe out most of the ISIS fighters and their equipment. Simply pound them to dust with air strikes while they are out on the desert with no place to hide. If you wanted to be squeamish about it, you could not bomb the cities like Falluajh and simply wait for them to come out on the roads to flee. ISIS has already killed the population of areas they have conquered that didn't agree with them and support them so I wouldn't weep if those civilians got wasted too.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

At least we have pictures this time. Congressional testimony won't cut it any more.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting that large scale, brutal genocide, have been happening in South Africa, for decades, but gets crickets, since they are poor heathen blacks.
> 
> Now that it's Christians getting hacked to death, it's time to invade and clear out the riff-raff, once for all. All hands on deck.
> 
> At least the priorities are straight.


True enough.
And just think, if we HAD gone in to Africa to stop genocide there, then the race could have been played that we were targeting them BECAUSE they were black.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

One solution may be to adequately arm the kurds and tell them they can have all of Anwar they can conquer.

Yes, the Kurds have been giving ground to ISIS, but it's not because they won't fight. They lost the dam this week because they ran out of ammunition. Turkey and the Iraqi government have made sure we've kept the Kurds inadequately armed.

Give them what they need to fight, give them American air power and give them a $500 bounty on every ISIS head they turn in.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting that large scale, brutal genocide, have been happening in South Africa, for decades, but gets crickets, since they are poor heathen blacks.
> 
> Now that it's Christians getting hacked to death, it's time to invade and clear out the riff-raff, once for all. All hands on deck.
> 
> At least the priorities are straight.


We are so accustomed to having so much information and news thrown at us that we end up in a stupor. When we hear of genocide, instead of outrage and action people ingore it or call it a "bad thing". We've become numb.

Africa is a basket case. The genocide in Darfur has been going on for years but nothing happens. We need a good slap in the face to get our heads where they ought to be. The corpse of a beheaded child is about the strongest image there is. It doesn't matter if its a Christian, or a moslem, or black or white. If your stomach is not turned, if you do not feel righteous outrage, If you do not have an overwhelming urge to destroy this evil, you have lost all humanity. Even cattle will herd together to protect their young. Somethings go beyond race or religion or nationality or politics. There is an evil in this world. If you will not fight it you will eventually become its victim. There are things that are worthy to fight for, kill for, or die for. If you can't understand that then you have no soul.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Interesting... one group of religious people decide to eliminate another group of people because of their religion.... and the answer to the problem appears to be that, we, "the good guys" should eliminate the first group!?!? Wouldnt that pretty much be the same kind of genocide? I have to wonder which group would then feel justified in eliminating us? :shrug:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It wasn't my impression that Fallujah was fought without killing people.


Taking things a bit literal today ain't ch'a?

You don't win a war by half measures and trying to avoid killing people. You win it by applying so much force EVERYONE on the other side realizes continued resistance is going to do nothing but get them killed. 

This goes double when you are fighting an enemy which has no qualms killing non-combatants, using children as human shields and think the Laws of Warfare are only something to use against the other side.

You can't "win the hearts and minds" of people by digging the wells when your enemy is coming in and slitting the throats of the children of anyone who doesn't support their side.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting... one group of religious people decide to eliminate another group of people because of their religion.... and the answer to the problem appears to be that, we, "the good guys" should eliminate the first group!?!? Wouldnt that pretty much be the same kind of genocide? I have to wonder which group would then feel justified in eliminating us? :shrug:


Nice philisophical statement. Unfortunately this is the real world. Are you telling me you would quietly sit by and watch a child being beheaded and do nothing?

You do not understand the meaning of the word genocide. These people are not casualities of war. The war for them is over. They have been conquered. Can't you understand that?

What if that beheaded child was your child? Maybe it would not bother you, but as a father, that child is mine.

Like I said, we become numb.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> Nice philisophical statement. Unfortunately this is the real world. Are you telling me you would quietly sit by and watch a child being beheaded and do nothing?
> 
> You do not understand the meaning of the word genocide. These people are not casualities of war. The war for them is over. They have been conquered. Can't you understand that?
> 
> ...


I have never been to the middle east.... am pretty sure none of those children are mine... as a matter of fact I dont think I have even sired any kids in this country. Doesnt mean I dont care.... just that its really none of my business.... those kids have their own parents... they are the ones responsible for providing them with food, water, shelter, and looking out for their safety. The world is a harsh place.... always has been, and always will be.... not anything you nor I can do is going to change that. Dont have to like it.... but at least I accept it for what it is.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

> Interesting... one group of religious people decide to eliminate another group of people because of their religion.... and the answer to the problem appears to be that, we, "the good guys" should eliminate the first group!?!? Wouldnt that pretty much be the same kind of genocide? I have to wonder which group would then feel justified in eliminating us?


Not the same thing at all. You cannot negotiate with a group who, at the core, have a stated goal of wiping out other people because of their faith. Defending those people being attacked and killed is not the same thing as genocide. If we kill ISIS members it is not because of their faith and what they believe in, it is because of their ACTIONS.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting... one group of religious people decide to eliminate another group of people because of their religion.... and the answer to the problem appears to be that, we, "the good guys" should eliminate the first group!?!? Wouldnt that pretty much be the same kind of genocide? I have to wonder which group would then feel justified in eliminating us? :shrug:


I generally agree with you on most things, but in this instance I think you miss the point. The group doing the killing would very much like to kill us too. If able to consolidate their territory and grow their adherents, they'll be only too happy to take your and my heads off, or at least our descendents. 

Just like weeding a garden, if you let the weeds go to seed your just making more work for yourself later.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have never been to the middle east.... am pretty sure none of those children are mine... as a matter of fact I dont think I have even sired any kids in this country.
> 
> 
> And the world is a better place for it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I generally agree with you on most things, but in this instance I think you miss the point. The group doing the killing would very much like to kill us too. If able to consolidate their territory and grow their adherents, they'll be only too happy to take your and my heads off, or at least our descendents.
> 
> Just like weeding a garden, if you let the weeds go to seed your just making more work for yourself later.


Believing that, what do you see as a solution to the problems in Iraq?


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Interesting that the so called "cradle of civilization" doesn't seem to have progressed beyond it's original barbaric roots.

I don't think wiping out the members of ISIS would be considered genocide, it would be self defense. I have no time for anyone who tries to push their religion on others, from the Jehovah's Witnesses at my door to ISIS. Enjoy your spiritual path if it make you happy but when it starts negatively impacting others it should be stopped in it's tracks.



> Believing that, what do you see as a solution to the problems in Iraq?


I personally think the answer to most of the world's problems is education and empowerment for women. It seems that most of the religious and cultural issues in the world are with male dominated societies and organizations. If men and women had equal status in the world you wouldn't see a group like ISIS getting away with the things they are doing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> Yvonne's hubby said:
> 
> 
> > I have never been to the middle east.... am pretty sure none of those children are mine... as a matter of fact I dont think I have even sired any kids in this country.
> ...


On that we agree.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Kasota said:


> Not the same thing at all. You cannot negotiate with a group who, at the core, have a stated goal of wiping out other people because of their faith. Defending those people being attacked and killed is not the same thing as genocide. If we kill ISIS members it is not because of their faith and what they believe in, it is because of their ACTIONS.


It seems to me like I heard somewhere that their actions are indeed based on their faith. There is nothing new here.... same song, different day, these people have been slaughtering each other for centuries.... for so long nobody even remembers who started it. Pretty sure they were fighting among themselves long before the Christians invaded those countries even. At this point it seems to be just a matter of picking a side, blaming the other for all your woes and continue the slaughter. At the moment ISIS seems to have the upper hand... ten years from now it will be someone else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Believing that, what do you see as a solution to the problems in Iraq?


Let the Iraqis solve their problems as they see fit.... we can then deal with the "winners" as we see fit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Just like weeding a garden, if you let the weeds go to seed your just making more work for yourself later.


So how about we tend to the weeds in our own garden? and let the Iraqis, tend to theirs? Lord knows we have more weeds right here than anyone seems to be able to deal with.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ozarks Tom said:


> The group doing the killing would very much like to kill us too. If able to consolidate their territory and grow their adherents, they'll be only too happy to take your and my heads off, or at least our descendants.


Thats been tried before.... didnt work out too well for the aggressors.... think Hiro Hito.... Nagasaki, Hiroshima. Those were toys compared to the ones we have today.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

The reason we need to do something about ISIS in Iraq is because we have a whole lot to do with the current state of affairs in Iraq. I don't place all the blame on any one person or group of people, there's plenty of that to go around.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting that large scale, brutal genocide, have been happening in South Africa, for decades, but gets crickets, since they are poor heathen blacks.
> 
> Now that it's Christians getting hacked to death, it's time to invade and clear out the riff-raff, once for all. All hands on deck.
> 
> At least the priorities are straight.


What's interesting is how you manage to take every opportunity to blame America first. So no matter what we do or don't do about ISIS, we're still the bad guys because we didn't do something else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> The reason we need to do something about ISIS in Iraq is because we have a whole lot to do with the current state of affairs in Iraq.


So what your saying is that because we meddled in others affairs, we need to meddle even more? Did I get this right? Those folks were killing each other before we ever became a country.... we need to butt out and leave them to tend their own business. When they come over here and start picking on us... then fine... squishem like any other cockroach.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So what your saying is that because we meddled in others affairs, we need to meddle even more? Did I get this right? Those folks were killing each other before we ever became a country.... we need to butt out and leave them to tend their own business. When they come over here and start picking on us... then fine... squishem like any other cockroach.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. By some reports, the Christians have been in that area for 1800 years. Having them tortured, starved, and exterminated at least in part because of how the US left the place, makes it our responsibility. 

If you want to argue we should never have gone into Iraq, fine, start a thread. The fact is, we did. So now we have to deal with it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, that's what I'm saying. By some reports, the Christians have been in that area for 1800 years. Having them tortured, starved, and exterminated at least in part because of how the US left the place, makes it our responsibility.
> 
> If you want to argue we should never have gone into Iraq, fine, start a thread. The fact is, we did. So now we have to deal with it.


So, for at least 1800 years that you know of, Christians from various European countries have been meddling in their affairs and making their lives miserable and I am pretty sure they were slaughtering each other in that part of the world for several thousand years before those Christians came along... Then the US steps in and meddles for what? 10 years? and now its OUR responsibility to fix it all nice for them? I dont think so! Let them fix themselves, let all those other countries who have caused them misery help them fix themselves... we have done our part to help, more than enough to offset what little damage we may have done. Its time for the US to quit meddling in others affairs and take care of our own problems.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, for at least 1800 years that you know of, Christians from various European countries have been meddling in their affairs and making their lives miserable and I am pretty sure they were slaughtering each other in that part of the world for several thousand years before those Christians came along... Then the US steps in and meddles for what? 10 years? and now its OUR responsibility to fix it all nice for them? I dont think so! Let them fix themselves, let all those other countries who have caused them misery help them fix themselves... we have done our part to help, more than enough to offset what little damage we may have done. Its time for the US to quit meddling in others affairs and take care of our own problems.


No, you have it quite wrong. There is 1800 years of relative stability in Qaraqosh to prove wrong. Don't conflate everything in the middle east with the small area we are discussing. 

I think the only thing Joe Biden has ever been right on in his entire life is that Iraq should have been allowed to become 3 independent states. But the US tried to force a European drawn map on people that have been united only because of a over powering military force since 1933. 

I'm advocating nothing more than stopping genocide long enough to let the Qaraqosh people find a place to live. I'm not advocating we try another round of nation building.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> No, you have it quite wrong. There is 1800 years of relative stability in Qaraqosh to prove wrong. Don't conflate everything in the middle east with the small area we are discussing.
> 
> I'm not advocating we try another round of nation building.


Are you talking about that 1800 years where they banded together in order to "defend themselves" from being slaughtered by those nice Christians? 

I am glad to see that we at least agree on getting out of the nation building game.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I've never suggested stopping them killing each other, but when their stated intent is to kill us it's a different story.

I would suggest arming the Kurds to the teeth, bombing the bejabbers out of any ISIS group/convoy/hq we can find until they're disenchanted with the idea of messing with us, and then letting nature take its course in the region.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you talking about that 1800 years where they banded together in order to "defend themselves" from being slaughtered by those nice Christians?



:umno:


Quarqosh is the Christian town that survived for 1800 years before the US went into Iraq and is now in the process of being razed after 12 years of US presence.


BTW - in areas like Syria where we have zero national interests and are not responsible for the gov't that is in power, if those folks want to keep shooting till they are all dead, I say let 'em. I'm not a John McCain fan where I think the US should save anyone and everyone that the evening news features that week.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Believing that, what do you see as a solution to the problems in Iraq?


Swift and overwhelming violence. As long as the populace fears the terrorist more than they either trust or fear you they will support the terrorist.

Think about it. You have two sides, Blue and Green. The Blue side is telling you all about how much freedom you'll have and help you get clean water and grow more food for you kids if you support them. The Green side says unless you support them they will tie your kids to a post and slit their stomachs open so you can can hear their screams as they die then they will put the rest of your family in your house and burn it down around them. 

Which side are you going to throw your support behind?

BTW, this worked quite well for the VC in Vietnam.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So how about we tend to the weeds in our own garden? and let the Iraqis, tend to theirs? Lord knows we have more weeds right here than anyone seems to be able to deal with.


I don't know about today but years ago if there was Johnson grass or thistle around everyone worked to get rid of it, no matter whose property it was on. Why? Because it was in everyone's best interest to wipe it off the face off the earth.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Believing that, what do you see as a solution to the problems in Iraq?


Bomb the child killing SOB's back into the stone age. Let Jackals quench their thirst on their blood. Remove them and all they love from the gene pool. Feed their carcasses to pigs. Make them no more.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I don't know about today but years ago if there was Johnson grass or thistle around everyone worked to get rid of it, no matter whose property it was on. Why? Because it was in everyone's best interest to wipe it off the face off the earth.


You mean kinda like some folks believe it would serve everyones interest to exterminate the Jews? Or the American Indians? Or the Catholics? Or maybe those nasty little Chinese... nobody can understand them anyway.... or..... MAYBE you and I?


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

> It seems to me like I heard somewhere that their actions are indeed based on their faith.


That may be true. However, their beliefs are not killing people. Their actions are killing people. There is a huge difference between having a certain belief and torturing and executing and butchering people. That should not be too difficult to understand.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Kasota said:


> That may be true. However, their beliefs are not killing people. Their actions are killing people. There is a huge difference between having a certain belief and torturing and executing and butchering people. That should not be too difficult to understand.


So we should step up to the plate and butcher, torture and execute them because we happen to "believe" its the right thing to do? fine for us to do it, terrible thing for them to do? 
How about we let the cycle end before we do exactly what they are doing, and have some one else decide we need to be exterminated too?

ETA... kinda reminds me of "guns dont kill people.... people kill people." Which is quite true.... in this case you are trying to convince me that "beliefs arent killing people... its just people killing people". If it werent for their beliefs, those people wouldnt be killing people, any more than guns kill people without someone picks one up and kills someone with it.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

Defending others is not the same as butchering and torturing the attacker. Who said anything about butchering and torturing people? Defending against a violent aggressive terrorist group of people is not the same thing at all. Not even close. 

If leaving them alone worked then it would have worked in the first place and the 10's of thousands of people now hiding in the hills with only such food and water as are airlifted to them would have worked. Those people were not attacking ISIS. 

I am out of crayons and puppets.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So we should step up to the plate and butcher, torture and execute them because we happen to "believe" its the right thing to do? fine for us to do it, terrible thing for them to do?
> How about we let the cycle end before we do exactly what they are doing, and have some one else decide we need to be exterminated too?
> 
> ETA... kinda reminds me of "guns dont kill people.... people kill people." Which is quite true.... in this case you are trying to convince me that "beliefs arent killing people... its just people killing people". If it werent for their beliefs, those people wouldnt be killing people, any more than guns kill people without someone picks one up and kills someone with it.


So if I murder your mother, it is best to just let me go because prosecuting me will just add to the cycle of violence. It's best to just ignore me and hope I don't continue murdering others. 

Is that your position? 

I really object to your moral equivalence that preventing genocide is the same thing as committing genocide. It is what I have come to expect from far out libs, but I'm surprised to see it from you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> So if I murder your mother, it is best to just let me go because prosecuting me will just add to the cycle of violence. It's best to just ignore me and hope I don't continue murdering others.
> 
> Is that your position?
> 
> I really object to your moral equivalence that preventing genocide is the same thing as committing genocide. It is what I have come to expect from far out libs, but I'm surprised to see it from you.


Ok, killing my mother is probably not the best way to illustrate you point.... but you are obviously not aware of my relationship with my mother... chances are I would give you a pat on the back and buy you a beer for your effort.  

Now on to the rest of your comment... Nope... that is NOT my position. My position is simple.... it appears to be a matter of whose ox is getting gored as to whether or not genocide is an evil or good thing. If its Christians being slaughtered... its evil.... if its Christians doing the slaughtering.... cool beans! Hurray for our side and like that. Genocide is either evil, or it aint. 

Committing genocide in order to prevent genocide is still evil!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Kasota said:


> Those people were not attacking ISIS.


This time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Kill them all,





Ozarks Tom said:


> Yep, there's nothing for them but killing them.





sniper69 said:


> we can go in and kill 'em all. If we cleaned the likes of ISIS out of the gene pool, the world would be a better place.





Nimrod said:


> We have an opportunity right now to wipe out most of the ISIS fighters and their equipment. Simply pound them to dust with air strikes while they are out on the desert with no place to hide. If you wanted to be squeamish about it, you could not bomb the cities like Falluajh and simply wait for them to come out on the roads to flee. ISIS has already killed the population of areas they have conquered that didn't agree with them and support them so I wouldn't weep if those civilians got wasted too.





Jolly said:


> give them a $500 bounty on every ISIS head they turn in.


Ok, this sounds an awful lot like "Killem all.... let god sortem out" or "genocide" to me.... Maybe its just me but I am not picking vibes here about "defense" or rescue missions?


----------



## sniper69 (Sep 23, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this sounds an awful lot like "Killem all.... let god sortem out" or "genocide" to me.... Maybe its just me but I am not picking vibes here about "defense" or rescue missions?


Why not quote my entire post to make sure it stays in context? Oh, or maybe it wouldn't prove your point as easily as I showed both sides of the coin? Here let me quote my own post to help you out. 



sniper69 said:


> Well we can look at it a couple of ways. We can say we're not the worlds policemen and ignore it as it isn't here in our country. OR we can go in and kill 'em all. If we cleaned the likes of ISIS out of the gene pool, the world would be a better place.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

coming to a city near you soon. I cant believe this country and the president. I agree on open season on muslims.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Committing genocide in order to prevent genocide is still evil!


Ha, back in the Vietnam era, there used to be a saying that "Fighting for peace is like  for virginity." ound:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, this sounds an awful lot like "Killem all.... let god sortem out" or "genocide" to me.... Maybe its just me but* I am not picking vibes here about "defense" or rescue missions?*


That is correct.
Read it again to get a clear understanding.
There are still those of us in this country that are willing to kill people who come over here with the intent to kill us.
I don't personally advocate going over to any country to kill first, but if they step one toe on this soil, send the B-52's over to their land and turn it to glass.

I'll repeat something else as the anniversary just passed. 

Japan & Germany WWII
Japan & Germany WWII
Japan & Germany WWII



Get the picture?
:viking:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You mean kinda like some folks believe it would serve everyones interest to exterminate the Jews? Or the American Indians? Or the Catholics? Or maybe those nasty little Chinese... nobody can understand them anyway.... or..... MAYBE you and I?


If the Jews, Indians, Catholics, Chinese or anyone else is in the process of using deadly force to attempt to wipe out another or to force their ideology upon others then the world needs to stand up and use force to stop them.

Using your logic we should have just sat back and ignored Germany in the 40s. Right?

You'll note how we fought WWII. We didn't try to selectively bomb only military targets. We bombed factories, transportation, power plants, dams and in some cases civilian population centers. We used so much force that those who were our enemies finally realized that continued resistance would result in their being totally wiped off the face of the earth. At which time they stopped fighting.

If you think about it the current crop of terrorist have a lot in common with the Japanese in the early 20th century. They believe their leaders are either gods or one step from it, they think dying for their cause is glorious and leads to perfection and they think others are sub-human which means killing them is no different than killing a cockroach.

Now think about if we had tried to fight Japan using the same political war we are using today. Which, BTW, is an extension of how we fought in Korea and Vietnam and history shows us how well that worked out.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, killing my mother is probably not the best way to illustrate you point.... but you are obviously not aware of my relationship with my mother... chances are I would give you a pat on the back and buy you a beer for your effort.
> 
> Now on to the rest of your comment... Nope... that is NOT my position. My position is simple.... it appears to be a matter of whose ox is getting gored as to whether or not genocide is an evil or good thing. If its Christians being slaughtered... its evil.... if its Christians doing the slaughtering.... cool beans! Hurray for our side and like that. Genocide is either evil, or it aint.
> 
> Committing genocide in order to prevent genocide is still evil!


I agree and disagree. It DOES depend on whose ox is being gored and whose is doing the goring. But committing genocide against one group to save dozens of others is NOT evil.

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,arial][SIZE=-1]
_There are times when you have to defend yourself or someone else against relentless evil. And some of those times the only defense that has any hope of succeeding is a one-time use of brutal, devastation force. At such times good people act brutally.
_[/SIZE][/FONT]
Most people would say its "evil" to kill a 10 y.o. girl. But if that girl is running toward a crowded area with a grenade in each hand while screaming about killing everyone are you going to just stand there and watch or are you going to do the "evil" thing and put a round through her chest?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Ha, back in the Vietnam era, there used to be a saying that "Fighting for peace is like  for virginity." ound:


We see how well stopping the fighting and the resulting peace worked out for the people of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (or Kampuchea as the Khmer Rouge called it). And I'm willing to bet if you ask some old Englishmen, Frenchmen, Chinese, Korean, Polishman they would say that fighting the Nazis resulted in peace for them.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

watcher said:


> If the Jews, Indians, Catholics, Chinese or anyone else is in the process of using deadly force to attempt to wipe out another or to force their ideology upon others then the world needs to stand up and use force to stop them.
> 
> Using your logic we should have just sat back and ignored Germany in the 40s. Right?
> 
> ...


A couple of points:

1. Even though the U.S. had signed an international treaty banning unrestricted submarine warfare, FDR declared unrestricted submarine warfare on the Japanese the week following Pearl Harbor. After the first few patrols, COMSUBPAC issued orders to attack merchant shipping before military targets. The goal was to starve Japan of raw materials and food.

2. Many folks don't know that the B-29 project cost more money than the Manhattan Project. The U.S. did not know if it would have an atomic weapon to use in WWII, but it knew it needed a long-range, high-payload bomber. Curtis Lemay, following the example of Bomber Harris, attacked Japanese cities with incindiaries, causing as many as 900,000 daeths (approximately nine times the number of Japanese who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

Bull Halsey echoed a lot of American sentiment when he said, "The only good Jap is a dead Jap".

The Americans fought a fanatical, determined foe in the Pacific Theater of WWII. At the end of the day, the meanest junkyard dog won.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> 1. Even though the U.S. had signed an international treaty banning unrestricted submarine warfare, FDR declared unrestricted submarine warfare on the Japanese the week following Pearl Harbor. After the first few patrols, COMSUBPAC issued orders to attack merchant shipping before military targets. The goal was to starve Japan of raw materials and food.
> 
> ...


Yep, and the winners always get to write the history books.... and have a habit of declaring themselves innocent of all wrongdoing. The end justifies the means right? I am well aware of the atrocities our country and our allies committed in order to become the winners. I just dont think any of us should be claiming the moral high ground to justify our actions when we do the very same things our enemies are accused of doing. There is no moral high ground on a battlefield. We as a nation have had the good fortune so far to have been the meanest dog in the fight.... WE are enjoying and reaping the rewards today because of that fact. I just think we should be aware of that fact before we go round bragging about what a morally superior people we are. Once we admit the fact that we are no better nor worse than our enemies.... go for it, hittem hard and fast, dont drag them down, KNOCK them down! Winning beats losing everytime.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> We see how well stopping the fighting and the resulting peace worked out  for the people of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (or Kampuchea as the Khmer Rouge called it). And I'm willing to bet if you ask some old Englishmen, Frenchmen, Chinese, Korean, Polishman they would say that fighting the Nazis resulted in peace for them.


It is not the fighting I object to; it's the idea of fighting_ for peace_. Y'know, like the old saying (also from the Vietnam era) that "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Well, no.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and the winners always get to write the history books.... and have a habit of declaring themselves innocent of all wrongdoing. The end justifies the means right? I am well aware of the atrocities our country and our allies committed in order to become the winners. I just dont think any of us should be claiming the moral high ground to justify our actions when we do the very same things our enemies are accused of doing. There is no moral high ground on a battlefield. We as a nation have had the good fortune so far to have been the meanest dog in the fight.... WE are enjoying and reaping the rewards today because of that fact. I just think we should be aware of that fact before we go round bragging about what a morally superior people we are. Once we admit the fact that we are no better nor worse than our enemies.... go for it, hittem hard and fast, dont drag them down, KNOCK them down! Winning beats losing everytime.





willow_girl said:


> It is not the fighting I object to; it's the idea of fighting_ for peace_. Y'know, like the old saying (also from the Vietnam era) that "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Well, no.


Two people, who either don't get it because they don't really understand, or more likely, are like Nevada and are *intentionally* setting out to provide confusion to a very simple concept.

First willow.
We are not "fighting for peace" we never have, we never will.
It's a comical statement that provides laughs but I'm just not in the mood today.........
When I fight, the only peace is at the end when my foe is beaten and bloody, cannot stand anymore, and has learned the valuable lesson to never come near me again.
Then I go back to living in peace.
But then you already knew that..............

YH, you also know that "moral high ground" was not mentioned in talk of war.
War is ugly, it is intentional killing (called murder in many religions) it is never something that should be desired and it should be avoided at all cost BECAUSE of its immorality.
But there are times when someone forces you to either be killed, or you have to kill them to live. It is that simple, it always has been.
But then, you already knew that.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> It is not the fighting I object to; it's the idea of fighting_ for peace_. Y'know, like the old saying (also from the Vietnam era) that "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Well, no.


 One can either fight, or not.

Fighting determines what type of peace you'll have. The Peace of the living?

Or the Peace of the dead?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, killing my mother is probably not the best way to illustrate you point.... but you are obviously not aware of my relationship with my mother... chances are I would give you a pat on the back and buy you a beer for your effort.
> 
> Now on to the rest of your comment... Nope... that is NOT my position. My position is simple.... it appears to be a matter of whose ox is getting gored as to whether or not genocide is an evil or good thing. If its Christians being slaughtered... its evil.... if its Christians doing the slaughtering.... cool beans! Hurray for our side and like that. Genocide is either evil, or it aint.
> 
> Committing genocide in order to prevent genocide is still evil!


Unless you are the type that equates capital punishment with murder, I'm not proposing genocide, only stopping genocide. I'm not advocating killing all muslims or even lots of muslims. We should destroy the American made equipment ISIS has commandeered and we should stop their progress toward the retreating Christians. That is not genocide.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Jolly said:


> A couple of points:
> 
> 
> Bull Halsey echoed a lot of American sentiment when he said, "The only good Jap is a dead Jap".


And to show our stupidity today (the theme of another thread), that great man would have been fired before he had a chance to destroy the Japanese navy if modern PC standards applied then.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

> There is no moral high ground on a battlefield.
> 
> Once we admit the fact that we are no better nor worse than our enemies....


Defending people who are being tortured and slaughtered is absolutely moral high ground. A force that is defending against a group of unrelenting terrorists who slaughter, main, and torture people IS better than that enemy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> We are so accustomed to having so much information and news thrown at us that we end up in a stupor. When we hear of genocide, instead of outrage and action people ingore it or call it a "bad thing". We've become numb.
> 
> Africa is a basket case. The genocide in Darfur has been going on for years but nothing happens. We need a good slap in the face to get our heads where they ought to be. The corpse of a beheaded child is about the strongest image there is. It doesn't matter if its a Christian, or a moslem, or black or white. *If your stomach is not turned, if you do not feel righteous outrage, If you do not have an overwhelming urge to destroy this evil, you have lost all humanity.* Even cattle will herd together to protect their young. Somethings go beyond race or religion or nationality or politics. *There is an evil in this world.* If you will not fight it you will eventually become its victim. There are things that are worthy to fight for, kill for, or die for. If you can't understand that then* you have no soul.*





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Interesting... one group of religious people decide to eliminate another group of people because of their religion.... and the answer to the problem appears to be that, we, "the good guys" should eliminate the first group!?!? Wouldnt that pretty much be the same kind of genocide? I have to wonder which group would then feel justified in eliminating us? :shrug:





farmrbrown said:


> YH, you also know that "moral high ground" was not mentioned in talk of war.
> *War is ugly, it is intentional killing (called murder in many religions) it is never something that should be desired and it should be avoided at all cost BECAUSE of its immorality.*
> But there are times when someone forces you to either be killed, or you have to kill them to live. It is that simple, it always has been.
> But then, you already knew that.


My bad.... the comments I bolded that were posted by JJ just seemed to me to be based on some moral duty. My response to that was just an attempt to clarify the same thing you just said above.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I just think we should be aware of that fact before we go round bragging about what a morally superior people we are. Once we admit the fact that we are no better nor worse than our enemies.... go for it, hittem hard and fast, dont drag them down, KNOCK them down! Winning beats losing everytime.


Again with the moral equivalence. You can cite all the things the US has ever done wrong, all the terrible, brutal, ugly things that happen when we wage war, and it will be a long list. But it will never equate to Japan's rape of Nanking, the Nazi Holocaust, to name only two reasons why we are morally superior to some people. 

I'm skeptical of just about everything the news and gov't tell me, but if the reports of what ISIS is doing to the Qaraqosh people, good people should do what ever is needed to stop bad people.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and the winners always get to write the history books.... and have a habit of declaring themselves innocent of all wrongdoing. The end justifies the means right? I am well aware of the atrocities our country and our allies committed in order to become the winners. I just dont think any of us should be claiming the moral high ground to justify our actions when we do the very same things our enemies are accused of doing. There is no moral high ground on a battlefield. We as a nation have had the good fortune so far to have been the meanest dog in the fight.... WE are enjoying and reaping the rewards today because of that fact. I just think we should be aware of that fact before we go round bragging about what a morally superior people we are. Once we admit the fact that we are no better nor worse than our enemies.... go for it, hittem hard and fast, dont drag them down, KNOCK them down! Winning beats losing everytime.


If you are in a fight for you life are you going to follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules or are you going to bite, hit below the belt and such?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> It is not the fighting I object to; it's the idea of fighting_ for peace_. Y'know, like the old saying (also from the Vietnam era) that "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Well, no.


Ok you are being attacked and someone jumps on your attacker and starts fighting with him and together ya'll subdue him. Did you not get peace through fighting?

I seem to remember we fought a bit to bring peace to Europe and Asia during the 40s.

If we have actually fought for peace in Vietnam, et al, the odds in the decades since we left many more people in SEA would have died of natural causes than by violence.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> Again with the moral equivalence. You can cite all the things the US has ever done wrong, all the terrible, brutal, ugly things that happen when we wage war, and it will be a long list. But it will never equate to Japan's rape of Nanking, the Nazi Holocaust, *to name only two reasons why we are morally superior to some people. *
> 
> I'm skeptical of just about everything the news and gov't tell me, but if the reports of what ISIS is doing to the Qaraqosh people, good people should do what ever is needed to stop bad people.


THAT, right there in bold, is what I said in my previous post had not happened in this thread........now the chastisement will commence.

First I'll give you my version, then the Lord's.

You know what that white stuff is on top of a pile of chicken manure?
That's right, it's chicken , too.
Saying you're the best smelling lump in a pile of manure really ain't something to brag about.






Ecclesiastes 7:20


For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Sorry, YH, I'm on the same page as you on a lot of issues but I'm just can't wrap my head around your logic here. It doesn't matter who has any moral high ground here or if the US or anyone else has committed atrocities in the past. If what I"m seeing on the news and the internet is even 10% true the world has a DUTY to stop this. My question is, why aren't more countries sending military help to eradicate this cancer from our earth? Christians have their own brutal, bloody past but it doesn't mean they can't step in here and protect the innocent now.

Nobody is suggesting that the members of ISIS be captured and tortured like they've been accused of doing to their victims. Just stop them.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> First willow.
> We are not "fighting for peace" we never have, we never will.


Farmerbrown, my comment (in jest) was in response to someone who said



> Committing genocide in order to prevent genocide is still evil!


That sounded, to me, like the old joke that I cited. 

But your comments and others highlights one of the dangers of war: that is, even when it is entered into with the best of intentions -- even when it is a "just war" -- the very circumstances of war inevitably makes monsters of some. Humans are, well, _human_, and some will do terrible things, things they probably never would have done, or even envisioned doing, under ordinary circumstances. War is hell, and Nietzche was wise in warning, "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

There are, of course, times and circumstances that force even good nations into just wars. But we should never take such matters lightly, or expect not to pay a terrible price for war, even if we win.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> But your comments and others highlights one of the dangers of war: that is, even when it is entered into with the best of intentions -- even when it is a "just war" -- the very circumstances of war inevitably makes monsters of some. Humans are, well, _human_, and some will do terrible things, things they probably never would have done, or even envisioned doing, under ordinary circumstances. War is hell, and Nietzche was wise in warning, "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
> 
> There are, of course, times and circumstances that force even good nations into just wars. But we should never take such matters lightly, or expect not to pay a terrible price for war, even if we win.


I like it twice.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby,

The difference is that if we took an Islamic jihadist, gave him a sword, and locked him in a room with you, the result would be that you would convert to their version of Islam or you would be missing your head.

If we did this with a Jew or a Buddhist or any other religion you care to name you would probably come out friends.

The analogy about the weeds is true. We fight them where we find them or they will make their way onto our land and we will have to fight them here.

We have most of the radicals out in the open. This is an incredible opportunity to wipe out most of them and their equipment. All it takes is some gumption. Don't forget, they have declared war on us.

I don't believe the nonsense you have been spouting in this thread. I always thought you were a bit left of most of us but not so far gone that you couldn't be saved.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> If you are in a fight for you life are you going to follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules or are you going to bite, hit below the belt and such?


Whenever I have been boxed into a corner and have had to fight.... there are no rules... Fighting by rules is a sure recipe for losing. Which has little to do with my discussion here... know why your fighting is first and foremost in my mind. Sort out the reasons you are fighting... self defense? defense of loved ones? I can work with those... Moral obligation and duty... maybe, but be very careful... morality is often used as a tool to sway one to do immoral things. Once the decision has been made, fight to win of course.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> Yvonne's hubby,
> The difference is that if we took an Islamic jihadist, gave him a sword, and locked him in a room with you, the result would be that you would convert to their version of Islam or you would be missing your head.


I am not doubting that it may possibly end that way (me missing my head) but that could only be determined after the fight. Your Jihadist friend may very well be dead, as well as yourself shortly after you came in to recover my body. I get a bit testy about having anyone lock me in a room.... with or without the Jihadist. Either way it works out, rest assured that I will not have converted to Islam.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Truckinguy said:


> Sorry, YH, I'm on the same page as you on a lot of issues but I'm just can't wrap my head around your logic here. It doesn't matter who has any moral high ground here or if the US or anyone else has committed atrocities in the past. If what I"m seeing on the news and the internet is even 10% true the world has a DUTY to stop this. *My question is, why aren't more countries sending military help to eradicate this cancer from our earth?* Christians have their own brutal, bloody past but it doesn't mean they can't step in here and protect the innocent now.
> 
> Nobody is suggesting that the members of ISIS be captured and tortured like they've been accused of doing to their victims. Just stop them.


And an excellent question it is! Taking a guess I would say maybe most other countries in the world know better than to step into any fray that doesnt involve them and has been going on for thousands of years. They most likely have better things to do... like making sure their own people are fed, clothed, housed and protected.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> Again with the moral equivalence. You can cite all the things the US has ever done wrong, all the terrible, brutal, ugly things that happen when we wage war, and it will be a long list. But it will never equate to Japan's rape of Nanking, the Nazi Holocaust, to name only two reasons why we are morally superior to some people.
> 
> I'm skeptical of just about everything the news and gov't tell me, but if the reports of what ISIS is doing to the Qaraqosh people, good people should do what ever is needed to stop bad people.


What nation was it that dropped not one but TWO nukes on innocent civilians, killing hundreds of thousands in an instant, leaving hundreds of thousands to die an agonizing death over a period of month? Which nation was it that annihilated the native Americans, via the use of biological weapons, stole their lands? Which nation enslaved millions of Africans? Dont even talk to me about the "moral high ground", war is never about morality.... its always about money or vengence.... and usually money. Morality is the sales pitch, but look a bit deeper and sort out the real motive.... if you still feel that the brutality and suffering is worth the fight.... then as I said before... hit hard, hit fast, winning beats heck out of losing everytime.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

they kill Christians, we kill Muslims. what is the difference? 
What I am wondering, Christians can not get legal asylum in this country. The plight of Christians is ignored, who knows, there may be quite a few around in this country who cheer and condone.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not doubting that it may possibly end that way (me missing my head) but that could only be determined after the fight. Your Jihadist friend may very well be dead, as well as yourself shortly after you came in to recover my body. I get a bit testy about having anyone lock me in a room.... with or without the Jihadist. Either way it works out, rest assured that I will not have converted to Islam.


I don't give a rat's behind who would win. You are trying to deflect the point that you would have to fight or convert when locked in with the Jihadist but could get along with someone of any other religion.

Why don't you get the point that, when a group declares war on you and makes their goal the destruction of your country and the killing of all it's citizens, you don't just sit back and wait for it to happen?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> I don't give a rat's behind who would win. You are trying to deflect the point that you would have to fight or convert when locked in with the Jihadist but could get along with someone of any other religion.
> 
> Why don't you get the point that, when a group declares war on you and makes their goal the destruction of your country and the killing of all it's citizens, you don't just sit back and wait for it to happen?


I havent seen anyone declaring war on me... or my country. If that were to transpire then of course there should be a fight.... without rules... takem out hard and fast. That really isnt the issue here... My point all along has been about the motivation behind why folks are so up in arms and want to.... let me see now... "Kill every last one of them", "they need to be wiped off the planet" etc etc. and appeared to be asserting moral issues as their reasoning. If these folks are indeed an enemy to us, then of course they should be dispatched quickly and without remorse... but not for moral reasons... there are no morals involved in war.... only survival.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

this may be the first time we will have to fight on our homeland in a long time.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I havent seen anyone declaring war on me... or my country. If that were to transpire then of course there should be a fight.... without rules... takem out hard and fast. That really isnt the issue here... My point all along has been about the motivation behind why folks are so up in arms and want to.... let me see now... "Kill every last one of them", "they need to be wiped off the planet" etc etc. and appeared to be asserting moral issues as their reasoning. If these folks are indeed an enemy to us, then of course they should be dispatched quickly and without remorse... but not for moral reasons... there are no morals involved in war.... only survival.


Isis apparently has not declared war on the US but has said the following quote from the article linked below, 

_The Islamic State â which renamed itself from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria â is a breakaway Al Qaeda group that has long called for the destruction of the U.S. Two days ago, a video from the group said it would raise its âflag on the White House,â according to a CNN translation._

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...tate-leader-to-declare-jihad-against-america/

We also know their avowed goal is to kill or convert everyone not of their beliefs and they have been slaughtering the people they capture. 

Sorry you are in denial but their goals and methods seem pretty plain to me and I don't need a formal declaration of war. One article said they will declare war on the US in response to the bombing we are doing. I expect you to honor your statement I highlighted in red and call for their destruction as soon as they do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> Isis apparently has not declared war on the US but has said the following quote from the article linked below,
> 
> _The Islamic State â which renamed itself from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria â is a breakaway Al Qaeda group that has long called for the destruction of the U.S. Two days ago, a video from the group said it would raise its âflag on the White House,â according to a CNN translation._
> 
> ...


Let me know when ISIS raises that flag over the white house... make sure it was ISIS and not Obama though... ok? 

Some here seem to think I am opposed to taking up arms against our enemies.... and that is simply not the case... You seem to have misinterpreted my statements about understanding our motives for fighting with the actual fighting itself. :shrug: dunno what to tell you other than go back and read what I said, not what you think I said.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

My concern is that we're being sold a bill of goods to justify a war that some people obviously want very badly. Let's not pretend that those in Washington are above doing it. We've been lied to time and time again, and have shown our leaders that there's no accountability even if they get caught. Under that circumstance, why WOULDN'T they lie to us?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> My concern is that we're being sold a bill of goods to justify a war that some people obviously want very badly. Let's not pretend that those in Washington are above doing it. We've been lied to time and time again, and have shown our leaders that there's no accountability even if they get caught. Under that circumstance, why WOULDN'T they lie to us?


Another good reason for folks to closely examine their motives before declaring yet another seemingly pointless war.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> But your comments and others highlights one of the dangers of war: that is, even when it is entered into with the best of intentions -- even when it is a "just war" -- the very circumstances of war inevitably makes monsters of some. Humans are, well, _human_, and some will do terrible things, things they probably never would have done, or even envisioned doing, under ordinary circumstances. War is hell, and Nietzche was wise in warning, "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."


I disagree with the old quote about war being Hell. In Hell only the guilty suffer, in war everyone does.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My concern is that we're being sold a bill of goods to justify a war that some people obviously want very badly. Let's not pretend that those in Washington are above doing it. We've been lied to time and time again, and have shown our leaders that there's no accountability even if they get caught. Under that circumstance, why WOULDN'T they lie to us?


The problem is the pols don't have enough guts to fight to the finish. This is one time Obama is correct, this IS Bush's fault. GHW Bush. If he had listened to his military advisers and not his political ones we would have not only removed Iraq as a threat to the world but shown the world when threatened we would use extreme measures to to end the threat. 

But instead he followed the Korea/Vietnam play book. And we all know how well each of those turned out for the nations involved and the world.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> My concern is that we're being sold a bill of goods to justify a war that some people obviously want very badly. Let's not pretend that those in Washington are above doing it. We've been lied to time and time again, and have shown our leaders that there's no accountability even if they get caught. Under that circumstance, why WOULDN'T they lie to us?


while I agree we have to be cautious about being misled - again - I don't agree this is a war people want. You often make sweeping generalizations, how do you justify that one?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> The problem is the pols don't have enough guts to fight to the finish. This is one time Obama is correct, this IS Bush's fault. GHW Bush. If he had listened to his military advisers and not his political ones we would have not only removed Iraq as a threat to the world but shown the world when threatened we would use extreme measures to to end the threat.
> 
> But instead he followed the Korea/Vietnam play book. And we all know how well each of those turned out for the nations involved and the world.


Oh, I dunno about that. GHW hit Iraq pretty hard... enough so that their troops were begging to be captured, and that Saddam was more than willing to accept an unconditional surrender rather than have Swartzkoff advance on up to Baghdad. That sounds a bit more like WW2 than Korea or Nam. Another thing to point out here is that ISIS is not Iraq. It is but one of several factions trying to fill the power void left when Saddam grew that extra inch taller.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I dunno about that. GHW hit Iraq pretty hard... enough so that their troops were begging to be captured, and that Saddam was more than willing to accept an unconditional surrender rather than have Swartzkoff advance on up to Baghdad. That sounds a bit more like WW2 than Korea or Nam. Another thing to point out here is that ISIS is not Iraq. It is but one of several factions trying to fill the power void left when Saddam grew that extra inch taller.


If it was an unconditional surrender, why was Saddam left in power? Why was Saddam left with helicopters so that he could further assault more Iraqi minorities?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

DEKE01 said:


> If it was an unconditional surrender, why was Saddam left in power? Why was Saddam left with helicopters so that he could further assault more Iraqi minorities?


Saddam was left in power because he was able to control the Iraqi people, that would not have left the power void like what happened when he went back on his word and was then ousted. Due to the nature of the situation... it seemed prudent at the time to leave Iraq (Saddam) with some limited means to keep the various factions that comprise that country from creating the very chaos that we are seeing now. Saddam ruled with an iron fist, and was good at keeping his own in line. (torture chambers and public beheadings are handy tools when handling these types) That was never the problem with him.... his problem was stepping over the line and invading a sovereign country... one that the US and other allies had interest in keeping free. I think the name of it was Kuwait or something like that. As long as Saddam was running things in Iraq according to what us and our allies wanted... it was all good. It wasnt until he reneged on the terms of surrender..... which he had NOTHING to do with creating.... that things went kaput. long story short, he surrendered unconditionally to save his own scrawny neck.... the "terms" of his surrender were conditions that the allies placed upon him. They WANTED him to remain in power, and they wanted him to have the tools he needed to maintain stability within Iraq.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Saddam was left in power because he was able to control the Iraqi people, that would not have left the power void like what happened when he went back on his word and was then ousted. Due to the nature of the situation... it seemed prudent at the time to leave Iraq (Saddam) with some limited means to keep the various factions that comprise that country from creating the very chaos that we are seeing now. Saddam ruled with an iron fist, and was good at keeping his own in line. (torture chambers and public beheadings are handy tools when handling these types) That was never the problem with him.... his problem was stepping over the line and invading a sovereign country... one that the US and other allies had interest in keeping free. I think the name of it was Kuwait or something like that. As long as Saddam was running things in Iraq according to what us and our allies wanted... it was all good. It wasnt until he reneged on the terms of surrender..... which he had NOTHING to do with creating.... that things went kaput. long story short, he surrendered unconditionally to save his own scrawny neck.... the "terms" of his surrender were conditions that the allies placed upon him. They WANTED him to remain in power, and they wanted him to have the tools he needed to maintain stability within Iraq.



yeah, I know all that. But it was not an unconditional surrender, or at least it did not remain so for long. Stormin Norman would later say he had been duped (can't remember how) when he had agreed to allow Saddam to use helos.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

(deleted)

Sorry, didn't realize how many pages this thread was and continued reading after posting...


----------



## michael ark (Dec 11, 2013)

This goes back to the old saying don't start no stuff and their wont be no stuff. Cutting peoples throat and bleeding them out in a bucket is starting a whole lot.:shocked:


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Hard for some people to believe it's really that simple, isn't it?:hrm:
> There was quite a bit of genocide going on in that war too, WWII, with both Germany and Japan.
> We didn't negotiate, mediate, or concentrate on winning hearts and minds. After Pearl harbor it was pretty much go for their jugular and don't stop until they are utterly destroyed.
> Savage, but effective.
> ...


This is exactly what the Muslims are saying to justify their actions. I think both are absurdly stupid and such justifications for war are exactly what lead to "World wars" when populations dig in and fight for the last ideological man standing. It's nonsense.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

supernovae said:


> This is exactly what the Muslims are saying to justify their actions. I think both are absurdly stupid and such justifications for war are exactly what lead to "World wars" when populations dig in and fight for the last ideological man standing. It's nonsense.


It's nonsense to you, not to them!


----------



## supernovae (Jul 14, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Another good reason for folks to closely examine their motives before declaring yet another seemingly pointless war.


I'm agreeing with Yvonne's hubby :bouncy:

What is happening in Iraq, Syria and much of the middle east is downright scary, but I don't think US intervention is the solution since much of the issue is a RESULT of our previous interventions. Plus, we don't have trillions laying around to pay for another war..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

supernovae said:


> I'm agreeing with Yvonne's hubby :bouncy:


I am so happy for you! See how good life can be when you get it right? 

Wandering off singing... "Oh Lord its hard to be humble.... when your perfect in every way..." ound:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I dunno about that. GHW hit Iraq pretty hard... enough so that their troops were begging to be captured, and that Saddam was more than willing to accept an unconditional surrender rather than have Swartzkoff advance on up to Baghdad. That sounds a bit more like WW2 than Korea or Nam. Another thing to point out here is that ISIS is not Iraq. It is but one of several factions trying to fill the power void left when Saddam grew that extra inch taller.


You might want to study what happened in 91. Saddam didn't surrender he negotiated a cease fire. BIG difference there.

How well do you think things would have worked out if we had allowed Hitler to do that in 1944?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Personally I'd suggest what I did in the 80s. Sell our old obsolete weapons to both sides. Its a win-win-win for us. We get rid of old stuff laying around, we make money and as long as they are killing each other they aren't going to be killing us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Personally I'd suggest what I did in the 80s. Sell our old obsolete weapons to both sides. Its a win-win-win for us. We get rid of old stuff laying around, we make money and as long as they are killing each other they aren't going to be killing us.


If you really believed that they were bent on attacking the USA I don't think you would suggest arming them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If you really believed that they were bent on attacking the USA I don't think you would suggest arming them.


Ever been stupid enough to try to break up a fight between members of the same family? What usually happens is they all turn on you. Same thing here.

I suggest arming both sides so they can keep killing each other over there. You just make sure you don't sell either side so much that they can win. I still believe if we had done this in the 80s with Iran and Iraq a lot of the problems we are having today would not be.

I don't see them being able to easily haul something like an old M114 howitzer into the US to bombard a city. Ditto with some of the WWII/Korean war era M48 tanks I think we still have around and I'm sure there are plenty of Vietnam era M60 tanks out there we could sell them. But I can see them using such weapon systems to kill quite a few of themselves.

I don't think we should sell them any of the newer stuff because at some point someone will win and at that point we'll probably have to face them. But a M1A2 Abrams vs a M60 Patton or a M114 vs a MLRS is like putting a 12 y.o. in the ring with Ali in his prime. You could call it a fight and the kid might get a shot in but it isn't going to last long and we all know who'd win.


----------

