| Author | Message | ||
     sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14421 Registered: 10-2001  |
Bobk, I continue to be amazed at whatever history books you are using when you give us the facts. The United States declared war on Germany on December 11th, 1941. I am sure that if you do a search you will find that I am correct. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14422 Registered: 10-2001 |
Perhaps you meant that they declared war on us first? (Which they did do). | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5042 Registered: 8-2003 |
I agree with tjohn. Genocide is overrated as a reason to go to war. I mean really.....Bosnia? Kosovo? Rwanda? Iraq? And Kofi want's to put troops in the Sudan now? Pul-leeeze. This is America, after all. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 524 Registered: 2-2004 |
Oh, so if we don't kill insurgents, anti-Americanism will stop. I get it now. You libs sure live in a fantasy world. Haven't they been calling for "jihad" for about the past 30 years or longer? I sure don't remember them saying they like us when we weren't bombing them. I guess I missed that videotape. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4952 Registered: 10-1999  |
"Oh, so if we don't kill insurgents, anti-Americanism will stop."I was under the impression that this latest strike killed children. I guess we have to kill those future insurgents, while they are still children. Thanks for making that clear. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 471 Registered: 2-2003 |
The neocon/Bush policy that the US can bomb any place in the world for whatever reason we choose does not play well in the rest of the world. This is not a policy to fight terrorism, but a policy to encourage terrorism and to turn the world against us. Did I miss something, or am I correct to say that the President has not issued an apology to the families of the victims? This bombing is a very big deal, and it may have major consequences for US geopolitical interests:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/95804914-8634-11da-bee0-0000779e2340.html | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10290 Registered: 5-2001 |
S, here is the document from FDR. We declared war after they declared war, which is basically pro forma and a diplomatic nicety and required under intertnational law. It would be interesting to speculate if and when we would have entered the European war if Germany hadn't declared war on us. There was still a lot of resistance from many of the "American Firsters". http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html I admit to sloppy posting. | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 83 Registered: 12-2005 |
"I guess we have to kill those future insurgents, while they are still children." The terrorist was invited to dine at the home of these lovely people. Unknown to them, their guest was one of the most sought after terrorists in th world. The innocent children were placed in dangers path by well knowing individuals who you would think mean us no harm. However, in War, the target will be taken out despite all kinds of circumstances. And this is a war your soldiers are fighting in a way and time far different from any before. There will be many more. No one can defend the act- but if there is a crop of future militants being grown with the sole intent of killing my American born children, your comment might not be far from a warped reality. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2994 Registered: 3-2004 |
Acts like this make just such a "crop." Alberto, you have the mentality of a slave-driver. Hell with the humanity, get those slaves working in your cotton fields. And, excuse me, but what evidence do you have that Zawahiri was invited to and planned to attend a children's village birthday party? The same type of evidence that swore there were WMDs? You have a flimsy case, my friend. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5580 Registered: 12-2001  |
Alberto, for such an affirmed Christian (see nativity thread) you are writing some incredibly anti-Christian stuff here. Makes me wonder. And to show the absurdity of your argument, then the terrorists could target day care centers the world over to prevent those children from becoming soldiers in the war on terror and justify it that way?? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5045 Registered: 8-2003 |
The intelligence behind this operation came from Pakistan intelligence, per the wires. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 2996 Registered: 3-2004 |
So, did the CIA check it out? Does anyone in the CIA speak the languages "on the ground?" Is this "trust and verify" without the "verify?" Could someone say, "You know, the US had something to do with this bombing, and we are truly sorry about the deaths and maiming of innocent women and children." | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3006 Registered: 3-2004 |
McCain's excuses for this attack, "Gee, we're really sorry, but we had to do it, 'cause these guys are really bad..." I have lost my respect for this man. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5055 Registered: 8-2003 |
tulip, I sense you'd be against his strike even if Zawahiri was among the dead because there were innocents in the room. If it's good -- you're for it. And if it's a miss --you're not. Unfortunately, war doesnt work that way. I think on a general level, there isn't an understandable or legitimate war for you, at least one this country engages in. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3008 Registered: 3-2004 |
That's an understatement. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 347 Registered: 10-2005 |
Paul: I didn't know Bush had to go by your timetable to issue an apology. And Bush isn't the only one that follows the policv of bombing anywhere in the world at will. It appears the terrorists picked up on that trick too... I can't remember, did Zawahiri issue an apology for 9/11 and the countless other terrorists attacks he was involved in? It is funny how the left holds the terrorists to much lower standards. -SLK | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 153 Registered: 5-2005  |
Nice to see scrottyboy equates the US with terrorists. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3956 Registered: 12-2001  |
Scrotus, We didn't adopt German and Japanese standards in WW II. I see no reason to adopt the standards of terrorists. When we launch a missile that is surely going to result in collateral damage, we had better be sure we are hitting an important target. P.S. I think that it is only collateral damage when somebody's child on the other side of the world in some poor mountain village is killed. I am sure there is another term to be used if it is your own child. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 722 Registered: 10-2004  |
First and foremost there is no such thing as a war on terror. We were attacked by criminals. These criminals are still loose in the world. We should not be killing innocent people in our pursuit of criminals. If the intelligence was there that Z was to be at someones home on a certain day then the Pakistani government should have sent in their forces and made an arrest. Bombing someones party doesnt make any sense whatsoever. It only creates more hatred of the United States. We know who the criminals are that attacked us on 911 and we know the organization. We should stop f-ing around in Iraq, nation building, get back to hunting for the prime targets. Then once these targets are identified they should be brought to justice, not buried under a house with dozens of innocent people. War on terror = war on drugs = war on poverty. Its not a real war. The war in Iraq was a real war except that now it is a real occupation. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 473 Registered: 2-2003 |
Scrotis, When I saw your post I started to respond by asking whether you thought President Bush should be held to a higher moral standard than Zawahiri. But after thinking about it, I decided that in fairness, perhaps your post was an aberration, and that you'd like to retract it and try another tack. Am I right? | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 858 Registered: 9-2004 |
SO were the DNA tests finished? We didnt kill the guy- right-- he wasnt there-- Good Intel-- Like the Intel on Katrina-- Or WMDs- or the Aug PDB. Please NO LIBS say anything about Wag the Dog. Just keep U R trap shut. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 530 Registered: 2-2004 |
Paul, I respect your position. Why can't you respect those who disagree with you? As I often say, the way to settle political debates is to be the one in the position to set policy, period. Debating on a theoretical level is fun to do, but in the end it means nothing. Perhaps, you should put more energy into getting liberals into office instead of belittling posters on MOL. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 475 Registered: 2-2003 |
Southerner, Why is it disrespectful or theoretical or belittling to give a poster a chance to retract a statement that was probably not intended? | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1428 Registered: 8-2004  |
The Bush Admin was right to keep quiet until the facts are known. Pakistan officials have now confirmed that 4 foreign fighters ( Al Qaida) were killed in attack and that 10-12 were invited for dinner. Note to parents. If you invite Al Qaida officials to your house for dinner, you put your family at risk. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5595 Registered: 12-2001 |
Note To Hawks: If you go around the country bombing places back to the stone age, be ready for a whole new crop of anti-American sentiment the world over. Note To Doves: There are high probability targets that need to be taken out in an effort to stem the tide of terrorists. Note to Rational Thinkers: the two seem to be mutually exclusive. On a personal vindictive level I hope they killed the SOB | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 724 Registered: 10-2004 |
If seems to me that if a guy is going to dinner at someones house there is no need to bomb the house - something like Ruby Ridge - but just have the authorities there to arrest them. Innocents protected, bad guys caught, case closed. No need to bomb. If Pakistan is really an ally then that could have been done. Since Pakistan is a military dictatorship then that could have been done. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 476 Registered: 2-2003 |
Assuming that 4 terrorists were killed -- and that's a BIG assumption -- at least 50 revenge-seeking friends and family will be recruited as active terrorists as a result | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1429 Registered: 8-2004 |
Paul I keep forgetting that we are making terrorists. If we only minded our own business like in the 1990's then they wouldn't attack us. So it is an assumption that we killed them, but a fact that we created more. Got it. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5056 Registered: 8-2003 |
Paul -- do you think that when Al Qada blows up civilians, that he is recruiting them against Al Qada? The insurgents as well? And that by doing so, they're creating more free-Iraq loving people that they'll never be able to completely defeat? Or does this argument only apply in one direction? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10309 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the people at the "dinner party" were already terrorists or closely aligned with terrorits. Bombs don't discrimate by age, nor does, for that matter, an infantry assault. I suspect (and admit this is a guess)that if Z-man was there he had plenty of armed security nearby which may be evidenced by the "fact" that known terrorists were killed in the bombing. As I pointed out an attempt to catch the Evil Doctor previously was very bloody for the Pakistan Army. I think the responsibility for the death of women and children rests with the people who organized the meeting. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 729 Registered: 10-2004 |
No, BobK, I must disagree with you. If Pakistan has a problem with Al Qaeda then Pakistan should make the moves to eradicate the problem. They have planes and bombs as well. The issue is that there was intelligence that the party would have some high ranking Al Qaeda members there. That does not automatically mean that the women and children, aunts, uncles, cousins, caterers, helpers, innocent bystanders there were guilty nor should they have been targeted for death. By what right does the United States kill indiscriminately because there might be a terrorist around. Its not right. It wasnt good policy for Clinton and its not good policy for Bush. If the attempt to catch Dr Evil was very bloody for the Pakistanis then they know what they are dealing with and should make appropriate plans to catch him on a less bloody basis. Killing innocents is not an option that America should abide. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10311 Registered: 5-2001 |
Hoops, A couple of comments: The policy you advocate makes virtually every terrorist immune from being killed or captured as long as they hide behind women and children. That ain't going to work. An infantry asauult is only marginally more selective than a missle attack. If a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer invites someone like Dr. Z to supper he is putting his family at risk. It is up to him to protect them from possible military action. Women, children and "innocent" bystanders weren't targeted for death. The second most important terrorist in the world was targeted. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 477 Registered: 2-2003 |
cjc: Yes, when Al Qaeda attacks civilians they lose support. 911 generated enormous support for us and antipathy towards Al Qaeda throughout the world, including the Muslim world than support. We've squandered most of that support by our bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq. Al Qaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq have generated considerable antipathy among all sectors, including the insurgents (the Bush administration admits that most of the insurgents are not terrorists). We don't hurt terrorists by bombing countries or bombing "suspected" homes where women and children are clearly present. We serve the terrorists interests when we do this. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 731 Registered: 10-2004 |
I disagree. If they hold the women and children hostage then that is a hostage situation and the resulting police work will either have them captured and released or all killed but that would be the criminals doing. If they are not held hostage then the criminal is simply caught. I am sure that if they had real intelligence that a killer was going to go somewhere then an ambush could have been planned outside of the home. If a known criminal is a relative to someone and shows up on your block at someones party and the authorities decide to blow up your neighbors house, I dont know but I think your response would be different. Points of view being what they are, I am sure the people of that region in the world do not consider them terrorists. You and I do but they do not. That still does not make them fair game for extermination. I find that whole line of thinking and action to be reprehensible and immoral. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10312 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think that you are mixing police work with military action. The two aren't the same, although quite a few years ago the Philadelphia PD caught holy hell for bombing a house where some miltants were holed up, with women and children and the same can be said about Waco. Paul, good point. The dead and mangled were seen on Al Jazerra and nobody explained the concept of collateral damage, even though it wouldn't have done any good. Still, I don't think we can handle this as a police action. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 732 Registered: 10-2004 |
But BobK that is my point. Terrorists are criminals. They kill innocent people to achieve their own ends not a nations. Their behavior is criminal and therefore should be covered under criminal statutes. There is no war on terror because terror is an emotion. A terrorist - a person who commits an evil deed in order to scare people and undermine the government is still only a criminal. The fact that there is a criminal organization like Al Qaeda is of no greater significance then there is a criminal organization like the Mafia. It take police work to undermine it. It cannot be done primarily by the military. At some finite point the military is not the correct force to use when trying to apprehend these guys. When 9/11 happened, the military was the correct force since it was known that the government of Afghanistan (the taliban) was protecting them. The question is why didnt that full assault yield the results we expected? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5060 Registered: 8-2003 |
Terrorists are merely criminals, and they have no national or international ambitions or goals? Zaqawi has no designs other than to get in on some illegal action to keep his 'thing' going, and stuff along the lines of an international caliphate is just sizzle? I couldn't disagree more. I agree there will be a point where massive military action won't be the best way to combat international terrorism, but we're not there yet. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 733 Registered: 10-2004 |
Why, because they arent bombing your block? If we know who it is that is responsible it is a police action to round them up and punish them. There is no need to punish innocents civilians. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5061 Registered: 8-2003 |
Round them up and don't hurt civilians. You're amazing, Hoopster. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 348 Registered: 10-2005 |
Paul- Thank you for allowing me to ellaborate. I am not equating Bush's actions with terrorists. I am just tired of the left wing being selective and having double standards with their "moral outrages." That is all I have to say about that... -SLK |
