rvg, some couple of years later?

[rvg]

how is that working out for ye?? not too good I hear.

You hear wrong.

[gaelic cowboy]

You hear wrong.

brilliant so the mid east is at peace them yes??

[rvg]

brilliant so the mid east is at peace them yes??

Don't care. America is relatively secure, that's what matters to me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

The Romans tried that with the Christians, for two hundred years, they tried a lot harder than you Americans are. The Roman Catholics tried with the protestants - hell everybody tried with the Jews for two millennia.

You have, I think, quite possibly said the most ignorant thing in the history of the Backroom - kudos.

[rvg]

The Romans tried that with the Christians, for two hundred years, they tried a lot harder than you Americans are. The Roman Catholics tried with the protestants - hell everybody tried with the Jews for two millennia.

You have, I think, quite possibly said the most ignorant thing in the history of the Backroom - kudos.

Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.

[Kadagar_AV]

Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.

Oh. Them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Don't care. America is relatively secure, that's what matters to me.

This is the reason why America will continue to suffer terrorism or be dragged into quagmires all over the place.

[rvg]

This is the reason why America will continue to suffer terrorism or be dragged into quagmires all over the place.

Then I guess the defense contractors have nothing to worry about. They'll stay in business. That's good news for me.

[Papewaio]

And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine.
...
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

Just remember everyone else both allies and enemies can use that same strategy.

Also historically the nations who did this tended to be empires. Rome and Mongolia had a kill them all approach from time to time. The last country that systematically tortured prisoners and killed them without courts of law with approval from the highest powers was Imperial Japan. They believed that their citizens were worth more then others, they believed they were in the right, they believed that enemy prisoners had no rights, that a soldier who surrended was no longer a soldier to accord human rights to. Their path of total war meant their enemies required total war and surrender.

Japanese prisoners in allied prisons still were treated as POWs. Despite all the things they had done to civilian and military personnel. Japanese still got a day in court.

Now this country that advocated killing people in sufficient numbers it ended very badly for them.

USA probably won't get a nuclear bomb. Instead it's form of MAD will be mutually assured debt. As investors review the stability of the US government from Patriot Act to torture to assassination to bickering over debt ceiling. The consequences are far more likely to be a slipping in the buying power of the US dollar, being pegged down from a AAA rating and private investors choosing safer havens.

And he final example of why it's not a good thing to try and use force to control a nation:
"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

[Papewaio]

And I'm not. The whole point of discussion in this entire thread is about whether or not it's okay to torture and kill really-really bad guys. That's it. And yes, it's A'OK with me. If it's not okay with you, that's just fine.
...
You can. You just need the will to kill sufficient numbers.

Just remember everyone else both allies and enemies can use that same strategy.

Also historically the nations who did this tended to be empires. Rome and Mongolia had a kill them all approach from time to time. The last country that systematically tortured prisoners and killed them without courts of law with approval from the highest powers was Imperial Japan. They believed that their citizens were worth more then others, they believed they were in the right, they believed that enemy prisoners had no rights, that a soldier who surrended was no longer a soldier to accord human rights to. Their path of total war meant their enemies required total war and surrender.

Japanese prisoners in allied prisons still were treated as POWs. Despite all the things they had done to civilian and military personnel. Japanese still got a day in court.

Now this country that advocated killing people in sufficient numbers it ended very badly for them.

USA probably won't get a nuclear bomb. Instead it's form of MAD will be mutually assured debt. As investors review the stability of the US government from Patriot Act to torture to assassination to bickering over debt ceiling. The consequences are far more likely to be a slipping in the buying power of the US dollar, being pegged down from a AAA rating and private investors choosing safer havens.

And the final example of why it's not a good thing to try and use force to control a nation:
"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

[rvg]

"On March 5, 1770 the Twenty-Ninth Regiment came to the relief of the Eighth on duty at the Customs House on King (now State) Street. The soldiers, led by Captain Thomas Preston, were met by a large and taunting crowd of civilians. Captain Preston was unable to disperse the crowd and as they chanted "Fire and be damned" he ordered his troops "Don't Fire!" With all the commotion the soldiers probably did not hear his orders and they opened fire on the crowd killing three men instantly and another two who died later."

Napoleon just used a cannon. Canister shot is a good teacher.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Um...I wasn't advocating extermination of Muslims. Only terrorists.

What, all terrorists?

Everybody capable of conceiving of terror as a weapon?

You'll have to kill everyone.

Or just Muslim terrorists?

Well, then you'll have to kill all the Muslims, and anyone who might be a Muslim, or who can read Arabic.

Errrrr.....

That would include a lot of Jews and Christians too.

Better kill everyone, just to be sure.

As I said, you can't kill an idea.

[rvg]

What, all terrorists?

Everybody capable of conceiving of terror as a weapon?

You'll have to kill everyone.

Or just Muslim terrorists?

Well, then you'll have to kill all the Muslims, and anyone who might be a Muslim, or who can read Arabic.

Errrrr.....

That would include a lot of Jews and Christians too.

Better kill everyone, just to be sure.

As I said, you can't kill an idea.

Sure you can. You just need to pick a specific idea. In this case, it's the idea that you can attack America or our allies and get away with it.
What those bearded guys carry in the deepest recesses of their minds is their business, it doesn't matter to me. They can think whatever they want, as long as they don't dare act.

[Kadagar_AV]

RVG, you don't seem too fond of addressing the larger implications?

Do you want US troopers to be tortured, or handled humanely?

[rvg]

RVG, you don't seem to fond of addressing the larger implications?

Do you want US troopers to be tortured, or handled humanely?

Depends on who's doing the torturing. If it's another nation, they won't do it, since we don't torture POWs. If it's Al Qaeda, they'll do it anyway, regardless of how we treat them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sure you can. You just need to pick a specific idea. In this case, it's the idea that you can attack America or our allies and get away with it.
What those bearded guys carry in the deepest recesses of their minds is their business, it doesn't matter to me. They can think whatever they want, as long as they don't dare act.

And what if there attacking you because of that very idea, neither side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will talk so logically they can only attack.

Depends on who's doing the torturing. If it's another nation, they won't do it, since we don't torture POWs. If it's Al Qaeda, they'll do it anyway, regardless of how we treat them.

What about Hizbullah or Hamas then people talk to them all the time including Israel, waving AQ around in this discussion is like brandishing a voodoo doll.

[rvg]

And what if there attacking you because of that very idea, neither side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will talk so logically they can only attack.

Then you kill them. Just keep killing as they keep attacking. As long as terrorists can't be cloned, this strategy should achieve a certain level of success.

[gaelic cowboy]

Then you kill them. Just keep killing as they keep attacking. As long as terrorists can't be cloned, this strategy should achieve a certain level of success.

Israeli generals might differ with you there, I bet a lot of them acknowledge the need for a political settlement.

[rvg]

What about Hizbullah or Hamas then people talk to them all the time including Israel, waving AQ around in this discussion is like brandishing a voodoo doll.

Fair enough. If Hamas or Hezbollah have their man en route to, say, NYC to detonate a bomb, and we happen to have his accomplice in custody, that accomplice will have to squeal, or he will be made to squeal. Basically, an armed conflict in imho should be limited to men in uniform killing men in uniform. If one side chooses to deliberately target civilians (especially if they are aiming for mass casualties), that debt will be repaid tenfold.

Israeli generals might differ with you there, I bet a lot of them acknowledge the need for a political settlement.

IF the negotiations work. Right?

[gaelic cowboy]

Fair enough. If Hamas or Hezbollah have their man en route to, say, NYC to detonate a bomb, and we happen to have his accomplice in custody, that accomplice will have to squeal, or he will be made to squeal. Basically, an armed conflict in imho should be limited to men in uniform killing men in uniform. If one side chooses to deliberately target civilians (especially if they are aiming for mass casualties), that debt will be repaid tenfold.

But that wont stop there grievance now will it??

IF the negotiations work. Right?

Well if they fail you can always go back to killing them, I don't see how you have anything to lose by talking.

[rvg]

But that wont stop there grievance now will it??

Why wouldn't it? The accomplice squeals, we nab the bomber, tragedy averted.

Well if they fail you can always go back to killing them, I don't see how you have anything to lose by talking.

Sure, and boy have they done their share of talking. Sometimes it worked (like it did with Egypt), sometimes it didn't.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why wouldn't it? The accomplice squeals, we nab the bomber, tragedy averted.

Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.

[Kadagar_AV]

Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.

Brilliant...

[rvg]

Were talking about two differ things now RVG your in a movie and I am talking about ending conflict.

The conflict ends when one side loses its will to fight.

[Kadagar_AV]

The conflict ends when one side loses its will to fight.

I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...

[rvg]

I guess that's why the Afghan war has dragged out for longer than world war I and II combined then...

Yes, you could say that. As long as the will remains, the fight goes on.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, you could say that. As long as the will remains, the fight goes on.

... And damn anyone seeking peace!!

[rvg]

... And damn anyone seeking peace!!

The last peace negotiator got a turban full of kaboom.

[Kadagar_AV]

The last peace negotiator got a turban full of kaboom.

RVG, I must honestly say that what you write here come off as a caricature of everything the rest of the western world see as the very worst traits of US citizens at large. You just happily bundle it up in a neat little package.

I think, and hope, that you are trolling. By now even the most adamant war hawk should have started to pay attention to what pretty much everyone around him is telling.

But what scares me, is that what you write actually might be your true intention, and that You think that all of us are wrong. Do you know many people thinking the way you think?

[rvg]

RVG, I must honestly say that what you write here come off as a caricature of everything the rest of the western world see as the very worst traits of US citizens at large. You just happily bundle it up in a neat little package.

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread: I do not care.

I think, and hope, that you are trolling.

I'm not. I do not troll.

But what scares me, is that what you write actually might be your true intention, and that You think that all of us are wrong.

Hey, if you wish to be scared, go right ahead.