|
|
On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please.
who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century
|
On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:32 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 05:26 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:07 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 04:48 xDaunt wrote:This is why many people consider Obama to be "cold" rather than the warm and fuzzy guy that he/liberals would have us believe: Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”
Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.
“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”
Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”
Woods made clear that he isn't "mad," but that he wants to the "truth" to be told because he feels " abandoned."
Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.
"When I heard, you know, that there's a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don't go rescue them. Because every person in the military--their first response [would be], we're going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command--do not rescue them." Source. Does anyone else find it sad that the father of dead soldier was lied to about what happened and why? Wait am i reading this right? Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack. They wanted to "Carpet" the area? with what. Helicopter fire? Carpet bombing? If thats really what is being discussed there i can only say that the right call was made. Werent there dozens/hundreds of people outside? Causing a massive bloodbath isnt the answer. I have no problem killing hundreds of terrorists that storm our embassy. Statements like this could cause a slight set-back to stabilizing a region already in turmoil, no? Most likely international sanctions and/or condemnation. But I guess that also falls into the "I don't give a rat's ass category"... I usually appreciate the more realistic view of Conservatives, this is not one of those times. You are crazy if you if think that my opinion that military/special forces assets should have been deployed to the Benghazi embassy to stop the attack is a minority opinion. your reasoning that its ok to carpet bomb a mob to save an American life is why a lot of the middle east is so eager to hate your nation. There were no protestors there, that's just Obama's cover-up. Even if they were simply "protestors," they were clearly out of control and out of line, thus becoming terrorists. My god the balls on this guy. No second thoughts, no blinking and no regrets. You are not doing Conservatives any favor, especially in the long run that is. Are you saying people who violate America's national sovereignty, destroy a consulate, and murder four American government officials are not terrorists? Once they step foot illegally on the grounds of the consulate (American territory) and refuse to surrender, they become terrorists; let alone when they start murdering people.
That's probably what you would like me to say since it is shitty argument and is rather far away from my original point. There were hundreds of people demonstrating, not all of them could have been terrorists. Where is their "beyond reasonable doubt" moment?
It's pretty universal - if there is a demonstration(to put it into a first world context) there are people actually angry or not satisfied, and there are stupid idiots that give all of the others a bad rep by behaving destructive and drag the movement down so it does not have any credibility. Are they idiot fucks? - yes, should the others suffer for them as well? - I don't think so.
|
On October 27 2012 05:50 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. Oh, I don't know, maybe some random dudes who would like to set a bomb off in the middle of NYC.
As if they aren't already trying to do this? Did you miss the part where some guy tried to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC?
|
On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century
You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 27 2012 05:51 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:50 Souma wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. Oh, I don't know, maybe some random dudes who would like to set a bomb off in the middle of NYC. As if they aren't already trying to do this? Did you miss the part where some guy tried to blow up the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC?
That was some 20-year-old dude acting by himself and was tracked by the FBI the whole way. If you really wanna piss terrorists off, I have no doubt in my mind they can create havoc throughout the U.S. It's a huge country, and there are a ton of Muslims already living within our borders. It would be impossible to stop.
|
Dear USA,
Please vote for the right man. That man is Obama. Mitt Romney's a liar! His tax plan is too vague. If he get elected, the world will be fucked.
- From the rest of the fucking world (probably except Pakistan).
|
On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare.
right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you
|
On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please.
What exactly is the endgame here? Do we have to murder every last person in the third world just to be sure we'll be safe?
|
On October 27 2012 05:45 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:32 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 05:26 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:07 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 04:48 xDaunt wrote:This is why many people consider Obama to be "cold" rather than the warm and fuzzy guy that he/liberals would have us believe: Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).
“When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that your son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”
Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”
“It just didn’t feel right,” he says of his encounter with the commander in chief. “And now that it’s coming out that apparently the White House situation room was watching our people die in real time, as this was happening,” Woods says, he wants answers on what happened—and why there was no apparent effort to save his son’s life.
“Well, this is what Hillary did,” Woods continues. “She came over and, you know, did the same thing—separately came over and talked with me. I gave her a hug, shook her hand. And she did not appear to be one bit sincere—at all. And you know, she mentioned that the thing about, we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video. That was the first time I had even heard about anything like that.”
Woods continues: “Apparently even the State Department had a live stream and was aware of their calls for help. My son wasn’t even there. He was at a safe house about a mile away. He got the distress call; he heard them crying for help; that’s why he and Glen risked their lives to go that extra mile just to take care of the situation. And I’m sure that wasn’t the only one received that distress call—you know, come save our lives … I’m sure that other people in the military, in the State Department, in the White House, received that same call that he would receive. And I’m sure that most military people would jump at the chance … to protect that life [and] not leave anyone behind.”
Woods made clear that he isn't "mad," but that he wants to the "truth" to be told because he feels " abandoned."
Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack.
"When I heard, you know, that there's a very good chance that the White House as well as other members of the military knew what was going on and obviously someone had to say, don't go rescue them. Because every person in the military--their first response [would be], we're going to go rescue them. We need to find out who it was that gave that command--do not rescue them." Source. Does anyone else find it sad that the father of dead soldier was lied to about what happened and why? Wait am i reading this right? Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack. They wanted to "Carpet" the area? with what. Helicopter fire? Carpet bombing? If thats really what is being discussed there i can only say that the right call was made. Werent there dozens/hundreds of people outside? Causing a massive bloodbath isnt the answer. I have no problem killing hundreds of terrorists that storm our embassy. Statements like this could cause a slight set-back to stabilizing a region already in turmoil, no? Most likely international sanctions and/or condemnation. But I guess that also falls into the "I don't give a rat's ass category"... I usually appreciate the more realistic view of Conservatives, this is not one of those times. You are crazy if you if think that my opinion that military/special forces assets should have been deployed to the Benghazi embassy to stop the attack is a minority opinion. your reasoning that its ok to carpet bomb a mob to save an American life is why a lot of the middle east is so eager to hate your nation. There were no protestors there, that's just Obama's cover-up. Even if they were simply "protestors," they were clearly out of control and out of line, thus becoming terrorists. My god the balls on this guy. No second thoughts, no blinking and no regrets. You are not doing Conservatives any favor, especially in the long run that is. Some people have no fucking clue how mob mentality works. Usually there are a small about of actual criminals, while the rest of the mob is just onlookers an looky-loos. Honestly, carpet-bombing a crowd of random people -- some criminal, some not -- is the most unpatriotic, un-American suggestion I've ever heard. That's the kind of iron-fist military action you expect to see from Iran, or Syria, or Communist China, or North Korea.
Where did I say that I was in favor of carpet-bombing them?
|
On October 27 2012 05:54 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. What exactly is the endgame here? Do we have to murder every last person in the third world just to be sure we'll be safe?
yes, I think that's the logical conclusion
|
Obama is every bit as big a liar, anyone the least bit honest with themselves see that.
Both men are just empty suits trying to get elected.
But since you think Obama is a magic black man he's somehow the right man.
There's really not enough of a difference between the two to worry about who wins. Seeing Obama win will console your white guilt but only temporarily.
|
On October 27 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare. right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you
No, there's a point at which you kill enough of them and do enough damage such that resistance stops. See World War 2. Hell, probably the best example of this is how the US won the Civil War. That's really where modern warfare began, anyway.
|
Last few pages... wow.
and lol, another letter from the world post haha.
|
On October 27 2012 05:51 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:32 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 05:26 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 05:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:07 Doublemint wrote:On October 27 2012 05:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2012 04:48 xDaunt wrote:This is why many people consider Obama to be "cold" rather than the warm and fuzzy guy that he/liberals would have us believe: [quote] Source. Does anyone else find it sad that the father of dead soldier was lied to about what happened and why? Wait am i reading this right? Woods says he was told by military officials that the military could have "come above [the area] and completely carpeted area," and therefore saved the officials in Benghazi, Libya. But that someone gave the command for the American military not to save the lives of the Americans under attack. They wanted to "Carpet" the area? with what. Helicopter fire? Carpet bombing? If thats really what is being discussed there i can only say that the right call was made. Werent there dozens/hundreds of people outside? Causing a massive bloodbath isnt the answer. I have no problem killing hundreds of terrorists that storm our embassy. Statements like this could cause a slight set-back to stabilizing a region already in turmoil, no? Most likely international sanctions and/or condemnation. But I guess that also falls into the "I don't give a rat's ass category"... I usually appreciate the more realistic view of Conservatives, this is not one of those times. You are crazy if you if think that my opinion that military/special forces assets should have been deployed to the Benghazi embassy to stop the attack is a minority opinion. your reasoning that its ok to carpet bomb a mob to save an American life is why a lot of the middle east is so eager to hate your nation. There were no protestors there, that's just Obama's cover-up. Even if they were simply "protestors," they were clearly out of control and out of line, thus becoming terrorists. My god the balls on this guy. No second thoughts, no blinking and no regrets. You are not doing Conservatives any favor, especially in the long run that is. Are you saying people who violate America's national sovereignty, destroy a consulate, and murder four American government officials are not terrorists? Once they step foot illegally on the grounds of the consulate (American territory) and refuse to surrender, they become terrorists; let alone when they start murdering people. That's probably what you would like me to say since it is shitty argument and is rather far away from my original point. There were hundreds of people demonstrating, not all of them could have been terrorists. Where is their "beyond reasonable doubt" moment? It's pretty universal - if there is a demonstration(to put it into a first world context) there are people actually angry or not satisfied, and there are stupid idiots that give all of the others a bad rep by behaving destructive and drag the movement down so it does not have any credibility. Are they idiot fucks? - yes, should the others suffer for them as well? - I don't think so.
So send in special forces and deal with the problem.
As for bombing them or using heavy fire to suppress the crowd, you could always give them a warning first and give the "innocent" people time to leave.
|
On October 27 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare. right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you No, there's a point at which you kill enough of them and do enough damage such that resistance stops. See World War 2. Hell, probably the best example of this is how the US won the Civil War. That's really where modern warfare began, anyway.
Wasn't Vietnam also a prime example of this strategy? I guess if only they had killed some more civilians in Vietnam all would have been fine.
Holy shit, the thought that almost half of the US might share these thoughts on foreign policy is kind of frightening.
|
On October 27 2012 05:53 DarkSpectre wrote:
Dear USA,
Please vote for the right man. That man is Obama. Mitt Romney's a liar! His tax plan is too vague. If he get elected, the world will be fucked.
- From the rest of the fucking world (probably except Pakistan).
Thank you for following the discussion and posting your thoughts regarding the use of force (or lack thereof) in Benghazi.
>Implying Obama isn't a liar.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 27 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare. right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you No, there's a point at which you kill enough of them and do enough damage such that resistance stops. See World War 2. Hell, probably the best example of this is how the US won the Civil War. That's really where modern warfare began, anyway.
Doesn't work like that now. Kill enough of them and you'll see American civilians dropping like flies as well until our losses would just not be worth it, at all.
|
On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare. right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you No, there's a point at which you kill enough of them and do enough damage such that resistance stops. See World War 2. Hell, probably the best example of this is how the US won the Civil War. That's really where modern warfare began, anyway. Wasn't Vietnam also a prime example of this strategy? I guess if only they had killed some more civilians in Vietnam all would have been fine.
No, Vietnam is an example of what happens if you don't follow this strategy.
|
On October 27 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare. right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you No, there's a point at which you kill enough of them and do enough damage such that resistance stops. See World War 2. Hell, probably the best example of this is how the US won the Civil War. That's really where modern warfare began, anyway.
I really think you have to re-read where you taking this conversation XDaunt. While i disagree with a lot of your views you have argued points that i can atleast see the reasoning behind but right now your advocating the genocide of the middle east until they stop fighting (ps. check WW2. There was a lot of resistance around).
When you come to someones home and murder there friends they dont magicly stop hating you once you kill enough of em.
|
United States43505 Posts
On October 27 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:48 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:46 Tula wrote:On October 27 2012 05:39 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:37 sam!zdat wrote:On October 27 2012 05:35 Swazi Spring wrote:consulate (American territory) isn't this a myth? anybody know? Under international law, diplomatic missions are national territory of the country that owns the mission. The consulate itself yes, the area in front of it definitly no. If xDaunts crazy idea of "precision" bombing the protesters in front of the consulate had been done it would have been an act of war. The whole belief that you can scare terrorists by force of arms is so patently ridiculous and disproven that i seriously wonder why people can still spout such bs... Who exactly is going to declare war on us? The puppet government that we are propping up? Please. who cares about governments declaring war? cmon man it's the 21st century You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare. right, and by doing so you generate a whole bunch of other civilian population that kinda dislikes you No, there's a point at which you kill enough of them and do enough damage such that resistance stops. See World War 2. Hell, probably the best example of this is how the US won the Civil War. That's really where modern warfare began, anyway.
This is a very shortsighted point of view. They always come back until you resort to genocide and America doesn't work that way, you're not going to resort to genocide. The UK tried this in Ireland, simply pushing the hostile population to the fringes while seeding the land with friendlies, 400 years later they were still setting off bombs in London and trying to kill our Prime Minister. Sometimes the smart thing to do is trying to diffuse a situation, even if you're morally in the right. Especially when your main goal is to economically exploit the area, you can't do that in a warzone or over a mountain of corpses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
