|
|
On October 27 2012 05:54 Zaqwert wrote:
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.
Which leads me to believe that it might be best that Obama wins, but that Republicans retain Congress (take the Senate). This way when 2016 comes around, we'll have a real conservative or libertarian take the Republican nomination. If Romney wins, then we'll likely have to wait until 2020.
|
On October 27 2012 05:57 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:51 Doublemint wrote: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:
[quote]
Wait am i reading this right?
[quote]
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.
Why do you tell me, this train has left a long time ago and this option is no longer available. What's left is the media spinning it any way they want, and people playing the blame game.
|
On October 27 2012 05:59 Gorsameth 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. 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.
Stop with the liberal cliches already. I'm not arguing for genocide. I'm also not arguing for invasion of the Middle East.
|
On October 27 2012 05:54 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:45 Defacer 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. 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?
What? What the fuck are we arguing about anymore? Sigh.
|
On October 27 2012 05:56 mordek wrote:
Last few pages... wow.
and lol, another letter from the world post haha.
I know, right? These kids come out of nowhere, post their drivel, and then leave without ever coming back. Their posts never have anything to do with the discussion on-hand, it's just the same old "vote for Obama because he's black" nonsense.
|
On October 27 2012 06:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:45 Defacer 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:
[quote]
Wait am i reading this right?
[quote]
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? What? What the fuck are we arguing about anymore? Sigh.
Liberal diarrhea from people who are posting rubbish off the cuff without really understanding what they are responding to.
|
On October 27 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:59 Gorsameth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Stop with the liberal cliches already. I'm not arguing for genocide. I'm also not arguing for invasion of the Middle East.
You wanted to bomb the 'terrorists' attacking the mission/embassy/whatever. Which would create further unrest and cause new terrorist attacks on US target to which you say the in war (which the bombing would cause) you destroy the civilian population. which ... is most of the middle east at that point.
|
On October 27 2012 05:59 Souma 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. 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.
We haven't actually done anything to kill them, because we're always so afraid of looking like "bullies." Seriously, I guarantee you that if we did some of the stuff the North did in the Civil War today, that the liberal media would be up in arms attacking America.
|
On October 27 2012 06:00 KwarK 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. 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.
I can think of three example off the top of my head where total warfare worked (let's stop calling it genocide because that is not what it is). I don't know enough about English-Irish history to say where the English went wrong.
|
i'd like to think we've grown up a bit since the civil war
|
On October 27 2012 06:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:45 Defacer 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:
[quote]
Wait am i reading this right?
[quote]
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? What? What the fuck are we arguing about anymore? Sigh.
I was arguing that such an action could be justified, not that I was personally in favor of it, at least not without exhausting other options first.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 27 2012 06:04 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:59 Souma wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We haven't actually done anything to kill them, because we're always so afraid of looking like "bullies." Seriously, I guarantee you that if we did some of the stuff the North did in the Civil War today, that the liberal media would be up in arms attacking America.
Why the hell are we talking about the Civil War now? And what do you mean we haven't done anything to kill them? How many Al-Qaeda leaders do we have to kill before we're actually "killing them?"
|
On October 27 2012 05:54 Zaqwert wrote:
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.
Wow. Only white people can find a way to be racist again white people. I'm Chinese, and I can't think of anything that would be as rude and insulting as accusing other white people of white guilt.
When it comes to racist stereotyping, white people truly are on a whole other level of innovation.
|
On October 27 2012 06:07 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:04 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 Souma wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We haven't actually done anything to kill them, because we're always so afraid of looking like "bullies." Seriously, I guarantee you that if we did some of the stuff the North did in the Civil War today, that the liberal media would be up in arms attacking America. Why the hell are we talking about the Civil War now? And what do you mean we haven't done anything to kill them? How many Al-Qaeda leaders do we have to kill before we're actually "killing them?"
Politicians are trying to turn our troops into police officers, instead of soldiers.
I was more referring to going in there heavy-handed and cracking down on them, not this "oh we'll just sit here for 20 years and not accomplish anything."
|
On October 27 2012 06:07 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:04 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 Souma wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We haven't actually done anything to kill them, because we're always so afraid of looking like "bullies." Seriously, I guarantee you that if we did some of the stuff the North did in the Civil War today, that the liberal media would be up in arms attacking America. Why the hell are we talking about the Civil War now? And what do you mean we haven't done anything to kill them? How many Al-Qaeda leaders do we have to kill before we're actually "killing them?"
The point is that the Civil War, World War 2, and other examples of modern, total warfare show what is necessary to fully defeat an enemy nation and people. It's not pretty, which is why war should not be entered into lightly. Unless you're prepared to fully commit to what must be done, it will be a losing affair.
|
On October 27 2012 05:57 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:51 Doublemint wrote: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:
[quote]
Wait am i reading this right?
[quote]
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.
Seriously? Are you insane? In what kind of world are you living that gives you the right to go to a foreign country and tell a crowd protesting against something that they have XY minutes to leave before they will be shot?
You have GOT to be joking, because otherwise the USA you want to be would be more in line with China back in 1990 when they rolled tanks over peacefull protesters.
Frankly 90% of the attitude you are faced with in the world is your willingness to send "special forces" somewhere they have no buisness being. You cannot solve terrorism by force of arms, you've been trying for nearly 10 years and so far you've had little success.
|
On October 27 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:02 Defacer wrote:On October 27 2012 05:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:45 Defacer 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:
[quote]
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? What? What the fuck are we arguing about anymore? Sigh.
I was arguing that such an action could be justified, not that I was personally in favor of it, at least not without exhausting other options first.
I don't know. That situation specifically was so dynamic and fluid. One hour, you have angry, rowdy protestors, the next hour guys with bazookas show up. It's a tough call.
For instance, if a foreign government preemptively attacked civilians/protestors, all your doing is helping build the support for terrorism. A local militia would point and say, "First they insult us, and now they're attacking and killing us just for protesting!"
What they needed were more boots on the ground and better Libyan security forces, to react on the fly to a fast-changing situation.
|
I think it's much better to have a really short high-intensity conflict, than it is to have a very long low-intensity conflict.
|
On October 27 2012 06:12 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:57 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:51 Doublemint wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Seriously? Are you insane? In what kind of world are you living that gives you the right to go to a foreign country and tell a crowd protesting against something that they have XY minutes to leave before they will be shot? You have GOT to be joking, because otherwise the USA you want to be would be more in line with China back in 1990 when they rolled tanks over peacefull protesters. Frankly 90% of the attitude you are faced with in the world is your willingness to send "special forces" somewhere they have no buisness being. You cannot solve terrorism by force of arms, you've been trying for nearly 10 years and so far you've had little success.
Arrest (or kill if they don't surrender) any of them that step foot on the consulate's grounds.
Also, where was the Libyan military and/or police during this whole crisis?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 27 2012 06:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:07 Souma wrote:On October 27 2012 06:04 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 Souma wrote: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:
[quote]
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. We haven't actually done anything to kill them, because we're always so afraid of looking like "bullies." Seriously, I guarantee you that if we did some of the stuff the North did in the Civil War today, that the liberal media would be up in arms attacking America. Why the hell are we talking about the Civil War now? And what do you mean we haven't done anything to kill them? How many Al-Qaeda leaders do we have to kill before we're actually "killing them?" The point is that the Civil War, World War 2, and other examples of modern, total warfare show what is necessary to fully defeat an enemy nation and people. It's not pretty, which is why war should not be entered into lightly. Unless you're prepared to fully commit to what must be done, it will be a losing affair.
I'd say that is true when you are fighting an enemy with borders. Terrorists don't have that. If we did end up slaughtering tons of civilians while going after terrorists, we'd just breed more terrorists and at the risk of antagonizing Muslims that have been living within our own borders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
