|
|
United States41957 Posts
On October 27 2012 06:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:00 KwarK 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. 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.
Okay. Here is a history lesson which may be relevant.
In the 17th Century Ireland tried to break away from English rule during the English civil war. Following Parliamentary victory the English leader led an army over to Ireland to subdue the rebels who he viewed as traitors/separatists/Catholic threats. Some cities, notably Drogheda, refused to surrender and were besieged. Under the conventional rules of war if a city refuses to surrender then you can give them an ultimatum, surrender or face massacre when it eventually falls. The point of this is firstly to punish the defenders and secondly to incentivise them, and every other city should you go through with it, to surrender in order to avoid pointless losses of soldiers' lives.
Drogheda did not surrender and when it was finally taken there was a massacre of the population. These people were defending the city walls or, through their failure to actively oppose those who were, consenting to the defence. Those defenders were actively killing English soldiers. Furthermore English soldiers would have died in future sieges and merciful treatment would have encouraged other cities to hold out, the massacre was entirely legal by the rules of war and by the morality of the time, the victims were traitors who took up arms against England.
But as legal as it was and as justified as it was, their descendents didn't forget it and still haven't. While nobody in England at the time lost any sleep over the death of people killing English soldiers while rebelling against England the Irish took a rather different view on the entire affair. Given that they were the victims of ethnic cleansing who were trying to push a foreign power out of interfering with their country, exploiting their wealth and challenging their religion they thought the armed resistance was justified and the dead were martyrs to English brutality.
I'm not suggesting you cannot justify gunning down a mob storming an American consulate. I'm not saying it might not work to quell opposition in the short term. I'm not even suggesting it would be morally wrong. I'm pointing out that when people are still setting off bombs 300 years later you might ask yourself it it wouldn't have been easier to just back off to a safehouse for a few days and let it blow over. That was the decision Obama took.
|
On October 27 2012 05:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:30 BlueBird. wrote:On October 27 2012 05:23 xDaunt 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. If there was the ability to deploy Special Force then yes i agree that would be an appropriate response. But there more like a surgical scalpel then the sledgehammer of bombs. Ps. 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. Then so be it. Rational foreign policy has no time for this kind of nonsense. Terrorists should be killed. Period. xDaunt you sound like some of my family members in Kentucky, it's insane. Try Arkansas. Now let me address the rest of your liberal cliches. No need, and that would be counterproductive. Ask Obama why didn't do it. He's rather hesitant to tell us. Show nested quote +I thought you were all hip on the foreign policy, come on man, your smart enough to know that their were a large number of civilians in the area, this idea that we should have just bombed our way out of this situation is ridiculous.
There are situations where bombs are effective, they are not in crowded urban areas where there is a high number of innocents, and we have some of our own in the vicinity. I can figure this out without having any military experience, so come on.. I have friends and family that have served and they don't use air support like that lightly. Go read up on our military capability. We didn't have to carpet bomb all of Benghazi. We very easily could have laid down discrete, precise fire on the consulate with any number of weapons systems ranging from AC130 gunships to fixed-wing aircraft to attack helicopters. We also could have deployed special operations forces right in the consulate. We have special teams posted all over the world to deal with precisely this type of situation, and for whatever reason, the administration made the decision to hold these forces back.
I'm all for using special operations or a small ground force, I understand the administration held these things back, or were not informed in time.
This is not what you called for xDaunt, go read your post
".. 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."
"I have no problem killing hundreds of terrorists that storm our embassy."
This isn't my liberal cliche speaking, this is what you JUST SAID. I'm not making this shit up, you literally just said this ^^^^. The thing is, that some of those "storming" our embassy(consulate) weren't terrorists. There were innocents in this area. A carpet bombing of the area would not have been an effective course of action for the United States. That's what I'm talking about, a carpet bombing.? We have killed enough fucking civilians in our wars thank you.
You really truly believe there were HUNDREDS of terrorists that hung out at this embassy? Hundreds of terrorists? There were no innocents ? Zero?
Oh what is our reasoning for our actions when we kill all these people? We want you to fear us. Fear Us. Such kind words, what a way to make friends.
|
On October 27 2012 06:16 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:12 Tula wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
That's a better question.
The truth is the attack on the consulate was a result of multiple security failures. There's tons of blame to go around in hindsight. The Libyan military/police proved incapable of managing or control hooligans or protestors, creating an opportunity for extremists to exploit. And the US didn't have enough of their own security on the ground, and should have probably pulled their ambassador out of unstable Benghazi weeks or months before.
|
On October 27 2012 06:13 Swazi Spring wrote:
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.
Great in theory, impossible in practice.
Short high-intensity conflict against whom? Where is the country you can attack to stop "terrorism" or to "wage war on terror"? Iraq? That has been shown had nothing to do with any acts of terror and embroiled you in a shitstorm (that being that it seems fairly impossible to sort out the situation there into a proper state without spending another 30 years there).
Afghanistan? Maybe, and it seems you won that war fairly convincingly. Sadly it seems that didn't do much either, does it? You still have weekly terrorist attacks by Taliban elements there.
Frankly whatever pipedream you have you cannot fight terrorists with military force. They are not an army in the classic sense you can meet on the field and beat. You could try "total war" as xDaunt proposes, but chances are you'd end up with a nuke or 3 exploding in your homecountry if you do so. Once you up the ante to that level the other side won't hesitate either. Contrary to what he believes WWII total war was not successfull. It might have supressed the civilian population, but resistance remained.
|
On October 27 2012 06:16 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:12 Tula wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
I am not sure what you expect or which unrealistic standards you are setting for a country like Lybia.
Maybe read this first and then come back:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/libya-anniversary-idUSL5E8LL2F920121022
|
On October 27 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer 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. 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.
America would start losing allies pretty fast if we adopted a policy of genocide. There are examples of mass killing working such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, but those weren't even regular wars so much as long, drawn-out bloodbaths. Not everyone wants to live in a hellish world of endless death.
|
Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious:
Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups.
Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent.
|
On October 27 2012 06:23 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer 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. 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. America would start losing allies pretty fast if we adopted a policy of genocide. There are examples of mass killing working such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, but those weren't even regular wars so much as long, drawn-out bloodbaths. Not everyone wants to live in a hellish world of endless death.
It took me a while but I think xDaunt does not want to pursue this strategy. The posts above are probably meant to stand for themselves as answers directly to the posts before and not really connected to the context of middle east. If I'm right he does a pretty poor job in explaining the misunderstanding, I wonder if this kind of posting is fun for him.
|
On October 27 2012 06:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious: Show nested quote +Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent.
Libyan gun culture makes American gun culture look stodgy and prude. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
|
On October 27 2012 06:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious: Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent. Libyan gun culture makes American gun culture look stodgy and prude. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Such a compelling argument.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
We'll say we're 10 days away. New poll time!
Poll: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote?President Barack Obama (484) 58% Governor Mitt Romney (190) 23% Third Party Candidate (96) 12% I do not plan to vote (59) 7% 829 total votes Your vote: 10 Days Out: Americans, who has your vote? (Vote): President Barack Obama
(Vote): Governor Mitt Romney
(Vote): Third Party Candidate
(Vote): I do not plan to vote
Poll: Have you been persuaded to change your vote in this election?No, I have never changed my mind about my vote. (135) 64% Yes, to a third party (26) 12% Yes, to Romney (23) 11% Yes, to Obama (14) 7% I've been persuaded to stay home and not vote (14) 7% 212 total votes Your vote: Have you been persuaded to change your vote in this election? (Vote): Yes, to Obama
(Vote): Yes, to Romney
(Vote): Yes, to a third party
(Vote): No, I have never changed my mind about my vote.
(Vote): I've been persuaded to stay home and not vote
Poll: Who has run the better campaign?Obama (Obama for America) (115) 72% Romney (Romney for President) (37) 23% Tie. (7) 4% 159 total votes Your vote: Who has run the better campaign? (Vote): Obama (Obama for America)
(Vote): Romney (Romney for President)
(Vote): Tie.
Poll: Which candidate has been more truthful?Obama (133) 67% Equally truthful/untruthful (36) 18% Romney (29) 15% 198 total votes Your vote: Which candidate has been more truthful? (Vote): Obama
(Vote): Romney
(Vote): Equally truthful/untruthful
Poll: Which candidate most shares your concerns?Obama (110) 61% Romney (42) 23% Both/Neither (29) 16% 181 total votes Your vote: Which candidate most shares your concerns? (Vote): Obama
(Vote): Romney
(Vote): Both/Neither
Poll: Rest of the World: How do you view the American political process?A popularity contest masquerading as a serious process. (192) 49% THIS is the world's only superpower? We're all doomed. (118) 30% None of these statements comes close to expressing my view. (36) 9% Plenty of countries do it better, but at least it's the will of the people. (25) 6% Has some flaws, but is overall fair, serious, and engaging. (19) 5% Impressive! A model for the rest of the world! (5) 1% 395 total votes Your vote: Rest of the World: How do you view the American political process? (Vote): Impressive! A model for the rest of the world!
(Vote): Has some flaws, but is overall fair, serious, and engaging.
(Vote): Plenty of countries do it better, but at least it's the will of the people.
(Vote): A popularity contest masquerading as a serious process.
(Vote): THIS is the world's only superpower? We're all doomed.
(Vote): None of these statements comes close to expressing my view.
|
On October 27 2012 06:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious: Show nested quote +Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent.
While there is a difference between handgun rights and buying an AK on every street corner, I agree that its a strange choice of words.
|
On October 27 2012 06:33 tree.hugger wrote:
I'm counting this as 10 days to go. New poll up!
If only the votes could be limited to just Americans :p
I foresee a giant win for Obama because people from across the globe voting.
|
On October 27 2012 06:30 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:23 HunterX11 wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer 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. 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. America would start losing allies pretty fast if we adopted a policy of genocide. There are examples of mass killing working such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, but those weren't even regular wars so much as long, drawn-out bloodbaths. Not everyone wants to live in a hellish world of endless death. It took me a while but I think xDaunt does not want to pursue this strategy. The posts above are probably meant to stand for themselves as answers directly to the posts before and not really connected to the context of middle east. If I'm right he does a pretty poor job in explaining the misunderstanding, I wonder if this kind of posting is fun for him.
When he is posting things like "Those people are so prone to being batshit crazy and hostile towards us that it doesn't matter. I'd rather put the fear of Allah in them to discourage them from taking up arms against us in the first place."
and "You do have a point here, which is why destruction of the civilian population is generally a prerequisite to victory in modern warfare."
Then he clearly is either misleading us with his posts, or is not that informed on foreign policy and the situation in the Middle East, "these people" I'm assuming he's referring too Arabs as potential terrorists., xDaunt, you totally miss the pro America protests in Libya? . Either way, I have lost all respect that I had for him as a poster, not that he cares.
|
On October 27 2012 06:30 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:23 HunterX11 wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer 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. 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. America would start losing allies pretty fast if we adopted a policy of genocide. There are examples of mass killing working such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, but those weren't even regular wars so much as long, drawn-out bloodbaths. Not everyone wants to live in a hellish world of endless death. It took me a while but I think xDaunt does not want to pursue this strategy. The posts above are probably meant to stand for themselves as answers directly to the posts before and not really connected to the context of middle east. If I'm right he does a pretty poor job in explaining the misunderstanding, I wonder if this kind of posting is fun for him.
I have minimal patience for responding to people who aren't really interested in what I am actually saying. Too many people would rather create and respond to their own misconceptions of my posts. Just look at all this bullshit flying around about genocide.
|
On October 27 2012 06:32 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:31 farvacola wrote:On October 27 2012 06:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious: Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent. Libyan gun culture makes American gun culture look stodgy and prude. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Such a compelling argument.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 27 2012 06:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious: Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent. While there is a difference between handgun rights and buying an AK on every street corner, I agree that its a strange choice of words.
Just because people have the right to buy an AK-47 "on every street corner" doesn't make them violent either. Guns don't make people violent, no matter what kind of gun it is.
|
On October 27 2012 06:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:30 silynxer wrote:On October 27 2012 06:23 HunterX11 wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer 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:
[quote]
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. America would start losing allies pretty fast if we adopted a policy of genocide. There are examples of mass killing working such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, but those weren't even regular wars so much as long, drawn-out bloodbaths. Not everyone wants to live in a hellish world of endless death. It took me a while but I think xDaunt does not want to pursue this strategy. The posts above are probably meant to stand for themselves as answers directly to the posts before and not really connected to the context of middle east. If I'm right he does a pretty poor job in explaining the misunderstanding, I wonder if this kind of posting is fun for him. I have minimal patience for responding to people who aren't really interested in what I am actually saying. Too many people would rather create and respond to their own misconceptions of my posts. Just look at all this bullshit flying around about genocide.
Vietnam persevered against U.S. intervention despite losing a significant portion of its population. If we had simply kept killing until they submitted, then in all likelihood it would be labelled genocide by the amount of the Vietnamese we would have had to have killed.
|
On October 27 2012 06:29 Swazi Spring wrote:Unrelated, but I simply must point this out. Again the liberal media makes their bias obvious: Show nested quote +Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. Hence the phrase "gun culture," as if having a culture that respects guns and gun rights makes you violent.
I would never have thought about the phrase "gun culture" carrying a liberal slant in general. I just see it as a way to describe how a populaton treat guns. In this context it is used as a derogative because Libya is in almost anarchy, but in general it seems like a very thin annotation to justify a label as politically biased.
|
On October 27 2012 06:40 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2012 06:37 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 06:30 silynxer wrote:On October 27 2012 06:23 HunterX11 wrote:On October 27 2012 05:59 xDaunt wrote:On October 27 2012 05:57 silynxer 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:
[quote]
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. America would start losing allies pretty fast if we adopted a policy of genocide. There are examples of mass killing working such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka, but those weren't even regular wars so much as long, drawn-out bloodbaths. Not everyone wants to live in a hellish world of endless death. It took me a while but I think xDaunt does not want to pursue this strategy. The posts above are probably meant to stand for themselves as answers directly to the posts before and not really connected to the context of middle east. If I'm right he does a pretty poor job in explaining the misunderstanding, I wonder if this kind of posting is fun for him. I have minimal patience for responding to people who aren't really interested in what I am actually saying. Too many people would rather create and respond to their own misconceptions of my posts. Just look at all this bullshit flying around about genocide. Vietnam persevered against U.S. intervention despite losing a significant portion of its population. If we had simply kept killing until they submitted, then in all likelihood it would be labelled genocide by the amount of the Vietnamese we would have had to have killed.
Even then, we really restrained ourselves. LBJ refused to use tactical nukes and he signed treaties that said we couldn't invade the North, which pretty much guaranteed that the war would go on indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/gp3_small_article/libya_ap_634494716761756314_main.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/07/12/libya-is-still-riven-by-violence-as-loyalists-and-rebels-alike-keep-killing/_jcr_content/body/inlineimage.img.503.jpg/1342128285593.cached.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles/Assets/Richmedia/Image/SaxoPress/AD20120430824181-One_reader_retu.jpg)
