[Winstonm]

See, you guys and ladies are coming around to my point of view. If you want a few hundred terrorsts whacked, don't send the army - send Jimmy the Rat and Pete the Nose with an offer they can't refuse.....

[helene_t]

Jimmy, you didn't answer Richard's question - who should the U.S. army attack, in your opinion?

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Aug 1 2006, 01:18 AM, said:

Jimmy, you didn't answer Richard's question - who should the U.S. army attack, in your opinion?

sorry helene, i thought i did.. or at least i meant to when i wrote, "in a war, you kill those who attack your soldiers and/or those who aid and abet the attackers... it's simple but only IF you're in a war..."

as an example, look at israel in lebanon... and even they don't seem fully committed to this 'i'm in a war, let me win it as quickly as possible' philosophy... when civilians die in a war, it's my view that the side that started the conflict is to blame... iraq had a peaceful election, poll after poll shows that its citizens want peace and want democracy, yet some have decided not to allow it... those few are known, their location is known, their supporters are known, yet fear of negative international press prevents the usa from actually carrying the fight to them

this is my opinion from the perspective of a country at war

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jul 31 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jul 31 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

Hmmmmn, were not the original "Minute Men" patriots and heroes?  Weren't they hiding in residential areas and fighting a "geurrila" style war against a "mighty" opponent?

yes they were, and yes they did... and yes, the british waged war the way it should be waged (assuming one is in a war)... they lost the war, but it wasn't because they were attempting 'surgical strikes' or avoiding military targets hiding behind women and children... my point is, if you're gonna lose a war then lose a *war*

Quote

Eventually the victor determines the heroes.

yes, and writes the history and decides morality... might makes right, after all

Quote

No amount of washing, however, can remove the bloodstains from the tapestry of history. Not a theocracy, just humanity

actually, no... humanity can be defined by the portrait it paints with blood... to expect more is to be deluded... even when zefram cochrane, who is due to be born in 20 years or so, finally invents the warp engine i doubt it will have any effect on humanity's bloodthirstiness... we'll just expand the boundaries... heads up, klingons

Sadly, a mindset that results in a maintenance of the status quo.


I believe the term should then be "inhumanity" reflecting the powerful yet unfortunate aspects of our nature.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 1 2006, 08:08 AM, said:

Sadly, a mindset that results in a maintenance of the status quo.

al, the only mindset i have concerning man's inhumanity to man comes from the lessons of history, and from the fact that man has in him a sin nature... in this world we only have the way things should be and the way things are... man is what he is, and no amount of wishing he was something else will make it so

we, most of us, can envision a better way... but none of us can envision *how* to make a better way - not without either destroying man's ability to freely choose or replacing one set of evil deeds with another

[jtfanclub]

In order to win a war, or declare it unwinnable, you first need to define what winning is.

So, what does it mean for the U.S. to win?