Mccain wins 2008 presidental election!Follow

You assume that this is a sure thing. I haven't read anywhere about any plans made by Obama to launch attacks inside Pakistan to attack Al-Qaida. If it happens, and it's done like this recent attack in Syria, without working with the government of said country, I'll gladly denounce it.




Not with Syria. At least not yet.



I love how America thinks that what other countries do is their business. Also, you can't technically be at war with an organisation. A country? yes. A band of rebels within one's own country? of course. An organisation that runs out of several countries? Not really.



And you think that launching attacks on random countries because a member of Al-Qaida might be there is an acceptable course of action? Holy ****, what kind of BS are they feeding you yanks?



Yes, it is a difference. Announcing it to the world would likely mean either a declaration of war against said country or a joint operation in co-operation with the forces of said country. That is how a war is waged, you don't just walk into the territory of other countries and start shooting.



If it wasn't almost 4 in the morning, I'm sure I could find many articles about terrorists attacking military facilities for you. But it is in fact almost 4 in the morning, and I just don't have that much energy to waste on you.



2 things:

1. You're almost as terrible as varus, making a comment like that. Sick ****.

2. Not supporting an act of war is far different from not supporting the troops. Example: as a Canadian, I do not support your war in Iraq, but I do however support the soldiers themselves.



If it is an ideology, it's only just barely an ideology.



Because it's not a war.



Yes they do, you're actually right about something, congratulations.



I blame both sides. I blame the terrorists for hiding amongst civilians, and I blame the hunters of said terrorists for deciding that blowing up half a small town in order to kill 1 terrorist is a better course of action than sending troops in.



Yes. Primarily because if you can actually see him among those 15 civilians, then you probably have someone in the area watching and can probably wait for those 15 civilians to walk away and then have a sniper blow his brains out. If this statement is wrong, I apologize, I'm not in the army.



Says who?

[quote]PS Don't patronize me.[/quote]

Then don't say stupid things. Deal?

The border between Iraq and Syria is almost around 600 miles long, most of it in the desert. Syria has 10,000 troops placed along that border to monitor it, it's not like they can do a lot more. Even the US, with all its power and ressources, can't prevent thousands of Mexicans from entering the US each year. What the fuck more is Syria supposed to do?



This is so wrong, I'm not sure where to start.

The UK government, after years of blooshed, ended up negotiating with the IRA. Simply because you can't kill everyone that supports an ideology. Not only that, but everytime you kill civilians, you create hatred towards those that did the killing, and end up bolstering the ranks of the very people you'r trying to fight. The Arab world, and most of the world for that matter, has an endless supply of angry, poor, young men. Everytime the US kills civilians, you reinforce hatred towards America. In some very rare cases, this might be necessary. In most cases, it's completely counter-productive. It end up hurting *you*, your family, your allies, your country.

Today, the IRA has abadonned (most of) its weapons, and is now a peaceful political party. This wasn't achieved by exterminating them, but by diplomacy and negotiations.

You won't kill every AQ sympathiser in Iraq. In fact, your mission in Iraq now should be purely to build-up and train teh Iraqi army and police force so they can take care of their own country. Your role should be to rebuild infrastructure and create decent living conditions. That's the only way people there will retain a modicum of sympathy for the US. This raid in Syria was, again, counter-productive. We need Syria on our side to put pressure on Iran. They are the only real allies Iran still has in the region.

Not only that, but Syria is currently lead by a secular party, some offshoot of the Baathists. This matters because incursions such as this one makes that government look weak, and stengthens the fundamentalists inside Syria who want to overthrow them and install a theocracy there. Which is the last thing any of us wants. Don't get me wrong, Syria's governmetn is quite awful, but compared to the alternatives, it's not so bad. We need them on our side for lots of reasons, Iran as mentionend earlier, but also because of Lebanon and Israel.

What I'm trying to explain is that the cost of killing that AQ operative is not worth the damage this kind of action causes.

Not when the ICC has no jurisdiction. We can do anything, AMIRITE?

Hence, the military?

Or the Indians.

Wow paulsol, you basically said exactly what I was going to pretty much.



We're constantly talking about how evil the terrorists are and how they're some malignant force that needs to be eradicated. This is nonsense. Instead of looking to kill them, why don't we analyze the reasons for why they harbor so much hate for us? Maybe try to fix some of those things?

I hate what the terrorists have done in regards to 9/11, et al. But I also hate what America has done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all throughout our history. And seriously, in 9/11 3-4000 people died. How many civilians have we killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Even low estimates put it ~100k. And how many civilians do you think died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I guess it's different when it's "collateral damage", but sorry, that doesn't fly with me. Our actions are just as heinous; the United States is not even close to innocent in this.

We largely support Israel; a state created by throwing Palestinians out of their homes. I've heard that defended by saying "Well thousands of years ago the Palestinians took that land from the Jews". Yea, well we took America from the Indians, so does that mean another country has the right to take back America for the Indians?

I know I've said this before but our relationship to Israel is analogous to a situation in which a country, say China, gave training, money, weapons, etc to a large group of Indians and bullied their way into establishing a large Indian state in America. Or China helping Mexico take back their land.

If something like that happened, would most Americans say "Well, I guess that settles that", or would they be crying out for the destruction of China and the Indian/Mexican state?

If we didn't have the military power that we do, can you honestly say we wouldn't resort to any means necessary in order to defeat our enemy?

The hypocrisy is really sickening. I love my country, I honestly do; I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, but God, we're really a huge hypocritical bully in the world. We really need to stop that sh*t.



Edited, Oct 29th 2008 5:39pm by DaimenKain

You're wrong about everything, you should have seen it coming.

You do realize how many lives that saved right? Had there been a land invasion in Japan, estimates put losses at atleast 1 million (american alone, not including Japanese). The Japanese would've fought with their lives civilian or not, the government convinced the whole populace that the Americans are out to eat your babies. That's serious by the way, they really did say that and they really did believe it. Combined you were looking at 10 million easy. The only reason they gave up is because they thought the americans had more bombs. 400k Might have died, but they saved millions.

Don't tell me "The Japanese would've given up after awhile" because every last one of them was going to fight to the end. Man,women, children. Anyone. Losses would have been catastrophic on both sides. Very patriotic, why do you think all the bombers flew with enough fuel to get there but not back?

Edited, Nov 5th 2008 6:40pm by manicshock

I don't think you see how far the Japanese would go. If you didn't suicide or get killed by americans before capture, you're a disgrace to the entire Japanese race. They were very tenacious fighters. That "so far" is a heck of a lot farther then you'd think. The war would've lasted for years and it was a question of how terrible the americans were not so much we have a chance of winning. USA vs Japan isn't the same as USA vs Terrorists.

People were going to die regardless, quite frankly I'd rather be obliterated into a spit stain on a bridge then impaled by rocks jumping off a cliff or drowned. The difference here is, we're calling these people civilians and painting them more so innocent then what they would have done otherwise. A family went into a cave and ate all their food. Not wanting their daughter to die of starvation, they sent her through the american lines. If any of them point their guns at you, just smile and wave. She made it into the base, was given food (which she thought was poison) and sent back. She was later adopted by an american family. Just the idea that the americans are bloodthirsty savages made them do that. I understand many people died but it's the lesser of two evils. War is terrible, but it happened and there is a price to be paid for it. It's not so much a question of the fact that many people died horrible deaths, it's a question of did USA make the right choice? The answer is yes because of the many lives (civilian and not, American or not) were saved because the war wasn't going to carry on.

They weren't really goaded into the war at all. They just wanted to take as much land from China as possible then call it quits. USA just wouldn't let them do that since they denied any and all attempts at backing out of the war with what they had gotten. Only when they gave up all rights to having an Emperor and control over their country were they allowed out. It was really the Americans who were goaded into the war with Pearl Harbor.

I've got no doubt that they feel very depressed and/or angry at the Americans. I might get around to watching that movie. But anyone would be after so many people died. Recently I talked to someone who knew (probably, I haven't heard of anyone else) the only survivor of both bombs. As in, he survived one bomb went to the other city to visit his mother and find out that the other bomb was aiming on that city. I should've asked him some more specifics as to how they felt about it but I don't doubt the survivor was more then a little depressed when he saw people burned from the radiation (which is why he left the city).

I'd mention WW1 in comparison with chemical warfare, but every veteran from that era are dead. I don't know about you, but watching my friends' skin peel and burn off him while he dies in agony doesn't scream fun times. Potassium coated bullets aren't the best way to get a facial. Death isn't good whether you were shot or died from radiation. The bombs just prevented more death from happening.

I'm not saying that the bombs only saved American lives. It would've been a long and bloody battle with tons of lives lost on both sides. It saved a lot more lives both Japanese and American. Is 80,000 vs 10,000,000 a fair trade? Lives were going to be lost regardless. I think you missed the part where it would've hit the Japanese just as hard as it would've the Americans.

The difference is also in the civilians themselves. Assuming all of them are innocent is naive. Many wouldn't just surrender and let themselves get captured. Either die by Americans, kill the Americans or kill yourself. There is no fourth option in their minds. Many civilians in Iraq were innocent, that's the difference. Unless you'd like to point out "Oh 9/10 of those civilians? Yeah, they were the next hijackers." The war against terrorists is against the terrorists themselves, the civilians aren't on their side (entirely). Difference between a Japanese soldier charging you with a sword and a civilian charging you with a kitchen knife? Access to weaponry. There is no "This guy really doesn't deserve to die, I'd better move on till he starts slicing me up." The chances of you killing an innocent in Japan is close to nil, because they all believed one hundred percent in their Emperor and that's the only way to live. Die to the enemy? You've just gotten yourself your medal of honor right there buddy.

This isn't about "How many civilians can we kill before we lose a troop?" it's about calling the best possible decision made by USA and calling it a brutal and uncalled for show of force that should be pinned against the government. Let the Japanese go? That's just begging for the whole world to stare at the Americans in complete disbelief. You enter the war, then to save the enemies' lives you just called off the bombs? That wouldn't go over well with anyone.

They weren't defeated, because they didn't know about GB (I don't think they were even going to enter the war against Japan yet) and Russia. The people themselves weren't defeated. They didn't know better. Even the Emperor was out of the loop. "Hey there Russia, you've been there for the past half a year? I didn't know that till you piped up that you wanted some of Japan after we surrendered."The emperor bowed because of the A-bombs. I didn't read any of this in a textbook. It's not a question of "The Japanese were going to win" it's a question of information being spread. He didn't even know Russia was on his coat tails trying to take as much land as possible before they gave up. The bomb ENDED the war. The terrorists STARTED the war with 9/11. Would you be okay if it only took two bombs to end a war that was going to be a far more bloody battle? No? Scaring the Russians was just another part of the purpose of it. At least research why Japan surrendered rather then blame it on American patriotism. Sure they were defeated, they were running out of troops and good pilots. But they were going to fight to the last. Because that's how much they believed in their Emperor. Mind telling me how you know that they'd all just surrender? You interviewed them all too? We have a lot more evidence telling us they would've fought. As I said earlier, they don't fight because they will win. They fight because it's the Emperors will.

Terrorists and Japan are both similar on some points but different in others. Terrorists rely on guerrilla warfare while the Japanese would've just headed them off with their full army.

I'm willing to bomb civilians who would've fought with everything they had to end a war that would've brought a lot more destruction then the nuclear bombs did. Are we able to just bomb terrorists with two bombs and watch them just give up the whole war? A city full of civilians lining up to hijack the next plane going to America. Two of them. We could just invade it with our full army right? Losses would happen, reinforcements would come from other cities and it would be a massive battlefield. Or we could just launch two bombs one on each city and watch as Saddam Hussein walks into an American embassy and surrenders. Which is preferable? Both from our perspective and theirs? People will die but which situation would lose more? You wanted to compare 9/11 to Japan, so that's your comparison. We're still killing civilians aren't we? They knew that if America wanted to flex their city would be torn apart. Yet they would still fight back.

How did 9/11 save lives? Sure it might have in the long run, because it brought the terrorists out of power. But that would've been over the course of what, the next 25 years?

Speak for the Israelies. They were kicked out of their home repeatedly. You don't mind them getting kicked out again though right? I mean we're continuing a war here! Horrible Americans. They aren't a fake state. They've always been a country long before American was discovered. Just been oppressed.

I never called Americans are pure and innocent, I said they made the right choice. The civilians killed in 9/11 weren't planning on forming a militia were they? The civilians killed were different. The civilians caught in 9/11 might have supported war in Afghanistan but they weren't about to join it and resist against every last terrorist that invaded. You're just taking shots in the dark telling me that 9/11 is comparable to the atomic bombs. The magnitude and purpose are so different, it's not remotely possible they're even close.

War is all around us in this day and age, USA has yet to be in a period where they weren't at war since their forming. I don't condone everything that you Americans have done but let me say that you haven't always made the wrong choice. Both of your examples as to why USA is far from anything productive and just leads to death are both of ones I think are reasonable choices. Shielding the masses from a massive slaughter caused by people who are so patriotic that you can't stop them without a show of force.