Someone's Been Reading This Board Too Long
POSTED BY: HKCavalier
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 06:18
VIEWED: 7792
PAGE 5 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
In my opinion, the Predator/Hellfire combination is about the perfect weapon for the operation. Somebody knew the back story. Someone in President Clinton administration. That or they were ridiculously lucky.
http://www.ga.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=983174400&archive=&st
art_from=&ucat=&&print
Andrew Lynch
While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?
I wonder what the cost would be to put up a sufficent security screen to protect all of your Senators, and Congressmen, and Governors and for that matter Divison commanders, perhaps all of their staffs.
I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to target, say any staff car leaving Fort Belvoir... It drives down I-95 passes a broken down car and BOOOM. What is known as a cheap kill.
Such weapons will not make anyone safer, it will only cause improvisation, and adaptation.
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
bump.
I will not be able to get back till at least Monday. If I keep ths up near the top, I won't be so liable to forget.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because no one is actively seeking to kill Americans, right? Like say, I don't know, maybe trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon, Whitehouse and/or Capital Building?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Because no one is actively seeking to kill Americans, right? Like say, I don't know, maybe trying to fly a plane into the Pentagon, Whitehouse and/or Capital Building?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
But your country has actively been trying to kill off many of them...
doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrannts for years who beat down and murder anyone who would rise against them.
If you were on the other end of it, you would call yourself enemy as well, wouldn't you ?
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
While the technology is impressive, the use of such assassination opens you up for the moral equivalent. Would you feel the same if say a campaign of car-bombs were used to target your political and military leadership ?
We already face these threats on a daily basis in the US and outside. AQ and the like have shown absolutely no compunction about using any and all weapons and means available to them.
You call it assassination. I call it targeting enemy command and control centers. No matter what anyone calls it, AQ and Taliban leadership are and were legitimate targets. They are a clear and present danger to the US and everyone else for that matter.
Andrew Lynch
So then, games on. If they do start hitting the targets as I suggest, You won't be calling it terrorism then.... ??
I accept your definition --- Legitimate targets of war. Lets review the list, shall we
Any US Politican ( Federal and State Level )
Immediate staffs
Any member of the US armed Forces
Military Contractors
Any Law Enforcement Officers ( as they act as state security agents )
But thats just people, lets look at infrastructure targets
Any Military base
Any State or Federal Building
Powerplants
Gas and Oil Plants
Docks
Raillines & Traffic]
Bridges
Hydro Projects
Airfields
and lets call any vehicle 5 tons or over industrial infrastructre and a fair target.
These are just a few thing your government has targeted, do others like the Yugo carworks in your Serbian bombing campaign make the bombing of any Ford or GM plant in the US an acceptable target ?
So lets not call any of this " Terrorism " but legitimate targets of war, and since your country feels free to provide arms, intell and support to anyone they choose without consequence, why not lay off those who would support the other team.
After all, the US is " a clear and present danger to " them " and everyone else for that matter. "
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow, that’s some bent logic. Should I call France, Germany and Russia an enemy? They sold weapons to Saddam Hussein? Have they been actively trying to kill off Americans?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But your country has actively been trying to kill off many of them...
doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrannts for years who beat down and murder anyone who would rise against them.
If you were on the other end of it, you would call them enemy as well, wouldn't you ?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:Wow, that’s some bent logic. Should I call France, Germany and Russia an enemy? They sold weapons to Saddam Hussein? Have they been actively trying to kill off Americans?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But your country has actively been trying to kill off many of them...
doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrannts for years who beat down and murder anyone who would rise against them.
If you were on the other end of it, you would call them enemy as well, wouldn't you ?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
As did the United States when they " encouraged " Iraqs war of aggresion against Iran, those weopans were also used ( with US knowledge, and I would suggest support ) to put down several insucrections against Saddam.
But not my point, I was more refering to Al qaeda and other organizations and their efforts to change the governments in Saudi Arabia, Eypgt, Yemen and elsewhere.
If you back the tyrannt, you must accept of the blame for his actions,
The friend of my enemy is also my enemy ( but only if he keeps helping him out )
As for France, Germany and Russia... If you caught them shipping arms to the freedom fighters of Iraq, wouldn't you call them your enemy ?
When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, that’s the question I just asked you. France, Germany and Russia sold arms and/or provided assistance to Hussein right up to and possibly after the fall of the Hussein’s regime. So based on your argument, France, Germany and Russia are actively trying to kill Americans and therefore are enemies? Right?
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As for France, Germany and Russia... If you caught them shipping arms to the freedom fighters of Iraq, wouldn't you call them your enemy ?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So based on your argument, France, Germany and Russia are actively trying to kill Americans and therefore are enemies? Right?
All the nations on this planet can be at times considered enemies or friends, it's a matter of timing ( except Canada, they're always our friend, plus they shot Dark Angel there
).
Finn, you're not going to get a really coherent answer to your last question. You must know this.
If we traced down the countries responsible for Saddam's weapons of (not-so-mass) destruction, Sweden and New Zealand would probably be the only ones to come up totally clean.
Is Antarctica a country? Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Isn’t that interesting? Yes, I’m aware of that. Sometimes the question is more important then the answer, though.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, you're not going to get a really coherent answer to your last question. You must know this.
Antarctica is not a country. It is a territory administratively held by 28 signatory countries.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME