Why terrorists will ultimately fail...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 00:13
VIEWED: 9344
PAGE 8 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:And how many would you kill?
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Finn- how many people are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? More?
As few as possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What- no response? Geezer? Finn? Nothing to say in support of killing people in order to bring them democracy?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really? Wow, that’s a good plan. And then what? Because if that's all you've got, it ain't gonna work. No Government=anarchy, civil war, competing warlords that may or may not establish a unified probably totalitarian regime, hundreds of thousands dead. In fact, Afghanistan was a pretty good model of that kind of solution.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:That's a stupid question which, I note, you refuse to answer. You're the one that's supporting the invasion, not me. But to anserw your question: I would be willing to kill Saddam and his top military people, but they're not civilians.
And how many would you kill?
Quote:For my own answer, I’m going with what Fletch2 said. He’s an insightful fellow. As few as possible. That’s a good answer.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, to ask the question AGAIN- How many civilians are you willing to kill to bring democracy to the suffering people of Iraq?
I guess we should have prosecuted Churchill and Roosevelt as terrorists, but Hitler was a just doing what he thought was right. There’s just all kinds of crazy things going on in Sig’s head.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Whoa Finn! Are you even IN reality??? We didn't just take out the Taliban by killing Mullah Omar and bin Laden. In fact, they're both still wandering around! We supported individual warlords- we STILL support individual warlords- altho Karzai has BEGGED us to funnel the $$ through his government instead. I mean.... really!
No Government=anarchy, civil war, competing warlords that may or may not establish a unified probably totalitarian regime, hundreds of thousands dead. In fact, Afghanistan was a pretty good model of that kind of solution.
Quote:What I said was that WWII was self-defense. I guess you didn't notice that part? Well, I guess when you don't have a good answer you can just lie. It does make you look like, well... a liar.
I guess we should have prosecuted Churchill and Roosevelt as terrorists, but Hitler was a just doing what he thought was right. There’s just all kinds of crazy things going on in Sig’s head
As far as acceptable death: If murder is taking place it's OK to kill to prevent further death. But it's NOT ok to mow down 50 hostages to get at a criminal. That's when you try negotiation, or subterfuge, or sharpshooting. But you don't go in with guns blazing because you're likely to cause more harm than good.
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, we did Afghanistan well. But I suppose what you would have had us do is kill Hussein and his ?top military people,? somehow, and then the country would disintegrates into feuding warlords. Now how you plan on killing and only killing Hussein et al, I don?t know. They aren?t going to pose for you, but I guess if you believe that we can just walk over there and kill Hussein and his top officials without causing any stir, then I guess you could believe there would have been no sectarian violence that would emerge from an ungoverned Iraq. All I can say is that your world is much simpler then reality.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa Finn! Are you even IN reality??? We didn't just take out the Taliban by killing Mullah Omar and bin Laden. In fact, they're both still wandering around! We supported individual warlords- we STILL support individual warlords- altho Karzai has BEGGED us to funnel the $$ through his government instead. I mean.... really!
Quote:Nope. It doesn't.
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I said was that WWII was self-defense. I guess you didn't notice that part? Well, I guess when you don't have a good answer you can just lie. It does make you look like, well... a liar.
And Nazi Germany didn’t attack us either, and it had no interest in going to war with the US, at least not at that time. But as the point has been clearly made, a simple show of force in the Rhineland might have forstalled the whole war.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What did Iraq do to earn our invasion? I dunno- mebbe they took over New Jersey? Serves 'em right I say! 
I know you keep bringing in extraneous arguments and stuff, but I'm still wondering why you think it was OK to kill civilians in order to bring the light of democracy to those suffering people?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you think it's ok to let a tyrant gas innocent civilians, torture/rape/murder others without interference.
You speak as if without the invasion Iraq was a shiny happy place. It wasn't. Before the Kuwait incident Sadam gassed Kurdish villages, murdered entire families that opposed him, kidnapped, tortured and murdered still more. Had we dropped sanctions and the no fly zones as he wanted he would have been back at that game with a vengence. Rule by fear requires arbitary death and violence to work, he was a master of it.
Keep sanctions to slow him down? Well then hundreds of thousands would die each year from malnutrition and disease while he and his elite skimmed "oil for food" to pay for the army's upkeep.
Kill Sadam and his cronies? If you could then maybe you might get another hard man that was a little less brutal or you might get a civil war.
The point is that every action you take, even taking no action, has a cost in human lives. How many each option has we don't know, because we only pursued one choice. Some of the others could have been better or they could have been worse. Unless you have one of those parallel dimension "Sliders" gadgets handy we will never know. One thing is for certain though, there was no garenteed "no blood" option. Whatever we did or failed to do some Iraqi's were going to die because of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch- you should feel ashamed of yourself. Here you're given a shiny brain and you fail to use it. I compared Iraq to 50 hostages, not a shiny, happy place. But since gassing Kurdish villages, kidnapping families etc. happened (in your own words) "before the Kuwait incident"... in other words more than a decade in the past ... there was no reason for the SWAT team to rush in guns blazing at that very moment.
But as you might chose to recall (probably not) the only reason most people went along with invasion was because Bush deliberately misrepresented Iraq as an imminent threat- which it wasn't. Not to us, it's neighbors, or even to it's own people.
Several posts up, I mentioned four or five possible alternatives to invasion and sanctions and I'm sure there are more- a fact that you, Finn, and geezer conveniently forget. So I'm forced to ask why you, Finn, and Geezer keep misrepresenting me? (Since we all know the answer you can consider that a rhetorical question! 
)
So, I'll repeat the question which I've repeated five or six times already, which has not yet been answered but has certainly been misrepresented more than once: Is it okay for Bush to kill civilians for political purposes?
---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
SO FDR, Churchill, Eisenhower, Truman, and the other leaders of the Allies in WWII(not to mention anyone who flew a strategic bomber) were terrorists(as well as sociopaths and "true believers"), because they obviously knew that to meet their political goals (preservation of their political systems) they had to kill innocent civilians? Perhaps you need to re-think your definition of "terrorist".
If you want to start down that road I'd say the pre-emptive strikes of Hitler against Russia are a far better parrellel for Iraq than the actions of the Allies.
Perhaps you need to open a history book and realise what drivel your spouting.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME