They got Al-Zawahiri?!

[rjs246]

I like the crackhead's suggestion of killing everyone. Especially smelly pirate hookers.

[General_Failure]

What did pirate hookers ever do to you?

[PhillyPhanInDC]

America is fighting an enemy that would NEVER EVER line up man for man with USA. I still can't believe you actually posted that.

U.S. war is cowardly.  We bomb from above and afar.  We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do.  Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is occupied, whose families have been murdered.  They always win.

Dio, while I agree with a lot of your points, you are pretty wrong on this one. While the "insurgents" are considered fanatical and welcome death, it is generally known that a soldier that welcomes death, almost automatically becomes an easier soldier to kill. Man for man, and Marine vs. Insurgent, you would lose your money. The training, equipment, mindset of US Troops easily overwhelms whatever the "insurgents" can produce. Especially Marines. A perfect example of, "people who are glad to die, whose land is occupied, whose families have been murdered." is the Japanese toward the tail end of WWII. They were happy to meet death, it was the first time their lands were occupied, and their families had been obliterated by American bombs - incendiary, atomic, and conventional.

Another thing, in your justified animosity towards the government and it's actions in other countries, it shouldn't be directed at junior members of the military in any way shape or form (I'm not saying you are doing that, but whenever these debates start, someone turns it in that direction).  Most of the individuals do unthinkable things on a daily basis, and must find a way for it to make sense for them, even if that is swallowing propaganda they know in their hearts is untrue. And for what it is worth, having been in both places in question while in the Marines, I can personally vouch for the Marine side of the coin, if you put them "man to man" with any other soldier, insurgent, or terrorist - anywhere and anytime, the Marines will walk out alone.

[phillymic2000]

Other people do, though..and the numbers are agreed by even Bush to be greater than 30,000.  With only 2,160 or so dead U.S. soldiers, I don't think it's debatable which side is doing the bulk of the dying.

I am glad our Government has developed a high tech way to kill the enemy to minimize our casualties.

U.S. war is cowardly.  We bomb from above and afar.  We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do.  Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is ocuupied, whose families have been murdered.  They always win.

Cowardly? we have put Terrorists on notice, they know they are not safe anywhere. Terrorist look for easy "soft" targets to kill unsuspecting civilians. And man for man, on the battlefield, we destroy the terrorist anyday.

Osama bombed civilians in WTC, U.S. bombs them in small villages.

You cannot (IMO) compare Osama's attack on the WTC, That was not a military target, no bases (to my knowledge) were in the WTC. Al-Zawahiri is a top level terrorist that was hiding out like a coward in a civilian house.

The fact is that we knowingly kill civilians in order to accomplish our objective.  Same as Osama.

Not the same, Osama hits soft target for shock value and to inflict civilian casualty. We are going after terrorists, and people who are out to kill us, once again they hide in civilian areas, just like in the initial war when the soldiers ran into Mosque's and hospitals, thats cowardly.

If we really cared to avoid civilian death, we'd abandon remote warfare and send in troops.  It would mean that they'd have to actually fight and die at much higher rates, but at the end of the day, much fewer civilians would be dead.

Why would we want higher troop deaths, we are the more developed nation, and have developed a higher grade of weapons. If we sent in troops, you don't think there would be civilian deaths, the Terrorits would hide amongst the population, and probably attacks civilians and blame it on us. Then everyone would be going off when one of troops goes crazy and kills some civilian. both ways innocent people die, from the air or the ground.


I understand you hate this administration, and maybe even the country, it may surprise you but I do not blindly follow Bush (George that is). I have many problems with his policies and ideas (mainly borders and other domestic issues) But IMO the only way to stop the militant Islamic based terrorism is to smack them back when they smack us. Yes it may seem Cowboyish, but that is the only way they understand that we will not be taken lightly. THis country backed down for many years, Somalia, the first WTC attacks, the Cole, etc... and that gave the terrorists the idea that we were ripe for the picking. If we don't fight back they will never stop. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, it just seems to me, that there is never much stated by you about all the negative things terrorist do, especially during this war. If I am wrong in thinking that I am sorry for offending you.

[ice grillin you]

how can war be cowardly...you try and kill more of them than you...whether that be a suicide bomber...an airplane full of fuel or a computer guided missle

[Butchers Bill]

Dio, I cannot believe that you think the terrorists merely hate our presence in the Middle East and our "corporatism". Dude, the Taliban was the model government that the terrorists want to achieve.  If you do not believe in Allah (which you don't because you're an atheist), they'll cut you head off simply because you don't believe.  That has nothing to do with the US being there.

You all laugh now but what will you say when they come for you???

[/b]

[DutchBird]

Other people do, though..and the numbers are agreed by even Bush to be greater than 30,000.  With only 2,160 or so dead U.S. soldiers, I don't think it's debatable which side is doing the bulk of the dying.

I am glad our Government has developed a high tech way to kill the enemy to minimize our casualties.

But when the other side does the exact same, it is called "terrorism" and cowardly. Either both are cowardly and terrorist or neither are. In this case, if 50 civilians were killed and one suspect as well, the civilians are considered collateral damage. The reverse, say 10 Iraqui or US soldiers dead and 5 civiokians killed, it is called a terrorist attack... kind of a double standard. Not that dissimilar from the situation in Israel, where the ratio between Palestinian civilans killed (in retaliation or preventive "precision" attacks) vs Israeli citizens killed over the past decade runs between 3 to 5 civilians for every single Israeli casualty. Yet the Palestinians are by defnition the terrorists.

Second, the high-tech way is absolutely not so fail safe as your government and the Pentagon suggest, as various bridal parties and numerous of your allies found out the hard way. Beside the fact that the "high tech" weapons are not at all as accurate as portrayed (simply read the article I linked to), there is the human element as well.... humans make mistakes, besides the fact that soldiers (on ground, on sea, in air) usually react in a way they are trained for. A lot of the friendly fire  accidents, and some of the other f-ups involving American troops (apparently above all pilots) seems to suggest there are some serious problems there.... just as the observations of a friend who served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, and observations of analists and soldiers that were posted in the newspapers.

I know from a friend who is in the military, and he said that there was a wry joke during NATO exercises... first thing they would look for was what sectors American troops and airsupport were assigned to. And if not to their sector, it was often joked that now they only had to worry about bullets coming from one direction.

This is in no way an attempt to disparage the effort of the 99% + of the soldier on the ground who tries to his/her job to the best of their abilities. I sincerely beleive that they try to do the best they can, and give their best effort. My problem is with the higher ups, predominantly the policy-makers.

U.S. war is cowardly.  We bomb from above and afar.  We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do.  Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is ocuupied, whose families have been murdered.  They always win.

Cowardly? we have put Terrorists on notice, they know they are not safe anywhere. Terrorist look for easy "soft" targets to kill unsuspecting civilians. And man for man, on the battlefield, we destroy the terrorist anyday.

Ahum, what you are riling against in the quote above is in fact simply part of the American military doctrine. And it is the goal for most militaries by the way. Man for man on the battlefield the US will beat anybody. Not necessary because man for man the US has the best soldiers or the best equipment, because frankly that is not the case (and hardly ever has been, certainly not in WWII). The deciding factor is sheer volume and amount of firepower that can be poured upon the battlefield. And anyone looking to win a war is a complete idiot if he/she does not try to work around it. By far the majority of Iraqui troops killed in 1999 was bombed to smitherines from a distance long before any regular grunt set food in Iraq.

In fact, to quite a degree the terrorists and "terrorists" are using much the same methods as the Americans used to get the British out of the country, and get or keep some areas under control.

End of part 1 (character limit)

[DutchBird]

part 2

Osama bombed civilians in WTC, U.S. bombs them in small villages.

You cannot (IMO) compare Osama's attack on the WTC, That was not a military target, no bases (to my knowledge) were in the WTC. Al-Zawahiri is a top level terrorist that was hiding out like a coward in a civilian house.

What is considered a military target is largely on a gliding scale... The US considers electrical plants, water treatment plants, radio stations, tv stations all valid military targets. Any bridge...You had to see Belgrade a couple of years ago to see what was considered a military target. Just as the passengers of a train noticed who had the bridge bombed away before them just a few seconds before they were to pass it and thus ended up on the bottom of a ravine. In fact, to a large degree, IIRC, they have even publicly stated that anything that could be of use to what the US considers the enemy is designated a military target. Pretty convenient to say that you can label anything a military target, hence by definition excluding the possibility of targeting anything but a military target. It is the same trick that is used in the creation of "unlawfull combattants" to try and get around the Geneva Convention and various human rights issues.... even though what the US labels unlawfull combattants are already covered by the Genmeva convention. And the label is applied at will.

The fact is that we knowingly kill civilians in order to accomplish our objective.  Same as Osama.

Not the same, Osama hits soft target for shock value and to inflict civilian casualty. We are going after terrorists, and people who are out to kill us, once again they hide in civilian areas, just like in the initial war when the soldiers ran into Mosque's and hospitals, thats cowardly.

  That is not completely true. However, it might seem true to the pilot or the artillery crew that bombs the place to smitherines... usually they can not ditinguish between a hospital and a legit military target. If the planners label it as a target, they will bomb it. Sorry, but I convinced that the bombing of the Al Jazeera HQ in Baghdad was deliberatley... unless it is a sign of utter and shocking ioncompetence on the part of the military, as Al Jazeera had clearly stated where their HQ was and notified the US military as best it could about the whereabouts of its employees. The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is another one...

The fact that various images and movies have been pulled form internet by the American government that showed a different picture of what the administration and the Pentagon want to make you believe (many more flattened areas, civilian dead, civilian areas being bombed and far heavier fighting), or the deial of the use pf phosphorus in civilian areas, despite all the evidence to the contrary should say enough. The fact that the US refuses to limit or ban numerous horrendous weapons that cause many civilian casualties and loads of collateral damage (phosphorus, cluster bombs (large numbers of the bomblets remains unexploded), certain types of landmines, let aone landmines in general, etc) says IMHO enough.

If we really cared to avoid civilian death, we'd abandon remote warfare and send in troops.  It would mean that they'd have to actually fight and die at much higher rates, but at the end of the day, much fewer civilians would be dead.

Why would we want higher troop deaths, we are the more developed nation, and have developed a higher grade of weapons. If we sent in troops, you don't think there would be civilian deaths, the Terrorits would hide amongst the population, and probably attacks civilians and blame it on us. Then everyone would be going off when one of troops goes crazy and kills some civilian. both ways innocent people die, from the air or the ground.

I understand you hate this administration, and maybe even the country, it may surprise you but I do not blindly follow Bush (George that is). I have many problems with his policies and ideas (mainly borders and other domestic issues) But IMO the only way to stop the militant Islamic based terrorism is to smack them back when they smack us. Yes it may seem Cowboyish, but that is the only way they understand that we will not be taken lightly. THis country backed down for many years, Somalia, the first WTC attacks, the Cole, etc... and that gave the terrorists the idea that we were ripe for the picking. If we don't fight back they will never stop. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, it just seems to me, that there is never much stated by you about all the negative things terrorist do, especially during this war. If I am wrong in thinking that I am sorry for offending you.

IMHO you make a bunch of fundamental mistakes in your line of thinking...

You are, and have smacked the wrong guys. But that was never, IMHO the concern of this administartion and the ruling clique anyway... the real problem is countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and numerous others, mainly on the Arabian Peninsula. But nothing is done about them, as they cater nicely to the interests of those in power in the US. At the same time, the fight against Osama and rebuilding of Afghanistan has largely been abandoned by the US, and dumped in the lap of NATO and others.
The US has been doing almost anything else but try and take away the reasons for terrorism, or anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world in general. You blindly invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. Basically the whole argumentation by the US adminiatration for giong into Iraq prior to the actrual invasion was laughed at by most of the world, and known to be either completely false or scetchy at best.
This administration, on numerous other fronts has basically told the world to go f*** itself, and that the only thiing that counts are American interests, and the rest comes second. In fact, that recently the rest of the world agreed with eachother to go forward in the Kyoto proces no matter what the US could IMHO be a HUGE sign.
Now the administration is touting it is fighting for democracy and the freedom of people. While among its allies it counts characters just as nasty as Saddam, and as dubious as Silvio Berlusconi. At the same time they are doing everything they can to get rid of or prevent administrations being elected in Latin Amercia that they do not like as these administrations want to do something for the lower classes, at the expense of the plunderings by international big business. See Chavez in Venezuela or Bolivia).
The US potrays itself as the beacon of freedom and democracy, but will not allow international observers to watch over the elections. At the same time you have the whole mess of the 2000 elections and the all but undemocratic shenanigans going on all the time (in many ways from both sides), and the merger between big business and politics.

The biggest misconception, and it seems you have swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker there, is that terrorism and extremism can completely be eradicated. That is a pipe dream. What can be done however is take away most of the base of support for these organizations, and the US has largely failed to do so.... and in many ways it seems by deliberate policy. You know what is the main reason for the support of groups like Hamas and Jihad in the Palestinian areas? Not the fact that the Palestinians want all Israelis dead. It is the fact that these organizations provide healthcare, education and other social services where others fail (for various reasons). The same kind of reasoning goes for much of the support base for Al Quaeda and its affiliates.

[General_Failure]

how can war be cowardly...you try and kill more of them than you...whether that be a suicide bomber...an airplane full of fuel or a computer guided missle

The only non-cowardly acts left in the world are naked wrestling against a squid, shark, or bear. No oxygen tank or weapons. Chuck Norris has done all of these at the same time.

[stillupfront]

Dutchbird, how dare you! You half a Frenchman cork sucker! You're ancestors bent over and took it in the ass from Hitler in what? Like five days. May 10-14 1940. farg you scumbag! You cowardly flags should be ashamed! Our grandfathers died for your corksucking Hoyda ancestors. Wanna buy a Dutch WWII rifle cheap? Never fired and only dropped once. Euro trash like you have awfully short memories. If not for "terrorists" like the  Americans soldiers, you and the rest of Europe would be eating Bratwurst and saluting the Nazi flag. How dare you? You scumbags make me sick! Go farg yourself, you self righteous jerkoff.

[General_Failure]

You're still on a short leash, crackhead. Behave or get suspended again.

[stillupfront]

You're still on a short leash, crackhead. Behave or get suspended again.

I mis-behaved? You will let Euro-trash like that bad mouth our country and I am on a short leash? C'mon man, consider the source.

[General_Failure]

We can always do a reality tv-styled vote to see if you get to stay.

[stillupfront]

Seriously, I have no problem with Dio speaking his mind here. He is an American, and I recognize his right to state his thoughts. But the Eurotrash? I have zero tolerance for them. They loved us in the 1940's but hate us now? Screw (censoring my self) them.

[ice grillin you]

Hoyda is filtered and corksucker isnt because?