A chance for 0bama to make things right

[chase]

Originally Posted by migopod

How brave and honorable is it to drop white phosphorous munitions on civilian populations? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5519433.ece

If launching katusha rockets at civilian population centers is terrorism (and it totally is), then dropping banned munitions on civilain centers should qualify equally.

Israelis certainly have in the past committed actual acts of terrorism. It would be a huge stretch to accuse the US of committing terrorist acts, but the US has sponsored terrorist organizations, Al Queda comes immediately to mind, and we continue to fund terrorist organizations.

The Reagan administration just called them freedom fighters at the time.

When you're dealing with cowardly terrorists who use humans as shields collateral damage is inevitable. Neither the US nor Israel has ever TARGETED civilians specifically.

We were just using them to defeat Russia and it worked. After that we stopped.

What terrorists are we funding NOW?

[migopod]

Originally Posted by chase

When you're dealing with cowardly terrorists who use humans as shields collateral damage is inevitable. Neither the US nor Israel has ever TARGETED civilians specifically.

If you try to use the wrong military strategies to combat insurgencies, civilian deaths and injuries are indeed inevitable. Using banned white-phosphorus munitions in civilian areas is not inevitable. I'm not suggesting that it constitutes terrorism, just a war crime.

Oh, and there are many documented cases of the IDF using Palestinians as human sheilds. Are you calling the Israelis cowards too?

Originally Posted by chase

We were just using them to defeat Russia and it worked. After that we stopped.

So the ends justify the means, eh? Terrorism is okay by you if it's being used against the enemy? Is this really what you mean to say?

Originally Posted by chase

What terrorists are we funding NOW?

The M.E.K., PJAK and Jundallah are all terrorists that are funded by the US.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by chase

Care to actually debate me?

No.

Mock? Certainly.

[Fiat Slug]

Originally Posted by chase

When you're dealing with cowardly terrorists who use humans as shields collateral damage is inevitable. Neither the US nor Israel has ever TARGETED civilians specifically.

Actually, we have specifically targeted civilians. Remember the Vincennes?

While I like to believe the Vincennes incident was not a reflection of our national values while the Libyan agent's action was, you can see how not everyone in the world might share that view. It is important that we not only do the right things but also give that impression as well. If we were to arrest and summarily execute Qadaffi, then we will not "appear" to be in the right.

[chase]

Originally Posted by Fiat Slug

Actually, we have specifically targeted civilians. Remember the Vincennes?

While I like to believe the Vincennes incident was not a reflection of our national values while the Libyan agent's action was, you can see how not everyone in the world might share that view. It is important that we not only do the right things but also give that impression as well. If we were to arrest and summarily execute Qadaffi, then we will not "appear" to be in the right.

That was an honest mistake. I personally know many people who are in the military and none of them would ever intentionally harm a civilian.

[I_luv_saber]

Even if ordered to?

[migopod]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

Even if ordered to?

maybe even if not?

[chase]

Originally Posted by migopod

If you try to use the wrong military strategies to combat insurgencies, civilian deaths and injuries are indeed inevitable. Using banned white-phosphorus munitions in civilian areas is not inevitable. I'm not suggesting that it constitutes terrorism, just a war crime.

Oh, and there are many documented cases of the IDF using Palestinians as human sheilds. Are you calling the Israelis cowards too?

So the ends justify the means, eh? Terrorism is okay by you if it's being used against the enemy? Is this really what you mean to say?

The M.E.K., PJAK and Jundallah are all terrorists that are funded by the US.

Oh really? "If launching katusha rockets at civilian population centers is terrorism (and it totally is), then dropping banned munitions on civilain centers should qualify equally."

First of all, name one. Second of all, even if there are isolated incidents it doesn't mean that the Israelis use them as human shields as part of their standard operations. BUT the Palestinian terrorists regularly do this. Just ask the people in Gaza and Lebanon.

Don't put words in my mouth. The Soviet Union was equally if not more evil than Hitler's regime (even though nobody hears about the massive killings that took place). We had to defeat them at all costs.

There is NO proof that the US supports those organizations, only accusations by the oppressive Iranian regime (REALLY RELIABLE INFORMATION, HUH?). If anything the Iranians are supporting them by being so oppressive and creating a market for it: "In an October 17, 2008 interview aired on Al-Arabiya TV, Abdolmalek stated, "the only thing we ask of the Iranian government is to be citizens. We want to have the same rights as the Iranian Shiite people. That's it.""

[I_luv_saber]

Originally Posted by chase

We had to defeat them at all costs

So you DO believe that the ends always justifies the means, and that it is OK to support terrorists under conditions that are suitable for us? Support. Terrorists. That's what you're saying.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by chase

Oh really? "If launching katusha rockets at civilian population centers is terrorism (and it totally is), then dropping banned munitions on civilain centers should qualify equally."

First of all, name one. Second of all, even if there are isolated incidents it doesn't mean that the Israelis use them as human shields as part of their standard operations. BUT the Palestinian terrorists regularly do this. Just ask the people in Gaza and Lebanon.

The UN has repeatedly criticized Israel for use of WP munitions, DIMEs and use of Palestinian civilians as human shields. Remember the UN report also is highly critical of Hamaas and other Palestinian militias and also accuses them of war crimes during the recent Gazaa conflict, so it's not some one-sided anti-Israel conspiracy.

Originally Posted by chase

Don't put words in my mouth. The Soviet Union was equally if not more evil than Hitler's regime (even though nobody hears about the massive killings that took place). We had to defeat them at all costs.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth at all. You said that the US funding terrorist organizations was justified because they were fighting the Soviets. In the process we built Al-Queda.

Seriously, I'm saying it's never justifiable to commit acts of terrorism or to fund them.
You're saying the same thing except when it applies to funding terrorists to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Sure, Stalin was a freaking monster. In terms of raw numbers, he put Hitler to shame. That late in the cold war, the USSR wasn't warm and cudly or anything, but comparing it to the Third Reich is rediculous.

Originally Posted by chase

There is NO proof that the US supports those organizations, only accusations by the oppressive Iranian regime (REALLY RELIABLE INFORMATION, HUH?). If anything the Iranians are supporting them by being so oppressive and creating a market for it: "In an October 17, 2008 interview aired on Al-Arabiya TV, Abdolmalek stated, "the only thing we ask of the Iranian government is to be citizens. We want to have the same rights as the Iranian Shiite people. That's it.""

Kay. That paragraph is a bit rough to read, so if I misinterpret what you meant to say, it's because it's really unclear.

Nope, no proof besides what Iranian intelegence provides and what investigative journalists have managed to uncover. Secret stuff, you know.

But are you suggesting that Iran, by being oppressive, deserves to have terrorist groups acting against the Iranian government? Again, not putting words in that mouth of yours, but that's what it looks like you're saying.

[chase]

Originally Posted by I_luv_saber

So you DO believe that the ends always justifies the means, and that it is OK to support terrorists under conditions that are suitable for us? Support. Terrorists. That's what you're saying.

First of all, the conditions were not just suitable for us they were suitable for HUMANITY. The people living under communism suffered much, much more than we did.

Second of all, "supporting" means friendly helping of people to achieve their goals. We were just USING them. There is a difference between supporting and using.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by chase

First of all, the conditions were not just suitable for us they were suitable for HUMANITY. The people living under communism suffered much, much more than we did.

Second of all, "supporting" means friendly helping of people to achieve their goals. We were just USING them. There is a difference between supporting and using.

Yes, using people is very "christian"?

So we used Saddam Hussien... that worked out very well didn't it. And we used the Taliban... that was a huge success, no? And we also used Osama Bin Laden... what a brilliant idea that turned out to be. And don't forget Manuel Noriega!!

Short-sighted failure after failure that caused us nothing but years of heartache and American lives, and you think it was a good thing. Open your eyes, Chase!

[chase]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Yes, using people is very "christian"?

So we used Saddam Hussien... that worked out very well didn't it. And we used the Taliban... that was a huge success, no? And we also used Osama Bin Laden... what a brilliant idea that turned out to be. And don't forget Manuel Noriega!!

Short-sighted failure after failure that caused us nothing but years of heartache and American lives, and you think it was a good thing. Open your eyes, Chase!

I never claimed that it was perfect. There were costs. You must never forget that freedom isn't free. I am not denying that we paid a price for dealing with those scumbags. What I am saying is that it was a necessary cost to break the back of the Soviet Union.

[migopod]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

Yes, using people is very "christian"?

So we used Saddam Hussien... that worked out very well didn't it. And we used the Taliban... that was a huge success, no? And we also used Osama Bin Laden... what a brilliant idea that turned out to be. And don't forget Manuel Noriega!!

Short-sighted failure after failure that caused us nothing but years of heartache and American lives, and you think it was a good thing. Open your eyes, Chase!

Don't forget how we used Stalin to defeat Hitler. Blowback after blowback after blowback.

[Hauptman]

Originally Posted by chase

I never claimed that it was perfect. There were costs. You must never forget that freedom isn't free. I am not denying that we paid a price for dealing with those scumbags. What I am saying is that it was a necessary cost to break the back of the Soviet Union.

The problem is that you can't show that backing any of those bastards accomplished anything positive, and certainly not anything worth the death and destruction we had to deal with cleaning up the mess we created.

The real issue is that we, as a country, sold our souls to the devil for those bargains. We compromised the very ideals that this country was supposed to stand for. We sold out again when we invaded sovereign countries based on lies. We sold our souls when we justified torture, and violated our most sacred ideals. And in the end we had nothing to show for it.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by migopod

Don't forget how we used Stalin to defeat Hitler.

...Huh?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Lend-Lease program to the USSR and others. Not that we got much of it back from Russia after the war.

[chase]

Originally Posted by Hauptman

The problem is that you can't show that backing any of those bastards accomplished anything positive, and certainly not anything worth the death and destruction we had to deal with cleaning up the mess we created.

The real issue is that we, as a country, sold our souls to the devil for those bargains. We compromised the very ideals that this country was supposed to stand for. We sold out again when we invaded sovereign countries based on lies. We sold our souls when we justified torture, and violated our most sacred ideals. And in the end we had nothing to show for it.

Yes it can be proved. The Soviet Union fell because it over-reached and we helped stretch them out a little bit. Without our help, they would still have Afghanistan and probably more oil-rich land in the middle east, which would allow them to sustain their world conquest. President Reagan denied them that goal, and we are not speaking Russian as a direct result.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by chase

Yes it can be proved. The Soviet Union fell because it over-reached and we helped stretch them out a little bit. Without our help, they would still have Afghanistan and probably more oil-rich land in the middle east, which would allow them to sustain their world conquest. President Reagan denied them that goal, and we are not speaking Russian as a direct result.

Russia had Afghanistan like we had Vietnam.

Reagan saved us from Russia like Flash Gordon saved us from Ming the Merciless.

[chase]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Russia had Afghanistan like we had Vietnam.

Reagan saved us from Russia like Flash Gordon saved us from Ming the Merciless.

We weren't trying to take over Vietnam, we were only holding back the communists. Communism didn't spread beyond Vietnam. It worked. We won, no matter what the liberals say.