The Terrorists have Won

[Jennifer]

Thanks for bringing things back on track.

Sure, one strategy (and not a bad one) is, that if you engage, you bring everything you have to bear on the enemy and crush it immediately, before it can bite you.

What are the costs of that strategy in this situation? reasons it wasn't implement? (Besides stupidity -- I mean, were there reasons that path was NOT followed, reasonably?)

Actually, if we were trying to not lose our "good cop" status, that failed miserably as well.

[IlyaK1986]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Thanks for bringing things back on track.

Sure, one strategy (and not a bad one) is, that if you engage, you bring everything you have to bear on the enemy and crush it immediately, before it can bite you.

What are the costs of that strategy in this situation? reasons it wasn't implement? (Besides stupidity -- I mean, were there reasons that path was NOT followed, reasonably?)

Actually, if we were trying to not lose our "good cop" status, that failed miserably as well.

To tell you the truth, I have no idea. People say nuclear weapons are a last resort. I don't understand why. If someone points a gun at a cop, he doesn't try diplomacy there. He shoots the motherfucker dead and explains himself later.

The same example can be applied towards nations. If one nation is threatening you, you annihilate said nation.

Now granted if we were at a military disadvantage, we'd take a different position. But right now, we're the only ones with the stealth fighters.

[whatever]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Didums, I hit the site and reviewed some of the records. I note that the people listed as killed on the site were victims of kidnapping and torture, roadside bombs, and so forth, all characteristic acts of sectarian militia.

So when you say that "...we have taken the lives of nearly 100,000 Innocent Iraqi civilians," I must object. You're using a very loose definition of "we." The US military didn't kill those people.

I guess the question there is, would those people still be alive if we hadn't invaded?

On another note, had we reacted internally in a different way, we may very well be in a different place economically than we are now.

[whatever]

Originally Posted by IlyaK1986

To tell you the truth, I have no idea. People say nuclear weapons are a last resort. I don't understand why. If someone points a gun at a cop, he doesn't try diplomacy there. He shoots the motherfucker dead and explains himself later.

The same example can be applied towards nations. If one nation is threatening you, you annihilate said nation.

Now granted if we were at a military disadvantage, we'd take a different position. But right now, we're the only ones with the stealth fighters.

Flaw here- it wasn't a nation threatening anyone, it was a terrorist organization. There's a difference

[IlyaK1986]

Originally Posted by whatever

I guess the question there is, would those people still be alive if we hadn't invaded?

On another note, had we reacted internally in a different way, we may very well be in a different place economically than we are now.

Yes, if we simply didn't try to land troops, nuked into oblivion, and let the radiation keep the region peaceful for another 5 decades.

Would those people still be alive? Moot point. They don't matter. They don't contribute to human progress. They're parasites.

[IlyaK1986]

Originally Posted by whatever

Flaw here- it wasn't a nation threatening anyone, it was a terrorist organization. There's a difference

And nations that harbored and funded them willingly. And still do, in the case of Iran. WHo is also trying to get a nuclear weapon.

Though if it does, I say we hush hush, don't try to talk--just nuke their cities, nuke their reactors, and then drop a few more nukes to make sure that nation isn't coming back.

[whatever]

Originally Posted by IlyaK1986

Yes, if we simply didn't try to land troops, nuked into oblivion, and let the radiation keep the region peaceful for another 5 decades.

Would those people still be alive? Moot point. They don't matter. They don't contribute to human progress. They're parasites.

You aren't human.

And think- if we destroyed the middle east what would happen to our energy needs

[Beat]

Things are significantly more calm over there than they were a few years back. That looks like progress to me. Is there more retaliation to come? Are things resolved in the middle-east? No, and it never will be until one of religions/sects wipes the other from the map. If nothing else, it showed nations that passive aggressiveness isn't the name of the game we're playing, or just that we make bad decisions from time to time.... However you want to see it.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by whatever

I guess the question there is, would those people still be alive if we hadn't invaded?

No. The war created opportunities for criminal mayhem, it's true, but the criminals are still responsible for the mayhem.

[whatever]

Originally Posted by IlyaK1986

And nations that harbored and funded them willingly. And still do, in the case of Iran. WHo is also trying to get a nuclear weapon.

Though if it does, I say we hush hush, don't try to talk--just nuke their cities, nuke their reactors, and then drop a few more nukes to make sure that nation isn't coming back.

And on that note, you're ignoring of "collateral damage" would make Mr. McVey quite proud.