We could have won this war with in six months if it wasn't for the wusses in this country. The problem is we haven't killed enough bad guys. As I said in my previous post, as well as other numerous times: your enemy has got to be more afraid of you than of dying.
What we should have done the second we realized that Iran and Syria was sending monsters accross the border we should have started a bombing campaign of which would make Dresden look like a wienie roast. The problem is the marxists in this nation have made us walk a tight rope instead of actually doing what needs to be done.
We can win this war, the key is to kill the enemy and not whine about the deaths we cause. I'm not opposed to going nuclear against the monsters, shoot we may have to. There again, we need our enemy to be more afraid of us than dying. All the guys that have come home I've talked to have told me that we are doing a good job over there, but to actually be able to be efficient at their job they almost have to raise their hand the way you do in grade school. There are no short cuts, you can't make monsters love you, you can't expect them respect you if agonize on killing them when they are more than willing to fight like they are stuck in the 7th Century.
Remember they are more than willing to kill themselves to kill you.
43 comments
Does anybody know off the top of their head if we bombed civilian centers in Poland, Hungary, or France during WWII. Completely different situation, I know, but I'm curious.
Hey, Dickranger, simple solution for you. Join the army, volunteer for Iraq (not that you'd have to), and head on over.
Kill all the bad guys. Right, why didn't we think of that? Oh, I remember now - all the people you currently classify as bad guys were the good guys who you claim needed saving from oppression when you invaded!
They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you
And you become a monster
So the monster will not break you
If the US was tring to occupy Iraq for good and rule it it might work. But as it tryes to make a goverment that still has a country to govern.
Withouth this, the plan might actualy work. Remember Saddam. He had a kurdish insurgency in the 90s. A few gased towns and mass graves later they all got the message.
The problem is that all methods up to now to paccify Iraq have failed.Like that Murphy law "When everything fails get a bigger hamer"
Pure mindless jingoism, but he does have a point. Violence only solves problems when the violence is overwhelming. Nuclear bombs on Hiroshima. US cavalry at Wounded Knee. If Hitler had not been stopped, those gas chambers would have been pretty effective at solving his delusional "problem."
The US has not committed itself to overwhelming violence in Iraq, which is probably a good thing, since in this modern world of black market plutonium, shoulder-fired missiles, fuel cell bombs, and chemical/biological weapons, "overwhelming" force usually translates as "genocide."
When you kill all the terrorists, and their friends, and their relatives, and all those who sympathize with them, you have, in fact, ended the problem. If you only kill some of them, all you do is make more terrorists. This guy aparently wants to kill them all. I personally don't want my nation in the genocide business. How can you say you are going to kill all the poeople who are going to kill you and in the same breath say that you are somehow better, more noble, more morally upright, more justified?
Violence begets violence. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind eating Jello.
I don't know what the answer is, but if the only possible answer is genocide, then we are asking the wrong question.
Asshole, but not fundie.
''Does anybody know off the top of their head if we bombed civilian centers in Poland, Hungary, or France during WWII. Completely different situation, I know, but I'm curious.''
Royan, France, was the first use of napalm in warfare. It was April 1945, the Allies had rolled through France, and the only ones there were French civilians and a few thousand German soldiers, who had been left behind.
Riiiiiiiight. When you've got a seemingly endless supply of angry, impoverished, ultra religious young men whose entire goal is to die for a religion whose significance they've transferred to a nation, that strategy probably won't work. Of course, there's a hell of a lot more to the conflict than that, but when you've an enemy who can fuck you up badly without thought for its own troops, you're pretty well out of your league. I mean, sure, you could nuke the surrounding nations, that might deter a few would be bombers, but think of all the Chechens, the Balkans, South East Asian and Chinese Muslims who'd try their luck.
Unfortunately, such tactics would make us lose all of our allies. We'd be hated, shunned, rejected, and probably even embargoed. That would be Bad.
"We could have won this war with in six months if it wasn't for the wusses in this country."
If you think the Bush administration pays even the slightest heed to those you consider "the wusses in this country," you are very sadly mistaken. Bush has made it very clear that he pays attention to very little outside of his own immediate circle of yes-men, and their reflection of his own ego has him convinced that every decision he has made was the right one at the time, even when a mole with astigmatism could have seen a better course of action.
~David D.G.
Iran and Syria was sending monsters accross the border
I read this line combined with the poster's username "Dakotaranger" and wonder if he's confused Power Rangers for reality. Like he thinks Rita Repulsa and Lord Zedd have set up in Tehran and are sending the Pudgy Pig and Pirantishead to attack the troops or something.
Gee, Dakotaranger, I'm afraid that nuclear weapons won't be enough: call on the power of the FundieMegazord and go get'em!!!
Dakotaranger clearly knows absolutely nothing about WWII history. Dresden solidified German morale because it made the Nazi Propoganda (that Americans would wage a genocidal war against "Aryan" Germany) appear somewhat valid.
EPIC FAIL AT UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD.
Not necessarily fundie...the idea that there are objectively "good guys" and "bad guys", and that the "good guys" are morally licensed to do "whatever it takes" to kill "bad guys," since the "bad guys" are totally and inherently evil, is pretty standard in U.S. discourse. It also shows up with "good guys/bad guys" replaced with "law-abiding citizens/criminals", and suggesting that "criminals" can be just basically people is political suicide.
The problem is we haven't killed enough bad guys.
Saddam is dead. Is that not good enough for you?
We can win this war, the key is to kill the enemy and not whine about the deaths we cause.
What if the person (or people) you kill are not the bad guy(s)?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.