|
| quote: | Originally posted by Spankster
The US has guns as well...........maybe they should fight like REAL BRAVE WARRIORS and give up their use of tomahawk missiles, ah-64 apache gunships, f-16 fighter/bombers(and any other aircraft), and m1 abrahms MBT's and see how they fair in street to street small arms combat against the militia's in fallujah and what not.
While i dont disagree with ur view that taking civilians as hostages is cowardice i couldnt help but laugh at ur final statement given amerikkka's indiscriminant use of heavy weapons which just so happens to take the lives of innocent civilians as well as enemy combatants. |
LOL, I see this idiotic logic so much it's actually starting to become funny.
While I'm not necessarily supporting the war itself, are you actually suggesting that in a war situation, the stronger side with heavier weapons should throw those weapons away and go fight in the streets with sticks and rocks?
That's not fairness, it's idiocy. There's a strong division between directly attacking civilians and taking a few civilians as collateral damage. Why should a more powerful nation risk the lives of their own military personnel in the name of "fairness?" Granted, dropping an A-bomb isn't exactly the most humanitarian approach, but the whole point is to find a balance between protecting their own military and protecting civilian lives in the foreign land.
When you're in a war situation, no matter how wrong that war may be, the lives of your own citizens come first. That again does not mean it's okay to be dropping an A-bomb or firing SCUDs into the area and take mass casualties, but if you can take out the military targets with a relatively small number of civilian casualties and at the same time minimize the risk to your own military, then that is what you do - it's simply a balancing act.
Comparing military strategy to the kidnapping of civilians who are trying to HELP is just warped and ridiculous. It's a pretty lame copout to blame their kidnappings on the war itself. Anybody can say "this wouldn't have happened if some other thing in the past didn't happen" in hindsight, but if you look at such a claim rationally it turns out to be pretty meaningless. It seems to be an implication that not only should we be able to predict the future, but we should tailor our actions to eliminate the possibility of any short-term difficulties (as opposed to aiming for long-term gain).
I'm not particularly passionate about the whole Iraq issue, but the level of rhetoric is beginning to rival that of the IP debate. It's getting ridiculous, and it needs to stop. Focus on the future, on what to do next, and stop crabbing about the lies and screwups and what not.
Spankster, you need to calm the fuck down - the fact that you keep referring to the USA as "Amerikkka" clearly shows just what kind of rationality we can expect from you (and I'm not even taking into account the fact that "America" includes far more countries than the USA itself, many of whom did not participate in the war at all). Your whole argument is nothing more than a glorified version of a 5-year-old whining about how "he started it!!"
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
