Wow, you all became so nice to eachother so quickly!
A lot of the statements made in Ary's original message are not wrong and are certainly legitimate ways to look at some of the US's actions and intentions.
I understand people's need to keep anger at a high pitch so that we can perpetuate the feeling of crisis long enough to follow through on military action.
I find it peculiar that people need strong emotion: anger/rage to do what needs to be done. Because anger and rage cloud intellegent thinking/planning and allow you to be manipulated. Its a weakenss I certainly don't encourage in my self. But its certainly a weakness that will let me go on to greater success than I would probably otherwise achieve if people were better thinkers. When I meet people like that I mentally thank them and every time I shake their hand I hear mental cash register sounds.
So to me the point is simple: We want to stop our enemy from attacking us and hurting us. The easiest way to do this is to kill the enemy, destroy his/her support system, and decimate the population that the enemy draws his people from.
I am not mad about it, I just think its common sense. But hey, some people need the raw raw and drama.
If that means depopulating the entire region, going after their loved ones first and making painful examples of them, or whatever, then so be it.
I am not saying we are right or wrong ethically, or righteous or not righteous morally, those kind of questions complicate my simple mind. I make no pretense towards any degree of intellegence or sophistication, so to me its a simple matter of Us against Them. And I support Us. That removes a lot of the philosophy behind it and reduces it to how best to remove them. Operational versus theoretical.
I am glad that some of you stepped back from the pissing contest that the thread was becomeing although I had some really cool viscious comments that I was going to make at your expenses. But at least the moderators no longer have to judge who's dicks were bigger . . . sorry had to slip at least one comment in
As far as the US miltary goes, we have come so far in the ten years since the gulf war that we have amazing weapons of destruction. Its probbaly good for us, we can now kill more people from farther away than ever before. It will be less scarring on our own soliders because they won't for the most part SEE who they are killing or even have to watch them die. A Great Uncle served in the German Army during WWII at 14 on the Eastern Front, a russian jumed into his hole and hesitate seeing a little kid, my uncle didn't and bayoneted him . . it took the russian a while to die . . . messed my Uncle up good for life in some ways. Killing up close with a blade is personal. Killing someone after pushing a button is something you can have a beer over later. Very good for us, and bad for our enemies . . . until their technology catches up.
So let us by all means discuss this intellegently and rationally. Let us all means acknowledge the shortcomings of our politicians, their polices and its effect on the United States. And let us by all means be scathing and critical of them. We were before and they haven't suddenly changed into saints. IT sounds like a great happy hour discussion over a few shots of tequilla/jack daniels, and rum and diet's, my drinks of choice.
And then afterwards let us coldly and dissapassionately kill our enemies, burn their villages, and raze their crops to the ground.
PS. From what I understand Bill Maher's comments were taken highly out of context in the raw raw days after the attack . . . he probably should have known they were going to eviscerate him but they were not the way they were made out to be.
PPS. KsigRc, probably Gor's reactions would have been similar, he would have had good people also working for him, but he may not have been as likely to immediately start thinkin of legislation to limit certain civil rights on the domesticate side . . but who knows there is a lot of pressure right now to be restrictive.
Hybrid Mode
