Something about liberals really angers me

[notyoueither]

Arabs are Indo European Bosh.

[Alexander's Horse]

What angers you about liberals is they don't agree with you.

Grow up

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by orange
i'm talking about Afghanistan...our goal was not to declare war on a country, but to surgically remove a few chioce 'leaders'

I think the goal of your administration was to demolish a government that harboured terrorists and to capture as many of the terrorists as possible. That could just be my interpretation, but that's just me.

There is never going to be anything surgical about invading another country.

[Kepler]

Pacifism and isolationism aren't "liberal" or "conservative," they cut across those categories. For every liberal who doesn't want to "destabilize the indigenous culture of Oogetyboogetyland," there's a conservative who is incensed about "our American boys shedding their precious blood for dirty fer'ners." For every liberal who doesn't want to "feed the military-industrial complex," there's a conservative who doesn't want to "submit to the socialist dictates of world government."

Get your terms straight.

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Something about liberals really angers me

Originally posted by Tingkai
Getting Osama was the prime objective.

Not in the invasion it wasn't. The point of the invasion was to destroy the government, then get OBL and others.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by orange


Sorry, that's what we should be aiming for. 0 civilian casualties. I wouldn't tolerate anything less from the greatest most advanced fighting force the planet has ever seen.

Nope, that's not a realistic aim. If you can control the weather (wind gusts, visibility) and get your enemy to courteously not shoot back when you're targeting him, and get you enemy to sit still in the open well away from any civilians, then you've got a better chance.

It's real simple - our enemies make a point of trying to blend into civilian areas, blend in with the civilian population, and make themselves harder to detect.

No human activity is perfect, and if you never take a shot because there might be a chance an innocent is hit, you may as well just not shoot 99% of the time. And let the enemy get away, and waste you because he doesn't operate under those constraints.

The best way to minimize civilian casualties is to win the war quickly and decisively, not to play around forever because you might hurt the wrong people.

[Blisterz]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61983

Give me P!

Give me A!

Give me R!

Give me A!

Give me G!

Give me R!

Give me A!

Give me P!

Give me H!

Whats that spell?


PARAGRAPH!!!!

[johncmcleod]

I'm sorry about using the term 'liberals'. Just most of the people against he war are liberals, that's all. And, I acknowledge the fact that there have been some civilian casualties. But like I said before, we're not just getting our soldiers to go running around, guns blazing, killing civilians. We're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
We're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.

At least things have changed since Vietnam.

[Ethelred]

Its always easy to be against another group when you make up their position for them or label EVERYONE in the group with the actions of few.

Why just think how much I could put down ALL Republicans for the actions of a few narrow minded individuals on Aployton if I was to act that way myself.

[Sava]

As a liberal, I guess my big qualm with the Afghan campaign was the amount of money spent. During the months after 9/11 the military was spending a billion dollars a day on the campaign. Come on, that is the biggest waste of money I've seen since the whole Ken Starr thing. For that amount of money, they could have built up our security infrastructure so that international cargo shipments could be checked; as well as improving airline security.

Yes, its good that the Taliban is gone. But how many oppressive regimes that support terror are there? It seems to me that the Afghan campaign was a very inefficient way of dealing with terror. That's why I'm very much opposed to going into Iraq. The money they waste on these fruitless foreign campaigns is money that could be better spent improving domestic security.

Or here's an idea. How about you use that money to make 3rd world countries agriculturally self-sufficient? I'm sure that would make it a hell of a lot harder to recruit terrorists. Unfortunately, Republican leadership is more interested in giving corporate welfare to defense contracters and rattling sabres than actually improving things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Arabs are Indo European Bosh.

No they aren't. They're Semites.

[chequita guevara]

It's not liberals who are opposed to the war, it's progressives and radicals.

[Urban Ranger]

So are you a progressive or a radical?

[MrFun]

Let's follow the thread author's logic.

Some liberals are anti-war, therefore all liberals are anti-war. Ok, then in that case:

Some whites are racist, that means that all whites are racist.

Some blacks are racist, that means that all blacks are racist.

Some conservatives are bigots, that means that all conservatives are bigots.


Anyway, to what extent do these two lessons that our dear mothers taught us, apply to international politics?

1) Violence never solves anything.

2) Two wrongs do not make a right.