JimSmith - 10/25/2005 7:01 PM
Botnst - 10/25/2005 5:45 PM
Oh, you're not going to like this place. I'm betting somebody will call you a Nazi sympathizer pretty soon.
Those guys have been really excited at the approaching 2k mark. It reminds me of their frenzied frothing for 1k.
Bot, 'fess up, you like it when that Nazi label comes out. I think you have used the threat of it coming from others more often than anyone has actually tried to pin it on Bush and his team lately. I think it must get your blood stirred up. And what's with the frenzied frothing over the 2k dead issue? It is just another American boy's life given up by a country for some unenunciated goal when the conflict started, that we would likely never have backed as a nation, after having watched 1999 of our boys come home in flag covered boxes. I mean, what the hell is the excitement about? Why get in a frenzied, frothing state? Looks like another 56,152 have to go by our standard set in Vietnam before we acknowledge we don't have a just cause, leave, and end the killing. That is a long way to go.
According to the statistics of how many more Iraqis and others making up the local population that die for every American that loses his life bringing democracy to Iraq, that should translate to about 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 or more of these lesser humans that we must also kill before the killing at the instigation of America or hands of Americans in Iraq stops.
We once had a debate going on whether or not a nuke on 9/12/2001 would have been a bigger or smaller crime against humanity than this slow killing business. That was when we thought Osamma=Saddam and Al Qaieda = Iraqis or something like that and we were going in to Iraq to rid us of the immediate threat Saddam posed to the United States. The prospect of killing several million Iraqis in the name of defending America from 9/11 attacks, while Osamma is gleefully screwing as many virgins as he can, where ever he is, just fails any common sense test.
We need to face the fact that we suck unbelievably at this kind of warfare. We should therefore either get really good at it, kind of be a super power at it, or, stop pretending to be a super power when we make it apparent we can't hold our own if someone does kill a couple thousand of us at a time, or, be a freaking superpower and use our superpower skills and capabilities when we have to get aggressive and win.
The key is "have to get aggressive" and how you make that determination. Big time weapons that kill tens of thousands in an instant require a lot more serious consideration before the trigger is pulled. "Little" skirmishes where there is a lot of posturing with airplanes and ships, or "shock and awe" campaigns, can apparently be started without any actual brainpower being applied. Another reason to stop those tactics. Even Bush was taken aback at the idea of using nukes.
We should make the effort to get "safer" nukes, nukes that still kill tens of thousands, but don't make the area uninhabitable for decades. We should also lower the threshold for using such weapons, so that we can actually defend ourselves with them and stop getting goaded into these situations where we agree to confront an enemy on his turf, using his rules of engagement when we have all the evidence we need that we suck at that. We should also feel free to take direct action to stop others from developing similar weapons. Jim