• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

Grant said:
But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers. They want 'collateral damage', and never concern themselves with an 'exit strategy' because their exit strategy is centuries old.
Click to expand...

A bit presumptuous--eh? To suggest that Muslims don't care if their kids are blown up and killed. . .?

images


images


Grant said:
This is just part of the thinking behind what the West is up against.
Click to expand...

That thinking is based on cold logic. When armed w/nothing but rifles and RPGs and faced w/an opponent w/planes and tanks, the only rational defense is to level the playing field by forcing your opponent to duke it out on the streets one on one.

And the way to do that is to create a situation where the opponent's use of aerial bombs would result in so many civilian deaths that the opponent would have to hold back from using it. That's a tactic of asymmetric warfare.

Randomly blowing up one's kids for no reason would imply savagery. But being forced to endanger their lives because of practical military necessity is not.

And, of course, as the world has seen in Afghanistan, that thinking works. If Afghan forces had not employed that strategy, the US would've won quickly as their targets would've been conveniently placed :rolleyes:
 
solletica said:
WWII was far different from the kinds of wars the US military currently wages.

In WWII, the US was defending itself from an aggressor, so the collateral damage of the nuke was acceptable--it wouldn't have compromised the US objective.

But today, the US government fights offensive wars aimed at exploiting the natural resources of the attacked country. Nuclear weapons would be useless in such wars as they would make harnessing those resources difficult, i. e. once an Arab/African country is nuked, its oil fields and/or mines become contaminated and worthless.
Click to expand...

So you're of the opinion that this is all about exploiting a countries natural resources and the only way to get those resources is to declare a war on the object country? This idea is so pathetic that it beggars belief.

Canada has incredible natural resources and yet we have no fear of an American invasion. Do you know why??? We can trade our natural resources with the Americans, just as we do with the Chinese, Japanese, and dozens of other countries. No one has to invade another country to get their natural resources, and that goes for oil as well. And do you know why? It is simply not cost effective. It is cheaper and less hassle to just trade.


Could a-would a-should a. The point is that the US did not defeat the Viet Cong because it quit, which means the Viet Cong won by default.
Click to expand...

Right. The US could have easily won but they left. They knew full well, once they left, that the Communists would win. And the carnage that followed is what Left Wing politics is all about.

It will be both a military and political defeat, mostly for the US, as the bulk of troops in Afghanistan are American.
Click to expand...

The US is the leading democracy, for sure, but if the Taleban wins in Afghanistan, is that as bad for the Americans as it would be for the Afghanistan people?

The Communist may have "won" in Vietnam once the Americans left but what of the Vietnamese people? Did they win? It will be the people of Afghanistan who would be the real losers if NATO leaves, just as they have been for centuries.



:lol: the US is only a democracy on paper. In practice, it's a plutocracy. The CINC does not take orders from the American people, but only from oil companies/contractors, offense contractors, private equity firms, and hedge funds. The previous Iraq war made that more obvious--most of the country was against it, but the President didn't have to listen to the country.
Click to expand...

You obviously know nothing of the US or its history, even its very recent history. You should restrict your comments to areas where you are more knowledgeable
Click to expand...
 
Ron Mars said:
The Viet Cong were destroyed during the TET offensive in '68.
Click to expand...

They were only bloodied, not destroyed; if the latter were true, the US forces would've won right then and there by definition :rolleyes:

Ron Mars said:
The tali tactics are to hide behind women and children and explode bombs. When they fight US forces face to face they get their a** shot off. There is nothing superior about that.
Click to expand...

That's only one of their tactics.

And it must be superior because it's working--it's making it hard for the US military to use its planes, AC-130s, MOABs, or any of its other rumsfeld-ejaculation gadgets to win the war fast.
 
Grant said:
But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers...
Click to expand...
solletica said:
A bit presumptuous--eh? To suggest that Muslims don't care if their kids are blown up and killed.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure most reasonable people would read Grant's comment as referring specifically to Islamic terrorists, not to ALL Islamic people.
 
Whovian said:
Pretty sure most reasonable people would read Grant's comment as referring specifically to Islamic terrorists, not to ALL Islamic people.
Click to expand...

Thanks Whovian, and of course you read that as any normally intelligent person would.

That sort of response from Solletica is not uncommon and is intended to support the idea of "Islamophobia", as though we can't see the difference between Muslims and Islamic terrorists. They apparently feel this is clever but it seems to me that most people are getting weary of this crap. It is just too juvenile and turning people off.
 
zimmer said:
zimmer-albums-conservitoons-picture67113814-obamas-war.jpg



Hmmmmmmmmmmm... are we going to hear the leftists call The One a "warmonger"?

Protest with Hitler signs?

No War for Oil?

.
Click to expand...

Well there went a few years of NPR funding. Hahah

But I never expected Obama to get us out of the Middle East. I expected that he'd follow the current mantra and expand the wars in the Middle East. Thanks for not disappointing Republocrats!
 
Grant said:
Do "we" know that?

Do you have a link?

And i doubt the Islamists view Christians as their "cousins". The way they are treating Christians throughout the world, when they have the numbers in their favour, suggests they don't share the same familial attitudes as you think they do.

What made you think they were 'cousins', in any respect?
Click to expand...

He said far-right Christians, and he was right on target. Both believe in killing for their religion.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
Pretty sure most reasonable people would read Grant's comment as referring specifically to Islamic terrorists, not to ALL Islamic people.
Click to expand...

Right, and here are some of those Islamist terrorists (i. e. individuals who were labeled "terrorists" by the US and attacked by Israel) w/their deceased kids. . .

DEAD PALESTINIAN CHILDREN HAVE NAMES TOO « Desertpeace

Obviously, you can tell by the pics they don't care about their kids :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
He said far-right Christians, and he was right on target. Both believe in killing for their religion.
Click to expand...

I knw what he said, I quoted what he said, and I asked for a link.

As you are now pleading his case, do you have a link?
 
paris said:
What do you mean by actual sorties? They are flying over Libya. What more do you want?
Click to expand...

I want them to engage the enemy in combat, that's what I want. Otherwise, it's a sight seeing tour.
 
paris said:
Do you mean, the Vietcong who created an urban front in 1968 called the Alliance of National, Democratic, and Peace Forces, who then merged in June 1969 with the NLF to form a "Provisional Revolutionary Government," were a bunch of zombies?
Click to expand...

No. I mean the VC who were all but anihilated during the Norths TET offensive.

Most people are unaware like you and solletica.
 
solletica said:
I have. Recent history has shown that the US military, with the world's most expensive hardware, is unable to defeat a Third World fighting force (Taleban) after 8 years.

Recent history has also shown that the US military, with the world's most expensive hardware, is unable to repel attacks from 20-something sex-starved flight school flunkies.
Click to expand...

We have defeated every offensive by the talis. They run across the border to lick their wounds and regroup.

With each post you sound even more ridiculous. How old are you?
 
Demon of Light said:
We did much more than that. The U.S. government actually helped the Taliban take control of Afghanistan for a variety of reasons such as its hostility towards Iran and its willingness to allow that Unocal pipeline. However, they were just not willing to pay us the protection money.
Click to expand...

Got any docs to support that?
 
Grant said:
Reading is not your strong point, is it?
Click to expand...

It is. Here's you direct quote. . .

Grant said:
But that's the point, Ron Mars. The Islamists don't care if they hide behind women and children, or in fact use children as suicide bombers. They want 'collateral damage', and never concern themselves with an 'exit strategy' because their exit strategy is centuries old.
Click to expand...

You just wrote "Islamists don't care. . ."

Grant said:
From now on I'll ask you to use direct quotes or I honestly can't be bothered with you.
Click to expand...

See above. It would appear writing is not your strong point.
 
solletica said:
Right, and here are some of those Islamist terrorists (i. e. individuals who were labeled "terrorists" by the US and attacked by Israel) w/their deceased kids. . .

DEAD PALESTINIAN CHILDREN HAVE NAMES TOO « Desertpeace

Obviously, you can tell by the pics they don't care about their kids :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's difficult to tell whether you are being deliberately thick here or not, Solletica, but are you saying that Muslims have never used children as suicide bombers?
 
solletica said:
They were only bloodied, not destroyed; if the latter were true, the US forces would've won right then and there by definition .
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You really didn't know did you?

The war was fought by the North almost exclusively with NVA forces after TET.

solletica said:
That's only one of their tactics.

And it must be superior because it's working--it's making it hard for the US military to use its planes, AC-130s, MOABs, or any of its other rumsfeld-ejaculation gadgets to win the war fast.
Click to expand...


It's not just one of their tactics. It's the most effective. Fighting US forces ends with lots of dead talis.

AC-130's are shredding the talis and have been for years. It's the most feared weapons system we deploy in Afghanistan. They can't see or hear it.

You really need to quit this site and move over to Democrat Underground. They would love you over there.
 
Last edited:
Whovian said:
Pretty sure most reasonable people would read Grant's comment as referring specifically to Islamic terrorists, not to ALL Islamic people.
Click to expand...

No, most reasonable people would not infer that if someone merely wrote "Islamist" that he wouldn't automatically mean "Islamic terrorist."

Someone with specific prejudices against Muslims (i. e. an Islamaphone), however, would be likely to make such a presumption.
 
Grant said:
Right.

Do you understand the difference between "Islamists" and ordinary Muslims?

If you don't then just ask and it will be explained.
Click to expand...

It's unlikely there is any such person as an "ordinary Muslim", considering all human beings are unique.

I think what you meant to say (but evidently had difficulty writing) was that you wanted to explain the difference between "Islamists" and Muslims.

And yes, please do explain.
 
solletica said:
No, most reasonable people would not infer that if someone merely wrote "Islamist" that he wouldn't automatically mean "Islamic terrorist."

Someone with specific prejudices against Muslims (i. e. an Islamaphone), however, would be likely to make such a presumption.
Click to expand...

But those would infer such a thing would remarkably stupid, Solletica, and if we always have to take remarkably stupid people into account by explaining everything to them in the most simple words and greatest detail possible, it would take forever to write a post.

What's wrong with being "Islamophobic", by the way? You think Islam has something special going for it?
 
solletica said:
It's unlikely there is any such person as an "ordinary Muslim", considering all human beings are unique.

I think what you meant to say (but evidently had difficulty writing) was that you wanted to explain the difference between "Islamists" and Muslims.

And yes, please do explain.
Click to expand...

If you didn't understand the original post, why did you comment on it?

Islamists are those who would not hesitate to promote Islam through terrorism and who deny the rights of freedom of religion to others. You know of them, right?

And do you know that Muslims have used children as ambulatory bombs in the past?

And if you don't understand the difference between an "ordinary" Muslim and a terrorist then how can anyone else? If there is no difference between them then the spread of "Islamophobia" will probably continue.
 
Manc Skipper said:
We know the American religious far right views diplomacy as weakness. Whether or not their Islamic cousins do so or not is less certain.
Click to expand...

Many of them might also view broad and fairly baseless generalizations as libelous nonsense. But I can't speak for them.

I do, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom