Welcome to Gaia! ::

Yes, and using total war at allwhen people who hate us have nukes would be stupid, not to mention the backlash from our own allies and own civilians when we start such a campaign.



A vailid point, but that only gets a few of the insurgents. How many gun-only ambushes have our troops walked into? What's the point of pissing off the civilians if most of the insurgents are going to get away anyway?



This has been established many times.



If you think I'm insulting you, you have very thin skin.



Fair point, but that doesn't apply to either Saddam, not Bin Laden - in neither case were we freeing anybody, we were just butting in where we didn't belong, and ended up ramming ourselves in the a**.



So you say, but you also said this:



Thus establishing that you were proposing a plan of door to door violence, and if you combine that with this:



You end-up leaving a distict impression that you want people dead, not captured. You also didn't do yourself any favors with this:



In which you established that you believe that total war - which is what I presented your policy suggestion as - is a valid means of achieving our goals.

So I'll re-phrase my door-to-door executions comment for you: You want door-to-door fighting, you want to overkill, and you feel that total war is a valid tactic... Or so you claimed.

Thank you for those links, now I have a MUCH Better idea of whats going on. I may even reserve them on a document or something for future use.

By the way, this is a DISSCUSION thread, NOT an arguing thread. I'm beginning to get tired of the post like the one above. At least try to keep it in polite disagreement. Please either keep it civil, or let it drop. And no, I don't want to hear any of that "I try to be civil, but he/she.." Give it a rest. You can disagree, but this is turning into a heated argument over "He said/she said" and I think it's time to let it go. The war in Iraq is a big issue, and of course there will be disagreements, but this one has gone to far. GIVE IT A REST, PEOPLE. Thank you.

And violence is the only way to tell an insurgent from a civilian. Even if we could search every single house at the same time to keep them from moving contraband to a "clean" house, we would still miss far too many to make it worth the effort or bad PR.



It's hardly genius - I think everybody's thought of this at some point. The problem is that attempting to kidnap them just start a war anyway, if you can even get to them in the first place.



You must be mistaken, I quoted something you said it earlier in this thread. The rest of the paragraph was incorrect, and therefore irrelevent.



I take great offense to that, I have neither misquoted nor slandered you. Such accusations should not be tossed about lightly. I have merely stated an interpretation on what you said, and provided the relevent text to support said interpretation.

I would advise you to look into what slander is before tossing obviously false accusations around. Here is a link to get you started.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander

Either way, it's still untrue.



First: Nor did I give you permission to use my name for quotations in this thread. Nor do you have explicit permission to use any of the quotations you have ever used.

Second: You DID say it, and if repeating statements out of context was illegal then Moore and Coulter would be in jail.

Third: Nothing you said past that point had any impact on the first line itself.

Fourth: I would have included the paragraph if sigs were long enough.

Fifth: You didn't ask nicely.



So you say, but you have yet to demonstrate that.



It's very hard to see someone who considers total war valid as something OTHER than a war monger. Do you even know what "total war" means?



When you call total war is valid, you're stating that targeting civilians is valid when at war. Overkill in war means the use of excessive force in all situations.

Combining the two statements YOU MADE, the logical conclusion is that you feel that genocide is a valid way to fight a war.



Are you saying that you don't mean what you say? Clearly, if you believe somebody is attempting to take your words out of context and distort their meaning, then it would be best for you to be very careful with what you say and how you say it.



The leaders are largely irrelevent. The hatred isn't going to stop until we stop screwing around where we don't belong and pissing people off. We have a history of making our own problems, and we aren't going to stop having problems until we stop making problems for ourselves.



Can you support the claim that I'm twisting your words to fit my opinions to make you look like something you're not?



I already explained this point: Most insurgents we've caught haven't had suicide vests or other inordinate weaponry. They know they're less likely to get caught if they use weapons that everybody else has.

Do you believe that EVERY insurgent walks around in a C4 and ball bearing vest or something?



I haven't seen our media proclaiming that - did Fox say that's what the media is saying?



I have not seen a SINGLE story that cast our troops in a negative light (Aside from Abu Gharib, of course). I'd like some examples, as MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and other allegedly liberal sources haven't shown any enmity for our men and women in uniform - at least, whenever *I* have the TV on.



I agree.



A well reasoned and rational paragraph.



I'm going to keep showing both inconsistancies and absurdities in your statements until you finally get it right.

Ok, no cookie for you.



Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of total war. Total war is defined as war that targets civilians in addition to millitary targets. I gave you a quote as evidence of this.

Did they NOT teach you about Sherman's march to the sea in history class?



I ignore your comments about being forced into a war because they are not relevent - We were not forced into Iraq, nor does that affect your statements regarding how to fight it now that we're here.

I am not waging a decharacterization campaign - That would mean that I was targeting you as a person with negative attacks in an deliberate attempt to unfairly tarnish your name in the eyes of the public. However, the most I have done publicly is presenting a quote that will tarnish your name in only certain groups, and even then only to the extent that they are offended by foul language - people who support you will assume it was justified, while people who do not aren't going to think less of you then they already do. Please avoid such libel in the future.




Sadly, those two statements are VERY related. They are both statements as to how you feel war should be fought.

You feel Total war is valid, and you fell that we need to use overkill, correct? You DID make both statements, did you not?

The two statements are about the exact same thing - how you feel war should be fought - and I am only using them together with that specific relation. There's your proof that's not proof of what you claim.



My intent in this is clarification, which is quite clear, except for elitest people like you, who ignorantly ignore what was said to further your decharacterization campaigns.



But unless the underlying problems are solved, the leaders aren't going to be able to help no matter how much they might want to.



"Those who do not learn from history are doomed To repeat it."

I'd stop pointing out that the we're the root of our own problems if we stopped causing more. We're STILL tossing our weight around and meddling where we don't belong all over the world, and it's GOING to come back and bite us in the a**. Heck, we're STILL making things worse in the middle-east by meddling with their governments!



How did we get dragged into Iraq? How do you propose to get both sides to get together and make nice when we won't even stop pissing in their eye?

You can say you want to make peace all you want, but if you refuse to accept blame for your part in things, and keep doing things that piss the other side off, peace will never come - and you're just going to blame them for that.



I did. You proved nothing, you simply denied a statement.



While pissing-off the civilians and making people more likely to support their cause.

Why do you think they *aren't* doing that? Instead, they're sending tendrils into the populace to form an information network, and then using that to find sites most likely to be insurgent-held. It's faster and more efficient than a brute force search, and makes the citizens like you more, not less.



I'm smart enough to tell when somebody is reading into things too much, and I'm more than smart enough to notice a disguised insult when I see one. Good job!



Now, I live in New York, and if *anybody* is going to think they hate us (Aside, perhaps, those in very xenophobic areas. Or California), it's here. People around here don't think the Iraqis hate us, nor do they have any malice for our troops - in fact, the only people who have even mentioned negativity about our troops are hardline conservatives who accuse everybody to the left of them of it, and then find themselves a little flat-footed when they list off what divisions they have friends in.

Perhaps your area just has more stupid people?



What memo? That Danny-boy one? Might have been real, probably wasn't. It really doesn't matter, it was a bad source and I'm glad they were called on it.



The media is largely centrist, and anybody who claims otherwise is paranoid. 3nodding



Even if you refuse to admit it, they are. 3nodding



They have been. Not as much, because most people don't watch that kind of stuff, but they often do.

Actually, there was this really nice story on a little while back about a girl who had some kind of severe heart problem, and about how a platoon of troops got the cash together to send her and her family to the US for treatment. It's far from the only one, but it was one of the more touching ones.



We weren't forced to fight this one, and the way you would fight a war is at issue.



Ah, SO close. You mustered up the will to use the word "please", but you seem to have not quite gotten enough together to phrase it as a request instead of an order.

Trying to make me fat, ay?




No, I still target civilian buildings that would help the war effort. Power plants, roads, water treatment, etc...



So you admit to ignoring facts in evidence. stare


You really should rexamine things you've said before you make comments like this. You really should. And for somebody trying to educate me on slander, you forgot to look up libel. I can still consider it harrasement.



Very related when taken out of context of where they were said, and to what they were in reply to. Like asking me if I support the death penatly and if I support punishing criminals and then assuming that I support the death penatly for all crimes. They were not in direct relation to make that assumption. They were not the same. They were in different relations. You're the one who erronously put them together and continues to refuse to admit your error. The only proof you're creating is that you can't admit you made a mistake.


Your attempt is far short of clarification. I've already clarified myself multiple times. You ignore this consistently. You're wrong and can't admit it. And as long as you continue to refuse to admit your mistake, continue to provide farther miscontructions of my words, and errantly post, I will be forced to continue to correct your misgivings. You'd do us all a favour by accepting the truth and moving on with your life.



Oh gee, I wonder whose going to be working to solve these problems? stare


And I can't change what we're doing now either. I can however define my policy towards it. I however am not going to say it is my fault for something that politicians did years ago. I didn't do it, I am not at fault for it. And to do such things is to only hold grudges and continue to be intolerant. It's people who are doing just as you are doing and saying it's all our fault that only farther propogates the problem. I forgive what happened and move on to improving relations rather than saying it's all our fault. And if the middle east would stop commiting acts of aggression? Can't really go after them when they're not comminting geonocide or crimes against humanity. They don't have to like us, but they don't have to taunt us either. The simple fact is, if they don't want us over there, they too are going to have to learn to get along with us. Saudia Arabia has done a pretty good job of this. They've been dicking us for years, but by being on decent terms they've really secured themselves.


And why bother with developing a detailed plan when I'm not going to be in any position to implement one for years. I didn't get us dragged into Iraq. But by showing that I support them going to the peace table I'm at least promoting the idea. And an engaged populas can be a rather powerful thing.


Or I'm going to blame the people who started this s**t. I didn't start it. They didn't start it. So why should we fight over something we didn't start. I refuse to accept your collective guilt bullshit. I am not responsible for America's past actions. And it's people who keep saying we are that are going to keep us from every achieving peace. And I never said I would blame them. So there you go again with not telling the truth. And I didn't say I'd do more things to piss them off.



You're blind right? I've repeatdly pointed out again and again where you've screwed up what I've said. You're just too arogant to admit it.



But it still does what I say. And if the civilians are actually informed as to the neccissity of driving out insurgent strongholds, and searches are carried out respectfully, you're not going to run into as much trouble. Especially if you couple them with a vast humanitarian effort to setup the town.


And it's working oh so well too... Wage a more effective pr campaign and you're going to achieve your efforts faster. Less guns, more information.



Now maybe you can start finding your own insults.



Perhaps it's the more conservative right. Nice insult by the way. Very sterotypical. Then again, we'd be better off if the East Coast stop trying to steal our money to give to their inner cities anyways. Either way, you want negativity of our troops, try the left in the midwest. But who are you to claim that New York would be a center for it over the Midwest, a Bush supporting part of the country. You want a good showing of what the media does, just look at all the left-wing childrend spouting off Nightly News comments like they were actually factually.

I find it really sad when rag-magazines can report the facts better than the nightly news.


Yeah, if you average them between Fox and CBS. But they are in no way not bias. Hardly ever can they report the facts without slanting it horriably. The BBC is probably the closest to objective journalism. But saying there isn't media bias is like saying Rush Limbaugh is objective.


Are not. whee



They have been. Not as much, because most people don't watch that kind of stuff, but they often do.

Actually, there was this really nice story on a little while back about a girl who had some kind of severe heart problem, and about how a platoon of troops got the cash together to send her and her family to the US for treatment. It's far from the only one, but it was one of the more touching ones.
And I would like to see a lot more of these stories headlined for national news.


Unless it's the issue of blaming America for the problem. So which issue is this in reference to? I'd like to actually know what you're refering to before I blatently make false assumptions, twist words around, and generally disregard what was said.


Please remove me from your sig. And I would like to note for the record that this is the third time I've asked that it be removed. Just incase I end up having to force this issue further up the line. Just to let you know that it will eventually be removed through force if it must.

Uh, I didn't so much ask as I did say. Actually, I made my post as if I was in a room listining to the two of you, and tryng to intervene. The post was made conversation wise. But thank you for bringing an end to this. Now we can get back to disscussing topics. biggrin

I've got an idea: lets change the topic name to "Tanasha and Jahoclave's b***h-slapping thread" stare