Is it good to be drenched in the blood of war?, page 1

Originally posted by CazMedia
KJ, its odd we would butt heads but,

I know, and lecturing was not the goal of my last post (by the way, forgot you were in the media, and I'm positive we agree wholeheartedly about the gaps in "service" to the people). I'll edit your lengthy post so this doesn't get too long.

Ive seen plenty of the bits of bodies, watched the still spurting blood spray from an injured person running by the camera, and heard the screams and terror of the scene that YOU'll never hear or see.
So from MY perspective...I understand FULLY the ramifications of what is transpiring.

I have seen it, and have no desire to again, but I understand your point and wasn't contesting that, nor did I call the media evil.

This is not about "breaking some eggs" to accomplish some goal..its about making as SURE as we can that those pictures dont start getting taped HERE, in YOUR neighborhood.

Is it? I question the prime motivation for this war while understanding the basic need for extreme change in Iraq. The question is not in the human justification, only the governmental reasons and the practical execution of it thus far. I personally have found it lacking for many reasons, and from a previous infantryman in the Marines I wish my friends weren't there in the capacity they are currently.

There is NOTHING wrong with AMERICANS feeling for AMERICANS first!!!
If you dont, then exactly who are you placing before your fellow citizens and what does that say about loyalty, and support of ones HOME first?
Who will you sell us out to for a buck? (HINT HINT FRENCH GOV/FOOD FOR OIL)

I place no one in front of Americans, but on the other hand, I do not wish death for a percieved and basically untrue "threat" which would never materialize. The toppling of Iraq could have come from many sources, to include the Arab world (using correct influence and channels which I doubt anyone here would agree we don't have).

Iraq was the second domino in the chain to fall behind afganistan...while PHYSICALLY Iraq was seemingly more of a threat before the war than weve discovered, they were NEVER a tangible threat to the USA....they were an IDEOLOGICAL THREAT.

OK, so you've stated my point entirely. When speaking to an "ideological threat" and in many cases resulting in "insurgents", the best option is not in occupation. Occupation has been, and always will be, a last resort.

Letting this idea that this kind of behaivior will not have any reprocussions only FUELS people like saddam or hitler...hitler took 3 countries before the world war 2 "officially" started...europe tried appeasment and hitler just laughed and got ready to take more.

I think the comparison is a bit extreme, but I'll take it none-the-less. We spent a pretty penny for our 12 years of "containment", not to mention it damaged the people of Iraq far more than Saddam (being the inherent nature of dictators). It stands to reason, considering we are one of the biggest supporters of "insurgents" worldwide. We have trained and supported them for decades (if not longer) yet we sought swift action. The mistake was there.

The idea that America is too scared, to weak willed, and too unwilling to take casualties and dish them out is an idea that has been rattling around the world since NAM....this enabled Osama to use indotronated, poor, uneducated masses to become suicide bombers and attack an enemy that they have been taught from early ages to hate. This idea has been festering for decades and the time has come to show some resolve and stand up against lawlessness, tyrany, and ideals that anr basically not civilized.

You are right, Osama is a bad guy, to US. Osama is not a bad guy per se, especially when we funded and trained them for this very use. Our own dog has come back to bit us on the hand and we don't take kindly to that. Where is the confussion there? Should we take a stand against terror when we created and fostered it? Of course, but we should not be surprised.

1 fanatical religion has tought them that we are evil...we dont even deserve to be converted to Islam...they just want jihad against us. Kill the infidels and take revenge for the crusades.

Perhaps, but the basis did not materialize from nothing, and the fact that people think these people fight for nothing is rediculous. They are NOT cowards, they are NOT crazy, and they are NOT killing for sport. It takes extreme resolve to kill yourself for something you believe in. Honestly I'd say most over here wouldn't come close to doing the same.

There MUST be a more concrete reason for their action. If what you say is true, then we are dealing with the mob mentality, one you could use when speaking of a group of Klansmen hanging a black man, but not in a lone suicide bomber and the like.

2 their poor and were not...basic greed.

This is disagree with fundamentally, and it seems rediculous to me. If this was true, the "sleepers" in this country already would put away their C-4 and enjoy the American dream of Wal-Mart and Food Lions. Also, if this is true, then why not hit Japan, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and the tons of other rich coutries. There is a specific agenda here, one we can not afford to mistake for oversimplified reasons.

Im sure weve done things that they strongly disaproved of, but this is an excuse for suicide attacks against civilians instead of government or millitary targets? When is the last time ive seen Americans take a school full of foriegn hostages and then shoot naked fleeing children in the back? This just the most recent example of total barbarism that generations of radical fundamentalist muslims have been programed for.

I think saying "Im sure weve done things that they strongly disaproved of" is a bit of an understatement considering our action abroad over the past 30 years or so. The support of terror, the support of Israel regardless of what they do, dominence of the US dollar, being infused in the war and death in the middle east not limited to the Iran/Iraq war.

I also think they "disapprove" of George the First leaving the resistance fighters high and dry after the first Gulf War, killing 30,000+ people and driving hundreds of thousands more off is a bit of a start.

You say that the cost of engaging this plauge is too high (war) and we should not do anything to combat this agressivly, to break their spirits to use uncivilized tactics to disrupt the worlds stablity and basically hold us all hostage? We should not make it clear to other rouge states like syria, iran, n korea that indeed there is a concequence for continued defiance of the civilized world and speciffically actions against the USA?
Whimpy whimpy whimpy .

Quote me where I said nothing should be done. Find where I claim to want America to curl up and wimper away. It's plainly untrue.

But you have confussed my unwillingness to expend life poorly with lack of strength. There is no fool like a big fool, and much like Nam, we are waging it poorly (although we were on the wrong side in Nam unlike in Iraq).

A person can be against the war because the execution is terrible, the timing is well past due, and the world (regardless of international politics) is fighting us.

We created the terrorist, and we are writing their slogans for them with each bomb, raid, and mishap. Will they happen? Yes, but there are ways to do things, and ways not to.

Id rather be drenched in my enemys blood than that of my family...
better get busy living or get busy dying
ignoring this problem will not make it go away, even if it would, what price would we pay for this appeasment? i think that is too high a price to NOT take action..

Even when that action is foolhardy? Even when it has the very real chance of coming back ten fold? I'll not support the sheding of blood of innocents in an attempt to control the uncontrolable.