Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ] |
Since logic does not seem to be your strong suit, may I suggest a bit of reading? Start with Neville Chamberlain (circa 1939... "Peace at any price") and go backwards from there. Throughout history there have been numerous occasions of pacifistic thinking that invited abuse and aggression, even predicated their use.
To clarify my statement, I will ask it in a way no one can claim leaves any doubt as to its intent:
How many more September 11th atrocities must our people suffer, how many more civilians must die at the hands of fanatical homicide bombers before even you folks understand that those deaths were competely unneccessary? They would have been prevented had men and women of conscience acted to prevent them from happening.
I am getting sickened to death by that crap about innocent people getting killed in war. That argument is specious, assinine and just plain intellectual bull crap. Listen to me and pay close attention this time. I commanded men in combat. On more than one occasion I gave orders to NOT return fire from a "vil" where North Vietnamese Regular Army Forces were held up mixed in with a civilian population while they fired at us. On more than one occasion the reverse was true. We were in an area containing civilians. That didn't slow the bastards down a second. They opened fire. I saw American boys die trying to protect innocent children, women, elderly men and women and infants. One I saw one boy die trying to draw fire away from a family's water buffalo, the family's only means of making a living.
I am sure that there exist some U. S. military people who might wantonly ignore the possibility of civilian casualties in executing an attack. I would dare say that there are few such and far fewer in a position to give such orders. Even then, I know from first hand experience there exist a majority of us who would refuse such an illegal order. That's the U. S. side. Can you or any other fool explain to me if you think Saddam Hussein or any of his wild-eyed fanatical fiendish followers would have the same compunctions?
We don't station our military targets in the midst of schools, hospitals, businesses, churches and residential areas. Recent overflights of Iraq show that is EXACTLY what Hussein and his military minions are doing there now. If they get hurt, are you claiming that would be our fault? Would you prefer, and are you saying that even one more innocent American victim of Hussein or been Laidbad's mindless acts of terror is preferable to stopping the madmen before they can kill any more of us who are not members of teh military but simple slobs going about our daily lives?
If that is your point, then you need to submit yourself for tarring and feathering (your remedy, remember?) and being stripped of your undeserved citizenship (again, your proposed remedy). If you would willingly sacrifice eve a single American life to protect the likes of Hussein, even if it means that some of his people will suffer for HIS criminal actions, then I don't think you have any rightful claim to American citizenship either.
Also, just because I tend to study and read a bit more, I will inform you that the Geneva Conventions places the blame for such civilian casualties suffered under those circumstances directly on the head of the person who ordered military targets and installations placed in proximity to civilian populations, hospitals, schools, churches and businesses. According to the Geneva Conventions, such a person is defined as being a War Criminal... not the people who bombed, strafed or attacked those legitimate enemy targets! What's so damned hard to understand about that? How can any supposedly rational person claim such casualties in Iraq would be attributable to anyone except Hussein and his military leaders who carried out his orders to do this?
The assh*les who recently went to Iraq to be "human shields" must understand that those who organized these efforts are subject under the laws as they now exist to prosecution as war criminals after hostilities end. Should any of those asses get wounded or killed while acting so criminally and stupidly, I won't have a moment's pity for them. I will only mourn those who survive and any American, British or other ally's soldier who may get so much as a hang nail as a result of the action.
You wear a badge on your chest, Z-dr, though I understand you mainly deal with road violations. What happens, however, if you get into a situation when a gang of trouble-makers who make it plain that they intend to hurt you if you attempt to make them stop violating a law? Will you turn tail and run, ignoring your radio and the chance to call for backup? Will you leave your weapon in its holster, refusing to draw or fire it in case you might hit someone who is a part of the group but not actively taking part in the specific threatening action? I hope to Hell it never happens to you, but, should it, you can bet your ass that you will defend yourself, acting preemptively or we will be writing your eulogies here.
As for people saying that they haven't seen enough proof yet that Hussein is doing what our government claims, what you are saying is that they haven't shown it to you in a way that you are willing to accept. You would tell anyone in a criminal investigation that you were conducting that you could not reveal a whole lot of incriminating evidence at their demand. That would be necessary in order to protect any on-going investigation and to prevent revealing law enforement techniques. You would damned well expect them to understand and accept that explanation and trust you to do the job you were hired to do. If they refused and became a problem, you would want to put them in jail.
We hired George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfield and a bunch of other "policemen" to do this job. It serves no useful purpose for our intelligence agencies to compromise human lives or intelligence gathering data and methods to satisfy your curiosity. Are you going to extend to them the same courtesy and trust you would demand for yourself? You see, my friend, there are those of us who believe that almost ANYONE wearing a badge and a uniform cannot ever be trusted to tell the truth and they feel that way for justifiable cause. I have every right to feel that way, but I don't usually. I normally trust teh folsk we hire to investigate crime and fight it to do the job properly. If they don't I want them pilloried and punished to the nth degree. That is how you ought to view the situation vis a vis Iraq. You demand that for yourself. Why won't you extend the same to President Bush and our government, sir?
To paraphrase Pogo (a comic strip from long ago), "You has met the enemy and be damned if it ain't you too!"