No, I didn't say that.

Current Events » in reply to How many have been released who haven't done any such thing?

No, I didn't say that.

Tom Brosz — 12/28/2004 8:46:57 PM (archived)

You suggest that to put the lives of American soldiers at risk to support the Western concept of rule of law is not valid. What would you have them risk their lives for? What's the basis for American greatness, anyway?

What I said is that such a choice IS valid. But then one has to accept the near-certainty that American soldiers--and possibly other innocent people--will die in greater numbers because of it.

The deaths of American troops has been presented here as symbolic of failure, when in fact it symbolizes that we are fighting a war in as civil a manner as is possible where wars are concerned, and taking the hits that are part of that process.

If morality and civilized behavior were not an issue, we had the option of erasing the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Saddam's regime in a single night, with the loss of no American lives, and far less money. Genocide always works.

The whole thread (54 posts)

Further Gitmo detainee abuse alleged - FBI memos substantiate prisoner's claims, lawyers say - Bowser - 12/26/2004 5:40:19 AM
- The Recycle Trick. - Tom Brosz - 12/27/2004 2:11:23 AM
  - No. Some people keep claiming torture is isolated. The US seems to have Abu Ghraibs all over. - Bowser - 12/27/2004 3:09:35 AM
- Frankly, Bowser, I don't give a damn. I lost any sympathy for terrorists that I ever might have had a long time ago; September 11, 2001 to be exact. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 12/26/2004 6:01:18 AM
  - And you advocate terrorism - carpet-bombing cities. Sez a lot. It all, really. (n/t) - Bowser - 12/27/2004 12:08:34 AM
    - Where did you get that nonsense? (n/t) - David F Mayer - 12/27/2004 2:54:22 PM
      - Why deny something so easily demonstrated? - Bowser - 12/27/2004 9:37:09 PM
        
        Wrong. I NEVER said that. - David F Mayer - 12/27/2004 10:45:32 PM
        
        Dont lie, you bigoted hack - R.L. - 12/28/2004 5:18:09 AM
        
        Moab is NOT carpet bombing. It is a single bomb directed at a single, hardened target. - David F Mayer - 12/28/2004 5:50:55 PM
        
        re: Moab is NOT carpet bombing. It is a single bomb directed at a single, hardened target. - Davin L. - 12/28/2004 9:57:30 PM
        
        The term was generically applied to all super-sized ordnance. - David F Mayer - 12/29/2004 2:31:50 PM
        
        NO IT ISNT YOU TWIT- YOU ARE DESPERATELY THYING TO WEASEL OUT OF YOUR OWN STUPID STATEMENTS! - R.L. - 12/29/2004 8:25:01 PM
        
        re: The term was generically applied to all super-sized ordnance. - Davin L. - 12/29/2004 3:59:50 PM
        
        Test of first MOAB (modernized 'daisy cutter') here - R.L. - 12/28/2004 9:33:38 PM
        
        More on MOAB to educate DFM - R.L. - 12/28/2004 9:28:39 PM
        
        Get YOUR facts straight- MOAB stands for Massive Ordinance Air Burst and is meant for taking out LARGE formations of troops- it is not a 'penetrating' warhead- educate yourself - R.L. - 12/28/2004 8:30:50 PM
        
        Hence the term "Daisy-Cutter" used for early designs of such weapons. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/28/2004 8:34:56 PM
        
        R.L. says his favorite word again. He really likes it you know. :-D (n/t) - Lee - 12/28/2004 8:21:24 AM
        
        I only use it when it fits- when someone advocates the MOAB'ing of a civilian city when the murder of a few of their own innocents is the ultimate crime, and when someone lauds Nazi germany and the f… - R.L. - 12/29/2004 7:05:59 AM
        
        MOABs on Fallujah - Tom Brosz - 12/28/2004 6:38:14 AM
        
        Tom Brosz wrote: "And a lot of people are either too immature or too stupid to understand this." Or too doctrinaire in their beliefs that the USA is evil and anything that opposes it is good by defin… - David F Mayer - 12/29/2004 2:34:16 PM
        
        Well, you could start by pointing out that we have not done any "carpet-bombing" in the current Iraq war. - Tom Brosz - 12/27/2004 9:46:34 PM
      - It's been one of his regurgitated mantras for weeks. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/27/2004 7:12:09 PM
  - It has nothing to do with sympathy - Donald - 12/26/2004 6:29:19 PM
    - Terrorists are NOT protected persons under the Geneva Conventions. They have no rights whatsoever. Once it has been determined that someone is a member of Al Qaeda, we can do whatever we like to them… (n/t) - David F Mayer - 12/27/2004 9:39:17 PM
      - You dont seem to consider Arab civilians 'Protected persons' - what distinguishes you from the radical imams supporting the murder of innocents? (n/t) - R.L. - 12/28/2004 8:36:56 PM
        
        According to the Geneva Conventions, "a competent tribunal" - David F Mayer - 12/29/2004 5:17:14 PM
  - America Degenerates into Nazism. - somebody - 12/26/2004 10:13:16 AM
    - Sorry, no sympathy for terrorists. Fuckem. (n/t) - DFM - 12/26/2004 4:03:07 PM
      - How 'bout those terrorists at the Boston Tea Party? - Publius - 12/27/2004 9:30:04 PM
        
        They were not setting off bombs in churches. They killed NOBODY in the Boston Teaparty. Big Difference. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 12/27/2004 9:40:13 PM
        
        Careful there, good little neocons equate violation of private property with killing...... - Publius - 12/28/2004 11:19:54 PM
        
        Lame. You can do better. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/29/2004 2:20:07 AM
        
        The definition around here of "terrorism" is less than precise. - Tom Brosz - 12/27/2004 9:56:03 PM
        
        Yeah, and Nicaragua, Honduras, Argentenia, and Chile... (n/t) - Publius - 12/28/2004 11:16:03 PM
        
        Nicaragua, Honduras, Argentenia, and Chile... all have one thing in common. - David F Mayer - 12/29/2004 9:46:33 PM
        
        re: Nicaragua, Honduras, Argentenia, and Chile... - Tom Brosz - 12/29/2004 1:17:03 AM
        
        What the Left has done worthwhile lately... - Mary Anne - 12/28/2004 5:11:05 AM
        
        Some good points. A few comments... - Tom Brosz - 12/28/2004 6:08:36 AM
      - Any sympathy for the untried accused? Any sympathy for the rule of law? (n/t) - Mary Anne - 12/26/2004 5:02:30 PM
        
        These people are OUTSIDE the pale of the law. They have cancelled their rights by their actions. They are specifically EXCLUDED from protection by the Geneva Conventions. The hell with them. (n/t) - David F Mayer - 12/27/2004 10:47:48 PM
        
        Convict them first. - Mary Anne - 12/28/2004 2:07:43 AM
        
        It is only necessary to show that the are fighting with Al Qaeda. Nothing else is required. - David F Mayer - 12/28/2004 5:54:04 PM
        
        Pirates are also subject to trial. - Mary Anne - 12/28/2004 6:45:04 PM
        
        Risks - Tom Brosz - 12/28/2004 8:08:45 PM
        
        How many have been released who haven't done any such thing? - Mary Anne - 12/28/2004 8:28:24 PM
        
        No, I didn't say that. - Tom Brosz - 12/28/2004 8:46:57 PM
        
        No, you didn't. I didn't phrase it properly, and I apologize. (n/t) - Mary Anne - 12/29/2004 4:16:13 AM
        
        No problem. Thanks! (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/29/2004 6:18:41 AM
        
        Yes. Show us. (n/t) - alcaray - 12/28/2004 6:23:37 PM
        
        Just treat them like Nazis treated the resistance. - adolf - 12/28/2004 6:12:54 PM
        
        Let's bring back McCarthyism and the KKK too! - persecuted - 12/28/2004 12:52:04 AM
        
        Any sympathy for decent people whose country has degenerated into this? (n/t) - Bowser - 12/26/2004 11:39:09 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (54 posts)