Marine Snipers...Kicking Ass

[Richard G]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/war/ap_snipe04082003.htm
HOO RA!

Yah. People are killing each other. Definitely something to cheer about.

[Richard G]

No Marine casualties here. Thats something to have a PARTY about.

While it pleases me that our marines are taking only light losses, this war of choice is unnecessary, and there's blood on W's hands. No marines should be dead.

No marines should be dead.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
Yah. People are killing each other. Definitely something to cheer about.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds some of the Superbowl style comments about this war disturbing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by reprise


I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds some of the Superbowl style comments about this war disturbing.

Reminds me of the pictures of people cheering 9/11.

[reprise]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Reminds me of the pictures of people cheering 9/11.

My thoughts exactly, and remember the outrage that footage provoked (even though there was some doubt whether the scenes shown were in response to the events of September 11, 2001 or were of a more general Anti-US protest which had occured prior to that date).

[Tony]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
this war of choice is unnecessary,

Tell that to the newly liberated Iraqi people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony


Tell that to the newly liberated Iraqi people.

I think the key word was necessity. The moral arguments for and against show a great amount of disagreement and division.

The necessity of the war, however, has not has been demonstrated.

[FFed]

Marine Snipers...Kicking Ass

Good to see. The Marines are doing a damn fine job.

[Tony]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




The necessity of the war, however, has not has been demonstrated.


Tell that to the newly liberated Iraqi people.

Tell that to the newly liberated Iraqi people.

Sorry, I don't particularly care about making Iraqis happy. I care that there are dead marines.

The dead marines are blood on W's hands.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet




The dead marines are blood on W's hands.

I agree, while we're at it lets absolve saddam hussien from all wrong doing. :rolleyes:

[blackpriester]

So which country do we liberate next, Tony?
Angola? Zaire? Sudan? Iran? Syria? North Korea?
How about China - they have a dictatorship, too!

[fishbob]

while we're at it lets absolve saddam hussien from all wrong doing Not the point Tony. Saddam needs to be dead, but at what cost?

As close as I can figure is that George Sr. quit when he shouldn't have, left Saddam in power, and now born again Dubya is gonna fix it for him. Thousands of Kurds and Shiites tortured and killed between Gulf War and today because of that little mistake. Plus now we have 91 US servicemen dead as of today, and 15 US missing or prisoners and about 44 dead Brit soldiers. About half the Brits were killed in accidents or by our mistaken fire, and about half of the 91 US guys were killed in accidents, or by our own mistaken shooting.

HOO F*@#N RA.

Yes it is good that our guys are winning and taking relatively few casualties. But it is a grim and ugly business. And the point is what? We kill 15 or 20 thousand Iraqi soldiers and civilians to save the rest of them from Saddam? Does this really compute?

In the meantime, I have 2 nephews over there, somewhere. One in the Army, one in the Marines - 20 years old and thinking they are invincible when they left to do Dubya's blood work.

[armageddonman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fishbob
Not the point Tony. Saddam needs to be dead, but at what cost?
[QUOTE]

Exactly. How many civilian lifes is he worth?

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester
So which country do we liberate next, Tony?
Angola? Zaire? Sudan? Iran? Syria? North Korea?
How about China - they have a dictatorship, too!

I know this isnt "politically correct", so dont have a hissy fit. But what is wrong with imperialism? Dont you think it would be better if we went in there and took over those countries (with the exception of china) and helped them rebuild thier countries from the ground up in our image?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
I know this isnt "politically correct", so dont have a hissy fit. But what is wrong with imperialism?

Ask the Native Americans

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fishbob
Not the point Tony. Saddam needs to be dead, but at what cost?
[QUOTE]

Exactly. How many civilian lifes is he worth?

He's not worth a sack of dog s--t. The question you need to be asking is "How many civilian lives is a free Iraq worth?"

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Ask the Native Americans

Like me?

Yeah, its great!!

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Dont you think it would be better if we went in there and took over those countries (with the exception of china) and helped them rebuild thier countries from the ground up in our image?

Ever heard the term "self-determination"?
And why make an exception with China?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


Like me?

Yeah, its great!!

Did your ancestors think the same? I'm talking about those who were massacred, hunted down and whose land was stolen. I wonder why you think that was great.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Ever heard the term "self-determination"?


Ohh, so thats what its called when a country is being run by a brutal dictator, thanks for clearing that up.

And why make an exception with China?

China is the only country that can amass an army of 500 million people, going to war with a force with that kind of potential would necessitate the use of nuclear weapons, not a situation I want the world to be in.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Tony


Like me?

Yeah, its great!!

pitiful

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Did your ancestors think the same?

They faught for what was thier's and they lost, survival of the fittest. Its happened a hundred times in history, why is this time any different?

I wonder why you think that was great.

Because, with-out British imperialism and American westward expansion, America and the world would be worse off.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Did your ancestors think the same? I'm talking about those who were massacred, hunted down and whose land was stolen. I wonder why you think that was great.

I don't think he's a Native American in the sense we mean - rather, he's hijacking the term and applying it to himself simply because he's a US citizen.

I'm also wondering if he's Jedi Knight's sock puppet...

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by tony

Ohh, so thats what its called when a country is being run by a brutal dictator, thanks for clearing that up.

And why make an exception with China?

China is the only country that can amass an army of 500 million people, going to war with a force with that kind of potential would necessitate the use of nuclear weapons, not a situation I want the world to be in.


Ahh - so as a small, brutal dictatorship I should vie to become a BIG, brutal dictatorship (maybe by acquiring nuclear weapons), in order to be safe from the US agression associated with Rummy's crooked finger?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Ohh, so thats what its called when a country is being run by a brutal dictator, thanks for clearing that up.

No. it's not. Keep your strawman for yourself.


China is the only country that can amass an army of 500 million people, going to war with a force with that kind of potential would necessitate the use of nuclear weapons, not a situation I want the world to be in.

So the US should only "help" those countries with an inefficient military force?
What if China decides that the US have to be "liberated" from their evil, capitalist government? According to your logic, they would have the right to do it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I don't think he's a Native American in the sense we mean - rather, he's hijacking the term and applying it to himself simply because he's a US citizen.



Im both, I am about 1/4 american indian. It is only the politically correct thought police that use the term "native american" when talking about american indians.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
China is the only country that can amass an army of 500 million people, going to war with a force with that kind of potential would necessitate the use of nuclear weapons, not a situation I want the world to be in.

So you admit to being a bully who picks on people weaker than you?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
They faught for what was thier's and they lost, survival of the fittest. Its happened a hundred times in history, why is this time any different?


So if I kill you it's ok because if I'm able to kill you, you were apparently not fit enough to repel my attack.

:rolleyes:

And please don't misuse Darwin for your strange ideology. Survival of the fittest has nothing to to with survival of the strongest.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman




What if China decides that the US have to be "liberated" from their evil, capitalist government? According to your logic, they would have the right to do it.

Whos discussing "rights"? Im not, im talking about ability and will.


So the US should only "help" those countries with an inefficient military force?

did I say we shouldnt help china? I said that it would be potentially catastrophic if we did. In othwr words, it wouldnt be worth it.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by armageddonman
What if China decides that the US have to be "liberated" from their evil, capitalist government? According to your logic, they would have the right to do it.

Or if Islamic extremists decide to liberate America from the influences of Christianity and atheism? I look forward to Tony's explaination of why bin Laden was justified in carrying out the 9-11 attacks, and brave to take on a target as big as America...

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Originally posted by tony


Ahh - so as a small, brutal dictatorship I should vie to become a BIG, brutal dictatorship (maybe by acquiring nuclear weapons), in order to be safe from the US agression associated with Rummy's crooked finger?

Thats what N. Korea is trying to do.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
Im both

Native American and Jedi Knight's sock puppet? I'll believe half of that :D

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman



So if I kill you it's ok because if I'm able to kill you, you were apparently not fit enough to repel my attack.

:rolleyes:

And please don't misuse Darwin for your strange ideology. Survival of the fittest has nothing to to with survival of the strongest.

You gonna answer my question?

Its happened a hundred times in history, why is this time any different?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Tony


Whos discussing "rights"? Im not, im talking about ability and will.


So the US should only "help" those countries with an inefficient military force?

did I say we shouldnt help china? I said that it would be potentially catastrophic if we did. In othwr words, it wouldnt be worth it.

You are using circular logic here...
either you have the opinion that dictatorships should be abolished or you are saying that only SMALL dictatorships who have no way of defending themselves against us (and are therefore no real THREAT, like Iraq, for example :rolleyes:) should be abolished.

Which one is it?
And what are your reasons for picking the one you pick?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Native American and Jedi Knight's sock puppet? I'll believe half of that :D

You know what I meant. :cool:

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Tony


Thats what N. Korea is trying to do.

Exaclty! And according to your logic, why would you blame them?
After all, they are just trying to gain power and ability to stay afloat in the struggle for survival.

We are not talking about rights here, right?

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester


You are using circular logic here...
either you have the opinion that dictatorships should be abolished or you are saying that only SMALL dictatorships who have no way of defending themselves against us (and are therefore no real THREAT, like Iraq, for example :rolleyes:) should be abolished.



Its only circular logic if you dont understand.

All dictatorships should be abolished, but at what price? Nuclear war and the death of millions possibly billions is where I draw the line.

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Exaclty! And according to your logic, why would you blame them?
After all, they are just trying to gain power and ability to stay afloat in the struggle for survival.

We are not talking about rights here, right?

Who said I blamed them? A tyrants goal is to keep his power, I expect him to fight for it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


Or if Islamic extremists decide to liberate America from the influences of Christianity and atheism?

IF? What the f*ck do you mean, IF? Thats what they are trying to do right now.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Tony


Its only circular logic if you dont understand.

All dictatorships should be abolished, but at what price? Nuclear war and the death of millions possibly billions is where I draw the line.

Ahhh-ha.
So you hold the Wolfowitz-Position.
And that, exactly, makes you a bully who picks on the weak and encourages the "weak" and "paranoid" dictatorships to redouble their effort to get their hands on nukes. Or do you deny that your position creates a strong incentive to do just that?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


You gonna answer my question?



It's different because the nations decided that such a behaviour is wrong and thus the UN was established.
It's different because today people have different moral standards.

Will you answer my question now?

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Or do you deny that your position creates a strong incentive to do just that?

No, I dont deny it. But lets be honest, those guys would seek nuclear weapons regarless. What do you think?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


No, I dont deny it. But lets be honest, those guys would seek nuclear weapons regarless. What do you think?


How do you come to this conclusion? Any evidence for this?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman



How do you come to this conclusion? Any evidence for this?

Its logical that a brutal dictator looking to secure (or expand) his power would want every tool to facilitate his goals.

[Tony]

It's different because the nations decided that such a behaviour is wrong and thus the UN was established.


The UN didnt exist during the Indian wars.

It's different because today people have different moral standards.

Applying our modern morals to events in history is stupid.


Originally posted by armageddonman


Will you answer my question now?





So if I kill you it's ok because if I'm able to kill you, you were apparently not fit enough to repel my attack.

The only thing telling you it isnt ok is the law.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Tony
IF? What the f*ck do you mean, IF? Thats what they are trying to do right now.

And according to your logic, they have every right to do so...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


And according to your logic, they have every right to do so...

Ive said it before, ill say it again.

Whos discussing "rights"? Im not, im talking about ability and will.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


So you admit to being a bully who picks on people weaker than you?

Accually, im the type to defend the weak kid getting picked on by the bully. Hence my moral outrage over dictators that brutalize and enslave countries.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


Its logical that a brutal dictator looking to secure (or expand) his power would want every tool to facilitate his goals.

So you make assumptions based on your "logic" and don't really have evidence for your claims.

That was obvious.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony

The only thing telling you it isnt ok is the law.

That doesn't answer the question. Would you agree that, according to your logic of "survival of the fittest", I was right to kill you if you were not strong enough to stop me?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


So you make assumptions based on your "logic" and don't really have evidence for your claims.

That was obvious.

You're only asking for evidence because:

1. You cant refute my logic

or

2. Give tyrants the benefit of the doubt

What kind of evidence do you want? Ill try to find some for you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


That doesn't answer the question. Would you agree that, according to your logic of "survival of the fittest", I was right to kill you if you were not strong enough to stop me?

You're asking me a moral question, I could say no, you aren't right to kill me. But thats meaningless, if there is no authority to stop you, right and wrong are irrelevant.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
What kind of evidence do you want? Ill try to find some for you.

I'm asking for evidence because this is a skeptics message boeard and here we are quite fond on arguments that are actually based on facts and not on mere assumption.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony

You're asking me a moral question, I could say no, you aren't right to kill me. But thats meaningless, if there is no authority to stop you, right and wrong are irrelevant.

Can I thus assume that the only reason you don't commit crimes is the existence of an authority?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


I'm asking for evidence because this is a skeptics message boeard and here we are quite fond on arguments that are actually based on facts and not on mere assumption.

What kind of evidence do you want dude? Hitler sought nuclear weapons with the goal of expanding his power, does that count?

Why do you think a dictator wouldnt want nuclear weapons?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Can I thus assume that the only reason you don't commit crimes is the existence of an authority?


Without authority we would have anarchy and chaos. In that situation, commiting crimes wouldn't be on my mind. I would be pre-occupied with survival and trying to defend others.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


What kind of evidence do you want dude? Hitler sought nuclear weapons with the goal of expanding his power, does that count?


We know that because we have the documentation in this case.



Why do you think a dictator wouldnt want nuclear weapons?

You are making assumptions again. And you are generalizing. Better take your time and learn how to present and defend your arguments.

Example why your argument is flawed: by your logic, the government of Saudi Arabia is trying to get nuclear weapons. Do you have any evidence for this? No? Well, SA is a dictatorship, thus according to you, they are trying to get nuclear weapons, thus the US should invade them.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony
Without authority we would have anarchy and chaos. In that situation, commiting crimes wouldn't be on my mind. I would be pre-occupied with survival and trying to defend others.

You're dodging the question. Let me try it again:

Is the only thing that prevents you from commiting crimes the existence of an authority that would persecute you?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


You're dodging the question. Let me try it again:

Is the only thing that prevents you from commiting crimes the existence of an authority that would persecute you?

Ive never really thought about it, but I have to say yes. If I could get away with stealing a million $$, I would do it.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


Ive never really thought about it, but I have to say yes. If I could get away with stealing a million $$, I would do it.

You don't happen do be a christian?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman







You are making assumptions again. And you are generalizing. Better take your time and learn how to present and defend your arguments.



Ill concede, I was making an assumption. I dont trust people like Kim Jung Ill NOT to pursue those weapons. If I was an irrational and brutal dictator I would do the same, I guess that is what I base my judgement on.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


You don't happen do be a christian?

Not a christian, you?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


Ill concede, I was making an assumption. I dont trust people like Kim Jung Ill NOT to pursue those weapons. If I was an irrational and brutal dictator I would do the same, I guess that is what I base my judgement on.

You should judge people by their own actions not by what you whould do in their place.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


Not a christian, you?

Also not a christian. I was asking because I had noticed this total lack of morality in absence of a moral authority to be very typical for christians.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


You should judge people by their own actions not by whot you whould do in their place.

Judging by Kim Jung Ill's actions, I dont think its hard to assume he would pursue nuclear weapons if un-provoked. What do you think?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


Also not a christian. I was asking because I had noticed this total lack of morality in absence of a moral authority to be very typical for christians.

I dont have a total lack of morality. Like I said before:

im the type to defend the weak kid getting picked on by the bully. Hence my moral outrage over dictators that brutalize and enslave countries.

[asi_gonia]

The title of this post just makes me sick.

You my friend are a waste of earth's resources.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


I dont have a total lack of morality. Like I said before:



You yourself said that you'd steal if there was no authority that would prevent it. That demonstrates a lack of morality, maybe not a total lack but certainly a lack. And you yourself referred to historic atrocities as beeing justified due to "survival of the fittest". That demonstrates an even greater lack of morality.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


Judging by Kim Jung Ill's actions, I dont think its hard to assume he would pursue nuclear weapons if un-provoked. What do you think?

You were referring to dictators in general. Do you want to start a discussion specifically about North Korea?

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


And you yourself referred to historic atrocities as beeing justified due to "survival of the fittest". That demonstrates an even greater lack of morality.

I dont really consider the Indian wars to be an atrocity. What happened afterwards (ie. trail of tears, reservations, ect...) was the atrocity.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


You were referring to dictators in general. Do you want to start a discussion specifically about North Korea?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tony


Thats what N. Korea is trying to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exaclty! And according to your logic, why would you blame them?
After all, they are just trying to gain power and ability to stay afloat in the struggle for survival.

We are not talking about rights here, right?

Initially, north korea was the dictatorship we were talking about, but the convo. devolved into one of dictators in general.


Originally posted by armageddonman


Do you want to start a discussion specifically about North Korea?

cool

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


cool

I thought we were still talking about this quote of yours:

No, I dont deny it. But lets be honest, those guys would seek nuclear weapons regarless. What do you think?



And concerning the american natives. I would consider a war of conquest against a technically totally inferior enemy to be an atrocity, especially if the attacker claims to be a democracy that upholds human rights.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Tony


Its logical that a brutal dictator looking to secure (or expand) his power would want every tool to facilitate his goals.

Do you see the alternative to decapitating "weak dictators" then?

If we push to make sure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is sanctioned, while we promise to not interfere with the government forms of other countries (as long as they don't attack us or others), we create a deterrant to acquire nuclear weapons, while at the same time making sure that every culture can feel safe FROM US - if they decide to stick WITHOUT those weapons.

Also, interfering with foreign nation's form of goverment must assume that ours is inherently superior, which will make diplomacy really hard ;). Plus, as Iain has pointed out, what if THEY decide that their form of government is superior? it will give them the same moral justification to attack US! Do you really want to live in a jungle world like that?

- m.

[Tony]

Originally posted by armageddonman


I thought we were still talking about this quote of yours:





We were, its not big of a deal. Like I said, initially the convo was about Nk, but it changed, and we both started talking about dictators in general.


And concerning the american natives. I would consider a war of conquest against a technically totally inferior enemy to be an atrocity.

Its more complicated than that.

[Tony]

Originally posted by blackpriester


If we push to make sure that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is sanctioned, while we promise to not interfere with the government forms of other countries (as long as they don't attack us or others), we create a deterrant to acquire nuclear weapons, while at the same time making sure that every culture can feel safe FROM US - if they decide to stick WITHOUT those weapons.




I understand what you are saying, and I dont disagree. But it really pisses me off that we would allow a dictator free reign to abuse his people.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony

Its more complicated than that.

meaning?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Tony


I understand what you are saying, and I dont disagree. But it really pisses me off that we would allow a dictator free reign to abuse his people.

Your government not only allowed this in the past, it even installed dictators.

[blackpriester]

And concerning the american natives. I would consider a war of conquest against a technically totally inferior enemy to be an atrocity.

Its more complicated than that.

How? Because Europeans had a right to be there ;)?

(hopping back in)

So, what we've learned: it's proper form for a strong nation to invade a poorly resourced nation based on 'survival of the fittest' :rolleyes:

again, hooray. People are killing each other. Let's have a partyyyy...

[fishbob]

This is getting a little academic here. Lets back up just a little for a reality check.

What is an acceptable cost for a routine dictator extraction? What should we expect to pay for the followup - stabilization of the country with the associated suicide attacks, sniper attacks, helicopter crashes, ambushes, and accidents?

I get the feeling that some people consider 91 US and 44 Brit soldiers, several thousand Iraqi soldiers, and several thousand more Iraqi civilians is cheap for getting to Baghdad.