Cato wrote:

So what the ****s wrong with my hating I.E.D.'s and asshole
suicide bombers when ther're killing our boys and innocent
people????????? Don't tell me that they don't bother you!!!

Sure. But whether you like it or not, they are fighting to win for
whatever their cause is. Their attitude is, "**** fair." And,
frankly, that attitude wins wars and ultimately saves lives.

The crap with exclusion zones and fighting these guys with one hand
tied behind our back won't work. It may assuage our western
consciences, but it won't work... unless some large portion of the
populace fears that we will *stop* doing that.

We didn't in VietNam, so while they were sticking bamboo shoots under
fingernails of prisoners, we were worrying about exclusion zones.

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"

Eric F. Richards wrote:

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"



http://snipurl.com/1himr

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608315.stm


================================================== =
Almost half of the city's mosques have been destroyed after being
targeted by US air and tank strikes," he added.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English...ArchiveId=7581
================================================== =


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0407-06.htm

or:

http://tinyurl.com/2jbk5j

On Apr 21, 11:26 am, "miki" wrote:
"Cato" wrote in message

oups.com...
On Apr 21, 4:38 am, Tommy Tootles wrote:





Cato wrote:
Hell, I'm a dumbass canuck too. So our Canadian boys are over in
Afghanistan fighting Taliban and Al Queda sickos, and doing a fine
job, and helping build schools and hospitals, and handing out radios
and candies, but they keep getting blown up by I.E.D's and asshole
suicide bombers. How the hell do you fight that?

Well, you don't. Ask the Russians. It took them ten years in Afghanistan
to reach that same conclusion.

We in the west seem to want "shock and awe", instant gratification. The
folks over there don't mind dragging it out over *centuries*. The
Shiites and Sunnis have been feuding since about 638 A.D. and we think a
six month or year "surge" is going to resolve the issue? How dumb can W
be? (don't answer--it's a rhetorical question).

My oldest boy might be going over with the "Lincs & Winks"

Best of luck to him!

and my second oldest is thinking of signing up.

Why????

I guess because serving in the Lincoln & Welland Regiment
seems to be a family tradition going back a long, long way.
Cato

I am a WW2 veteran. I say it is time to set aside the family
tradition.
Stay home and fight the immigrant invasion, master-minded by
the
u-no-hooz. miki.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
I am a WW2 veteran. I say it is time to set aside the family
tradition.
Stay home and fight the immigrant invasion, master-minded by
the
u-no-hooz. miki.- Hide quoted text -

Well, you being a WW II vet, I have all due respect
for you. God know our country owes you a hell of a lot. I will say
that you are totally right about fighting the immigrant invasion. But
I will say "illegal immigrant invasion" and the ones with criminal
records in their own countries coming into our country. Both the U.S.
and Canada have a big illegal immigrant problem. I agree with you on
that. But as a few others have said here, there are also times when we
have to go "over there". We have to "kill the snakes in their nest",
and try to stop their spreading, no matter how much the whole thing
stinks. So if you look at it that way, we have a war on two fronts,
overseas, and right here at home. God help us.
Cato

On Apr 21, 4:54 pm, Eric F. Richards wrote:
Cato wrote:
So what the ****s wrong with my hating I.E.D.'s and asshole
suicide bombers when ther're killing our boys and innocent
people????????? Don't tell me that they don't bother you!!!

Sure. But whether you like it or not, they are fighting to win for
whatever their cause is. Their attitude is, "**** fair." And,
frankly, that attitude wins wars and ultimately saves lives.

The crap with exclusion zones and fighting these guys with one hand
tied behind our back won't work. It may assuage our western
consciences, but it won't work... unless some large portion of the
populace fears that we will *stop* doing that.

We didn't in VietNam, so while they were sticking bamboo shoots under
fingernails of prisoners, we were worrying about exclusion zones.

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"
The crap with exclusion zones and fighting these guys with one hand
tied behind our back won't work. It may assuage our western
consciences, but it won't work... unless some large portion of the
populace fears that we will *stop* doing that.

We didn't in VietNam, so while they were sticking bamboo shoots under
fingernails of prisoners, we were worrying about exclusion zones.

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"

I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world. I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.
If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.
(( Only if some country fired nukes at our cities, or we had
conclusive evidence that they about to fire them at us, ( example,
North Korea) would I agree to taking out the country with massive
retaliation on their cities.))
That is what I am talking about. Doing the best we can to take
out the enemy, and leave the civilians unharmed as best we can. Sure
there will be times were we fall down on that effort and some
civilians will be killed accidentally, but I would like to think that
we do our outmost to keep those innocent deaths to an absolute
minimum.
Cato

On Apr 21, 4:33 pm, dxAce wrote:
Cato wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:03 pm, Whatever wrote:
Telamon wrote:

Anyone with even half a brain understands that mans contribution to
various gas balance in the atmosphere is a drop in the bucket compared
to natural processes that control it.

We do not control the atmospheric gas balance or temperature globally.
We do control it locally such as creating heat islands around cities for
example but the over all climate picture is not determined by mans
activity.

There are many temperature cycles that can be seen over time. We may be
at the end of a 20 year or middle of a 40 year warming trend. The
average temperature may start to decline now or may increase another
0.6 degC yet then decline.

Nobody knows what will happen yet because we do not have reliable
temperature data beyond 150 years and global climate models are a joke
so speculate all you want about what the future holds.

Inconveniently, the single biggest individual energy user and propaganda
provider in the USA is Al Gore.

So you're willing to bet your future and that of future generations on
the slight possibility that you're right. By the time we know for sure,
it would be too late to act. If it turns out you're right, we will still
have cleaned up the environment in an effort to stop global warming,
even if it doesn't happen. Either way we win.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Slight Possibility?? It's common sense. The earth's climate
is always changing. And we will adapt, as we have in the past. Do you
think that our climate should always be like the climate in the 1950's
or 60's and that it should be that way forever?? and that it was
always like that in the past?? Like I said, what about the Medieval
Warm Period when the world was warmer then now. Tell me what caused
that. Or the Little Ice Age from approx. the 1400's to the mid 19th
century. What caused that? How come back in the late sixties and
seventies they were trying to scare us with visions of Global Cooling
and another Ice Age???
Do you want to spend the Western World into the poor house for a
few ppm of CO2? Kyoto even lets China and India off the hook, and
allows us to continue CO2 production by purchasing credits. It will do
nothing, and cost untold Hundreds of Billions and Trillions of dollars
and destroy the economy of the western nations. And that is exactly
what some people want to see happen. They want to see the West go down
on it's knees. SOCIALISM WILL FINALLY BE TRIUMPHANT !!
By the way, ever hear of Ice Ages? Our caveman ancestors
survived the last ice age. And the polar bears survived the Medieval
Warm Period.
The climate will always change, get used to it.

You'll never convince them, Cato. It's their new religion.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'll never convince them, Cato. It's their new religion.-

Ya, you're right. Most of them are "true believers" in
their new faith. We used to call it being "brainwashed " years ago.
Cato

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"

Well..... If we have damn good dependable intelligence
that certain mosques are being used as armories by the enemy, then
that would, as far as I am concerned, remove those mosques from the
protection classification of a religious building.
Take 'em out.
Cato

Cato wrote:

I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world. I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.
If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.

Unfortunately, our aim must be terrible. Bush himself, personally and on
National TV, *admitted* to the deaths of 35,000 innocent civilians, a
number on the very *low* end of the range. Many other organizations put
the figure much higher. Maybe those "smart" bombs weren't. :-(

Oh, by the way, read any of the books about the war--we *did*
intentionally hit many civilian targets--power plants, sewage treatment
plants and many other NON-military targets. Why do you think the country
is in such a total shambles? There weren't *that* many military targets.

One recent book that clearly documents this (with many references) is
"Web of Deceit" by Lando.

Brian O wrote:

Yeah, its cowardly. But that's the enemy we face. They are too
cowardly to get a regular army and fight. But, as the US learned
with Vietnam, there are ways to deal with gorillas.

Huh? Please, tell me what we learned in Vietnam and how we dealt with
guerrillas. The last newsreels I saw, we left with our tail between our
legs and Saigon aint called Saigon any more. We should have learned that
we *can't* fight people that just melt into the Vietnam jungle or the
Baghdad urban "jungle" with conventional armies.

Time is the only way to get to them.

How much time do you think we need? Before you answer, please keep in
mind that the Shiites and Sunnis have been feuding since about 638 A.D.
Do you really think a year (or even a five year) "surge" will make any
difference? Even if we did have a five year "surge" and went home after
that, what do you think would happen in year six? That after *centuries*
of feuding, they would start to play nice after a lousy, stinkin' 5 year
surge?

It eventually pays off. When they get tired of the killing before we
do, then they will stop. Therefore, we HAVE to persevere, we CANNOT
stop taking the war to them. And that is what we are doing in Iraq.

Just what *are* we doing in Iraq? According to Bush on national TV, "no
WMDs". According to Cheney on national TV, "no 9/11-Iraq connection".
They finally decided the "reason" for the war was that "Saddam was a bad
guy". Well, OK, but Saddam is long gone. About 70% of the American
public now believes it is the wrong war in the wrong country for the
wrong reason.

Troops there are going house to house, every day, putting their lives
on the line, to get these cowards.

Why are they cowards? Just because they don't have B-52s and H-bombs?
They are fighting the only way they can, to defend their country against
what *they* consider to be occupiers, in the wrong country (THEIR
country) for the wrong (or no) reason. (and please, before you jump all
over me, I am just giving you *their* viewpoint. As a reference, please
recall that in the last week or two, al Sadr said to stop killing Iraqi
soldiers and police and concentrate on killing the occupiers).

Finally, if your kid got killed by a "non-cowardly" fighter jet or
machine gun, would he be any less dead than if killed by an IED?

That's something the news doesn't tell you. They want you to think
they are just standing around over there while a car bomber just
drives up and blows them all up. That isn't what's happening. There
is STILL a LOT of fighting going on over there.

No foolin'. I don't know of anyone who doesn't think there isn't a "LOT
of fighting going on over there". Just watch -any- newscast on -any- day
of the week.

That is exactly why the surge in the amount of troops is quelling the
attacks for the most part.

Again, huh? Some of the worst violence *ever* in Baghdad occurred
*after* the surge started (and presumably, the "surge" is mainly in
Baghdad).

They NOW have enough to KEEP troops in place rather than just chase
the cowards from house to house and back to the one they were in
before. Time is the secret. That's why President Bush said this
would be a LONG war.

Again, HOW long do you suggest we "keep the troops in place"??? The
Sunni/Shiite dispute has been going on for *centuries*. What do you
think? 5 years? 10 years? A generation? Would even a generation make any
difference compared to centuries?

Because Americans these days are selfish self
centered dishonest lovers of themselves. When a country gets away
from caring about its country and its people,

You are exactly right! It's all been Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Unfortunately,
this administration has spent little or no time addressing or caring
about *domestic* issues that desperately need attention--less people
having health care, less people having good jobs, more people below the
poverty line since 2000.

Until that changes, countries will fall from
within, and if the US continues down the path of trying to live in
its fantasy utopia, it will fall, hard.

Sadly, I agree with your statement. Where we differ is that I lay most
of the blame at the door step of the current greedy administration--do
*everything* for big business like Big Oil, Haliburton and the
Pharmaceuticals but let the old people in this country decide if they
are going to buy their medicine or buy dog food for dinner. As you so
aptly put it, "they have gotten away from caring about their people".

Yeah...nuke the *******s.....all of them...

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:11:15 GMT, m II wrote:

Eric F. Richards wrote:

In Iraq, we don't attack mosques used as armories because we want to
respect the mosque and Islam. How is using it as an armory
"respecting Islam?"



http://snipurl.com/1himr

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3608315.stm


================================================= ==
Almost half of the city's mosques have been destroyed after being
targeted by US air and tank strikes," he added.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English...ArchiveId=7581
================================================= ==


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0407-06.htm

or:

http://tinyurl.com/2jbk5j

Cato wrote:


I think we are maybe not talking about the same thing exactly. What
I am talking about is that in this war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
enemy has no feelings about innocent civilians. They will not hesitate
to target innocent people and erase them from this world.

That's right...

I would like
to think that we do not intentionally target civilian non-combatants.

Generally, that's true...

If we did, then we would be just as much murderous animals as the
enemy that we fight.

....and I agree...

(( Only if some country fired nukes at our cities, or we had
conclusive evidence that they about to fire them at us, ( example,
North Korea) would I agree to taking out the country with massive
retaliation on their cities.))

But that's not what I'm talking about.

The Powell Doctrine was pretty clear: Go in with overwhelming force,
have a clear definition of the job from beginning to end, do the job
with overwhelming military force, and get out.

We went in on the cheap, with no reasonable answer to how to deal with
the aftermath of taking the Iraqi government out, and neglected since
then the escalating problems.

We have also treated, for example, al Sadr to continue to function as
a corrosive influence over there. A sniper team could have taken him
out and I think we would have been better off with him as a potential
martyr than as an active cancer.

But, because he is a self-described "cleric" (as opposed to his
father, who really was an expert on Islam), and hid in a mosque, we
didn't touch him. He had no problem with taking us out.

That is what I am talking about. Doing the best we can to take
out the enemy, and leave the civilians unharmed as best we can. Sure
there will be times were we fall down on that effort and some
civilians will be killed accidentally, but I would like to think that
we do our outmost to keep those innocent deaths to an absolute
minimum.
Cato

What I read you talking about is that they don't fight fair. War
isn't about fair, war is about winning control through violence.
That's why we souldn't play with it, but treat it as soberly and
seriously, something our American administration hasn't been willing
to do.

Screw fair. They do, and we should. I'm not talking about paving
over the surface of Iraq and killing everyone, but we sure as hell
shouldn't be afraid to fight the insurgents, al-Quida, the Taliban,
etc on the grounds that they choose to hide from us.


--
Eric F. Richards

"Don't destroy the Earth! That's where I keep all of my stuff!"
- Squidd on www.fark.com