> There is no moral basis for killing a populace when there is absolutely no
> reason at all to do it, and there are means to accomplish the mission
> without collateral damage.
>
> Germany had a vast war production effort... Iraq had no such production...

Absolutely none of which was in Dresden.

 

Sorry to have mixed up Ireland and Scotland. I realize that is
probably a grave insult to you and your entire genetic heritage. :-)

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. I'd like to know
what your thoughts are on how to get out of the current unacceptable
situation without either resorting to more drastic action or conceding
defeat and bailing out, though.

I personally feel that we in the West these days are way too squeamish
about spilling one drop of blood (either on our side or our enemies'
side.) The media here is in an uproar about how more coalition
soldiers have died after the war was declared over than before. Well,
that's certainly lamentable, but come on... it's something like ~150
dead soldiers in two months' time. That's fewer than often died in a
single day of the Vietnam war. I don't have exact statistics, but
I'm sure it's jaw-droppingly less than died on D-Day. And if the
deaths of those 150 prevented even a single replay of 9/11 in which
3000 were killed, isn't it the better option?

To sum up, I'm in favor of making the omlette better and more quickly,
even if it means breaking a few more eggs to do it. If I knew where
Osama Bin Laden was, but he had a hair-trigger bomb strapped to
himself and was surrounded by 500 innocent children, I would still
order an attack. Not because I favor killing 500 children, but
because I know that many more than 500 people will likely die in the
future if I fail to act. I could not show the moral cowardice of not
attacking the children, which would allow Bin Laden to escape. It is
that kind of weakness which has allowed muslims and terrorists to prey
on us before.


> That's a bit of a "all grass is green, this is green, therefore it is grass"
> argument.
> Sure, some of the local populace will support the extremists, but just
> because some do, it doesn't mean that all of them do. The choice is not
> quite so simply between "muslims dying and Americans dying". If it was that
> simple, it would be better to take out the whole planet except America.
> There is an element of balance in all of this !
>
> I do not come from Ireland; I come from Scotland. I have been at a railway
> station when it was in fact blown up by the Irish Republican Army
> terrorists, so if anything, I have more interest in rallying to "America's
> defence" against muslims and extremists than you do, despite the fact that
> the bastards that almost blew me up were almost certainly funded by woolly
> thinking leprechaun loving liberal Americans, although fortunately that
> source of revenue has died away now. The reason I put "America's defence" in
> quotes is because our troops are out there too, we are most likely next, and
> I support *all* of the troops out there. I'll let it go at that, since if
> you had been around ramjaw a few months ago, you would have realised that.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
> : > Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it on
> : > the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
> agree)
> : > and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
> : >
> :
>
> : Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
> : operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
> : reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
> : reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
> : terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
> : we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
> :
> : Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
> : not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
> : opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
> : between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
> : every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
> : people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
> : to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
> : entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
> : better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
> : this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
> : 'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
> : horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
> : was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
> : picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
> : and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
> :
> : I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
> : 9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
> : interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
> : muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
> : and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
> : middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
> : the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
> : Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
> : but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
> : democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
> : in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
> : Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
> : you would not be here at all.

 

Sorry to have mixed up Ireland and Scotland. I realize that is
probably a grave insult to you and your entire genetic heritage. :-)

I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. I'd like to know
what your thoughts are on how to get out of the current unacceptable
situation without either resorting to more drastic action or conceding
defeat and bailing out, though.

I personally feel that we in the West these days are way too squeamish
about spilling one drop of blood (either on our side or our enemies'
side.) The media here is in an uproar about how more coalition
soldiers have died after the war was declared over than before. Well,
that's certainly lamentable, but come on... it's something like ~150
dead soldiers in two months' time. That's fewer than often died in a
single day of the Vietnam war. I don't have exact statistics, but
I'm sure it's jaw-droppingly less than died on D-Day. And if the
deaths of those 150 prevented even a single replay of 9/11 in which
3000 were killed, isn't it the better option?

To sum up, I'm in favor of making the omlette better and more quickly,
even if it means breaking a few more eggs to do it. If I knew where
Osama Bin Laden was, but he had a hair-trigger bomb strapped to
himself and was surrounded by 500 innocent children, I would still
order an attack. Not because I favor killing 500 children, but
because I know that many more than 500 people will likely die in the
future if I fail to act. I could not show the moral cowardice of not
attacking the children, which would allow Bin Laden to escape. It is
that kind of weakness which has allowed muslims and terrorists to prey
on us before.


> That's a bit of a "all grass is green, this is green, therefore it is grass"
> argument.
> Sure, some of the local populace will support the extremists, but just
> because some do, it doesn't mean that all of them do. The choice is not
> quite so simply between "muslims dying and Americans dying". If it was that
> simple, it would be better to take out the whole planet except America.
> There is an element of balance in all of this !
>
> I do not come from Ireland; I come from Scotland. I have been at a railway
> station when it was in fact blown up by the Irish Republican Army
> terrorists, so if anything, I have more interest in rallying to "America's
> defence" against muslims and extremists than you do, despite the fact that
> the bastards that almost blew me up were almost certainly funded by woolly
> thinking leprechaun loving liberal Americans, although fortunately that
> source of revenue has died away now. The reason I put "America's defence" in
> quotes is because our troops are out there too, we are most likely next, and
> I support *all* of the troops out there. I'll let it go at that, since if
> you had been around ramjaw a few months ago, you would have realised that.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
> : > Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it on
> : > the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
> agree)
> : > and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
> : >
> :
>
> : Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
> : operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
> : reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
> : reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
> : terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
> : we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
> :
> : Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
> : not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
> : opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
> : between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
> : every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
> : people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
> : to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
> : entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
> : better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
> : this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
> : 'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
> : horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
> : was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
> : picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
> : and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
> :
> : I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
> : 9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
> : interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
> : muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
> : and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
> : middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
> : the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
> : Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
> : but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
> : democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
> : in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
> : Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
> : you would not be here at all.

 

Well, that's something we can agree on in principle !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309090617.37475ffe@posting.google.c om...
: I personally feel that we in the West these days are way too squeamish
: about spilling one drop of blood (either on our side or our enemies'
: side.)

 

Well, that's something we can agree on in principle !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309090617.37475ffe@posting.google.c om...
: I personally feel that we in the West these days are way too squeamish
: about spilling one drop of blood (either on our side or our enemies'
: side.)

 

you need to study before you talk, to do otherwise is a sure mark of
foolishness

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309080545.29d9a3be@posting.google.c om...
> > There is no moral basis for killing a populace when there is absolutely
no
> > reason at all to do it, and there are means to accomplish the mission
> > without collateral damage.
> >
> > Germany had a vast war production effort...
>
> Absolutely none of which was in Dresden.

 

you need to study before you talk, to do otherwise is a sure mark of
foolishness

"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309080545.29d9a3be@posting.google.c om...
> > There is no moral basis for killing a populace when there is absolutely
no
> > reason at all to do it, and there are means to accomplish the mission
> > without collateral damage.
> >
> > Germany had a vast war production effort...
>
> Absolutely none of which was in Dresden.

 

IRELAND... ouch, that hurt.

Rasaay... it's between Applecross and North Skye.


Really though, the bombing of Dresden was partially to make a point, and
partially to "return the favour" for the civilian targeting in G.B. There
were communication centres that posed a worthy target, but hardly worth the
effort put against them.

As far as the debacle in Iraq, it would likely be more successful to rebuild
an infrastructure and give the ILP a reason to help, than try to terrorise
them into helping. There are many examples of trying to use force to
eliminate terrorism failing, I am unclear as to why we would want to add
another failure to that list.

As far as Northern Ireland not being attacked on 9/11... They have dealt
with terrorism on a far greater time scale than the USA has. It is, again,
another level of proof that force will not stop the lunatic fringe from
killing people with terrorism. Additional force, and strong arm tactics do
little more than push the "fence sitters" to the terrorists side. Uniforms,
and FN's pointed at their faces likely made more IRA members than any other
recruiting they had available. (By the way, keep in mind that most of the
Sinn Fein's operating capitol CAME FROM THE USA!!!!!!! The same USA that
suddenly now wants to track down terrorism funding.)



"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
> > Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it on
> > the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
agree)
> > and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
> >
>
> Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
> operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
> reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
> reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
> terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
> we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
>
> Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
> not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
> opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
> between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
> every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
> people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
> to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
> entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
> better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
> this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
> 'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
> horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
> was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
> picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
> and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
>
> I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
> 9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
> interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
> muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
> and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
> middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
> the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
> Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
> but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
> democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
> in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
> Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
> you would not be here at all.

 

IRELAND... ouch, that hurt.

Rasaay... it's between Applecross and North Skye.


Really though, the bombing of Dresden was partially to make a point, and
partially to "return the favour" for the civilian targeting in G.B. There
were communication centres that posed a worthy target, but hardly worth the
effort put against them.

As far as the debacle in Iraq, it would likely be more successful to rebuild
an infrastructure and give the ILP a reason to help, than try to terrorise
them into helping. There are many examples of trying to use force to
eliminate terrorism failing, I am unclear as to why we would want to add
another failure to that list.

As far as Northern Ireland not being attacked on 9/11... They have dealt
with terrorism on a far greater time scale than the USA has. It is, again,
another level of proof that force will not stop the lunatic fringe from
killing people with terrorism. Additional force, and strong arm tactics do
little more than push the "fence sitters" to the terrorists side. Uniforms,
and FN's pointed at their faces likely made more IRA members than any other
recruiting they had available. (By the way, keep in mind that most of the
Sinn Fein's operating capitol CAME FROM THE USA!!!!!!! The same USA that
suddenly now wants to track down terrorism funding.)



"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
> > Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it on
> > the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
agree)
> > and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
> >
>
> Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
> operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
> reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
> reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
> terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
> we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
>
> Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
> not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
> opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
> between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
> every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
> people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
> to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
> entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
> better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
> this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
> 'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
> horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
> was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
> picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
> and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
>
> I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
> 9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
> interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
> muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
> and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
> middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
> the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
> Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
> but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
> democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
> in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
> Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
> you would not be here at all.

 

Americans think of Sept 11 when they think of terrorism, they do not
understand the long term effects it has... they look for an instant fix,
when anyone that has lived through it can tell you that terrorism is not
instant, nor is the fix. As you sit on a runway, waiting for the IRA to get
done dropping mortar bombs on it, or maybe get luck and nail you, you get a
very intimate (though narrow scoped) understanding of it. When you need 2
calendars (one Protestant, one Catholic) to figure out what level of guard
you need to maintain, and who to watch out for through the day, then you get
another level of understanding... yet the one thing universally clear is
that every time the troops march, the terrorists will answer soon after...
every time a soldier mishandles a situation or forces their will on the ILP,
the ranks of the terrorists, unfortunately, grow.

There is no good way to end a religious war, fought over a belief in God.
(you would think, in the 1500 years since the crusades this would have sunk
into the average persons cranium... but it seems not.)

WW2 was NOT a religious war. any comparison starts with in incorrect
premise.



"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news:nC47b.4458$vZ3.42092604@news-text.cableinet.net...
> That's a bit of a "all grass is green, this is green, therefore it is
grass"
> argument.
> Sure, some of the local populace will support the extremists, but just
> because some do, it doesn't mean that all of them do. The choice is not
> quite so simply between "muslims dying and Americans dying". If it was
that
> simple, it would be better to take out the whole planet except America.
> There is an element of balance in all of this !
>
> I do not come from Ireland; I come from Scotland. I have been at a railway
> station when it was in fact blown up by the Irish Republican Army
> terrorists, so if anything, I have more interest in rallying to "America's
> defence" against muslims and extremists than you do, despite the fact that
> the bastards that almost blew me up were almost certainly funded by woolly
> thinking leprechaun loving liberal Americans, although fortunately that
> source of revenue has died away now. The reason I put "America's defence"
in
> quotes is because our troops are out there too, we are most likely next,
and
> I support *all* of the troops out there. I'll let it go at that, since if
> you had been around ramjaw a few months ago, you would have realised that.
>
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:b102b6e4.0309080542.62bb78e7@posting.google.c om...
> : > Which brings us neatly back to the Mr Nelson's idea of inflicting it
on
> : > the Iraqi people to get the extremists ; won't work (I think we both
> agree)
> : > and morally wrong (possibly you disagree ?).
> : >
> :
>
> : Why not? Extremists need the sympathy of the local populace to
> : operate and move about. Right now the locals have no meaningful
> : reason to be afraid of helping the extremists... but they DO have
> : reason to be afraid of not helping the extremists. The muslim
> : terrorists are willing to kill them, we aren't. Once they learn that
> : we're more of a threat, --------- acts will subside dramatically.
> :
> : Dave, you accuse me of being inhumane and in favor of killing. That's
> : not true. If the choice were between killing and not killing, I would
> : opt for not killing. But that's not the choice. The choice is
> : between muslims dying and Americans dying, and I will choose muslims
> : every time given that situation. It is also a choice between more
> : people dying vs. less people dying. If we take dramatic actions now
> : to nip this in the bud, the long term prospects for life in Iraq, the
> : entire middle east, and even the civilized western nations will be
> : better due to lower terrorism. (If we had mickey moused around like
> : this with **** Germany, there would likely still be underground ****
> : 'Werewolf' cells killing people there today. I can appreciate the
> : horror of seeing your neighbor, most likely an innocent civilian, who
> : was burned in the Dresden raid, but you have to see the bigger
> : picture. That raid and other actions like it put an end to the evil
> : and madness that claimed millions of lives.)
> :
> : I notice you hail from Ireland. As your country was not attacked on
> : 9/11, it is therefore not terribly surprising that you have little
> : interest in rallying to America's defense in this war against the
> : muslims and extremists. Perhaps if America were to lose completely
> : and totally, and the influence of Bin Laden were to pervade the entire
> : middle east, it wouldn't even affect Ireland at all.. at least not in
> : the short run. All I can say in response to that is that you
> : Europeans need to be glad that America has not taken that attitude,
> : but instead has repeatedly come to your aid when the principles of
> : democracy and freedom were at stake. If America had had your attitude
> : in 1917 and again in World War II, you would be speaking German today.
> : Unless, of course, you have any jewish blood in you, in which case
> : you would not be here at all.
>
>