shoot...i knew about that, but completely forgot about it...but YES !!! that was one of the work of the devil himself..cloth in sheep's clothing!Benfica540;672167;672167 said:
Liberals... tell me what you would do.
- Thread starter Derpeder
- Start date
I am neither a conservative or a liberal (both IMO very artificial terms). I do not believe the current policies are good ones. I also believe things were bungled through daddy Bush and made worse by his less intelligent son. How to salvage anything out of the mess is the hard part.
I will think on it.
In the mean time here is the wayI believe it should have been done. Once the descision, right or wrong, to enter that country was made, we should have pursued it to a nonconditional surrender, removed those we found objectionable from power, left notice of those people and power groups who were not be allowed to serve in the government, as well as any armament restrictions we required, and then left (with the understanding that ANY violation of those strictures would result in immediate response. Then, when violations occurred, we should have gone in hard and repeated the process. After awhile leaders would find that they are being personally punished for said violations and perhaps modify their behavior.
I do see a difference in the various sects of shiite and sunni, and between sects within each grouping, just as I see a difference between the united aryan church and the Salvation Army (both supposedly christian), and as such I do not generalize that all Muslims want to kill non-believers.
As for comparing the crusades to what is going on now, that is stretching things, as it was common then to put everyone in an enemy city to the sword, women and children included, instead of trying to limit the destruction to combatants. This was especially true of the way the christian military orders made war. Not so much of the muslims as they were more likely to enslave the survivors.
Nowdays there are a large number of "civilized, christian" americans who seem to want the return of these tactics.
Now, dealing with the "war on terrorism", there is not one, and never has been. There is simply a nice catch phrase for an excuse to erode the rights of american citizens and allow the government to amass even more power for itself. The term is as useless as the other wars our government has declared, such as the ones on poverty, drugs, and illiteracy. Bah!
Terrorists are criminals and need to be treated as such.
If they are untouchable under our current system (one designed by politicians to protect politicians) then change the laws. Assasination has gotten a bad name but is the most effective and selective method of warfare available. Make those who create policy answerable for those policies. Make war from the top, not the bottom, of the political pyramids. This applies to us as well.
I will think on it.
In the mean time here is the wayI believe it should have been done. Once the descision, right or wrong, to enter that country was made, we should have pursued it to a nonconditional surrender, removed those we found objectionable from power, left notice of those people and power groups who were not be allowed to serve in the government, as well as any armament restrictions we required, and then left (with the understanding that ANY violation of those strictures would result in immediate response. Then, when violations occurred, we should have gone in hard and repeated the process. After awhile leaders would find that they are being personally punished for said violations and perhaps modify their behavior.
I do see a difference in the various sects of shiite and sunni, and between sects within each grouping, just as I see a difference between the united aryan church and the Salvation Army (both supposedly christian), and as such I do not generalize that all Muslims want to kill non-believers.
As for comparing the crusades to what is going on now, that is stretching things, as it was common then to put everyone in an enemy city to the sword, women and children included, instead of trying to limit the destruction to combatants. This was especially true of the way the christian military orders made war. Not so much of the muslims as they were more likely to enslave the survivors.
Nowdays there are a large number of "civilized, christian" americans who seem to want the return of these tactics.
Now, dealing with the "war on terrorism", there is not one, and never has been. There is simply a nice catch phrase for an excuse to erode the rights of american citizens and allow the government to amass even more power for itself. The term is as useless as the other wars our government has declared, such as the ones on poverty, drugs, and illiteracy. Bah!
Terrorists are criminals and need to be treated as such.
If they are untouchable under our current system (one designed by politicians to protect politicians) then change the laws. Assasination has gotten a bad name but is the most effective and selective method of warfare available. Make those who create policy answerable for those policies. Make war from the top, not the bottom, of the political pyramids. This applies to us as well.
I think what I said was misunderstood. I was comparing the extremism of the Crusades to what happened on 9/11.
I agree with the comparison in general, my point was that now it is more the exception and then such terror tactics were more the rule.
Dr Joe;667810; said:
Truthfully as long as humans live, there will be "cells and terrorists.." We have enforced LAW for 1000's of years and still we have Criminals.. The war on terrorism is a war that will die when the human race has nothing but tribes again
Personal opinion of course... And that is why my opinion stays that the goals have changed due to the fact Our President realized how unrealistic the NAME of the war is hence we are now RE_BUILDING a country not warring with terrorists.. IN my opinion.. Which is not always correct 
