Posted on 12/22/2006 4:33:05 AM PST by SJackson
Speaking for myself - Yes. I cannot support the targeting of civilian populations to achieve a strategic advantage. I agree with Harry Truman that our targets needed to be military.
She seemed to be going on some moralist adventure that says 'god hates killing!'.
Seemed? I do not read that at all. Example?
Can you say that our attacks on strategic targets in the past were proper?
Depends on the target in the past. I believe that throwing nukes at Mecca/Medina during their pilgrimages would be a war crime.
If not, will you stfu and just announce yourselves as US haters?
No and no.
So, Truman was against his own nuclear attack on cities that he ordered?
You are against the nuclear attacks on Japanese cities as a warcrime, therefore, yet again, you declare the USA as a war criminal state.
You seem to be really really in defense of islamic strategic targets. A virtual enemy position in this war.
Post #47: Elsie - "Let's just give up then!"
"Invading Iran and Syria won't work?" About as well as it did in Iraq, I guess.
Sigh. Another Freeper is lost to the NYT and the AP.
"he objective is to Kill the enemy! Kill them first before they Kill you! Kill them before they Kill your mother, father, wife, daughter, son ... before they even have an opportunity!"
Remember what Toynbee said about civilizations and what kills them....
Sad, ain't it.
Personally, I say we should do whatever we need to do to ensure our own safety and freedom
You and me both. On the upside we'd only have to do it once every 3 or 4 centuries. The survivors would be too frightened to come out of their rat holes for anything but scavenging for food.
On the downside.....wait....there is no downside.
Unfortunately, it will never happen
Never is a very long time my friend.
I wish you a very Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year. You keep your head and your a** wired together tight over there.
Come back safe.
Regards,
L
War crime or genocide? Last time I checked there is stil a people called the Japanese who flourish even today. Genocide is conducted in an attempt to wipe out a people because of race or ethnicity. The US acted accrodingly in order to shorten a war and to ultimately save lives. Your argument that the US committed war crimes by bombing civilians during WWII is quite a stretch.
The peacenick "war crimes" racket is a stretching of our collective weenies...
And , "international law" - - THERE IS NO SUCH THING! There isn't anyone who would enforce it... we saw that already...
The peacenick "war crimes" racket is a stretching of our collective weenies...
And , "international law" - - THERE IS NO SUCH THING! There isn't anyone who would enforce it... we saw that already...
" "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder."
Yep.
It's already Christmas Eve here. We're hoping for a "silent" night, if you catch my drift. It's a little hard to do the "peace on earth, good will to all men" thing under these circumstances.
That's the whole point, I guess, all the westerners/Christians were told to "respect" the traditions, of Islam, during Ramadan (basically the entire month of October) as to not "offend" anyone, here in Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, etc..
Is one of our holiest days respected in any way? Nope, the bad guys have every intention of "punishing" us for our beliefs. And even people we're protecting and/or trying to help will not condemn these animals.
That says it all, IMO.
Anyway, enjoy the Holidays, keep those who are most important to you close, and safe.
I'll be in touch.
Regards
The don-o's have shown evidence that Truman thought the nuclear strikes were to be on purely military targets in earlier posts. I'm not sure of the validity, haven't had the time to check.
To say that to Elsie is like saying that islam is not the problem, IMO. Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the world's terrorists. Islam is.
Thank you.
I also agree that "if they freely choose to adhere to the commands of this demonic duo then they, unequivocally, are to be considered enemy combatants, both here and abroad"
Thank you.
if by "adhere to the commands," you mean, engage in violent jihad or the support of jihad (e.g. the fake Muslim "charities" used to bankroll Hezbollah etc.)
I do. (not only that, but also muslim mothers raising their babies to be martyrs/terrorists?)
That's already defined as treason in the U.S. Constitution, and ought to be seriously enforced.
It sure ought to be but the PC crowd, including our President, is not willing to honestly address the problem, YET.
For that matter, I think all financial transfers from the US to Islamic lands, and from the US to Mexico, should be halted until the jihad and the invasion stop.
Agree.
But you won't find a majority even of FReepers supporting that.
Disagree. (and not just with FReepers but with all Americans, same as with the borders)
Which is why all this bellicose talk is just hot air.
Mine ain't "bellicose talk". Sure hope your's ain't either.
Because practically nobody (within our 'REPRESENTATIVE form of government') seriously proposes that we stop the infusion of billions of OUR DOLLARS into the war-chests of our enemies.
Sorry, but I just HAD to add in the stuff in parenthesis!
You and I are on the same page. The only difference that I can see is that I just happen to be a few pages ahead in how much EXTREME PREJUDICE will have to be given to these people.
It is absolutely horrible but is described in The Book of Ezekiel and Revelations as well as several other cites int The Bible.
Merry Christmas To All!..."and to all a Good Night"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.