Peace is not the answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
walstan:
Never said I was, we had enough stupid wars of our own making, all the way from Sarawak to Aden without joining in with somebody elses.
Click to expand...
And in how many of these wars did you actually fight?
 
vern humphrey:
No doubt that was a comfort to the 12,000,000 people he killed in concentration camps.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
It would appear from this then that mass genocide is not the exclusive perogative of terrorists, unless of course you also consider Stalin to be a terrorist, he killed many millions, how about the British in India? are they also terrorists for all the Indians they killed? Talking about Indians what about the Indian Wars and the genocide of entire American Indian Tribes? does that make Americans terrorists?

See what happens when you try to catogarise everything into a simple term? To use a good old English term, It turns into a crock of ****.
 
vern humphrey:
And in how many of these wars did you actually fight?
Click to expand...
Thats a memory lane I refuse to go down, suffice to say enough to know how stupid war actually is.
 
40.png
walstan:
It would appear from this then that mass genocide is not the exclusive perogative of terrorists,
Click to expand...
What’s your point?
40.png
walstan:
unless of course you also consider Stalin to be a terrorist, he killed many millions, how about the British in India? are they also terrorists for all the Indians they killed? Talking about Indians what about the Indian Wars and the genocide of entire American Indian Tribes? does that make Americans terrorists?
Click to expand...
So you see the words as more important than the act?
40.png
walstan:
See what happens when you try to catogarise everything into a simple term? To use a good old English term, It turns into a crock of ****.
Click to expand...
Which is why I consider actions more important than words.
 
40.png
walstan:
Thats a memory lane I refuse to go down, suffice to say enough to know how stupid war actually is.
Click to expand...
That answers the question for me. Thank you.
 
40.png
thestickman:
And your definition of a terrorist is?
Click to expand...
I don’t have one, South Africa once thought they knew, they called him Nelson Mandela, in the 1920’s Britain thought they knew, they called him De-Valera, they thought they knew again in India, they called him Ghandi. The problem with history is that it has a habit of screwing up the best laid plans of men. I am not saying the same will happen with Bin Laden or Zacharwi but, in the eyes of some arabs they already are hero’s and saviours of their world and sadly, WE MADE THEM.
 
40.png
walstan:
I don’t have one, South Africa once thought they knew, they called him Nelson Mandela, in the 1920’s Britain thought they knew, they called him De-Valera, they thought they knew again in India, they called him Ghandi. The problem with history is that it has a habit of screwing up the best laid plans of men. I am not saying the same will happen with Bin Laden or Zacharwi but, in the eyes of some arabs they already are hero’s and saviours of their world and sadly, WE MADE THEM.
Click to expand...
Another non-sequitur.
 
40.png
thestickman:
Another non-sequitur.
Click to expand...
A non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not logically flow from a premise, OK.

The premise is that WE made both Bin Laden and Saddam.

Bin Laden. Did we or did we not back him in Afganistan in his war against the Russians? Did we or did we not supply him and the Taliban with weapons and/or intelligence?

**Saddam. **Did we or did we not support him in his war against Iran? Did we or did we not supply him with weapons and/or intelligence?

The answer to both questions is yes we did. So where’s the non-sequitur?

And if they were both thugs before, what in the name of heaven were we doing dealing with them in the first place?
 
40.png
walstan:
A non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not logically flow from a premise, OK.

The premise is that WE made both Bin Laden and Saddam.

Bin Laden. Did we or did we not back him in Afganistan in his war against the Russians? Did we or did we not supply him and the Taliban with weapons and/or intelligence?

**Saddam. **Did we or did we not support him in his war against Iran? Did we or did we not supply him with weapons and/or intelligence?

The answer to both questions is yes we did. So where’s the non-sequitur?

And if they were both thugs before, what in the name of heaven were we doing dealing with them in the first place?
Click to expand...
We didn’t “make” either one of them. They were what they were long before they met their first American.
 
vern humphrey:
We didn’t “make” either one of them. They were what they were long before they met their first American.
Click to expand...
So the Russians wouldn’t have walked all over Bin Laden if he hadn’t had the arms and information supplied by us?

Or Saddam wouldn’t have held the war with Iran to stalemate if we hadn’t supplied him with weapons and information?

Thats a novel take on history, maybe we could use that. The implication of this is that if we didn’t interfere in other peoples wars, there wouldn’t be any conflict with ourselves from anybody else. Now that really is novel!!
 
40.png
walstan:
So the Russians wouldn’t have walked all over Bin Laden if he hadn’t had the arms and information supplied by us?
Click to expand...
We didn’t make him what he is.
40.png
walstan:
Or Saddam wouldn’t have held the war with Iran to stalemate if we hadn’t supplied him with weapons and information?
Click to expand...
Again, we didn’t make him what he was – and there was a war between two scorpions. The best outcome was for them to finish each other off.
40.png
walstan:
Thats a novel take on history, maybe we could use that. The implication of this is that if we didn’t interfere in other peoples wars, there wouldn’t be any conflict with ourselves from anybody else. Now that really is novel!!
Click to expand...
That appears to be your theory – leave the most brutal dictators alone, and they’ll leave you alone.

We see how that worked in the case of dozens of brutal, expansionistic dictators.
 
vern humphrey said:
“Gung ho” is Chinese and was introduced into English via the United States Marine Corps… “Slogan,” by the way, is Irish for “battle cry.”
Click to expand...

I think our battle cry should be ‘Guinness Ho!’ :rotfl:
 
40.png
walstan:
There are two ways of going into a battle, one is to think your enemy is easy… the Gung Ho approach .

The other is to respect your enemy… That’s called training.
Click to expand...
Vern gave me the research and the history. And you would describe what you have given as…

…what exactly? Am I in the training part now? Is this what you taught the American soldiers in … where was it again? I know where Scotland is now. 😉 But I thought Vietnam was in … well … Vietnam. Are you saying it is in Sarawak, Borneo, SF’s?

I think this is very important to know. One must be clear about the direction in which the weapons are to be pointed. Basically one likes to know that one is not shooting oneself in the … er … foot. :nope:
40.png
walstan:
Of course there is a third approach, it’s the one every military man I know prefers, it’s called getting your political leaders to sort out their problems and differences BEFORE the war starts. That way you’ll almost certainly live. That’s called diplomacy.
Click to expand...
They teach this diplomacy in basic training? 🙂
 
to the 1st question: your answer is a fallacy. Terrorist can gain control through violence. When Saddam and Taliban are in power, do you think the majority of the 2 countries support them?
to the 2nd question: We’re treating terrorists fairly. if they kill innocents then we kill them. obvious you don’t mean it this way. you mean satisfy terrorists need.
40.png
walstan:
Q. How do terrorist survive in ANY community?

A. Only with the support of the population in which they live.

Q. How do you remove the support terrorist have in their community?
A. By ensuring the community is treated fairly and is SEEN to be treated fairly.

Q. How do you beat terrorism?
A. Look at the first two answers above.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
walstan:
Never said I was, we had enough stupid wars of our own making, all the way from Sarawak to Aden without joining in with somebody elses.
Click to expand...
Humility is also a virtue. Knowing the pot from the kettle is an extraordinarily useful thing to know before one starts asking rhetorical questions such as “Guess whose “a*s” got kicked and, you still haven’t learnt?”

Knowing these things is training too. 😉
 
40.png
walstan:
Thats a memory lane I refuse to go down, suffice to say enough to know how stupid war actually is.
Click to expand...
Some more training: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Those who can’t remember it … whew … :whistle: Shall we discuss redrawing some borders, then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top