Afghan Massacre: Convey of Death

[Rooster]

"If that is true, why aren't they all attacking Africa? Lots of weak non-muslim countries there."

I think the muslim extremeists respect dictatorships, even if they arn't theocracies. There isn't that much difference between many African countries and many muslim countries. And why attack America Jr., when they were able to attack America?

[Jeffy-CanCon]

America Jr, America Lite... I've always preferred "Satan's Little Brother"

But I presume from the responses that neither of you really believes that muslim extremists atack countries because they are weak. They choose their targets with reason.

[Machina123]

Ah the crying liberal, spouting inane platitudes like "America has it coming". My simple little friend, you have seen nothing yet. No country on this planet has felt the true sting of American power. No one attacks us, threatens to attack us, or looks at us cross-eyed without feeling the sting, but no one has felt the full force yet. Afghanistan was an object lesson. You harbor those who hurt us, and you will pay a terrible price.

That might hurt the liberals' feelings, but at this point, nobody cares about your kind anymore, just another capitulating pacifist looking for the next enemy to roll over for.

You are so (sp) arrogant I cannot believe u just said that. How can u just go an annouce america is invinsable. America will fall from power being known as the number one world power. It is bound to happen. Rome by far had a MUCH bigger and for the time more powerful army. do you sit and read american propaganda posters. after this statement i would in no way ever like to be assisiated to you as an american.

[Ov3rmind]

"Ah, I love this "they hate us because we're American" attitude. Take a look back at history, we haven't exactly been nice to that region of the world. The more we have done, the more pissed off they get. I doubt that's coincidence. We did infact instigate it. The US makes mistakes just like other countries, we aren't perfect."

LOL! The ignorance of the liberal astounds me.

In general, I'm more of a moderate. But thanks anyway.

Its like speaking to plants, but perhaps plants have some level of intelligence. My little friend, we did nothing and they attacked us.

Do you know why the Israelie/Palestinian conflict is taking place? Do you know about our extended military occupation following Desert Storm? It's not like we've had a super friendly history with the Middle East. They are not committing terrorist acts because we started a war first, it's because we've treated them like crap for a long time.

We attacked them, and they ran like scared children to hide.

Actually, there was quite a bit of fighting in Afghanistan, just incase you didn't notice (and there still is).

I'm sorry that the liberal mind is too simple to understand logic, but these are the facts: Muslim extremists will pick on anyone they view as weak.

They wage war on those they hate, not those that are weak.

They run and hide from anyone who is strong.

I really didn't get that part. At first you implied that they thought the US was weak, and now you say they think we are strong.

They are a filthy waste of this planet's resources and deserve nothing but to be removed from existance, as quickly as possible. They aren't even human. The correct way to deal with them is to kill them all. If their family decides to become terrorists, we kill them too. If the rest of their country decides to become terrorists, we kill them too. If people within our own country decide to become terrorists, we kill them too. Eventually they will learn, or they will run out of people. I don't care which comes first.

I like how you and Hitler share the same views on certain countries and races. War is necessary at times, but extreme views like that are never necessary. And they will NEVER learn. They already kill themselves for their cause, and due to recent events they would like to even more.

[Konigballer]

Rooster would make a good Hitler or Darth Vader, thats a fairly extreme view of his you last quoted to say the least

People who talk like that are rarely the ones who ever have to pull the trigger though, although Rooster would probably make an excellent R.E.M.F. button pusher.

[RiddalinJunkie08]

Facts,
I don't know if kitheril has an anti-American agenda, but he has made anti-American comments n this thread, and I think unfairly. The USA's history is not a story of innocence and pure motives, but neither is Canada's, or any other countries.


kitheril,
Reread your own posts. You are as guilty of the "holier than thou" attitude you accuse Rooster of having. You are standing on a soapbox and pointing fingers of blame. And inappropriately, IMO. Observing a crime does not equate to guilt of that crime, even if you were in a position to stop it. At worst it would be "aiding and abetting". And there is no reason to beleive in this case, I think, that the US SF troops were in a position to control the actions of their Allies. Any more than our own Gen. Dallaire was able to stop the Rwandan genocide ten years ago. Do you hold him guilty for those deaths?


Rooster,
You say that "no country has felt the true sting of American power". What about Japan?
You also said that "muslim extremists will pick on anyone they view as weak". If that is true, why aren't they all attacking Africa? Lots of weak non-muslim countries there. Or even Canada, which is a wealthy liberal democracy like muslim extremists supposedly hate so much? I think you disrespect yor enemies when you assume they are all bloodthirsty madmen.


bleachit,
that was an unfair and inaccurate attack on the Canadian military. I would have expected a little more international awareness from someone living on the border. Our penny-pinching government may have slashed our defence budget, but it wasn't always that way. We pulled our weight and more in WW1 and WW2, and our modest contribution in Korea was respectable enough to win a Presidential Unit Citation from your own government.


1DE,
I agree with you more in this thread than probably anywhere else I have seen you post. :) I agree that any war is winnable if you have the will to see it through. Some of these threats and wars require actions that we as Westerners are not willing to carry out, but they remain a theoretical possibilty.
I even agree with you equating September 11th to Pearl Harbour. Both were nasty sneak attacks that changed America's view of the world. But I think it's important to remember that in both cases the attackers saw the attacks as a response to American policies harming their countries.

I think that is the most intelligent post on this entire thread.
-Mark

[Konigballer]

I really don't agree that "any war is winnable if you have the will to see it through", not anymore at least. Although a "will to win" is at the cornerstone of achieving victory in war, the advent of truly modern war in the last century has done much to nullify both side's "will" as being the determining factor in achieving victory.

I have no doubt that Japan's "will to win" was stronger than that of the US in WW2, the level of fanatism instilled in their entire civilian and military population was really astounding. However, in the end, it was a simple matter of logistics and technology, they couldnt compete with us in either department and were annihilated by overwhelmingly superior forces. Will means little against an avalanche of destruction.

Hitler was a HUGE believer in a nations "will" being the trump card in achieving victory, despite the horrible odds. Read anything about the war on the Eastern Front or the fall of Berlin and you will see where that kind of thinking got him

What good is having a stonger "will to win", and a huge Tiger or Panther tank, if your opponents will just swamp every one of your tanks with ten of their inferior T-34's or Shermans?

With a guerilla war "will" is much more vital, because the guerilla force has to have something that will nullify their opponent's material and technological advantage. They will also recieve much more casualties than they will give out and they have to ba able to take that and keep going. How do you defeat forces like that with conventional means?

[1stdeadeye]

Facts,
1DE,
I agree with you more in this thread than probably anywhere else I have seen you post. :) I agree that any war is winnable if you have the will to see it through. Some of these threats and wars require actions that we as Westerners are not willing to carry out, but they remain a theoretical possibilty.
I even agree with you equating September 11th to Pearl Harbour. Both were nasty sneak attacks that changed America's view of the world. But I think it's important to remember that in both cases the attackers saw the attacks as a response to American policies harming their countries.

Thump! 1DE falls over with a heart attack!

Thank you for seeing my hypothetical point. A superpower can do anything it wants if it has the will to see it through. Unfortunately, that will is not possible as it could result in genocide or M.A.D.

[1stdeadeye]

I really don't agree that "any war is winnable if you have the will to see it through", not anymore at least. Although a "will to win" is at the cornerstone of achieving victory in war, the advent of truly modern war in the last century has done much to nullify both side's "will" as being the determining factor in achieving victory.

You are wrong! You need the will to use that technology!

I have no doubt that Japan's "will to win" was stronger than that of the US in WW2, the level of fanatism instilled in their entire civilian and military population was really astounding. However, in the end, it was a simple matter of logistics and technology, they couldnt compete with us in either department and were annihilated by overwhelmingly superior forces. Will means little against an avalanche of destruction.

Hitler was a HUGE believer in a nations "will" being the trump card in achieving victory, despite the horrible odds. Read anything about the war on the Eastern Front or the fall of Berlin and you will see where that kind of thinking got him

What good is having a stonger "will to win", and a huge Tiger or Panther tank, if your opponents will just swamp every one of your tanks with ten of their inferior T-34's or Shermans?

You misunderstand will and are confusing it with fanaticism. We had the will to nuke Japan. We had the technology and the firepower. We had the will to wage an absolute war and not limit ourselves to military targets. We also had the will to sacrifice those 9 Shermans to every Tiger!

With a guerilla war "will" is much more vital, because the guerilla force has to have something that will nullify their opponent's material and technological advantage. They will also recieve much more casualties than they will give out and they have to ba able to take that and keep going. How do you defeat forces like that with conventional means?

Again you are confusing fanaticism with will. How do we win a guerilla war? Wage total war. Kill all of the insurgents and destroy their support system to include any sympathisors or supporters!

[Konigballer]

fanaticism="will" personified

the greater your will to win, the greater your fanaticism. If your will to win, or to see your country suceed, is great enough, there is no bounds you will not cross and nothing you will not sacrafice in order to achieve victory. Thats fanaticism.

You will not hesitate to sacrafice your own life or the lives of others to achieve victory by strength of will. Strength of will would allow you to crash a plane into a building, banzai charge a machine gun position, or fight to the last man against hopeless odds. You may indeed be possesed of stronger will than your opponents, but that does not always translate into victory on the battlefield.

[FactsOfLife]

fanaticism="will" personified

the greater your will to win, the greater your fanaticism. If your will to win, or to see your country suceed, is great enough, there is no bounds you will not cross and nothing you will not sacrafice in order to achieve victory. Thats fanaticism.

You will not hesitate to sacrafice your own life or the lives of others to achieve victory by strength of will. Strength of will would allow you to crash a plane into a building, banzai charge a machine gun position, or fight to the last man against hopeless odds. You may indeed be possesed of stronger will than your opponents, but that does not always translate into victory on the battlefield.

It wasn't enough for the Japanese to have fanatics in their ranks. Witness the Kamikaze, they were a last ditch effort to destroy America's unmatched military might in the Pacific Theatre.

After, and only after, we dropped the second bomb did the Japanese finally undestand that they were going to lose no matter how strong their will was.

Their war materiel apparatus was in virtual ruins after the raids led by Jimmy Doolittle and their navy was thoroughly defeated by ours.

They had gotten themselves into that war because they thought their will was stringer than ours.

It proved to not be the case. I can remember countless stories by my grandma about how the USA had completely devoted itself to winning the Big One.

I see a lot of the same resolve in this country, not that the commie bastards in the media would show it, that we had during the last world war.

And that is exactly what we're in here. A bona fide World War. Anyone who doubts that is wearing rose colored glasses.

[Konigballer]

I agree that "the will to win" was'nt enough to help the japanese win the second world war. United States overwhelming logistical and technological superiority helped curb that fanatcism real quick. Will alone is never enough. Thats why I hope we'll win this current war because I really dont think our "will" is as strong as those crazy fanatics living in caves or hiding out in villiages like rats waiting to fight to the death with AK's and RPG's against the most powerfull military in the world.

[1stdeadeye]

I agree that "the will to win" was'nt enough to help the japanese win the second world war. United States overwhelming logistical and technological superiority helped curb that fanatcism real quick. Will alone is never enough. Thats why I hope we'll win this current war because I really dont think our "will" is as strong as those crazy fanatics living in caves or hiding out in villiages like rats waiting to fight to the death with AK's and RPG's against the most powerfull military in the world.

I said will was enough for a superpower! Like the Romans were in their times and we are in ours! Japan could not match our will nor industrial might. Thankfully FDR had strong generals around him that showed the Japanese what the will to win and US technology could do.

As for your second comment, why not PM Army and ask him about our will in the middle east? I wish we had more will to just carpet bomb the Afghan mountains with bunker busters and kill everything in those mountains!

[acropilot19]

Facts,

1DE,
I even agree with you equating September 11th to Pearl Harbour. Both were nasty sneak attacks that changed America's view of the world. But I think it's important to remember that in both cases the attackers saw the attacks as a response to American policies harming their countries.

Uh, lets not forget that "American Policies harming their countries", in the case of japan, Translates to "America preventing japan from Raping & Killing MILLIONS of Chinese". The Japanese, during the 1930's & 40's were Very busy Killing the entire Chinese populace. Our political & economic response was to cut off vital trade resources they needed to continue this Massacre.

Yes, it is very true.
The Japanese response to this was Pearl Harbor.

Funny how it gets twisted around the other way.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Uh, lets not forget that "American Policies harming their countries", in the case of japan, Translates to "America preventing japan from Raping & Killing MILLIONS of Chinese". The Japanese, during the 1930's & 40's were Very busy Killing the entire Chinese populace. Our political & economic response was to cut off vital trade resources they needed to continue this Massacre.

Yes, it is very true.
The Japanese response to this was Pearl Harbor.

Funny how it gets twisted around the other way.

Please don't misunderstand me, I never said I supported the Japanese. I just pointed out that from their point of view, they were forced to attack Pearl Harbour. The Japanese were messing about in northen China (where they had killed & raped hundreds of thousands). The US economic sanctions that were supposed to convince them to stop were at risk of strangling the Japanese economy, so they expanded their war in a bid to obtain the self-suffiiciency in natural resources.

It's disrespectful to the Japanese to focus on their war crimes, and ignore the reasons they were at war in the first place. They did some nasty stuff, spurred on by nazi-esque "master race" theories, but they had mainly economic reasons for going to war.