U.S. soldier kills 16 Afghan civilians

JSG wrote: It's hard not to blame Bush since we wouldn't even be there if it weren't for him. And if he had found Osama bin Laden, maybe we would have been out before he left office but Bush admitted finding Osama wasn't a big priority for him and he didn't worry about it much. So much for avenging the 9/11 victims.

It took a new president to get the job done and I am grateful.

You are wrong to think Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden...that makes no sense. Show me the evidence that the Bush administration made that order.

The reason to say Bin Laden wasn't a big priority is just a tactical thing to do. He was a needle in a haystack and it became neccessary to let him feel comfortable and complacent (which is what eventually happened). When Obama took office, the same guys that were looking for OBL under Bush were there doing the same thing under Obama.

I will say that Obama's retreat anouncement was probably helpful in making OBL feel a bit safer, but the reason for the announcement (I believe) was more to satisfy Obama's base and the countries Obama wanted to appease.

PrintSmith wrote: More than willing to oblige, for it is obvious that you need help with your reading comprehension.

There are degrees of violence Z - there is simply no getting around that fact. I am not advocating unlimited violence be used on the tribal society, I am saying that unless you are willing to employ unlimited violence in prosecuting a war there will not be a resolution to the reasons for which you employed the violence to begin with. What effect does sending in a few cruise missiles or a single bombing run have? What effect has our use of limited violence had in altering the purposes for which we were attacked to begin with? Did our use of limited violence in Korea have the desired effect? How about our use of limited violence in Viet Nam? Would you say our goal was accomplished, or abandoned, with respect to Iraq now that we have withdrawn? What prognostication do you have regarding Afghanistan after we leave next year according to the announced schedule? Will our goal have been accomplished?

Nature's law is that one must be willing to use unlimited violence if a permanent resolution to the conflict is to be reached. A sow protecting her cubs is only prolonging the danger they face if she is satisfied with running off a creature which seeks to harm them. A bull elk will face the same opponent multiple times during the course of the same rut simply because his nature is to intimidate and not destroy the challenger. It is a common occurrence for a bull elk to not survive the winter because he has so weakened himself in intimidating others that he can't recover his strength and survive. Does this sound familiar to you when applied to nations and wars? Of course it does - it is nature's law.

I am not saying that we should use unlimited violence against every tribal culture. I am saying that if we decide to use any violence against it at all we should use the unlimited kind instead of the limited kind. Trying to use limited violence will only prolong the conflict and result in no resolution to it. This is what nature's law tells us. If we are only prepared to use a limited amount of violence we should not expect that the conflict will be resolved. We should instead expect the conflict to continue for a long period of time with a lot of little hurts inflicted on both sides along the way. That is what happens when limited violence is used. When the alpha wolf seeks to destroy his challenger, he may himself be severely wounded in the conflict, but there will be no further conflict with that challenger - it will have been conclusively decided one way or the other when the battle between them ends. One will walk away and one will not and there will be no further battles between them left to fight. If the alpha male wolf is satisfied with seeing his challenger turn tail and run, there will be another battle fought between them.

The wolf knows this instinctively, but it is something that the human race, for all its perceived intelligence, needs to learn over and over and over again. We do not author the laws of nature, we are not the gods of nature. We can choose, as the wolf chooses, to destroy or to be satisfied with seeing our opponent turn tail and flee, but we can't stop the next challenge from the same challenger if we choose the second option - the laws of nature dictate that we will have to face that challenger again at some point very soon, and next time that challenger may not turn tail and run from us. The next time we may be forced to destroy or be destroyed. We are subject to the laws of nature, we do not write them. The founders and framers understood this basic reality - do you?

Wow, just another in a long line of long winded regurgitations of the same old, same old. Reading comprehension? Laws of nature as they apply to limited vs. unlimited use of violence? I do not believe the question we should be asking is which type of violence should be used in a wartime situation. Rather, I believe the question we should be asking is why use violence of ANY kind in the first place?! We are supposed to be a "civilized" society. Alpha dogs, mother bears, bull elk rely on instinct to survive. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "civilized behavior" in a civilized society. Humankind is supposed to be above that because we can think, we can reason, we can "FEEL" our emotions. Anything less and we become the animals you've referred to. TEACH PEACE and we don't have to worry about whether to use limited or unlimited violence to settle disputes. TEACH PEACE!

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: More than willing to oblige, for it is obvious that you need help with your reading comprehension.

There are degrees of violence Z - there is simply no getting around that fact. I am not advocating unlimited violence be used on the tribal society, I am saying that unless you are willing to employ unlimited violence in prosecuting a war there will not be a resolution to the reasons for which you employed the violence to begin with. What effect does sending in a few cruise missiles or a single bombing run have? What effect has our use of limited violence had in altering the purposes for which we were attacked to begin with? Did our use of limited violence in Korea have the desired effect? How about our use of limited violence in Viet Nam? Would you say our goal was accomplished, or abandoned, with respect to Iraq now that we have withdrawn? What prognostication do you have regarding Afghanistan after we leave next year according to the announced schedule? Will our goal have been accomplished?

Nature's law is that one must be willing to use unlimited violence if a permanent resolution to the conflict is to be reached. A sow protecting her cubs is only prolonging the danger they face if she is satisfied with running off a creature which seeks to harm them. A bull elk will face the same opponent multiple times during the course of the same rut simply because his nature is to intimidate and not destroy the challenger. It is a common occurrence for a bull elk to not survive the winter because he has so weakened himself in intimidating others that he can't recover his strength and survive. Does this sound familiar to you when applied to nations and wars? Of course it does - it is nature's law.

I am not saying that we should use unlimited violence against every tribal culture. I am saying that if we decide to use any violence against it at all we should use the unlimited kind instead of the limited kind. Trying to use limited violence will only prolong the conflict and result in no resolution to it. This is what nature's law tells us. If we are only prepared to use a limited amount of violence we should not expect that the conflict will be resolved. We should instead expect the conflict to continue for a long period of time with a lot of little hurts inflicted on both sides along the way. That is what happens when limited violence is used. When the alpha wolf seeks to destroy his challenger, he may himself be severely wounded in the conflict, but there will be no further conflict with that challenger - it will have been conclusively decided one way or the other when the battle between them ends. One will walk away and one will not and there will be no further battles between them left to fight. If the alpha male wolf is satisfied with seeing his challenger turn tail and run, there will be another battle fought between them.

The wolf knows this instinctively, but it is something that the human race, for all its perceived intelligence, needs to learn over and over and over again. We do not author the laws of nature, we are not the gods of nature. We can choose, as the wolf chooses, to destroy or to be satisfied with seeing our opponent turn tail and flee, but we can't stop the next challenge from the same challenger if we choose the second option - the laws of nature dictate that we will have to face that challenger again at some point very soon, and next time that challenger may not turn tail and run from us. The next time we may be forced to destroy or be destroyed. We are subject to the laws of nature, we do not write them. The founders and framers understood this basic reality - do you?

Wow, just another in a long line of long winded regurgitations of the same old, same old. Reading comprehension? Laws of nature as they apply to limited vs. unlimited use of violence? I do not believe the question we should be asking is which type of violence should be used in a wartime situation. Rather, I believe the question we should be asking is why use violence of ANY kind in the first place?! We are supposed to be a "civilized" society. Alpha dogs, mother bears, bull elk rely on instinct to survive. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "civilized behavior" in a civilized society. Humankind is supposed to be above that because we can think, we can reason, we can "FEEL" our emotions. Anything less and we become the animals you've referred to. TEACH PEACE and we don't have to worry about whether to use limited or unlimited violence to settle disputes. TEACH PEACE!

"Rather, I believe the question we should be asking is why use violence of ANY kind in the first place?! We are supposed to be a "civilized" society."

What a f'king laugh. Because you have to kill people that want to kill you. You got a better way to eliminate an enemy?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: What a f'king laugh. Because you have to kill people that want to kill you. You got a better way to eliminate an enemy?

Study your history, fool.

Actually, Rumsfeld took the blame for Abu Ghraib.

These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility. It is my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation.

May 7, 2004, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Bush also gave an apology but it was mostly dismissed by the Iraqis as not enough.

photo-fish wrote: Actually, Rumsfeld took the blame for Abu Ghraib.

These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them. I take full responsibility. It is my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that. That was wrong. To those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was un-American. And it was inconsistent with the values of our nation.

May 7, 2004, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Bush also gave an apology but it was mostly dismissed by the Iraqis as not enough.

Actually the left blamed Bush. Or are you going to deny that?

The left blamed Bush for being there in the first place. And rightly so IMO. Had we not been in Iraq, Abu Ghraib would not have happened.

I'm sure it wasn't just the left that was against going into Iraq. I know a number of Conservatives that were against it too. But you like to put everyone and everything into little labeled boxes.

ZHawke wrote: Wow, just another in a long line of long winded regurgitations of the same old, same old. Reading comprehension? Laws of nature as they apply to limited vs. unlimited use of violence? I do not believe the question we should be asking is which type of violence should be used in a wartime situation. Rather, I believe the question we should be asking is why use violence of ANY kind in the first place?! We are supposed to be a "civilized" society. Alpha dogs, mother bears, bull elk rely on instinct to survive. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "civilized behavior" in a civilized society. Humankind is supposed to be above that because we can think, we can reason, we can "FEEL" our emotions. Anything less and we become the animals you've referred to. TEACH PEACE and we don't have to worry about whether to use limited or unlimited violence to settle disputes. TEACH PEACE!

Violence or no violence is decided by both sides, not a single side Z. If you think that Gandhi would have enjoyed equal success with his methods whether he faced the British or Stalin I would beg to differ with you.

Nature is not a peaceful place - never has been. Volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, famine, drought, floods, not to mention the food chain - the laws of nature are laws of violence. We do not write those laws Z - we are not the gods of nature and only a fool pretends that he could ever rise to that station. Those who will not fight are safe only as long as none around them are willing to fight as well. As soon as one of them, a single one of them, decides on a different course, the course is set and the choice must be made to be subjugated by the one willing to fight or to fight in order not to be subjugated. Want to see what happens when only one side decides not to fight? Does the word Holocaust have any meaning for you? How about FDR's internment camps? Think those Japanese-Americans felt as if no violence had been done to them as a result of their decision not to be violent and comply? The laws of nature decide the fate of your wished for utopia Z and I don't really think I need tell you what verdict it has rendered according to those laws.

CritiKalbILL wrote:

JSG wrote: It's hard not to blame Bush since we wouldn't even be there if it weren't for him. And if he had found Osama bin Laden, maybe we would have been out before he left office but Bush admitted finding Osama wasn't a big priority for him and he didn't worry about it much. So much for avenging the 9/11 victims.

It took a new president to get the job done and I am grateful.

You are wrong to think Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden...that makes no sense. Show me the evidence that the Bush administration made that order.

Here you go...

[youtube:36zu8iev][/youtube:36zu8iev]

JSG wrote: Here you go... this is about six months after 9/11:

[youtube:3pj8ihni]

[/youtube:3pj8ihni]

The oldies are the goodies.....