Originally posted by: RichardE
Amen is latin for so be it.
It's most commonly used in prayer, with religions that preach very different values than you do.
Show me a war fought on from a moralistic standpoint, instead of "lie" I gave examples, let us see if you can.
The point was your claiming we did not do wrong things in Vietnam; we did. You're trying to turn the issue into something else here, moving the burden to me to prove something.
There are no wars I know of in which you will find a complete absence or a complete presence of wrong. Let's be clear we're talking about light gray and dark gray.
Nazi Germany 'held back' in some ways, too. For example, our captured airmen were treated relatively well, because the head of their air force believed in some sort of 'espirit de corps' apparently. Even Japan, who was very dark gray, did not do every excessive measure they could to win the war, though they're among the closest for the most.
A war in which I'm not aware of much being done wrong - a light gray - is our revolutionary war against the 'superpower' of England. We won, by the way.
Washington specifically preached against using wrong measures, in fact.
But what's the point? We were discusssing your claim that we did not do wrong in Vietnam.
We held back in Vietnam, books upon books and papers have been written about this, generals have come out regarding this. We did not do "all" we could to win that war even when we could have. Its downfall was political in nature not military.
Of course the US held back *somewhat*. You are again changing the discussion from whether the US did wrong, to whether it did every wrong it could do.
You said we did not do wrong in Vietnam, as I read your post, and I said we did.
Lose as in pull out before solving the majoirty of the issues that are still left. The wars goals was not simple to "remove Saddam" but to "bring democracy" to Iraq, which is a goal that is moving along now yet still has some roadblocks in the way
I'd say that was maybe the fourth goal. The first goal was implied, to 'strike back for 9/11'. 9/11 was used to 'loosen the public' to be willing to attack Iraq. Of course, that turned out to be a false goal. The second goal was explicitly the official goal of the war, to protect the US from the threat of WMD, with or without removing Saddam. (The admnistration constantly said that Saddam could avoid war if he 'just provided the infomration showing the WMD had been destroyed'). The third goal was to remove Saddam. You might even argue that the fourth goal was simply repairing some of the damage we had caused, the 'potery barn' issue. That takes us to the fourth or fifth goal of 'spreading democracy', needed for explaining the continung occupation after Saddam had been removed from power and captured.
Ah good ol tactic of accusing someone you don't agree with that they are "the enemy". You would have fit right in with Stalin.
How ironic for you to do what you are complaining about, but I did not 'accuse you of being the enemy', I said you are worse than most of our enemies IMO.
It's not much of a response to say that it's like Stalin, only barely avoiding Godwin's rule, and really guilty of violating its spirit.
How about you go to your little Island somewhere and live a life of peace and ignorance where nobody ever wants to do anything bad to you ever. Take your hippy ideals which are based on the assumption no evil exists and just go, since all you are doing with your compassion for the "cleanliness of killing terrorist" (Funny how it doesn't matter if we kill them, just how) which is putting doubt on people here at home, which will eventually put the troups over there in danger.
No, I will stay here and oppose the evildoers like you, but you would do well to move to that island and stop being a menace.
FWIW, you say it doesn't matter whether we kill them, but I think it does. A lot of the problem I think is when policies create unnecessary conflict to fuel greed-based policies.
And yes, if you do have to kill people, it matters how you go about the violence, whether you 'use terrorism' or not. Do you pul a 24-like stunt and start murdering the innocent family members of a terrorist one by one to try to get them to surrender in your little 'no rules' system? Do you torture a thousand in hoped one might give you useful info? Thase are all within your 'do all you can' rule. In fact, creating the worst tyranny the world has seen as a permanent systme over nations would fit in your system.
The founding fathers are 'hippies' by your standards, but you can't see that.
Facebook
Twitter