The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by truejedi
When you get in a fight, there is no "better than that." Your goal should be to kick your enemy in the balls hard enough that he is never getting up again. There is no such thing as a humane war.

You avoid the fight until you absolutely have no choice and are even attacked first (9/11) and then you wage Total War until your enemies don't exist anymore. This was an entire crowd of people who were screaming that they are our enemies and we let them walk away.

We WILL lose this war if we continue to fight a gentleman's war against a people that will kill us in any way possible.

What's your suggestion then? I doubt that our soldiers are showing that much respect to the terrorists (or I suppose that insurgents is a more objective term) and vice versa. What they do need to worry about is protecting innocent civilians and trying to not harm them. Are you suggesting that we should simply fire at every person on sight? Because that isn't humane and wouldn't accomplish our objective either. To simply shoot any person on sight would create more enemies for the USA than it would wipe out.

Originally posted by truejedi
When you get in a fight, there is no "better than that." Your goal should be to kick your enemy in the balls hard enough that he is never getting up again. There is no such thing as a humane war.

You avoid the fight until you absolutely have no choice and are even attacked first (9/11) and then you wage Total War until your enemies don't exist anymore. This was an entire crowd of people who were screaming that they are our enemies and we let them walk away.

We WILL lose this war if we continue to fight a gentleman's war against a people that will kill us in any way possible.

Originally posted by KMCmember
What's your suggestion then? I doubt that our soldiers are showing that much respect to the terrorists (or I suppose that insurgents is a more objective term) and vice versa. What they do need to worry about is protecting innocent civilians and trying to not harm them. Are you suggesting that we should simply fire at every person on sight? Because that isn't humane and wouldn't accomplish our objective either. To simply shoot any person on sight would create more enemies for the USA than it would wipe out.

Basically, the end game that he wants is that every country in the world hates us and wants us dead but we keep them at bay with our large supply of nukes.

Originally posted by KMCmember
What's your suggestion then? I doubt that our soldiers are showing that much respect to the terrorists (or I suppose that insurgents is a more objective term) and vice versa. What they do need to worry about is protecting innocent civilians and trying to not harm them. Are you suggesting that we should simply fire at every person on sight? Because that isn't humane and wouldn't accomplish our objective either. To simply shoot any person on sight would create more enemies for the USA than it would wipe out.

My suggestion was in my first post: This was an entire people literally chanting that they were enemies of America. Who decided it was a good idea to let a whole crowd of our enemies just walk away? Why didn't they attack an entire crowd of our enemies? That crowd will be killing our troops tomorrow when they could have been dealt with today.

So in your opinion, voicing dissatisfaction with America is the equivalent of actively fighting against it?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So in your opinion, voicing dissatisfaction with America is the equivalent of actively fighting against it?

The terrorists and Radical Muslims are actively fighting against it. The other group you mentioned is just voicing an opinion.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So in your opinion, voicing dissatisfaction with America is the equivalent of actively fighting against it?

saying "Burn America" is now "voicing dissatisfaction"? Seems like you are watering it down a bit.

They were declaring themselves enemies of our nation. Since our entire mission over there is killing our enemies, since a giant crowd of them was all in one place and OBVIOUSLY enemies, (since they were saying so) this would have been quite a great victory. No innocent civilians killed in that bombing, only self-admitted enemies!

Why are they obviously our enemies? Maybe they're just pissed the **** off at the moment because some redneck in Florida decided to burn their most holy and sacred book. Maybe by next week they'll stop being pissed off and go about their lives as civilians.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The terrorists and Radical Muslims are actively fighting against it. The other group you mentioned is just voicing an opinion.

A man with an AK-47 in his hand is actively fighting. A pregnant Afghan woman screaming death to America is an unhappy civilian.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are they obviously our enemies? Maybe they're just pissed the **** off at the moment because some redneck in Florida decided to burn their most holy and sacred book. Maybe by next week they'll stop being pissed off and go about their lives as civilians.

A man with an AK-47 in his hand is actively fighting. A pregnant Afghan woman screaming death to America is an unhappy civilian.

A pregnant AFghan woman screaming death to America while blowing herself up is "actively fighting" as well.

I agree. A pregnant Afghan woman screaming death to America is not, though.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why are they obviously our enemies? Maybe they're just pissed the **** off at the moment because some redneck in Florida decided to burn their most holy and sacred book. Maybe by next week they'll stop being pissed off and go about their lives as civilians.

A man with an AK-47 in his hand is actively fighting. A pregnant Afghan woman screaming death to America is an unhappy civilian.

1. They have burned bibles and our flags repeatedly. So really, why are they getting so upset over one admitted idiot who decided to do the same thing to them? Especially when pretty much everyone in america condemned him for doing it AND he didn't do. The people died today, AFTER he didn't do it.

2. How about a crowd of people charging the military complex? Which is what happened? The Afghan troops only opened fire when the crowd charged them. This was a VIOLENT protest. They were attacking our allies, the afhgan government. Does that change your opinion at all?

Originally posted by truejedi
[B]1. They have burned bibles and our flags repeatedly. So really, why are they getting so upset over one admitted idiot who decided to do the same thing to them? Especially when pretty much everyone in america condemned him for doing it AND he didn't do. The people died today, AFTER he didn't do it.

They're mad because they're irrational.

2. How about a crowd of people charging the military complex? Which is what happened? The Afghan troops only opened fire when the crowd charged them. This was a VIOLENT protest. They were attacking our allies, the afhgan government. Does that change your opinion at all?

No, because I think firing on violent protesters is justified; violence begets violence. Spoken words by themselves are not violent, however.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
They're mad because they're irrational.

No, because I think firing on violent protesters is justified; violence begets violence. Spoken words by themselves are not violent, however.

No, because bombs are indiscriminate killers. I'd reserve bombs as a last ditch effort, a sort of "do it or else we'll be overrun" type of thing.

okay. good talk.

the cowboys just looked so stupid!

I've sucked it up in my fantasy league today. Definitely blew with the Vikings, Colts, and Cowboys.

well, i'm up 20 points but my opponent still has flacco and eric weddle to play with the rest of the game for dez bryant as well... not looking too hot.

Originally posted by truejedi
well, i'm up 20 points but my opponent still has flacco and eric weddle to play with the rest of the game for dez bryant as well... not looking too hot.

Jesus where is the Cowboys offense?

Cowboys have offense? I thought they had Tony Romo...

The end of that game was unbelivable...