Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 13, 2007.
How's that working out for you TG? Would you rec it to your friends?
Excellent point. WW II would still be going on, or more likely we would have lost, if we had conducted it like we are this Iraq occupation. The Japanese got the message, and so would the Iraqis.
OK, you have officially taken the Moral Equivalency Trophy from ZZZ. Even he can tell the difference between al qaeda and the US military. The good news for you is that you can now run for the Senate as a democrat.
So your point is...what? That an occupation cannot be won? Tell that to eastern europe.
So Eastern Europe at that time is the equivalent of middle eastern countries today...
God and devil right? Or heaven and hell? Is that your point?
Hey I know, lets blame it on Iran. Now we can invade another country while pretending our armed soldiers were innocent babes who were snatched out of their mothers loving arms.
Maybe Israel has some hot tips for us on that subject?
Vote for Chuck.
Only Chuck can protect our young people in uniform.
In war, moral sensibilities tend to move as the enemy lowers the bar. However, we are now fighting a war where, for the first time, a society accepts an absolute deontological prohibition against adjusting military technique given the enemyâs decent into savagery. No such barrier was everlasting for the UK in Europe or the USA in Japan. It is reasonable to hesitate to cross such barriers depending on the stage of the war, scale of the war and the costs of the war. But one wonders where the breaking point lies.
An excellent blog that once again covers honor and shame that is the 'binding' culture for Arabs and Islam. Did anyone ever mention that they love to lie too?
Honor and shame, for an Arab family/tribe is seen as a key survival factor. Dishonor brings physical danger to the family. Thus, the contempt an Arab/Muslim holds for the other is expressed by violence to the otherâs family. In Israel the main targets of suicide bombings are not military but civilian. What is being expressed is âyou brought shame and death to your family.â This isnât a second best choice because of a lack of military power; this is an end in itself. Arab/Muslims know that Western morality inhibits retaliation in kind. Indeed, theyâll exploit such moral sentiments in the West whenever Arab civilians are inadvertently killed. No such complaint would be lodged against a fellow Arab.
Israel, for a time, had a policy of evicting families of suicide bombers. At least one such family turned in their son to prevent losing their home. However, Arabs quickly provided funds to reward families and neutralized this policy (Saddam was one such funding source.) No doubt if Israel killed the family of suicide bombers the shame/honor dynamic would diminish the high regard of being a shaheed and most likely end suicide bombings. Israel, of course, canât do this. One Arab reporter, while gloating, told his American counterpart that "with all your technology you canât respond to this manner of fighting." There is a perverse pride in being able to kill the families of civilized people knowing how difficult it is for them to do the same in return.
It's working great, thanks for asking. Originally posted as a joke, but libtards left and right are buying this stuff up. I might have to spin this off as it's own company.
Here's another chance for libs to get a great deal on offsets:
Separate names with a comma.