America is being very cowardly.

[lapslf]

They say they are fighting terrorism, but they are only bombing a little, without very much risk. The Northern Allience in Afghanistan is doing all the dirty work on the ground.

[KaneOfNod]

At 1/16/02 10:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: They say they are fighting terrorism, but they are only bombing a little, without very much risk. The Northern Allience in Afghanistan is doing all the dirty work on the ground.

I'll tell Mr. Spaan about that. Thanks for your input.

[chrcolbean]

You thought that was bad? There is a lot more things going on down there. I remember a post that said that there were 1 mil starving before we bombed, and now there are 7 mil. Another thing I noticed was how we promised them the right to form their own government. Then, we decided to have a council of members from Europe come to Afghanistan and rule over them "until the situation is stable". The civilian casualties in recent bombings are being over looked- we don't even know Osama bin LAden is still there, yet we still bomb. But of course, those lives were lost "in the just fight for freedom". If you look at it, the people of Afghanistan were doing better before we came in some aspects.

[bula-luigi]

You think that's bad? Do you know how the American amry are treating prisoners of war? there's a rumour that one of the American Taliban fighters captures were put in a cage.

[Done1done1done]

At 1/16/02 10:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: They say they are fighting terrorism, but they are only bombing a little, without very much risk. The Northern Allience in Afghanistan is doing all the dirty work on the ground.

You want an international outcry when we bomb one of their bases that just so happens to be surrounded by hospitals for crippled orphans? Then there would be no bombings, because the international community would call us barbaric and we'd stop to appease them.

[Behemonaut]

it'd be kinda hard to back out now. All the places that needed to be bombed were bombed. Whether or not Bin Laden is still in Afghanistan is beside the point (I think). That's why it's called a war on "terrorism"...this is somewhat of a justification, to a conservative minded public, to bomb the crap out of what was the Afghanistanian Taliban, even if they themselves did not directly carry out the plans to destroy the World Trade Center. As for creating a new government in Afghanistan, of course America is going to supervise the construction of some form of a democracy in Afghanistan. This neo-imperialism has always been the way the U.S. has dealt with the Middle East. I am sure i don't need to go into the details, but I'll just state the obvious; the more allies we have in the Middle East, the easier it is for us to get a secure source of oil at cheap prices. Also, perhaps the U.S. is trying to fix the mistakes it made in the 70's or whatever by giving people in the MIddle East all those weapons and what not. I dunno. Blah blah blah.

One last thing...I don't get the whole bombing a base surrounded by orphanges..(is that something i missed on the news?)

[Pecos]

At 1/16/02 10:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: They say they are fighting terrorism, but they are only bombing a little, without very much risk. The Northern Allience in Afghanistan is doing all the dirty work on the ground.

First of all they weren't bombing a little, they were bombing a lot. And yes, it's better to spend millions of dollars to bomb the shit out of them than to send in soliders thereby risking lives.

Secondly, the Northern Alliance would've been stuck in this civil war (if not completely destroyed) for much longer if US didn't help them.

Thirdly, US isn't stupid enough to go in like the Russians already tried and get their asses kicked.

And just in case you missed it the fist dozen times that the US government said it, they're not only going after the terrorists, but also the people/countries who harbor them.

Yeah.. so stick that up your ass, you dumb bastard!
=oP

[Slizor]

First of all they weren't bombing a little, they were bombing a lot. And yes, it's better to spend millions of dollars to bomb the shit out of them than to send in soliders thereby risking lives.

Yes of course. Since the American soldier's, who's job is to kill and die, lifes are worth more than the Afgahn civilan, who just wants to get on with their life.

Secondly, the Northern Alliance would've been stuck in this civil war (if not completely destroyed) for much longer if US didn't help them.

So?

Thirdly, US isn't stupid enough to go in like the Russians already tried and get their asses kicked.

The russians didn't get beaten by the Afghans, since America virtually made the opposition over there.

And just in case you missed it the fist dozen times that the US government said it, they're not only going after the terrorists, but also the people/countries who harbor them.

The Taliban offered to hand Osama over....but America didn't accept and just started bombing them. You do realise that offering to hand someone over isn't harbouring them?

[Pecos]

At 1/23/02 12:18 PM, Slizor wrote:

First of all they weren't bombing a little, they were bombing a lot. And yes, it's better to spend millions of dollars to bomb the shit out of them than to send in soliders thereby risking lives.

Yes of course. Since the American soldier's, who's job is to kill and die, lifes are worth more than the Afgahn civilan, who just wants to get on with their life.

It's never a soldier's job to die - it is, however, a soldier's job to kill (sometimes). anyway, you're not even addressing the original point.

Secondly, the Northern Alliance would've been stuck in this civil war (if not completely destroyed) for much longer if US didn't help them.

So?

So.. you're mentally-challenged if you think northern alliance was better off before the US got involved.

Thirdly, US isn't stupid enough to go in like the Russians already tried and get their asses kicked.

The russians didn't get beaten by the Afghans, since America virtually made the opposition over there.

once again, completely besides the point. i never even mentioned who they got beaten by.

And just in case you missed it the fist dozen times that the US government said it, they're not only going after the terrorists, but also the people/countries who harbor them.

The Taliban offered to hand Osama over....but America didn't accept and just started bombing them. You do realise that offering to hand someone over isn't harbouring them?

most taliban officials were on bin laden's payroll and even married into his family - they never going to give him up.. especially to the americans. and they harbored him for years before this.

[FreedomSlave]

A soldiers job isn't to die, just to kill ?
What kind of circular reasoning is that.
If it's one soldiers job to kill, then he has to kill someone, usually another soldier, who then died at his job. Soldiers kill, Soldiers die. That is their purpouse.

[Pecos]

At 1/30/02 10:26 AM, Reaper-n wrote: A soldiers job isn't to die, just to kill ?
What kind of circular reasoning is that.
If it's one soldiers job to kill, then he has to kill someone, usually another soldier, who then died at his job. Soldiers kill, Soldiers die. That is their purpouse.

Umm.. I don't know what your definition of an army is, but if you had one with soldiers hired to die, it wouldn't last very long. Soldiers are hired to kill and LIVE, not die.

[FreedomSlave]

At 1/30/02 02:46 PM, UnclePecos wrote:

At 1/30/02 10:26 AM, Reaper-n wrote: A soldiers job isn't to die, just to kill ?
What kind of circular reasoning is that.
If it's one soldiers job to kill, then he has to kill someone, usually another soldier, who then died at his job. Soldiers kill, Soldiers die. That is their purpouse.

Umm.. I don't know what your definition of an army is, but if you had one with soldiers hired to die, it wouldn't last very long. Soldiers are hired to kill and LIVE, not die.

ok sorry i'll re-phase that. my brain was malfunctioning when I made that post :)
What I mean is. A solider is hired to kill so he must also be prepared to die, This is the same for soldiers on both sides of the war. a civilian however has not signed a contract to kill, and should not be expected to die for a war he/she wants no part of. right that makes more sense now (I hope) :)

p.s No soldier hired to die. What about the Japanese Kamikaze squads ? (even tho some of these survived the entire war)

[Pecos]

At 1/31/02 08:25 AM, Reaper-n wrote: ok sorry i'll re-phase that. my brain was malfunctioning when I made that post :)
What I mean is. A solider is hired to kill so he must also be prepared to die, This is the same for soldiers on both sides of the war. a civilian however has not signed a contract to kill, and should not be expected to die for a war he/she wants no part of. right that makes more sense now (I hope) :)

p.s No soldier hired to die. What about the Japanese Kamikaze squads ? (even tho some of these survived the entire war)

ok, that makes more sense. of course a soldier should be prepaired to die, but he/she isn't there to die. Kamikaze is an exception. :)

[Slizor]

It's never a soldier's job to die - it is, however, a soldier's job to kill (sometimes). anyway, you're not even addressing the original point.

Sorry, it must be a civilans job to die. I forgot.

So.. you're mentally-challenged if you think northern alliance was better off before the US got involved.

And I should care about the Northern Alliance...why?

once again, completely besides the point. i never even mentioned who they got beaten by.

It is not beside the point, it makes your original point moot

most taliban officials were on bin laden's payroll and even married into his family - they never going to give him up.. especially to the americans. and they harbored him for years before this.

Harboured him...from who? I'm sorry, I forgot that when you offered to give somthing, when your life is on the line, you don't give it. Stupid of me!

[Pecos]

At 2/1/02 03:16 PM, Slizor wrote: Sorry, it must be a civilans job to die. I forgot.

It's no one's job to die, you idiot!

And I should care about the Northern Alliance...why?

I never said you should care, I wasn't talking to you in the first place.

Harboured him...from who? I'm sorry, I forgot that when you offered to give somthing, when your life is on the line, you don't give it. Stupid of me!

From who? Do you know what harbor means? To support, to offer shelter - that's what they did. And yes, you are stupid.. you are trying to make the Taliban and other muslim fundamentalist extremists look as though they reason in the same way we do. Well, they don't. They think killing people will send them to heaven where they get 40 virgins.. how do you reason with that?

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 1/16/02 10:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: They say they are fighting terrorism, but they are only bombing a little, without very much risk. The Northern Allience in Afghanistan is doing all the dirty work on the ground.

At 1/16/02 10:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: They say they are fighting terrorism, but they are only bombing a little, without very much risk. The Northern Allience in Afghanistan is doing all the dirty work on the ground.

The principles of military operation are to complete an objective with the fewest amount of casulties. This has been the attempt. Sometimes the objective's have been failed. Obviously that was not planed or wanted, it was failure, and will happen. People die in the process, innocent's however this is a failure and failure is unavoidable in large situations.

Obviously the deaths by American Military force's who's objective is of neutralizing terrorist, of Innocent's are accident. The deaths of Innocent's by Terrorists who seek to kill, are murder. American intervention in the Northern Alliance-Taliban Conflict has shortend the war, and in the long run will probably save Afgani life's at the price of American.

[Pecos]

At 2/5/02 04:13 PM, Anarchy_Penguin wrote: The principles of military operation are to complete an objective with the fewest amount of casulties. This has been the attempt. Sometimes the objective's have been failed. Obviously that was not planed or wanted, it was failure, and will happen. People die in the process, innocent's however this is a failure and failure is unavoidable in large situations.

Obviously the deaths by American Military force's who's objective is of neutralizing terrorist, of Innocent's are accident. The deaths of Innocent's by Terrorists who seek to kill, are murder. American intervention in the Northern Alliance-Taliban Conflict has shortend the war, and in the long run will probably save Afgani life's at the price of American.

Well put.

[Slizor]

It's no one's job to die, you idiot!

BUt a soldier's life is worth more than a civilans?

Harboured him...from who? I'm sorry, I forgot that when you offered to give somthing, when your life is on the line, you don't give it. Stupid of me!

From who? Do you know what harbor means? To support, to offer shelter - that's what they did.

Have you like not read what I've said? They offered to give him over, that is not habouring him!

And yes, you are stupid.. you are trying to make the Taliban and other muslim fundamentalist extremists look as though they reason in the same way we do. Well, they don't. They think killing people will send them to heaven where they get 40 virgins.. how do you reason with that?

*cough* Propaganda*cough*

[Pecos]

At 2/6/02 11:17 AM, Slizor wrote: BUt a soldier's life is worth more than a civilans?

I never said that. But you said their job is to die. And it's not.

Have you like not read what I've said? They offered to give him over, that is not habouring him!

And have you heard what I (and most others) said? They were never going to give him up. They were going to do it just like mulah omar was going to surrender at Kandahar - in actuality, they just bought themselves some more time to run.

*cough* Propaganda*cough*

Yes, that's a good way of ignoring the fact that you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.

[Slizor]

I never said that. But you said their job is to die. And it's not.

So it would be fair to say that to prevent loss of life a ground force team should have been sent in? (Please factor in the amount of people who left the cities because of the bombing.)

And have you heard what I (and most others) said? They were never going to give him up. They were going to do it just like mulah omar was going to surrender at Kandahar - in actuality, they just bought themselves some more time to run.

So you can predict the future? You can predict what is going to happen with certainity?

Yes, that's a good way of ignoring the fact that you're wrong and have no idea what you're talking about.

So where did you get your information from? An islamic extremist? Did you go up and ask him? Or did you ask all of them, and they all came back with the same answer? So, if they went out and killed their brother, would they get 40 virgins?

[Pecos]

At 2/7/02 02:53 PM, Slizor wrote: stupidity.. blah blah blah

If you've seen the Sun come up every morning for the past X number of years, you'll expect it to come up tomorrow as well.

Either you'll get it or you're dummer than previously thought.

[Slizor]

If you've seen the Sun come up every morning for the past X number of years, you'll expect it to come up tomorrow as well.

What if it has only come up once in x number of years, do you expect it again?

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Sorry I was unaware that I stumbled into the Pecos and Slizor talk about how dumb they think each other are topic.

[Slizor]

Sorry I was unaware that I stumbled into the Pecos and Slizor talk about how dumb they think each other are topic.

I would like to point out that at no part of this discussion I have mentioned anything about Mr. Pecos, or his retards/genius intellect.

[Pecos]

At 2/8/02 03:09 PM, Anarchy_Penguin wrote: Sorry I was unaware that I stumbled into the Pecos and Slizor talk about how dumb they think each other are topic.

Hey, I'm sittin here at work, bored out of my mind.. and sadly enough, this is all I got going for me at the moment! :)

I do admit to calling him an idiot.

[Ranger2]

Yes, bombing is so brave.
Killing others mindlessly.
They should get a medal...
This is all sarcastic, you know.

[F-8-L-E-T]

At 1/31/02 12:13 PM, Pecos wrote: Bullshit

I really hope u get popped by a nigga or latin.

[Korriken]

At 1/16/02 11:04 PM, bula_luigi wrote: You think that's bad? Do you know how the American amry are treating prisoners of war? there's a rumour that one of the American Taliban fighters captures were put in a cage.

apparently you've never seen the inside of a prison before... a prison is a series of cages to detain criminals... and prisoners of war. of course we call them "cells" instead of "cages"

[lapis]

At 7/30/06 09:57 AM, DarthTomato wrote:

At 1/16/02 11:04 PM, bula_luigi wrote: You think that's bad? Do you know how the American amry are treating prisoners of war? there's a rumour that one of the American Taliban fighters captures were put in a cage.

apparently you've never seen the inside of a prison before... a prison is a series of cages to detain criminals... and prisoners of war. of course we call them "cells" instead of "cages"

Call me weird, but for some reason I think that someone whose last post was made over four years ago isn't going to read your reply.

And to Ranger2: please, for the love of God, stop bumping ancient threads.

[JudgeDredd]

Geez, that was reading like a new thread until you pointed that out.. :P

At least we can see that things haven't much changed in 4 years (except with NATO troops now being pulled into the conflict aswell).