[Janos]

Very true. 2000 casualties is hardly anything, considering the US has been involved in far more costlier battles over shorter time spans (i.e. 7000 Marines in a matter of weeks at Iwo Jima, 12500 in two months at Okinawa), but it's the media coverage that has been primarily responsible for causing American queasiness when it comes to war. Add to that the Baby Boomer generation that seems interested in doing the complete opposite of what the greatest generation of Americans did...

Yeah, damn the media for reporting Vietnam as the cluster **** it really was. And as for the Baby Boomers, it's their amnesia regarding Vietnam that provided a lot of the support for this war.

And now it's the Baby Boomers' nostalgia for Vietnam that's bogging us down. Thirty-eight years ago in Vietnam, the media may have been right in reporting that the government and the military were messing up the war. The US military was still trying to fight the same war that they fought in Korea and WWII, where there was a known, defined enemy with a conventional military. The Communists in Vietnam changed the rules by fighting a guerilla war that the United States wasn't prepared for, and the media made that clear when the Tet Offensive came.

Now the media's doing the same thing with Iraq, even though the military has made good progress with training the Iraqi military and setting up a government voted in by the Iraqi people in a hostile zone. I don't particularly agree with a lot of the reasons that the war was initiated, but I even more disagree with the media and the "peace demonstrators" at home vehemontly criticizing the military, especially when they have neither the time, training, nor ability to determine if the war is winnable or not. I'd be glad to leave that to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the people trained in strategic thought.

It should be the media's job to report what's happening in the world, not selectively picking what it wants to tell the public and then telling the American people want to think (that goes for both the conservative and liberal media). But yes, that's just my idealistic view of the world taking over again...

It's the Damn Liberal Media again, you would win the war if you just didn't let the reporters in!

LIEBERAL

MEDIA

RAAARGH

[Jetmech Jr.]

One more thing-

Flipside, you asked me how I would feel if the U.S. soldier died in pain and people felt that way: My answere is that it would depend on what he did before hand. If he was, like say, one of those soldiers who went around killing innocents and non-combatants and what not, then yeah, I'd agree. He had it coming.

[Mars]

One more thing-

Flipside, you asked me how I would feel if the U.S. soldier died in pain and people felt that way: My answere is that it would depend on what he did before hand. If he was, like say, one of those soldiers who went around killing innocents and non-combatants and what not, then yeah, I'd agree. He had it coming.

This is going to sound really bad, but I don't know if most people in Iraq care, the only thing that matters is that he was an American and he died in pain, and I can't say I blame them considering what they've gone through because of Americans.

[Mefustae]

It was a hypothetical, mate.

[aldo_14]

I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.

Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.

Surely one of the fundamental problems of the terrorism/fundamentalism/etc type issue is where people are deciding that X deserves to feel pain and then, whether doing it themselves or encouraging a proxy, inflicting it.   It's one thing to be glad he's dead.  It's entirely another to gloat over how long he took to die, or how much pain he was in; I don't see the neccessity or value in metaphorically pissing over anyones corpse.

[AlphaOne]

Umm i'm not even gooing to try and get cought into this moral issue. but however while the first instinct,especialy of those who had loved ones killed by such maniaks, will be  to actualy fing joy in the fact that he suffered as much as posible before he died I believe the joy soon passes as you realise that that brings you no real comfort not even short term, for the loss of someone dear.

Also most of the time I just feel pitty for these kinds of people. Not pitty as in "poore bastard he died so bad" bu pitty in the sensce that they are not woth the emotional effort to feel anything for theyr death. And they will go down in history even among most of theyr fellow people as murederes and mad men.

I dont know if anyone will understand what i'm tring to say because of mi bad english but i gave it a try nonetheless.

[Jetmech Jr.]

I'm already better than him in that I don't commit the same despicable acts as him. You have no real point, Flip. 1: I don't enjoy EVERYONE's pain, just those who deserve it. 2: I don't commit the same acts as him. 3: I didn't inflict the pain.

Stop trying to accuse me of things I'm not really guilty of. It's rather annoying and disrespectful.

Surely one of the fundamental problems of the terrorism/fundamentalism/etc type issue is where people are deciding that X deserves to feel pain and then, whether doing it themselves or encouraging a proxy, inflicting it.   It's one thing to be glad he's dead.  It's entirely another to gloat over how long he took to die, or how much pain he was in; I don't see the neccessity or value in metaphorically pissing over anyones corpse.

Mm-hm. I don't suppose there is any tangible benefit to it. Just satisfaction in people getting their just desserts.

It's not terribly hard to figure out. Al-Zarqawi -> Had hundreds killed (often painfully, sometimes inducing great fear and terror just before killing them). Therefore, I derive satisfaction from the fact that he got what was coming to him: A painful death, at the VERY least.

When it comes to matters of "this guy's a mass murderer," I just don't see why people act like pussies about it. "Oh, don't make the poor dear suffer!" Makes me kinda sick. I suppose it comes down to the fact that I'm an eye-for-an-eye kinda guy.

[aldo_14]

An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.










Or one-eyed.

[NGTM-1R]

An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.

Would someone please explain how that's supposed to make sense? I've never understood it.

Perhaps I just define punishment more rationally...

[Jetmech Jr.]

An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.

Would someone please explain how that's supposed to make sense? I've never understood it.

Perhaps I just define punishment more rationally...

It doesn't, unless you assume the world is fighting with itself.

How it should actually go is "An eye-for-an-eye means you now have one eye, but so does the son of a ***** that took your eye in the first place."

[Colonol Dekker]

  As soon as the nukes start fallin none o fthis will matter 

[aldo_14]

An eye-for-an-eye makes the whole world blind.

Would someone please explain how that's supposed to make sense? I've never understood it.

Perhaps I just define punishment more rationally...

It's really quite simple.

Revenge is cyclical.  Unless the initial perpetrator of 'some' act recognises it was unjustified, they will feel wronged and lash out accordingly.  Invariably, someone else gets hurt; either accidentally, or as being seen as facilitating the previous act of revenge - the taking of the eye so to speak.  And because human nature is not to accept punishment as 'fair enough', it just builds up and up.

Just look at, well, any modern problem - terrorism, Israel-Palestine, gang-warfare, etc.  Always characterised by rightous ire and the refusal to accept responsibility or, for lack of a better term, attempt to 'defuse' the situation.

[Colonol Dekker]

Theres a fair bit of it all over, Not just in revenge, human nature is impertinant.
If office politics applied itself to the net and to world politics, It WOULD be a more palateable planet. (unless you work for a $h1t company or a law firm)

[Mefustae]

So, Jetmech, you seem pretty comfortable that Zarqawi "deserved" to suffer for his crimes. But, let me ask you, do you believe that the child killed in the bombing that killed Zarqawi deserved to die as well? Does the man who dropped the bomb deserve to die a painful death for killing the five people in the general vicinity of Zarqawi? But then, why stop there, what about the mechanics who fueled the planes that dropped the bomb? What about the commanding officer of the airbase said planes were launched from? What about General Casey who authorised the bombing? They killed these people in a fashion rather similar to Zarqawi's acts, so do they all 'deserve' to die a painful death?

It's not terribly hard to figure out. Al-Zarqawi -> Had hundreds killed (often painfully, sometimes inducing great fear and terror just before killing them). Therefore, I derive satisfaction from the fact that he got what was coming to him: A painful death, at the VERY least.

The previously mentioned General Casey, commander of all US forces in Iraq, has ordered the deaths of thousands, often in painful fashions inducing both fear and terror [they've made a point of mentioning this in regard to using bombings and cruise missiles]. By your standards this man should deserve a much more painful death than Zarqawi, so why aren't you howling for his blood?

[Flipside]

It's quite clearly implied in your post. You wrote about Iraqi's saying they enjoyed the pain of a U.S. soldier because "he was an invading murdering bastard," which is basically just a watered down version of my own list of grievances against Al-Zarqawi.

I didn't need to twist any words, the comparison's right there.

Let me put it this way, if you saw Iraqis talking about the execution of an American Soldier on TV as 'Did you see how slowly he died? It was great! That'll teach those invading murdering bastards!' how would you feel? And yes, there are people in Iraq who consider the Americans invading murdering bastards. People who have never killed anyone in their life.

Quoted above is what I said (I've bolded some relevant words), I don't know where you got the idea that I am saying that American soldiers are as bad as Terrorists, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is twisting my words to try to demonise me.

So, what you are saying is that America's Christian values are only valid when not applied to the real world? I don't accept that.

Oh, and before you accuse me of trying to Demonise you, let me quote your first post again....

W00t. Bout time. Best part is, I heard it took him 10 minutes just to DIE. He was pretty much alive when U.S. forces found the body *Joy*

Do you really think of that as being a reasonable way of thinking?

Oh, and finally, had there been Iraqis on TV saying such a thing about an American Soldier, I would have agreed that they were just as bad.

[Jetmech Jr.]

So, Jetmech, you seem pretty comfortable that Zarqawi "deserved" to suffer for his crimes. But, let me ask you, do you believe that the child killed in the bombing that killed Zarqawi deserved to die as well? Does the man who dropped the bomb deserve to die a painful death for killing the five people in the general vicinity of Zarqawi? But then, why stop there, what about the mechanics who fueled the planes that dropped the bomb? What about the commanding officer of the airbase said planes were launched from? What about General Casey who authorised the bombing? They killed these people in a fashion rather similar to Zarqawi's acts, so do they all 'deserve' to die a painful death?

For the Child, again, it depends. I'll assume he was just an innocent bystander, as I believe that's the point you're trying to make. No, probably not, and I take no satisfaction in his fate. But that's collateral damage for you. That's what happens when you decide to avoid detection by trying to blend in with innocents.

For the man, depends. His main target was Al-Zarqawi, the rest likely collateral. Why should I blame him for eliminating a monster at the behest of his superiors?

For the Rest, the only person on your list I can say I despise would be those who gave the orders at the top of the line.

The previously mentioned General Casey, commander of all US forces in Iraq, has ordered the deaths of thousands, often in painful fashions inducing both fear and terror [they've made a point of mentioning this in regard to using bombings and cruise missiles]. By your standards this man should deserve a much more painful death than Zarqawi, so why aren't you howling for his blood?

I suppose by some reasoning, he would deserve it, but at this point you're venturing into the realm of personal intentions (Why Zarqawi/Casey did what they did) and the Public Opinion of each Organization (Al Qaeda/U.S. Military), which rather pollutes the discussion and diverges from the main point: I'm happy that a man such as Al-Zarqawi got his karmic retribution.

Quoted above is what I said (I've bolded some relevant words), I don't know where you got the idea that I am saying that American soldiers are as bad as Terrorists, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and is twisting my words to try to demonise me.

So, what you are saying is that America's Christian values are only valid when not applied to the real world? I don't accept that.

I'll just take you're word for it that it was a misunderstanding.

And I don't understand what America's Christian Values have to do with this?

[Jetmech Jr.]

Do you really think of that as being a reasonable way of thinking?

Between you and me? I exaggerated that a bit to piss off all the people ragging on the U.S. earlier in the thread, with the "trigger happy morons" implications. Why not show them what they want to see?

Make no mistake, I stand by my statements that Zarqawi was a piece of **** and deserved everything he got and maybe a little more. But just clarifying for you.

[Flipside]

Fair enough, but I will say this, as I posted elsewhere....

I'm not Christian, I'll be the first to admit, but I did have Christian values taught to me, and being a Christian is more than simply reading the Book. You have to struggle to understand and live by what it taught. It's not easy, but no-one said it would be. The Bible was the story of Christs' struggle against his own 'Human' instincts. Our lives are the same story.

It's difficult to stand by your own Morals when the chips are down, but if we dont, then we throw away everything we stand for. That's why I'm so vehement about this. It can't be stressed enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, enough arguing, I'm willing to let it rest at 'agreeing to disagree'

[TrashMan]

Interesting... the difference betwene general Casey and Al-Zarqawi is that the US targets terrorists and only terrorists, trying to avoid any civilian casualties, often waiting with an attack for the target area to clear up a bit, so there are less people.

Terrorists like that bastard don't (mostly) target soldiers or people that can actually cause them harm - they specificly target civilians, women and children and try to kill off as many as possible.

[Deepblue]

FYI, the initial reports were incorrect. No child died in the bombing, only 3 men and 3 women all of whom are linked to zarqawi. No collateral damage = a job well-done from the USAF.