The hunt continues....

[SteveThaiBinh]

Didn't a guy named Anderson collect and write most of them ages ago? I thought you'd know it better than I did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aladdin is from 1001 Nights. Perhaps the West would make fewer mistakes in the Middle East if our schools promoted greater awareness of Middle Eastern cultures.

Have we leveled any of the countries you mentioned?  No.  Are we currently in two of those countries spending time, money, and LIVES to try to rebuild them?  YES.

The US' record on rebuilding Afghanistan is not much to be proud of, and neither is that of most other countries.

[Dark Moth]

The US' record on rebuilding Afghanistan is not much to be proud of, and neither is that of most other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We're doing something, aren't we? And Afghanistan is not going to be rebuilt over night, not even in five years time. You have to understand, the country is not just recovering from one war, it's recovering from generations of poverty, war, and repression. We could do more, yes, but it's not that easy.

[~Di]

Somebody didn't read the bolded part, or missed to see the connection with France in these words

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

I rather doubt anyone could remotely make the connection with France in those words, particularly since said words were part of a rather pointed paragraph that referred to the USA when it opened with, "But you guys...", then launched into a diatribe about Afghanistan, VietNam, making enemies, dead soldiers, capitalism and imperialism. Nice dodge, though!

[julianw]

Didn't a guy named Anderson collect and write most of them ages ago? I thought you'd know it better than I did.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aladdin is from 1001 Nights. Perhaps the West would make fewer mistakes in the Middle East if our schools promoted greater awareness of Middle Eastern cultures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My childhood memories are a bit hazy at the moment. I seem to remember there were also a pair of German brothers who wrote quite a great deal of fairy tales. And you know, to us Far East people, 1001 Nights and Anderson are both part of the western culture, so forgive my confusion.

Edited January 14, 2006 by julianw

[Chupacabra]

My childhood memories are a bit hazy at the moment.  I seem to remember there were also a pair of German brothers who wrote quite a great deal of fairy tales. And you know, to us Far East people, 1001 Nights and Anderson are both part of the western culture, so forgive my confusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But think of it this way: you're so far eastern, you're close to being western.

[Gorgon]

Brother's Grim collected and published Germanic and Nordic fairytales.

 

Hans Christian Anderson wrote alegorical children's stories.

[julianw]

Brother's Grim collected and published Germanic and Nordic fairytales.

 

Hans Christian Anderson wrote alegorical children's stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am 80% certain Anderson wrote the Little Mermaid and Snow White. Could anyone confirm that?

[Judge Hades]

Hades' specialty isn't making sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that is the truth! Seriously, never ask a nutjob his opinion.

[Lucius]

Brother's Grim collected and published Germanic and Nordic fairytales.

 

Hans Christian Anderson wrote alegorical children's stories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am 80% certain Anderson wrote the Little Mermaid and Snow White. Could anyone confirm that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He did, and it's actually Andersen. We don't use son, that would be the Swedes.

 

Nitpicking, I know, but I like it.

[mkreku]

There are no "legitimate targets".

 

 

That was a good one. I guess the real world is too ugly for some people to accept. I envy you, though. Not everyone is so lucky to keep their innocence after they've grown pubic hair. Perhaps I'm assuming too much...

I knew I had to explain this to somoene, and the odds said it would be you. Gee, what a surprise, 2leet4u not getting it.

 

Here we go again..

 

One man's hero is another man's villain!!1 Too difficult still? American "legitimate targets" may be national heroes to others. What's stopping american soldiers from being legitimate targets for Juba (or whatever that sniper's name was)? Why is that (Juba) called murdering innocent soldiers in western media while killing who-knows-which iraqi is called a legitimate target? The choice of words is moronic and only help to increase the "we" and "them" mentality that's so inbred in the american mentality. There are no legitimate targets.

 

 

But please keep hahaha'ing away, it fits your obvious mental capacity very well.

[213374U]

I knew I had to explain this to somoene, and the odds said it would be you. Gee, what a surprise, 2leet4u not getting it.

If you knew you were going to have to explain it, why didn't you make it clear the first time? Sounds to me like you are trying to look smart, and failing miserably, as per usual.

 

 

One man's hero is another man's villain!!1 Too difficult still? American "legitimate targets" may be national heroes to others. What's stopping american soldiers from being legitimate targets for Juba (or whatever that sniper's name was)? Why is that (Juba) called murdering innocent soldiers in western media while killing who-knows-which iraqi is called a legitimate target? The choice of words is moronic and only help to increase the "we" and "them" mentality that's so inbred in the american mentality. There are no legitimate targets.

Now you are going off on a tangent, trying to defend the laughably unrealistic statements that you seem to think that pass for arguments.

It's not a matter of perspective. Civilians are not dependent on perspective. Targeting them is not a legitimate strategy, unjustifiable under any circumstances. Of course US soldiers are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they sign the form. Militias, on the other hand, are legitimate targets, even if they use civilians as cover. It's as much their fault as it's the civilians, as they play along most of the time.

 

Yes, one man's hero is another's villain. A fallacious statement if there was ever one. Relativism is wonderful, isn't it? However, there is something you are deliberately missing. There is something called moral minimums, that place restrictions even on that kind of statements. People who lack those minimums may consider Hitler, Ben Laden, or Pol Pot heroes, but that does not make them so.

 

Making blanket statements such as "there are no legitimate targets" or "there are no precise weapons" is not only inaccurate, it's nonsensical. It's the kind of pretty demagogy that is only good to help you sleep at night. Don't get all defensive when you're called on the BS you think is so deep.

 

 

But please keep hahaha'ing away, it fits your obvious mental capacity very well.

I will, for as long as you keep going on your kindergarten nap room rants.

Edited January 14, 2006 by 213374U

[Judge Hades]

Actually targeting civilians is a legitimate strategy, just not a nice one and really damages one's public relations. It is the Civilian populations that support the government through taxes and working the economy. Through these taxes and economic support the government exists and with that money and resources the government can support its military.

 

Take out the foundation that the Civilians represent and you not only hurt the government and military you are targeting but also the image of the government to protect and serve its people.

 

It may not be a tactic you may agree with, but it is a tactic that is legitimate and if done so on a massive scale can work.

[LoneWolf16]

Right. We all know what a great business partner Nazi Germany would have been.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who said we would be business partners. As long as Germany didn't bother us why should we have bothered them? I would have saught to totally annihilate Japan for their attacks on Pearl harbor. I mean, complete destruction to the point that the lands of their island would be unuseable to sustain human life. You attack the US, you pay for it. You leave the US alone we leave you alone.

 

As for Al Qaeda we should have never aided them in the 70's and 80's. We should have never bothered Iraq and their politics. We should never have backed israel. But what is done is done and nothing that the typical pssiant American citizen can do about it. More death and more pain on the way because of our idiot leaders. Voting our politics is useless as well because the idiots of this country are cleary in the majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just for the record...if it hasn't been mentioned already...Germany declared war on the U.S. after we did on the Japanese. They "bothered" us by sinking our trade ships we sent to aid the British. They were assaulting our allies. There wasn't really much choice...

[Judge Hades]

Well, then, I guess we were to lenient on them then.

[213374U]

Actually targeting civilians is a legitimate strategy, just not a nice one and really damages one's public relations.  It is the Civilian populations that support the government through taxes and working the economy.  Through these taxes and economic support the government exists and with that money and resources the government can support its military.

 

Take out the foundation that the Civilians represent and you not only hurt the government and military you are targeting but also the image of the government to protect and serve its people.

 

It may not be a tactic you may agree with, but it is a tactic that is legitimate and if done so on a massive scale can work.

Yes, that was the idea behind the strategic bombings that reduced the main cities of Germany to rubble in WWII. There were many factors that contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Third Reich (fuel draught, damage to industrial infrastructures, inadequacy of blitzkrieg for defensive purposes), but the massive civilian casualties caused by the constant bombing of the cities was most certainly not one of them.

 

So, no. It's another idea that theoretically might work, but in practice doesn't. And even if it did, it's not a legitimate strategy. Legitimate, as in morally justifiable by today's moral or legal standards, anyway.

[Commissar]

The US' record on rebuilding Afghanistan is not much to be proud of, and neither is that of most other countries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Depends on your perspective, doesn't it? I mean, I know I always tried to get reservations at the Kabul Holiday Inn, known worldwide for being the center of a nationwide network of culture and fine dining - and I loved the WiFi in every room - but it was just such a popular destination, I never could get one.

 

Come on. As Robin Williams said, you can't bomb Afghanistan back to the Stone Age, because Afghanis would just look around and approve of the upgrade.

 

But hey, if you don't like the pace at which, you know, a country is being built, by all means, feel free to contribute to charities working tirelessly within its borders, or better yet, encourage some of your brethren on that side of the pond to send something more than a token force, for those who sent them at all.

[Commissar]

The choice of words is moronic and only help to increase the "we" and "them" mentality that's so inbred in the american mentality. There are no legitimate targets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Out of idle curiosity, how comfortable would you be with me making sweeping statements about the mentality of your countrymen? I think we'd get treated to a temper tantrum.

 

Us vs. them is perfectly acceptable thinking when there is, in fact, an us and a them.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, that was the idea behind the strategic bombings that reduced the main cities of Germany to rubble in WWII. There were many factors that contributed to the ultimate defeat of the Third Reich (fuel draught, damage to industrial infrastructures, inadequacy of blitzkrieg for defensive purposes), but the massive civilian casualties caused by the constant bombing of the cities was most certainly not one of them.

 

So, no. It's another idea that theoretically might work, but in practice doesn't. And even if it did, it's not a legitimate strategy. Legitimate, as in morally justifiable by today's moral or legal standards, anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no morality in war. There is only death, pain, and destruction. You are either the winner or the loser. The loser is dead. The winner lives. Morality has no place in that.

[Gabrielle]

One must do what one must do to win a war. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys". You may claim that there are innocents but are they really if they support the government you are waring with? An enemy is an enemy.

[Judge Hades]

Exactomundo.

[Azarkon]

Us vs. them is perfectly acceptable thinking when there is, in fact, an us and a them.

 

What came first, the mentality or the reality?

[mkreku]

If you knew you were going to have to explain it, why didn't you make it clear the first time?

Because it's fun to sort out the ones who just can't seem to grasp the concept of abstract thinking or simple deduction?

 

Now you are going off on a tangent, trying to defend the laughably unrealistic statements that you seem to think that pass for arguments.

It's not a matter of perspective. Civilians are not dependent on perspective. Targeting them is not a legitimate strategy, unjustifiable under any circumstances. Of course US soldiers are fair game. They know what they are getting into when they sign the form. Militias, on the other hand, are legitimate targets, even if they use civilians as cover. It's as much their fault as it's the civilians, as they play along most of the time.

Great arguments! Except.. you're discussing the wrong subject. Go back to the former posts, reread them and try again.

 

...but that does not make them so.

I just had to include this, because that's the best argument yet!!1 You're so full of wisdom and fact. Or not.

 

Making blanket statements such as "there are no legitimate targets" or "there are no precise weapons" is not only inaccurate, it's nonsensical.

Well, since my original post referred to the expression "legitimate target", something which you clearly didn't understand, you're just blabbing. You might just as well stick to the hahaha's, at least they looked funny.

 

Also, I never said anything about weapons. Only a complete moron would claim that "there are no precise weapons" (oops!). The exact quote from my post:

There are no "extremely accurate" bombs.

There's a huge difference between the terms bombs and weapons. Trying to put (moronic) words into someone else's mouth (post?) is pretty low, even coming from you.

[213374U]

There is no morality in war.  There is only death, pain, and destruction.  You are either the winner or the loser.  The loser is dead.  The winner lives.  Morality has no place in that.

You tell that to the Nazi officials that survived the war and were executed for committing war crimes such as the one you are proposing (V-2 attacks on London, for instance).

 

But still, if you don't want to accept the moral or legal considerations of this, I expect you to at least acknowledge the fact that from an efficiency standpoint, it's not an extremely useful tactic. Unless you want to mass murder just for kicks. Given your apparent low regard for human life in general, I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually the case, anyway.

 

 

Because it's fun to sort out the ones who just can't seem to grasp the concept of abstract thinking or simple deduction?

You have a strange notion of fun. Again, you fail to grasp the difference between abstract thinking and guessing your intentions. Judging from what you write, you probably don't even know what "abstract thinking" means. Most likely you just heard it from Papa, and you thought you would look cool and smart if you used it.

 

Failed.

 

 

Great arguments! Except.. you're discussing the wrong subject. Go back to the former posts, reread them and try again.

Nah, you do that. You're the one using moral relativism to justify your stance.

 

 

I just had to include this, because that's the best argument yet!!1 You're so full of wisdom and fact. Or not.

Boy, do I have to hold your hand every freaking step of the way?

If you paid attention, you would have realized that sentence was part of a paragraph built around something called moral minimums. According to those minimums (which are easy to dismiss thanks to your wonderful relativism), a mass murderer can't be a hero of the people.

 

And you are the one accusing me of not reading? You question my capacity of deductive reasoning? The irony is gleaming.

 

 

Well, since my original post referred to the expression "legitimate target", something which you clearly didn't understand, you're just blabbing. You might just as well stick to the hahaha's, at least they looked funny.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the expression "legitimate target". There must be a way to differentiate targets that are valid from a legal or moral standpoint, from those that are not. You are wrong, once again.

 

As for the "hahaha's", "ha" is an interjection meant to symbolize laughter, in this case. For someone so bent on dissecting the language, your ignorance of it is quite painful. Quite ironic, too.

 

 

Also, I never said anything about weapons. Only a complete moron would claim that "there are no precise weapons" (oops!). The exact quote from my post:

There are no "extremely accurate" bombs.

There's a huge difference between the terms bombs and weapons. Trying to put (moronic) words into someone else's mouth (post?) is pretty low, even coming from you.

You will pardon me if I didn't search the exact quote. It wasn't my intention to twist your meaning (not that I could do a better job at making a fool of yourself than you do). I was just trying to save me the excruciating pain of going through that sad example of idiocy and ignorance you call a "post" again.

 

0 substance in your "post", as per usual. Try again.

[BattleCookiee]

You may claim that there are innocents but are they really if they support the government you are waring with?

 

So, according to you THEM (see Commissars post to see this is the entire World excluding the US) may freely annihilate 51% of the American population (since they support Bush and got him his seat)?

 

Yah! Let's nuke Washington, NY, LA etc. (because clearly a 51% support means for 100% annihilation)!!! "

[Commissar]

You may claim that there are innocents but are they really if they support the government you are waring with?

 

So, according to you THEM (see Commissars post to see this is the entire World excluding the US) may freely annihilate 51% of the American population (since they support Bush and got him his seat)?

 

Yah! Let's nuke Washington, NY, LA etc. (because clearly a 51% support means for 100% annihilation)!!! "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't put words in my mouth.