Great. More cowards.

[Nightingale 0]

but that was his point... OUR freedom isn't free, but the Iraq war doesn't seem to have a lot to do with our freedom here in the US. Our soldiers signed up to defend the freedom of US citizens. Not Iraqi.

[livendive 8]

Quote

There's a reason we have a 0 tolerance policy when it comes to negotiating with terrorists. It works.

Bullshit. We do plenty of negotiating with terrorists when they're on our side.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

but that was his point... OUR freedom isn't free, but the Iraq war doesn't seem to have a lot to do with our freedom here in the US. Our soldiers signed up to defend the freedom of US citizens. Not Iraqi.

how did you get that out of his post?

Quote

Easy to sit back and talk when it's not your friends or family. It's a matter of priority. Will I sacrifice my best friend's life for 10, 100, 1000 strangers? Hell no!!! Operation Freedom--whatever!

Looks to me like he doesn't go for self sacrifice or non-negotiation with terrorists. That's why I posted the song lyric.

Oh, and just to put it out there, I have many friends serving in various branches. Also, you don't enlist to protect US citizens, you enlist to do what you're told to do anywhere you're told to do it. If you want to join up to protect the US, join the National Guard or your local police force.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[crozby 0]

Quote

Manila should have stood up and told the kidnappers to give back the hostage or else.

Or else what? Thats the problem isn't it? The terrorists kill hostages and just get away with it. If we knew where they were, we could threaten them, but we don't.

I'm not so sure that if all the governments stood strong the kidnappings would stop anyway because each time someone is executed the general public get very much more queasy about the situation, even if the governments are being strong.

This enemy can endure more casualties over a longer period of time than we can. They can just keep picking off targets at their leisure and they know, because history has shown it, that this tactic works against enemies infinitely stronger than them.

[Kennedy 0]

That's just it, these kidnappers already blinked first. They pushed back their deadline and said "ok, last chance, pull out or else (again)"

why give them back the advantage when they turned first?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[favaks 0]

Quote

And that's why you choose not to serve. So be it.

"and I don't want to die for you, but if dyin's asked of me
I'll bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free"

Quote

Looks to me like he doesn't go for self sacrifice or non-negotiation with terrorists. That's why I posted the song lyric.

Oh, and just to put it out there, I have many friends serving in various branches. Also, you don't enlist to protect US citizens, you enlist to do what you're told to do anywhere you're told to do it. If you want to join up to protect the US, join the National Guard or your local police force.

You know nothing about me. How do you know I choose not to serve? I don't need you to defend my freedom. When it is time, I will defend my freedom. How do you know I don't go for self sacrifice?
There are many ways to serve the country. Joining the military and do what you're told to do is not the only way to serve nor it is the best way. Your freedom isn't going to be taken away by some outsider. More likely, it is the government. People who keep themselves educated and current and criticize the government to keep them in check are probably more effective at fighting for your freedom. Not to mention the engineers and scientists who invent and produce the technologies to save your life in battle.
You signed up to do a job. Just like every other job, if you don't like it, quit. You are not doing me a favor.

favaks

[Ron 10]

They have just become the terrorist's bitches.

It will not end there...The terroists now have them on the run.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

So you're saying that in my example, you'd sacrifice your family for a dollar?

Please paste any comment I made that remotely shows I said or referred to that. Seriously. Where the fuck did that come from?

Forty-two

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

So you're saying that in my example, you'd sacrifice your family for a dollar? I'm sure they'd be delighted to know you value them so highly.

Your example is LUDICROUS. How does it possibly compare to the real-life scenario? It doesn't matter if you're talking about the Philippines or the U.S.

You stacked your example to force us to consider ONE DOLLAR as equivalent value for our families' safety. The tradeoff in the REAL world, against terrorists, is not a paltry dollar! What relevance to the real situation does your silly example have?!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Your example is unreasonable and flawed...

Thats a politicians answer, and anyway no it isn't.

He's basically taking the line that one should never negotiate with terrorists. I'm questioning if he really stands by that in all circumstances.

You're saying that my emotional attachment to my family should guide me in deciding whether to give in to the demands of terrorists. You made it even "easier" by (for reasons I can't figure out) hypothesizing that the terrorists would be demanding only a DOLLAR. (What is up with that? Are you trying to say that in the real world, terrorists are asking for very very miniscule concessions??)

Let's say the terrorists were demanding something much more reasonable to expect -- say, $1,000,000 for the return of my family. Of course I'd want my family back. But if I give in to terrorists who kidnap for extortion, who is to say that they will not then move on to another family, and another -- this is virtually GUARANTEED, if you show them that people will pay them to not harm them or their families.

When governments deal with the problem of terrorists' demands, they have to look at it that way: if we give in to them this time, they'll know that we give in, period. And so the terrorists have found paydirt. They know the tactics they can use in the future. And the victims can expect them to be employed again. The only way to discourage the use of the terror tactics is to let the terrorists know that they will not get them what they want.

This is elementary stuff, people. It's the same technique you use with your child when he resorts to a tantrum to get you to buy a toy. You have to suffer through the tantrum, NOT buy the toy, and eventually he will learn that tantrums don't make daddy cave in to his demands. It may mean that you suffer through a few tantrums, and you have to realize that and accept it. The lesson is not learned right away. And if you SPANK the child in addition to not giving in to the demands (akin to bombing or shooting the terrorists in combat), you will cause even more reluctance to use the tactics they've attempted to use before.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

but that was his point... OUR freedom isn't free, but the Iraq war doesn't seem to have a lot to do with our freedom here in the US. Our soldiers signed up to defend the freedom of US citizens. Not Iraqi.

Clinton sent U.S. troops to Bosnia and Somalia. Was the freedom of US citizens threatened then? Our soldiers signed up to defend the Constitution of the United States. They agreed to follow the orders of the Constitutionally authorized President of the United States of America. Therefore, if he orders them to other parts of the world, those are the orders.

Our soldiers did not sign up in World War II to protect European Jews, or the French, or the English, or the Spanish, or anyone else threatened by Hitler. How does your standard apply in view of the fact that we DO send forces around the world to protect freedom, human rights, and political and economic stability? How can you say that our soldiers didn't sign up for protecting the freedom of Iraqis but not recognize that the same thing (but even worse) happened when they had to sacrifice their lives to save the freedom of Europeans?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Our soldiers signed up to defend the freedom of US citizens.

That is grossly untrue.

Forty-two

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Our soldiers did not sign up in World War II to protect European Jews, or the French, or the English, or the Spanish, or anyone else threatened by Hitler.

You can't compare WWII to with whats going on right now in Iraq. We were attacked in 1941 and shortly thereafter Germany declared war on us, Dec 11 1941. To say Germany was a threat only to European Jews, French, and English is BS to say the least.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Our soldiers did not sign up in World War II to protect European Jews, or the French, or the English, or the Spanish, or anyone else threatened by Hitler.

You can't compare WWII to with whats going on right now in Iraq. We were attacked in 1941 and shortly thereafter Germany declared war on us, Dec 11 1941. To say Germany was a threat only to European Jews, French, and English is BS to say the least.

It doesn't matter -- the comparison was about what our soldiers did or did not sign up to do, and the fact remains that if they didn't sign up to protect Iraqi freedom, neither did they sign up to bail Europe out of the clutches of Hitler. Or do you folks want to claim that they did?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 2,121]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Our soldiers did not sign up in World War II to protect European Jews, or the French, or the English, or the Spanish, or anyone else threatened by Hitler.

You can't compare WWII to with whats going on right now in Iraq. We were attacked in 1941 and shortly thereafter Germany declared war on us, Dec 11 1941. To say Germany was a threat only to European Jews, French, and English is BS to say the least.

It doesn't matter -- the comparison was about what our soldiers did or did not sign up to do, and the fact remains that if they didn't sign up to protect Iraqi freedom, neither did they sign up to bail Europe out of the clutches of Hitler. Or do you folks want to claim that they did?

-

I thought they signed up in WWII to avoid being drafted into units they wanted to avoid. Those who waited to be drafted didn't get to choose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Botellines 0]

Dude, Spain remained neutral in WW2.

Your theory about giving up to terrorism so they will not do it again, may work for some, but certainly not for most.

As i said before, You MUST NOT treat them as childs. You can condition the response of a child, try to do it with a terrorist and you will be surprised. (and blown up)

[Erroll 80]

Quote

This is elementary stuff, people. It's the same technique you use with your child. -

It is not elementary at all and can in no way be compared to a child's tantrum. The child is not out to deliberately harm or extort you.

Each and every terrorist attrocity, threat and action has to be evaluated on it's own merits. It is simplistic to reason that by the Phillipines having pulled out, they gave in to the terrorists. In this instance their presence was very limited and their withdrawal is likely to have little or no effect on the situation.

Terrorists, by definition, terrorise. They do this for a variety of reasons depending on their aims: intimidation, break down of morale, publicity for their cause and so on. The more gruesome their efforts the more of the above they accomplish. Having lived through a very long period of terrorism and having actively fought against terrorists, I have learnt that no country has ever won a war against terrorists. At the end of the day what is needed is communication & negotiation.

There is of course also the old adage of One man's terrorist....

[crozby 0]

Quote

Please paste any comment I made that remotely shows I said or referred to that. Seriously. Where the fuck did that come from?

In response to my hypothetical situation post you said "You do not allow yourselves to negotiate with terrorists" etc.

It's a safe assumption from that statement that you would not negotiate with the terrorists in my hypothetical situation isn't it?

[Ron 10]

Quote

You can't compare WWII to with whats going on right now in Iraq. We were attacked in 1941 and shortly thereafter Germany declared war on us, Dec 11 1941. To say Germany was a threat only to European Jews, French, and English is BS to say the least.

Germany would have never been able to attack and hold the United States back then. They didn't have the manpower or the money. Its the great thing about being half a world away. Hell they could not even get England. (Tanks don't work well in the Channel)

Are you saying that the terrorists are not a threat to the US? Or the world?

They are even attack Muslim countries....So I think its safe to say that no one is safe from terroism.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[crozby 0]

Quote

hypothesizing that the terrorists would be demanding only a DOLLAR. (What is up with that? Are you trying to say that in the real world, terrorists are asking for very very miniscule concessions??)

Not at all. The demands the real terrorists are making on the Philippines are that they leave Iraq. They were planning on leaving in a month anyway. Therefore the terrorist demand in this instance is pretty trivial as far as the Philippines government is concerned.

Its often a good idea to test theories (in this case 'Never negotiate with terrorists') against extremes (ie they only want something really trivial) to see if the theory holds true in all circumstances.

Hence the hypothetical situation.

You think the rule should never be broken. My hypothetical situation was trying to test if you truely believe your rule under all circumstances.

Terrorists are not like children. They are far more sophisticated and intelligent. Terrorists outsmarted the best of the worlds intelligence communities and commited 9/11. How many conflicts have been lost through under-estimating ones enemy?

Negotiation has been proven to work sometimes and without all the negative side-effects you speak of - Northern Ireland is case in point. So to suggest that it doesn't work ever is plain wrong.

[crozby 0]

Quote

They have just become the terrorist's bitches.

It will not end there...The terroists now have them on the run.

You recon? How do you suppose they are going to terrorise the Philippines once they have all left Iraq and for what reason?

[kallend 2,121]

Quote

Quote

You can't compare WWII to with whats going on right now in Iraq. We were attacked in 1941 and shortly thereafter Germany declared war on us, Dec 11 1941. To say Germany was a threat only to European Jews, French, and English is BS to say the least.

Germany would have never been able to attack and hold the United States back then. They didn't have the manpower or the money. Its the great thing about being half a world away. Hell they could not even get England. (Tanks don't work well in the Channel)

Have you read Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech (State of Union Address 1941? In that, he states clearly that the USA is safe as long as the Royal Navy is in existence.


"There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and
direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the
British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if
there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy
would be stupid enough to attack by landing troops in the United
States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had
acquired strategic bases from which to operate. But we learn
much from the lessons of the past years in Europe - particularly
the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by
treachery and surprise built up over a series of years. The
first phase of the invasion of this Hemisphere would not be the
landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would
be occupied by secret agents and their dupes - great numbers of
them are already here, and in Latin America.

As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive, they -
not we - will choose the time and the place and the method of
their attack. That is why the future of all American Republics
is today in serious danger. ", FDR, Jan 6, 1941.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Have you read Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speech (State of Union Address 1941? In that, he states clearly that the USA is safe as long as the Royal Navy is in existence

Yes, but he also says:

Quote

Even if
there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy
would be stupid enough to attack by landing troops in the United
States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had
acquired strategic bases from which to operate.

Yes this part could happen:

Quote

The necessary strategic points would
be occupied by secret agents and their dupes - great numbers of
them are already here, and in Latin America

But I really do doubt it. And so did he.

He was looking for a justification to support England... Back then many people in the US were tying to justify going to war against Germany.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

You recon? How do you suppose they are going to terrorise the Philippines once they have all left Iraq and for what reason?

All the terroists in the world now know that the Philippines will not work WITH terroists and cave to terroists demands.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Trent 0]

Quote

You recon? How do you suppose they are going to terrorise the Philippines once they have all left Iraq and for what reason?

It's not unlikely that the muslim extremists in the provincial islands of the philippines will be willing to try this tactic now that they've seen it work. All they have to do is start by asking for small, trivial stuff, then work their way up.

In case you haven't been concerned with that part of the globe, the Philippines have been dealing with islamic terrorism for a long time. It is still a very big problem there.

Oh, hello again!