Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for.

I'm a vet, over 50 and did my time in hot countrys full of little brown people that were trying to kill me and yes its impossible to tell the good guy from the bad guy and God forbid there is a death to innocents. But! This "war" that holds no boundries, doesnt wear a "uniform" claims no alliegence to no one flag..how do you fight it with out loss of innocence?
I have a buddy who today 35 yrs after the fact, still has the same nightmare..
3 GI's opening up on a baby buggy that had been shoved in their direction that seconds later blew up killing 1 of them. What bothers him is the fact he doesnt know if a baby was in it or not...there wasnt enough left to really tell...
These ununiformed innocents are quoted today saying they were planning to using thier babies to smuggle explosives onto planes to take civilian lives is a prime example to what we are fighting and going to continue to fight..
This is a new enemy, one we have never fought before that uses women and childran to obtain the death of innocents...
how do you fight this war with Honor?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: where do you figure, we, the United States of America started it?? Centuries ago? explain please I didn't say "I", I said "they". Their accounting of the balance sheet goes back to the Crusades and the occupation and politicized division of the Middle East by the West over the past centuries. "Their" accounting sheet conveniently ignores a millenium of Muslim aggression against Christendom and Europe.  Arabs are indigenous only to the Arabian penninsula.  All the rest came through conquest and expansion.  Modern day Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, and Morocco were all Christian once.  I'll pay attention to their BS once they start discussing the return of anatolia to the Greeks. Nor are they alone in their movements across the globe and assimilation of territory. That act alone does not make them some sort of evil entity. Recorded history is full of examples of one group expanding into the territories of other civilizations.

The point is that they are not pissed at the injustice of our actions towards them, they are pissed that they lost.

Quoted: Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

What if large swaths of their general public want to kill you?
Sorry,but even the guy who pulls a gun on me and asks for my wallet is human. I'm still justified in killing him if he threatens my life. It's not his humanity at question,it's his actions based on his own beliefs.
Their humanity is not pertinent to the point; every war to date has been fought between groups of humans. The problem is that their culture says that they can use violent force to prevent the spread of our western views. Their culture is in decline vs the progression of western culture,and they feel the need to use violence to rectify that fact. That belief and those violent actions are what makes them wrong,not their methods of warfighting. I object to the terrorists ends (the destruction of western culture and ideas,and the imposition of shari'a), not necessarily to their means (killing civilians under the view that civilians are also propagators of their real enemy-our culture). If we hoist ourselves up and say that we would never kill civilians to further our own goals,we would ignore the fact of Dresden,Tokyo and any other number of times it was necessary for us to kill civilians and their culture in order for our own to survive.

Hiding behind "innocent civilians" only works as a tactic if the enemy (which happens to be Us, the West) allows it to be so.

Read This post over at Blackfive, and tell me if you still think that sparing human shields will give us victory.

This is what we are fighting for, is it not?

At this point in time, I firmly believe that We are only making things worse by not totally commiting to stamping out the 7th Century totalitarian death cult we are engaged with. Most in the West haven't the slightest clue to the magnitude of what we are dealing with here, and I am fearful that the West, as I'll call it for brevity's sake, will not awaken to the threat until it's too late.

Quoted: Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for. A very good post and I agree with most of it. I don't think that innocents should EVER be TARGETED... EVER! But I also don't care for this crap of wringing our hands so much that we rarely get the job done. I am aware of a local guy who's supposedly been shipped home because he's done a lot of "bad stuff" over in the sandbox. Dunno if it's true or not, and I dunno if he's been tried for it, but if he did what he claims to some mutual friends that he did, then he deserves a court martial and life in prison. I don't care what you've been through -- if you knowingly run into a room filled with innocent civilians and mow them down, then you are a cold-blooded murderer. BUT... I am sick and tired of all of this PC-crap and allowing terrorists to re-arm themselves and draw-out the war. You chase them until you catch them and then you KILL them dead -- you don't put them up in Club Gitmo and you don't let them go back home so they can recruit more terrorist bastards. It's really pretty simple...

Very much agreed.  Yes, we need to allow this to happen, but not unimpeded with a sense of humanity.  The entire political hand-wringing is extending it.  But it is far from stopping it.  Remember that as the terrorists have the opportunity to rearm, so do we (and Israel).  Also remember this:

THEY TARGET CIVILIANS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BEAT THE MILITARY.  All of you touting this as a loss clearly have no vision in military tactics or doctrine.  Someone brought up us nuking Japan.  Yes, it created a victory.  WHY?  Because we couldn't win it otherwise.  

We have more experience, better weapons, and better technology.  We have no need to eradicate innocents because we are not losing.  It really is that simple.  

Stop listening to the media.  They don't have a clue besides what we tell them.  And the military never tells anyone the complete truth in anything.  Why is that so hard to understand?  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: +1.  What are you suggesting we do?  If we bomb the shit out of civilians to achieve our objective, how exactly are we different than them? They started it. We'll help them rebuild when it's over How do you bring back/rebuild  dead people? as for the 'starting it' thing, don't forget that in their eyes, WE started it centuries ago. Yeah?? In the Japanese eyes, we started WWII by placing a trade embargo on Japan, which forced them to attack us. Looks like you've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

Yeah?? But the U.S. didn't just say one day "ok, no more oil for you." The Embargo was in response to Japan's aggresion against China et. al, whom were our trade partners.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your viewpoint doesn't even see them as people if you think they are faceless entities that can be replaced by a high birth rate. That is an important thing in WINNING a war - demonizing your enemy, so you can do what you need to do - KILL THEM. Krauts.  Japs.  Slant Eyes.  Nips.  Hochie.  Gooks.  Nazis.  What do all these terms have in common?   Dehumanizing the enemy. That's part of why we are losing this one, and it will be the death of western culture The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

Will you still feel this way when hundreds of our children are massacred by terrorists as was done in Belsan?

Will you still feel this way when an American city lays in ruin after a terrorist nuclear attack?

Will you still feel this way when thousands die from bombs on planes?

Will you still feel this way when  ……….

I am at peace with how I answer these questions knowing what will be done on that day.

Rich V

Quoted: Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for. I'm a vet, over 50 and did my time in hot countrys full of little brown people that were trying to kill me and yes its impossible to tell the good guy from the bad guy and God forbid there is a death to innocents. But! This "war" that holds no boundries, doesnt wear a "uniform" claims no alliegence to no one flag..how do you fight it with out loss of innocence? I have a buddy who today 35 yrs after the fact, still has the same nightmare.. 3 GI's opening up on a baby buggy that had been shoved in their direction that seconds later blew up killing 1 of them. What bothers him is the fact he doesnt know if a baby was in it or not...there wasnt enough left to really tell... These ununiformed innocents are quoted today saying they were planning to using thier babies to smuggle explosives onto planes to take civilian lives is a prime example to what we are fighting and going to continue to fight.. This is a new enemy, one we have never fought before that uses women and childran to obtain the death of innocents... how do you fight this war with Honor?

You fight this war with honor by not developing tactics that sacrifice innocents over military volunteers, sir.  

What happened in-country that burns your memory to this day is a horror.  But what would we do?  Kill every baby so the parents cannot use them as weapon platforms?  Or kill all the parents so the babies cannot be used as weapon platforms?  

The people you referred to (and I use "people" generically, as I see them as animals) that were going to use their children are NOT innocents, sir.  You called them "ununiformed innocents" and that is the farthest description from truth there is.  

They are not a new enemy, either - by your own story, we do not face a new enemy.  We face a new style of enemy, but the tactics are as old as the time Cain snuck into Able's confidence and bashed him over the head with a club, killing him for a principle.  

You are absolutely correct that we will continue to fight this war.  Not because we cannot win by turning the regions into glass.  But because as long as we know that one innocent is there, we won't.  Civilian casualties will happen, yes.  They are unfortunate and inevitable.  But we cannot INTENTIONALLY kill civilians that are truly innocent in an effort to "win" an ideal that will NOT die with a generation of people.

To do that would be to prove their contentions absolutely right.  And then we will have truly lost - the war, and our humanity.  

We've lost some battles, but it ain't the end of the world.

Besides, we have not unleashed our nuclear arsenal. (our trump card)  The terrorists don't know what we are truly capable of.

I think we need to re-consider the term "innocent civilians".  I have to wonder if we aren't mistakenly using the term "innocent civilians" for "non-combatant supporters".  I mean - I'd like to think that if we had some cult of savages running around the US cutting off heads and lobbing rockets into Canada, we'd find some way to figure it out internally even if the government couldn't or wouldn't do it.  Why aren't these "innocent civilians" doing more to help us identify and remove the terrorists if they are so innocent?

Quoted: Unless you declare war you are not fighting a war. Notice Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.  We don't declare war anymore, we're to scared.  If you don't have the balls to write-up a piece of paper and get Congress to sign it, you don't have the balls to fight either. Our .gov has been a sham for long time now.

We have a WINNAH.........Give the man a Kewpie Doll!

"The fact that we cannot answer this question is the very fact which prevents our victory."

+10

Quoted: The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

So you think our firebombing of Tokoyo, Dresdin, etc....... was wrong?   Dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagaski was wrong?


THEY don't value their own lives, the lives of their breathern, or the lives of their children.   WE care more aobut their kids than they do.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You fight this war with honor by not developing tactics that sacrifice innocents over military volunteers, sir.   What happened in-country that burns your memory to this day is a horror.  But what would we do?  Kill every baby so the parents cannot use them as weapon platforms?  Or kill all the parents so the babies cannot be used as weapon platforms?   The people you referred to (and I use "people" generically, as I see them as animals) that were going to use their children are NOT innocents, sir.  You called them "ununiformed innocents" and that is the farthest description from truth there is.   They are not a new enemy, either - by your own story, we do not face a new enemy.  We face a new style of enemy, but the tactics are as old as the time Cain snuck into Able's confidence and bashed him over the head with a club, killing him for a principle.   You are absolutely correct that we will continue to fight this war.  Not because we cannot win by turning the regions into glass.  But because as long as we know that one innocent is there, we won't.  Civilian casualties will happen, yes.  They are unfortunate and inevitable.  But we cannot INTENTIONALLY kill civilians that are truly innocent in an effort to "win" an ideal that will NOT die with a generation of people. To do that would be to prove their contentions absolutely right.  And then we will have truly lost - the war, and our humanity.

While I agree with you in principal and pray that this war can be fought with the minimum of "collatoral damage", the end still boils down to the fact the soldier on the ground today as we were in Nam have no way of knowing who the enemy is.
Our big way of telling the difference was by the fact they had hair cuts and the type of sandel they were wearing, of course this was usually after they were dead..

Having had more than a few confirmed kills in my military career, some more up close and personal than others..I cannot honestly say I never killed someone that didnt need killing..I just pray that I have not, and yes there is still that doubt that troubles me on those dark lonely nights of remembering, everyone here remebers the picture from the day of the naked child running, screaming from a burned out ville. But.
There is no way that we are ever going to "know the enemy" in this current war beyond the fact they were carrying an AK...there is no way anyone knew on 9/11 those men were intent on crashing those planes, and now with them using women bombers more and more the last few years, to see in print that 2 of their female ilk were willing to use babies to smuggle explosives...where can we justifiy innocents..
I remember the responces around the middle east post 9/11
dancing in the streets, singing praises to the attackers..old women, childran, being joyfull over the death of innocents...
where is the line, how do we say to these "kids" in the trenches today,,know your enemy, knowing the enemy can be a 5 yr old handing you a grenade in trade for the candy bar?

Quoted: Quoted: The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG. So you think our firebombing of Tokoyo, Dresdin, etc....... was wrong?   Dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagaski was wrong? THEY don't value their own lives, the lives of their breathern, or the lives of their children.   WE care more aobut their kids than they do.

Problem is that Iraq has not openly declared war on us and attacked us.  We have decided to remove their government for our own benefit.  We are not fighting countries, we are fighting an idea that is spread about all over the globe and hidden in dark corners waiting to strike.

Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for.

At some point you have to make a decision that the collateral damage is worth it to a) achieve victory, and b) minimize US deaths


If the USA gets nuked, do you suggest we invade the offending nation and go door to door, looking for the guilty parties, and only kill those responsible? Or do we save a few hundred thousand US soldier lives and just send a fews nukes over there and hit em, like we did with Japan?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your viewpoint doesn't even see them as people if you think they are faceless entities that can be replaced by a high birth rate. That is an important thing in WINNING a war - demonizing your enemy, so you can do what you need to do - KILL THEM. Krauts.  Japs.  Slant Eyes.  Nips.  Hochie.  Gooks.  Nazis.  What do all these terms have in common?   Dehumanizing the enemy. That's part of why we are losing this one, and it will be the death of western culture The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

Bullshit, when the people support and harbor the enemy, they are also the enemy.

Quoted: Quoted: Unless you declare war you are not fighting a war. Really? So what do you call the attack on Pearl Harbor?   After all, Japan had NOT declared WAR yet......

The wonderful example you provided actualy proves me 100% right.

Japan did not declare war before attacking Pearl.

We declared war after Pear was attacked.

Who won the war?

Obviously the real reasons are not as simple as I have pointed out.  Though in simplest of terms, not declaring war has no bearing on loosing a war.  It is the reasons for not declaring war that are sure ways to loose.  

Japan thought, very erroneously, that Pearl was a cheap and easy way to disable America in the Pacific.  Instead of a full on onslaught, a small sucker punch was all they threw.  Why so small an attack with no fallow-up, becuase Japan did not wan't to fight America, only to limit its reach, and that is not how you fight a war.  You fight for to win and for the total destruction of your enemy physicly and mentaly, anything less and you loose like Japan, or, as we did in Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq.

Declaring war isan't some icky word that the politicans don't want to say for fear of not getting elected.  It is the acceptance and realization that you are faced with a great threat, and that you accept and acknowledge that the only way to be safe from this threat is to engage in the worst actions one humane can do to another.  In all of these "police actions" and Japan's initial attack, the losers failed to acknowledge the true threat represented by the enemy until it was too late.

Look what we did with Al Sadar. We had the chance to wipe out that terrorist POS 3 years ago in Fallujah. He and his 200 strong terrorist group were hold up in a Mosque that we had surrounded. We wouldn't damage the Mosque and we ended up letting him go to "win the hearts and minds" and avoid making Al Sadar into a martyr. Now he has a force of 15,000+ men and is responsible for the civil war that is brewing in Iraq. A civil war that we will not be able to control with the number of troops we have in Iraq at this time.

Quoted: During my Tactical Carbine course, I shot the reporter with the microphone stuck out in front of him. Just a thought..........

You should have been given extra points for that

Quoted: So you think our firebombing of Tokoyo, Dresdin, etc....... was wrong?   Dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagaski was wrong? THEY don't value their own lives, the lives of their breathern, or the lives of their children.   WE care more aobut their kids than they do.

Any loss of non-combatant life is morally wrong.

Fucking surrender monkey's. Was everyone expecting a cakewalk? We're gonna bleed some. People are gonna die. There will be losses, as well as wins. Probably won't be over for a hundred years. More than a few flags will come down. You'll be thinking about the Middle East for the rest of your lives. Welcome to war.

Quoted: Quoted: So you think our firebombing of Tokoyo, Dresdin, etc....... was wrong?   Dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagaski was wrong? THEY don't value their own lives, the lives of their breathern, or the lives of their children.   WE care more aobut their kids than they do. Any loss of non-combatant life is morally wrong.

Funny, those lives don't seem to matter that much when the cops screw up.

Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for.

110% agree with you. However, I like many others here are aware, we fight an enemy with no honor. How do you successfully engage an enemy who does not have a fraction of honor and integrity our fighting men and women possess?

No offense against you, I don't want the fighting to simply stop.

I want the fighting to continue till we have FINISHED the job. The unanswered moving target is, where/when are we finished? This is not a war, so much as a never ending and ongoing effort to eradicate a toolset our present enemy sees as effective against us. Terrorism. The only solution in my opinion is to make this toolset pain inducing of the highest kind. This requires a hard men making hard choices. Many of those choices will not fall into your description above unfortunately.

Quoted: Funny, those lives don't seem to matter that much when the cops screw up.

Your statement is erroneous. You've been surfing too many cop-bashing threads on the net.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You fight this war with honor by not developing tactics that sacrifice innocents over military volunteers, sir.   What happened in-country that burns your memory to this day is a horror.  But what would we do?  Kill every baby so the parents cannot use them as weapon platforms?  Or kill all the parents so the babies cannot be used as weapon platforms?   The people you referred to (and I use "people" generically, as I see them as animals) that were going to use their children are NOT innocents, sir.  You called them "ununiformed innocents" and that is the farthest description from truth there is.   They are not a new enemy, either - by your own story, we do not face a new enemy.  We face a new style of enemy, but the tactics are as old as the time Cain snuck into Able's confidence and bashed him over the head with a club, killing him for a principle.   You are absolutely correct that we will continue to fight this war.  Not because we cannot win by turning the regions into glass.  But because as long as we know that one innocent is there, we won't.  Civilian casualties will happen, yes.  They are unfortunate and inevitable.  But we cannot INTENTIONALLY kill civilians that are truly innocent in an effort to "win" an ideal that will NOT die with a generation of people. To do that would be to prove their contentions absolutely right.  And then we will have truly lost - the war, and our humanity.   While I agree with you in principal and pray that this war can be fought with the minimum of "collatoral damage", the end still boils down to the fact the soldier on the ground today as we were in Nam have no way of knowing who the enemy is. Our big way of telling the difference was by the fact they had hair cuts and the type of sandel they were wearing, of course this was usually after they were dead.. Having had more than a few confirmed kills in my military career, some more up close and personal than others..I cannot honestly say I never killed someone that didnt need killing..I just pray that I have not, and yes there is still that doubt that troubles me on those dark lonely nights of remembering, everyone here remebers the picture from the day of the naked child running, screaming from a burned out ville. But. There is no way that we are ever going to "know the enemy" in this current war beyond the fact they were carrying an AK...there is no way anyone knew on 9/11 those men were intent on crashing those planes, and now with them using women bombers more and more the last few years, to see in print that 2 of their female ilk were willing to use babies to smuggle explosives...where can we justifiy innocents.. I remember the responces around the middle east post 9/11 dancing in the streets, singing praises to the attackers..old women, childran, being joyfull over the death of innocents... where is the line, how do we say to these "kids" in the trenches today,,know your enemy, knowing the enemy can be a 5 yr old handing you a grenade in trade for the candy bar?

First of all, sir, and most importantly, I want to thank you for service.  I am a HUGE veterans advocate for our Vietnam vets; and while I am obviously too young to have been there, I do remember my father and his personal hell with PTSD.  Killing people is not as easy a job as the commandoes selt-touted prowess would have one believe.  Of that you have NOTHING to convince me of.

I will most certainly be in diligent prayer for you and the men and women you served with.  May God bless you, just as He once ordained you to fill an ugly, horrid role that I cannot even imagine.  

What you say is true:  we will never truly know the innocents.  And as far as I, and you, are concerned, anyone that so much as supports these animals loses their ability to claim innocence.  You do not have to pick up a rifle to be a killer.  You do not have to kill to be a killer.  You will recieve no argument from me on that point, my friend and brother.

But we also have to look at the other side of things, don't we?  If a decision is made, it must have at least two points that contradict one-another.  Without that, there can be no decision - it is but an action.  

Can we decide to justify a true civilian in this war where the enemy garbs themselves in the feign of innocence, only to strike when our back is turned?  No, of course not.  We just don't know.  But then again, on the other hand, how do we know that the child or the lady we kill is not a simple massacre if they have done nothing we know of?  How does one justify their OWN existance when others' lives become so inconsequential the humanity is gone?  How do we know they were not hiding in their hovel, secreting a cry of victory wishes for America?  

Your own story paints the picture of moral defeat (indeed, the very loss we suffered in Vietnam), and that is something we must avoid.  By eradicating any potential threat, a soldier lives to fight another day.  In that is a victory.  Unfortunately, it scores a loss for the effort you and I have no control over.  Politicians make those decisions, not us.  We just try and survive.  And when we signed that doctrine of soldiering, we knew full well that our lives were expendable - a sacrifice in spirit no civilian will ever--can ever--comprehend.  

I, too, remember dances in streets. I've seen it a hundred times.  When one of our men in Vietnam was killed, did the hippies not dance in the street?  Did they not wish the "baby killers" a spell in the true hell?  Did the Berkley incident tell us nothing?

No, sir, the soldiers will always be hated...  despised, even.  

But then again, I also remember some significant dancing in the streets when we liberated Iraq.   Children waving flags with stars and stripes.  Children that at least have a chance to grow up without the fear of being killed by the 80,000 by their own leader.  

As a soldier, I would gladly give my life for a chance for just one of those children.  When we went into Iraq in 91-92, they were all terrorists, too.  

And in closing, I want to say just one more thing, please.

If you ever find yourself in Arizona, I would appreciate the HONOR of meeting you, sir, just to shake your hand.  I can promise you your money would be worthless here.  

And may the Lord have mercy on all of us that are proud to call ourselves soldiers, or Marines, or Seamen, or whatever.  We never get the easy jobs.  Be at peace, sir, and know you did your job before this country and before your God.  He understands.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your viewpoint doesn't even see them as people if you think they are faceless entities that can be replaced by a high birth rate. That is an important thing in WINNING a war - demonizing your enemy, so you can do what you need to do - KILL THEM. Krauts.  Japs.  Slant Eyes.  Nips.  Hochie.  Gooks.  Nazis.  What do all these terms have in common?   Dehumanizing the enemy. That's part of why we are losing this one, and it will be the death of western culture The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

Why do you insist on defending evil, murderous bastards who THEY THEMSELVES consider women to be less than human and more like property, who send their children to die in the cowardly murder of civilians as suicide bombers?   You are what is known as an enabler, and your type is who caused  us to be in this situation in the first place.  Your touchy-feely bullshit about how we must understand them, feel their pain, etc is what caused us to do relatively little until 9/11.  Hitler and Stalin were "human" too.  They were also monsters responsible for 50 million deaths.  Your moral equivalency bullshit about all views being equally valid, etc, belongs back in the fucking tie-dye wearing 60's/

Quoted: Quoted: So you think our firebombing of Tokoyo, Dresdin, etc....... was wrong?   Dropping the nukes on Hiroshima and Nagaski was wrong? THEY don't value their own lives, the lives of their breathern, or the lives of their children.   WE care more aobut their kids than they do. Any loss of non-combatant life is morally wrong.

If this had been the attitude of our leaders during WWII, those few of us who would actually be alive today would be speaking German and/or Japanese.

Sadly, I fear this is the prevailing attitude among our leadership today.  

Quoted: I want the fighting to continue till we have FINISHED the job. The unanswered moving target is, where/when are we finished? This is not a war, so much as a never ending and ongoing effort to eradicate a toolset our present enemy sees as effective against us. Terrorism. The only solution in my opinion is to make this toolset pain inducing of the highest kind. This requires a hard men making hard choices. Many of those choices will not fall into your description above unfortunately.

Yes, one of the hardest things to understand is that we are not fighting a government or state.  We are fighting a method of warfare, a tool.  It actualy falls straight inline with gun control.  The removal of terror(guns) does not remove the enemy.  He still exist and will do us harm with any other tool he can find.  

We must realize that as much as we hate terror, it is not the enemy.  The people who use it are the enemy.  

Quoted: Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for. At some point you have to make a decision that the collateral damage is worth it to a) achieve victory, and b) minimize US deaths If the USA gets nuked, do you suggest we invade the offending nation and go door to door, looking for the guilty parties, and only kill those responsible? Or do we save a few hundred thousand US soldier lives and just send a fews nukes over there and hit em, like we did with Japan?

First of all, collateral damage is the unintended consequence of war - not the intentional murder of those without arms or influence to affect the outcome.

Concerning your second statement, I will fully support a retalitory strike as the increase in intensity.  At that time, if it happens, we will have no choice.  We cannot, however, kill in the name of proactive deterrent.  Until then, we let our soldiers and intelligence do their job in the best way possible with the minimal loss of life.

Unlike the days of Japan, we are not the only nation with this power.  Using it in the name of saving soldiers will, in the long run, cost billions of lives.  That, my friend, would be collateral damage we can avoid by continuing to do things the way we are.

Of course, I wish the politicians would step back and shut up.  Trust me:  the military is WAY more capable of running this country than any current in-office politician.  If that were the case, we'd be in much better shape.  Just MHO.    

Quoted: I wish the politicians would step back and shut up.  Trust me:  the military is WAY more capable of running this country than any current in-office politician.  If that were the case, we'd be in much better shape.  Just MHO.

Are you actually wishing you lived in a military dictatorship?

Quoted: I think it's official, we have lost the War on Terror. The USA put pressure on Israel and forced them to fight with one hand tied behind their back, just as the USA fights in Iraq. Then, the USA and the world forced Israel to agree to a cease fire, giving a known terrorist organization a free pass to exist and rearm.

I hate to say "I told you this would happen" but...well you know.

I also told you a way that Israel could solve "their" problem but I also told you why they won't do it.

Sad really.

Quoted: The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

Different people have different morals.

What decides whos morals are right is who wins the war.

You can play by your righteous morals all you want, but if you loose, your wong no matter what, and likely dead aswell.

We are fighting animals not people.  These "people" like animals, have no concept for the value of life(or simply don't care).  That is what we hate about them.  They consistently disregard what the civilized world has done many years ago.  Which is designate people who will fight and die.  It sounds strange, but this is what we do.  We allow people to volunteer to die for their country.  Simply, we fight wars based on who has more people willing to fight and die for their country.  Those that wish for any reason not fight are to be avoided.  Will you be looked down upon for killing the non-com's, yes, but if the situations warranted it, then everyone will understand.

These "people" don't understand(or care) and that is why they should not be treated any better than animals.

Or problem in this modern world is we have forgoton what it takes to keep a planet civil, and we won't remeber till we long for it again.

Quoted: Quoted: I think it's official, we have lost the War on Terror. The USA put pressure on Israel and forced them to fight with one hand tied behind their back, just as the USA fights in Iraq. Then, the USA and the world forced Israel to agree to a cease fire, giving a known terrorist organization a free pass to exist and rearm.   I hate to say "I told you this would happen" but...well you know. I also told you a way that Israel could solve "their" problem but I also told you why they won't do it. Sad really.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's official, we have lost the War on Terror. The USA put pressure on Israel and forced them to fight with one hand tied behind their back, just as the USA fights in Iraq. Then, the USA and the world forced Israel to agree to a cease fire, giving a known terrorist organization a free pass to exist and rearm.   I hate to say "I told you this would happen" but...well you know. I also told you a way that Israel could solve "their" problem but I also told you why they won't do it. Sad really. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Has Bush Lost His Mind?

Page 2:

And I quote...

"We will limit the conflict and Israels reply. Terrorists will get a spanking and go underground. They will reorganize and pull the same shit all over again. People in Israel will die as a result. Americans in the area will also be targetted, remember why we left Beruit?

And when they pull exactly the same shit again, everyone will KNOW what needs to be done, but nobody will do it. And if Israel tries, we will tell them they can't.

This will be followed by posts such as yours asking them if they are stupid."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A military force cannot win against a terrorist group as long as that military force is forced to play by the rules.   And I am worried about any nation that feels it doesn't have to abide by the rules while fighting. +1.  What are you suggesting we do?  If we bomb the shit out of civilians to achieve our objective, how exactly are we different than them?

That is how we won WW2.

Who do you think we were bombing in Bremen, Berlin, and Tokyo?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am a veteran, gentlemen.   I do not kill civilians. I do not eradicate cultures or populations. I do not commit genocide. I do not fail to separate non-combatants from true combatants. And I do not portend to pass judgement. I DO defend this nation and her ideals.  And yes, I DO tire of abiding by rules when we are the only ones doing so.  I cannot always tell my enemies from those they cower behind.  I cannot always identify myself through the pain that is war. But I can always know the difference between honor, honesty, and right and wrong.  I swore an oath back in 1989, and at 35 I have not forgotten that oath.  Sure, I have forgotten the line-by-line promise I raised my hand to.  But the principle behind the ideal of my time in service will never be forgotten - or IGNORED. We are losing only in the event our confidence is shaken.  Remain diligent in our troops--who answer to our commander-in-chief--and we'll sacrifice ourselves not for the lives of our buddies...  But for the lives of any innocent, culture non-withstanding.   So for those of you who claim in one breath you support our troops, but in the next suggest executing innocents, remember your hypocrisy.  Your ideals are definately not ours.   Yes, I want the fighting over.  No real military man wants violence.  We defend peace, not killing.  I'm tired of seeing our soldiers die. But that's what they signed up to do if it became necessary.  They defend a principle of a nation, not a doctrine of easy victory.  Every one of us that served, especially in Combat Arms, knows the difference.   Stop the ranting, people.  We know what the hell we signed up for. At some point you have to make a decision that the collateral damage is worth it to a) achieve victory, and b) minimize US deaths If the USA gets nuked, do you suggest we invade the offending nation and go door to door, looking for the guilty parties, and only kill those responsible? Or do we save a few hundred thousand US soldier lives and just send a fews nukes over there and hit em, like we did with Japan? First of all, collateral damage is the unintended consequence of war - not the intentional murder of those without arms or influence to affect the outcome. Concerning your second statement, I will fully support a retalitory strike as the increase in intensity.  At that time, if it happens, we will have no choice.  We cannot, however, kill in the name of proactive deterrent.  Until then, we let our soldiers and intelligence do their job in the best way possible with the minimal loss of life. Unlike the days of Japan, we are not the only nation with this power.  Using it in the name of saving soldiers will, in the long run, cost billions of lives.  That, my friend, would be collateral damage we can avoid by continuing to do things the way we are. Of course, I wish the politicians would step back and shut up.  Trust me:  the military is WAY more capable of running this country than any current in-office politician.  If that were the case, we'd be in much better shape.  Just MHO.

Wiping out whole cities that support the enemy military machine (manufacturing, training, R&D , storage, infrastructure, etc) can be justified militarily if it can be shown that the action will greatly advance the schedule to get to the end of hostilities, greatly reduce the risk of attack from the enemy, and save friendly lives in the long run. Any civilians that happened to die would be collateral damage.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: +1.  What are you suggesting we do?  If we bomb the shit out of civilians to achieve our objective, how exactly are we different than them? They started it. We'll help them rebuild when it's over How do you bring back/rebuild  dead people? as for the 'starting it' thing, don't forget that in their eyes, WE started it centuries ago.

All we have to do is bomb anyone who is willing to continue war over that little disagreement.  If most of the population is killed.  Oh well.  That is how wars are won.

Reality Check.  We didn't start this one.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your viewpoint doesn't even see them as people if you think they are faceless entities that can be replaced by a high birth rate. That is an important thing in WINNING a war - demonizing your enemy, so you can do what you need to do - KILL THEM. Krauts.  Japs.  Slant Eyes.  Nips.  Hochie.  Gooks.  Nazis.  What do all these terms have in common?   Dehumanizing the enemy. That's part of why we are losing this one, and it will be the death of western culture The act of dehumanizing them does not eliminate the fact that they ARE human...and that goes for combatants and noncombatants as well. Killing a bunch of noncombatants as was recomended in the post I was replying to is not the answer. Victory at any cost is wrong when it entails killing large swaths of the general public.Part of the problem that I see with so many of you who are bloodthirsty for Muslims is that you HAVE reduced them to non-people. They are no less human than you or I. Your approach is simply WRONG.

Your approach results in our defeat and death.  OUR approach results in victory, just like in WW2, not that you would know anything about that.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's official, we have lost the War on Terror. The USA put pressure on Israel and forced them to fight with one hand tied behind their back, just as the USA fights in Iraq. Then, the USA and the world forced Israel to agree to a cease fire, giving a known terrorist organization a free pass to exist and rearm.   I hate to say "I told you this would happen" but...well you know. I also told you a way that Israel could solve "their" problem but I also told you why they won't do it. Sad really. I have no idea what you're talking about. Has Bush Lost His Mind? Page 2: And I quote... "We will limit the conflict and Israels reply. Terrorists will get a spanking and go underground. They will reorganize and pull the same shit all over again. People in Israel will die as a result. Americans in the area will also be targetted, remember why we left Beruit? And when they pull exactly the same shit again, everyone will KNOW what needs to be done, but nobody will do it. And if Israel tries, we will tell them they can't. This will be followed by posts such as yours asking them if they are stupid."

Well Capt Obvious, did you see my reply to your post in the final message of the thread that you linked to on page 2? Here it is:


"True on all counts. "


It's not like you were telling us something that we did not know, given the fact the Bush had announced that he had put the Israelis on a time schedule for withdrawal, which was the topic of the post, here's the topic title:

"Has Bush Lost His Mind?--U.S. Gives Israel Timeline for Assault on Hezbollah"

You guys should really pay attention to richardh247...

Quoted: Quoted: I wish the politicians would step back and shut up.  Trust me:  the military is WAY more capable of running this country than any current in-office politician.  If that were the case, we'd be in much better shape.  Just MHO.     Are you actually wishing you lived in a military dictatorship?

No, not necessarilly.  In a time of war, such as the current situation we are in, I think they are more capable of better decisions for the benefit of the country.  Not to govern the citizens, mind you.  The freedoms afforded us by the constitution are above even military reproach.  

And in that aspect, one must consider the the position of our armed forces.  You want to own a machine gun?  Hell, the army would give you one if you swore to defend the nation from your home.  The Marines would give you a K-Bar and tell you to be a real man.  The Navy would give you a roommate, and the Air Force would give you a vacation...

Just kidding guys!  

But the realism is that the military's position has always been the same:  the security of the nation.  A politician, on the other hand, concerns themselves with political issues.

The citizenship of the people is not to be infringed upon, but just think of what would change in this country if criminals were shot in the act under the name of martial law.  Since others are proposing guilty until innocent in the Middle East, that shouldn't be a problem.  Fair for one is fair for all.  After all, looking at the news reports, we are 90% criminals in this country.

Do you see the box painted into here?  We are screaming in this thread that innocents are a prodigy of war.  Well, there are innocents here in this country, too.  Declare Martial law, which I do 100% support, and then we can all put ourselves into the shoes of those oppressed.  We'll win the war just as everyone desires.  In fact, it is likely we'll obliterate most of the planet.  

We self destruct in the process, though.  

Do you remember the war of the Romans?  They, too, got too big for their britches.  They, too, touted obliteration of all they found threatening.  They, too, were controlled by an Army that was controlled by politicians who sold the people on revenge, victory, and so-called righteousness at any and all cost.  

And they fell.  

No, I purport that the military should be empowered by the military, and the politicians should serve revenue purposes.  If we are at war, let the military decide where to use their resources, and let the politicians decide the allocation.  

An unbalanced government either way is ready for a topple.    

.

One additional point that hasn't been touched on: How long can the US economy afford to spend $50-100 billion a year PER COUNTRY to fight the WOT in a civil and proper manner? Imagine what that figure would jump to if we began to engage more countries in the WOT (Iran and or Syria etc)? These figures don't include the approx $30 billion a year we are spending on US security to make sure another 9/11 doesn't happen.

Diplomacy: Good for tomorrow's news; bad for the history books.

Quoted: I purport that the military should be empowered by the military, and the politicians should serve revenue purposes.  If we are at war, let the military decide where to use their resources, and let the politicians decide the allocation.

Why, then, do you think the Founding Fathers designated the President as the Commander in Chief of the military?  Was that a mistake?

We are screwed as it is. Sadly, we would be better off today, as far as the war on terror goes, if the plot to destroy the planes last week had gone through. It is sad to say that, but in our society, no one will pay any attention to a problem unless it affects them directly, at which point they will bitch to no end for a solution to it.

The best thing to happen to get us to fight the war properly would be

1.Get attacked. Make it big. Make 9/11 look like the tip of the iceburg. Hell, a predominantly liberal city getting nuked, killing quite a few celebrities (that otta get the celebrity obsessed teenies to support the war) would be exactly what we need. This would accomplish 3 things. Get rid of those who may opose military action. The deaths of so many liberals and progressives would show those still left that Islam doesn't care who you are, and it would galvanize conservative middle America. An American sequel to Beslan might be almost as good, if it isn't played down as a random act of violence, it will gain support of SUV driving soccer mommies who just want "timmy" to stay safe.

2. Affect the people. Not until everyone has lost a loved one to islamic facists will we truly understand what this conflict means. Lots of realatives dead, that kind of stuff. Have a person on every block lose a loved one. Bring the suffering to the communities where people think they are safe.

3. Gain media support for America. We need to regain the victem card, we had it on 9/11 and the media always loves a victim. Also, if the media lose enough friends to a nuke, hopefully their little "we're just being unbiased" routine will be dropped in favor of a "swift payback" bit.

Of course none of this would happen if we would just wake up to the danger right now. But thats not going to happen.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think it's official, we have lost the War on Terror. The USA put pressure on Israel and forced them to fight with one hand tied behind their back, just as the USA fights in Iraq. Then, the USA and the world forced Israel to agree to a cease fire, giving a known terrorist organization a free pass to exist and rearm.   I hate to say "I told you this would happen" but...well you know. I also told you a way that Israel could solve "their" problem but I also told you why they won't do it. Sad really. I have no idea what you're talking about. Has Bush Lost His Mind? Page 2: And I quote... "We will limit the conflict and Israels reply. Terrorists will get a spanking and go underground. They will reorganize and pull the same shit all over again. People in Israel will die as a result. Americans in the area will also be targetted, remember why we left Beruit? And when they pull exactly the same shit again, everyone will KNOW what needs to be done, but nobody will do it. And if Israel tries, we will tell them they can't. This will be followed by posts such as yours asking them if they are stupid." Well Capt Obvious, did you see my reply to your post in the final message of the thread that you linked to on page 2? Here it is: "True on all counts. " It's not like you were telling us something that we did not know, given the fact the Bush had announced that he had put the Israelis on a time schedule for withdrawal, which was the topic of the post, here's the topic title: "Has Bush Lost His Mind?--U.S. Gives Israel Timeline for Assault on Hezbollah"

Uh yeah I did see that.

But you were the one who said you didn't know what I was referring to. Remember?

Quoted: Quoted: A military force cannot win against a terrorist group as long as that military force is forced to play by the rules.   And I am worried about any nation that feels it doesn't have to abide by the rules while fighting.

I hope you are not being a terrorist appologist. If you fight a real war in civilian clothing you can be shot upon apprehension. Period. You play by the rules or you get treated as a spy. Spys get shot. Please don't tell me you want us to continue with our current course of being 'Nice' while trying to fight. Rules, yes. This inflated standard we have currently, no.