U.S. fires on van at checkpoint that has 13 people inside

I do want to stress. I do notthink the soldiers who fired into this van were bad guys. They clearly had no choice in the matter. I have nothing but sympathy for their decision and the life they have to lead with having made that decision.

By and large, like I said above, I think the vast majority of our voluntary military are made of people with principles and who are willing to sacrifice themselves for those principles. In my world of very few moral absolutes, this swings the needle dramatically toward ""good"".

What a fabulous idea. Maybe we could set some kind of record for number of wars started in one administration. I know with enough pluck we could hit four or five! Hey, don''t stop there, what about Iran, and you know Saudi Arabia''s been a bit uppity lately, and what''s with the French. We should kill a whole bunch of people! YEAH!

We didn''t start this war. The Isalmo-Fascist did on 9/11. We''re in a world war and as soon as you realize that the argument about ""starting new wars"" will be void. We can argue if we should be in a world war but we are in one. Syria and Iran will be taken out of power. Then we would have the three major powers that sponsor terrorism gone.

You know, I am beginning to suspect San Francisco supports terrorism.

The American Taliban is from around here. The protests are really strong and well organized here. I believe more than one of the American human shields in Iraq is from the Bay Area.

It has been elaborately argued that the peace protesting is indirectly supporting terrorism. A man has been brought up on charges for bringing molotav cocktails to the protest. The city oppresses its own people with a tremendously high cost of living. Off duty cops are currently under investigation here for being involved in a street brawl.

I sure will anticipate the Americans ""Shock and Awe pt. II"" in San Francisco. I hope noone in my apartment complex is harboring protesters. I dont want to be a human shield. I wont rebel until Im sure the tyranical government of San Francisco is eradicated though. Then I can go outside and help a soldier tear down a No Blood for Oil sign.

Syria and Iran will be taken out of power.

The US will be on it''s own as Tony Blair has already said that the UK will have no part in an extended conflict involving countries other than Iraq.

The Isalmo-Fascist did on 9/11.

Ive never seen one shred of proof linking any government to 9/11 except Afghanistan, and we already took them out. Its also like kegboy said, who is gonna support us on the 2nd war? 3rd? How far do you think well go before elections next year? The only one''s making it a world war is us. Were out to erradicate anyone who might (since there is no proof at all) be helping terrorists. And thats my major problem, because that group is pretty much anybody the administration wants it to be. Which makes it US vs Bush Administration enemies, and I dont want people getting killed to further the administration''s interests.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

The Isalmo-Fascist did on 9/11.

We''re out to erradicate anyone who might (since there is no proof at all) be helping terrorists. And thats my major problem, because that group is pretty much anybody the administration wants it to be. Which makes it US vs Bush Administration enemies, and I dont want people getting killed to further the administration''s interests.

I don''t want innocent people to die, either.

You have to believe that these countries are aiding terrorists, their behavior alone screams that fact. Why have bio weapons? Why stack military stations near civilians? Why torment your own people? Come on, if you don''t think the leaders of these countries are trying to hurt the West anyway they can, in order to keep themselves in power, you''re fooling yourself.

We are protecting ourselves from any ''threat'' to our well-being. Granted, the term ""threat"" can be stretched along thin lines, but in the process of doing so, we are freeing people to live the lives we are blessed with.

Remember Murphy''s Golden Rule? ""He who has the gold, makes the rules."" Luckily for the world, the country who posseses the might, also happens to be a moral and decent country. A country that will risk life and limb for our own security and in return for our own saftey, will provide a life and opportunity that the citizens of Iraq haven''t had in years.

When all is said and done, one threat will be eliminated, and one former oppresive country will be free.

Or perhaps all the naysayers out there would rather we do nothing in the world, and just wait to be attacked for who we are and what we stand for. If my choices are to be proactive and destroy any ''possible'' threat, or do nothing and ''possibly'' be attacked, well....we have the means to do something and I''m glad we''re doing it.

We did not start this. How many more Americans need to die on our own soil before people realize its an ugly world, and we are hated for everything we love?

Iran and Syria have a long history of supporting terrorist. If we have to do it by our selves so be it but no one can say with a straight face that Iran and Syria do not support terrorist.

I''m sorry, Yomm, but I see your argument as little more than party-line rhetoric. The idea of pre-emptive action is so morally flawed as to completely lack legitimacy. And if you can''t see how attacking those who could ''possibly'' threaten us is a frightening slippery slope, then we have no common ground on this topic from which to talk.

I wish I lived in a black and white world. It must be terribly simple.

Oh, and you forgot to include the obligatory France insult. Never get tired of those.

"Elysium" wrote:

I''m sorry, Yomm, but I see your argument as little more than party-line rhetoric.

You''re right in somuch as I have family fighting over there right now. But one of them is a Navy SEAL, and you''ll excuse my bravado and chest beating at his heroics.

"Elysium" wrote:

The idea of pre-emptive action is so morally flawed as to completely lack legitimacy. And if you can''t see how attacking those who could ''possibly'' threaten us is a frightening slippery slope, then we have no common ground on this topic from which to talk.

Yeah, I saw ''Dr. Strangelove'', too. The funny thing is since the atomic bomb was dropped (and that action alone could take up many a thread as to good/bad idea) we haven''t seen massive world war. MAD (Mutual Assured Distruction) seemed to prolong world peace more than anything the United Nations could come up with. It hasn''t been pretty, at times quite scary, but its been effective. Now we have the ''potential'' threat (and quite a few examples of ''real'' American deaths) that doesn''t seem to mind that the US can wipe them off the face of the planet. So I ask you: how do you deal with that?

Without putting words in your mouth, are you suggesting we ignore it all? Place our trust in the world diplomatic process? Our economic santions only hurt those who don''t deserve it, our ''political pressure'' seems to fall on deaf ears, so whats left?
Or, perhaps are you suggesting that there is no threat at all? Or, at best a ''minor'' threat not worth the cost of war?

Last time I checked, Jamicia wasn''t included in the ''axis of evil''. Nor the Swiss and to my dismay France (there ya go ).
I don''t think we''re picking on anyone that doesn''t have it coming to them.

"Elysium" wrote:

I wish I lived in a black and white world. It must be terribly simple.

Now now, if you had read all my words, you would have seen that quite a few times I acknowledge the US isn''t the perfect player here. I''m fully aware that the US has interests that aren''t all warm and fuzzy, but even if the side-effect is peace and prosperity for a people long deserving of it, then I have no problem.

As for France, yeah, they suck.

You''re right in somuch as I have family fighting over there right now. But one of them is a Navy SEAL, and you''ll excuse my bravado and chest beating at his heroics.

I dont think theres anybody here who would disagree that your navy seal family member is very heroic, and a damn fine human being for doing what he/she does. Thats entirely different than supporting the administration.

Without putting words in your mouth, are you suggesting we ignore it all? Place our trust in the world diplomatic process? Our economic santions only hurt those who don''t deserve it, our ''political pressure'' seems to fall on deaf ears, so whats left?
Or, perhaps are you suggesting that there is no threat at all? Or, at best a ''minor'' threat not worth the cost of war?

Im not speaking for elysium, but to me its like choosing between waiting till a doctor can remove a tumor or removing it yourself with a chainsaw. Both require pain, one does no good. Terrorists have to be dealt with properly, and I am just not convinced that this will do anything to help.

We are protecting ourselves from any ''threat'' to our well-being. Granted, the term ""threat"" can be stretched along thin lines, but in the process of doing so, we are freeing people to live the lives we are blessed with.

""Blessed""? Heres a news flash, some people don''t want to be freed by Americans, they hate us. Those that do, thats great for them, and I applaud it. But we are not doing everyone''s will over there, since you know, people are shooting at us. I know some of them support us, but lets not pretend they all want us there. There are several of them dont want us there, they want to be free on thier own terms, not at the behest of America. I personally can respect that, after all, how free are you when the freedom is given to you by someone else? Some people want soverignty, even if it means a loss of personal freedom.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

""Blessed""? Heres a news flash, some people don''t want to be freed by Americans, they hate us. Those that do, thats great for them, and I applaud it. But we are not doing everyone''s will over there, since you know, people are shooting at us. I know some of them support us, but lets not pretend they all want us there. There are several of them dont want us there, they want to be free on thier own terms, not at the behest of America. I personally can respect that, after all, how free are you when the freedom is given to you by someone else? Some people want soverignty, even if it means a loss of personal freedom.

Alot of people are firing at us b/c if they don''t, they will be killed by their own government.Time will tell how happy they are to see us. I believe once they realize we are really here to overthrow Sadam, they will rise up. I think the US really screwed up in Desert Storm by telling them we were going to do it then and didn''t. That was a huge mistake on the US''s part. I don''t blame them for wondering our intent this time.

But also realize, they believe what Iraqi TV is telling them. That the US has booby trap pencils and pens being tossed into villages!! (thats cited from a reuter''s article) That the US is miles away from Bagdad.

I just saw that power in Bagdad went out, and that the US didn''t do it...rumors are floating that a civil outbreak is occuring.

And one last thing, about not wanting freedom from the US? Once an established government is put in place, one that will be based on the people, the US WILL BE LEAVING! We''re not taking them over, we''re going to help them help themselves and leave. Granted, the government would be wise not to cite anti-US sentiment while we''re there, but once we''re gone, they''ll be free to do or say what they wish, and so long as they don''t assist terrorists or attack US interests they can do it without fear of reprival. Are you telling me they don''t want that?

News flash for you, they hate Sadam more than us.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]
after all, how free are you when the freedom is given to you by someone else?

Dunno, ask France.

But one of them is a Navy SEAL, and you''ll excuse my bravado and chest beating at his heroics.

You should be very proud of him, and I mean that with complete sincerity.

"Elysium" wrote:
But one of them is a Navy SEAL, and you''ll excuse my bravado and chest beating at his heroics.

You should be very proud of him, and I mean that with complete sincerity.

I am, and I thank you. The bitch of it is, he was also in Afgan. his bunch were on the ground calling in airstrikes...not something you want to mess up on. He was supposed to have 1.5-2 years off for training, then sent out again. But this situation was obviously diffrent.

For the record, I don''t take anything personal on the internet (''cept my porn, but thats a diffrent matter) so these discusions are just acts of intellectual exchange. I''m very pleased that a ''Gamers'' site has such well thought out posts.

Now on to the French bashing.......

Wow, Afghanistan and Iraq. Honestly, I can''t imagine what that must be like. His boys did a hell of a thing going in and getting Jessica out a few nights ago, not to mention that oil rig they disarmed a week and a half ago. The Seals are absolutely amazing.

On taking it personally: I don''t either, but I do get worked up about topics which I''m passionate about - you may have noticed.

From CNN:
Acting on information government sources said was obtained by the CIA from more than one Iraqi source, Special Forces led a team of Marines, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and Air Force pilots and controllers into enemy fire at a hospital in Nasiriya.

The US is very serious about bringing it''s people home. It didn''t include just the SEALs. It was a massive, combined effort to get one person out. I''ve heard we had upwards of a hundred servicemembers on the ground but I couldn''t find any ""print"" sources to back that number up.
It always makes me proud when I hear about something like this.

Most of the folks from the 101st Airborne have also done the Afghan-to-Iraq deal too.

Our service members are really getting their frequent fighter miles in during this term.

"Reaper81" wrote:
From CNN:
Acting on information government sources said was obtained by the CIA from more than one Iraqi source, Special Forces led a team of Marines, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and Air Force pilots and controllers into enemy fire at a hospital in Nasiriya.

The US is very serious about bringing it''s people home. It didn''t include just the SEALs. It was a massive, combined effort to get one person out. I''ve heard we had upwards of a hundred servicemembers on the ground but I couldn''t find any ""print"" sources to back that number up.
It always makes me proud when I hear about something like this.

Most of the folks from the 101st Airborne have also done the Afghan-to-Iraq deal too.

Our service members are really getting their frequent fighter miles in during this term.

Yeah, from what little I know, the Rangers are well known for not leaving anyone behind. Anyone remember Black Hawk Down?

You mean the movie that clinically depicted the death of almost on thousand Somalians? Yes I do very vividly remember that movie.

"Koesj" wrote:

You mean the movie that clinically depicted the death of almost on thousand Somalians? Yes I do very vividly remember that movie.

The deaths of the Somalians is a direct result from the waring factions not the United States. We were trying to help the people.

Its amazing how many deaths we cause whenever we try and help.

"asands2" wrote:

Its amazing how many deaths we cause whenever we try and help.

Actually when you think about it, its amazing we help when there are already so many deaths.

Please, cite just ONE example where there was no unrest and the US came in and caused the chaos you believe was caused.

(and by the way, the American Indians don''t count for this discussion, nor the Civil War. )

Please, cite just ONE example where there was no unrest and the US came in and caused the chaos you believe was caused.

I think his point is that we often exacerbate the problem, not that we cause the problem in the first place.

"Yomm" wrote:

Please, cite just ONE example where there was no unrest and the US came in and caused the chaos you believe was caused.

(and by the way, the American Indians don''t count for this discussion, nor the Civil War. )

Maybe you need to be more specific on what you mean by ""unrest"" but the current conflict comes to mind. Nobody was fighting a war in Iraq, we came in and started shooting.

"Elysium" wrote:
Please, cite just ONE example where there was no unrest and the US came in and caused the chaos you believe was caused.

I think his point is that we often exacerbate the problem, not that we cause the problem in the first place.

This is a damned if you do, damned if you don''t. Anyone remember the SNL skit with Phil Hartmen playing Bill Clinton at a McDonalds? He''s talking about the problem in these places is that he food and aid is intercepted by warlords. We could just say ""f*ck the people"" and ingore them but that leads to terrorism. If we say ""we''re going to destroy the warlords"" that means war. What should we do?

We could just say ""f*ck the people"" and ingore them but that leads to terrorism.

No, actually in this case US isolationism would probably not lead toward much of the islamo/fascist terrorism you''re always on about. In fact, we''ve set things up nicely for a good generation or two of lovely terrorism all over the place. I''m pretty sure the thing that really pisses these terrorists off is Americans on their soil, and they''re going to get a hell of a lot of that with Bush and Co. For all the talk of how this war is about ''protecting America'' from terrorists, I can''t help but think it a naive position. If anything, America is more a target now than it was before precisely because we traipse about the globe with our ""morality"" in one hand and a gun in the other and spend a lot of energy ''Freeing'' people.

And now you say ''well, what would you have us do, nothing?'' Which has very little to do with the point I was arguing, that you can''t have it both ways.

Elysium,

I''m curious, and if you think it rude, don''t answer. Are you a Libertarian?

Not that its a bad thing. If I wasn''t Yommerian, I''d look at the party much closer.

I''ll say only that I occasionally have Libertarian leanings from time to time. I don''t affiliate with a party right now. Perhaps because none precisely match my occasionally schizophrenic politics. If I had to label myself, it would simply be as Independent.

America is more a target now than it was before precisely because we traipse about the globe with our ""morality"" in one hand and a gun in the other and spend a lot of energy ''Freeing'' people.

So you''re saying if we did nothing and kept to our selves we wouldn''t be hit by terrorist? I think going through and removing governments, sticking with the countries, in the long run would be better. We still have to deal with the Middle East and we would then be force to ""buy"" off countries like we do with Israel and Eygpt.

So you''re saying if we did nothing and kept to our selves we wouldn''t be hit by terrorist?

First, I''m not suggesting it as policy, but, yes that''s the general gist of it. At least, we likely wouldn''t be a target of organized and well funded terrorism.

sticking with the countries

And, there it is. The problem. While we are still occasionally shooting at people in hills in Afghanastan, our support of that fragile (and largely unformed) government is dwindling rapidly. How much of that new $80 Billion for the war on terrorism emergency fund went to shoring up against the reforming Taliban along the northern Pakistani border? More, you think, than the airline bailout? More than the average CEO salary? How about more than a freakin'' cheeseburger? No, now that the media isn''t filling the american people in on the Afghan situation quite so much, and we''ve got this war we decided we wanted to putz around in for a while, things are a little tight right now, but we''ll get right back to those guys. Meanwhile the ''American supported'' Afghan government is one well trained sniper away from crumbling, as the warlords outside of Kabul gain renewed strength, and the Taliban reforms.

It''s the same old story. If we had a history of supporting those we liberate to any appreciable degree, then maybe I''d have more faith. Hell, if we had a competent leader, and not the anti-diplomat with all the tact of a Texas oil baron (oh, wait!) then I might have a bit more faith. But, it''s been my impression that Bush likes two things - blathering on about Texas and getting people to shoot other people. I think it may be the only two things he''s good at.

But, it''s been my impression that Bush likes two things - blathering on about Texas and getting people to shoot other people. I think it may be the only two things he''s good at.

Cue the ""Go get um George!"" lead in to the ""U-S-A"" chants.

All the while that god forsaken yokel song, ""God Bless the USA"" plays 100 times in the background.

wow, so much those last few posts....and yet it''s so close to happy hour on a Friday.....tough choice, but I''m going to have to go with the beers on this one.

If it''s still the flavor of the day on Monday, I''ll gladly respond (not that you care).

Oh, and France still sucks.