cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-17-2007, 10:12 PM   #21
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
I believe America is more than bricks and mortar too. But without property, there's no America to protect.

Comparing the 90's gaps in attacks to today is a total red herring. The US stance toward terrorism is completely different. Likely someday another attack will be successful and the counter will reset, but it's not for lack of a herculean effort to prevent it.

Short of Bush becoming king, etc., there is very little that has happened so far (as it touches civil rights) to justify any more than a Chicken Little view of the impending doom of the America "I know and love."



If you cannot see a difference between us and them in this regard, this conversation is bankrupt to begin with.
I am not claiming it si bush that will destroy us, I am talking abotu it long term, long after you and I are dead and buried and even SU is but a misty memory among a gneration of vipers, I mean litigators. Whether there is a big effort ot prevent an attack is irrelevant to this discussion. So without property there is no america to protect; does this mean you think america is gone with a successful attack of some large scale destruction? What does this mean?

Finally you say if I can't see a difference between us and them in "this regard." What regard are you talking about? DO you disagree that the statement made is among the justifications used by our terrorist enemies?
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:13 PM   #22
FMCoug
Senior Member
 
FMCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
FMCoug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
And its even more avoidable today with our technology than it was then.

more avoidable <> unavoidable. We seem to not have the stomach for any civilian casualties at all. Which is a problem in war.
FMCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:18 PM   #23
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMCoug View Post
more avoidable <> unavoidable. We seem to not have the stomach for any civilian casualties at all. Which is a problem in war.
YEs, we have gotten past the "destroy the village to save it" apporach. If it were a real war, meanign war against comabtants as opposed to war against insurgents/terrorists, we ouwld do what we needed to do, I beleive.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:19 PM   #24
FMCoug
Senior Member
 
FMCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
FMCoug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
I wouldn't classify it as a problem. I would classify it as a virtue.
If the expectaion of the American people is that we will go to war without any civilian casualties, then we will never win another war.
FMCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:24 PM   #25
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMCoug View Post
If the expectaion of the American people is that we will go to war without any civilian casualties, then we will never win another war.
I am confident that is not our expectation, even now in Iraq we are rather blase about Iraqi civilian deaths as compared to our own military casualties.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:29 PM   #26
FMCoug
Senior Member
 
FMCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
FMCoug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
I am confident that is not our expectation, even now in Iraq we are rather blase about Iraqi civilian deaths as compared to our own military casualties.
Good point. I was responding to Cali Coug's assertion that not having the stomach for ANY civilian casualties was a virtue, whereas I see it as a problem in a time of war.
FMCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2007, 10:42 PM   #27
Tex
Senior Member
 
Tex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
Tex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
Why is it a red herring? The absence of an attack, as history has shown, is evidence of nothing.
I think the efforts of our military and law enforcement, and the efforts of the enemy, render this a useless comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
Something I would imagine those who have been wrongly detained would strongly disagree with.
Perhaps. But the fact remains, isolated cases cannot be extrapolated on to the larger whole. Civil rights violations did not begin with George Bush and the Patriot Act, and yet inexplicably, America is still here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
I am not claiming it si bush that will destroy us, I am talking abotu it long term, long after you and I are dead and buried and even SU is but a misty memory among a gneration of vipers, I mean litigators. Whether there is a big effort ot prevent an attack is irrelevant to this discussion. So without property there is no america to protect; does this mean you think america is gone with a successful attack of some large scale destruction? What does this mean?
I'm suggesting that a large scale attack could shape our national identity much more profoundly than you seem to believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
His quote was in response to an argument for carpet bombing civilian populations. And your response, ironically, is exactly the same as their response appears to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekster View Post
Finally you say if I can't see a difference between us and them in "this regard." What regard are you talking about? DO you disagree that the statement made is among the justifications used by our terrorist enemies?
The moral weight that goes behind our decision to attack civilians, and theirs, is so far apart you couldn't fill it with all the hot air Cali Coug can blow.

There is ZERO moral similarity between what happened on 9/11 and what happened at Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the comparison is damn obscene.
Tex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 12:04 AM   #28
creekster
Senior Member
 
creekster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
creekster is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex View Post
I think the efforts of our military and law enforcement, and the efforts of the enemy, render this a useless [comparison.
So you think we can prevent an attack? Time will tell who is right. I hope you are, but I tend to think that with enough time we will be hit again.


Quote:
Perhaps. But the fact remains, isolated cases cannot be extrapolated on to the larger whole. Civil rights violations did not begin with George Bush and the Patriot Act, and yet inexplicably, America is still here.
As you noted, I have never alluded to George Bush, yet you keep bringing ti back. I agree that the Patriot act will not end America as we know it. But this really has no bearing on this question.

Quote:
I'm suggesting that a large scale attack could shape our national identity much more profoundly than you seem to believe.
IOW, you think that radical Islam is a threat to our survival?


Quote:
The moral weight that goes behind our decision to attack civilians, and theirs, is so far apart you couldn't fill it with all the hot air Cali Coug can blow.

There is ZERO moral similarity between what happened on 9/11 and what happened at Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the comparison is damn obscene.
I have never made that comparison. I noted only that the justification was the same. In my mind, we need to carefully examine our rationale before launching indiscriminate attacks against civilian populations. While I understand the urge to bomb Dresden, for example, I think it is a rather embarrassing incident, even in the context of WWII. I do not feel that way about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, however, as I think that those bombings were justified under the circumstances. Regardless, this issue does not go to SU's question, but it is an interesting sidelight.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos.
creekster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 01:37 AM   #29
FMCoug
Senior Member
 
FMCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
FMCoug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
You are advocating the exact opposite approach of hitting the enemy with a blunt instrument (i.e., carpet bombing entire cities). Not only would that be murderous with today's capabilities, it would only turn the survivors even more against our interests.
I never advocated that. I simply responded to Mike's question about why we didn't carpet bomb the Afghan/Pakistan border. In fact, if you read the original post, you'll see I specifically said I do NOT advocate the approach.

My point on civilian casualties stands though. Not the blunt instrument, but that we seem as a country to weep and wail entirely too much over the inevitable civilian casualties.

An example that comes to mind is when a bomb hit an Iraqi market during the air campaign at the beginning of the war. The market was not targeted but it was an errant bomb. The media made the US military out to be war criminals. And the expectation was that our bombs should be so "smart" so that something like that would never happen. An unrealistic expectation IMO. As weapons get more and more sophisticated, collateral damage will be less and less. But less <> 0.
FMCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2007, 02:00 AM   #30
FMCoug
Senior Member
 
FMCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kaysville, UT
Posts: 3,151
FMCoug
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
Less <>0, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't want it to. I think hoping for zero unnecessary deaths is a virtue. In fact, I can't understand not hoping for that, even while understanding some people will die unnecessarily.
Then we agree. Unnecessary deaths are bad. And hoping for 0 or as close to it is great. My concern is the difference between hope and expectations.
FMCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.