RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by TF118, Mar 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TF118

    TF118 Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    433
    With all of the demonstrations about war, many of us will encounter
    "Peace Activists" who will try to convince us that we must refrain from
    retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001.

    These activists may be alone or in a gathering . . . most of us don't know
    how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one
    of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

    1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up
    a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas.
    They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people
    who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They probably use
    many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

    2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in
    the nose.

    3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry
    and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

    4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings
    about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter.
    Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to
    undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a
    solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what
    they are saying.

    5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are
    correct.

    6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them
    much harder. Square in the nose.

    7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the
    idiot realizes how stupid an argument he/she is making.

    There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting
    victim, a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people or standing by
    while a
    tyrant massacres his own people by gassing them to test his biological
    warfare. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high
    cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do
    for us and our children.

    We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no
    choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit
    in the nose.

    Lesson over!
     
  2. WheelchairPistoleer

    WheelchairPistoleer Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2002
    Messages:
    8
    That's a good one! I doubt I'd get to use it though as I live in the MidWest where almost everyone is for the war and if they aren't they wouldn't say it out loud!
     

  3. ruffitt

    ruffitt Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,872
    [​IMG]

    thanx for the pic gabby
     
  4. Smokin Guns

    Smokin Guns Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,457
    Hey!

    I'm in wit the "Bubba Clan"...looks like my kin...;)
     
  5. Boomatic

    Boomatic New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    1,087
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    USRSF

    Dang ruffit, I told you not to go postin' my pic!!! We's tryin' to be in-gog-neeeeee-to. Now we's gonna stand out like sore thumbs over there!!! We was actually gonna sneak into Baghdad all secret like...
     
  6. riderbob

    riderbob Guest

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    227
    rules

    Peace activist

    Is that not a contradiction in terms ?


    Rider :]
     
  7. Go-Get Beer

    Go-Get Beer Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    42
    I must say that the current political and military situation leaves me somewhat confused and I think I need a few things explained:
    1) I may have misunderstood, but you seem to say that the current military action is a counterattack against the forces responsible for the attack on Twin Towers on 9-11. I have a few questions concerning that:
    a) I thought the terrorist organization Al-Quaeda was declared responsible for the attacks and an attack on the leadership and manpower of this organization has already been made in Afghanistan, replacing the formerly-US-supported Taliban regime with a more agreeable form of goverment. Did any members of this organization flee Afghanistan? Have they been identified in Iraq?
    b) If Al-Quaeda infrastructure and manpower has been identified in Iraq why are the attacks not directed against those objects, concentrating instead on conquering cities and destroying Iraqi military. Is Iraqi military a part of Al-Quaeda?
    c) Wouldn't it be more logical to perform a strike against Saudi Arabia, since most funding for Al-Quaeda, as well as most of the terrorists, who performed the hijackings on 9-11 came from that country?
    2) I was under the impression that the current military operation in Iraq is a direct consequence of UN resolution 1441, pertaining to stripping of Iraq of any and all weapons of mass destruction.
    a) If it's so then why no UN body declared the need for such an action and why are there no UN military personnel in Iraq?
    b) Was any material forbidden by this resolution found in Iraq?
    c) Elsewhere on this board I've read an excellent post, defining chemical and biological weapons as area-denial weapons, leaving the nuclear weapons as the only weapon of mass destruction. Isn't calling biological and chemical weapons WMD a bit like calling every semi-auto rifle with a pistol grip an 'assault rifle' - a publicity stunt, designed to lower the acceptance of such weapons and people posessing or wanting to have them?
    d) Or is the resolution 1441 just a convenient way of shielding the coalition forces from international criticism for waging a retaliatory strike on a country, which is perceived as being responsible for the 9-11 attack, since it was established long before that attack.
    3) The current military action in Iraq could be also a preventive strike against the regime of Saddam Hussein, threatening military action against the US, if only Saddam had any weapon he could strike any part of US soil with, except for an US embassy in Baghdad (if there ever will be one).
    4) The current military action in Iraq could be of course and attempt to strike two birds with one stone: removing the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, responsible for aiding terrorism, producing WMD, atrocities against the citizens of their own country and the terrorists that he supports. Then can we expect similar actions agains other countries, comitting the same or similar acts: Saudi Arabia (terrorism), Turkey (terrorism, atrocities), Israel (atrocities, terrorism, WMD), Pakistan (terrorism, WMD), India (WMD), North Korea (atrocities, WMD), Russia (atrocities, WMD, terrorism), USA (WMD, terrorism), South Africa (atrocities), Zair (atrocities, terrorism), China (atrocities, WMD)? The list is of course far from complete.

    In case you haven't noticed I'm against the war in Iraq.
     
  8. WyomingSwede

    WyomingSwede Guest

    Again...great post...


    swede
     
  9. Xracer

    Xracer Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2001
    Messages:
    9,128
    Gee, GGB....you're not supposed to ask embarrassingly logical questions like that!
     
  10. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,133
    Location:
    Texas
    Go Get Beer, you bring up some very good questions. I don't believe that there has been any connection between Iraq and September 11, except some vague connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. But our administration has never said that we are going after Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.

    The US has simply said that 9/11 opened our eyes to the threats against us. It spurred us to begin the "war on terror". Therefore, the attacks of 9/11 are relevant in the sense that we are now hunting down terrorists worldwide and regimes that support them.

    Anyone with a lick of sense will know that it is implausible to go after every country that supports terrorism at the same time. We have to pick our battles, and do it in order of the level of threat they pose to us.

    UN resolution 1441 was brought up as an attempt to get other countries involved with this campaign. It is not the sole reason for attacking Iraq. As Bush promised, he attempted to use diplomatic means to reduce the threat. This failed. Therefore, we are going ahead with our campaign without the UN. Keep in mind that the UN is not the be-all end-all of worldwide law. That is a common misconception. The UN has no authority over sovereign nations. Each nation can choose whether or not to be a member or participate or play by UN rules. However, if a country decides to be a jackass, it may find that its neighbors will call upon the UN to help them out in keeping peace. Iraq has chosen to be a wolf in sheep's clothing, pretending to be a UN member in good standing, while violating all their rules secretly. Because of their aggressions against Kuwait in 1991, the UN did get involved the first time, but failed to retain their resolve. Since the US has been the chief enforcer of UN rules, we have had our eye on them for over a decade now. Since September 11, we are re-evaluating every threat. Saddam's flagrant disregard for the rules they agreed to follow is the reason we are taking action. We believe that Saddam can and will use WMD, whether the French believe it or not.

    You asked whether we have found any banned weapons in Iraq. Well, the war ain't over yet. But we have so far found a chemical factory that we will be investigating for links to a banned chemical weapons program. We have found chemical suits in an Iraqi military compound which was disguised as a hospital. This leads us to believe that they had planned to use chemical weapons; they would not have needed these suits otherwise. We have also seen missiles fired into Kuwait that far exceeded the allowed range. We find more evidence every day that Saddam has, in fact, violated the rules. When will Europe wake up and realize that we were right all along? Are you secretly hoping that Saddam will actually use these weapons? Is that what it will take to convince you?

    I agree that the term WMD is overused. Chemical/biological weapons are not WMD. But we have chosen to use WMD as a catch-all phrase, for lack of a better term. It is misleading. Perhaps they should change the nomenclature to "banned weapons". But the point is, these weapons should not exist in Iraq.

    It constantly amazes me how the Europeans have such short memories. They conveniently forget that Saddam brought this all upon himself with his invasion of Kuwait over a decade ago. If he hadn't done that, we would never have had the first Gulf War. The sanctions would never have happened. We would not be there now. So calling the Americans the aggressors is just stupid. We are just responding to his initial actions. Unfortunately, we had to take a 10-year break in the fighting due to political pressures. But we are now determined to finish the job that should have been finished in the early 1990s.

    One question I would ask of any non-American who criticizes us right now: What would you do if you were in our shoes? If your country had been attacked like we were, and you had the means to prevent another attack, wouldn't you do it? Or would you just turn the other cheek and wait for them to attack again? Do you honestly think that America enjoys picking fights that cost us money and lives? Do you really think that we would be doing this if we didn't find it necessary for our safety and security?

    Gimme a break.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2003
  11. Boomatic

    Boomatic New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    1,087
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    Okay..here I am posting in a political discussion...sheesh.

    I am only going to say, though, that I admire your expository skills Toby.
     
  12. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    5,133
    Location:
    Texas
    Is "expository" anything like "suppository"? :D
     
  13. Boomatic

    Boomatic New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    1,087
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    Now that I consider it, yes, I suppose a link between the two is not much of a stretch!
     
  14. Go-Get Beer

    Go-Get Beer Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    42
    But 'regimes that support terrorists' include the US allies in the campaign against Iraq: Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey. Are the politicians in those countries blind? Do they think that when the US is done with Iraq they will discontinue their campaign?

    In 1991 UN did not 'fail to retain its resolve' IMHO. It did what it set out to do - pushed Iraqis out of Kuwait and secured it against further invasion, leaving the rest to politics on the grounds of UN forums. Very few countries agree that the political venue for resolving this matter ended before the coalition forces moved in.

    So when one can't prove a criminal activity, s/he is entitled to a search by force to find that proof?
    I can imagine that the chemical factory you've found isn't the only one in Iraq. There may be many investigations in the near future.
    Poland has sent 200 soldiers to the operations region. This is a chemical warfare unit, so they've brought their chemical suits with them. I hope you don't take it as an offensive measure against coalition troops.
    The missiles which were found exceeded the allowed range by 1/6th AFAIK.
    I don't expect anyone to justify their actions before me, I don't condemn anyone for doing what they think is right for their country. I just think that a country which wants to retain moral upper hand should exploit all avenues of political action before resorting to violence.
    Saddam and his regime may be guilty of any or all of the crimes he's accused of. Is this a reason to put two countries at war? If it is why it is needed to draw connections to 9-11, resolution 1441 and a threat to US Saddam is incapable of realizing?

    I didn't call American's aggressors. I just call this war premature and overkill.

    The last paragraph of your post left me stunned. You disassociated the two incidents (9-11 and Gulf War II) in the first paragraph and still you use the association as an argument in the last. Or was there an Iraqi attack on the US I'm not aware of? Is this war an anti-terrorist operation (Iraq's ties to Al-Quaeda are vague, at best), disarmament effort (why not let the inspectors finish their job then?), political tool or what?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.