Be nice to one another, or there'll be no cookies with your milk.
Was soll den das?!? Proportional response to an attack?
Isreal's response is supposed to lead to an escalation of violence? It's about time for an escalation of violence, if Israel is to continue to exist as a sovereign nation. This constant responding to terrorist attacks is a waste of time, manpower, and lives. They need to commit to all out war against Hamas, Hezbollah, and anyone else who threatens their existance.
The world community needs to open their collective eyes to what is going on here. Especially Spain needs to see that when the muslims want to end the occupying of muslim land by the infidel, that the occupation of Spain by the infidel has been going on since 1492, and Islam is going to want that as well.What is a proportional response supposed to achieve? You shoot a rocket at me, I shoot one back? If the enemy is technologically inferior, but has a larger population, then they will win, when country A is only allowed to kill one enemy for every country A'er the enemy kills. The way to win a war is to arrange to take the enemy's will to fight, to make warring against your country too disasterous in the loss of life and property for the citizens to continue to support the war. That's how Vietnam beat us, remember, and that is how we'll lose in Iraq. Right now, we value the lives of our soldiers too highly to allow us to commit to the kind of warfare we need to commit too to end the Islam threat. Iran need to be next on the list, and the deed needs to be done quickly, with of course minimum loss of life on our side. We need, really, to attack in such a way as to show our enemies what it means to raise the wrath of the USA. I'm just glad that we didn't have the same breed of liberal pacifists and enablers that we have today in 1941. Just imagine the response from the Kerry crowd if the kinds of casualties that occured June 6, 1944, were to occur in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan would probably keel over dead from the "outrage" she'd feel over such a tragic loss of life. And the civilians casualaties: 30,000 dead Frenchmen, collateral damage. How about we do something similar in Iraq: When the terrorist use civilians as human shields, shoot through them. How long would the civilians there continue to allow themselves to be used then, as shields? We won WWII because we made the costs of continueing for the Japanese and the Germans too high for them to continue. We won the cold war because the costs of continueing were too high for the Soviet Union. Now, we need to make the costs of supporting Isalmic terror too high for the average muslim, lead them to consider that maybe Mohammed meant for the members of Islam to fight their Jihad with words instead of bombs.I believe that the proper response to an attack on a sovereign nation is for that nation, and it's allies, to make the attacker very sorry and promise (and mean it) never to do it again.
And we need to have a long, serious talk with our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.
Isreal's response is supposed to lead to an escalation of violence? It's about time for an escalation of violence, if Israel is to continue to exist as a sovereign nation. This constant responding to terrorist attacks is a waste of time, manpower, and lives. They need to commit to all out war against Hamas, Hezbollah, and anyone else who threatens their existance.
The world community needs to open their collective eyes to what is going on here. Especially Spain needs to see that when the muslims want to end the occupying of muslim land by the infidel, that the occupation of Spain by the infidel has been going on since 1492, and Islam is going to want that as well.What is a proportional response supposed to achieve? You shoot a rocket at me, I shoot one back? If the enemy is technologically inferior, but has a larger population, then they will win, when country A is only allowed to kill one enemy for every country A'er the enemy kills. The way to win a war is to arrange to take the enemy's will to fight, to make warring against your country too disasterous in the loss of life and property for the citizens to continue to support the war. That's how Vietnam beat us, remember, and that is how we'll lose in Iraq. Right now, we value the lives of our soldiers too highly to allow us to commit to the kind of warfare we need to commit too to end the Islam threat. Iran need to be next on the list, and the deed needs to be done quickly, with of course minimum loss of life on our side. We need, really, to attack in such a way as to show our enemies what it means to raise the wrath of the USA. I'm just glad that we didn't have the same breed of liberal pacifists and enablers that we have today in 1941. Just imagine the response from the Kerry crowd if the kinds of casualties that occured June 6, 1944, were to occur in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan would probably keel over dead from the "outrage" she'd feel over such a tragic loss of life. And the civilians casualaties: 30,000 dead Frenchmen, collateral damage. How about we do something similar in Iraq: When the terrorist use civilians as human shields, shoot through them. How long would the civilians there continue to allow themselves to be used then, as shields? We won WWII because we made the costs of continueing for the Japanese and the Germans too high for them to continue. We won the cold war because the costs of continueing were too high for the Soviet Union. Now, we need to make the costs of supporting Isalmic terror too high for the average muslim, lead them to consider that maybe Mohammed meant for the members of Islam to fight their Jihad with words instead of bombs.I believe that the proper response to an attack on a sovereign nation is for that nation, and it's allies, to make the attacker very sorry and promise (and mean it) never to do it again.
And we need to have a long, serious talk with our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.
posted by
Mainer in Exile | 4:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home