TOTALLY GEEKED!

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Yes. LL has never said she doesn't give a crap about veterans. That's just you putting words in her mouth to support your argument.

---

 She doesn't.  She has openly stated she is ok trading the lives of American soldiers for enemy civilians.

---

 Uh, no I have not.  That is a flat out lie. 

---

 You absolutely have.  We had an entire argument about a marine who killed a kid in the heat of battle.  

---

 And I never said he should DIE.  WTF???  I never even said he should go to prison.  I said he should have been trained better - which is TRUE.  If he can't assess a situation before he starts shooting, he was not trained well enough.  And I remember the argument back - that is wasn't his fault, he was only given 6 weeks of training before being sent to war.  Which only supports my position that he was not trained well enough.

---

 He is trained to the highest level possible.  There IS NO such thing as "trained better".  There is NO WAY to better assess that situation.

---

 Now you are just talking out your ass.  You have absolutely no idea how well he was trained.  You were not there, you don't know his commaning officers and you did review his training.  You know nothing.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Yes. LL has never said she doesn't give a crap about veterans. That's just you putting words in her mouth to support your argument.

---

 She doesn't.  She has openly stated she is ok trading the lives of American soldiers for enemy civilians.

---

 Uh, no I have not.  That is a flat out lie. 

---

 You absolutely have.  We had an entire argument about a marine who killed a kid in the heat of battle.  

---

 And I never said he should DIE.  WTF???  I never even said he should go to prison.  I said he should have been trained better - which is TRUE.  If he can't assess a situation before he starts shooting, he was not trained well enough.  And I remember the argument back - that is wasn't his fault, he was only given 6 weeks of training before being sent to war.  Which only supports my position that he was not trained well enough.

---

 He is trained to the highest level possible.  There IS NO such thing as "trained better".  There is NO WAY to better assess that situation.

---

 Now you are just talking out your ass.  You have absolutely no idea how well he was trained.  You were not there, you don't know his commaning officers and you did review his training.  You know nothing.

---

 Lol!!!  You have no clue.  You are the one talking out of your ass.  What basic combat training did you take?  Your child?

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Yes. LL has never said she doesn't give a crap about veterans. That's just you putting words in her mouth to support your argument.

---

 She doesn't.  She has openly stated she is ok trading the lives of American soldiers for enemy civilians.

---

 Uh, no I have not.  That is a flat out lie. 

---

 You absolutely have.  We had an entire argument about a marine who killed a kid in the heat of battle.  

---

 And I never said he should DIE.  WTF???  I never even said he should go to prison.  I said he should have been trained better - which is TRUE.  If he can't assess a situation before he starts shooting, he was not trained well enough.  And I remember the argument back - that is wasn't his fault, he was only given 6 weeks of training before being sent to war.  Which only supports my position that he was not trained well enough.

---

 He is trained to the highest level possible.  There IS NO such thing as "trained better".  There is NO WAY to better assess that situation.

---

 Now you are just talking out your ass.  You have absolutely no idea how well he was trained.  You were not there, you don't know his commaning officers and you did review his training.  You know nothing.

---

 Lol!!!  You have no clue.  You are the one talking out of your ass.  What basic combat training did you take?  Your child?

---

 Please tell us about YOUR war experience, Husker. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

Ohfour wrote:

---

They all start out as innocents. 10 years from now, they will be raping our daughters and beheading our sons...

---

 This kind of comment is beneath you.  We don't kill people because of what they MIGHT do and what they MIGHT become.

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

---

 Yes, Husker, it is.  It goes against our laws and treaties, and it is dishorable to kill innocent people without regard - which is what this is about.  I KNOW there will be some deaths, the difference is, what did you do to prevent them?  How much did you try to avoid it?  The answers to those questions mean all the difference.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

---

 Yes, Husker, it is.  It goes against our laws and treaties, and it is dishorable to kill innocent people without regard - which is what this is about.  I KNOW there will be some deaths, the difference is, what did you do to prevent them?  How much did you try to avoid it?  The answers to those questions mean all the difference.

---

 The answer will never be "good enough" though. Someone will always lament the loss of one innocent, no matter how hard it was worked to avoid that one death.

just Czech wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

---

 Yes, Husker, it is.  It goes against our laws and treaties, and it is dishorable to kill innocent people without regard - which is what this is about.  I KNOW there will be some deaths, the difference is, what did you do to prevent them?  How much did you try to avoid it?  The answers to those questions mean all the difference.

---

 The answer will never be "good enough" though. Someone will always lament the loss of one innocent, no matter how hard it was worked to avoid that one death.

---

 That is normal.  But we have to be able to answer to ourselves.  We have to know what we did and how we tried.  Hell, our police are trained to try to avoid deaths of innocent bystanders, why shouldn't our military be.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

---

 Yes, Husker, it is.  It goes against our laws and treaties, and it is dishorable to kill innocent people without regard - which is what this is about.  I KNOW there will be some deaths, the difference is, what did you do to prevent them?  How much did you try to avoid it?  The answers to those questions mean all the difference.

---

 The answer will never be "good enough" though. Someone will always lament the loss of one innocent, no matter how hard it was worked to avoid that one death.

---

 That is normal.  But we have to be able to answer to ourselves.  We have to know what we did and how we tried.  Hell, our police are trained to try to avoid deaths of innocent bystanders, why shouldn't our military be.

---

 They are, but sometimes they are unavoidable.  Sometimes there are unintentional deaths even with the best of care to try and avoid those.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

---

 Yes, Husker, it is.  It goes against our laws and treaties, and it is dishorable to kill innocent people without regard - which is what this is about.  I KNOW there will be some deaths, the difference is, what did you do to prevent them?  How much did you try to avoid it?  The answers to those questions mean all the difference.

---

 So then the ONLY difference is the degree to which one goes to prevent them, and therefore, it isn't murder since people will disagree on what degree is reasonable.  Your thoughts on that count no More than mine.  

---

 Carpet bombing cannot even pretend to be trying to avoid innocent deaths.

---

 Not necessarily.  What would have caused more deaths?  Dropping the atomic bomb and shortening the war by a year or more, or not doing so and mounting a full scale invasion? 

You make ridiculous, blanket statements that have no basis in fact.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

just Czech wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

Plus, the fact that you advocate only "surgical" strikes will absolutely cost more American lives to spare civilians.

---

 

 

We could just close our borders, sit back and let the rest of the world deal with it.  That would save all our soldiers lives.   

Military invention has risks.  It is not ok to sit back and just bomb people and kill innocent people without regard. 

 

---

 We are doing exactly what you want inafghanistan.  That is setting up the exact conditions I posted about.  It is costing American lives by the day as it gets prolonged.  You either care about that or you don't.

---

 Of course I care.  But MURDERING inocent people is not an acceptable alternative.

If you care that much about the casualties of our military - call them home and leave the middle east to fend for itself.

---

 It's war.  There is going to be collateral damage--even using YOUR methods.  It's not murder. that is an idiotic term to use.

---

 Yes, Husker, it is.  It goes against our laws and treaties, and it is dishorable to kill innocent people without regard - which is what this is about.  I KNOW there will be some deaths, the difference is, what did you do to prevent them?  How much did you try to avoid it?  The answers to those questions mean all the difference.

---

 The answer will never be "good enough" though. Someone will always lament the loss of one innocent, no matter how hard it was worked to avoid that one death.

---

 That is normal.  But we have to be able to answer to ourselves.  We have to know what we did and how we tried.  Hell, our police are trained to try to avoid deaths of innocent bystanders, why shouldn't our military be.

---

 They are, but sometimes they are unavoidable.  Sometimes there are unintentional deaths even with the best of care to try and avoid those.

---

 Did you even pay attention to the comment that started this?  ed asked why we should even care about collateral damage.  THAT is the callousness that is unbecoming of an American, military or not.

---

ISIS is a cancer on the world. Do you know what happens in cancer surgery? Chemotherapy? Radiation? 

No matter what the approach is, a lot of healthy cells die before all the cancer cells are killed.

The HOPE and GOAL is to kill all the cancer, without killing the host organism.

(My sister lost that battle.)

(My mother lost that battle too.)

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I don't want to get into the argument that ensued later, but just comment on the OP. That was sad and wrong on numerous levels. She was feeding her child and she was completely covered up by her burqa. How is that immoral? How is that worthy of death?

---

 Good questions.

That is the belief system that is taking over the world.

Why are we, the general world population, allowing it to happen?