You think there are no Blackwater thugs and no American troops in Iraq terrorizing the civilian population? That's pretty amazing.
As for choosing a side and fighting, I don't choose sides. If I were compelled to fight, I would probably do it or choose death. But I don't choose sides. I do not finally even know whether the wars we've seen in the last 100 years are necessary. Some people obviously think they are. As I said many times, the soldiers in the trenches don't see what the general on the hill sees. So, while I don't personally like war because I've seen it, I do not have the knowledge to decide in any absolute way what this planet needs for the survival of our species. Nor am I attached to that survival. As for Americans not being convicted of war crimes in large numbers, I think even you should be able to see that this does not mean that they aren't guilty. At the end of WWII, the war crimes trials were conducted by the winners of the war, not the losers, and even then, it was just an excellent P.R. move. If a scientist had expertise we needed, then it didn't matter what crimes he had committed--he was shipped to the U.S. to give that expertise to the U.S. My physics teacher in high school told me he'd have the choice to stand trial for war crimes or go to America and do what he was told. He said that had he not been able to escape, he'd have chosen death rather than do for America what he had done for Germany--not because he didn't like America, but because he didn't want to be guilty of such crimes yet one more time. --- "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why is it so difficult to accept this, Willitex? > You > > > want to win the war we're in at the moment. > > > > It's the enemy that is terrorizing the civilian > population, > that's why we are fighting the terrorists. It's not > really > difficult to accept, Angela. You have to decide what > side > you are on and then fight. > > > > Do you think there is a remote chance that this > can be > > > done without terrorizing the civilian > population? > > > Probably not, as long as the radical Islamists keep > fighting > a war against the civilians. > > "One thing should be clear: If there is no Qassam > (rocket) > fire on Israel, there will be no Israeli attack on > Gaza," > Olmert says, according to Reuters. "We do not rise > in the > morning and think about how to attack Gaza." > > 'Israel says it won't attack Gaza if rocket attacks > cease' > USA Today, March 4, 2008 > http://tinyurl.com/25z7ov > > Bhairitu wrote: > > And Willy never defines what "winning the war" is? > > > Winning is preventing attacks by killing your > enemies > first. It's basic self-defense strategy. We must win > > the war in Afghanistan to prevent a resurgent > Taliban. > Apparently you don't even know who your enemies are. > > "If historians are not to look back on early 2008 as > > the time when the west "lost" Afghanistan, then > action > is required. But what to do?" > > Read more: > > 'Don't abandon Afghanistan' > By Daniel Korski > Guardian, March 5, 2008 > http://tinyurl.com/2l2eqm > > > Or how you determine that the war has been won? > > > When you're still alive and the enemy calls for a > truce? > > > And what exactly is "the war" anyway? > > > Obviously you don't have all the answers. > > > Is it the war to occupy Iraq? > > > No, the war was declared on the U.S. by the > terrorists > such as Osama bin Laden - the U.S. has not declared > a > war on anyone. Most of your congressional leaders > gave > the President the authority to use force to unseat > the > Saddam regime. > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
