Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Is reconciliation with the Taliban possible?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1784362" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>It is an illogical extension of YOUR ridiculous argument, not mine. I was stating that if a nation expects to be free of unprovoked attacks by evil men, they might need to retaliate using measures that ANY sane person would find abhorrent. Using "sterile" forms of warfare and so-called "limited warfare" is a surefire method to entice evil men into further attacks, thereby prolonging war and by extension, making it far less humane. "War is hell" as William Tecumseh Sherman said. I also find considerable merit in his reply letter to the city council of Atlanta in 1864:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As contentious as the peace between the North and South may be still yet, it pales in comparison to any sort of "peace" we may broker with barbaric savages such as the Taliban. No unconquered enemy combatant will ever respect you. I propose that we break any and all contact with them, as nothing positive will ever come of it. Barring that logical choice (and I'm not sure why we'd ever want to do so), I contend that we should march into their enclaves with the complete and unrestrained might of the United States war machine, and we should not stop until they choose either the complete and unconditional surrender of a truly vanquished foe, or their own annihilation. Their choice. </p><p></p><p>Respect is earned and we've done nothing of the sort.</p><p></p><p>Apparently you misinterpreted what I wrote if you're suggesting that not allowing evil terrorist attackers to hide behind women and children is the moral equivalent of gassing Jewish females and children, instead of simply killing innocent Jewish male non-combatants. My bad for assuming that English Comp 101 was a prerequisite for a Doctorate of Jurisprudence I guess? <img src="/images/smilies/rolleyes2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rolleyes2" title="Rolleyes2 :rolleyes2" data-shortname=":rolleyes2" /></p><p></p><p>P.S. Since you're a paid, professional master debater, I was merely using an honorific commensurate with your status. Why, does it bother you? If it does, rest assured that I will use it early and often! Don't be offended dear sir, it's merely my cantankerous nature. A leopard would more readily change it's own spots! <img src="/images/smilies/biggrin.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1784362, member: 1132"] It is an illogical extension of YOUR ridiculous argument, not mine. I was stating that if a nation expects to be free of unprovoked attacks by evil men, they might need to retaliate using measures that ANY sane person would find abhorrent. Using "sterile" forms of warfare and so-called "limited warfare" is a surefire method to entice evil men into further attacks, thereby prolonging war and by extension, making it far less humane. "War is hell" as William Tecumseh Sherman said. I also find considerable merit in his reply letter to the city council of Atlanta in 1864: As contentious as the peace between the North and South may be still yet, it pales in comparison to any sort of "peace" we may broker with barbaric savages such as the Taliban. No unconquered enemy combatant will ever respect you. I propose that we break any and all contact with them, as nothing positive will ever come of it. Barring that logical choice (and I'm not sure why we'd ever want to do so), I contend that we should march into their enclaves with the complete and unrestrained might of the United States war machine, and we should not stop until they choose either the complete and unconditional surrender of a truly vanquished foe, or their own annihilation. Their choice. Respect is earned and we've done nothing of the sort. Apparently you misinterpreted what I wrote if you're suggesting that not allowing evil terrorist attackers to hide behind women and children is the moral equivalent of gassing Jewish females and children, instead of simply killing innocent Jewish male non-combatants. My bad for assuming that English Comp 101 was a prerequisite for a Doctorate of Jurisprudence I guess? :rolleyes2 P.S. Since you're a paid, professional master debater, I was merely using an honorific commensurate with your status. Why, does it bother you? If it does, rest assured that I will use it early and often! Don't be offended dear sir, it's merely my cantankerous nature. A leopard would more readily change it's own spots! :D [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Is reconciliation with the Taliban possible?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom