About 9/11

[sploo]

Yes, Getting the viewpoint of a man who visited the country several times is a bad idea, got it. Once again, you are making another assumption.

I have talked to military personel, business people, and others who have been there in the recent past.

My assumption that your information came from one person is therefore incorrect, and I apologise. However, I based that understanding on your own words:

It was a member of your House of Lords who was the source of my information, not any member of the US Government.

I have no doubt your colleague is sincere and honest, but I myself have travelled to many countries and feel it would be very difficult to make a serious assessment of the state of a country (the mind of the people, political issues, recent history etc.) from what are short visits.

I'd place more credence on the thoughts of those spending significant time in a country, or in this case, having spent their lives familiar with the Arab world - such as some of those in the links I previously posted.

In the run up to action in Iraq, it appeared to me that any expert on the area (not employed by the US or UK governments) was predicting significant problems with an invasion. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that Iraq is more a collection of tribes than a country (see: Mesopotamia, and British interference).

Returning to one of my earlier points, about the need for Americans to expand their view of the world; there was an interesting article in a UK paper this weekend. The paper is a right-wing leaning publication, and generally pro-American.

The article was by Max Hastings, an experienced journalist, with a particular interest in military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hastings

In the article, he makes a less than positive assessment of Bush/Rumsfeld, but what interested me was his discussion with a prominent businessman in Pennsylvania, who was talking about Flight 93 (the one in which the passengers fought back):

"For me, 9/11 changed everything. I will support anything that our President feels is necessary, to win the war on terrorism. We cannot allow these people to destroy our society. We had to go into Iraq and punish those responsible for bringing such misery upon us."

Hastings notes that this is a sentiment that an amazing number of Americans would echo. However, he then writes:

"This is a clever, highly successful man. Yet words will be wasted, telling him that every intelligence officer agrees that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11; that Iraq since 2003 has proved a fantastic recruiting ground for new terrorists, rather than a killing ground for old ones.
My acquaintance possessing a sure, blind faith in the wisdom of the President of the United States, believes Bush's lies."

 

[craigsub]

My assumption that your information came from one person is therefore incorrect, and I apologise. However, I based that understanding on your own words:

I have no doubt your colleague is sincere and honest, but I myself have travelled to many countries and feel it would be very difficult to make a serious assessment of the state of a country (the mind of the people, political issues, recent history etc.) from what are short visits.

I'd place more credence on the thoughts of those spending significant time in a country, or in this case, having spent their lives familiar with the Arab world - such as some of those in the links I previously posted.

In the run up to action in Iraq, it appeared to me that any expert on the area (not employed by the US or UK governments) was predicting significant problems with an invasion. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that Iraq is more a collection of tribes than a country (see: Mesopotamia, and British interference).

Returning to one of my earlier points, about the need for Americans to expand their view of the world; there was an interesting article in a UK paper this weekend. The paper is a right-wing leaning publication, and generally pro-American.

The article was by Max Hastings, an experienced journalist, with a particular interest in military history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hastings

In the article, he makes a less than positive assessment of Bush/Rumsfeld, but what interested me was his discussion with a prominent businessman in Pennsylvania, who was talking about Flight 93 (the one in which the passengers fought back):

"For me, 9/11 changed everything. I will support anything that our President feels is necessary, to win the war on terrorism. We cannot allow these people to destroy our society. We had to go into Iraq and punish those responsible for bringing such misery upon us."

Hastings notes that this is a sentiment that an amazing number of Americans would echo. However, he then writes:

"This is a clever, highly successful man. Yet words will be wasted, telling him that every intelligence officer agrees that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11; that Iraq since 2003 has proved a fantastic recruiting ground for new terrorists, rather than a killing ground for old ones.
My acquaintance possessing a sure, blind faith in the wisdom of the President of the United States, believes Bush's lies."

Sploo ... I gave the example of the person from the British House of Lords because you, in your worldly wisdom, had taken me to task for believing the lies of my government. If you really wish to turn this into an "I know more people in the Middle East than you do" contest, fine.

One good friend of mine spends 6 months each year in the Middle East, and another close friend's wife is Jordanian, and she spends one month here, and the next in her native country. I can give a few dozen examples of others with whom I have spoken, but that is enough. You love to talk about how Americans think. That points to your own combination of arrogance and ignorance.

You just don't see Americans preaching to others how they need to be more worldy, and quite frankly, people like you are boring.

Since you linked to some "facts", here are some factual rebuttals:

Let us examine the MYTH about American's belief that Hussein was involved in 9/11.

The Washington Post reported, in 2003, that 69 % of Americans believed that Iraq was involved in planning 9/11.

If you look at the poll, though, it was the way question was framed, along with how the poll was taken. 1003 Adults were phoned, and asked this question ... "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks?"

You were given four choices ... Very Likely, Somewhat likely, Not very likely, or Not at all.

You also had the word "involved" used ... involved, According to the American Heritage Dictionary, means this "to take part or be implicated in ".

In our language, the Post's use of involved is an interesting choice of words. Involved could mean, in this case, that Hussein had ever had any dealings with Al Quaeda.

In the poll, "Not at all" is the only absolute, yet the poll results were presented to the public as if it was a "yes or no" question. The fact is, at no time did 69% of people say "Yes, Hussein was responsible or had a role for 9/11".

In the poll, 65% said somewhat, not very, or not at all. In America, when one says "somewhat", it means at most "50-50". Not very or not at all means minimal or zero.

In this poll, only 32 % of those responding said Hussein was "likely" to have been involved.

Yet, the Washington Post twisted the Poll's results. It was reported as

Nearing the second anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks

So - We have not one person saying "Yes, Hussein was had a role in 9/11" in the poll, as that was never asked as a yes or no question, but the Post reports that "seven in 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a role in the attacks"

The Washington Post lied twice.They changed "involved" into "had a role" and made it out that saying it was likely/somewhat likely into a YES.

The poll is totally flawed, and is a complete distortion of what Americans really think.

The next MYTH is that Bush convinced the American people of Hussein's involvement ...

Here are a few gems which has been a consistent mantra from those who love to repeat the "Bush's Lies" theory ....

Myth #1. Bush said the "threat from Iraq was imminent".

His actual words were

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent.

Myth #2. Bush said "Iraq was responsible for 9/11"

Actual words were

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes

It is easy to make up "quotes" from people. It is much harder to prove these quotes. However, anyone who wishes to can easily google "2003 State of the Union Address", and read the actual, exact words that President Bush said.

In your most recent post, you cite Max Hastings as writing for a right wing paper ...

The paper is a right-wing leaning publication, and generally pro-American.

The article was by Max Hastings, an experienced journalist, with a particular interest in military history:

Yet, in an article written by Mr. Hastings in The Guardian in May, 2005 he says ...

It seems wrong for neocons or liberal sceptics to rush to judgment. We of the latter persuasion must keep reciting the mantra: "We want Iraq to come right, even if this vindicates George Bush."

By "We of the latter persuasion", Mr. Hastings is clearly labeling himself as a liberal. So much for your reference of "right wing".

You come up with a nameless "prominent businessman from Pennsylvania" as some form of "proof" of your position. The link you provide goes to a series of Max Hasting's credentials, but does not have anything from this "prominent businessman". Interestingly, I happen to live in Pennsylvania, and I know of no one who is convinced that Hussein was behind 9/11.

In the almost five years since 9/11, I have never had a conversation with anyone who thought Hussein was part of the 9/11 "plot".

Sploo, it is pretty clear that you hold Americans in low regard.

Please allow me to reciprocate. I, as do most Americans, consider The UK to be a great country, and do not blame your country for your ignorance of the reality of what the U.S. is, or how its citizens think.

 

[Tsunamii]

What I think most people miss is that with the exceptions of fundamentalist we all have the same goals and in that is the problem. Most of us want to provide a good safe life for our families and hope that they can have things a little better then we did and so on. Though with fundamentalist they have different goals and if you don’t like what they have to say they will kill you and your families. Regards if you are a Clinton or Bush fan a Liberal or Dem an African or a Dutch most want these basic things and would not think about harming others if they don’t agree.
That is why I think we need to bomb, shoot, stab, kick and punch every fundamentalist we can and the more we kill the better. In my book anyway.

 

[sploo]

...If you really wish to turn this into an "I know more people in the Middle East than you do" contest, fine.

If you re-read my post you'll see that my point was precisely the opposite; information must come from those with a real understanding of the situation.

I would however claim to be able to piece together many years worth of information to get an overall picture of the situation and issues of the area.

One good friend of mine spends 6 months each year in the Middle East, and another close friend's wife is Jordanian, and she spends one month here, and the next in her native country. I can give a few dozen examples of others with whom I have spoken, but that is enough. You love to talk about how Americans think. That points to your own combination of arrogance and ignorance.

Not quite. It points to me searching for information from those whose job it is to know about these areas, and not need to use combatitive or derogatory language in a discussion.

You just don't see Americans preaching to others how they need to be more worldy, and quite frankly, people like you are boring.

I'll ignore another rather pointless personal jibe, and comment on how I see Americans below.

Since you linked to some "facts", here are some factual rebuttals:...

What you have described sounds like a poorly conducted poll, of which there are many. However, would you not concede that nearly 1/3 of those questioned thinking that Iraqi involvement was "likely" is alarmingly high (given the facts present). I am of course assuming that a reliable cross section of the population was questioned. If you believe the poll was poorly conducted then this may not be the case.

The next MYTH is that Bush convinced the American people of Hussein's involvement ...

An interesting point, as I recall seeing many news reports where high level members of the government (Bush/Rumsfeld... don't recall Cheney) talked about the 9/11 attacks and Iraq in the same sentences.

Very cleverly not actually saying there was a link, but the inference was very strong, certainly for anyone that didn't know otherwise.

By "We of the latter persuasion", Mr. Hastings is clearly labeling himself as a liberal. So much for your reference of "right wing".

I believe I said "the paper is a right-wing leaning publication". I don't recall making any comments about Hastings’s personal politics.

That he writes for a number of publications, including the Guardian, is something I'd consider as a positive note. My point was that his words appeared in a right-wing/pro-US paper, which was something of a surprise given their strong nature.

You come up with a nameless "prominent businessman from Pennsylvania" as some form of "proof" of your position. The link you provide goes to a series of Max Hasting's credentials, but does not have anything from this "prominent businessman".

I gave that information, because that was what was contained in the article I quoted. No more or less than that.

I believe that Hastings was trying to make the point that this was an intelligent individual, and would therefore have been expected to make a more rational judgement on the information he was given.

Interestingly, I happen to live in Pennsylvania, and I know of no one who is convinced that Hussein was behind 9/11.

Very good to hear.

Sploo, it is pretty clear that you hold Americans in low regard.

I would make a clear distinction between the American people, and their governments.

In my travels (and even here in the UK) I've found Americans to be some of the warmest and most friendly people I've met. Additionally, when you look at the technological and scientific achievements of the country, it's clear there's a huge base of talented and skilled individuals.

What I object to is the way in which US governments use their people's sense of right and wrong - condensing complex situations into simplistic good vs. bad arguments. Especially when the government always claims to be the good guys.

Using a wave of patriotic fervour and threats of 'evil people' they hide numerous criminal activities (overthrowing legally elected governments, assassinations, installing puppet dictators, funding/arming/training terrorist groups, and frequently making plenty of money for their friends in the weapons and energy industries).

As a result of this, it's usually the American people who bear the brunt of the government's actions - either through being targets abroad, or giving their lives as soldiers when they sincerely and genuinely believe they're fighting for their country.

I truly believe that if Americans knew what their governments were doing they'd be disgusted.

Unfortunately, until this happens, men like Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush will continue to get elected, and given America's military and economic superiority, will continue to do what they want, to whom they want, when they want. And that's bad news for all of us.


PS Have a look at the politics of fear, and a great example into hypocrisy (today's terrorist is so often yesterday's "freedom fighter" - that we armed):

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5277 (three 1 hour programs)

 

[Tsunamii]

"I truly believe that if Americans knew what their governments were doing they'd be disgusted.

Unfortunately, until this happens, men like Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush will continue to get elected, and given America's military and economic superiority, will continue to do what they want, to whom they want, when they want. And that's bad news for all of us."


We didn’t start it but we will end it. The biggest offense that is regularly touted is our relationship with Israel.
Why should a sovereign nation have to listen to others on who we can be friends with and who we can’t?
Why is it our fault that corrupt governments that have enormous wealth walk on their people?
It was not the US that colonized these regions, it was the Brits. It was not the US who colonized Vietnam it was the French. So why is it all our fault?
Why should we apologize for being attacked?
Why should I care about a people who help their neighbors carry out homicidal attacks (not suicide its homicide)?
Like fleas on a dog, eradicate them and all sympathizers to them and their way of life.
Why should I care about a people who pervert a religion for their own needs?
I am sick of people telling me how bad the US Government is when we have been giving more Aid to more people for a longer period of time then any other Government. That aid has turned into this welfare mentality that they deserve it; they have a right to it. Nonsense.
Our biggest problem in my eyes is that we didn’t level both Iraq and Afghan to start and when we were done blowing things up and kicking in doors we should leave. If after we left and the next government that forms in the ensuing political vacuum acts hostile towards the US then we wipe them out too.

 

[BMO]

Like fleas on a dog, eradicate them and all sympathizers to them and their way of life.


Our biggest problem in my eyes is that we didn’t level both Iraq and Afghan to start and when we were done blowing things up and kicking in doors we should leave. If after we left and the next government that forms in the ensuing political vacuum acts hostile towards the US then we wipe them out too.[/QUOTE]

Amen Brother!!

The reason we are still over there trying to make peace is because we didn't make a strong enough statement the 1st time around !
As far as trusting in our Government, be it Republican or Democratic controled, Hell no!!
I think our forefathers warned us about government, then gave us a constitution to throttle and control it .
Problem is we are so into Republican Vs Democrate, that both parties will take advantage of any situation to gain more control over there existance.. ( like this war) For all the Anti war BS aginst Bush, where was the outrage when Clinton Bombed a sovriegn nation that never poseed any threat to the USA.? Serbia!! Why was that justified yet our involvement in Iraq is questioned as criminal.

For us living and serving our country durring the 60's and 70's, these discussions remind me of some not so peaceful anti-war orgs.Weatherman, SDS, Black Panthers.There out there still, just waiting for division ,waiting, not to help this nation, but destroy it.They've been without a ruder since the colapse of the USSR.If you doubt it, listen to the "acccepted" political talk at most Universities.Spewing all there Marxist poison, wearing there Mao T shirts.
As the father of a Harvard grad, ( I only have a 10 th grade education.)I went to his graduation festivities. My mother, in her late 70's was so shocked at the marxist speaches that we had to leave early as to not put her into cardiac arrest.It was a shameful exibition of young minds gone to crap.No real dirrection in life but to destroy that which is within reach. It would be safe to say, that had Stallin been running for president, most of the students there would have campaigned for him. These types are exactly why we should reinstate the draft.At least the Military training they'll get, will be of better use than there so called education, to society.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

As the father of a Harvard grad, ( I only have a 10 th grade education.)I went to his graduation festivities. ..... It would be safe to say, that had Stallin been running for president, most of the students there would have campaigned for him. These types are exactly why we should reinstate the draft.At least the Military training they'll get, will be of better use than there so called education, to society.

You honestly think Harvard league students are going to be drafted into military service? The draft is for poor children who can't afford to get a cooked physical from a doctor or move to Canada for three years.

 

[craigsub]

You honestly think Harvard league students are going to be drafted into military service? The draft is for poor children who can't afford to get a cooked physical from a doctor or move to Canada for three years.

If the draft was reinstated, yes, Harvard students would be eligible.

However, we don't currently have a draft, we have an all volunteer force.

 

[craigsub]

Sploo, it is pretty amusing to have someone from England lecturing about what other governments are doing.

That being said, it is pretty clear you know nothing about what does or does not go on in our government.

As a suggestion, Why not watch some Michael Moore movies, I am sure they will make you feel better.

 

[sjdgpt]

If the draft was reinstated, yes, Harvard students would be eligible.

Eligible does not mean they will hafta serve.

In many countries military service is mandatory. And if you are really rich you might have to serve in the entertainment or accounting brigrade. The rest of us, or people like us, get to be the cannon fodder.

 

[BMO]

Eligible does not mean they will hafta serve.

In many countries military service is mandatory. And if you are really rich you might have to serve in the entertainment or accounting brigrade. The rest of us, or people like us, get to be the cannon fodder.

Know I'm not rich, and my son has some friends from school serving today, who's parents were rich. ( at least to my humble wages)
It was JFK who re instated the draft durring his presidency, who decided if a young man was going to a school of higher education, he would not be drafted.( the champion of the little guy, right!).
And since when did wealth equate to a non sense of responsibility to ones country. I think it has more to do with one being a spoiled .

 

[nibhaz]

Know I'm not rich, and my son has some friends from school serving today, who's parents were rich. ( at least to my humble wages)
It was JFK who re instated the draft durring his presidency, who decided if a young man was going to a school of higher education, he would not be drafted.( the champion of the little guy, right!).
And since when did wealth equate to a non sense of responsibility to ones country. I think it has more to do with one being a spoiled .

For most, the true sense of responsibility to one’s country is a lost ideal of yester year. For many of those serving in uniform to today it was need that put them there. The honor and sense of responsibility is often something that was learned and honed after time in the uniformed services. A sense of duty is something that is seriously lacking in today’s society. A draft is not the answer, but then again I can not offer a better solution to the problem.

 

[Sheep]

Anyone remember the 100th southpark episode?

Skeeter: I'm a little bit country.
Randy: Well I'm a little bit rock-n-roll!
Skeeter: I'm a little for supportin' our troops.
Randy: And I'm a little for bringin' them home.
Skeeter: I believe freedom isn't free.
Randy: No, but war shouldn't be our goal.
Skeeter: We must defend our country.
Randy: If it means war, then we say NO!
Skeeter: Did you forget them towers in New York?
Did you forget how it made you feel
To see them towers come down?
Were you like me? Did you think it weren't real?
Randy: I like to rock, but I don't wanna rock Iraq!
The only kind of rockin' America should do is the kind that we can all dance to, yeah!
Skeeter: We got GPS, ICBMs, and good old-fashioned lead.
We're gonna show Saddam what America means; that son of a ***** will be dead.
Randy: Why are we fightin' this war?
There's a man in the office we didn't vote for.
They didn't give me a choice.
War is not my voice! Yeaaaaahhhh!


SheepStar

 

[craigsub]

For most, the true sense of responsibility to one’s country is a lost ideal of yester year. For many of those serving in uniform to today it was need that put them there. The honor and sense of responsibility is often something that was learned and honed after time in the uniformed services. A sense of duty is something that is seriously lacking in today’s society. A draft is not the answer, but then again I can not offer a better solution to the problem.

I always get a chuckle out of people who think that saying "This group of people went into the military out of need". And nibhaz, even though I quoted you, this is not directed at you. Some thoughts :

1. Within the lower to middle class, everyone takes some job out of need. The guy working for General Electric needs that job.

2. I personally know over 30 people who have served in the military, including a sister, two brothers in law, best friend from high school, and four friends from college . None of them signed up out of need - they easily could have gotten jobs outside the military.

3. In the US, at any given time, over 80% of all millionaires are self made, first generation, millionaires. This means 20% inherited it or won the lotto. 80% took some risks, went out, started businesses, and earned it.

4. 130 women/children were not raped and killed in Iraq today. 47 men were not executed in Iraq today. Those were the averages in the last three years of the Hussein regime. Imagine the headlines if 177 people each day were being killed.

 

[BMO]

"The honor and sense of responsibility is often something that was learned and honed after time in the uniformed services."

Thats the best reason why a draft or mandatory service is a good idea.
Taking the young and placing them, from all walks of life, together working toward comon goals, no matter there parents political leanings, is a good start to a sense of responsibility.
If everybody had a dog in the fight, we'd be more aware exactly what the rules are, and who's making them.We would demand the fastest resolution to our battles, not the most humane.

 

[Buckle-meister]

If everybody had a dog in the fight, we'd be more aware exactly what the rules are, and who's making them.We would demand the fastest resolution to our battles, not the most humane.

The fastest way to resolve your battles would surely be simply to nuke your 'enemy' would it not?

 

[nibhaz]

I always get a chuckle out of people who think that saying "This group of people went into the military out of need". And nibhaz, even though I quoted you, this is not directed at you. Some thoughts :

1. Within the lower to middle class, everyone takes some job out of need. The guy working for General Electric needs that job.

2. I personally know over 30 people who have served in the military, including a sister, two brothers in law, best friend from high school, and four friends from college . None of them signed up out of need - they easily could have gotten jobs outside the military.

3. In the US, at any given time, over 80% of all millionaires are self made, first generation, millionaires. This means 20% inherited it or won the lotto. 80% took some risks, went out, started businesses, and earned it.

4. 130 women/children were not raped and killed in Iraq today. 47 men were not executed in Iraq today. Those were the averages in the last three years of the Hussein regime. Imagine the headlines if 177 people each day were being killed.

craigsub,

If all of your friends and family members joined purely out of a since of duty, then they are the exception, but not the rule. For many, the military becomes an option or opportunity because they have made a mistake of some sort, rather it be legal or financial. I’m not suggesting that the military is these people’s only option, but rather it becomes a good option based on their needs. Spend a day in your local recruiter’s office and you’ll see what I mean.

In response to bullet three…Exactly, the need for money to attend college or to gain technical training that can be applied in the civilian world is often another factor that motivates people to join the uniformed services. They believe in the American dream and are taking the initiative to better themselves. This is great as long as they know they risk. Nothing is more frustrating than listening to someone say they only joined for the college money and didn’t anticipate getting deployed; even more frustrating is the fact that these same people are often those who are the most incompetent in basic soldiering task. But that is another topic all together.

In response to bullet four… we're pretty much on the same side you can read some of my thoughts here, here.

 

[craigsub]

craigsub,

If all of your friends and family members joined purely out of a since of duty, then they are the exception, but not the rule. For many, the military becomes an option or opportunity because they have made a mistake of some sort, rather it be legal or financial. I’m not suggesting that the military is these people’s only option, but rather it becomes a good option based on their needs. Spend a day in your local recruiter’s office and you’ll see what I mean.

In response to bullet three…Exactly, the need for money to attend college or to gain technical training that can be applied in the civilian world is often another factor that motivates people to join the uniformed services. They believe in the American dream and are taking the initiative to better themselves. This is great as long as they know they risk. Nothing is more frustrating than listening to someone say they only joined for the college money and didn’t anticipate getting deployed; even more frustrating is the fact that these same people are often those who are the most incompetent in basic soldiering task. But that is another topic all together.

In response to bullet four… we're pretty much on the same side you can read some of my thoughts here, here.

My older sister, who is now an ER nurse, graduated from Penn State in 1978. She joined the Navy, and spent from 1988 until 2002 workin in recruiting stations in Cincinatti, Ohio ...Carlisle, Pennsylvania... and Watervliet, New York. She has 15 years in military recruiting, and would tend to disagree with your position in regards to whom signs up.

You really need to re-read what I posted, against what others have said. It has been said that "need" is the reason people go into the military, and that those signing up have no other options in life.

That, my friend, is just plain not true.

 

[nibhaz]

Thats the best reason why a draft or mandatory service is a good idea.
Taking the young and placing them, from all walks of life, together working toward comon goals, no matter there parents political leanings, is a good start to a sense of responsibility.
If everybody had a dog in the fight, we'd be more aware exactly what the rules are, and who's making them.We would demand the fastest resolution to our battles, not the most humane.

Though this would teach a great many a proper since of duty, I question whether or not I could trust someone with my life if I knew if they were not there by choice. However, I suppose the basic need of support for survival would help to build a true sense of duty towards your fellow citizens.

Another alternative is a proper history lesson that shows the good, the bad, and the ugly. Something that drives home the fact that so much blood, sweat, and tears has been sacrificed to create the world we live in today. Unfortunately such a lesson would have to be rated R, and how dare we expose our little darlings to anything unwholesome

 

[nibhaz]

The fastest way to resolve your battles would surely be simply to nuke your 'enemy' would it not?

You know as well as I that nukes, may be the fastest, but not realistic, form of resolution. I believe that BMO was implying the use of the nonpolitically correct concept of total war. General Carl Von Clausewitz clearly states the means by which to win a war is by breaking the enemies will or means to make war. This can be done with conventional weapons…it’s just not pretty, nor “fair.”