FT. Hood Revisited

Someone just sent me this link. OMH, this could have been prevented.

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?aid=11991

I am sure I will get flamed for this as being radical but I have said from the first missile strike against Iraq in Bushs' so called shock and awe that those that declared themselves Islamist or were of Arab descent should have beeen given a choice of being reassigned to administrative positions or be discharged from the military. Civilians of Arab descent should have been deported or detained in concentration camps. Surely most could be trusted to be loyal however there is no reliable method to sort the loyalists from the traitors. This is one case where I would support a death sentence and it should be carried out summarily.

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

Surely most could be trusted to be loyal however there is no reliable method to sort the loyalists from the traitors.

Ain't that the truth!!

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

I am sure I will get flamed for this as being radical but I have said from the first missile strike against Iraq in Bushs' so called shock and awe that those that declared themselves Islamist or were of Arab descent should have beeen given a choice of being reassigned to administrative positions or be discharged from the military. Civilians of Arab descent should have been deported or detained in concentration camps. Surely most could be trusted to be loyal however there is no reliable method to sort the loyalists from the traitors. This is one case where I would support a death sentence and it should be carried out summarily.

A better and more reasonable act would have not dropped the first bomb in the first place. Then we wouldn't have people discussing destroying the Constitution by singling out individuals based on religion/race.

proutdoors wrote:

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

I am sure I will get flamed for this as being radical but I have said from the first missile strike against Iraq in Bushs' so called shock and awe that those that declared themselves Islamist or were of Arab descent should have beeen given a choice of being reassigned to administrative positions or be discharged from the military. Civilians of Arab descent should have been deported or detained in concentration camps. Surely most could be trusted to be loyal however there is no reliable method to sort the loyalists from the traitors. This is one case where I would support a death sentence and it should be carried out summarily.

A better and more reasonable act would have not dropped the first bomb in the first place. Then we wouldn't have people discussing destroying the Constitution by singling out individuals based on religion/race.

I agree it would have been more reasonable to not enter Iraq in the first place however after that choice was made then other actions should have been taken toreduce and or eliminate damage by traitors in our midst. It was the right thing during WWII and it was/is the right thing today IMO.

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

I agree it would have been more reasonable to not enter Iraq in the first place however after that choice was made then other actions should have been taken toreduce and or eliminate damage by traitors in our midst. It was the right thing during WWII and it was/is the right thing today IMO.

Are you drunk? You'd really round up an entire people? Land of the free? Home of the brave? Don't be such a coward.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether."

Trooper wrote:

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

I agree it would have been more reasonable to not enter Iraq in the first place however after that choice was made then other actions should have been taken toreduce and or eliminate damage by traitors in our midst. It was the right thing during WWII and it was/is the right thing today IMO.

Are you drunk? You'd really round up an entire people? Land of the free? Home of the brave? Don't be such a coward.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether."

While I think l2 is wrong, I think you are way out of line to call him a coward!

luv2fsh&hnt, we were WRONG to round up the Japanese Americans in WWII, and we were WRONG to round up German Americans in WWI, and it would be incredibly WRONG to round up Arab Americans because we CHOSE to preemptively attack TWO foreign nations. The majority, it is safe to say 99+%, of Arab/Muslim Americans are peaceful and pose no more threat to this nation than you/I do. Detention camps is one SMALL step away from Martial Law, and I doubt you want that. Putting American CITIZENS in detention camps for ANY reason is tyranny at its worst. Just as The Patriot Act is a HUGE mistake, as it was enacted under the guise of 'protecting' us from our enemies. This 'safety' that was gained by taking liberty from EVERY American citizen is an illusion. So is the 'safety' gained by having us take our shoes off in order to board a plane.

Trooper wrote:

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

I agree it would have been more reasonable to not enter Iraq in the first place however after that choice was made then other actions should have been taken toreduce and or eliminate damage by traitors in our midst. It was the right thing during WWII and it was/is the right thing today IMO.

Are you drunk? You'd really round up an entire people? Land of the free? Home of the brave? Don't be such a coward.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether."

No I am not drunk. Fact of the matter is I believe that Islamists even those that live here and appear to have assimilated to the American way of life at the very best have a split allegiance and at the worst would stop at nothing to assist in the destruction of the USA. We know for a fact there are extremists living in our midst. While it certainly is distasteful to do so I believe it is also a necessary action. It is because of the thinking that we were wrong in WWI or WWII that America has found nothing but embarrasment and humiliation in every armed conflict we have entered since. We have the best equipped,most technologically advanced,and best trained military in the world but we are also the least feared because the world over knows we lack the intestinal fortitude to use that power to defeat any enemies even those that still live in the stone age. I am speaking of the civilian population and the politicians not our soldiers and sailors. Mark my words we will withdraw from the middle east just like we did in Vietnam an Korea in utter embarrasment and humiliation. War is an extreme situation that creates an unusual set of cirumstances that at times require distasteful actions that go against ones core beliefs and principals. As far as calling me a coward Trooper I will let that one go because while you sat in a garrison and rubbed shoulders with officers in the JAG office I was in the bush doing things that to this day the govt denies happened and most people only have nightmares about. I have never ran from or backed down from a fight. Until about three months ago it had been close to ten years since I had been in a physical altercation but found myself in a situation that required such when a friend was attacked and knocked out. I ended up in a brawl where 3 of the 5 required medical treatment 1 ran away and the other was carried to his vehicle by two women. I ended up with broke ribs on my left side cracked ribs on my right side and a broken nose. I am not a violent man but I am not afraid of it either. Please do not ever make a statement even close to even inferring I am a coward again otherwise I will make it a personal mission to seek you out and prove I am not! Your quote from Ben Franklin is used out of context.

Good post L2FNH.

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

No I am not drunk. Fact of the matter is I believe that Islamists even those that live here and appear to have assimilated to the American way of life at the very best have a split allegiance and at the worst would stop at nothing to assist in the destruction of the USA. We know for a fact there are extremists living in our midst. While it certainly is distasteful to do so I believe it is also a necessary action. It is because of the thinking that we were wrong in WWI or WWII that America has found nothing but embarrasment and humiliation in every armed conflict we have entered since. We have the best equipped,most technologically advanced,and best trained military in the world but we are also the least feared because the world over knows we lack the intestinal fortitude to use that power to defeat any enemies even those that still live in the stone age. I am speaking of the civilian population and the politicians not our soldiers and sailors. Mark my words we will withdraw from the middle east just like we did in Vietnam an Korea in utter embarrasment and humiliation. War is an extreme situation that creates an unusual set of cirumstances that at times require distasteful actions that go against ones core beliefs and principals. As far as calling me a coward Trooper I will let that one go because while you sat in a garrison and rubbed shoulders with officers in the JAG office I was in the bush doing things that to this day the govt denies happened and most people only have nightmares about. I have never ran from or backed down from a fight. Until about three months ago it had been close to ten years since I had been in a physical altercation but found myself in a situation that required such when a friend was attacked and knocked out. I ended up in a brawl where 3 of the 5 required medical treatment 1 ran away and the other was carried to his vehicle by two women. I ended up with broke ribs on my left side cracked ribs on my right side and a broken nose. I am not a violent man but I am not afraid of it either. Please do not ever make a statement even close to even inferring I am a coward again otherwise I will make it a personal mission to seek you out and prove I am not! Your quote from Ben Franklin is used out of context.

I regret making the personal attack, I shouldn't have done that. Yet, based on the repugnant course of action you have outlined, I stand by my statement that you, sir, are a coward. Incarceration of American citizens, without trial, because of their choice in religion is anathema to the American Constitution- a Constitution that you swore an oath “to protect and defend.”

A coward debases and humiliates himself when, for fear of the enemy, he acquiesces to the will of that enemy. Our national courage is displayed precisely because we know extremists live in our midst yet we proceed to live up to our ideals- difficult though that may be. The Islamist extremists want us to attack Islam- so reach down, grab your sack, and don’t give in to them.

By all means, prove me wrong on this; show me that you are still up to honoring your oath. One last thing before I forget; that was an exciting story of your recent altercation. I don’t really know why you included it in our little discussion, but it was a good story and it would have been cool to watch you kick 5 guys’ asses.

I hope your ribs (both left and right side) and nose heal well.

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

War is an extreme situation that creates an unusual set of cirumstances that at times require distasteful actions that go against ones core beliefs and principals.

Yes, to varying degrees — especially if the war is important enough that winning makes it worth temporarily setting aside our core beliefs and principles.

World War II was mostly certainly that important since it was a fight for survival, but Iraq? Viet Nam?

The Vietnam War cost the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties. It also resulted in the estimated deaths of a million Vietnamese. And for what? The North Vietnamese won, and it didn't really make a bit of difference to the world or our place in it? We could have stayed home, saved trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and had the same outcome.

Iraq? It was arguably better off under Saddam Hussein than it is now. The people there are seemingly incapable of governing themselves democratically, and my prediction is that left to take its own course, within ten years, Iraq will once again be ruled by another strong man dictatorship.

The U.S. has this arrogant notion that it somehow has the right and responsibility to interfere and meddle in everyone else's conflicts around the globe. As a result, we're constantly finding ourselves involved in wasteful wars that ultimately do more harm than good, squander our resources and our soldiers' lives.

Luv2fsh&hnt, are you seriously suggesting that we pull out all the stops to win wars of choice that, in my opinion, we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. What exactly would you suggest? Five hundred thousand troops permanently stationed in Iraq at several hundred billion dollars per year to maintain the peace in a meaningless country that's incapable of taking care of itself. How about Afghanistan? How would you fix that problem? Sure we could win, but at what cost? The destruction of a 13th-century feudal society that considers toilet paper to be a high-priced novelty item?

Yes, we should fight wars to win, but over the past 100 years, we've only been engaged in one serious war actually worthy of having been fought in an all-or-nothing sort of way. The rest have mostly been other people's concerns, and unlike you, I certainly wouldn't recommend abandoning our ideals and our values in a brutal and ruthless quest to impose our will on various dysfunctional armpit countries around the world that are best left to sort out their own issues.

Pete wrote:

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

War is an extreme situation that creates an unusual set of cirumstances that at times require distasteful actions that go against ones core beliefs and principals.

Yes, to varying degrees — especially if the war is important enough that winning makes it worth temporarily setting aside our core beliefs and principles.

World War II was mostly certainly that important since it was a fight for survival, but Iraq? Viet Nam?

The Vietnam War cost the United States 58,000 lives and 350,000 casualties. It also resulted in the estimated deaths of a million Vietnamese. And for what? The North Vietnamese won, and it didn't really make a bit of difference to the world or our place in it? We could have stayed home, saved trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and had the same outcome.

Iraq? It was arguably better off under Saddam Hussein than it is now. The people there are seemingly incapable of governing themselves democratically, and my prediction is that left to take its own course, within ten years, Iraq will once again be ruled by another strong man dictatorship.

The U.S. has this arrogant notion that it somehow has the right and responsibility to interfere and meddle in everyone else's conflicts around the globe. As a result, we're constantly finding ourselves involved in wasteful wars that ultimately do more harm than good, squander our resources and our soldiers' lives.

Luv2fsh&hnt, are you seriously suggesting that we pull out all the stops to win wars of choice that, in my opinion, we shouldn't be fighting in the first place. What exactly would you suggest? Five hundred thousand troops permanently stationed in Iraq at several hundred billion dollars per year to maintain the peace in a meaningless country that's incapable of taking care of itself. How about Afghanistan? How would you fix that problem? Sure we could win, but at what cost? The destruction of a 13th-century feudal society that considers toilet paper to be a high-priced novelty item?

Yes, we should fight wars to win, but over the past 100 years, we've only been engaged in one serious war actually worthy of having been fought in an all-or-nothing sort of way. The rest have mostly been other people's concerns, and unlike you, I certainly wouldn't recommend abandoning our ideals and our values in a brutal and ruthless quest to impose our will on various dysfunctional armpit countries around the world that are best left to sort out their own issues.

I don't know how you make the distinction of one war being more important than the other. The stakes most assuredly are different from one conflict to another but the fact remains regardless of the stakes soldiers lives are on the line and when the decision is made to send our fighting men and women into harms way the overwhelming objective should be victory at any and all costs. The fools that have signed on to the so called treaties and conventions are ignorant. It all sounds good on paper but when a persons life is on the line there is no place for so called rules. Especially when the rules are onlt adhered to by one side. We're actually not that far apart on this Pete. As it is my contention we should not have been involved in Iraq nor Afghanistan. The bottomline is the way the populace thinks as well as the civilian leadership the US should not be involved in any conflict unless another country deploys troops on U.S. soil. Perhaps when the time comes that people see the reality of war at their own doorsteps and how Americas enemies honor the "rules" of war they will begin to understand that sometimes unspeakable acts must be done to secure victory. There is no such thing as honorable defeat and speaking as one who has put everything on the line when I was doing my job I could care less about principals or rules the only thought I had is I was going to do whatever it took to make it out alive. I have never had a nightmare about the enemy lives I took regardless of the method used but the Americans that I saw die haunt me to this day.

[/b]Trooper wrote:[b]

"I regret making the personal attack, I shouldn't have done that. Yet, based on the repugnant course of action you have outlined, I stand by my statement that you, sir, are a coward. Incarceration of American citizens, without trial, because of their choice in religion is anathema to the American Constitution- a Constitution that you swore an oath “to protect and defend.”

A coward debases and humiliates himself when, for fear of the enemy, he acquiesces to the will of that enemy. Our national courage is displayed precisely because we know extremists live in our midst yet we proceed to live up to our ideals- difficult though that may be. The Islamist extremists want us to attack Islam- so reach down, grab your sack, and don’t give in to them.

By all means, prove me wrong on this; show me that you are still up to honoring your oath. One last thing before I forget; that was an exciting story of your recent altercation. I don’t really know why you included it in our little discussion, but it was a good story and it would have been cool to watch you kick 5 guys’ asses.

I hope your ribs (both left and right side) and nose heal well."

First you say you regret the personal attack and then you repeat it in an even more offensive manner. I will engage in an intellectual debate on the subject and we may disagree with each others opinion and thats fine. I tried to be tactful and give a friendly warning that you had crossed a line. I will be a little more direct and forceful this time while trying to stay within the rules Yonni has asked us to respect. Do not ever call me a godamn coward again or you and I will have a problem and I will prove to you up close and personal that I am not a coward. I do not advocate the detention of citizens without trial because of their choice of religion. Religion does not have one thing to do with my opinion. Fact of the matter is it is foolish and a tactical mistake to trust people that most likely have a split allegiance. I have never cursed or denounced the Constitution in any way let alone vehemently. I am puzzled why you chose to use that word perhaps I am misunderstanding your intended context. While I am no longer officially under oath to protect and defend the Constitution I do have a reverent respect for that treasured document. I think the reason the authors chose to inject so much ambiguity into it is because they understood there would be times that it would be impossible for the country to survive outside attacks with strict adherence to its' mandates. I don't think I have ever advocated acquiescing to Islam quite the contrary I advocate meeting their attacks with overwhelming force. I included the story as a demonstration that even when faced with odds at the outset that would indicate assured defeat I met the challenge head on with courage and valiance quite the opposite of what a coward would do.

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

We're actually not that far apart on this Pete.

Based on what you said, I suspect that you're right.

War is likely the most serious, consequential endeavor a country can engage in. Halfway, conditional wars of choice are wars that probably shouldn't be fought. Throwing away nearly 60,000 American lives, for example, in Vietnam on a cause that ultimately wasn't important enough to see through speaks, to me, of misguided priorities and horrendously bad judgment.

With varying degrees of certainty, like I said, World War II is probably the only war we've fought in the last 140 years, in my opinion, to have warranted our no-holds-barred, must-win-or-else involvement. It's actually more complicated than that, but in essence, we get involved in too many conflicts, take too many sides and find ourselves in the middle of too many issues that shouldn't be our concern. And our meddling, as often as not, has simply set the stage for additional entanglements that suck us in still deeper further down the road.

Pete wrote:

luv2fsh&hnt wrote:

We're actually not that far apart on this Pete.

Based on what you said, I suspect that you're right.

War is likely the most serious, consequential endeavor a country can engage in. Halfway, conditional wars of choice are wars that probably shouldn't be fought. Throwing away nearly 60,000 American lives, for example, in Vietnam on a cause that ultimately wasn't important enough to see through speaks, to me, of misguided priorities and horrendously bad judgment.

With varying degrees of certainty, like I said, World War II is probably the only war we've fought in the last 140 years, in my opinion, to have warranted our no-holds-barred, must-win-or-else involvement. It's actually more complicated than that, but in essence, we get involved in too many conflicts, take too many sides and find ourselves in the middle of too many issues that shouldn't be our concern. And our meddling, as often as not, has simply set the stage for additional entanglements that suck us in still deeper further down the road.

Exactamundo Pete I agree completely!