[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

No ****.
Take no prisoners.
Publicly hang foreign fighters.

Saddam actually knew what he was doing.(I've said this before)

Um, what's the point in deposing Saddam if we're just going to carry on in his stead? Sounds like a huge waste of time and money to me.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, what's the point in deposing Saddam if we're just going to carry on in his stead? Sounds like a huge waste of time and money to me.

Um, oil?

[Sky Captain]

Maybe who controls the oil?
I dunno.

It's high time we Americans ween off of petroleum.
Some say just foreign oil, but oil is a world commodity.
Anything we produce gets placed into the world market. And energy "investors" see to that.
These people have us by the balls and do not care what happens to us as a people.
Their only intrest is to keep us consuming. By any means necessary.
Food is soon to become a world commodity. Look at milk now. $5/gallon. On a world market.
Sugar and corn are next. This'll keep biofuels profitable.
The petroleum can't be depleted fast enough for me. We'll see how powerful oil barrons are when their citizens are starving.



I never said torture innocents.
Just the one caught with weapons and planning attacks.
I don't condone torture anyway. Just public hangings/executions of combatants.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I don't condone torture anyway. Just public hangings/executions of combatants.

Not even that. Just cover the corpses of those already killed in combat in bacon strips and stake them in the centre of town. Leave the corpse there for a year with a sign reading something like "insurgent pig". They'll soon get the message.

[zwiebel_]

In what a f* twisted world we live in! Where killing and humiliating other cultures and people brings a sick satisfaction to some individuals. Have we forgotten to live and let live?

[Uncle Skeleton]

So if I'm understanding you guys, it's our prerogative to go around destroying foreign countries and replacing them just because they have something we'd like to have?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Um, what's the point in deposing Saddam if we're just going to carry on in his stead? Sounds like a huge waste of time and money to me.

I never seen his stead before. Got pictures? And why would we be carrying it on?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

(Bush's policy for war planning was the same as yours on climate research; if you don't agree with the conclusions, shut it down! )

This doesn't even make sense. You're a moron.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by spindler 

This is absurd. There is no analogy between a carpenter and what a soldier does.

Right. That's why I included firemen and police officers.

I just buy services from a carpenter or doctor. With a soldier, my choices affect someone's life and death, health and sanity.

Right, like police officers and firemen. Statistically, we are in dire need of more police officers and in the occasional circumstances of seasonal nature, we need help with out of control fires. Should we draft the populace into civil service as well?

Explain to me which of these requirements of sending a soldier off to fight you disagree with please. You claim to be some reasonable thoughtful person.

I did???

If you are unwilling to discuss the thought process you use before sending someone off to fight, if you simply play games and avoid this, then I will have to conclude that you are just a nasty thug. Anyone who calls themselves a human being would take pride in avoiding bloodshed so you should be willing to answer these questions.

Wow. After this we can play Monopoly by my rules okay?

(1) Is it true or false that sending someone off to war is a horrible event one would want to avoid unless there is no other reasonable choice?

True with qualification. We don't "send" people into war. This is what a draft does. We have a volunteer military that is commissioned to serve the country up to and including in times of war.

(2) Is it true or false that to send soldiers off to die in a war the reason must be enormous? And that the only things large enough for soldiers to die for is to protect other Americans from dying or being brutalized or having their property stolen?

True. With China and Russia engaged in contractual, joint military strategy (among other financial collaborations) and their expressed intent in this draft against "perceived US hegemony" signed by both parties in 1999, it is apparent that we may live on a more volatile globe than you know. With Iraq and Iran having been involved in an arm's race, 13 UN Resolutions drafted against Saddam for weapons proliferation and potential sales to rogue nations over 12 years, with final Resolution calling for "serious consequences" for non-compliance, and the fact that Iran is involved with both Russia and China in contractual agreements including weapons and resource sales; you and I may differ on what "enormous" is, the importance of the Middle East in future geo-politics, and what "protecting America" means.

(3) Is it true or false that if the cause is enormous enough to send 100,000 soldiers off to fight, then it must be of such moral imperativeness that any proud American should be willing to fight for that cause?

False. A. This is a volunteer military. B. Not every American is "proud". C. Not every American agrees on what constitutes moral imperatives. D. Not every soldier "fights". E. Not every American is "willing" and there is nothing to suggest a drafted soldier would be any more willing.

(4) Is it true or false that it is cowardly to send 100,000 soldiers off to fight when you know it will take 500,000 to win?

False. I'm not a military expert and neither are you. Military experts disagree with one another on what "winning" is and what it would take to "win". They also disagree on how and where to dedicate our current resources.

And to simply choose not to mention that 400,000 more are needed? And to sit back and just hope the 100,000 win when you know that with more help the war would by quicker, shorter, less deadly, and far more likely to be won?

There is disagreement on what "win" means, and what is needed to win. A draft carries Constitutional implications, monetary implications, and logistical implications that I'm not sure you've considered. Conscription is extremely expensive. Turnover much higher. Proportional career military personnel much lower, and compromises the very constitutional liberties the military is commissioned to defend.

(5) Is it not virtually obvious that 150,000 troops is not the comfortable number for this mission, that it is more like at least 500,00?

Now it may be, absolutely. I'm no military expert and neither are you. In a country of over 5 million people whose significant majority opposed Saddam's reign, I don't think it was quite as apparent to them at that time, that we'd enjoy less than .002% Iraqi participation in the effort than it is to you just this week.

So you see I did not say "eBuddy does not have any choice in how and when to use the military." What I said was "It should be obvious that when you have determined that 150,000 troops should fight and die for a cause, you then must be willing to contribute to that cause yourself when necessary. You have committed to that cause and you are not an outside spectator."

Right and that's why I'm claiming your post is woefully void of logic and common sense. You see, you assume the only way to contribute to a cause is by picking up a weapon. I support the police and civil apparatus as well, but not by arming myself and heading into crime. By the way, I assume you're committed to fighting crime and fires as well and yet you're not manning the fire hoses and running into burning buildings either right?

- There was nothing to suggest the problems in Iraq were going to go away. We've been addressing Iraq and the Middle East for decades. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, there were joint contractual agreements by other powers on this globe with opposition to the US. There are many players involved. Imperialism, greed, and military action are not exclusive to the US. We may not all agree on what constitutes "enormous" need and you'd do well to acknowledge diversity of thought. Those serving in these conditions are the last to call for a draft. I wonder how that could be. I wonder why it is we're hearing about a draft from one who wouldn't even be eligible to serve. I find it interesting that the first ones to espouse support for a draft are the ones least eligible if there were one.

Now I am asking for the most basic humanity from you in your explanation. The most basic humanity says that sending troops off to fight is a last resort only when the cost of not doing so is extremely high. The most basic common sense says that 20x as many soldiers means a linearly higher chance of winning, a shorter war, less death on one side and maybe both.

Maybe, maybe not. There are implications to conscription that you've obviously not considered.

Now if you consider yourself anything other than a thug like Saddam Hussein who sends soldiers off to die...

... with a draft showing that your proposal is similar to that of a thug like Saddam Hussein.

I don't think it is too much to explain why you were for a small force of Americans dying for a cause, but not interested in a force 20 times larger and more powerful fighting for that cause. That goes against basic logic. There can be virtually no explanation for that.

I'm interested in a larger force spindler, but flagrant violations of civil liberties are not an option in my opinion. There are many causes we support without direct contribution. You cannot logically espouse one yet deny the others. Those who serve in the deplorable conditions of which you speak are the last to advocate a draft. Those ineligible to serve are the first to advocate one. I find your view as reprehensible as you find mine.

Now what?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This doesn't even make sense. You're a moron.

Of course it does. Bush didn't like Shinseki's advice so he fired him, and replaced him with yes-men. He didn't like the intelligence he was getting so he bypassed it and set up his own intelligence team designed to tell him what he wanted to hear. He doesn't like the climate change science, so he invites Michael Crichton, a novelist, to tell him what he wants to hear. And there are many more examples. It's all the same thing -- ignore or bypass the experts because their advice doesn't line up with your preconceptions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Of course it does. Bush didn't like Shinseki's advice so he fired him, and replaced him with yes-men.

Are you sure Shinseki was fired? Link please? Shinseki served his full four-year term as Army chief of staff, and he didn't retire early. By the time he had made his comments on troop levels, it was already well known that he wouldn't remain in his post beyond the normal four-year term.

He didn't like the intelligence he was getting so he bypassed it and set up his own intelligence team designed to tell him what he wanted to hear. He doesn't like the climate change science, so he invites Michael Crichton, a novelist, to tell him what he wants to hear. And there are many more examples. It's all the same thing --...

There are plenty who have quite a lot to say on a subject regardless of their current occupation. Certainly the man is not a moron. I mean Crichton's credentials have him at least as qualified to speak on global warming as Al Gore right? Really, isn't it time for a new shtick?

- Iraq thread; tie wants to talk about global warming.
- Global Warming thread; tie wants to talk about health care, stem-cell research, and Iraq.

The same thing alright. We're already well aware of your inability to stay on task and we already know about your distaste for the Bush Administration. I know firsthand how willing you are to extrapolate anything you want based on that partisan filtration of yours, but aren't there enough real problems with this Administration that you shouldn't have to blatantly pull crap out of thin air?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by spindler 

For four years the far right claimed that anyone against the war didn't "support the troops", wasn't a real American, etc.

Blah blah blah. We've heard it already.

Anyone who is "anti-surge" must be ignorant of the situation in Iraq and the consequences of not stabilizing that part of the world. Unless they're just saying it because 1) they heard someone else say it, or b) they're just playing politics. I have yet to hear a reasonable alternative proposed, something that could actually work better by someone who might know something about the situation. When that happens, it might be worth listening to.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Iraq thread; tie wants to talk about global warming.
- Global Warming thread; tie wants to talk about health care, stem-cell research, and Iraq.

What are you talking about? I mentioned global warming as a parenthetical at the end of my post. You couldn't reply to the rest of my post, so singled it out. In the global warming thread, again, it is you who wanted to talk about stem cell research (I'm not sure where health care came in).

Or perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Quotes like this make me think you are conflating several people into me:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Does this leave enough for health care and all the other pet spending measure's you're calling for in these threads on a daily basis?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

What are you talking about? I mentioned global warming as a parenthetical at the end of my post. You couldn't reply to the rest of my post, so singled it out. In the global warming thread, again, it is you who wanted to talk about stem cell research (I'm not sure where health care came in).

Remember you asked me to go back to page 14 of that thread? Maybe you should give it a go and read up on the NIH. For whatever reason, you thought it was relevant in the global warming thread. It's okay tie, I'm used to watching you back-pedal.

Or perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Quotes like this make me think you are conflating several people into me:

You can BS yourself tie if it helps you sleep at night. BTW, quit stalking me in these threads. You're starting to creep me out.

[Chuckit]

I've always been against the war, but if we're going to fight it, we'd damn well better do it right or more people will die because of our weakness. You can't look at questions like this as just "more soldiers on the front line = more soldiers in harm's way." Crushing the opposition is the best way to ensure that soldiers do not die. Allowing ourselves to get on the wrong side of a battle of attrition is just an acceptable way of failing — oh, sure, we lose more in the long run, but at least they died from our passivity rather than because we were actively doing something.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

In what a f* twisted world we live in! Where killing and humiliating other cultures and people brings a sick satisfaction to some individuals. Have we forgotten to live and let live?

In what a f* twisted world we live in! Where leftie pansies allow brutal dictators to murder and torture their people because they're scared of the fact that in order to provide democracy and freedom to the people who're oppressed we need to do whatever it takes to get the job done, including killing and humiliating other cultures.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not even that. Just cover the corpses of those already killed in combat in bacon strips and stake them in the centre of town. Leave the corpse there for a year with a sign reading something like "insurgent pig". They'll soon get the message.
...
in order to provide democracy and freedom to the people who're oppressed we need to do whatever it takes to get the job done, including killing and humiliating other cultures.

If that is your sense of freedom and democracy, then something is wrong with you. You realize that you're proposing something even Sadam and his sick sons didn't manage to brew up during their bloody dictatorship.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

If that is your sense of freedom and democracy, then something is wrong with you. You realize that you're proposing something even Sadam and his sick sons didn't manage to brew up during their bloody dictatorship.

Yeah, that's right. I'm proposing what they should do with people who're already dead. Saddam and his sons were into doing things to live people.

Learn your history. There's a reason why Vlad the Impaler staked people. And there's a reason those allied bodies were strung up on that bridge in Fallujah.

You prove my original point about why the insurgency is still happening. You are the very people who're stopping the allies from using the amount of force and necessary tactics required to get the job done. All of the deaths in Iraq from about mid 2004 onwards are your fault.

[Sky Captain]

Anyone who thinks that if America disappeared tomorrow the world would instantly become a peaceful Utopia, is sadly mistaken.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

If that is your sense of freedom and democracy, then something is wrong with you. You realize that you're proposing something even Sadam and his sick sons didn't manage to brew up during their bloody dictatorship.

That's not freedom and democracy; it's war. War is messy business. If you can't accept that some very unpleasant things happen in war, I don't see how you hope to make any realistic suggestions.

[spindler]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Blah blah blah. We've heard it already.

Anyone who is "anti-surge" must be ignorant of the situation in Iraq and the consequences of not stabilizing that part of the world. .

Earth to finboy, come in finboy. I HAVE proposed a solution for stabilizing Iraq. That is drafting 1,000,000 Americans to actually support the troops rather than abandoning them up shits creek. That's what this whole thread is about. So do you think that is a good idea or will you have a bunch of lame-o excuses why someone else needs to fight the war but not you?

To eBuddy, I appreciate your long response though disagree with some of it but I will reply to it when I have some time to think through all the points.

[zwiebel_]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah, that's right. I'm proposing what they should do with people who're already dead. Saddam and his sons were into doing things to live people.

I guess they had enough respect to toss their victims into graves, and not humiliate them further with bacon and picket signs.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Learn your history. There's a reason why Vlad the Impaler staked people. And there's a reason those allied bodies were strung up on that bridge in Fallujah.

And you fell for it. Provocation is a powerfull tool and it makes rational people nonrational. If you let your rage control your actions, you realy do not have what it takes to make the right decisions.
By the way, those "allied" bodies were Blackwater mercenaries, not US Army personel. As for Blackwater, a simple google search shows the extent of their involvment.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You prove my original point about why the insurgency is still happening. You are the very people who're stopping the allies from using the amount of force and necessary tactics required to get the job done. All of the deaths in Iraq from about mid 2004 onwards are your fault.

OK, lets go a little bit back in history. A blank check was given to the administration to go to war with Iraq (now we know it was under false pretenses). People in the Pentagon go for the idiotic proposition to invade Iraq with a minimal force (100K), knowing full well the lessons from Gulf War I: with a force of over 800K, the coalition forces did not deem it feasable to take down Sadam. (Right from the horses mouth).
Since we were not able to establish any functional governemnt, the disarmament and disbanding of the standing army of Iraq (thanks to the idiots of the Coalition Provisional Authority), the opportunity for the creation of Jihadists armies arose. And that was still in 2003, when the insurgency officialy began.
Now that we're up to our ears in this insurgency s***hole, the finger-pointing begins. And no, you cannot blame me (and people like me) for this mess. If I had any saying, this war would have never happened.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's not freedom and democracy; it's war. War is messy business. If you can't accept that some very unpleasant things happen in war, I don't see how you hope to make any realistic suggestions.

Shooting and being shot at is part of war. Killing or being killed is part of war. Wrapping dead people into bacon and sticking an "insurgent pig" sign into them is not warfare, it is provocation. You may have killed an "insurgent pig", but you just created ten others by insulting their culture, religion and tradition, you "infidel". See how the circle of death continues?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

I guess they had enough respect to toss their victims into graves, and not humiliate them further with bacon and picket signs.

So, you think that humiliating a dead person is more important than ending the war sooner and thus protecting the living?

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

And you fell for it. Provocation is a powerfull tool and it makes rational people nonrational. If you let your rage control your actions, you realy do not have what it takes to make the right decisions.

I don't have any rage. I'm telling you, calmly and coldly, how to put an end to this thing.

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

By the way, those "allied" bodies were Blackwater mercenaries, not US Army personel. As for Blackwater, a simple google search shows the extent of their involvment.

Who they were is irrelevant.
Which side the insurgents perceived them as being on and what they did to them is the point.

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

OK, lets go a little bit back in history. A blank check was given to the administration to go to war with Iraq (now we know it was under false pretenses).

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? We've been at war with Iraq since they invaded Kuwait. Yes, that's right, it never ended. Go look up the term "cease fire".

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

Shooting and being shot at is part of war. Killing or being killed is part of war. Wrapping dead people into bacon and sticking an "insurgent pig" sign into them is not warfare, it is provocation. You may have killed an "insurgent pig", but you just created ten others by insulting their culture, religion and tradition, you "infidel".

No. It simply doesn't work like that.

The insurgents are playing on the fact that you libs won't let your armies go in hard. Just like the kids in the UK are playing on the fact that the politicians won't let the courts go in hard when they stab someone.

Originally Posted by Kurtz

I've seen horrors... horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me. You have a right to do that... but you have no right to judge me. It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face... and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men... trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love... but they had the strength... the strength... to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment... without judgment. Because it's judgment that defeats us.

Whoever wrote that ^ has more of a clue than you'll ever have.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. It simply doesn't work like that.

The insurgents are playing on the fact that you libs won't let your armies go in hard.

Someone has to ensure we don't turn into the same monsters we're trying to fight against. If no one else will do it, the "libs" have to.

You principles mean nothing if your enemies can't depend on you keeping them. If you only have principles when they aren't needed, they're not principles, they're just lies. You can't just drop them when they're inconvenient. It simply doesn't work like that.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by zwiebel_ 

Shooting and being shot at is part of war. Killing or being killed is part of war. Wrapping dead people into bacon and sticking an "insurgent pig" sign into them is not warfare, it is provocation. You may have killed an "insurgent pig", but you just created ten others by insulting their culture, religion and tradition, you "infidel". See how the circle of death continues?

Actually, it's not an insult to their culture, religion or tradition (unless the "tradition" in question is killing Americans). It's an attack on that particular person. The idea is that the person has been tainted by the pig and thus is not worthy to go to heaven. These people will stop martyring themselves mighty quick if they believe they'll go to hell for it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Someone has to ensure we don't turn into the same monsters we're trying to fight against.

Warfare doesn't work like that.

If it did, the US wouldn't have done Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I mean, I'd love it if all conflicts everywhere could be fought over a good long hard game of Monopoly. But, to quote Ice-T: sh*t ain't like that.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You principles mean nothing if your enemies can't depend on you keeping them. If you only have principles when they aren't needed, they're not principles, they're just lies. You can't just drop them when they're inconvenient. It simply doesn't work like that.

My principles don't preclude me from doing things to lumps of dead meat which used to be humans - if those things prevent more lumps of dead meat which used to be humans from showing up. I don't give a toss about dead people's customs - I'd rather do what has to be done to keep people alive.

Your principles might preclude you from doing such things (although I don't know why since most libs are atheists), but that's only proving what I've been saying all along, isn't it? ...that it's the libs back home which won't let the politicians let the armies do what needs to be done which are causing the problems.

Heck, our boys in Basra can't even fire back at people who firebomb their transport. What bunch of pansies thought that one up?

[ghporter]

We do not need a draft. We need to first get the majority of our Army assets out of Germany-are we expecting the Red Horde to come barreling over the Iron Curtain any second now? Second, we need Congress to stop acting like smart, motivated, well trained troops are cheap and start paying GIs decent wages. This has been a problem for decades. I was making around 35k as a senior NCO when I retired, but someone on the outside in my position would have been making over 55k-and not have to leave his family for months at a time in order to face angry people that want to kill him.

Congress should also increase the ceiling on manpower in the uniformed services. They do set a limit, you know, and it's based on how much they don't want to pay GIs.

And this whole thing about Congress cheesing out on their promise to provide lifetime health care to GIs who served long enough to retire (and their families as well) should be addressed too. It was understood when I enlisted that I would NEVER have to pay for health care, either while on active duty or after retirement. About ten years ago they instituted a means to wring money out of retirees so they wouldn't have to spend as much on their medical care-and thus abrogated that promise to literally millions of retirees.

But we don't need a draft-we need to treat Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen like the invaluable resource they are. That will attract and keep these folks better than shoving them inside a fence and forcing them to do what you say.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

My principles don't preclude me from doing things to lumps of dead meat which used to be humans ... Heck, our boys in Basra can't even fire back at people who firebomb their transport.

You're contradicting yourself on whether you're talking about live people or dead ones.

I don't give a toss about dead people's customs

You might not, but I recall a lot of conservatives giving tosses about the enemy's mistreatment of our dead.

I'd rather do what has to be done to keep people alive.

Honestly, if they started defiling our corpses, do you think that would weaken our resolve or strengthen it?

Your principles might preclude you from doing such things (although I don't know why since most libs are atheists), but that's only proving what I've been saying all along, isn't it? ...that it's the libs back home which won't let the politicians let the armies do what needs to be done which are causing the problems.

Respect for human dignity is not necessarily religious, and the lack of it is not necessarily productive. It's exactly this "gross-out contest" mentality that led to abu ghraib, and that fiasco didn't exactly win the war for us.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're contradicting yourself on whether you're talking about live people or dead ones.

No. I'm illustrating what a stupid situation is going on down there. But it's the same root cause - libs not letting politicians let our boys down there fight properly. They're essentially muzzled - and the insurgents know this (because they get CNN just like you and I).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Honestly, if they started defiling our corpses, do you think that would weaken our resolve or strengthen it?

Listen carefully because this is a key point: We're not arabs. We don't think like arabs. We don't react like arabs.

(Yes, I know they're persians, not arabs. Same thing, as far as this conversation is concerned)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's exactly this "gross-out contest" mentality that led to abu ghraib, and that fiasco didn't exactly win the war for us.

How do you know it wasn't winning the war for you? You whined to your politicians so much that they had to stop it before it really got going or was able to have any affect.

Did you not notice the rise in insurgency when Lindy England was removed from her duties and the insurgents suddenly realised that you haven't got the will to put them down?

Like it or not, the arab war mentality functions on a "gross-out contest" basis. If you can't meet the challenge, you lose. Heck, these are people who actually think penis size is an important factor in warfare.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Although I agree we need to fight radical Islamists without our arms tied behind our backs like we have been, all the noise about mutilating the dead and dumping pigs blood on them and such is just ignorant ranting.

In an odd way, it shows that some people -even on the right side of the issue- have bought into the enemy's own propaganda. They seem to believe that people we fight are somehow beyond human and need extraordinary confirmations of their own religious beliefs in order to defeat them. But playing into their own crazier religious beliefs, actually shows an acknowledgment of those beliefs being reality, and therefore is the height of counter-productive.

Contrary to belief, we're not fighting people who are super human. They are not people who react to being militarily defeated with any sort of superhuman drive to continue on despite hopeless odds. We're not fighting people who are beyond normal human understanding of death and defeat in and of itself, without resorting to playing into their own religious fears.

None if this is anything new. I guarantee there were people who fervently believed that just defeating Japan militarily, for example, wouldn't be enough. No, we surely must have needed to resort to chopping off heads, slaying the 'emperor-God' eating his liver and impaling his head on a stake, and demonstrating how much we ourselves bought into Shinto beliefs, by using those beliefs to defile the enemy and teach him a lesson beyond the normal range of defeat.

Then, and only then, presumably, would we not endure endless swarms of "Divine Wind" suicide attackers who will never cease trying to kill the infidel. And on the flip side, oh sure, boo hoo, fighting back will only"create" more Kamikazes, and so we should just lay down and give up, not "create" more and more crazed radical Japanese, lest we never see an end to people willing to die to kill us.

It's all bullcrap.

Despite all the propaganda at the time, every Japanese really wasn't gung ho to dive a plane or himself into an American to kill themselves and anyone else- not even those tasked with doing so. No, every Japanese wasn't really a mindless drone who would cling to the death to their "emperor God' and the more radical elements of their religion forever.

And today, the Muslims we fight aren't really any of the beyond-human bullcrap that's ascribed to them by complete fools either.

Human beings are human beings. Human beings -and that's ALL human beings- actually DON'T want to kill themselves fighting the 'infidel'. Human beings have an inherent desire to live. (Yes, Virginia, Muslims as well -no matter deeply into their own radical bullshit you've fallen yourself.)

Killing an enemy in droves- without tacking on mutilation and religious desecration that demonstrates you've bought into the hype yourself- IS enough to make people abandon the dumber elements of whatever belief led them to die hopelessly in droves in the first place. History proves this out.

We need to fight the insurgents and radical Islamists the same as any other enemy- to defeat them and crush their leaders both militarily and financially. But we don't have to buy into their radical religion, and actually unwittingly transmit that we've bought into the horseshit propaganda that it makes them beyond-human.

[Doofy]

Congratulations Crash, you've just spent a long time writing a reply about muslims.

I'm talking about arabs/persians.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Congratulations Crash, you've just spent a long time writing a reply about muslims.

I'm talking about arabs/persians.

Doesn’t really matter. You’ve spent a lot of time writing in favor of tactics that are ignorant, and unnecessary in fighting anyone, Arab, Persian, Muslim, or whatever bogeyman it is you subscribe to. You apparently missed the part where I talked about what we’re dealing with is human nature, and that it doesn’t change, regardless of what group you wish to ascribe super powers to.

Beyond being unnecessary in defeating an enemy, your belief that you can to trip up an enemy by playing kiddy games with his own belief system, is as backward and ineffective and based on sheer ignorance as the crude attempts American soldiers have witnessed from foreign enemies trying to do the same to them through the years. The mentality is akin to Tokyo Rose types trying to tell American GI’s that their girlfriends back home were being screwed by Cary Grant and Errol Flynn. It was laughable, and served as entertainment more than anything. The type of military mind that actually believed such crap was effective, and truly reflected realistic American beliefs or fears, was simply someone who didn’t understand -beyond a kiddy-cartoon level- the culture he was attempting to wage psychological warfare against.

Of course there are actually very effective ways to battle an enemy psychologically, but the cartoon-character level bullcrap you’re spouting involving pig’s blood and all that sort of crap, is at the sophomore prank level. True psychological methods play into real human nature- the things that all of us have in common as humans. Things that are universal. Your methods are amateur night, and based on silly, blanket stereotypes of other cultures.

Your belief that merely killing an enemy isn’t enough is ascribing super-human powers to the willpower and morale of the remaining enemy, and that would be obvious to him. By resorting to things like desecration of his dead, attempting to use his belief system, you merely prove you’ve fallen for the enemy’s hype about how unfailing fanatical his belief system really is, and how it’s turned him into some sort of super-human killing machine that can’t be stopped unless you put a stake through his heart. Next, you’ll be blowing the till on silver bullets and garlic cloves.

“I can’t possibly win by just killing his ranks in droves, and deposing his leadership! No way! He’s too tough for that! I can’t just beat his ass on the battle field, and actually win! No! I’ve got to fall back on desecrating his dead, and bowing to his radical, backward belief system myself, as if it were my own!”

It’s weak.

The tactic only shows desperation. It shows your enemy you don’t have confidence in your own 21st century methods, but must face him by bowing to his 10th century beliefs. It proves to the enemy that you’ve totally fallen for his hype about how deep his convictions and morale are, and how inhumanly unshakeable YOU believe they are.

But we’re simply not dealing with that. Despite your bogeyman beliefs, what we’re dealing with, are just PEOPLE like anyone else. Therefore, the same methods, the same parameters of win/lose apply that have always applied to fighting against other PEOPLE.

I can see where naïve liberals believe that killing droves of enemy fighters makes the rest of them go, “Ohhhh Yeah baby! That’s what I’m talking about! Whoo hoooo! Bring it on! Your kicking our asses around the block is just creating more of us! Can't wait to recruit with this latest defeat! And I know the rest of us just CAN’T FRIGGEN WAIT to become stains in the sand ourselves! F’ YEAH! Give us more of that!”

That’s a cartoon human, a video game character of the sort that leftists believe in. Back in the real world, REAL humans DON’T react that way to scores of their fellow troops blown to bits. And the enemies we face in Iraq and elsewhere are real humans, not cartoons.

But a non-lib believing a lot of cartoon-level bullcrap about some video-game enemy, and how resorting to freakin’ symbolic, chicken **** BUNK like pig’s blood, bacon, desecrating bodies and assorted playground level bullcrap defeating him over good ol’ fashioned real world, effective military tactics? It’s just weak.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Doesn’t really matter. You’ve spent a lot of time writing in favor of tactics that are ignorant, and unnecessary in fighting anyone

I've spent time telling you what tactics will work in that part of the world. You appear to be assuming that all cultures respond to the same thing. They don't.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Of course there are actually very effective ways to battle an enemy psychologically, but the cartoon-character level bullcrap you’re spouting involving pig’s blood and all that sort of crap, is at the sophomore prank level.

Yes, that's because that's what the people you're fighting respond to. That's what works.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

True psychological methods play into real human nature- the things that all of us have in common as humans. Things that are universal. Your methods are amateur night, and based on silly, blanket stereotypes of other cultures.

Fact: When you chased Saddam out of Kuwait, your PsyOps dropped a bunch of extra large condoms on the enemy (with some BS about the women being able to protect themselves from American troops). The Iraqis took a look at how large they were and assumed that all American soldiers have huge wedding tackle. And the physiological impact of this, in part, broke their will to fight.

That's the kind of enemy you're dealing with down there.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

The tactic only shows desperation.

It might show desperation to you, but you're not an arab/persian male. You're a westerner, thinking like a westerner. To the arab/persian male, this kind of tactic shows strength. That's a fact.
Thinking like westerners and assuming that the enemy think like westerners is what lost Vietnam. And it's what'll lose Iraq.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That’s a cartoon human, a video game character of the sort that leftists believe in. Back in the real world, REAL humans DON’T react that way to scores of their fellow troops blown to bits. And the enemies we face in Iraq and elsewhere are real humans, not cartoons.

OK, I just re-read that, and you keep going on about real humans? You're aware that these "real humans" have a culture in which it's the done thing to kill your own daughter if she falls in love with the wrong guy? And that these "real humans" will stone a woman to death for the crime of being a rape victim? Stop assuming that your western values system works over there - it doesn't.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, I just re-read that, and you keep going on about real humans? You're aware that these "real humans" have a culture in which it's the done thing to kill your own daughter if she falls in love with the wrong guy? And that these "real humans" will stone a woman to death for the crime of being a rape victim? Stop assuming that your western values system works over there - it doesn't.

While certainly the above have been committed under certain establishments in the ME, is there anything to suggest this is the preferred norm? In a country of over 5 million people, (Iraq) if this type of barbarism was the norm, we'd be seeing an awful lot more of it. You don't need a whole lot of twisted people if your tactic is "one for 100" in suicide bombings. In addition, IMO you cannot take the crime rate from DC or any host of child sexual assaults in the news here on a daily basis for example, and state with confidence that this is simply the US culture.

If our value system can't work there, we've got no business there at all.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While certainly the above have been committed under certain establishments in the ME, is there anything to suggest this is the preferred norm?

Yes, you'll find that in most ME countries there's actually an article in the penal code which says something like "if the murder was an honour killing, then no charge, defendant is free".

Until 2002, it was legal in Iraq to murder your own daughter in an honour killing. Like, properly legal - in the same way that you sitting at your Mac is legal.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If our value system can't work there, we've got no business there at all.

It will work. But not at the moment.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

They are not people who react to being militarily defeated with any sort of superhuman drive to continue on despite hopeless odds. We're not fighting people who are beyond normal human understanding of death and defeat in and of itself, without resorting to playing into their own religious fears.

Yes, they are. This is what we're fighting. We're talking about people who have no hope of winning except through our capitulation who nonetheless continue to walk into public squares and blow themselves the **** up in the hope that it will psyche us out. Understanding of death? I guess they understand it, but they sure as hell don't seem to mind. Understanding of defeat? They've shown no sign of that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I've spent time telling you what tactics will work in that part of the world. You appear to be assuming that all cultures respond to the same thing. They don't.

All cultures respond to being killed the same way, they die. All cultures respond to their comrades in arms being killed in unsustainable numbers the same way, it breaks their will to fight for whatever crazy belief some Hitler, Tojo, Osama, Hussein or whoever drummed into their heads.

It's your belief that anyone is immune to this, because you're so scared shitless of the hype about their culture, that it would see you crawling through the gutter and scaping and bowing to your enemy's backward belief system, rather than fight knowing yours is a better more advanced culture, with far more advantages. Ultimately, people want the best that the era they live in has to offer. ALL people do.

Germans didn't buy Hitler's "Arayan Superman" nonsense forever. Good of fashioned guns and bombs kicked "Superman's" ass.

People like you were probably actually believing the "Superman" hype and been yacking about all the ways we had to play homage to that, rather than just kick ass. "Oh boo hoo! You'll NEVER defeat them unless you bury them face down with a star of David on thier ass, Crash! You just don't understand the Superman mindset...!" Bleh. I understand that some people seriously buy into other people's HYPE.

I heard the same **** with the Soviets. "Oh boo hoo Crash, you just don't understand the Soviet mindset! They're all commie robots who'll lay down their lives in hordes of millions for their beloved Lenins and Stalins and commie beliefs. Pfft! That was the HYPE! The propaganda. The REALITY, was that virtually everyone in the Soviet Union grew sick and friggen tired of it. The PEOPLE (see, there's that term again) didn't really want senseless wars against westerners for the glory of the state. They wanted freakin' BLUE JEANS and pickup trucks and rock music and candy bars and movies other than shitty Indian ones and all the stuff that was the best their era had to offer. None of them was really ever all that gung ho to lay down and die for some idiot from a statue, or some bullcrap commie system.

Yet I heard the same bunk all during that era from defeatists and nitwits who'd drunk the fraidy-cat cool-aid that we'd never defeat these people, and that eventually, their armies would overrun and crush the west. Oh, the horrors!

Yes, that's because that's what the people you're fighting respond to. That's what works.

Fact: When you chased Saddam out of Kuwait, your PsyOps dropped a bunch of extra large condoms on the enemy (with some BS about the women being able to protect themselves from American troops). The Iraqis took a look at how large they were and assumed that all American soldiers have huge wedding tackle. And the physiological impact of this, in part, broke their will to fight.

That's the kind of enemy you're dealing with down there.

The main factor in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, was superior firepower. You can ascribe it to pranks and whatever else, but the fact is, enough of Saddam's troops were killed that others simply gave up rather than face the same fate.

The thousands that surrendered during the Gulf war is actually a perfect illustration of my point- seeing their buddies die in droves BROKE the enemy's will and morale. No grade-school pranks and resporting to dicking with the dead bodies was needed. The enemy we faced, then and now, actually doesn't keep on fighting beyond all hope, and all of them aren't the cartoon-character, video game, suicide bomber boogeymen that some people so fervently believe in.

It might show desperation to you, but you're not an arab/persian male. You're a westerner, thinking like a westerner. To the arab/persian male, this kind of tactic shows strength. That's a fact.

It was westerners THINKING like westerners that developed atomic weapons that blew the living sense into people that followed an Emperor they thought was a God. If we'd have been trying to think in backwards terms like you suggest, and been quaking in our boots over Kamakazi attacks, and bowing and scraping to backward Shinto beliefs rather than move forward, we'd have lost.

Thinking like westerners and assuming that the enemy think like westerners is what lost Vietnam. And it's what'll lose Iraq.

Allowing politicians to surrender and constantly have 'peace talks' and 'cease fires', while the enemy used the time to regroup and plan their next attacks, is what lost us the Vietnam war.

Cowards wanting to retreat is what'll probably end up losing in Iraq.

Resorting to cheap pranks won't gain us any ground in Iraq either. The only thing that ever works, is refusing to buy the enemy's hype and kicking his ass. It works the same in EVERY culture- again, it's just FEAR hype, and propaganda (that's actually done it's job on you) that has you thinking otherwise.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, they are. This is what we're fighting. We're talking about people who have no hope of winning except through our capitulation who nonetheless continue to walk into public squares and blow themselves the **** up in the hope that it will psyche us out. Understanding of death? I guess they understand it, but they sure as hell don't seem to mind. Understanding of defeat? They've shown no sign of that.

You could be someone whining the same whine about a Kamazaze attack. Oh no, Crash! All Japanese are willing to fly planes into Americans and die for their Emperor God! It'll never change! There will be Cartoon-video game bogeymen coming after us forever! You simply don't understand their mindset... It's *gasp* SUPERHUMAN...!!!Wahhh!"

You FEAR a propaganda image of super-human Muslims who'll never stop trying to get you, and who will never want anything more in life but to die while trying to kill you.

I simply realize that it's all mostly a sharade, the same as it's really been EVERY SINGLE FRIGGEN TIME the same hype was trotted out previously about an enemy.

Of course there are some willing to go to extremes like suicide attacks to scare the wits out of people like you, and try and make you think everyone is gung ho for the same thing. It's nothing new.

But the vast majority of Muslims aren't really all that interested in blowing themselves up. I know it's hard for you to fathom, believeing the hype as you do. Most want nothing more in life than to live their lives in peace, and most won't follow some nutjob commanding them to die in droves but for so long before they get sick of it and long for other things, like TVs, magazines, girls, cars, video games, etc. etc.

So you go back to quaking in fear over your beyond human boogeymen. I'll go back to calling their bluff, and hoping enough of my nation's armed forces do the same and have some chance of actually winning.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

All cultures respond to being killed the same way, they die. All cultures respond to their comrades in arms being killed in unsustainable numbers the same way, it breaks their will to fight for whatever crazy belief some Hitler, Tojo, Osama, Hussein or whoever drummed into their heads.

Sorry no, you're wrong.

One only has to compare the French vs the British reaction to Hitler's boys in WW2 to see this.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It's your belief that anyone is immune to this, because you're so scared shitless of the hype about their culture, that it would see you crawling through the gutter and scaping and bowing to your enemy's backward belief system, rather than fight knowing yours is a better more advanced culture, with far more advantages.

Sorry Crash, you're wrong. I ain't scared in the slightest. And I don't listen to hype.

I'd suggest that you've actually been listening to too much hype from the other side - the left - telling you that these people think and act just like us*. Well they don't. Period.

* Even that "us" is wrong, since your culture is substantially more histrionic than mine.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by spindler 

Earth to finboy, come in finboy. I HAVE proposed a solution for stabilizing Iraq.

No, not really. What you've done is to PRETEND to have a solution but really offered nothing. Since you know that there aren't going to be 1,000,000 draftees in the streets of Baghdad, your "solution" really doesn't count as one. When you have a legitimate solution to the problem of Iraqi, and by extention, US long-term security, I'll listen.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You could be someone whining the same whine about a Kamazaze attack. Oh no, Crash! All Japanese are willing to fly planes into Americans and die for their Emperor God!

Yeah, and all it took was the only two nuclear bombs ever detonated in the history of warfare to dissuade them. The Japanese were also a fierce opponent, and we didn't beat them by playing nice.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

It'll never change! There will be Cartoon-video game bogeymen coming after us forever! You simply don't understand their mindset... It's *gasp* SUPERHUMAN...!!!Wahhh!"

Have I said they're superhuman? Have I said anything except that they are violent and irrational? No. So what are you actually saying here? Do you question the idea that violence and irrationality exist?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You FEAR a propaganda image of super-human Muslims who'll never stop trying to get you, and who will never want anything more in life but to die while trying to kill you.

Once again you put words in my mouth. I'm not particularly afraid of Muslim terrorists. In general, they have neither the ability nor motivation to hurt me.

[Monique]

If there is a draft; the one on the fence are going to be on the streets manifesting with the pro peace people. Then, I would not like to be in Georgie's shoes.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Monique 

If there is a draft; the one on the fence are going to be on the streets manifesting with the pro peace people. Then, I would not like to be in Georgie's shoes.

Yeah, I'm sure he's trembling in his boots at the threat of our nation's stoner youth and their rallying cries like "Waiting on the World to Change."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Committing war crimes may sometimes end the war sooner, but that doesn't mean we want to go that route. I'm of the opinion that if the only way to defeat the monster is to become an even worse monster, it's not worth it to defeat that monster. I'm also of the opinion that neither Tojo nor Bin Laden is/was so big a threat that we can't/couldn't defeat them while maintaining the moral high ground.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sorry no, you're wrong.
One only has to compare the French vs the British reaction to Hitler's boys in WW2 to see this.

I hardly see where that comparison suits your argument.

The French bought into the baloney that the Germans were unbeatable and rolled over in record time. The Vichy French lowered themselves to act JUST LIKE the Nazis, even going farther than Hitler ordered them to in turning over Jews for deportation and execution.

The British maintained that they didn't need to become Nazis themselves to defeat Nazis, knew the Germans weren't superior or any kind of "supermen" despite all of Hitler's hype, and fought them using forward thinking, not backward/regressive thinking such as you advocated for against today's enemies.

Sorry, but in so much as this example, your arguments are more in line with the French of WWII than the Brits.

Sorry Crash, you're wrong. I ain't scared in the slightest. And I don't listen to hype.

I'd suggest that you've actually been listening to too much hype from the other side - the left - telling you that these people think and act just like us*. Well they don't. Period.

These two above things are contradictory though, which is why it seems to me you are scared of a bogeyman based on hype that leads you to believe that basic human psychology doesn't apply to Muslims like it does to anyone else. Out of your own mouth, you ascribe to them artributes outside of humanity.

The second part of your above statement is nothing but hype, based on your fear of "them" and how "they" act(some monolithic singular unit "they" -cartoons basically- that are all exactly the same)

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, and all it took was the only two nuclear bombs ever detonated in the history of warfare to dissuade them.

Right. Nuclear weapons are the result of 20th century thinking creating superior firepower that defeats an enemy so soundly he'll quit fighting. Not backward thinking little pranks that just make the enemy think you're a desperate doofus. Did you miss that that was what this discussion was about or something?

The Japanese were also a fierce opponent, and we didn't beat them by playing nice.

Try to keep up Chuckit. No one's talking about "playing nice."

In fact, that's the problem I have with you "let's dump pigs blood on their dead bodies" types. THAT'S playing.

I'm not in favor of playing. Playing doesn't win wars. Playing doesn't defeat an enemy. FIGHTING does.

Have I said they're superhuman? Have I said anything except that they are violent and irrational?

That's a really funny quote, because in one swoop, (of course I'd hardly expect you to be sharp enough to realize it) you demonstrate quite a bit about what I'm talking about by your thinking they're superhuman. "THEY are violent and irrational." Who the hell is THEY?

Every society, every culture, every group of people has some among it that are 'violent and irrational'. Heck, our own country is full of them as well.

What's happened is, the radical Muslims have given you shows of a few of theirs with stunts like suicide bombings and terrorism in order to convince you that ALL among their ranks are some sort of robots who are exactly the same. You've clearly bought into that. Your belief in the big bad "THEY" all being 'violent and irrational' is no different than people who beleived in the myths of Nazi or Soviet supermen.

Once again you put words in my mouth. I'm not particularly afraid of Muslim terrorists. In general, they have neither the ability nor motivation to hurt me.

You responded to a direct quote that said Muslims aren't superhumans and aren't beyond human in knowing defeat and loss, with: "Yes they are."

If that's not a statement borne completely out of fear and having bought into propaganda, I don't know what is.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Nuclear weapons are the result of 20th century thinking creating superior firepower that defeats an enemy so soundly he'll quit fighting.

Yes but killing civillians indiscriminately isn't. I would put that in the backward/regressive/gross-out category. "Surely they won't go on once they see we're willing to resort to total warfare." The utter wiping out of cities existed before nuclear bombs did, but it still wasn't civil.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'm not in favor of playing. Playing doesn't win wars. Playing doesn't defeat an enemy. FIGHTING does.

Apparently not. Or we'd be done and dusted there by now.

It's blatantly obvious that you simply don't understand the arab/persian mindset or how different cultures react to threats - you perceive everywhere to be America. A typical failing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, you'll find that in most ME countries there's actually an article in the penal code which says something like "if the murder was an honour killing, then no charge, defendant is free".

I was surprised to hear this and upon a little further investigation am even more surprised to find it true. However, this does seem isolated primarily to Muslim communities and even more specifically; less literate Muslim communities. It should be noted that much of this "honor killing" is also carried out on men. It seems this is deemed either partially or completely effective as a defense of murder in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Iran. The wikipedia article included Israel, but it was clarified that this is unlawful in Israel both partially and completely. It is currently not legal in Turkey and Pakistan. The cure? Education and opportunity. Not unlike the inner-cities of the US, poor socioeconomic conditions lead to atrocity. Unlike the US however, you'll not see "honor killing" used as a viable defense.

In short, it seems an anomaly of those uneducated, (up to and including of their own Quran which scholars claim does not condone this "honor killing".) which is not indicative of the overall culture as much as a symptom of cultural disease.

Until 2002, it was legal in Iraq to murder your own daughter in an honour killing. Like, properly legal - in the same way that you sitting at your Mac is legal.

Thankfully, times are a changin'.

It will work. But not at the moment.

The jury is still out IMO on whether or not barbarism can deter barbarism. I too would like to see restrictions on engagement eased a bit, but as always the mad middle gets lost. It seems we debate whether to hand them candy or hand them grenades.