The Cellar - View Single Post - Does this mean we have to invade them, too?

Urbane Guerrilla · 01-09-2007, 03:02 AM

I want to know more details -- this is but the tip of something largely hidden.

But it seems this is constructively prosecuting the GWOT: go where the targets are and destroy them. Doesn't get more fundamental than that. An enemy with no sanctuary to withdraw into is an enemy without hope of winning, and that's exactly what we who are humanity's, and America's, friends want.

Some wonder aloud at my equating America's cause with humanity's, but is it not so that our foes are fighting for the chance to better their chance to oppress? Are we not fighting for the other fraction of humanity, the little guys who would be the most oppressed?

That's pretty much all I need. Some others get crabbed because it's a Republican commander in chief running the war, at which view I scoff -- it's unworthy.

01-09-2007, 03:02 AM	#2
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	I want to know more details -- this is but the tip of something largely hidden. But it seems this is constructively prosecuting the GWOT: go where the targets are and destroy them. Doesn't get more fundamental than that. An enemy with no sanctuary to withdraw into is an enemy without hope of winning, and that's exactly what we who are humanity's, and America's, friends want. Some wonder aloud at my equating America's cause with humanity's, but is it not so that our foes are fighting for the chance to better their chance to oppress? Are we not fighting for the other fraction of humanity, the little guys who would be the most oppressed? That's pretty much all I need. Some others get crabbed because it's a Republican commander in chief running the war, at which view I scoff -- it's unworthy. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 01-09-2007 at 03:08 AM.