the outcome of the election

[Ashock]

Yes, the world trade center, hostage killings, and school killings were really bad things to do.  But I'd much rather head in with the attitude of "we're going to lessen this in the future and keep more people from  getting killed, and show the rest of the planet that we're better" instead of "lets go kill some of those freaks".

I'm not sure if Ashock has the attitude I was talking about, it sounded like he sort of did, and I know about people who do, so this was my opinion on it.  This paragraph is sort of related to the election so it isn't really off topic.
[right][snapback]59819[/snapback][/right]

In a war, there is no "we're better" attitude, unless this means we're better at killing. You try taking the high road, and that road will lead to the cemetery. No, there's no need for unnecessary violence, like killing their kids (although frankly, I think that this actually might get the message across... umm, maybe). However, Muslim militants are like rabid dogs. Rabid dogs bite anyone they can sink their teeth into. So, what's the usual procedure in dealing with rabid dogs? What's the usual procedure with even normal seeming dogs that attacked humans violently? No, definately no need for extra violence. Just the right amount will do.

In WW2, we were not as violent overall as the Germans and the Japanese were against us (if anyone wants to start a nuke discussion, just zip it. Same goes for Drezden). Even the russians who were significantly less "civilized" than the western forces were, did not on the whole approach the levels of violence exhibited by the germans. However, and this is important.... we were violent *enough*.




-A