Isn't it more ignorant to say that American first and foremost refers to a U.S. citizen? Because claiming that means that you are being ignorant to the 24 countries in the American Continents.artanis_neravar said:
The best way to win a war is to dehumanize your enemy. Our soldiers can not do what they need to do if they are constantly reminded that the people they are shooting have family'sspectrenihlus said:
It is country before continent. People from France are French before they are European, Citizens of Brazil are Brazilian before they are South American, and citizens of the US are American Before they are North American.RanD00M said:
Okay, so you got me there. But does that mean that I am personally not allowed to use the second one first and foremost. And does that mean that just because that it has been used for some number of years now that it can't be changed? No, and I am not one to call yanks Americans. I rather call yanks U.S. Citizens or Yanks.artanis_neravar said:
Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.immovablemover said:
You can call us whatever you want (free speech and all) just know that when a US citizen says American they are most likely referring to US citizens. And as a side note calling someone from the Boston area an Yank might not have the best results for youRanD00M said:
And your view of the world is NOT REALISTIC. Fine if you want to treat captured POW's with respect and decency that is all well and good but the only reason that you are doing that is not because its the moral thing to do it is because you would rather have the enemy surrender then fight to the last man and risk losing more people on your side. Japan during world war 2 was as fanatical as Al Qaeda is today, remember they invented suicide attacks, invasion of their mainland would have been costly for both sides the US and Japan both in terms of lives lost and in money spent. So instead the US dropped the atomic bomb and vaporized thousands of their people in a second, and then we did it again and we reached total surrender. The act of seeing thousands of people wiped out in a second really sobered the Japanese fanaticism and guess what Japan and the US are best friends. Same goes for Sherman's march during the civil war it was brutal but it was quick and helped in ending the war faster than it otherwise would have taken saving lives over the long term. The reason Afghanistan is taking so damn long is because we are not allowing our troops to go in and kick ass and thus we are losing lives.immovablemover said:
You are certainly a paragon of virtue, what with your noticeable respect and humility.immovablemover said:
I did read it. Note that the original post was about Osama. There was no mention of what I would have done to any other nations, groups, or individuals, including those you mentioned , in the original post or my response. While those instances are tragic and need those responsible need to be held accountable, they are not a part of the original post or my response to said post. If you really want to know, I do think that any individual, group, or what have you, who hurts innocents, not just Americans , should to be held accountable.RanD00M said:
Agredd morality and war have no business being together. You cannot be moral when fighting any enemy that will do everything it can to exterminate youspectrenihlus said:
