Damn, that's a shame. Such a nice aircraft, and F'in expensive.
And really very rare to have one crash. Glad the pilots were able to get out.
I'm sorry, but Ha ha ha....ha ha....ha. I have no sympathy for the military and their death machines. Even if both of my grandfathers, plus two uncles, were in the Army and Navy.
He's entitled to his opinion. If you're going to respond, type up an actual response.
But you must feel sorry for your tax dollars. However you can feel happy for the good people at Northrop Grumman's Military Aircraft Systems Division, Boeing Military Airplanes Co, Hughes Radar Systems Group, and General Electric Aircraft Engine Group because they all will probably in the near future be getting a big contract.
Hey, the pilots were OK so thats good. Yeah the technology is cool (make that really cool) but the implementation and cause are wrong.
Whats wrong about killing the enemy?
Define enemy, and the reason to kill them. Like actual threat level
I don't pay taxes (yet). If our high school yearbook had a "Most likely to become an ex-pat." I'd likely be on there.
Thats a legal definition based on the UN and the US law.
For example, I want the Iraqi insurgents vaporized into sand.
They'll just fire out more of 'em if we keep showing that all we feel towards them is hatred. Also, the deserts of Iraq have enough sand.
The problem with your argument is that you are connecting two separate ideas. We hate insurgents. These are not normal Iraqis, who we help. We show the Iraqi people we do not tolerate people hostile to the US, Iraqis, and the Iraqi government. We demonstrate this lack of tolerance by weeding them out and killing every last one of them if they do not decide to lay down their weapons.
It would be nice if life were black and white, but its not. And there are people in this world that need to be eliminated; -and you cant make apologies for doing it.
I wasn't generalizing Iraqis and insurgents. How do you suggest we stop insurgents? We need to change their perspective. We can't kill every last one of them.
That is the flaw in your logic. You cant change fundamentally radical people. You can only eliminate them, and hope the moderates will help and take over. The Iraqis have to stop the insurgents in their country. Its their problem more than ours.
Yes it is there problem more than ours, but they're still likely to lapse back to the old ways. Also, if we continue killing relentlessly and our killing to helping ratio gets top heavy its gonna affect the regular Iraqis views. Hey I'm just a 15 year old kid, what the hell do I know.
So based on your logic. We can let them 'lapse back to their old ways' killing eachother, or we can help them to kill insurgents and get on track to modern society. In what way is your solution more moral than the one that involves eliminating our enemy. (And by our, I mean Iraqis and Americans Enemy).
One thing you will have to come to terms with in the real world is that killing our enemy is the moral thing to do.
You're also using your words very loosely. Define 'killing relentlessly'.
Killing relentlessly: searching out and destroying all insurgents (as you suggest)
I did not suggest we teach the Iraqis to kill the insurgents, where did you figure that from? I said that we need to change the views of the insurgents, as well as helping the whole population, across sectarian boundaries.
Then you are purposefully using a very poor and misleading definition to suit your position. Searching out and destroying an enemy is highly moral act, and is one that shows care and concern for innocent civilians in the process.
I know you did not suggest we teach the Iraqis to kill the insurgents, but thats exactly what Im suggesting.
Can you explain how you are going to change the views of the insurgents without the use of deadly force? In the real world, that will not only get you killed, but embolden the insurgents to cause even more harm to you. If you want to get your enemy to calm down, you show them that either they can be reasonable, or that you will utterly ahnilate them.
Do you think a reasonable enemy would attack innocent civilians by blowing them up during a funeral? How are you going to talk reason into them? This is the basic problem with your logic.
Separate names with a comma.