What you actually outline is that civilisational progress and war are mutually exclusive. And I agree with that. there is no such thing like a "civilised way of war". thge higher developed a civilistion is in morals, the less capable it is to wage war itself.

The higher developed a civilisation is, the less it tends to waging war itself, but let proxies fight wars in its place. Civilised people do not kill with their own hands, but they will the dying of others and let the killing happen, committed by others. Linked to this is the expectation not to be worried by details of war, instead being saved the bloody details and instead left to one's own polished mental image of how clena and tidy it could be done.

I honestely do not believe in being civilised. It's a hypocritic lie. Some other things are far more important, I think. Honesty. Trustworthiness. Reliability. Strength. In peaceful and martial intentions: determination, and courage. For being considered to be civilised i can buy myself nothing.

It's only "nigh on impossible" as long as your own side keeps attacking you from behind while you fight the enemy at your front. Also known as "treason" once upon a time.

Skybird, have you had that stutter checked??:p

heartc, its like what skybird says - the west tries to be civilised in war, when war is anything but civilised by its very nature. Its hypocritical

edit - looks like you fixed it now :)

Hope so. Since some weeks this board sometimes drives me crazy. As if you guys are not already suffering enough from my many typos. :lol:

First off you did dodge the question and i'm still waiting for an answer to it.

Second. I don't think Irish-American support of the IRA was at all justified but the US Government did not encourage it either, interdicting many cash and arms shipments destined for IRA fighters. The exact opposite is the case with Syria, which brings up my final point.

This strike was not something out of the blue. The US has been objecting to Syria over their support for the Iraqi insurgency repeatedly over the past several years to no avail. At some point one must trade words for actions and that's what happened in this case.

Yes it is.

Can you provide a news source that foretold of the attacks before they occurred?

That's not what i said. Try reading instead of reacting.

"This strike was not something out of the blue"

Something not out of the blue that no one saw coming? :hmm:
How far out of the blue is out of the blue!

No it is true. Strange to agree with August for a change, but it is true indeed. American accusations against Syria are not new at all.

And Letum, please stop debating semantics. Clever wordgames are not needed here, really.

Still waiting for an answer to my question from the previous page. Take a stab at answering that and maybe i'll play your word twisting game with you.

Whether it is out of the blue or not isn't a matter of semantics.
Either there was warning, or there wasn't. Clearly there wasn't.

There was certainly no president for attacking Syrian petrol smugglers.


August: See previous posts for the answer to your 'question'.
Do not keep asking for answers because you did not like the first one.

Well that begs the question then, warning to who? You and Mik?

:roll: Whatever. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you'll believe it.

Might I suggest to take it a bit easier and avoid this thread for a while so it can cool down a bit?..its reaching above room temperature.

HunterICX