Iraq

[Eagler]

Originally posted by buhdman:


I'm with you on this one, Dowding.  Those terrorists who used human beings as weapons in their holy war were only interested in their own selfish aims, no matter the cost to innocent others (i.e., ends justify the means).  We have to be more sophisticated than that in our war against this kind of evil.  We can't go around killing innocent people or we're no better than these terrorists.

Once, again, I find it repugnant that any sane person would so frivously advocate the use of nuclear weapons against anyone as Eagler seems so easily to be able to do in this thread.  Sorry, bud, but I think you're dead wrong.  This kind of thinking will only take us into the pilot seat of another American Airlines flight 11. (metaphorically speaking, of course)

Buhdman, out

Buhdman
The referance to a "fat one" was not meant to be atomic or nuclear only a bomb(s) which kills this scum, once and all. A Nuclear response scares the hell out of me. Once that cat is let out of the bag, there is no way to put it back. Sorry for the confusion..

[Hobodog]

Yes yes oil fields for reparations. Now that we will control Iraq i wonder if well beable to get into OPEC?

[Wotan]

the us government will be hard pressed to find saddam or bin ladin.

How many people you want to kill? Hell we can killing all if you want. There just "ragheads" and "zealots" and no where near being like us.

You gonna send your children into afghanistan to get him or into bahgdad to find saddam?

Its one thing to be angry and hurt but keep a head on your shoulders.

If done the wrong way the WTC could end up seeming like "minor tragedy" compared to what some are prepared to do.

At the very best how long are you prepared to keep troops in Iraq or afghanistan? Because they will have to stay there or the next nut will pop up.

[AKSWulfe]

You missed one vital point Wotan: We aren't going after just the leaders. Their cronies will continue on if we get just the leaders, this time we're going for as many as we can get our hands on.
-SW

[newguy2]

Guys, You really need to start thinking this thing out a bit deeper. Did this country fold up after FDR died or when JFK was assassinated? Would England or Russia had surrender if Churchill or Stalin had been  killed? There is always a second stringer waiting to take over.

     I'm really amazed by the number of people that think killing a handful of terrorists or a few leaders in the mideast is going to put an end to this. Your not going to scare these people. Would the above make you give up, when you believe your right? How many terrorists have the Israel killed over the years? Has it stopped them?

      We're either going to, as in the case of Iraq or a number of other country over there. Invade, occupy and remove the government or close our eyes and give the Arab nations the green light to slaughter the jews. Then pray, that all they want.

      If I'm wrong about this, what was the point of invading germany? Read through the history books. What country or war was ever stopped by a handfull of deaths? Look at what it took to make Japan surrender.

      If we don't have the balls to take this thing all the way. The next explosion you'll see in the not to distant future, will be them nuking us. They sure as hell have proved to me that they could pull it off.

[-ammo-]

we should target the entire infrastructure of Terrorist organizations. wage war on all aspects of the org's.

[Tuomio]

Saddam is smoking a fat cigar in hes mansion, laughing his bellybutton off.
20 years he has done that, wars come and go but only thing it has accomplished is to make the Iraq people more fanatic.

[Dowding]

...20 years he has done that, wars come and go but only thing it has accomplished is to make the Iraq people more fanatic.

The people of Iraq don't like Saddam. But since dissent is a crime punishable by death (after torture), they are not going to openly show their true feelings. Some brave souls do run an underground over there, but it has had few successes.

Newguy2 has hit the nail on the head. We need to be trying to prevent this kind of action in the future, not dragging the world into a cycle of violence.

[buhdman]

Originally posted by Dowding:


The people of Iraq don't like Saddam. But since dissent is a crime punishable by death (after torture), they are not going to openly show their true feelings. Some brave souls do run an underground over there, but it has had few successes.

Newguy2 has hit the nail on the head. We need to be trying to prevent this kind of action in the future, not dragging the world into a cycle of violence.

Right on. Even in America the Beautiful, you will find that the kind of "hate those that are different" mentality that causes this kind of senseless violence is rapmant everywhere you look.  Refer to my post "We Must Rise Above This!" for just a taste of the kind of "domestic terrorism" going on in the aftermath of Tuesday's tragedy.  We simply have to stop hating and stop teaching our children to hate.  That's the only way we're going to put an end to this kind of thing.  IMHO.

Buhdman, out

[Fury]

I'm hoping that terrorists do not yet have access to nukes or bio weapons.  If they will fly airplanes into buildings, you can bet they will use them if they have them.

I have never heard so many people even discussing the use of US nukes as I have in the last few days, on tv and NPR.  Granted, it's only been three or four times, and fortunately it's been people no longer in the government and people that have no influence on the government, but to even discuss it as an option is insane and scary.

Once we move, on any front, I imagine it will get worse on US soil before it gets better.

[Nifty]

Why don't you just combine the two philosophies here?  1) punish the hell out of those responsible for this and every other terrorist attack.  2) work to stop the conditions that cause the terrorists to act.

unfortunately, #2 will only happen if the US only involvement in the Middle East is buying their oil from them.  As long as we support Israel in any way, most of the Middle East will oppose us.  As long as we maintain any presence over there, they will hate us and continue to do what they're doing.

Dowding (i think it was him) brought up an interesting point in another thread a couple of days ago.  Since we've now basically said we're going after ALL terrorists and not just those targeting the US, does that mean the IRA is next after we deal with the Middle East groups?  Will we (the world, not just the US) extend military action to groups in South America as well?

[Fury]

It's either hot air or a promise.  I've heard the government say more than once that terrorism around the world is the target.  That's a hell of a lot more involved than just this incident and I'm afraid that if it's carried out, we ain't seen nothing yet.  I've heard the government prepping us for "the long run" and "many US casualties"; I haven't heard them yet prepping us for possible (probable?) future attacks on US soil.

I'm hoping this does not eventually turn into another eye-for-an-eye thing that spirals around from attack to retaliation, the very thing that I hate about the whole Middle East situation.

I don't see how the US can police the entire world against terrorism (probably why they are shoring up international support) and I don't even know if I can see how international support can police the entire world.  This is not a country we are at war with, it's terrorism that may not necessarily be state sponsored.  One way would be to remove the governments that harbor terrorists -- and who's gonna take responsiblity to do that, and would it make a difference anyways?

[Thrawn]

"I am sure there will be many civilian casualties, this is a sad, terrible, thing."

"How much 'collateral' damage do you accept do get him? ........hmmmm how about 10,000 for starters "

Sounds like something bin Laden might have said to his boys, before they headed off.  Golly-geen morons! You just don't get it do you?

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]