Taldren Forums
  General Starfleet Command Forum
  To nuke, or not to nuke... (Page 3)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 4 pages long:   1  2  3  4 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   To nuke, or not to nuke...
SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 12:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Btw,

I sent this link to a friend, who is from Lebanon.

He was shocked when he read this. (And no, he isnt a Muslim-fundamentalist).

Btw, I wanted to post this as well, by Anglo: (Yes, he's from America(Florida actually)

<PGC_Anglo-tfc> That's like saying, my son took a cookie when I told him not too...he's 3 years old but I beat him with a lead pipe until he stopped breathing; I know he'll never do that again ?!?!?

IP: Logged

Goff147
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 12:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Goff147   Click Here to Email Goff147     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Khoros:
Well, in the case of Sethan and myself, I don't believe we've looked at anything BUT consequences. That's how we've arrived at the very painful decision that 26 million people might have to die.

We've asked people to provide alternatives that haven't already been tried, and look at the consequences of those alternatives. They've really not been able to do the former, and they've blithely ignored the consequences of their proposals.


LOL Khoros, I've said it before but you really need to get over yourself. I don't have the patience to read one another of your 4 page diatribes, but I really can't stop laughing at the part: "We've arrived at the painful decision". No decision you make or think needs to be made matters in the slightest. I'm fairly sure George W. hasn't posted here asking for opinions to guide national policy, no matter how much you seem to think so.

IP: Logged

Sethan
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 01:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sethan   Click Here to Email Sethan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:
<PGC_Anglo-tfc> That's like saying, my son took a cookie when I told him not too...he's 3 years old but I beat him with a lead pipe until he stopped breathing; I know he'll never do that again ?!?!?

Hijacking loaded passenger planes and flying them into buildings in an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible cannot be equated to a 3 year old taking a cookie.

Afghanistan harbored the terrorists who did this, and many others as well - 5 different known terrorist organizations base out of Afghanistan, and 3 of them have training camps there. The Afghan government knows where they are, and supports their actions. The Afghan people don't want the government overthrown, or they'd have actually helped the few rebels who have been trying to do just that for years.

If we go in and get bin Laden and a couple of his cronies, capture, try, and execute them - what does that prove?

It proves that we can get a known terrorist when we know exactly where and who he is. It proves to the terrorists that we think 1000 to 1 casualties is acceptable, and that they need to do something bigger next time.

And there will be a 'next time'. Killing one old man isn't going to change that. Nor will nuking a city.

As long as terrorism is shown to work (i.e., they can cause massive casualties without significant reprisal), it will continue. Why do I consider nuking a city not significant reprisal (as far as the terrorists and the states sponsoring them are concerned)? Because it does not directly affect them. Unless the leader of the nation or the terrorists happen to be in the city that is nuked, they will consider it acceptable losses, and plan their next attack. The national leaders have proved many times by their national policies that they consider their people (as individuals) expendable.

In order to make sure there is no 'next time' we must make sure that the consequences for a state that sponsors terrorism are unthinkable. If no state will sponsor terrorism, and all states do their utmost to hunt down all terrorists, terrorism will become a thing of the past.

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 01:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:
Maybe, but, consider this:

Even if you'd nuke half the world, you still wouldn't get rid of terrorism, in fact, you will [b] increase the amount of terrorism.

[This message has been edited by SirWillem (edited 09-14-2001).][/B]


Well, again, I'm only keeping nukes as an option, but regardless of that, I'm afraid that history has proved your argument completely wrong.

The ancient Japanese warrior culture, which to some extent still existed in 1945, was every bit as fanatically courageous as any the Middle East has ever produced. When faced with destruction on a scale they could never hope to duplicate, they capitulated.

As for Fred's argument... you can cast Sethan and I in any light you want, it doesn't change the dynamics of the situation. You can derisivley paint us as push-button killers, again, it doesn't change the situation.

Ironically, more so than Sethan, that's exactly what I was. A pushbutton killer. I was a communications electrician aboard an FBM sub. Pushbutton killing was the reason I was there.

Oh, I wasn't the one who actually had to push the button, and I could comfort myself with that, if I chose to hide from the responsibility. In fact, it was my communications circuits that would transmit the order to fire. And in this case, I mean, literally MY circuits, as I was the AN/WIC tech aboard the ship. That makes me at least an "accessory" to push button killing.

Bah! I wasn't a "push button killer". I was a BABY killer, Fred. Ever wonder what Trident missiles are targetted at? Don't. It's classified, and it will give you nightmares. After you finish puking.

Oh, you were in the 82nd? So I guess that means your killing would be "killing like a MAN". You'd shoot some poor conscripted peasant down, but you'd tell yourself it's okay, because he was a "soldier".

And now you're making the same rationalization. You can't handle the horror of 26 million deaths. But you can handle any number of deaths as long as they're "soldiers". That makes it okay, right? It doesn't matter if someone grabbed them in the middle of the night, gave them a few rags called a uniform, stuck a gun in their hand, and told them to go die. They're "soldiers", so you can have a clear conscience. Aren't you the just the brave soldier?

You want to talk TERROR?!? The Submarine Service has been dealing in terror for the past half century. They call it "deterence", but that "deterence" is based on nothing more than pure unadulterated terror.

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 01:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

Hijacking loaded passenger planes and flying them into buildings in an attempt to kill as many civilians as possible cannot be equated to a 3 year old taking a cookie.

You can't compare 3 terrorist attacks to a nuclear strike either. It's that simple.

quote:

The ancient Japanese warrior culture, which to some extent still existed in 1945, was every bit as fanatically courageous as any the Middle East has ever produced. When faced with destruction on a scale they could never hope to duplicate, they capitulated.

The USA was at war with Japan. Japan is a country. It's location is between Russia and the USA. The USA are at war with Terrorists. But where are they? Exactly..., some of them are probably hiding in Afghanistan, SOME of them......

[This message has been edited by SirWillem (edited 09-14-2001).]

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Goff147:
LOL Khoros, I've said it before but you really need to get over yourself. I don't have the patience to read one another of your 4 page diatribes, but I really can't stop laughing at the part: "We've arrived at the painful decision". No decision you make or think needs to be made matters in the slightest. I'm fairly sure George W. hasn't posted here asking for opinions to guide national policy, no matter how much you seem to think so.

Well, I'm glad you got some laughter out of it, Goff. Heaven knows we need all the laughter we can get right now.

And yes, I know President Bush isn't looking at my commentary for policy. But I can honestly say I'd be going through the same discussions if I thought he was. I don't hide behind rationalizations that "oh, well they'll never actually DO what I'm saying." or the one that's really popular on this board "Well, I'm not in charge, so I can afford to be naive and moralistic".

I don't try to fool myself that way. Just as I don't fool myself into thinking that everyone who reads my posts will try to take them for what they are intended for, instead of casting them in the light of "someone who needs to get over himself" and blowing them off.

LOL... which isn't to say that I don't perhaps need to get over myself a bit. I'll mull your opinion over, and consider it. Truth is truth, regardless of whether you respect the source.

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Fred of Cyberville
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fred of Cyberville   Click Here to Email Fred of Cyberville     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Khoros, Sethan, now your making assumptions.

Now according to my father I would have been a real man if I had joined the Navy like he had. He rode river boats in 'nam as a sniper for awhile, 23 years of the Navy was enough for him. My brother tells me if I had become a burly chested diver like he I would have become a man, he is 2 years from his retirement. My dad and I both give him crap about the mixtures he has to breath and the fact that he is going bald, and we aren't.

I always considerd myself lucky during the Carter and Reagan years I was stationed in DC. I was in a unit that doesn't exist anymore that was only created because some terrorist took over a Jewish building in DC in the 70's. Benay Burth <SP> wrong spelling for sure. So we got to train with the FBI and Secret Service. We had a running joke on what we were going to do if the Soviets were coming down Constitution Avenue. Our job was to respond to any terrorist attack on a goverment building in the DC area. We also used to have the lovely job of acting as human shields for the Secret Service when we practised escorting people to helicopters. We had positions assigned to us at the White House along the fence were we would be positioned. We even had our Dooms day misson.

Since I have practised forced entries into many buildings, I think I understand what is going to be asked of our people. Did I call you a baby killer, did I say you were not a man. I have been called a baby killer straight to my face. For something I wasn't even old enough to have done right in our nations capital.

You two are advocating mass murder, nothing short of. We are not going to change our minds or opinions in this thread on this subject.

I simply say NO to Nuking which is what this thread started as. No to mass murder which it turned into.

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:
The USA was at war with Japan. Japan is a country. It's location is between Russia and the USA. The USA are at war with Terrorists. But where are they? Exactly..., some of them are probably hiding in Afghanistan, SOME of them......

[This message has been edited by SirWillem (edited 09-14-2001).]



Ummm... we weren't comparing the our response (be it nuclear or not) to the terrorist attacks. That would be saying that we want "equal retaliation". That's not what we're speaking of. We're talking about teaching the people that sponsor and harbor the terrorists that the results of terrorist attacks are painful to them. What part of the word "teach" can't you grasp?

Yes, you did study some history. We WERE at war with Japan. Note that that war ceased almost immediately.

But... read the news. What part of "we are at war" and "act of war" do you not understand?

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Source: CNN.com
America's New War

Read it. Only 2 words, shouldn't be too difficult. What part do you not understand?

quote:

That's not what we're speaking of. We're talking about teaching the people that sponsor and harbor the terrorists that the results of terrorist attacks are painful to them.

So, if that means nuking about 20 countries, you'd do that ?

Interesting.

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Fred of Cyberville:
Khoros, Sethan, now your making assumptions.

Now according to my father I would have been a real man if I had joined the Navy like he had. He rode river boats in 'nam as a sniper for awhile, 23 years of the Navy was enough for him. My brother tells me if I had become a burly chested diver like he I would have become a man, he is 2 years from his retirement. My dad and I both give him crap about the mixtures he has to breath and the fact that he is going bald, and we aren't.

I always considerd myself lucky during the Carter and Reagan years I was stationed in DC. I was in a unit that doesn't exist anymore that was only created because some terrorist took over a Jewish building in DC in the 70's. Benay Burth <SP> wrong spelling for sure. So we got to train with the FBI and Secret Service. We had a running joke on what we were going to do if the Soviets were coming down Constitution Avenue. Our job was to respond to any terrorist attack on a goverment building in the DC area. We also used to have the lovely job of acting as human shields for the Secret Service when we practised escorting people to helicopters. We had positions assigned to us at the White House along the fence were we would be positioned. We even had our Dooms day misson.

Since I have practised forced entries into many buildings, I think I understand what is going to be asked of our people. Did I call you a baby killer, did I say you were not a man. I have been called a baby killer straight to my face. For something I wasn't even old enough to have done right in our nations capital.

You two are advocating mass murder, nothing short of. We are not going to change our minds or opinions in this thread on this subject.

I simply say NO to Nuking which is what this thread started as. No to mass murder which it turned into.



No, I certainly didn't accuse you of calling me a baby killer. I called myself a baby killer. Maybe "potential" baby killer is more accurate. And like you, I've been called that to my face.

Unlike I didn't have the comfort of knowing that I wasn't old enough to have done what they were accusing me of.


------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:

Source: CNN.com
America's New War

Read it. Only 2 words, shouldn't be too difficult. What part do you not understand?

So, if that means nuking about 20 countries, you'd do that ?

Interesting.



If evidence led me to believe that to safeguard the lives of people in the United States, it would take nuking 20 countries, yes, I would do so.

That's an easy question. I resolved that with myself over twenty years ago.

Now... let me go look at CNN, and see what you've come up with now.


------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Sethan
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sethan   Click Here to Email Sethan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:
You can't compare 3 terrorist attacks to a nuclear strike either. It's that simple.

I wasn't. Using the same logical construction, we would be comparing beating a 3 year old to death with a pipe to a nuclear strike. I wasn't doing that either.

The whole point of eradicating Afghanistan (using nuclear weapons or conventional ones) is not that it be punishment for Afghanistan for harmoring terrorists. The point is that it be seen to be the punishment for doing so, by the other terrorist nations.

If by handing flowers to Osama bin Laden, I could make all the terrorist nations so afraid to sponsor, harbor, finance, or turn a blind eye to terrorists, that they would never do it again and would actively hunt down all terrorists, I'd do it. That won't work, and neither will executing him and 2 or 3 other terrorists. Nor will bombing (or even nuking) an Afghan city.

Find me a way to make them stop, and I'll jump on it.

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Btw, mind if we continue this discussion over icq or something? It's a bit annoying to click on "refresh"every time.

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

That won't work, and neither will executing him and 2 or 3 other terrorists. Nor will bombing (or even nuking) an Afghan city.

Agreed, so why do it?

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ok, so I read the article. What's your point? The only thing I saw evenly remotely referring to this discussion was the Congressional vote to authorize the President to use force to retaliate against the terrorists.

Are you trying to make the point that we don't have an official declaration of war against a country?

I would suspect that's because the President hasn't asked for one yet, since the investigation isn't complete yet. The President himself has said we won't distinguish between the terrorists, and those countries that harbor terrorists. But before you can officially declare war, you have to identify who you're going to war with.

However, that shouldn't keep one from discussing contingency plans.

You'll note that Sethan and I have at least made the attempt to use Afghanistan only as a likely example. Feel free to go back and substitute "hypothetical terrorist harboring country" wherever you like.

Oh, Sethan... check the mail address you have in your profile, please.

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

Ok, so I read the article. What's your point? The only thing I saw evenly remotely referring to this discussion was the Congressional vote to authorize the President to use force to retaliate against the terrorists.

Uhm.

It was about the title "America's New War", as you wrote

quote:

But... read the news. What part of "we are at war" and "act of war" do you not understand?

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:
Uhm.

It was about the title "America's New War", as you wrote

[QUOTE]
But... read the news. What part of "we are at war" and "act of war" do you not understand?


[/QUOTE]

LOL... ok... read MORE news. You'll come across it eventually.

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 02:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Ok...I'll be back into discussion tomorrow or something, kind of tired right now.

Anyway, take care.

IP: Logged

SL-Punisher
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 03:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SL-Punisher   Click Here to Email SL-Punisher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, in the case of Sethan and myself, I don't believe we've looked at anything BUT consequences. That's how we've arrived at the very painful decision that 26 million people might have to die.

We've asked people to provide alternatives that haven't already been tried, and look at the consequences of those alternatives. They've really not been able to do the former, and they've blithely ignored the consequences of their proposals.


------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged


You sir frighten me. Not many things scare me on this planet. Ive been in car accidents, ive witnessed a bloody murder, ive been beaten and robbed for my money, I was once caught in a forrest fire while on vacation.

Those things only made me fear for my life.

You make me fear for an entire nation, and an entire world.

Your disregard for innocent life is equal to those of the terrorists. They felt they were justified to kill as many people as possible in the defense of their way of life. No one can excuse those actions, no one can do anything but feel a silent rage at the horror we have all seen.

However, we shall not lower ourselves to terrorism on a mass scale. We will not murder the innocent along with the guilty. And if you think for one second an entire nation of people is responsible, your just dead wrong. A small group within a nation is responsible. A nations "Provisional" government is responsible.

The terrorists struck because of US foriegn policy. That act killed thousands of our civilians, yet before dust has cleared you want to eliminate an entire people! You advocate the same thing, destruction and genocide on a scale so large it reminds me of communist russia during WWII.

Well nazi germany felt all jewish people were a threat, and we know what happend then.

When a murder is comitted you arrest those responsible, and those who supported them. However, you do not kill that persons family and burn down his house just for spite.

The rules in which we live are paramount. They cannot be relaxed in the name of revenge. These rules are what keep US from becoming THEM. You would have us throw away the values and morals in which we live in order to eliminate an entire nation of people.

This is not WWII, we are not deali
ng with a nation. We are dealing with a group of terrorists within that nation.

Your solution would create terrorism overnight. Imagine how muslims across the world would react to your suggested wholesale slaughter? Umm did you know the largest muslim population is not in the middle east but in India (300 million)

Those that escaped your nazi-like slaughter would want revenge on a level you've never even considered. You think a couple hundred terrorists are bad? Imagine thousands of them swarming over to our boarders to enact cruel revenge for the utter destruction we inflicted upon another people. Not only momuments and large political targets would be attacked, but now with enough terrorists they could attack every day targets like shopping malls, and schools. Like the school my neice and nephew go to every day.

You sir place us in a danger that is far worse than any other we have ever experianced. Your opinions would lead us down the dark path were all freedoms, all morals, all values would be stripped away in order to satisfy your thirst for blood.

If I have offended you, then good, You need to be offended. Your comments are offensive to humanity, your opinions have no compassion, no regard for the innocent.

Sound familiar? Yea kinda sounds like a terrorist huh?


IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 03:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

You sir frighten me. Not many things scare me on this planet. Ive been in car accidents, ive witnessed a bloody murder, ive been beaten and robbed for my money, I was once caught in a forrest fire while on vacation.

Those things only made me fear for my life.

You make me fear for an entire nation, and an entire world.

Your disregard for innocent life is equal to those of the terrorists. They felt they were justified to kill as many people as possible in the defense of their way of life. No one can excuse those actions, no one can do anything but feel a silent rage at the horror we have all seen.

However, we shall not lower ourselves to terrorism on a mass scale. We will not murder the innocent along with the guilty. And if you think for one second an entire nation of people is responsible, your just dead wrong. A small group within a nation is responsible. A nations "Provisional" government is responsible.

The terrorists struck because of US foriegn policy. That act killed thousands of our civilians, yet before dust has cleared you want to eliminate an entire people! You advocate the same thing, destruction and genocide on a scale so large it reminds me of communist russia during WWII.

Well nazi germany felt all jewish people were a threat, and we know what happend then.

When a murder is comitted you arrest those responsible, and those who supported them. However, you do not kill that persons family and burn down his house just for spite.

The rules in which we live are paramount. They cannot be relaxed in the name of revenge. These rules are what keep US from becoming THEM. You would have us throw away the values and morals in which we live in order to eliminate an entire nation of people.

This is not WWII, we are not deali
ng with a nation. We are dealing with a group of terrorists within that nation.

Your solution would create terrorism overnight. Imagine how muslims across the world would react to your suggested wholesale slaughter? Umm did you know the largest muslim population is not in the middle east but in India (300 million)

Those that escaped your nazi-like slaughter would want revenge on a level you've never even considered. You think a couple hundred terrorists are bad? Imagine thousands of them swarming over to our boarders to enact cruel revenge for the utter destruction we inflicted upon another people. Not only momuments and large political targets would be attacked, but now with enough terrorists they could attack every day targets like shopping malls, and schools. Like the school my neice and nephew go to every day.

You sir place us in a danger that is far worse than any other we have ever experianced. Your opinions would lead us down the dark path were all freedoms, all morals, all values would be stripped away in order to satisfy your thirst for blood.

If I have offended you, then good, You need to be offended. Your comments are offensive to humanity, your opinions have no compassion, no regard for the innocent.

Sound familiar? Yea kinda sounds like a terrorist huh?


No, I'm not particularly offended. I find your post rather laughable, to be frank.

You continue to insist that we are after a bunch of terrorists, when the President himself has stated, unequivocably, that we are not. How am I supposed to take your views seriously when you are apparently not even in the same discussion that I am?

You compare my views to those of Nazi Germany, and in the next breath warn that my views will basically bring about the end of the world, or something akin to it.

Ever notice how whenever a liberal assaults a conservative position, he starts hauling out the hyperbole and extreme terms like Nazis, etc. etc.? And if the conservative advocates something unpleasant, the assumption is always that he enjoys it. That he revels in it.

As Sethan and I have REPEATEDLY stated: Show us an viable alternative that hasn't already been tried, that spares those innocent lives, and we will jump on it. Gladly. Gleefully. With great relief.

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

SL-Punisher
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 03:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SL-Punisher   Click Here to Email SL-Punisher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
LOL Right and the president knows everything?

Has the president even considered killing 26 million people? Would the American people support that sort of slaughter? The answer is NO. Because after the dust settles and the anger has passed, people will be horrified at the act.

You aparently have little understanding of America.

Funny when I always disagree with someone they call me a "Liberal". Im not a liberal and im not taking a liberal position.

Dont you think the preservation of individual freedom is a pretty conservative approach? Im a political moderate 99.9 percent of the time. In fact I work for a defense contractor here in San Diego.

Ive been talking to my friends in the military across this country, because my job deals with that contact often and ive been asking their opinions on this subject. Wanna know what they think?

They feel that we need to take action and find those responsible. They feel we need to punish the government that supports them. However, not a single person ive talked to over the course of this week said they supported a ground war or any act that would slaughter innocent civilians by the thousands, or millions in your case.

ANd not one of them wanted to drop the big one.

Like I said your option would create more terrorists and make the problem worse, but being the "Conservative" you are...you just grazed over that point and didnt even comment.

I don't pretend to plan military special operations, its not my job. TO say that I must PERSONALLY present you with an option to refute your insane opinion is silly. Reasonable people already know you dont eliminate an entire people, I dont need to present an alternative. Yours is simply insane. Its really that simple.

Also, to say that I must present a full plan of action, like you have ANYTHING to do with the action we will take, in order to solve the problem just makes me laugh.

You know what, ANYTHING is better than your "Nuke-em-all" approch. Singing a campfire song is a freakin better idea than your opinion. What you think if we are as insane and crazy as the terrorists we can somehow beat them at their own game? Im sorry they are much better at it then we are. They have had 30 years experiance at it living in shit holes for the most of their life. We even descend to their level? Why would America want to?

Your logic is faulty, and your opinions are discusting. As far as my nazi comparisons I find them fitting. And if you think genocide isnt a world affair, then your also wrong. We kill thousands of civilians, and mark my words, we wont have a friend left in this world.

Its obvious I cant convince you of the horror your advocating, so I'll just leave you to your devices.

But I will leave you with this:

"Justice without mercy is not justice"
"Justice without restraint is barbarism"

I am not a barbarian, the american people are not barbarians.

[This message has been edited by SL-Punisher (edited 09-14-2001).]

IP: Logged

Falimyn
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 04:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Falimyn   Click Here to Email Falimyn     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think that what Khoros is talking about isn�t using nuclear weapons to get revenge, but rather to instill fear so as to prevent any more terrorism. Of course, we all want to prevent terrorism. So we at least should examine the suggestion. The logic seems to be thus: If we nuke the country where the terrorists are hiding, then no country will ever dare hide terrorists again.

Here�s a couple of the problems I see with this logic:

Terrorists do not necessarily need a government willing to hide them. Take the Oklahoma City bombing, for example. Timothy McVeigh was not under the protection of some terrorist supporting government. He was right here in the U.S. Imagine, if we were to nuke any country, how many people would be pissed off at the U.S. Imagine many small group of fundamentalists that governments don�t know about. How are you going to defend against them? When a person runs into a public restaurant in the middle of the U.S. and blows himself up, how are you going to track where he came from? Even if you knew what country he came from, how are you going to know that country is responsible? If the definition of a country harboring a terrorist is simply having one of their citizens being a deranged radical, then the U.S. is guilty of that as well.

Also, how are countries bordering whatever nation you just nuked going to react to all the fallout that you�ve just sent their way? Radiation does nasty stuff, and unfortunately, it doesn�t pay attention to borders. If you�re going to wipe out an entire country, it�s likely that at least some of your targets will be close to borders. If you only use conventional weapons near the borders to carry out your mass destruction, you�d probably need a very extensive bombing campagin, in which case it would take a long time and there would definitely be a lot of survivors fleeing across the border.

Finally, in the scope of human life, how can you justify that killing 26 million people is a fair exchange for saving a few thousand? It�s a case of them or us, some would say. But I�m not sure the rest of the world would see it that way. Even if there was never another terrorist act (which I highly doubt), you�ve killed 26 million people. To put that number in perspective, the number of casualties in both World Wars combined was around half a million. What is presented is a case where the value of an individual�s life is measured strictly by their nationality.

[This message has been edited by Falimyn (edited 09-14-2001).]

IP: Logged

dangadget
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 04:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dangadget   Click Here to Email dangadget     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But Khoros, you are working under the absurd and foolish notion, born of anger I firmly believe, that if we slaughter enough innocent people, no one in the future will have the temerity to dare commit acts of violence against us ever again.

My god man!!! Don't you know anything about the history of our species??!!

It may stop it for a year, it may stop it for a generation, but I guarantee you that it is NOT a permanent solution, unless what you are advocating is the systematic slaughter of THE REST OF THE WORLD.

If it is truly "us" vs "them", well "them" will be the whole rest of humanity sooner or later.

There will ALWAYS be sicko bastards who can rationalize doing something as heinous and evil as crashing planes full of innocent people into buildings.

What will you advocate next? Psychological screenings and the "euthanization" of anyone who shows such propensities??!!

I know that much of what I am saying here is absurd and extreme, BUT SO IS WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING.

We will have justice, but this is not the way.

God be with you, and may He bring you back to reason.

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 04:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm going to keep this short, so hopefully you'll read all of what I'm saying, and consider it.

Step back and consider what is really being said in this thread.

On on hand, we have Sethan's and my position. We are willing to spend any number of lives if it means that no more Americans, or our allies, have to die. That is our is our goal. We have reasoned our way through the problem, and have arrived at our conclusion. We aren't promoting wholesale slaughter for it's own sake.

You, on the other hand, are willing to see Americans killed, in exchange for a lower body count overall.

That's what it really boils down to, once you take away all the arguing.

Either side could be wrong. Fine. Discuss it. Prove to us we're wrong.

But don't start telling me my views are disgusting, and that I'm a Nazi because I regard American life more highly than that of an enemy. If we start that tact, couldn't I just as easily call you a traitor because you're willing to see Americans killed?

If you're going to change my mind, you're going to have to try and understand the motivations, and reasoning behind my view.

Now let's discuss this, if you still want to. I'm not a Nazi, I'm not a bloodthirsty monster. And you're not a traitor. Maybe you're not a liberal.

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

dangadget
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 04:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dangadget   Click Here to Email dangadget     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Fine Khoros, but I think you already made my argument for me.

Yes, I am willing to suffer more american casualties, including my own, so that fewer(notice I'm not so naive as to say "no") innocent lives are lost.

Better we fight through to the end, bloodied but still clean in spirit rather than survive as murderers and triumph with the blood of innocents willfully spilled forever on our hands.

How can I make this seemingly absurd claim?

Because of my son.

I have an eight year old son that I am raising alone.

The thought of him growing up without a father horrifies me, but what terrifies and sickens me even more is trying to raise him in a society that could justify killing thousands if not millions of innocent people because of a desire for vengeance.

I hope we've both made our positions clear.

[This message has been edited by dangadget (edited 09-14-2001).]

IP: Logged

Aldaron
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Aldaron   Click Here to Email Aldaron     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Khoros, what you and Sethan scares the hell out of me too and sends a chill straight down my spine.

If we were to throw away everything this country stands for just so you feel safe by wiping out an entire nation then what do we have left to stand for. We become as bad, nay I say worse than the terrorists you propose to eliminate. Read my post titled "AMERICA" to see what this country stands for, "Justice for all" stands out in my mind.

Let me ask you this. Say you know someone in years to come is going to kill a whole lot of people (say you were able to travel to the future). Would it then be right for you to kill an innocent man who hasn't done anything yet and probably never even thought about it? Yet this is what you propose we do to the children of a country that have been taught we are the bad guys, just because they will eventually grow up to MAYBE become terrorists themselves. Applying that logic we should have wiped out the USSR because at that time we thought they would wipe us out eventually.

If we don't uphold our values and what this country stands for we become monsters ourselves.

Is there a better way? I don't know the details of how but there is always a better way. As many have stated, trying to instill fear only strengthens their resolve that we ARE the bad guys. Did their attack instill fear in us, to a point, but mostly it brought not only a nation together for a common purpose but also an entire planet, something that has never happened before. If we do as you propose the tables would be turned and instead of having the world behind us they would turn against us.

In any war there are civilian casualties, but you try to limit those and keep it to a minimum, not purposely killing them because you are scared they will come back years later for revenge.

Posted by Khoros:
"But don't start telling me my views are disgusting, and that I'm a Nazi because I regard American life more highly than that of an enemy. If we start that tact, couldn't I just as easily call you a traitor because you're willing to see Americans killed?"

And here is the gist of it, you devalue human life unless it is American while those arguing against it value all life regardless. In war there is death, but needless senseless death of innocents is never the right thing regardless of the reasons.

If our forefathers felt as you do we would still be under British rule because fighting for our freedom resulted in many American lives being lost in the revolution against a superior force fighting for our independence. I for one am glad those men had the fortitude to fight for what they beleived in and were willing to lay down their lives for it instead of taking the easy way out. If we don't have them same fortitude to win this war and win this war while keeping of values intact then we have already lost.


The end does NOT justify the means.....ever.

[This message has been edited by Aldaron (edited 09-14-2001).]

IP: Logged

Growler
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Growler     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Justice without mercy is not justice"
"Justice without restraint is barbarism"

These platitudes describe fear of justice. True justice is not to be feared.

These are cowards' slogans.

Only justice can be justice.
Justice with mercy is not justice anymore, it is injustice.
Justice with restraint is no longer justice, it is injustice.

Please, everyone in the thread is making very foolish statments. It is wrong to advocate nuking all of Afghanistan, it is also wrong to be squemish about killing the innocent. Innocent Americans have already been killed, and more will surely die regardless of what we do.

Growler

IP: Logged

Tumulorum Fossor
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 05:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Tumulorum Fossor   Click Here to Email Tumulorum Fossor     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is a repost of comments I have made in another thread. I think it reflects my opinion regarding the subject matter of this thread as well.

Okay, I'll make my quick generalizations, then get out.
(1) We HAVE to respond definitively. I absolutely agree with this point. We cannot send the message that the U.S. will remotely tolerate an attack so heinous, so barbaric, it is beyond any modern comparison. We need to respond swiftly and strongly. But not so swiftly that we shoot ourselves in the foot...

(2) Our response needs to be with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. The nature of this "21st Century Warfare" is really the equivalent of a "Global Guerilla" warfare. A Vietnam To Go. In my opinion, and given the limited information we have, there is no clearcut GOVERNMENTAL target. Sure, there are candidates, but not in the sense that the Japanese government was a candidate for us to direct our Pearl Harbor response.

And since there is no clearcut Governmental target, until we ESTABLISH a clearcut Governmental target, a conventional military response is the wrong tool for the job. And ultimately will be counterproductive in that imprecise destruction will simply recultivate and encourage further terrorism. In a perverse way, responding to senseless destruction with anything like senseless destruction will only serve to reload their gun.

That is why I support suspension of the executive order against assassination, secret trial in absentia of the responsible targets, and then execution of a directed, pinpoint justice. Termination with extreme prejudice (though I think a quick death is giving them more mercy than they deserve).

Remember, efforts to wipe out Gaddhafi in Libya after the bombing in Beirut under the Reagan administration failed. Efforts to kill Saddam Hussein with directed bombing similarly proved fruitless. Same with strikes to Milosevic (though he has been brought to trial). To make a long story short, conventional warfare has not proven effective at all against this kind of opponent. Hence, there is a relative lack of fear of repercussion by conventional military for despicable actions.

But an effective assassination policy would change that.

In fact, I would submit to you, Saddam Hussein would be far less a concern, would have caused (and continues to cause) far less suffering among his own people, if he feared a legitimate assassination threat from the United States. He clearly does not fear a conventional military threat. Because a conventional military threat does not directly target, nor directly affect him.

Same logic applies to bin Laden (or whoever ultimately gets associated with this attack).

(3) The greater the precision with which we can identify who is responsible, the stronger we can legitimately respond.

So if we only know the Taliban "had something to do with it" in only the vaguest terms, a devastating military strike on Afghanistan would only serve to exacerbate the problem ultimately.

But if we have a list of names, a precise heading of the organization and its network, including any demonstration of formal governmental involvement, we can respond aggressively and justly, and not suffer any legitimate criticism from abroad that, once again, would only serve to fuel the fire.


(4) The United States should make every effort as much as possible to LEGITIMATELY define this problem in terms of a nationalistic enemy. If we can treat this problem as a conventional-warfare type problem, then fine: it is our advantage to do so as we are clearly without equal when it comes to conventional warfare.

In that respect, a concrete, but realistic, list of demands for ALL the countries thought to harbor terrorists, is called for. Tell Pakistan, for example, that if it has nothing to do with this event, as it claims, then it is to hand over all intelligence information regarding all known terrorist groups. That it needs to make available to us such-and-such individuals. That the following US intelligence representatives are to have open access to the following Pakistani government departments. And other demands along those lines that I'm not smart enough to develop. You get the idea.

We tell, for example, Pakistan, that it has to decide whose side it is on right now. Comply with this list, and we know what that means. Don't comply with this list, and we know what that means, too. Hello, conventional warfare.


(5) If we are able to concretely associate this act with a governmental entity, then we must respond with conventional warfare, and remove that governmental entity.

Remember, I am speaking as an Arab-American. I KNOW that the vast majority of governments in the Middle East and Asia are NOT representative of the people. But ultimately, the suffering is LESS, not more, for the natives themselves, if we take out an evil governmental entity. That's what we [should have] learned with Iraq. In 21st Century warfare, CONTAINMENT DOES NOT WORK. Once again, I direct you to Saddam Hussein, who is villified, hated, despised, by his own subjects even more than by OUR citizenry. The vast majority of Iraqis would have welcomed Desert Storm sweeping through Baghdad.

The argument AGAINST removing Saddam Hussein at the time was that "we wouldn't know what would replace him. It could be something worse." I didn't believe that logic then, and I twice as much don't believe it now. All we did with Iraq was entrench Hussein, legitimize him among the extremists, created a breeding ground and a cause celebre among terrorists, and indirectly caused IMMEASURABLE amounts of suffering within the Iraqi people, who continue to suffer dramatic casualties, oppression, infant mortality, etc, and who are powerless to do anything about it.

(6) We, the American public, as of September 11, 2001, have lost the luxury of maintaining a huge rift between domestic and foreign policy. As of now, they should be recognized as dramatically and irrevocably intertwined. Though we experience many ripple-effects from a seriously-flawed foreign, and particularly Middle Eastern, policy, most of our fellow Americans have only a rudimentary grasp of what those policies are. And that needs to change.

Note this does NOT NOT NOT by any means justify WHATSOEVER the dastardly, cowardly, despicable, and revolting acts we have all suffered. Never. Not ever. Period.

But we do need to adopt a more European perspective, because the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are not the same insulators in the 21st Century that they were in the 20th Century.

Anyhow, that's my take on things as of September 14, 2001, 2pm CST. I retain the rights to change that take on things as I become more enlightened.

Hope all is well with everyone, and all our families are safe.

God Bless America.

-Russ "Tumulorum Fossor" Khater

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 06:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by dangadget:
Fine Khoros, but I think you already made my argument for me.

Yes, I am willing to suffer more american casualties, including my own, so that fewer(notice I'm not so naive as to say "no") innocent lives are lost.

Better we fight through to the end, bloodied but still clean in spirit rather than survive as murderers and triumph with the blood of innocents willfully spilled forever on our hands.

How can I make this seemingly absurd claim?

Because of my son.

I have an eight year old son that I am raising alone.

The thought of him growing up without a father horrifies me, but what terrifies and sickens me even more is trying to raise him in a society that could justify killing thousands if not millions of innocent people because of a desire for vengeance.

I hope we've both made our positions clear.

[This message has been edited by dangadget (edited 09-14-2001).]


Actually, no, apparently I haven't.

I understand what you're saying, dangadget, and I can respect it.

What you're missing from mine and Sethan's position is this has little to do with "vengeance". The idea is deterrence. If you read back through the thread, we've explained that numerous times. Our intent is to PREVENT, not to avenge.

But let me ask you a question: You say you're ready for your child to go fatherless, rather than betray the principles you hold dear. That's admirable.

But answer me this: Are you willing to sacrifice your son for your principles?

Think about that long and hard.

I'm not asking "what if they'd killed your son?" I agree, more killing would not bring the dead.

But contemplate the fact that the NEXT time it happens, it could be not only you, but your son in the plane. Or in the day care center in the building. Or in the house the plane crashes in.

Tell me, are you willing to potentially sacrifice your son on the altar of principles?

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Growler
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 06:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Growler     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One of those internet poll "click to vote things" at usnews.com asked a very similar question.

"How far should President Bush go in any military retaliation for the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks?"

2% Keep it to diplomatic and economic sanctions.
2% Launch long-distance weapons from ships and subs at terrorist targets.
6% Get closer and attack with aircraft.
57% Commit ground troops, combined with aircraft, long-range weaponry and sanctions.
34% Go nuclear.

It appears the nuke-em-till-they-glow-crowd is no mere fringe movement.

Growler

<edit> let me add the link
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm

[This message has been edited by Growler (edited 09-14-2001).]

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 06:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldaron:
Khoros, what you and Sethan scares the hell out of me too and sends a chill straight down my spine.

If we were to throw away everything this country stands for just so you feel safe by wiping out an entire nation then what do we have left to stand for. We become as bad, nay I say worse than the terrorists you propose to eliminate. Read my post titled "AMERICA" to see what this country stands for, "Justice for all" stands out in my mind.

Let me ask you this. Say you know someone in years to come is going to kill a whole lot of people (say you were able to travel to the future). Would it then be right for you to kill an innocent man who hasn't done anything yet and probably never even thought about it? Yet this is what you propose we do to the children of a country that have been taught we are the bad guys, just because they will eventually grow up to MAYBE become terrorists themselves. Applying that logic we should have wiped out the USSR because at that time we thought they would wipe us out eventually.

If we don't uphold our values and what this country stands for we become monsters ourselves.

Is there a better way? I don't know the details of how but there is always a better way. As many have stated, trying to instill fear only strengthens their resolve that we ARE the bad guys. Did their attack instill fear in us, to a point, but mostly it brought not only a nation together for a common purpose but also an entire planet, something that has never happened before. If we do as you propose the tables would be turned and instead of having the world behind us they would turn against us.

In any war there are civilian casualties, but you try to limit those and keep it to a minimum, not purposely killing them because you are scared they will come back years later for revenge.

Posted by Khoros:
"But don't start telling me my views are disgusting, and that I'm a Nazi because I regard American life more highly than that of an enemy. If we start that tact, couldn't I just as easily call you a traitor because you're willing to see Americans killed?"

And here is the gist of it, you devalue human life unless it is American while those arguing against it value all life regardless. In war there is death, but needless senseless death of innocents is never the right thing regardless of the reasons.

If our forefathers felt as you do we would still be under British rule because fighting for our freedom resulted in many American lives being lost in the revolution against a superior force fighting for our independence. I for one am glad those men had the fortitude to fight for what they beleived in and were willing to lay down their lives for it instead of taking the easy way out. If we don't have them same fortitude to win this war and win this war while keeping of values intact then we have already lost.


The end does NOT justify the means.....ever.

[This message has been edited by Aldaron (edited 09-14-2001).]


Same answer to you Aldaron. Are you willing to sacrifice YOUR family on the altar of your principles?

------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 07:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by moofighters:
Take a read.. Some very interesting stuff from bin Laden.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/binmurder1.shtml

If after reading you still think we need to take the patty cake approach to what has
happened then so be it.

It was said that we should still play by the rules.


I agree totally I have come to reslize that civilian caulaties are unaviodable....but we are not barabarians.....they are.....

------------------
"To the Journey!"

IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 07:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Sethan:
[B] If you can think of a better way to make sure that terrorism stops, permanently, I'll be the first to jump on the bandwagon, and I'll be behind you 100%.
B]


How about a more moral society over here too? We are far from perfect....and besides..once we do such an act of widespread genocide..we will likey think it acceptable on a larger scale...ifg you think that terrorism will stop..our own people can be terrosists.what will we do about them? Nuke ourselves.........genocide is not the answer.....I understand the logic behind your nuke argum,ents..but I am just voiceing my arguments as well....I just want to dicsuss this in a way that should fit most Americans well......CIVILIZED manner

------------------
"To the Journey!"

IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 07:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And yes......we all should be prepared to die for our principles.......that is why they are right!

------------------
"To the Journey!"

IP: Logged

SL-Punisher
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 08:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SL-Punisher   Click Here to Email SL-Punisher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Justice without mercy is not justice"
"Justice without restraint is barbarism"
These platitudes describe fear of justice. True justice is not to be feared.

These are cowards' slogans.

Only justice can be justice.
Justice with mercy is not justice anymore, it is injustice.
Justice with restraint is no longer justice, it is injustice.

Please, everyone in the thread is making very foolish statments. It is wrong to advocate nuking all of Afghanistan, it is also wrong to be squemish about killing the innocent. Innocent Americans have already been killed, and more will surely die regardless of what we do.

Growler


How dare you sir. You obviously know nothing of the situation, would you like to know where those quotes came from? Benjamin Franklin, would you like to call him a coward?

One of his lessor wisdom's not very well known.

And it is wisdom. Wisdom in its pure form. True justice is never to be feared.

Lets go over some other wisdoms of Franklin:

8. Justice
Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9. Moderation
Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Wise words dont you think? Far more reasonable then the approch of total destruction. I sir am not a coward, I support reasonable responce to this situation. Justice is blind only in the fair and equal treatment of those who commit acts against the law, and against an entire nation. Justice also targets the guilty, and preserves the innocent.

Justice sometimes fails, however, it was been the founding principle in this country since day one.

Justice has rules in which it follows: Hence restraint

Justice shows mercy to the innocent, and punishes the guilty.

There is no cowardism in those words, only pure and simple logic. The fair and equal treatment to all, innocent and guilty. If it is fair to arrest and eliminate those responsible then so be it (I support this)

However it is not fair to kill the innocent along with the guilty.

That was the point I was making. If this nation goes to war, and I am needed then I will join the ranks of the military in its task to rid the world of those that would strike terror into our lives. However, I cannot justify innocent slaughter nor will I participate or support such acts.

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 08:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Cockatiel:
And yes......we all should be prepared to die for our principles.......that is why they are right!



I didn't ask if YOU were prepared to die, Cockatiel. I asked if them, and I'll ask you, are you ready to sacrifice your FAMILY? For YOUR principles?


------------------
Khoros

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 08:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SL-Punisher:
"Justice without mercy is not justice"
"Justice without restraint is barbarism"
These platitudes describe fear of justice. True justice is not to be feared.

These are cowards' slogans.

Only justice can be justice.
Justice with mercy is not justice anymore, it is injustice.
Justice with restraint is no longer justice, it is injustice.

Please, everyone in the thread is making very foolish statments. It is wrong to advocate nuking all of Afghanistan, it is also wrong to be squemish about killing the innocent. Innocent Americans have already been killed, and more will surely die regardless of what we do.

Growler


How dare you sir. You obviously know nothing of the situation, would you like to know where those quotes came from? Benjamin Franklin, would you like to call him a coward?

One of his lessor wisdom's not very well known.

And it is wisdom. Wisdom in its pure form. True justice is never to be feared.

Lets go over some other wisdoms of Franklin:

8. Justice
Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9. Moderation
Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

Wise words dont you think? Far more reasonable then the approch of total destruction. I sir am not a coward, I support reasonable responce to this situation. Justice is blind only in the fair and equal treatment of those who commit acts against the law, and against an entire nation. Justice also targets the guilty, and preserves the innocent.

Justice sometimes fails, however, it was been the founding principle in this country since day one.

Justice has rules in which it follows: Hence restraint

Justice shows mercy to the innocent, and punishes the guilty.

There is no cowardism in those words, only pure and simple logic. The fair and equal treatment to all, innocent and guilty. If it is fair to arrest and eliminate those responsible then so be it (I support this)

However it is not fair to kill the innocent along with the guilty.

That was the point I was making. If this nation goes to war, and I am needed then I will join the ranks of the military in its task to rid the world of those that would strike terror into our lives. However, I cannot justify innocent slaughter nor will I participate or support such acts.


Ummmm... well then... you better not go in the military, Punisher.

If you do, sooner or later you're going to be told - not asked, but told - to do soemthing that conflicts with your principles.

This is an example of what Sethan and I have been trying to explain here. Civilians, and innocents die in EVERY war. Turning your eyes from it, and preaching about it will NOT change that.

"Oh, I'll enlist, and server proudly... until the first time my commander tells me to launch a missile near a city where a civilian might get hurt."

Do us a favor, Punisher. Stay home. Someone elses life may depend on you not becoming paralyzed by angst at a critical moment. That isn't intended to be sarcastic, though it sounds it. I really mean that.

IP: Logged

dangadget
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 08:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for dangadget   Click Here to Email dangadget     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Khoros:
Actually, no, apparently I haven't.

I understand what you're saying, dangadget, and I can respect it.

What you're missing from mine and Sethan's position is this has little to do with "vengeance". The idea is deterrence. If you read back through the thread, we've explained that numerous times. Our intent is to PREVENT, not to avenge.

But let me ask you a question: You say you're ready for your child to go fatherless, rather than betray the principles you hold dear. That's admirable.

But answer me this: Are you willing to sacrifice your son for your principles?

Think about that long and hard.

I'm not asking "what if they'd killed your son?" I agree, more killing would not bring the dead.

But contemplate the fact that the NEXT time it happens, it could be not only you, but your son in the plane. Or in the day care center in the building. Or in the house the plane crashes in.

Tell me, are you willing to potentially sacrifice your son on the altar of principles?


Khoros, when he is a man, and capable of making such choices, I will honor and respect whatever those choices may be, even though it may break my heart to do so.

That is what good parents do, or so I believe.

I am a grown man.

I am capable of analyzing, of forming opinions, of adhering to a moral code, and that is what I choose to do.

Someone, elsewhere, has stated that it is in times of trial that we find out what we are truly made of.

I have lived almost my entire adult life believing as I do now.

It is the way I was brought up.

I was taught never to start a fight, but be willing and able to finish one.

I was taught to be passionate about what I believe in.

I was taught that anything you won't defend with your blood, sweat and tears, including your values, you don't deserve to have.

I was taught to be steadfast in conflict, gracious in victory, and stoic in defeat.

I was taught that life is sacred, but also fragile and fleeting, and should never be taken or endangered lightly.

These are some of the values that I hold dear.

I may delude myself by believing that I share these values with a large percentage of american citizens.

How do I reconcile these values with calls to carpet-bomb civilian population centers?

With calls to persecute a religion because certain lunatic elements of that religion, I find evil?

Do I abandon those beliefs, now that times are hard?

These are the kinds of things I hope to pass on to my son.

Whether or not he takes to them, only time and Almighty God can say.

Because these are the values that I hope to teach him, how can I betray them, even for his sake?

What kind of father would I be, what kind of person would I be?

Your question is a pointed one, but ultimately flawed.

It is not my son that faces these choices now Khoros.

It is the adults of this nation and this world. It is people like you and Sethan, people like Voidwar and Growler, people like myself who must make the choices that our children will have to live with for generations to come.

Now that times are hard, what are we really made of?

IP: Logged

SL-Punisher
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 08:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SL-Punisher   Click Here to Email SL-Punisher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Do my a favor and dont pretend to understand my principals.

Against an armed enemy, I would not hesitate to fire. Civilians always get caught in the cross fire, but I will not fire upon innocent civilians. During attacks, people will die innocent and guilty, however the key is the innocent are not our intended target.

In a ground conflict situation, most civilians will run for their lives. Some wont make it and they will die. However, I would regret each and every one of those deaths.

Will they stop me from firing on an enemy target in the first place? No I wont hesitate for the defense of our nation. My resolve is absolute, as I have repeated many many many times here on the forums. However simply rolling in with tanks and shooting everything in sight wont solve anything, and that sort of "Solviet-style" carnage is unthinkable. Many people in our military would likewise refuse to do this to, I know ive asked them.

I can still serve my country to the best of my ability, while still keeping my principals intact. I know war is hell, I know and accept the fact that innocent people will die. However, I would do what I could to preserve innocent life.

Finally with that said, I do not support a large ground invasion in this situation. As already proven it would fail and only result in countless deaths on the American and Afgan side. Im not going to bore you all with the reasons why, because they have already been said.

Likewise the nuclear option is unthinkable, and unreasonable.

The only viable option is to strike with our special forces and arrest those responsible. Use our allies in the middle east (Israel, which is the best terrorist expert in the world) to strike at known targets, and to find out more.

With the full force of the United States behind this action we will use a scalpel to cut out the desease that is terrorism.

We just disagree on the implimentation of action. We both agree those responsible must be punished, at least I hope you realise that too.

IP: Logged

Noah Wallace
Ensign
posted 09-14-2001 08:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Noah Wallace   Click Here to Email Noah Wallace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I might as well throw my opinion on the matter. Most of you offer very well though out comments. I gain strength from the calmer posts. But I must put my thoughts to paper (or the screen here). Most of this is just me typing in order to make sense of the madness before us. Some is thereaputic, some is anger management, some is just plain putting words to keyboard. So if you get offended, it was not intentional. If you can offer advice it is always appreciated. I am not a bad person, really. Just a person with poor anger management. I'm not looking to get flamed, but will take it anyway since I will probably earn a few burst of the flamethrower with my comments. I just need to express my thoughts other than typing and then deleting.

Too nuke or not to nuke?? That is the question...

Honestly my answer to that question would change several times in a single day.

If you caught me right after talking to some of my friends in the New York area I would be in favor of turning all of the terrorist type of countries into "glass cities". If a glorious death gives them a gauranteed trip to paradise then we can definetly make sure that every last one gets a first class seat to see Alah (or whatever the name is).

A few hours later after I have returned to my daily duties (Difficult? Yes, but necessary for everything to keep running.) My mind starts to clear and I tell myself that complete elimination of the countries will not get rid of the problem. People will always find a reason to hate one another. Nuking will provide a temporary solution at best. Eventually someone would forget the example and start it all over again.

Somewhere in the afternoon I get angry again. But not with the "bad people". I get angry with my very own government and myself. Many nations have been fighting this war on terrorism for years. Their men, women and children die every day. They drop to their knees and look to whatever god they believe in and ask why. Why me? Why them? No answer comes, or it comes in the form of a 135 grain full metal jacket. Then their surviving countrymen turn their sorrow into anger and kill in return. Tomorrow a different terrorist returns and removes another person's future from this planet.

We need not look far into the past to see what the efforts of others have yielded. Many countries fight the terrorist with small weapons and strategic strikes. Yet the disease persists. Eventually it becomes difficult to distinguish the terrorist from the defending troops. Right from wrong, good from bad. Yes, I have also listened to a few old veteran war stories. Men who I respect and love. And they too admit to acts that seem impossible to commit by a sane individual, especially the kind gentle grandfather before you. If you asked the life long victims of terrorism they would say that you cannot deal with these people in the terms that we think of. Their ideals are different. Their levels of acceptance are different. But is not the acceptance of these differences that make us a more civilized (not sure if that is the right word here) individual. Is it not our attitude that lets these individuals exist?

I fight everyday with my feelings on this matter. I could just throw my hands up and say "Screw it! I am just one person, what does my opinion mean?" But NO! I must strive to find myself in this new world that is before me. The new me must deal with this new source of anger and hate.

There are times when I would gladly kill every last one of the people that belong to these groups and beliefs. I sometimes imagine doing it all by myself and with my bare hands if necessary. One trip to Alah coming up. Would you like a side helping of your fellow terrorist buddies as well? But NO! I must fight that urge for evil. Those thoughts are not right! Not all of these people are evil. I have been raised and tutored better than this. For just a moment I must put the phone down or turn away from the images before my eyes. A calmer, more logical way must exist. It has to exist! I must find that balance between anger and justice, good and bad, right and wrong. For if I give into my bloodlust then I have become my enemy and he has won.

It is a fight that I struggle with now. And many times in a single day. I realize that this struggle is what all humans are fighting right now. We posses the means to bring vengeance for the wrongs committed. Not just for the WTC or the Pentagon, but vengeance for all the wrongs committed to all of the peace loving families of the world.

I may not believe in using nukes today...no that is not right...I may not believe in using nukes right now...today is looking to far in the future. But I am glad that my finger does not rest on the button. I lose the battle inside my head often, but I must continue the fight against what is my gut instinct to do. It is this fight and the need to do what is right and just that makes me an American and not a terrorist freak. The fact that I have been raised to resist the evil way and seek what is right is what seperates me from these cowards. This difference is why whatever method is chosen, we the civilized united world will forever fight this battle against terrorism. I may die trying and many more may follow, but to do nothing makes us guilty of far greater bloodshed. I must believe that our good will triumph over this evil.

My only hope is that once the task is complete that we do not stand up from the battle and realize that in our lust for vengeance and justice that we have become our own worst enemy. That our fellow man looks upon us and lowers his head in sorrow that we have lost ourselves and what makes us great. I do not wish to walk from the field of war ashamed of my actions, but rather I want to run from the conquest and into the arms of my family confident that we have performed our actions with honor, swiftness, and justly. I believe that as we walk away from the bloodshed that we will cast one last look upon our fallen enemy and yell from every hilltop. No more!!

For if we must return here then as dust in the wind will you and all like you become.

Hopefully as time continues a calmer more logical thought process will form and take hold. Once that gives me some form of inner peace so that I can raise my children with enough morals to fight the fight as I am doing now.

One can only hope. I never thought I could be racist. I guess I learn something new everyday.

I will win...I must.

IP: Logged


This topic is 4 pages long:   1  2  3  4 

All times are PT(US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Home


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d


���Hey! Anybody want a job?���