Taldren Forums
  General Starfleet Command Forum
  To nuke, or not to nuke... (Page 1)

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...
Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 08:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
...that is the question.

Whether 'tis nobler in the minds of idealists to kill thousands, and see thousands of our own killed,

Or to send a clear, quick, concise message to those that would wipe us from the face of the earth if they had the resources.

America is a country built on ideals, principles, fairness... the list of words goes on and on.

We have outlawed the use of assassination. In the 90's, our beloved Slick Willy outlawed the employment of spies who had "a history of violence." Since most people involved in terrorist organizations have "a history of violence", this has made it virtually impossible to infiltrate terrorist groups like the one run by Osama bin Laden.

Ideals are a wonderful thing. But let's consider the effect of knee-jerk good intentions, just as idealists would have we who promote at least the consideration of nuclear weapons.

In the early 1900s, a Serbian rebel jumped on the running board of a limousine, and assassinated Archduke Ferdinand of the Austrio-Hungarian empire. When Austrio-Hungary moved into the region to administer retribution, the group that became known as the Allies (minus the United States) moved to stop them. Mutual defense treaties were invoked, and the ranking superpower of the time, Germany, was reluctantly drawn into the fray.

Many months later, the United States joined the Allies, out of "ideals" and "principles", and turned the tide in Europe.

There were no nuclear weapons at the time. The war in Europe was no threat to the rest of the world. If I recall my history, it was the sinking of the Luisitania that was the final catalyst. Those in America that protested the war were imprisoned.

Now... step back and consider what America set in motion with that decision.

World War I was essentially a balanced conflict. Noone was "winning". Eventually, in all likelihood, a negotiated settlement would have occurred.

Instead, America tipped the balance of power, and the Axis were defeated. Germany, which didn't start the war, was treated to unconditional surrender, and ultimately to terms which it citizens deemed humiliating, and unneccesarily punitive. In truth, post WWI Germany made the post-Cold War former Soviet Union look like a summer camp.

This settlement set the stage for a ingenious madman to whip a desperate people into a frenzy, using as a focus and a scapegoat, a group of people who's only crime was a cultural emphasis on education, hard work, self-reliance, and mutal support.

Consider an alternate reality.

No American intervention, no shift of power.

No shift of power, no harsh surrender terms.

No harsh surrender terms, no fertile ground for a genocidal, embittered madman.

Without the conditions that spurred Hitler and Germany to provoke it, no World War II.

Without WWII, the Soviet Union would not have had the chance to march into Berlin and sieze the majority of German scientists, who were already on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb. We got one. Werhner von Braun.

Consider the implications.

No Cold War. No Holocaust. Without the Holocaust, the United Nations would not have felt the moral imperative to support the creation of the State of Israel.

Without the strategic struggle of the Cold War, Korean and Vietnam become truly localized wars.

Since the creation of the State of Israel, the US has properly supported them, for moral, and to a lesser extent, national security reasons. We all know that this is perhaps the single biggest reason that we are percieved as The Great Satan by Islamic extremists. ( I refuse to use the word "Fundamentalist". The fundamentals of Islam in no way resemble the views of these people!)

There's a lot of "what if" in all this. But the logic is sound. I've considered bits and pieces of this in the past, but yesterday I was shocked to hear a syndicated local radio host actual fill in the gaps, and draw the conclusions that I was groping towards. And yes, I've drawn from his article on the subject. I suggest everyone read it:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24464

Yes, there is a long train of supposition. But, as Mr. Elder states in his article, he had the opportunity to present this position to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Mr. Kissinger's reply was "That position has great merit."

Mr. Elder goes on, in his radio broadcast to say that no, we should not nuke. That we should hit military targets only. We should take the moral high ground.

However, in this, I have to respectfully disagree. His own article shows where the moral high ground has led us. And we have been following the "military only" path for years, and it has obviously not worked.

However, I will grant that some good points have been made concerning the perception of nuclear weapons, and what using them could do to our global perception. I would submit that those same arguments applied in 1945, and history has shown us what lay in store had we not used them then.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter. The means aren't the critical issue. I believe that in the long run, a single, well-placed nuke would save the lives of many Muslims as well as our own. However, to be blunt, I can live with those lives not being saved, as long as American lives are not spent.

My prediction: Should it come to military retaliation, and I think it will, the US will bow to public opinion. We will attack military targets. In response, we will see propoganda that we are in fact hitting "innocent civilians" as well. We will see a wave of terrorist attacks in retaliation, and lose more innocent American lives. Assuming that our allies don't waver, the attacks will be stepped up. Local Arab support will erode, as has happened in the past. And the entire conflict will mire down into negotiations.

The one thing we must absolutely NOT do is make the mistake of invading. The moment we give the appearance of "taking their land", every Arab state in the area will begin to protest, and resist. This HAS to be kept on the level of "vengeance" and "punishment". No culture in the world understands swift severe punishment than that of the Middle East. They'll grumble, but they will understand that. Invading their land will give rise to speculation that this was all about oil in the first place. Some will even claim that this was all a ruse to give us the excuse to invade and sieze oil resources.

Compassion and ideals are wonderful things. But we live in REALITY. Reality has to dictate our response. Should it be nuclear? To be honest, that really depends on whether we can "get away with it" in the eyes of our allies. I'm not talking to heads of state, so I can't guess their reaction. I believe it will be as some of the more idealistic members of this board, so no, I don't think a nuke will be used.

Images we will see in the news, depending on our choices:

1) A mushroom cloud, and incredible destruction. Scenes of horrible disfigured men, women and children, in and around a single city, MAYBE a second. Bitter public outcry around the world as these images sink in. Many will revile and hate us for doing the unthinkable.

2) Clouds of roiling black smoke, fire. Massive destruction. Horribly burned and disfigured men, women, and children in cities around the globe, including our own, as the strike/counter-strike cycle goes on, and on. The families of allied pilots mourning the loss of their loved ones. Bitter public outcry as these images sink in. Many will revile and hate us, but at least we haven't done the unthinkable. And since we have shown that we WON'T do the unthinkable... someone will eventually try again.

There is a third alternative, and personally, I find it most satisfying, and probably the best overall route. Complete and utter conventional annihilation on a broad scale, not just military targets. It has the advantage of being totally overwhelming and demoralizing, and most importantly, of being quick and decisive.

Time is our friend at the moment. We give the appearance of being level-headed, and methodical. But once we KNOW who did this, and who harbored them, Time becomes our enemy. The longer we wait, the longer the punishment takes, the more the memory of Tuesday will be supplanted with the images of those suffering our retribution.

There's a reason history is taught in schools.


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

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Dracho
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 08:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dracho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My initial response was to nuke them back to the stone age. Upon further consideration, this does nothing to dispel our enemy's perception of us as cowards who use aircraft and proxy nations to do our dirty work.

Now I believe we should field an army and utterly crush both Afghandistan and Iraq. The governments should be tried as criminals and hanged, and a Marshall plan implemented to rebuild these nations as democracies (over the space of 3 generations).

These people will not respect us until they know we will drop in a fox hole with them, look them directly in the eye, and kill them with our bare hands. Once they look at their deaths in our faces, they will understand the grave error of provoking us beyond our ability to restrain ourselves.

IP: Logged

AJTK
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 08:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJTK   Click Here to Email AJTK     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I must agree. Total Annihilation on a national scale will forever dampen the spirits of terrorist. If we make "Surgical strikes" on military and para-military targets, it will only encourage the country and ppls struck to do greater harm to America.

The Japanese were going to fight to the death if we invaded, and any such invasion would have cost MILLIONS of lives, Japanese, American and Allied. By taking the ultimate action, and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we put a quick end to the war, and saved much bloodshed.

The same will work here. If a nation knows that their aiding terrorist will cause the end of their existance, they will not do it.

As Bull Halsey said after Pearl Harbor "When we are finished, the only place the Japanese language will be spoken is in HELL."

While we obviously did NOT annihilate or attempt to annihilate the Japanese ppl, they attacked us militarily and as such surrendered the same. Terrorist will not surrender. They must be erased.

One of our Congressmen said it best yesterday "They only way to erradicate terrorisim is to erradicate terrorist." Pointed. And totally correct.

------------------
"The best diplomat I know is a fully armed phaser bank!" - Scotty, from the episode "A taste of Armagedon.

IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 08:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dracho:
My initial response was to nuke them back to the stone age. Upon further consideration, this does nothing to dispel our enemy's perception of us as cowards who use aircraft and proxy nations to do our dirty work.

Now I believe we should field an army and utterly crush both Afghandistan and Iraq. The governments should be tried as criminals and hanged, and a Marshall plan implemented to rebuild these nations as democracies (over the space of 3 generations).

These people will not respect us until they know we will drop in a fox hole with them, look them directly in the eye, and kill them with our bare hands. Once they look at their deaths in our faces, they will understand the grave error of provoking us beyond our ability to restrain ourselves.


Dracho: another of the wisest men on this forum

IP: Logged

Fred of Cyberville
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fred of Cyberville   Click Here to Email Fred of Cyberville     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
<Stepping up on Soapbox>

Damn I just feel a big mushroom cloud rising over the desert is the wrong message.

I do however agree every world power needs to see demonstrated, overwhelming devastation visited apon whomever is held as responsible, nation state or terrorist organsiation.

As the Romans did to Carthage leave nothing standing, and demonstrate our resolve that any future incident will result in the same treatment.

War is war. More people died from fire bombings in Germany, and Japan than died in either Nagasaki or Hiroshima. But consider the after effects of any nuclear attack, thats all. Our allies, and any sympathetic nation affected by the fallout, will only cause a backlash.

No pin prick or shooting a $100 million dollars worth of cruise missles is going to send the proper message. People believed we were a superpower last week. We were imprevious to terrorism. This week, next week, and in the folllwing weeks we need to demonstrate supermen were are not, but united, and seriously pissed off Americans we are.

And then if the final decision of the President is nuke then so be it. But regardless how this is ended, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder when action is taken.

Again my opinion. You don't have to like it, but that why we are living in America.

<Steps down off soapbox>

IP: Logged

wathomas
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for wathomas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Posted from another thread, but it applies here.I do not promote moderation, but I do support cold, calculation.
The events of Tues. terror attack were not the result of madmen or of some hastily planned event.

The 50 or so people who did this, took their time. They studied. They probably visited the WTC, carefully looked to see if any Anti Air defenses existed.

They studied our airports, enrolled as flight students, lived in this country as "law-abiding" citizens so as not to raise suspicion.

They may have been employed by the airlines or airports. They may have planted the weapons on board prior to boarding.

They studied the planes, the routes, the day to attack. It wouldn't be good to get on planes that had regular delays. They picked planes and flights that were relatively empty. Ones that had good on-time departures. (Not one plane was 1/2 full of passengers)

In a word, they did their homework. The results were devastating.

It's time to do ours. Most people would think that carpet bombing is the answer. We proved in Vietnam that this doesn't work for Guerrilla Warfare (which this most certainly is)

We need to now take OUR time, call in favors from our allies. Gather together our "John Clark's" and other assasin types within our CIA and other "shadow organizations"

We sit, We wait, We watch, We strike. We strike individuals. We strike those who harbor the terrorists, Not with bombs, but with bullets, Silent ones. Face to face.

Show these cowards that by hiding in the shadows, the only thing you prevent is seeing where the bullet came from.

When they're on the toilet. Tag em. When they're in bed with a whore... Tag em. When they're talking freely to what they think is a 60 Minutes journalist...Tag em.

Tag em when they're most vunerable. That's what they did to us.

It may take longer, and more cash. but in the end it WILL be more effective. Clinton's policy of using cruise missles to move sand proved that you don't use a Bomb to kill rats, you get a mouse trap.

The rules have changed boys. You will be found.


IP: Logged

wathomas
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for wathomas     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Perhaps it's time to activate "Rainbow Six"...

IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yeah...I am beggining to think that they hope that we would strike back as they did, killing without any mercy or at anyone we meet.....so that they can use that as a rallieng cry for more bloodhed...what we will do instead is prove that we Americans are just that, American, coming from a land of morals and freedom. We will get these *****, but mostly noty with missles and bombs, but with snipers and highly skilled hit men and commando teasm...and will keep it up until every confirmed terrorist is dead, and then people will think twice before they bomb innocent people again and try to make us do the same! We will prevale....we are American, we are allies we are the civilized world!

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

IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:45 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by wathomas:
Perhaps it's time to activate "Rainbow Six"...


(and Delta Force and 00's or whatever these names really are)My thought exactly

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

IP: Logged

DIX123
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for DIX123   Click Here to Email DIX123     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What the people on this forum fail to grasp is that the culture of suicide bombings has become part of the farbic of these socities.

There are in the mideast, entire towns, and extended families that have been perverted into becoming nothing less than factories of biological guidance systems for high explosives. These people are about as safe to deal with as sewer Rats.

The only way to stop this is to completely dismantle the entire society and culture of Syria, Palestine, Lebenon, Iraq, Iran, and possiably the UAE not to mention the complete destruction of entire families/towns that are engaged in making and educating suicide bombers.

We eiter burn them of the face of the Earth or we will never be a free people.


DIX

IP: Logged

Rondo_GE
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:56 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rondo_GE   Click Here to Email Rondo_GE     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"There is no question that the nation will have to repond militarily and that response will have to be of some magnitude"

I just got that off of CBS. I dont think "surgical strikes" are gonna be the way it goes down. maybe as a feint...

I think the "moral approach" must be ruled out in this case. These people have no rules, even Hitler signed the Geneva Convention. That's the sum total of my argument I'm afraid.

If Afghanistan is the nation-state that has supported this then I think it needs to have its government extracted and destroyed. However, this country (AFG) has been utterly successful in defending itself against aggression because they are a world class defensive nation and use unconventional methods of defense.

Since they defend themselves with inconventional tactics I think unconventional methods of attack need to be used as well. Nukes should not be ruled out. But my belief is that these should be unconventional nukes. Nukes like neutron weapons or even non nuclear weapons that allow the contested ground to be occupied quickly, without fear of residual radiation or effects.

It is to be assumed that the Afghani government will at the very least be able to retreat or even at this moment be existing in such bunkers. So whatever hits them will have to have some ability to "go deep".

Blanketing their major city with Fuel Air explosives might also be effective. But I dont know how well they work against people huddled into hardened bunkers since they have much less explosive impact than a nuke. Also the fires and such might rage for weeks making "bunker extraction" difficult for invading ground troops.

My feeling is that it would be a mistake to use ground forces against the Afghanis until the cities and the sourrounding areas have been pulverized. So maybe conventional bombing might work but we have few places to conduct it from on the scale neccessary.

As for "warning" the population to evacuate before it all happens I suspect that will be considered. We usually do that but then wait months afterward to perform the attack.
VOICE OF AMERICA is the one way we have done such things.

So in summary I think we should invade and occupy the nation for a brief period of time with he only purpose in mind to "extract" and destroy it's government. We should leave it to a UN Peacekeeping force to occupy this country for an extended period of time and set up a new government. NO American Troops should be invaolved in that. We might be able to set up in some remote part of that country a military or intel type bases to further monitor events and continue the eradication of Terrorism but that base should have no or little interface with the nation it occupies.

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 09:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can't stress it enough. The one thing we must NOT do is mount an invasion.

1) It puts more American and allied lives at risk needlessly.

2) It risk sending the message of "we want your land". We don't want to go there. That's not our purpose.

3) While it's tempting to prove our bravery by getting down in the foxholes, in the end, it has no useful purpose. These people believe what their leaders tell them.

4) The only way to stop terrorism is to take away it's support. To do that, we have to make it so horrifying and painful to support a terrorist that noone will consider doing it. Invading does not do that. Faceless destruction from afar, with no way to protect yourself, or retaliate, does that.

5) Most importantly... did anyone LEARN anything from Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan? A guerilla war is NOT one we want to fight.

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

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

Dracho
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 10:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dracho     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The lessons from Vietnam were not that you can't win an unconventional war. They were that when you do wage war, you do it totally and without restraint.

We would have won that war in 3 years if we were willing to go into the North and destroy its capacity to make war. Johnson was unwilling to provoke the Soviets and Chinese to that level, sho he should have gotten out then.

quote:
Originally posted by Khoros:
I can't stress it enough. The one thing we must NOT do is mount an invasion.

1) It puts more American and allied lives at risk needlessly.

2) It risk sending the message of "we want your land". We don't want to go there. That's not our purpose.

3) While it's tempting to prove our bravery by getting down in the foxholes, in the end, it has no useful purpose. These people believe what their leaders tell them.

4) The only way to stop terrorism is to take away it's support. To do that, we have to make it so horrifying and painful to support a terrorist that noone will consider doing it. Invading does not do that. Faceless destruction from afar, with no way to protect yourself, or retaliate, does that.

5) Most importantly... did anyone LEARN anything from Vietnam, or the Soviets in Afghanistan? A guerilla war is NOT one we want to fight.


IP: Logged

Cockatiel
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 10:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Cockatiel   Click Here to Email Cockatiel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We are at war with human nature here......you can't fight all of humanity. In the unlikley even that we dicide to do the unthinkable of nuking or random firebombing then we as abd as them in there minds in if there are any survivors they will vow with evry breath to conitnue the fight......most people in that country just wnat to live.....the same as us.....soem are jerks..and some even cheered bu that doesn't mean we must "kill them all" we are America.....we are one of the most civilized natiopn in the world(except for Canada and Britian and Australia...and....well I can't give yiou exact fugures...)we would be doing what they want.....make more terrorists...even our own peiople could jion the ranks of terrorists....we will not be the barbarians....sometimes the ends don't justify the means.....and I think we have improved since Vietnam.......

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

IP: Logged

Blackclaw
Extra in Red Shirt
posted 09-13-2001 10:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackclaw   Click Here to Email Blackclaw     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think I'm a little more rational today. I'm still not sane mind you, but hopefully moving back in that direction.

And with that bit of lucidity just within my grasp I'm going to take a position against the use of nuclear weapons in this instance.

As a matter of deterence, we need to hold nuclear weapons back. Our very public policy should be that we will not use nuclear weapons unless we are attacked ourselves with nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. This will hopefully have some value in staying the hand of any of our enemies who obtain weapons of mass destruction. I realize that they are not rational, but perhaps if it is explicitly clear that any action using such weapons will result in their peoples total annihilation that they will realize such use is not the way to advance their cause. There will be no one left to celebrate their actions. No political movement left to succeed in whatever it is they espouse.

For those who say that we must hold back in pursuing these terrorists because we will only create additional terrorists, I disagree. Yes, military retailation will create new recruits for them. But new recruits are also created with every success they have. Ultimatly this becomes a quest for something more than vengence. We must kill them before they kill us. They are already pursuing a course that has them killing us as fast as they can. They will escalate the violence if we strike or not. If we strike back we can disrupt their next attack. Yes, others will emerge and we will have to deal with them as well. We must go after all terrorists this time. Not just the ones that struck us, but all terrorists everywhere. It will take a terrible cost, but one that they will make us pay in any case. In time they will learn that it is less costly to pursue other means for their goals than terrorism. Being a terrorist will mean that your cause is already lost.

IP: Logged

Nob Akimoto
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 11:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Nob Akimoto   Click Here to Email Nob Akimoto     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I agree about the need for conventional retaliation in some way.

They need to be flattened, and brought back up with American values(if possible) or at least without the fundamentalism to improve.

I disagree about using nukes however.

Especially considering a conventional attack using third, fourth generation fuel air explosives would be just as damaging, without the disasterous fallout, both political, and radioactive.

While they're originally anti-mine, and landing field clearing weapons, they are also anti-materiel weapons, making them well I suppose as perfect as possible to bring down an infrastructure.

Info on American weapons and how they work.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm

Russian FAE's or "Vacuum Bombs"
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/02/chech0215b.htm

And more on use of FAE's by the Russians and it's effects.
http://call.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

In short what a FAE can do is:
A fuel-air explosive can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without residual radiation. Since a fuel-air mixture flows easily into any cavities, neither natural terrain features nor non-hermetically sealed field fortifications (emplacements, covered slit trenches, bunkers) protect against the effects of fuel-air explosives.

While I'm not advocating the use of said weapons, I believe from a political perspective these weapons would be a better option.

In addition, as the US has already used said weapons in the past(Gulf War, Vietnam) and there has been little/no public outcry, perhaps non-allied countries would be less angry at the prospect of an attack with these weapons.

IP: Logged

caliboy420
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 12:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for caliboy420   Click Here to Email caliboy420     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nuke who ?


For what ? WTH u talkin bout Khoros ?


How can you nuke a nation or region for that matter, for the actons of a feww hundred / thousand men ?


This seems like a fit punishment to you ?
We lost 4,000 - 10,000 people, so in return we should fuck off the entire region ?


Which is what your talking bout when you talk about broad or tactical nuclear strikes.....


Ths isn't starship troopers man.


By your standards the destruction americans have caused should lead us to be nuked 10 times over.


Your realise the state the Native American was in before Europeans came to this land ?
And after ?


What about slaves ?
You how many were lost on the boat ride alone to this country ?


To nuke or not ?


WTF man ? Let's not get crazy....
We need to look @ some sort of serious occupation of Afghanistan....


Ensure the removal of those responsible, then leave some sort of monitoring body for years to come. Since the goverment is a puppet regime with no real power I say we roll in and straighten the shit out for em.


No occupation of Afghnastin would not be easy.
Yes more Americans would be lost....but I could deal with that alot easier than systematically wiping alot alot of women and kids...regardless of what misguided teachings there hyponitized by.


To Nuke or Not...sigh
To many sperm salad Khoros.....


God Bless the Dead !!

[This message has been edited by caliboy420 (edited 09-13-2001).]

IP: Logged

UN Peacekeeper
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 12:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for UN Peacekeeper     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To Nuke is to destroy all sympathy
and make all alliance hopeless.

To Nuke is to Lose.

IP: Logged

Rondo_GE
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 12:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rondo_GE   Click Here to Email Rondo_GE     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Khoros I would definitely be for the very "brief" invasion of the target nation for only as long as it takes to extract and or verify that the government is dead.

The "way" would have to be cleared. That's where the "unconventional" methods/weapons could be used.

If this were 1991 I would have a whole lot more confidence of our ability to make that happen with conventional bombings. I just dont know if that exists anymore.


IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You're entitled to your opinion, caliboy. God Bless America.

Sorry about the American Indians. Last I checked, there wasn't a region in the world that hadn't undergone an invasion and conquest of some sort. Should I ask for reparations from Rome because my Black Forest ancestors were overrun by the Roman Empire? Or my Celtic ancestors were conquered by the Anglos? Or my English ancestors that were conquered by the Normans?

The slave trade could not have existed without the African tribal chiefs that took captured enemy tribesmen, and sold them to the slave traders. My ancestors didn't immigrate until the 1870s, so I had nothing to do with the slave trade.

Show me any country who's hands are clean, caliboy. For that matter, look at the region in question. It's hardly innocent.

Ah, and the "women and children" line again.

Life is life. It's all precious. The fact that it's men dying makes war okay, huh? The fact that they're "soldiers" makes them fair game? No matter than most of them probably had no choice in whether to be soldiers or not.

The women and children I'm worried about are here in the US. I don't care whether they're Arab, Oriental, black, white, Hispanic. I want them alive and safe.

Tell me, would you think the same thing when one of those children tossed a Molotov cocktail onto a US troop transport as we conducted the occupation you promote?

You need to get a view of war other than what Hollywood shows you. Ever spend a lengthy amount of time talking to a Vietnam vet? I have. I buried one three weeks ago. He was my brother-in-law.

I don't want anyone to have to go through what he did at 18.

War is insane. It wasn't pretty a half century ago, and it hasn't gotten any prettier over time.

I'm not insisting on a nuke. It's an option, and depending on how things unfold, it may be the best option. I'm trying to get people like yourself to open your eyes, and your minds. You see the word "nuke" and you close up tight, and start pointing fingers, and throwing terms like "sperm salad" around. You don't even take the time to think out the implications of other options.

Your morals and good intentions do you credit. The same can be said of America when it entered World War I. Where has that led us?


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

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Khoros:

I understand that you are angry.

I understand.


But please, try to be rational.

Let's assume that Bin Laden indeed planned those crimes against humanity.

Let's assume the Taliban helped him.

Why would you want to nuke Afghanistan?
99,9%(ok, not exactly sure, but most) Of the population is being suppressed by the Taliban.

My proposal: Liberate Afghanistan. Not just the USA, no, let Russia & the NATO participate.

You can't kill someone for something he didnt do. Terrorists do not think this way, but humans do.

IP: Logged

Sethan
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sethan   Click Here to Email Sethan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The very last thing we want to do is an invasion and occupation.

Aside from the reaction of the surrounding countries, our casualties in such an operation would be enormous. Not in the 'invasion' stage, but in the 'occupation' stage.

We have countries here where nearly the entire populace has been brought up from birth to hate the US. They have a culture that condones and sponsors terrorism, and a religion that says that anyone who dies in a Holy War goes directly to paradise.

It is a recipe for disaster for occupying troops. It is a guarrantee of regular, repeated, large scale suicide bombings of barracks, facilities, and gatherings of occupying troops. Snipers and booby traps will be around every corner, and small children will be used as mines, just as they were in Vietnam. We cannot win that kind of war.

As long as the culture remains intact, the attitude of the people will not change. Remove their government? They will put another into power that is just like it, and hates the US just as much.

Nukes may be the most efficient way of accomplishing the destruction of the offending country(ies). The same effect (less the 'statement' of using Nukes) can be gotten with conventional weapons (though at a higher risk of US casualties, and over a longer period of time).

For those who say that using Nukes will open the door to terrorists doing the same - that door has been open for a long time. Terrorists will use any weapon they can get their hands on, that will do as mcuh damage as possible. Any high school child who paid attention in class can build a simple nuke of the type used against Hiroshima. All they need is the materials, and a cause they don't mind dying for (avoiding death by radiation poisoning from building the Nuke is lots more difficult than just building it). Fortunately, weapons grade nuclear material is a little difficult to get hold of.

Whatever the method of response, the effect must be the same - total destruction of the opposing country and culture. Anything less is a waste of lives and materiel.

IP: Logged

Sethan
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:16 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:
Why would you want to nuke Afghanistan?
99,9%(ok, not exactly sure, but most) Of the population is being suppressed by the Taliban.

Seems unlikely. The rebel group fighting the Taliban controls only 10-15% of the country. If the populace wanted tha Taliban gone, more of them would be supporting the rebels.

quote:
Originally posted by SirWillem:
You can't kill someone for something he didnt do.

Certainly you can. You can (and we will) kill people for not leaving the target areas when we attack. We will kill them for not overthrowing their government before it was too late. And we will kill them for not forcing their government to give up the terrorists while they still had a chance.

IP: Logged

Ggruuk
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ggruuk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Seth... read this article:
http://216.203.248.212/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014458.html

IP: Logged

Sethan
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Sethan   Click Here to Email Sethan     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ggruuk:
Seth... read this article:
http://216.203.248.212/ubb/Forum1/HTML/014458.html

The page you have requested has either moved or been eliminated.

Please refer to the column at left to find a specific section, or visit Boston.com's home page for a complete overview of our sections.

If you need immediate assistance, please contact us by filling out our feedback form.

You can also try to browsing our site for related materials using our Search page.

We apologize for the inconvenience. Boston.com

---

What did it say before it was removed?

IP: Logged

SirWillem
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SirWillem   Click Here to Email SirWillem     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:

Seems unlikely. The rebel group fighting the Taliban controls only 10-15% of the country. If the populace wanted tha Taliban gone, more of them would be supporting the rebels.

It's pretty hard to resist when you aren't allowed to have anything but the most basic things, while facing armed men.

quote:

Certainly you can. You can (and we will) kill people for not leaving the target areas when we attack. We will kill them for not overthrowing their government before it was too late. And we will kill them for not forcing their government to give up the terrorists while they still had a chance

Please, try to stay rational, read your own post again & try to understand what you just said. I know, it's hard to stay rational when you see those Palestinian jerks shouting "victory"(etc).

Anyways,

Take care,


IP: Logged

Ggruuk
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ggruuk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wierd, and I read it like 10 minutes earlier.
Basically it referred to Bin Laden as an unwelcome guest in Afghanistan. The Taliban welcomed him with open arms for his help in fighting the Sovs, but the average Afghani couldn't care less. The Taliban control less than 20% of the country, but they control the cities. They're not particularly popular, but it sounds like it's one of those 'better the devil you know' deals. Hopefully this means that if we 'persuaded' them to give up Bin Laden and 'consider' sharing power with the Northern Rebels, the Afghani people wouldn't really raise too big a fuss.

IP: Logged

Crisisman
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Crisisman   Click Here to Email Crisisman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've been thinking about this myself, and I'm not 100% sure on the best method. My thoughts are something like this:

Option 1: Conventional bombing and special forces raids designed to destroy/capture the actual persons/governments involved. This has the advantage of being precise, but has the problem of not really impacting the attitude of the general culture of the area and would leave us without a position to dictate the nature of the new government(s) to replace the ones we remove. It will also be difficult to locate and target the entire system without anyone on the ground.

Option 2: Introduction of ground forces in support of local opposition movements combined with massive air support to assist an offensive by the locals with our support. Possibly involving the tactical use of small nuclear weapons to completely destroy identified terrorist bases(yes, there are tactical weapons with just enough yield to be effective in this with little effect on the general population-so long as the bases aren't in the middle of major cities). This combination allows for physical control of the land, and direct control of the formation of the new government. It allows the resistance within the nation to be the heroes. They would become the new ruling party, or at least be fully represented should the new government be a democracy. Because the locals would be involved on our side, there is a better chance of long term cultural changes taking hold. The limited use of TacNuke's would both effectively remove enemy bases and send a distinct message to the enemy that there is no safe place. It also allows us to target individuals less precisely. i.e. We only have to know that Usama is in camp X, not that he is in building 21, room 13, with 12 armed guards in/around the building. This greatly increases our ability to be sure the leaders and key players are taken out for good.

Anyhow, I know this isn't perfectly thought out yet. This is where my thoughts are currently going though. Option 2(or some variation thereon) is sounding better the more I think about it.

You the man Khoros!

------------------
Crisisman
Outer Circle Beta Tester
2nd Deacon, Church of Taldren
---------------
AMD K-6/2 400mhz
320mb pc100 RAM
32mb ATI Xpert 2000 vid
Yamaha XSG sound
DirectX 7.0a
Cable Modem

IP: Logged

caliboy420
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 01:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for caliboy420   Click Here to Email caliboy420     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"You're entitled to your opinion, caliboy. God Bless America."


I take it your patronizing me right ??


"Sorry about the American Indians. Last I checked, there wasn't a region in the world that hadn't undergone an invasion and conquest of some sort. Should I ask forest ancestors were overrun by the Roman Empire? Or my Celtic ancestors were conquered by the Anglos? Or my English ancestors that were conquered by the Normans?"


Absolutley correct..........all wrong doings like Tuesdays attacks.....so by your standards all of these civilizations should have been wiped out or nuked right (which basically means wiped out)

"The slave trade could not have existed without the African tribal chiefs that took captured enemy tribesmen, and sold them to the slave traders. My ancestors didn't immigrate until the 1870s, so I had nothing to do with the slave trade."


Wrong and right....the slave trade existaed well before the 10th century not to mention the humble beginnings of this nation...but never before YOUR ancestors touched slavery was one under the yoake considered less than human...less than an animal....so I guess YOUR ancestors raised the standards once again....


And I think we can all agree that slavery was wrong.....so again by your standards wrong is wrong....everyone involved should have been wiped out....right ?

""Show me any country who's hands are clean, caliboy. For that matter, look at the region in question. It's hardly innocent."


Again man there ins't one...so get off your soapbox and stop talking about wiping out a whole country....if this was a fit punishent each nation your referred to with dirty hands would be deservign of the same thing......clear ???


Did I mention that Jews who lived through the holocaust were awarded war reperations for what happened to them last century ?


You might want to look into that forest of yours that was destroyed....(now I'm patronizing you)


"Ah, and the "women and children" line again."


So non-chalant. You know the difference tween those kids raised in Afgahnistan and the ones raised here......where they were born.


If you habe been brn over they you'd be hypnotized by 5 totiing a weapon @ 10 and probably taking target practice @ american flags in your backyard or whatever they have that resembles one....


So while you dismiss the women and children as Muslims who'd just as soon cut my throat for living in the rest...or supporting isreal of for my level of comfort....I choose to see these people as victims....victims prayed upon and brain-washed @ to early an age for the process to be reversed...think about man.

"Life is life. It's all precious. The fact that it's men dying makes war okay, huh? The fact that they're "soldiers" makes them fair game? No matter than most of them probably had no choice in whether to be soldiers or not."


Who are you talking about ? The victims in the WTC ? There not soldiers there innocents who deserved better.


I'm not sure I get your point ? That we as Americans should stoop to terrorist levels ?


That because our innocents have dies there's should also. Purposely ? No thanks my man. I'll pass and I hope most of the American people would as well.


"The women and children I'm worried about are here in the US. I don't care whether they're Arab, Oriental, black, white, Hispanic. I want them alive and safe."


Well I'm worried about the ones around the globe....eventually man if we survive long enough we won't be a planet of nations...will be one planet with one world goverment and one country that crosses a few bodies of water....or haven't you been watching the show ?


So again while suggest wiping out a whole nation and region 25 million people.....Is ay we shoudl go there....and occupy the nation.....find the ones responsible.......put there heads on public display then begin to help these peopl understand the error in ther beliefs and ways....

"Tell me, would you think the same thing when one of those children tossed a Molotov cocktail onto a US troop transport as we conducted the occupation you promote?"


Again man those children are victims to young and innocent to form there own opinions......


I live in California, norcl now. A few years ago there was a cult that formed in Socal....the Halebop comet cult (I think I got that right) anyhow they decided to make som magic punch whle waiting for there heavenly ride yadda yadda yadda, well a few hours after cumsumtion of the punch everyones sleep for good as alot of you know the story.......


My point is that alot of kids were found in this compound with this group of people...toddlers to preteens. Would you really blame them. Or would you blame there parents and leaders the ones around them old enough and wise enough to make decisions......


I don't think you would.
You wouldn't blame a 6 year old for doing what they were tought (brainwashed to do) why are those kids any different ?


Cause there in the middle east ?
Cause there muslims ?
Comeon man your smarter than that ( I hope )


"You need to get a view of war other than what Hollywood shows you. Ever spend a lengthy amount of time talking to a Vietnam vet? I have. I buried one three weeks ago. He was my brother-in-law."


And you think your is more accurate cause you knew a vet ? Talked to won ? Buried won ?


Yeah your real qualififed....if Powell ever dies I feel alot safer knowing your around....sigh.


"I don't want anyone to have to go through what he did at 18."


If it's for a valid cause my man....a better one than what he fought for I'd have no problem with it...or myself or son for that matter.....again right is right.....and I think going in and getting OBL is the right thing to do.....wiping out those forced to live under the Talibans bogus regime is not.......believe it or not I'd put my own life on the line to see this end accomplished.

"I'm not insisting on a nuke. It's an option, and depending on how things unfold, it may be the best option. I'm trying to get people like yourself to open your eyes, and your minds. You see the word "nuke" and you close up tight, and start pointing fingers, and throwing terms like "sperm salad" around. You don't even take the time to think out the implications of other options."


I'm really confused then. I though that's where your whole post was pointing towards ?


Nuking Afghanistan ?
You asked, I answered....as did others.

"Your morals and good intentions do you credit. The same can be said of America when it entered World War I. Where has that led us?"


WWI was one.......again your point is lost on me....maybe you mean the death tolls which I don't know off hand (shame on me) but again man....people do the wrong things with good intentions all the time and as Picard said some of the worst abominations throughtout man kind has come with that same mantra in mind.


I say do the right thing for the right reason.Let's keep things in perspective and not over react.


Let's not demonize a whole group of people for the actions of one, 2 ,3 or 1000 madmen.


I mean there is in fighting in AFG....there are rebels there fighting the Taliban and not just after Tuesday with self preservation in mind.


If everyone in AFG was in bed with OBL this would hardly be the case...the country is poor and lost, punishment enough are the standards of living those people wake up to daily....


Damn what a book!
God Bless the Dead !!!

Y

[This message has been edited by caliboy420 (edited 09-13-2001).]

IP: Logged

Musashi
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 02:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Musashi   Click Here to Email Musashi     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have to agree with Sethan on this one ... well, somewhat. Think of it as a firepower demonstration.

I say: stick with Plan A. Find this guy and his buddies and eliminate them. Once this is done, pick a decent sized Afgan city (prefferably one of his many hideouts or even Kabul if practical), evacuate it, nuke it and then have our troops wipe their feet off at the border on their way out.

Let it be a monument to the folly of mass murder.

No aid.
No Marshall Plan.
Not one dime.


The punishment should fit the crime or this will never end.

[This message has been edited by Musashi (edited 09-13-2001).]

IP: Logged

Khoros
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 02:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Khoros   Click Here to Email Khoros     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by caliboy420:
"You're entitled to your opinion, caliboy. God Bless America."

I take it your patronizing me right ??

"Sorry about the American Indians. Last I checked, there wasn't a region in the world that hadn't undergone an invasion and conquest of some sort. Should I ask forest ancestors were overrun by the Roman Empire? Or my Celtic ancestors were conquered by the Anglos? Or my English ancestors that were conquered by the Normans?"

Absolutley correct..........all wrong doings like Tuesdays attacks.....so by your standards all of these civilizations should have been wiped out or nuked right (which basically means wiped out)


"The slave trade could not have existed without the African tribal chiefs that took captured enemy tribesmen, and sold them to the slave traders. My ancestors didn't immigrate until the 1870s, so I had nothing to do with the slave trade."

Wrong and right....the slave trade existaed well before the 10th century not to mention the humble beginnings of this nation...but never before YOUR ancestors touched slavery was one under the yoake considered less than human...less than an animal....so I guess YOUR ancestors raised the standards once again....

And I think we can all agree that slavery was wrong.....so again by your standards wrong is wrong....everyone involved should have been wiped out....right ?


""Show me any country who's hands are clean, caliboy. For that matter, look at the region in question. It's hardly innocent."

Again man there ins't one...so get off your soapbox and stop talking about wiping out a whole country....if this was a fit punishent each nation your referred to with dirty hands would be deservign of the same thing......clear ???

Did I mention that Jews who lived through the holocaust were awarded war reperations for what happened to them last century ?

You might want to look into that forest of yours that was destroyed....(now I'm patronizing you)

"Ah, and the "women and children" line again."

So non-chalant. You know the difference tween those kids raised in Afgahnistan and the ones raised here......where they were born.

If you habe been brn over they you'd be hypnotized by 5 totiing a weapon @ 10 and probably taking target practice @ american flags in your backyard or whatever they have that resembles one....

So while you dismiss the women and children as Muslims who'd just as soon cut my throat for living in the rest...or supporting isreal of for my level of comfort....I choose to see these people as victims....victims prayed upon and brain-washed @ to early an age for the process to be reversed...think about man.


"Life is life. It's all precious. The fact that it's men dying makes war okay, huh? The fact that they're "soldiers" makes them fair game? No matter than most of them probably had no choice in whether to be soldiers or not."

Who are you talking about ? The victims in the WTC ? There not soldiers there innocents who deserved better.

I'm not sure I get your point ? That we as Americans should stoop to terrorist levels ?

That because our innocents have dies there's should also. Purposely ? No thanks my man. I'll pass and I hope most of the American people would as well.

"The women and children I'm worried about are here in the US. I don't care whether they're Arab, Oriental, black, white, Hispanic. I want them alive and safe."

Well I'm worried about the ones around the globe....eventually man if we survive long enough we won't be a planet of nations...will be one planet with one world goverment and one country that crosses a few bodies of water....or haven't you been watching the show ?

So again while suggest wiping out a whole nation and region 25 million people.....Is ay we shoudl go there....and occupy the nation.....find the ones responsible.......put there heads on public display then begin to help these peopl understand the error in ther beliefs and ways....


"Tell me, would you think the same thing when one of those children tossed a Molotov cocktail onto a US troop transport as we conducted the occupation you promote?"

Again man those children are victims to young and innocent to form there own opinions......

I live in California, norcl now. A few years ago there was a cult that formed in Socal....the Halebop comet cult (I think I got that right) anyhow they decided to make som magic punch whle waiting for there heavenly ride yadda yadda yadda, well a few hours after cumsumtion of the punch everyones sleep for good as alot of you know the story.......

My point is that alot of kids were found in this compound with this group of people...toddlers to preteens. Would you really blame them. Or would you blame there parents and leaders the ones around them old enough and wise enough to make decisions......

I don't think you would.
You wouldn't blame a 6 year old for doing what they were tought (brainwashed to do) why are those kids any different ?

Cause there in the middle east ?
Cause there muslims ?
Comeon man your smarter than that ( I hope )

"You need to get a view of war other than what Hollywood shows you. Ever spend a lengthy amount of time talking to a Vietnam vet? I have. I buried one three weeks ago. He was my brother-in-law."

And you think your is more accurate cause you knew a vet ? Talked to won ? Buried won ?

Yeah your real qualififed....if Powell ever dies I feel alot safer knowing your around....sigh.

"I don't want anyone to have to go through what he did at 18."

If it's for a valid cause my man....a better one than what he fought for I'd have no problem with it...or myself or son for that matter.....again right is right.....and I think going in and getting OBL is the right thing to do.....wiping out those forced to live under the Talibans bogus regime is not.......believe it or not I'd put my own life on the line to see this end accomplished.


"I'm not insisting on a nuke. It's an option, and depending on how things unfold, it may be the best option. I'm trying to get people like yourself to open your eyes, and your minds. You see the word "nuke" and you close up tight, and start pointing fingers, and throwing terms like "sperm salad" around. You don't even take the time to think out the implications of other options."

I'm really confused then. I though that's where your whole post was pointing towards ?

Nuking Afghanistan ?
You asked, I answered....as did others.


"Your morals and good intentions do you credit. The same can be said of America when it entered World War I. Where has that led us?"

WWI was one.......again your point is lost on me....maybe you mean the death tolls which I don't know off hand (shame on me) but again man....people do the wrong things with good intentions all the time and as Picard said some of the worst abominations throughtout man kind has come with that same mantra in mind.

I say do the right thing for the right reason.Let's keep things in perspective and not over react.

Let's not demonize a whole group of people for the actions of one, 2 ,3 or 1000 madmen.

I mean there is in fighting in AFG....there are rebels there fighting the Taliban and not just after Tuesday with self preservation in mind.

If everyone in AFG was in bed with OBL this would hardly be the case...the country is poor and lost, punishment enough are the standards of living those people wake up to daily....

Damn what a book!
God Bless the Dead !!!


You're entitled to your opinion, caliboy. God Bless America."

I take it your patronizing me right ??

"Sorry about the American Indians. Last I checked, there wasn't a region in the world that hadn't undergone an invasion and conquest of some sort. Should I ask forest ancestors were overrun by the Roman Empire? Or my Celtic ancestors were conquered by the Anglos? Or my English ancestors that were conquered by the Normans?"

Absolutley correct..........all wrong doings like Tuesdays attacks.....so by your standards all of these civilizations should have been wiped out or nuked right (which basically means wiped out)


"The slave trade could not have existed without the African tribal chiefs that took captured enemy tribesmen, and sold them to the slave traders. My ancestors didn't immigrate until the 1870s, so I had nothing to do with the slave trade."

Wrong and right....the slave trade existaed well before the 10th century not to mention the humble beginnings of this nation...but never before YOUR ancestors touched slavery was one under the yoake considered less than human...less than an animal....so I guess YOUR ancestors raised the standards once again....

And I think we can all agree that slavery was wrong.....so again by your standards wrong is wrong....everyone involved should have been wiped out....right ?


""Show me any country who's hands are clean, caliboy. For that matter, look at the region in question. It's hardly innocent."

Again man there ins't one...so get off your soapbox and stop talking about wiping out a whole country....if this was a fit punishent each nation your referred to with dirty hands would be deservign of the same thing......clear ???

Did I mention that Jews who lived through the holocaust were awarded war reperations for what happened to them last century ?

You might want to look into that forest of yours that was destroyed....(now I'm patronizing you)

"Ah, and the "women and children" line again."

So non-chalant. You know the difference tween those kids raised in Afgahnistan and the ones raised here......where they were born.

If you habe been brn over they you'd be hypnotized by 5 totiing a weapon @ 10 and probably taking target practice @ american flags in your backyard or whatever they have that resembles one....

So while you dismiss the women and children as Muslims who'd just as soon cut my throat for living in the rest...or supporting isreal of for my level of comfort....I choose to see these people as victims....victims prayed upon and brain-washed @ to early an age for the process to be reversed...think about man.


"Life is life. It's all precious. The fact that it's men dying makes war okay, huh? The fact that they're "soldiers" makes them fair game? No matter than most of them probably had no choice in whether to be soldiers or not."

Who are you talking about ? The victims in the WTC ? There not soldiers there innocents who deserved better.

I'm not sure I get your point ? That we as Americans should stoop to terrorist levels ?

That because our innocents have dies there's should also. Purposely ? No thanks my man. I'll pass and I hope most of the American people would as well.

"The women and children I'm worried about are here in the US. I don't care whether they're Arab, Oriental, black, white, Hispanic. I want them alive and safe."

Well I'm worried about the ones around the globe....eventually man if we survive long enough we won't be a planet of nations...will be one planet with one world goverment and one country that crosses a few bodies of water....or haven't you been watching the show ?

So again while suggest wiping out a whole nation and region 25 million people.....Is ay we shoudl go there....and occupy the nation.....find the ones responsible.......put there heads on public display then begin to help these peopl understand the error in ther beliefs and ways....


"Tell me, would you think the same thing when one of those children tossed a Molotov cocktail onto a US troop transport as we conducted the occupation you promote?"

Again man those children are victims to young and innocent to form there own opinions......

I live in California, norcl now. A few years ago there was a cult that formed in Socal....the Halebop comet cult (I think I got that right) anyhow they decided to make som magic punch whle waiting for there heavenly ride yadda yadda yadda, well a few hours after cumsumtion of the punch everyones sleep for good as alot of you know the story.......

My point is that alot of kids were found in this compound with this group of people...toddlers to preteens. Would you really blame them. Or would you blame there parents and leaders the ones around them old enough and wise enough to make decisions......

I don't think you would.
You wouldn't blame a 6 year old for doing what they were tought (brainwashed to do) why are those kids any different ?

Cause there in the middle east ?
Cause there muslims ?
Comeon man your smarter than that ( I hope )

"You need to get a view of war other than what Hollywood shows you. Ever spend a lengthy amount of time talking to a Vietnam vet? I have. I buried one three weeks ago. He was my brother-in-law."

And you think your is more accurate cause you knew a vet ? Talked to won ? Buried won ?

Yeah your real qualififed....if Powell ever dies I feel alot safer knowing your around....sigh.

"I don't want anyone to have to go through what he did at 18."

If it's for a valid cause my man....a better one than what he fought for I'd have no problem with it...or myself or son for that matter.....again right is right.....and I think going in and getting OBL is the right thing to do.....wiping out those forced to live under the Talibans bogus regime is not.......believe it or not I'd put my own life on the line to see this end accomplished.


"I'm not insisting on a nuke. It's an option, and depending on how things unfold, it may be the best option. I'm trying to get people like yourself to open your eyes, and your minds. You see the word "nuke" and you close up tight, and start pointing fingers, and throwing terms like "sperm salad" around. You don't even take the time to think out the implications of other options."

I'm really confused then. I though that's where your whole post was pointing towards ?

Nuking Afghanistan ?
You asked, I answered....as did others.


"Your morals and good intentions do you credit. The same can be said of America when it entered World War I. Where has that led us?"

WWI was one.......again your point is lost on me....maybe you mean the death tolls which I don't know off hand (shame on me) but again man....people do the wrong things with good intentions all the time and as Picard said some of the worst abominations throughtout man kind has come with that same mantra in mind.

I say do the right thing for the right reason.Let's keep things in perspective and not over react.

Let's not demonize a whole group of people for the actions of one, 2 ,3 or 1000 madmen.

I mean there is in fighting in AFG....there are rebels there fighting the Taliban and not just after Tuesday with self preservation in mind.

If everyone in AFG was in bed with OBL this would hardly be the case...the country is poor and lost, punishment enough are the standards of living those people wake up to daily....

Damn what a book!
God Bless the Dead !!!


Some good points, caliboy, but enough also show that you didn't read very much of my first post, that started the thread. And you probably skimmed through my last one, as I said very explicitly that my ancestors came to this country in the 1870s... AFTER slavery was abolished here.

So let me touch the high points.

Read my first post again, and you'll see what I was refering to with the WWI reference. One well intentioned, moral decision has arguably led to some very grievious consequences, such as the Holocaust, the Cold War, etc. Mr. Henry Kissinger agreed that the position had merit.

As to your recurring theme of "by your standards, they should have been wiped out"...

Well, I doubt the people on the receiving end would have hesitated, had they had the means. But my point was that things like the examples you gave are history. Old news. They happened. We can learn from them, but throwing them back in our face has nothing to do with the current situation. Civilizations have risen and fallen. My concern is that ours doesn't.

As to why I started the topic... because it needed to be discussed. Because people need to step down off their moral safety nets and face the fact that war, no matter what weapons are used, is not a glorious effort.

My reference to my brother-in-law was intended to illustrate that I have heard, first hand, things that don't make it into the movies. You of course, responded in your typical "well whoop te doo!" fashion, rather than try and see the statement for what it was, or consider that maybe I might just have an insight that you might not have.

It all boils down to this:

No matter what route we take, people are going to die. Period. It's an unfortunate fact that some of them will be innocents. My concern is that the children that die are not my own, or those of any other person in the United States, or any of our allies.

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

KhoroMag Gaming Services

IP: Logged

cam78
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 04:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cam78   Click Here to Email cam78     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
To kill indiscriminately, whether it be through conventional or nuclear means, is to sink to the level of the terrorist. The attitude of "these people must be eliminated to protect ourselves" is theirs.

Think about it. If they could, the terrorists would eliminate the great satan in a single stroke. Thankfully, they do not have that capability. I am saddened to see that many whose nation does have that capability, would use it on their own perceived "great satan", without discrimination.

I respect the intensity of emotion that all Americans must feel at this point, but the idea that the only response to a senseless act of terror is an even more wanton act of terror disturbs me deeply. It is, in fact the most stomach turning thing I have encountered since the events of Tuesday morning.

My thoughts sympathies are with all those who have suffered from this. Let us not bring more suffering to the world unnecessarily.

cam

IP: Logged

Leto
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 05:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Leto     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I posted this question in another thread but it seem appropriate here also.
It�s a question to those opposed to Strategic weapons being used for moral reasons.


If it was proven that there were NBC weapons in, or being built in Afghanistan right now, to be used against America, would you change your mind?(Impossible? Many would have thought that about the events of Tuesday.)

How about if it was just strongly suspected?

Or if we engage in a slow military and political process that turns the Arab nations against us (and it will) and Pakistan somehow just happens to loose one of their nukes?

Leto

IP: Logged

sfcvixen
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 05:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for sfcvixen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nukes do not honour borders of countries.

If you drop a nuke on something, you spread fallout and it's consequences around the world.

Any country that uses nuclear weapons is conducting the worst form of environmental terrorism on the world global communuty, not just the intended target.

The political issues are just too great to ponder. If you dropped a nuke on Afghanistan or Pakistan, what happens when the fallout cloud spreads to China or Russia? Don't forget they are close neighbours. Are they not going to perceive a threat to their own sovereign territory? Would they then not consider a retaliation, even though the first bomb's fallout would be called "collateral damage"?

The first country to use a nuclear weapon in this post cold war era will be the first one to start the next world war.


rachel

IP: Logged

SL-Punisher
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 05:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SL-Punisher   Click Here to Email SL-Punisher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
(POSTED FROM ANOTHER THREAD)

Well people have commented that there is no policy for the first use of nuclear weapons. And anyone who says that dosent know what they are talking about.
The united states has had a long standing policy (Stated policy and implied policy by US presidents) of not using nuclear weapons first. We realise that the first use of a nuclear warhead could inflame a situation to global thermonuclear war, and open the door of acceptable use for nuclear weapons. IE "the United states used a warhead against a country, so It must be ok for us" Policy of non-poliferation that has taken 30 years to accomplish will be blown right out the window.

In a conflict, there is a thing called "Measured response". Matching, but not exceeding the enemies use of force. While it does not make tons of military sense (IE You want to eliminate the enemy), it does make political sense. It keeps checks on military conflicts to ensure the situations dont spiral out of control.

The pentagon plans for every possible realistic war plan. In fact they have hundreds of different plans for the first use of nuclear weapons, simply to have a plan on paper. Does this mean the United States will strike first with nuclear weapons? No, it means that the military loves to have plans for almost any possible action. I work for a defense contractor. Trust me, the military works on this sort of thing.

The first use of nuclear weapons in this exchange would of course violate that practice, and create a situation that would place the entire world community in a position of not being able to support us. The United States would appear the bully.

When someone commits a murder, and you want to arrest him. You dont beat his children, you dont set his house on fire.

Measured response to accomplish our primary objectives.

What do we want? We want to find those responsible and punish them.

I support that, in fact I support military action to accomplish that. That military action must be measured, it must be considered, and it must accomplish our goals while preserving innocent lives. A police offer still must follow the rules when a crime is comitted. SO must we.

Dont give me this "They did onto us, so we must do onto them" bullshit. And thats what it is, total bullshit. If thats what you want, then fine ill slap a rifle in your hand and you can go murder them all.

The test of America is we must continue to play by the rules, and we can eliminate the threat while still playing by the rules. What are the rules?

1) Civilian targets are not eliminated
2) Military targets are destroyed with due regard to potential civilian deaths. That is to say in any conflict there will be civilian deaths, however, you do not destroy without considering those civilians.
3) Act on factual information and wisdom. Use the intellegence community to identify those responsible, those that support them. That same information will be used to seperate the innocent from the conflict to ensure there is no needless death.
4) Dont let emotion and anger cloud your judgement on the selection of action.


What will carnage and mass death accomplish? Nothing whatsoever. Russia tried and failed to commit a massive ground invasion of this region. In fact they tried for 10 years to subdue these people, and Russian military tactics were harsh and unyielding at the time. They bombed civilians and camps without a second thought. They were still driven out because the "Freedom fighters" were defending their homeland, their way of life, and had the full backing of their religion. Those are powerful weapons.

Our technological might will do no good. Sure bomb them into the stone age, but in reality they arent far out of the stone age. That country has been torn apart by 20-30 years of war. There isnt much left to bomb. When your opponent has very little in the terms of tanks and aircraft, what will an American combat division do?

Are you guys prepared for another Vietnam? We had good intentions going into that conflict, but they were lost along the way. Women, children, everyone was a potential enemy. So will be the case here. 12 year old boys will jump out from a fox hole and fire a AT missile at our tanks. AN entire nation will be turned into fanatical terrorists. You think a few thousand terrorists are bad? Try an entire nation! Millions of people with blood lust and one thing on their mind: The complete and total destruction of america.

As such, this battle must not be faught on convential terms. It must not be faught with divisions of tanks, or squadrons of aircraft, or hundreds of artillery guns.

It will be faught with special forces, and the intellegence community. It will be faught with millions of dollars of money awarded to those who give information that results in capture of terrorists. It will be faught with stiff economic sanctions against those responsible. I hold the taliban government responsible because they supported the individual behind these attacks. Their military, is now a legitmate target for american airstrikes.

Hold those who commit these acts responsible, and those who support them.

However, a large ground conflict will unite a country against us. A steamroller like russia could not conquer them, and we cannot conquer them.

IP: Logged

Leto
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 05:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Leto     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sfcvixen:
Nukes do not honour borders of countries.

If you drop a nuke on something, you spread fallout and it's consequences around the world.

Any country that uses nuclear weapons is conducting the worst form of environmental terrorism on the world global communuty, not just the intended target.

The political issues are just too great to ponder. If you dropped a nuke on Afghanistan or Pakistan, what happens when the fallout cloud spreads to China or Russia? Don't forget they are close neighbours. Are they not going to perceive a threat to their own sovereign territory? Would they then not consider a retaliation, even though the first bomb's fallout would be called "collateral damage"?

The first country to use a nuclear weapon in this post cold war era will be the first one to start the next world war.


rachel


I am not arguing the political implications. In fact I agree with you on them.

Also there is the possibility that weapons of mass destruction exist that we don�t know about that don�t have the same side effects as your regular old fat man or little boy.
I admit it�s far fetched, but this is a Sci-fi Video game message board after all.

Leto


[This message has been edited by Leto (edited 09-13-2001).]

IP: Logged

What's_in_a_name
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 06:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for What's_in_a_name     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"It will be fought with special forces, and the intelligence community. It will be fought with millions of dollars of money awarded to those who give information that results in capture of terrorists. It will be fought with stiff economic sanctions against those responsible. I hold the taliban government responsible because they supported the individual behind these attacks. Their military, is now a legitimate target for American airstrikes."

It sounds nice but don't you think that the Soviets tried the same things? Those Afghanis working with the Soviets were in large part double agents, reporting targets of no value and giving nothing but misinformation and giving back much more useful info to the Afghanis than the other way around. The Soviets tried fighting the guerillas on their terms as well and that failed just like the US tried small unit tactics in Vietnam and failed. It isn't like the Taliban was on vacation during the Soviets' stay and now that they are back they'll be an easy target, the Soviets could precision bomb as well and did it for eight years and yet they are still there. There are already stiff sanctions against them, what do we do in addition when they are already basically completely cut off?

I guess we can bomb using conventional weapons more, missing the real targets while making the rest of the population starve creating more hate filled looneys that Bin Laden can use as weapons.

IP: Logged

Horhay
Extra in Red Shirt
posted 09-13-2001 06:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Horhay   Click Here to Email Horhay     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Why are people so sure that our allies are against nukes as well?

IP: Logged

AJTK
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 06:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AJTK   Click Here to Email AJTK     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Environmental terrorism? ROFL. Now we are more concerned with the environment than American citizens?

You know, its funny. When China and Russia performed their multiple nuclear tests, they did NOT ask US. Nor did they ask their "neighbors". They just popped nukes. Surface nukes. Underground nukes. Underwater nukes. Asked no one.

I dont seem to remember having read about WW3 due to nuke testing in China. The entire WORLD knows we are going to attack and DESTROY whomever did this. All the government of Afhanistan has to do is deliver Bin Laden to us, and pledge to never again aid terrorists. Game over, no bombing. If they dont, they die.

To nuke or not to nuke? US policy is to use weapons of mass destruction when weapons of mass destrucion are used on us. There are over 120K ppls who traveled thru the WTC each day. 50K who worked there daily. If the attack had been later in the day, perhaps 10 or 11am est, they COULD HAVE killed 50K ppls. As it is, NYC has ordered 11K (ELEVEN THOUSAND) body bags, and probably will need more. Any attack that can kill thousands INSTANTLY is a weapon of mass destruction.

Surely you dont want us to use biological or chemical weapons?

Fine, dont use nukes. But anyone who thinks that occupation is the key is seriously deluded and needs to read about the Vietnam war and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. At the time of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, they too were a super power, and were STILL unable to control the population or even protect their occupation troops.

Caliboy is right, these ppls are brainwashed from the time they can walk to HATE Americans. How do you convince ppls like that to give up, to stop attacking you?

This is a war. We did not start it. We did not sneak in and suddenly blow up thousands of their ppls at one time, merely to kill them because we dont like them or their way of life.

If we do not make anyone who would even CONSIDER attacking America SO DEEP DOWN AFRAID to attack us, terrorism will continue. What do we have to do? What act of murder upon the civilized world will be enough to convince those of you who are moralizing this situation to wake up? Do they need to introduce antibotic resistant anthrax into the water supply and kill millions? Do they need to pop a nuke during the superbowl? All of these things are quite possible and well within the realm of possiblity.

I am with Khoros. If it comes down to an American dying, or a citizen of a country who sponsors terrorism dying, LET THEM DIE.

As for the person who made the WEAK ASS excuse that the poor, poor ppls of Afghanistan could not fight back, what a load of SHIT! Funny, but we Americans managed to win the revolutinary war against the British. Sure, we had help from the French, you betcha! We helped the afghans against the soviets during the 80's, dont you think we would go all OUT to help them kick out the Taliban that they supposedly hate so much?

In the end, its either them or us. We either fight back, or watch thousands and thousands of our citizens die, and citizens in other free countries, while we wait for the moralizers to come down from the clouds and smell what they are shoveling.

American Indians? Oh yes, the very nice, warm, loving ppls who SCALPED their living enemies, and then staked them out in ant piles, covered with honey.

Slavery? Thats funny, but it was the AFRICANS who were capturing OTHER AFRICANS and herding them up for us barbaric white men to buy. Guess what, those same AFRICANS STILL DEAL IN AFRICAN SLAVES. And please, oh please dont tell me that they treated THEIR SLAVES like people, omfg. A SLAVE IS A SLAVE. PROPERTY.

Them or us. We die or they die. LET THEM DIE.


------------------
"The best diplomat I know is a fully armed phaser bank!" - Scotty, from the episode "A taste of Armagedon.

IP: Logged

SL-Punisher
Ensign
posted 09-13-2001 06:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SL-Punisher   Click Here to Email SL-Punisher     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your right whats-in-a-name.

After some additional thought, sanctions wont work.

However, small unit tactics are an option that works (sometimes) against a invisible target such as this. We arent at war with the citizens of that country, we are at war with those responsible for this act.

A ground conflict (IE invasion) wont capture any terrorists because our military simply isnt trained for that sort of urban fighting. WIth no visible targets, the military wont have anyone to strike at. With the combined efforts of special forces and our intellegence community (Combined with intellegence from around the world) we will conduct surgical strikes to obtain those responsible.

The thing is, small unit actions in Vietnam didnt work due to the fact we were trying to stop an invasion. If we wanted to win in Vietnam, it required a massive invasion (Something that was discarded due to possible solviet/chinese response)

In this case we are dealing with criminals, so we must treat it as such.

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?���