We must strike back

[Psycho Fox]

Just before WWII Nazi Germany was involved in the Spanish Civil war. The German airforce attacked a city with 2 military targets. They bombed the city for a whole day but the targets didn't have a scratch on them why? becouse the Germans were not aiming for them they were tring to kill as many people as possible. They even had fighters shooting women and children tring to flee the city. But the world did nothing about it they went into the peace loving stuff and let Hitler grow and power.

I say don't let history repeat is self. The line was crossed and terrorism will end at all costs.

[Frozen]

I wasn't going to make any further posts today, as a form of 'minutes silence' -but I can't let this pass without expressing my reaction to this post, which I struggle to describe...

America, and the free world, has just suffered a terrible, terrible blow, for which there can be no justification. But, unless level heads are applied, a knee jerk reaction now will only make matters worse. The world is holding its breath, right now, waiting to see what the US does. Does it wade in with its combat boots on, invade Muslim soil and make a matyr out of bin Laden - who we don't even know for sure is guilty (is anybody listening to the people pointing out he's incapable of this? Does anybody else see him as a Lee Harvey Oswald for the new millenium?). Sure, putting US troops on Muslim soil might be a means to an end as far as nailing bin Laden, but wait - wasn't he an US alley when Afghanistan was fighting the Russians? Didn't the US give him boats loads of guns and stuff? And didn't he declare his hatred for the US in the first place when the US 'infidel' soldiers put those self-same combat boots in Saudi soil in '91? Surley just wading in through Pakistan and into Afghanistan is only going to create MORE racial hatred from the Muslims?

OK, so maybe you cruise missile him? Oh, hang on, Clinton tried that, didn't he, and he missed, I seem to recall. Bin Laden didn't get a scratch, and, worse still, some of those cruise missiles landed in Pakistani soil - a nuclear power, I hasten to add.

So you go to war, and the rest of the free world lends it military support (Tony Blair, our Prime Minister in the UK, has guaranteed he'll do whatever he can to help the US). Great, so now you have a whole new generation of angry suicide bombers with a whole new bunch of enticing targets. Great. So the whole damn mess has grown beyond control, and we have a bleak future were the world really is fighting the Muslims, another jihad. Nice one.

I'm not for a minute saying that the monster who did this should get away. He needs to be punished, and it needs to be a just and effective puishment that serves as a deterent to anybody else with the will and audacity to try this sort of atrocity again. Punishment needs to be served with the consent of ALL nations, either christian or otherwise. If bin laden is to blame, that Khabul needs to extradite him, not be forced to surrender him at gun-point, or this whole horrible mess will just be perpetuated, and you, me, and the rest of the world can spend the rest of forever looking over our shouldewrs, wondering were the next terrorist is hiding.

The US needs to sit down with Muslim world leaders, and get to the bottom of WHY US foreign policy has induced this suicidal hatred. It needs to ask itself "Do we REALLY need to bomb Irag every day?" "What can we do to work with the Muslim world to avoid another war?" "Do we need to compound this horror with the death of untold Muslim innocents?"

I'm no genius, I have no where the degree of academic ability of Maxie Zeus, or Leepin' Larry Jo-jo, but I do know the rest of the world is terrified of what the US is going to do next. You can show your true strength, and bring these animals to justice in a way that demonstrates, clearly, and beyond doubt, that the US is not the 'Satan' monster the fundamentalists would have us beleive - or you can blast 'em all to Hell, and then we can ALL wait for their repraisals.

I have a 12 year old daughter, and two 6 year old sisters. I want a future where I'm not going to be worried every time they get on a plane, or visit a national monument - how about you?

Get the murderer who did this - but do it right. Let's see justice done, and not revenge.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Agreed. Perhaps all we need to do is send in a special team to Afghanistan and have it like that...I'm scared of killing more innocents if we happen to go to war. That'd be hypocritical...

I find it pathetic that my country is eating some of the fruits it has sown-we didn't want communism in Afghanistan, yet a DICTATOR is just as fine...and so is the fact that Bin Ladin would help those dictators...(puts hand over face in shame)

[Psycho Fox]

I agree we need to make sure we are striking back at the right people but once we are sure we must. Hell they are reports they are still tring to kill us on US soil this close to the tragity Tuesday. This must stop and I support any action the US takes to due so as long as it punishes those that did this to us and supported it. I fear that if this is only done half ass and they are not totaly distroyed their power will only grow.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
Agreed. Perhaps all we need to do is send in a special team to Afghanistan and have it like that...I'm scared of killing more innocents if we happen to go to war. That'd be hypocritical...
But again as I said before that is how the world reacted to the Nazi Germanys involvment in the Spainish civil war and more people died becouse we didn't go head on with Germany then.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Frozen


So you go to war, and the rest of the free world lends it military support (Tony Blair, our Prime Minister in the UK, has guaranteed he'll do whatever he can to help the US). Great, so now you have a whole new generation of angry suicide bombers with a whole new bunch of enticing targets. Great. So the whole damn mess has grown beyond control, and we have a bleak future were the world really is fighting the Muslims, another jihad. Nice one.

I'm not for a minute saying that the monster who did this should get away. He needs to be punished, and it needs to be a just and effective puishment that serves as a deterent to anybody else with the will and audacity to try this sort of atrocity again. Punishment needs to be served with the consent of ALL nations, either christian or otherwise. If bin laden is to blame, that Khabul needs to extradite him, not be forced to surrender him at gun-point, or this whole horrible mess will just be perpetuated, and you, me, and the rest of the world can spend the rest of forever looking over our shouldewrs, wondering were the next terrorist is hiding.

The US needs to sit down with Muslim world leaders, and get to the bottom of WHY US foreign policy has induced this suicidal hatred. It needs to ask itself "Do we REALLY need to bomb Irag every day?" "What can we do to work with the Muslim world to avoid another war?" "Do we need to compound this horror with the death of untold Muslim innocents?"

I'm no genius, I have no where the degree of academic ability of Maxie Zeus, or Leepin' Larry Jo-jo, but I do know the rest of the world is terrified of what the US is going to do next.

Actually, you've said more interesting things here than I did in 10 posts.


I do have a feeling that a more selective approach might be in order. A prolonged battle with Arab terrorism is not a good idea. From a power standpoint, Iraq and many other Arab nations are much weaker than the U.S., but a careless retaliation could be damaging. As one writer mentioned, "Like a real-life video game, they will keep popping up out of nowhere, possibly angrier and stronger than the previous enemies, no matter how many of them we mow down..."

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo


Actually, you've said more interesting things here than I did in 10 posts.


I do have a feeling that a more selective approach might be in order. A prolonged battle with Arab terrorism is not a good idea. From a power standpoint, Iraq and many other Arab nations are much weaker than the U.S., but a careless retaliation could be damaging. As one writer mentioned, "Like a real-life video game, they will keep popping up out of nowhere, possibly angrier and stronger than the previous enemies, no matter how many of them we mow down..." But if they were ocupied by the Allies and Marshal law delcared temporaraly then we maybe able to big them up by the roots

[happyheathen]

well, it seems that the reality of the situation is sinking in...

then bush II says 'we will destroy evil!'. Wonderful, George - do you have it's address?

whatever we do will further anger the Islamic world (which has quite a few legitimate gripes with us).

the mid-east mess must be resolved, or it will expand - modern travel and communication can be used for simply ANYTHING...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But if they were ocupied by the Allies and Marshal law delcared temporaraly then we maybe able to big them up by the roots

Somewhat where I'm leaning towards. I think there must be a harsh retaliation against the terrorists, but I'm not so sure about bombing "the heck" out of an entire nation.

[Joker85]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo


Somewhat where I'm leaning towards. I think there must be a harsh retaliation against the terrorists, but I'm not so sure about bombing "the heck" out of an entire nation.
Look, I have tried to stay away from these posts as much as I can but I feel I need to respond. We have to show these people that we mean business. We can't be wimps about this. In my opinion, any country harboring a terrorist that we know of should be given 24 hours to hand them over or we will start bombing their cities. If we let this go, then every one will think that they can just walk all over us!! Afganistan should have already been leveled in my opinion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is exactly what we should do! JMHO

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joker85

Look, I have tried to stay away from these posts as much as I can but I feel I need to respond. We have to show these people that we mean business. We can't be wimps about this. In my opinion, any country harboring a terrorist that we know of should be given 24 hours to hand them over or we will start bombing their cities. If we let this go, then every one will think that they can just walk all over us!! Afganistan should have already been leveled in my opinion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is exactly what we should do! JMHO Bombing is not the answer it just makes their people belive we are the bad guys. But if we caputre these counties and put them under allied control kinda like Germany after their defeat then we can fix their problems for them

[Joker85]

ummmm...
don't their people already think we are bad guys??( I assume you were talking about Afganistan)

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Joker85
ummmm...
don't their people already think we are bad guys??( I assume you were talking about Afganistan) Well yhea but I ment more so

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Bombing is not the answer it just makes their people belive we are the bad guys. But if we caputre these counties and put them under allied control kinda like Germany after their defeat then we can fix their problems for them

Umm, well, actually, occupation isnt' any better - that's a big reason bin Laden hates us in the first place. We need to get in and take out bid Laden (provided, of course, that we prove that he's behind this), and the entire infrastructure that supported him and his actions (aka, the Taliban). That means, most likely, bombing.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
...then we can fix their problems for them

So far, the US has demonstrated an inability to 'fix' one problem without creating a new one...

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Clayface


Umm, well, actually, occupation isnt' any better - that's a big reason bin Laden hates us in the first place. We need to get in and take out bid Laden (provided, of course, that we prove that he's behind this), and the entire infrastructure that supported him and his actions (aka, the Taliban). That means, most likely, bombing.
Who cares if bin Laden gets upset boo hoo bin Laden is upset becouse we have the country he is in. If we have control of the country we will have a better chance of getting him.


Originally posted by happyheathenSo far, the US has demonstrated an inability to 'fix' one problem without creating a new one... First time for everything

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Who cares if bin Laden gets upset boo hoo bin Laden is upset becouse we have the country he is in. If we have control of the country we will have a better chance of getting him.


My point is, if we occupy only, we run a big risk of just creating a whole lot more bin Ladens that hate us for our presence.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Clayface


My point is, if we occupy only, we run a big risk of just creating a whole lot more bin Ladens that hate us for our presence.

I believe you have identified the problem - plus - has anyone seen the afghani mountains?

any tacticians here? how do attack anything in that terrain?

only things that come to my mind are:

chemical/biological

strategic nukes

comments?

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen

only things that come to my mind are:

chemical/biological

strategic nukes

comments?

As much as I hate the idea, I'd probably support the tactical nukes.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Well, guys, if war, occupation, and the tatical nukes are what we need to ring this scumbag to justice, I'm for it. I hate to support it, but what has to be done has to be done then...

....but if we use bio weapons, I hope it's one that gives Bin Ladin a slow painful death...:mad:...he deserves it!

Oh, and I forgot about those moutains....I studied geography, and I know they're bad. So I guess the army is outta the question, huh?

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Clayface


As much as I hate the idea, I'd probably support the tactical nukes.

I think you would need to blow the mountains apart to get at those inside - and the mountains are stone - tacticals won't do it, and even Russia would (presumably) get upset over strategics...

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Clayface


My point is, if we occupy only, we run a big risk of just creating a whole lot more bin Ladens that hate us for our presence.

Depends what we do while we're there. Could turn out good like in Japan after WW2.

[Maxie Zeus]

May I suggest that there is little point in talking about how far the US should go, and in worrying that it will go too far, until we have an adequate idea of what exactly needs to be done?

Of course the retaliation can go too far. Of course it can go not far enough. And of course no matter what is done some will think it DID go too far and some will think it did NOT go far enough. These observations do not add anything to present discussion, and only runs the risk of causing needless aggravation around here.

More helpful would be discussion of which particular strategies and options would be best. But that does not seem to me to be worthwhile speculation without knowing what kind of situation we are faced with. Responses that seem unimaginable now may be imaginable later; conversely, those that seem reasonble now may seem unreasonable later.

There will be plenty of time for Monday morning quarterbacking when Monday morning gets here; as yet, the players haven't even changed into their game clothes.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Heh. I have a feeling many of us won't be able to resist further speculations...

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Heh. I have a feeling many of us won't be able to resist further speculations...

I know. I'm spitting in the wind.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Clayface


My point is, if we occupy only, we run a big risk of just creating a whole lot more bin Ladens that hate us for our presence. But if we control the area we could hunt them down and bring them to justice too. Martial Law could do wonders there to get them all. I would also like to point out you can't bomb it since the country is already 4th world I mean what are you gona bomb some hunt? Now as for the Mountains I think # can do it a huge invasion force

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
But if we control the area we could hunt them down and bring them to justice too. Martial Law could do wonders there to get them all. I would also like to point out you can't bomb it since the country is already 4th world I mean what are you gona bomb some hunt? Now as for the Mountains I think # can do it a huge invasion force

does anyone here have any knowledge of military history?

tactics?

Q: why do so many assume that bombing will/would do much?

the traning bases are deserted, and primary targets are well concealed and/or mobile - last time out, the US refused to pursue Hussain - and Iraq is pretty much flat.

winning a war comes down to having a soldier on a little patch of land (about 10'x10') saying 'mine'.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Sigh...are we EVER gonna catch Bin Ladin? It seems there are a million things that keep us from getting to him....rapid moving, bad terrain, etc... :mad:

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
Sigh...are we EVER gonna catch Bin Ladin? It seems there are a million things that keep us from getting to him....rapid moving, bad terrain, etc... :mad:

what happened to the 'Anne Robinson' comment? :D

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by BourgeoisBuffoon
Sigh...are we EVER gonna catch Bin Ladin? It seems there are a million things that keep us from getting to him....rapid moving, bad terrain, etc... :mad: As I keep saing get the WORLD beind us make this a WORLD WAR then we would have the man power to surround the country and trap him and capture him. As for the bad terrain old 15 HP planes can do the job since they don't give off much heat stingers and made of wood instead of metal thus stinger missles are useless aginst them. Natch small arms fire would be but just fo what the Sovits did and drop Napalm all over the battle field.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by happyheathen


does anyone here have any knowledge of military history?

tactics?

Q: why do so many assume that bombing will/would do much?

the traning bases are deserted, and primary targets are well concealed and/or mobile - last time out, the US refused to pursue Hussain - and Iraq is pretty much flat.

winning a war comes down to having a soldier on a little patch of land (about 10'x10') saying 'mine'.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We "won" the Gulf War with a whole lot of bombing, and little use of ground troops, and virtually no losses on our side. Granted, the completness of our "win" in that war is debateable, but, technically, we did "win".

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Clayface


I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We "won" the Gulf War with a whole lot of bombing, and little use of ground troops, and virtually no losses on our side. Granted, the completness of our "win" in that war is debateable, but, technically, we did "win". Your kinda missing the point we need to hold the country, get the terrorst then go after the rest the next one that harbour terrorists and so on and so forth. This would be like cleaning house there are hundreds of terrorist orginizations most in Africa they have the power to strike back at the US like we say tuesday

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Originally posted by Clayface


I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. We "won" the Gulf War with a whole lot of bombing, and little use of ground troops, and virtually no losses on our side.

We also had some really cool tanks...

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Your kinda missing the point we need to hold the country, get the terrorst then go after the rest the next one that harbour terrorists and so on and so forth. This would be like cleaning house there are hundreds of terrorist orginizations most in Africa they have the power to strike back at the US like we say tuesday

Huh? I'm not quite sure how my last comment had anything to do with this comment, but ok...

Anyway, I've never disagreed with the idea that we need to take hold in some way of the country that's supporting these guys, so I'm not real sure what your argument is here. But, just one additional comment - you'll never, ever completely eliminate every terrorist group out there - that's just an unrealistic goal.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Clayface


Huh? I'm not quite sure how my last comment had anything to do with this comment, but ok...I was refering to you comment about the gulf this will be far larger and need more then simple bombing to get the job done.


Anyway, I've never disagreed with the idea that we need to take hold in some way of the country that's supporting these guys, so I'm not real sure what your argument is here. But, just one additional comment - you'll never, ever completely eliminate every terrorist group out there - that's just an unrealistic goal.
I know that but our goal should make it so they are so small that they can't really hurt us in any major way.

[Clayface]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
I was refering to you comment about the gulf this will be far larger and need more then simple bombing to get the job done.
I know that but our goal should make it so they are so small that they can't really hurt us in any major way.

Oh, I agree. Indeed, this will take more than just bombing to get the job done, but that doesn't mean that bombing can't do a lot of the work. And I also agree that our goal should be to reduce the threat of terrorism to a minimum. But that's a lot harder said than done - we'd have to control most of the world, since most of these groups easily move from one country to another. And, as we've already seen, we can't even prevent them from doing damage in our own country, much less stopping them from setting up shop all over the world.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Clayface


And I also agree that our goal should be to reduce the threat of terrorism to a minimum. But that's a lot harder said than done - we'd have to control most of the world, since most of these groups easily move from one country to another. And, as we've already seen, we can't even prevent them from doing damage in our own country, much less stopping them from setting up shop all over the world. Well most of these people came from the vacuum left when the cold war ended. Now luckly every developed nation is behind us since these sickos terrorist don't like any of us thus China and others that really don't like us will go and fight with us to get rid of these people since they China and others like us more then terrorsit. Now there is hope we can create a world that has little terrorism. One thing I think we should really do is boycott blood dimonds. Blood dimonds are dimonds from african terrorist goverments which use the money for arms.

[Failure]

I have to wonder, say we do kill bin ladin, will that stop anything? I think the reason he's such a force is because of the assets and resources he has. Wouldn't all that just pass onto someone else? Wouldn't we just get a new bin ladin, now with another reason to go after us again?

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't kill bin ladin, if we do, good, it's deserved. But I'm just saying we have to worry about the repercussions, and even if we take out bin ladin, the root of the problem still remains. The only wait to cut the root out is to change the whole philosophy and attitudes of the people who hate the US. That's almost near impossible. Only with a long period of time and work, and I don't think either side is ready for that.

Bush is in a tight spot. I dont envy him. If he goes to war and wins it, great, his approval rating will skyrocket. However, how long will it be until another retaliation comes. However if we do nothing, what does that mean? It doesn't help anything, and it probably hurts us as well. It's basically a cat and mouse game. Unfortunately, I dont think there will be a clear winner for decades, if ever.

One thing I do hope, if we do go to war, is that we don't use the big guns. By that I mean, no nuclear weapons, although I really doubt it'll come to that. In addition, I really hope this isnt the time where biological and chemical warfare goes major league. Nuclear weapons are one thing, but to me, there's nothing more scarier than not knowing that you're going to die, until you're already dead (I know, I know that doesnt really make much sense).

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Failure
I have to wonder, say we do kill bin ladin, will that stop anything? I think the reason he's such a force is because of the assets and resources he has. Wouldn't all that just pass onto someone else? Wouldn't we just get a new bin ladin, now with another reason to go after us again?

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't kill bin ladin, if we do, good, it's deserved. But I'm just saying we have to worry about the repercussions, and even if we take out bin ladin, the root of the problem still remains. The only wait to cut the root out is to change the whole philosophy and attitudes of the people who hate the US. That's almost near impossible. Only with a long period of time and work, and I don't think either side is ready for that.

Bush is in a tight spot. I dont envy him. If he goes to war and wins it, great, his approval rating will skyrocket. However, how long will it be until another retaliation comes. However if we do nothing, what does that mean? It doesn't help anything, and it probably hurts us as well. It's basically a cat and mouse game. Unfortunately, I dont think there will be a clear winner for decades, if ever.

One thing I do hope, if we do go to war, is that we don't use the big guns. By that I mean, no nuclear weapons, although I really doubt it'll come to that. In addition, I really hope this isnt the time where biological and chemical warfare goes major league. Nuclear weapons are one thing, but to me, there's nothing more scarier than not knowing that you're going to die, until you're already dead (I know, I know that doesnt really make much sense). Ok look war is ok but we need to cut off their money supplies. Aferica Terrorist gets its money from the west via selling Dimonds so we should boycott those even those African terroist are probably not to blame and other terrorist need money weaponds and ammo don't grow on trees we cut of the money we starve these groups. As for the big guns probably not but if China get in and they have just as much to fear as we do from terrorist now then there is a chance tactical nukes might be used.