If you're worried about a war, then stop!

[Mr. Mayhem]

I'm not trying to jump on anyone, but people (not just here, everywhere) keep talking "war." However, here's the question...War with who? Exactly! There won't be a war. People get rumors started that war is on the horizon when terrorists strike. Just because an act of terrorism occurs it doesn't mean an entire forgein country was behind it. If they were do you honestly think they would have used commercial airline jets for means of attack. No! They would use weapons of mass destruction. So these people who attacked the U.S. are just a small group. Hardly a mass from which can be fought.

Again I'm not trying to be hard here. I just want people to quit saying war. My mother called me today in a panic because people at her office kept speaking of war erupting from this tragedy. People at my college were speaking of war. Now I come here and see people talking about war. War is not gonna happen. This is extremely tragic. It's scary. It's unbelievable. It is probably the greatest disaster in our nation's history. However, it's not the kind of meat which attracts "war."

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Yes, let's stop this war talk for now, and with the singling out of particular ethnicities. Isn't that what starts these things in the first place?

[Maxie Zeus]

It will be a long time before we know anything certain or definite about who is responsible for this; there will be plenty of time to weigh the possible after effects.

And a word about this "draft" talk: There was no draft instituted during the Gulf War, and that was waged against a populous, industrialized country with the world's fourth largest (and extensively battle-hardened) army. Talk about the draft being re-instituted to respond to this attack is just a lot of melodramatics.

[I.R Joey]

There are some rouge nations that could still be responsible for this. I hope though, that humanity's conscience will prevent ww3 from ever happening.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Mr. Mayhem
I'm not trying to jump on anyone, but people (not just here, everywhere) keep talking "war." However, here's the question...War with who? Exactly! There won't be a war. People get rumors started that war is on the horizon when terrorists strike. Just because an act of terrorism occurs it doesn't mean an entire forgein country was behind it.

Sure. But then this wasn't just any terrorist attack. As has been noted during tv coverage again and again, the death toll is greater than the Pearl Harbor tragedy. Despite this being a terrorist attack, the weight of what has occured is equal to that of an act of war. To say the situation is serious would be a severe, severe understatement.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by DarkAngel


Sure. But then this wasn't just any terrorist attack. As has been noted during tv coverage again and again, the death toll is greater than the Pearl Harbor tragedy. Despite this being a terrorist attack, the weight of what has occured is equal to that of an act of war. To say the situation is serious would be a severe, severe understatement.

"Act of war" is surely the correct way to describe this. That does not mean that the perpetrators are themselves, or can be directly linked to, the kind of nation or state that could only be punished with a "warlike" response of the sort put into place during the Gulf War. As NATO and the US have demonstrated repeatedly with air strikes in Serbia, Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan, there are numerous possibilities for "massive retaliation" short of sending in the Marines.

And again, just to try to put to rest these "WWIII scares": If you believe that "World War III" is genuinely a possible outcome here, then you must believe that one of the following four nations (the only ones with a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons to do serious damage to the US) was responsible for this ghastly attack: Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France. Which one do you suspect?

It's easy to run off half-cocked in a lot of different directions. The best thing is simply to watch and wait until we know a lot more than we do in the current vacuum.

[I.R Joey]

well ww1 began with the assasination of one country's leader, and notice how Bush said that they would not difrenciate between those who performed these acts, and those who harbor them.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by I.R Joey
well ww1 began with the assasination of one country's leader, and notice how Bush said that they would not difrenciate between those who performed these acts, and those who harbor them.

And World War I turned into a nightmare not because of an assassination, but because Europe was divided into two equally well-armed and deeply hostile alliance blocs: The Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary, with Ottoman Turkey as an associated power) and the Entente (France, Russia and Britain, with Italy ultimately joining as well). The aasassination was carried out by groups sympathetic to the Serbian govt, which was backed by Russia; thus retaliation against those whom Austria held ultimately responsible couldn't help but involve the other Great Powers.

The list of nations who might have perpetrated this (or had close ties to those who did) includes Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and North Korea. Of those, only N Korea has ties to another great power (China). And N Korea is so far down on the list of likely suspects as to not even be worth looking at. All the others are "pariah" nations that, insofar as the international community deals with them at all, it is at the end of very long pole while holding its nose.

The analogy to WWI is a real stretch, I think.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

Let's not worry about war for now. All I hope is that we catch the terrorist group who did this. A nation is very unlikely too sponser an attack like this, and they wouldn't, seeing how p***ed the U.S. is...

[Maxie Zeus]

Am I the only one who finds this response--quoted from abcnews.com--to be faintly ludicrous?

Determined to show the attacks would not halt the U.S. government, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., declared Congress would get back to work immediately.

"As the representatives of the people, we are here to declare that our resolve has not been weakened by these horrific and cowardly acts," Daschle said. "Congress will convene tomorrow."

Neither rain nor sleet nor a couple of Boeing 757s slamming into the WTC will deter Congress from shoveling back home as much pork as possible. . .

[Lonestarr]

Mayhem, God bless you for putting my mind at ease. If there's one thing this country doesn't need, it's World War III. It is truly surreal that this really happened. My deepest condolences go out to the families and friends of those who perished in the collapse. I truly hope that the SOBs responsible are caught and punished.

[Failure]

Never say never. You never know what people might do if they're riled up enough.

Although I doubt WWIII will develop and I seriously, seriously doubt that there will be any form of draft, I wouldn't be surprised if this lead to a smaller war.

Like Bush said, we're going to make no distinction between the terrorists and people who harbored the terrorists. Say we attack a country we find harbored the guilty party, and they have allies who think that attack was unfair. The result will probably be a war or at least a skirmish of some sort.

Hopefully, no war will come of this, but I had an terrible feeling of what the repercussions would be when I first saw the tragedies today. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[James Harvey]

I don't believe this will result in a war. I do believe that America will find the people responsible and make them pay. And I hope they do. Murder on this scale is unacceptable. Completely. Totally. Unacceptable.

[DarkAngel]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus

And again, just to try to put to rest these "WWIII scares": If you believe that "World War III" is genuinely a possible outcome here, then you must believe that one of the following four nations (the only ones with a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons to do serious damage to the US) was responsible for this ghastly attack: Russia, China, the United Kingdom, or France. Which one do you suspect?

It's easy to run off half-cocked in a lot of different directions. The best thing is simply to watch and wait until we know a lot more than we do in the current vacuum.

I don't support the WWIII idea. I was just pointing out why the word "war" has come up. As you said, the phrase "act of war" does seem to apply given the significance of what has occurred. I don't mean to suggest that a nation is behind this. However, once it's discovered who did this, US response might be similar to that of a wartime situation. I'd imagine the military would get involved to "put out" the threat.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Terrorists don't congregate in one area. They shift settings all the time. It's difficult to seek out small, travelling groups of terrorists with tanks or planes.

This requires a more covert operation, I suspect.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Terrorists don't congregate in one area. They shift settings all the time. It's difficult to seek out small, travelling groups of terrorists with tanks or planes.

This requires a more covert operation, I suspect.

Or you can find out where they are hinding and capet bomb them

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Terrorists don't congregate in one area. A lot of them are spread out, split into small groups or even individually. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them pose as ordinary citizens and take orders by phone or e-mail or some other means of communication.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Leaping Larry Jojo
Terrorists don't congregate in one area. A lot of them are spread out, split into small groups or even individually. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them pose as ordinary citizens and take orders by phone or e-mail or some other means of communication.

The anti-terrorism experts I've heard and read are unanimous in saying that the kind of co-ordination behind this--the sophistication necessary to place operatives in these locales, and to have and train operatives with the skill to take control of the planes and guide them to these destinations--requires a large operation, one that almost certainly would need the backing of state security operations.

Furthermore, it is a known fact that Osama bin-Laden, who has perpetrated other attacks (the attack on the USS Cole, and the co-ordinated attacks on US embassies in Africa a few years back) has a large, well-funded operation centrally located in the Afghan highlands, with the cognizance and connivance of the Taliban govt. If it *were* possible to do this kind of thing simply by getting a few people together and issuing a few knives, planes would be falling from the sky every couple of days.

This is not a case of half a dozen fruitcakes; this is the work of a large, well-funded group, one that almost certainly has close ties to the security agencies of one or more national states.

[sun]

Originally posted by Dick Grayson
I don't believe this will result in a war. I do believe that America will find the people responsible and make them pay. And I hope they do. Murder on this scale is unacceptable. Completely. Totally. Unacceptable.

I agree completely, war is to be avoidedat all costs. Those who helped and funded this will be found and punished. War leaves scares that never heal. Unconfirmed reports tell that mosquito pools still exist in Viet Nam, that were formed by bombs dropped by B52. Land mines mame and kill thousands, and those wars are long gone.
If we take out another country, which we are capable of doing, and many innocents are killed in the process, let's say thousands, then how much better than them does that make us? As just stated," Muder on this scale in unacceptable." I might add we don't have that right either, especially if that invovles innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by oldtoonguy


I agree completely, war is to be avoidedat all costs. Those who helped and funded this will be found and punished. War leaves scares that never heal. Unconfirmed reports tell that mosquito pools still exist in Viet Nam, that were formed by bombs dropped by B52. Land mines mame and kill thousands, and those wars are long gone.
If we take out another country, which we are capable of doing, and many innocents are killed in the process, let's say thousands, then how much better than them does that make us? As just stated," Muder on this scale in unacceptable." I might add we don't have that right either, especially if that invovles innocents who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Uhhh...

10,000 dead (more than died at Gettysburg) and you think arrests are in order?

I, reluctantly, disagree

at least we have a valid reason for war (first time in my lifetime)