posted on September 15, 2001 11:35:44 AM newBTW: I "just miss" the enlistment age (so far).
If this goes the way I think it will, you will have your chance.
I have 2 kids in high school ROTC right now, and I would rather go my self. They wouldn't let me re-enlist the last time I tryed, they didn't want half deaf Tankers. If they need enough people they may lower their standards.
posted on September 15, 2001 11:43:52 AM new
I think the world is a changed place. Even the countries that aid these animals must have been stunned. But this changed world means few countries can exist as islands. The embargo against Iraq has not worked because Hussein simply takes the reduced oil money and buys weapons and puts western cameras on starving children. For the French & Germans is business as usual with Iraq and they pooh-pooh us with being so mean to Iraq.
This is why WE have to determine a course of action and carry it out FULLY. All of this "unity" crap is soon to fade. The odd thing about this is that the Afghans have been spreading terror into Russia and I wouldn't be supprised if Russian and AMerican armies cleaned out Afghanistan. Pakistan is not worried about US, they are worried about what price they will pay for cooperating with us. I think they have chosen the least costly way .
The reason we were hit is because we were a symbol. But much more than that they assumed we are weak and indecisive. This is why it is of the utmost importance to strike massively. Years ago this might of been handled by a CIA agent walking up behing bin Laden and putting a bullet in his head. But a naive Congress stripped the CIA of anything but information gathering. Above all else we must stop being so naive. You cannot extend olive branches to your enemies. You NEVER could but for some reason there is always a segment of the population that thinks you can.
posted on September 15, 2001 11:53:22 AM new
Pocono...the only person "spewing" is you.
Yes, we are at a crossroads. A serious, threatening crossroads. One that if we take a wrong turn has the potential of not just wiping out the "cockroaches" but also of sending the rest of the world into anihilation.
So far we have one poster who has been making numerous posts in multiple threads that basically advocates genocide. His/her position has been to wipe the Islamic faith off the face of the earth...and to leave the few remaining in a position of living by making fire with sticks.
Seventy years ago it was a madman in Germany who saw the people of a certain faith as the "enemy"....today it looks like we have madmen of the same caliber in our society. The only difference is that then it was Jews who were targeted, today it is Muslims.
There is a difference between taking action against the attackers on us and genocide.
Unless you are much older than I thought you were, the action you saw was in Viet Nam. Remember that war carefully when you advocate a war now. We didn't win that war. Why? Because it was a guerilla war fought by an enemy that included children. But it was fought basically in only one theatre...inside the borders of Viet Nam. The guerillas weren't on American soil.
This time the advocacy is for fighting the enemy who are in a number of countries...to hit countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan. There are many residents of those countries who live in the US. Do you think the fighting will stay in the mid-east? Do you think they will only hit soldiers? I don't.
If we level most of the mid-east we also level the oil fields. We can't fight a war without oil. We don't even have to level the oil fields...the mid east could stop the flow of oil. They can blow the fields up.
This is a time for careful, cautious thinking...not knee-jerk "its war!" reactions. If we do decide to use military action we HAVE to take into account all the possible repercussions of such action BEFORE we act. Including considering the possibility of a nuclear winter and a world which may be sent spinning back into the dark ages.
posted on September 15, 2001 12:09:04 PM new
Spoke too soon. Sorry to hear that Lindak. Put your heads between your legs and kiss your butts goodbye. Looks like we are off to exterminate cockroaches. Problem is, cockroaches tend to spread out, so they are everywhere. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out. Sick.
posted on September 15, 2001 12:14:31 PM new
Hep...
He may just be waving a big stick. We really can't afford to look weak, right now, IMO. God only knows what the real plan might be. I'm hoping we'll be very smart and very tricky...not broadcast our plans to anybody...
posted on September 15, 2001 12:18:07 PM new
Many people seem unaware that the United States has been intimately involved in the affairs of all of the middle east countries for many years. There is a very deep understanding on the part of our experts of the inticacies of the area's politics as well as the interpersonal relationships which in large measure dictate the actions not only of the involved countries but also of individuals operating as fringe elements inside of those countries.
I've been trying to decipher some of it, and it's really not easy to do, but this recent aricle gives a fairly complete overview.
In reading this stuff, and there's much more than only this article, it seems impossible to me that dumbya was unaware of the possible ramifications of his actions which relate to the relationships in the area. He had to know aforehand, for example, that his announcement of unqualified support for Isreal would generate deep resentment throughout the arab world. Yet he did it, purportedly as a means to gather Jewish support in the next election. Is that all it was?
Now we have logos on the bottoms of our TV screens which shout about the 'Attack on America' and 'America's War'. We have citizens at the brink of going berzerk.
posted on September 15, 2001 12:20:38 PM new
Hi Hep - I don't know if I've missed your post somewhere (too many different related threads)....but I'd like to ask how you would feel most comfortable dealing with this issue? Should we just wait until there's another attack against our country? If the bin Laden is being harbored in Afghanistan, do you not hold there country responsible for 'aiding' or 'hiding/protecting' him?
No one wants war. These terriorists have declared war on us. Shall we just plead with them not to do this again when they've stated over and over and over that their only purpose is to destroy us? As in any war, innocents are going to be killed. Hell....thousands were just killed here.
Some of the things I agreed with Reamond on where like: Do we want to send in troops, like we did in Vietnam or fight from the air. Or use both? If we send in ground troops, innocent people will still be killed, again just like in Vietnam we will lose many of our soldiers.
So, please (if you're willing) share with me how you'd handle this war that the terrorists have declared against us. I just don't think we can sit by and do nothing. Nor do I think we'll be able to wait up to 10 years and live in constant fear about when they'll again attact our country.
posted on September 15, 2001 12:22:23 PM new
Whatever plan is being developed, I hope Colin Powell's position is the most influential. I come closest to trusting his judgment.
I also wonder if Intelligence can be absolutely certain that bin Laden, himself, is in Afghanistan.
posted on September 15, 2001 12:31:33 PM new
Lindak, I am torn with different opinions. I go up an down, in different modes. However, the first thing I think should be done is THINK before acting. Who says we have to act immediately? My dad said many intelligent things before he died, that he used to get a point across. One of those sayings was "Smile at your enemy and make them wonder". No, I dont think we should smile at them...but a really good sneer and a wink would probably make them worry more than going in with fists swinging like propellers like kids do on the schoolground. The one kid that sees the propeller arms stands there, and waits for an opening, then decks the propeller kid. Planning, thinking, planning some more. Put it this way, what is dished back to them, will just get more crap lobbed at us.
I cant answer intelligently enough for you, or even for myself. But I DO know that I dont want action without the THINKING. And there is no time frame that I know of, and we dont dance to anyone tune of WHEN we act. Make them sweat, wondering what we are doing and planning.
I also think we should concentrate on the criminals that did this, not a country we THINK are backing them. First things first. But, not being a general, or experienced in wartime things, I dont know the best way to proceed. Im just an american, waiting for the day that some bomb or plane smacks into the nuclear powerplant that I live near to wipe my whole town out, because someone used propeller arms instead of THINKING.
[ edited by hepburn on Sep 15, 2001 12:34 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 12:37:40 PM newwaiting for the day that some bomb or plane smacks into the nuclear powerplant that I live near to wipe my whole town out, because someone used propeller arms instead of THINKING.
That goes for ALL the USA and ALL the towns and ALL the people. Yes, I fear dying a horrible death, as well as seeing the same thing happen to anyone else. So if Im considered a traitor for that fear, so be it. If I am considered weak, so be it. If Im going to have to die because of some propeller arms, then I will crawl up on the damn roof and slap a target on there, because I want it quick.
posted on September 15, 2001 12:42:27 PM newNow we have logos on the bottoms of our TV screens which shout about the 'Attack on America' and 'America's War'.
The media's been bored sh*tless since the OJ Trial. They're milking this for everything it's worth, complete with folk songs and video montages juxtaposing scenes of disasters and desperation in the survivors' faces.
This is off-topic, but did anybody happen to see Gary Condit entering the national prayer service yesterday? Here he was at one of the most somber gatherings in recent history and he was positively beaming. He looked like the happiest guy on earth. It was wholly inappropriate.
edited to add:
Sometimes I think the media tries to create panics as a way to ensure viewership. Granted, this is a really bad situation. But it's like the media's out there looking for any scrap of information to bring us "breaking news" in order to keep us pinned to the TV. And how many times now has that "breaking news" been wrong, based on nothing but rumor? In New York in the last couple days we've seen one rumor after another (many of which were reported as news) being debunked.
[ edited by spazmodeus on Sep 15, 2001 12:51 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 12:55:00 PM newI also wonder if Intelligence can be absolutely certain that bin Laden, himself, is in Afghanistan.
Probably not, and given the Taliban's relationship with Pakistan, it would not be at all surprising that he is in Pakistan.
Pakistan itself is on the brink of a civil war, and we're about to pick a side. For every would-be Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan, there are 50 in Pakistan. The military of Pakistan is only nominally under control of its leader, Mr. Musharraf, who himself seized power in a military coup les than two years ago. It would not be at all surprising to observe suicidal attacks upon Mr. Musharraf from his own military much as the assination of Egypt's Sadat was carried out in 1981. In any case, Musharraf seems barely powerful enough to maintain his title, and nowhere near powerful enough to actually commit Pakistan to a pro-American course.
There is likely a substantial minority of Pakistanis who would choose, for religious reasons, to harbor bin Laden even if that meant war both with the US.
If we are to do business with Musharraf, it seems that we must become directly involved in his personal security. Once we do that, Musharraf would be perceived by Pakistanis as a US puppet, and a majority would inevitably turn against him in a civil war which would result. The US would be in a situation with many similarities to our Vietnam involvement, militarily supporting a government which is despised by many of its own people. It's not clear that such a war is a bad result, given the goal of knocking terrorist sponsors down flat. It is however a much larger and more dangerous undertaking than simply sending a bunch of bombs and a large posse into Afghanistan.
posted on September 15, 2001 01:01:06 PM new
roofguy, wake up. You post all of these theories, but after the fact. Mussaraf has already been given the benefit of US support. We acknowledged him officially as a very reasonable guy, and thereby marked him as a "US puppet" as you warn against two or three yars ago. http://www.antiwar.com/rep/szamuely8.html
posted on September 15, 2001 01:07:40 PM newWe acknowledged him officially as a very reasonable guy, and thereby marked him as a "US puppet" as you warn against two or three yars ago.
We have not been involved with his own internal security problems, not militarily anyway. This will require change if we're going to send an invasionary force through Pakistan to Afghanistan, multinational or not.
posted on September 15, 2001 01:09:52 PM newAnd there is no time frame that I know of
But there is. Not since Pearl Harbor has public opinion so strongly supported a hard-hitting military response. The longer a counterattack is put off, the greater the risk that the public may back away from that stance. At the same time, a president who puts off an attack till all options, variables and potential political solutions can be carefully weighed risks losing favor with those chanting "War NOW!"
Personally, in the short term I'd rather see us devote more energy and resources to shoring up our national security and intelligence, while the matter of retaliation (and make no mistake, I support retaliation) gets the full consideration it deserves.
posted on September 15, 2001 01:10:05 PM new
Thank you Hep for explaining. I personally don't feel they aren't thinking about all the ramifications. Just like Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs....we showed strength and didn't need to follow though with our threats. My hope is that if these arabic nations take us seriously, they will not only help us find these terrorists, but will not be a threat to us getting to the one's who have committed this atrocity against the US.
I agree with Antiquary about Powell. He's experienced, and I believe level headed. Colin Powell in his statement this morning was that Pakistan has agreed to our list of demands/requests. He said he wasn't willing to share all that we asked of them. My thoughts are as long as other muslin nations do the same, and until they go against what they've agreed to....they won't feel our rath.
He had to know aforehand, for example, that his announcement of unqualified support for Isreal would generate deep resentment throughout the arab world. Yet he did it, purportedly as a means to gather Jewish support in the next election. Is that all it was?
I do believe the FBI was aware of this threat beforehand. But I also know there had been many other threats before that weren't carried out. I don't agree that it was to gain Jewish support....but rather because he felt terrorism *has* to be stopped, or at least arrested.
On the unqualified support.....I saw a program on bin Ladens followers. Isreal has been dealing with these terrorists for a long time. I watched as one of their supporters (who's now living out a multi-life prison sentence) was sharing how his people were going on busy town buses with bombs that would explode and in which many people were killed. I watched as many people shopped with armed gun men around. I watched as shoppers were going into malls to shop and were going through the same thing we had to go through to get through airport security areas.
Do we want to live like that? The security we've felt in our country is over.
posted on September 15, 2001 01:20:06 PM new
ummm, bay of pigs? You mean The Cuban Missile Crisis.
He announced his support of Isreal before this attack, quite a bit before, and the interactions of countries and foriegn leaders is not the pervue of the FBI, but the CIA.
posted on September 15, 2001 01:24:35 PM new
by the way, sons and daughters, moms and dads--the enlistment age is advanced from 34 one year for each year of prior service. Go get some, pocono.
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
