posted on September 16, 2001 05:32:06 PM new
5,000,000 dead people will not solve this problem, Pocono. It probably won't even make you feel good when the dust settles.
posted on September 16, 2001 05:42:05 PM new
War is War. There is no guarantee. The Germans almost beat us. It was a hard fight. We will not fight this war alone we will have many allies. NO ONE BOMBS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AND REDUCES THE HEART OF THE FREE MARKET TO ASHES!Gee don't you guys get what happened. We are a global market. They have affected the entire world not just us. IT may be bloody and it may take a lot of life but it has to be done. We have no choice. They live to kill us, wipe us out. Its us or them. They almost destroyed our Capitol. Could you imagine if they had? This is about survival. I am telling you the truth. It is us or them. There is no inbetween.
posted on September 16, 2001 05:43:25 PM newJames: That's all right. I feel your pain....
Pocono: And God help us all if they feel the same way when we retaliate, don't you think?
DeSquirrel: Am I stupid or did Barry just supply an entire rational why we SHOULD take them all on.
Errr... you don't REALLY wan't me to answer that question as phrased, do you?
What I said was that if what James says is true, that nothing will appease those who attacked us short of our own destruction as a nation and a culture, then our only possible response would be to wage war on a global scale. But I also said that I sincerely hope that what he says isn't true.
And as for "magnifying the capabilities of these animals", the great thing about modern warfare is that weapons of mass destruction [whether nuclear, chemical or biological] are very easy to come by if you have the money. And trust me, these oil shieks have the money. Sure, it's comforting to think of the enemy as mere "animals", wholly incapable of launching a credible attack against the almighty U.S. of A., but I personally think that is incredibly naive and optimistic thinking.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 16, 2001 05:54:24 PM new
It took a superpower (US) half a decade and billions of dollars to produce the means to produce an atomic bomb. Iraq began such a program but the Israelis fixed that. Then Hussein got Dr. Bull to design his gun to deliver weapons to his victims. Dr. Bull and the gun both got fixed. The rumored Pakistani program is probably being watched just as intently.
I know from TV everybody thinks you just pick-up a cook book and wittle together a weapon of mass destruction. But it is not that easy.
posted on September 16, 2001 06:00:21 PM new
No, what will make me feel better is to stop coddling these cockroaches and finally get tough with them. Stomp them into the ground once and for all.
Whether it be Bin Laden, Hussain, or whoever, get it done, and get it over with.
FULLY, SWIFTLY, SEVERELY, and without REMORSE!
Each and every one of these terrorists and their cells are the same as, or worse then Hitler and the Reiche ever were.
They need to be "exterminated" like the cockroaches that they are.
They come out feeding, and being disgusting in their slithering cowardous actions, but once the US turns on the lights they go scurrying into the crevices and crannies like all cockroaches do.
Too chicken sh*t to face us Americans head on, because they know that they are nothing. worthless. useless. unable to defend theirselves because they are nothing more then a bunch of greasy yahoos.
posted on September 16, 2001 06:06:29 PM new
Mass destruction, they are going to see mass destruction. This is the United States of America. This is not a pauper nation. We are not going to back down one inch. We have the intelligence and the fortitude to bring them to their knees, all of them, including Saudi Arabia. Why do you think we have been hanging on to our own natural resources. Saudi Arabi is just has guilty if not more than all of them. Its about time to give those A** H***s the boot.
posted on September 16, 2001 06:08:56 PM new
All righty... Methinks this thread has strayed a bit from my original topic. I'm calling it a night. Play nice, fellas!
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 16, 2001 07:29:05 PM new
To the extent that there is an "other side" to negotiate with, I believe that the US will do so. This would include the governments of Afghanistan (if you can call it one) and Iraq, and the more moderately anti-american governments. I do not believe our government will at all consider the anilition of entire populations as advocated by some hot heads (If they do, they do not deserve our support nor toleration). There appears to be no room to compromise nor negotiate with the extremists believed to have more directly inspired, financed, and planned the attacks.
War is an extreme resort of statecraft. Some demands are non-negotiable and so at times that extreme measure must be undertaken. Thus, for George Bush senior it was not negotiable that Iraq's occupation of Kuwait would not continue. For Dumbya, now, it is not negotiable that sponsoring mass murder is not acceptable. It is a much more difficult problem, and certainly not a conventional war.
[ edited by figmente on Sep 16, 2001 08:18 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 08:26:13 PM newJames, It has been said on these boards before, but I'll say it again.
You have a wise head on young shoulders.
While not always agreeing with you, I enjoy your thoughtful insights into issues.
Bob, Downunder but never down.
[ edited by bitsandbobs on Sep 16, 2001 08:32 PM ]
edited for ubd.
[ edited by bitsandbobs on Sep 16, 2001 08:33 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 09:11:54 PM new
What an educational and insightful debate! I'm learning more here than I could have imagined. Thank you, one and all!
While I don't think I can debate with anyone on this level, I do want to say one thing that I've had nagging on me since Tuesday...I have a deep, frightened feeling that we, as Americans, are going to deeply regret not eliminating Saddam Hussein (sp?) when we had the chance. I don't have any links, or data to back this up, just a gut-wrenching feeling that before this is all over, we are going to find that we severely underestimated him as simply an incompetent Army leader in the dirt.
posted on September 16, 2001 09:24:51 PM new*raising paw*
Just a tidbit...Turkey is NOT an Islamic nation. It is secular(And the Turkish army aims to keep it that way, despite attempts of Islamic followers to change things).
Edited to add: All this concern about innocent people being injured/killed if we start bombing has caused me to wonder if anyone can name a war/military action/whatever you want to call it where innocent people weren't injured/killed?
[ edited by Shadowcat on Sep 16, 2001 10:08 PM ]
posted on September 16, 2001 10:31:32 PM new
none of this would have happened if america would have just minded its own business. we don't have to be the world nanny always scolding and correcting, we could be by ourselves and do our democratic thing without pestering everywhere else. like the swiss. they don't have terrorist attacks in switzerland and they are fine without it.
i don't hear arabs wanting world domination.
they just want to take care of their own business. why do we think we have to tell them not to. isreal? let isreal sink or swim. get america out of arabia.
posted on September 16, 2001 11:01:52 PM new
Of course we're being hypocrites. We have supported, practically created various factions in the middle east in order to press our own purposes and now would deny those elements the chance to forge their own place in the world.
Fundamentalist Islamic states are not necessarily a threat to us. To Isreal for sure, they are. But we've set Isreal up on it's feet sufficiently that we should not have to pay a price for their continuation as a nation. That "let Isreal sink or swim" makes some sense to me today.
Look at the news out of Iran today. They've come out flat against these attacks on us and seem not to want to be associated with whatever group(s) are responsible for them. This is the same country that in many ways brought fundamentalist muslim beliefs and practice to our front door not so many years ago with the taking of our embassy and the nearly yearlong ensuing outrage and horror we felt.
The phrase "overstepped our boundaries" comes to mind too easily. What right do we have to dictate life in the Middle East, and how can we object if each very separate part of the area takes steps to regain or preserve the longstanding traditional barriers between them?
The United States is an interloper, only interested in it's own success through the use of valuable resources that belong to those people.
What makes us everyone's savior, particularly when those perceived as in need of salvation by us don't ask for or welcome our help. What gives us the right to deny them their traditions? What would we do if the tables were turned and we had endured over fifty years of meddling in our affairs on our turf even when we had made all entreaties open to us asking for it to stop?
posted on September 16, 2001 11:13:35 PM new
If all that is true krs, what is the message they're trying to send? If the U.S. stopped supporting Isreal, would this make them happy?
posted on September 16, 2001 11:13:48 PM new
Ken, Iran said what they said because they know that we know that their clients are Hizb'allah and Islamic Jihad, organizations listed as 'terrorist' by our country. Also 'Iran' is listed as one of seven states that support, create, finance and foment terror. See above.
In other words, their tepid statement of condemnation was issued because they are scared sh*tless. At some point, people begin to buy into their own rhetoric. If the U.S. is the 'Great Satan' surely we will nuke them, right? They must think so.
posted on September 16, 2001 11:24:20 PM new
Not only are we hypocrites, we're also arrogant. "Our" way is the only way and the rest of the world better fall in line, or else. Don't they know we know what's best for us-er-them?
posted on September 16, 2001 11:34:21 PM new
It's a funny thing. No two democracies have ever fought.
America shares borders with two democracies. We have grievances with them. They have grievances with us. Big ones. Emigration problems. Acid rain. Labour. Natural resources etc. Yet, we are at peace with them. We resolve our differences in peaceful ways and in truth our borders are extremely lenghty and extremely undefended and open.
Right or wrong, democracy is a two-hundred year old experiment that out performs any other political system as yet discovered. The way to world peace is not to let despots maintain criminal, militant and oppressive regimes that keep whole regions of the planet unstable. Arrogant? Maybe. America has the means to exert its hegemony over most of the world. That's the way of the world. The big gorilla sets the pace. If our long-term goal is to unseat despots and put the power of governance into the people being governed that certainly is a step up from the classical models. America's intentions may not be ivory soap pure, but we certainly exercise our power far more responsibly and with a far more noble goal than any other super-power in world history. I am not always pleased with American foreign policy and we have more than a few skeletons in our closet but overall I am not ashamed of it. Refer back to sentence two.
posted on September 17, 2001 12:15:15 AM new
"After all, they're 3-5 years away from nuking us"
And it will be soon after that someone from Iran, or associated with Iran, puts that brand-new nuclear bomb on a luxury yacht and sails it into New York Harbor.
Ka-boom.
Goodbye 20 million people.
If you think the fundamentalist Muslims will NOT do this, you are extremely naive.
The World Trade Center was a wake-up call that we must heed.
Thank God that the luxury yacht with a nuclear bomb in the captain's cabin was not the wake-up call.
posted on September 17, 2001 12:22:10 AM newFundamentalist Islamic states are not necessarily a threat to us.
So let's drop Israel. And cross our fingers. Maybe we should even invite Bin Laden over for tea.
Look at the news out of Iran today. They've come out flat against these attacks on us and seem not to want to be associated with whatever group(s) are responsible for them.
Thank goodness. That is so reassuring. Now if we could just get them to sign a "pledge of allegiance" then we could all just get on with our lives. Whew, for a minute there I was worried.
Iran might nuke Israel, but they'd never nuke us. I'm pretty sure of that. Fairly sure. (Maybe we should start rounding up Jews, just in case.)
posted on September 17, 2001 12:28:01 AM new
James, please don't take this as in any way critical. The sympathies in this country for the plight of Isreal are well known and widely based. Isn't that the basis for a large part of our interest in the Middle East? For more than fifty yrars this country has supported the establishment and maintenance of the state of Isreal at great cost. And we are asked to continue to do so no matter the cost, because, it is said, various ill fate will befall us and the world if we do not. The spectre of nuclear capability in these antagonistic countries is only the latest of the ill fates and that fate stands alongside the voiced threats to our supplies of commodity, most especially oil. There are other less direct effects which we risk, we are told. Those are of the ambiguous sort and often have expression in the threat of a national moral obligation and a guilt if we fail to meet that obligation.
But why us, even why the rest of the world? It cannot be argued that Isreal does not have the capacity to fight for it's survival. Perhaps not win, but fight. Must this country serve to guarantee that survival when no other nation in the middle east has benefit of such guarantee? As you have said, the area of the world has been fraught with conflict for much longer than this area of the world has been democratized. Can we, or anyone stop that? I don't think so. I think that borders fluctuate as power bases shift within the middle east and they always have. To enter the area and push aside people who'se entire history is filled with the struggles which put theem there to be available to be pushed aside was an presumptive error by Great Britain which we now must pay for both in money and blood.
So they may have a capacity to nuke. So what? Others around the world do or will as well and I think that those threats will be confronted separately as they are realized.
So Iran has a motive for making entreaties to the U.S. So what nation does not have motivations to survive in the ever changing environment of geopolitics?
Can Isreal survive on it's own? I don't know. They have tools now, and there's no lack of ferocity. Would they be overwhelmed? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But do they require our presence as a large stick to wave, like little boys threatening bigger ones with older brothers forever? Maybe they'd like that, but I think that little boy is big enough to fend for himself even if he gets a bloody nose doing it.
posted on September 17, 2001 12:55:17 AM new
The U.S. is no guarantee to Israel's survival. At it's inception, the U.S. promptly imposed an arms embargo against Israel. In 1967 the U.S. did not do as it promised it would, that is to come to Israel's aid. Israel has fought it's own battles. Even Israel's nuclear arsenal comes from France and not the U.S. Israel appreciates the support of the U.S. but Israel's survival has not and will not depend upon it. Certainly I, as an American Jew, have an interest in the U.S. to continue standing allied with Israel. I am proud that my country takes a stand that I believe to be morally correct. I won't debate the politics of that in any forum unless it is with policy makers.
However, mark my words. They do not hate the U.S. because of Israel. They hate Israel because of the U.S. In other words, for the same reasons. Ken, did you know anything about Islamist fundamentalism before Tuesday, or like many did you start reading the articles and discover the phenomenon only then?
This conflict is 1400 years old whether you like it or not. Ken, you are a Christian and a dhimmi whether you beleive in Jesus or not. It's not your choice to be on the receiving end of a holy war, but you certainly are. These are people that chop off hands and bury prostitutes up to their neck and stone them. They aren't primitives in the jungles of Africa who don't yet know the world is round. They've been in contact with and clashing with the West for 1400 years. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've got evidence that I'm not. Those that think otherwise have no evidence beyond their own projections of their own mentality and culture onto people who are coming from a very different vantage point. As far as they are concerned it is not the year 2001.
Consider this. What makes you so sure that it's Israel? These folks never said why they did what they did. Bin Laden's manifestos rarely mention Israel at all. What makes other people so sure that it's some vague notion of "Western imperialism" or "unilateralism" or "starving Iraqi babies"? That's not what they say in their own newspapers, speeches and literature. It's Jesus and Hollywood and Madison Avenue and the Manhattan Project and Richard the Lionhearted. It's all of those.
Your proposed solution is to allow their attacks on American civilians to rewrite American foreign policy? I'd never imagine you to be a Neville Chamberlain type. Guess what? It's impossible for the West to disengage themselves from this conflict by making a few 'nice' political decisions. Short of strategic military victories and massive efforts to change the attitudes of the other side and perhaps a few generations nothing will.
posted on September 17, 2001 04:56:50 AM new
Yes, James, I had heard of the place and the issues before Tuesday. I know that there are more than one distinct and vastly divergent viewpoints concerning all of the history of the area.
I know that the conflict over settlement rights in Palestine can be said to extend back thirteen centuries, and I know that the greatest strides have been made by the jews of the world in Isreal since 1948. David Ben Gurion once aacknowledged that there was "not a single jewish settlement in Palestine that did not take the place of a displaced Arab one".
I do not believe that the radical fundamentalist movement as seen lately, and I mean lately to say in the last fifty years or less not the last six days, is much more that a reenergized fringe element acting in response to the jewish takeover of Arab lands, and more immediately the incursion of American troops into their holy lands, in their view, and not the pervasive and all encompassing aim of all araby. I also believe that those fringe movements hate the U.S. and the jews nearly with equal force as hand in hand alllies in the mechanization of the destruction of arabic /muslim ideology. And yes, some of them have said so in plain talk.
You fly off in defence of a very personal to you set of one sided viewpoints and that's pretty much exactly what I asked you not to do. The tone of your post is such that it is clear that these matters are far more important to you than to me and for that reason I won't post any further to the subject(s). I think there is a great body of evidence that you have not, and probably would not consider.
By the way though, the chopping off of hands and the burying of prostitutes does not bother me much. Certainly they are not reason enough to dismiss a people from inclusion in the human gathering. There are worse things practiced and better things, depending on a point of view. But I'm only you are a Christian and a dhimmi whether you beleive in Jesus or not, so what does it matter?
posted on September 17, 2001 05:18:03 AM new
I'm not verse at all this islamic stuff or the Middle East at all. I sure wish I'd paid more attention in school now.
Anyway, my question is this:
I keep hearing people "saying" that they will be able to nuke us in 3-5 years. How do we know that? AND if we do know that for a fact, why weren't we aware of the coming attacks?
Something isn't right with this train of thought. Maybe we're only days away from a Nuke attack. I mean, if we didn't know about the attacks on Tuesday how can we be sure our intelligence is correct on the timeline of the Nuke capabilities of these bast***ds.!
posted on September 17, 2001 06:01:56 AM new
Yeah, discontinuing support for Israel is a brilliant idea. Fold to terrorism. Next time they want something and we don't give in they kill more Americans.
Israel is also the only power in the region that has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. Allowing Israel to "go it alone" is insane. Pakistan has nuclear weapons but no delivery system, yet.
We had to dispatch James Baker and Patriot Missles to Israel to keep them from nuking Iraq in the Gulf War. Our satelites saw the missles rolled and readied - that's why Baker and the missles got there in record time. There will be nuclear bombs detonated before Israel falls. Abandonong Israel is not just immoral, it is strategically without merit.
Once these terrorist states have the nuclear bombs or bio weapons and the means to deliver them, our choices become surrender,or kill and be killed. Each day that goes by brings us closer to these choices. Their leadership has already demonstrated that their own total destruction and killing innocent people is meaningless if they can't get there way. Allowing their economies and ifrastructure to grow guarantees their ability to produce and deliver these weapons.
Is there anyone who has any doubt in their mind that if these terrorist states get their hands on these weapons they won't use them on America ? Last Tuesday should have cleared away any doubt.
If being free from mid eastern oil and abandoning Israel would solve the problem, I would support it in a heart beat.
Even if we did these things, they will be back. The destruction of America is their goal, coexistence is not in realm of options. We are on a geo-political collision course - and they declared war ans attacked our country. It is about survival.
posted on September 17, 2001 07:02:02 AM new
I know I said that I wouldn't post to the subject, but this is all very ignorant, reamond. Didn't you read the statement above of jamesoblivion's that Isreal's survival in no wise depends on US support?
While i'm noot clear what this :
"Israel is also the only power in the region that has nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them. Allowing Israel to "go it alone" is insane. Pakistan has nuclear weapons but no delivery system,yet.
"We had to dispatch James Baker and Patriot Missles to Israel to keep them from nuking Iraq in the Gulf War. Our satelites saw the missles rolled and readied - that's why Baker and the missles got there in record time. There will be nuclear bombs detonated before Israel falls. Abandonong Israel is not just immoral, it is strategically without merit."
is about, for I think if you reread your words you'll find them, errr, jumbled, I do agree that Isreal has been and apparently is poised to be again quite opportunistic. That is, they will sieze upon tumultuous world situations to take action in their own behalf.
And I wonder just which states you refer to in:
"Is there anyone who has any doubt in their mind that if these terrorist states get their hands on these weapons they won't use them on America ? Last Tuesday should have cleared away any doubt".
for I do not see any treatment of a terrorist "state" in the news, only treatment of a terrorist group, or more than one group.
"Even if we did these things, they will be back. The destruction of America is their goal, coexistence is not in realm of options. We are on a geo-political collision course - and they declared war ans attacked our country. It is about survival".
Forgive me? Do WHAT things?
You say without doubt that the goal of these unnamed states is the destruction of America, and believe that the radical action of [actually] who knows who testifies to that, but I don't think so. I think that the fundamentalist muslim factions wish only to be allowed to live their beliefs (however strange or abhorrent we may find them) and have taken action against one of those at the head of many who serve to deny that. Yes, they very well might continue to act in that pursuit for as long as they perceive a need to do so, but it does not appear that they wish to have as theirs anything which now belongs to the west. Quite the opposite, in fact. Even if they did want to conquer or destroy America, What is it that you think can be done to stop them?
posted on September 17, 2001 07:25:57 AM new
Ken, I think you're missing the point. This didn't begin 50 years ago. It began before America was discovered. America is the successor to the British Empire. By extension we are the successor even to the Byzantines. And by 'America' I really mean Europe, Western and now Eastern as well.
You could be right in general, I suppose, but it's hard to imagine that a generally uninterrupted line of policy going back to the 7th century suddenly screeches to a halt in the middle of the 20th century and an entirely new phenomenon, identical in tone and concept emerges (meaning that this East vs West issue is entirely about Western support for Israel and nothing more). Thousands year old Jewish communities (such as the one in Hebron and so-called Arab East Jerusalem which were only Jew-free from 1948-1967 -- 19 years out of thousands) are branded 'settelements' because it is a loaded political term that means nothing more than 'can't have infidels with power in our region'. There's no logic to these claims when scrutinized. They're formulas devised by Western educated people with the ability to think with two different mindsets and play to two different audiences.
You are 'only a Christian' to them the same way I'm 'only a Jew' to them, which is to say one and the same (at least we're not 'pagans' and you should thank your god for that). It means we have a predetermined fate. It is to join them or to serve them. Since our team is neither joining nor serving them, we're going to be destroyed. Thankfully, that can't be done today.
Imagine, for example, if in 1981 Israel hadn't destroyed Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. What we saw a taste of in 1990 would have been fully realized. Meaning that Saddam would have rolled basically unopposed through all of the Middle East and even Northern Africa. Saddam would indeed -- certainly by now -- have been the new Saladin, with an arab kingdom stretching from Morocco to Saudi Arabia. It would have been an entirely different matter, confronting Saddam in 1991 with nukes than one without.
Sure, at the time everyone pointed out "it's only about oil". Well, duh. Of course it wasn't about the Kuwaiti people he was slaughtering. That's realpolitik, I'm not naive. However, even the most ardent America-laster would surely have to admit that a man who gases to death thousands upon thousands of his own citizens would have no problem whatsoever threatening the West, including the United States -- if he had his vast Caliphate arranged in place. What honestly could we do with a new Soviet Empire led by an unstable and cruel man who believed it was his destiny to face down the West? In the case of the Soviets, they felt that it was the destiny of the West to fall to their superior ideology but they felt it was an inevitability that we couldn't retard. Saddam wasn't and isn't going to wait for some economic prophecy to come to pass through natural means like the Soviets.
And yes, even barring that it would be an absolute horror for such a man to control 70% of the world's oil supply which he would if he rolled through the Middle East like he clearly plans to. I know there is a perception that we have no substantive quarrell with Saddam. That's not true. It may be arrogant of me to say that we have a right to assert our hegemony in that region because of self-interest, but arrogant or not we'd damned fools if we didn't.
I'm speaking of Islamic fundamentalism, not of Islam. As I pointed out, Turkey is an Islamic state (in the sense that it's people are Moslem -- thanks, Shadowcat ) and it is also a democracy and isn't inherently beligerant to the West for that very reason. I do not assert that 'there's something' about Moslem culture inherently that prevents them from coming to terms with the notion of living peacefully in this world. As I previously mentioned, there are distinct periods of Islamic history in certain places which were not marked by the fanaticism we see today.
We all have our personal issues, Ken. I know that the Vietnam War is one for you. This is one for me. I can respect that and I know you do too. All I'm submitting is that this issue is far more personal for you then you know.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Sep 17, 2001 07:29 AM ]
) and it is also a democracy and isn't inherently beligerant to the West for that very reason. I do not assert that 'there's something' about Moslem culture inherently that prevents them from coming to terms with the notion of living peacefully in this world. As I previously mentioned, there are distinct periods of Islamic history in certain places which were not marked by the fanaticism we see today.