posted on October 12, 2001 08:49:56 AM new
RAEMOND, Linda_K,tiggressoflove,Cooltom, are you advocating the use of nuclear weapons against all of those countries? Immediately? With no regards for our allies opinions? With the understanding that Israel will probably suffer immediately as a result? Do you want to up the ante this quickly - suppose China feels threatened and decides to nuke us? Don't take this as support for terrorists - I'd like to see those responsible taken out. I just can't imagine being so willing to murder whole nations so easily. Civilians are killed in all wars. I just can't see advocating killing them as easily as you seem to be doing. (Since Americans were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and that at the Atlanta Olympics, by using your logic, the US was harboring terrorists and deserves punishment.)
posted on October 12, 2001 09:01:31 AM newSince Americans were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and that at the Atlanta Olympics, by using your logic, the US was harboring terrorists and deserves punishment
I just have to comment on that. "Harboring terrorists" doesn't mean that terrorists reside on your soil. Probably all countries, except maybe Iceland or Fiji have international terrorists living within their borders. Harboring terrorists means that they are welcome to live there, that they are there precisely because they need a place to live and you (the state) are providing it so they can wreak havoc on your common enemies.
"Terrorists" all have causes and interests but they are used as proxy soldiers to wage war by states that are too weak or to pragmatic to wage a conventional war against their enemies.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:09:34 AM new
Saabsister- the implications of total war against terrorist nations and international relations are far from your speculations. The US ultimately could care less what other countries think if we are being attacked.
China only yesterday asked for support against the Islamic terrorists wreaking havoc in their western provinces, which are also caused and funded by al Qeida and others. At present China can not deliver nukes to the continental US. Besides, they know they would be a smoldering ruin if they tried.
Russia is having their own Islamic terrorist problems.
Israel can take care of itself. Our involvement with Israel is to rein Israel in by exerting some influence to keep Israel from conquering the whole region. Remember, Israel was attacked by several countries at once and decimated them all. We used this influence with Israel to cause the return to Egypt and others the land that Israle captured. Israel also has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
Even the UN, that bastion of confusion and appeaser of tyrants, has admitted that the US or any country can use any means necessary to protect themselves.
We do not need to use nuclear weapons to get the job done. But we may be forced to use them to stop the attacks on the US.
If we are attacked again, nuclear weapons may be used. It has been reported that Bush has moved Tactical nuclear weapons into the region just in case a nuclear, bio, or chemical attack hits the US or our armed forces in the Middle East.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:20:13 AM newOur involvement with Israel is to rein Israel in by exerting some influence to keep Israel from conquering the whole region.
Oh, come on. Israel has no interest in conquering anything. The 20 mile sliver of land we call "the West Bank" was conquered in a defensive war against Jordan. It is elevated terrain from which two wars threatening Israel's existence was waged. After Israel conquered this territory, in the following war ('73) the Jordanians did not attack Israel. Why? Because Israel finally had defensable borders on the east.
Israeli soldiers hike across the length of Israel in a day's exercise. The Arab world is 540 times the size of Israel. Please, if Israel's desire to remain within defensable borders so that they are not to be destroyed is "aggression" than I guess they're "aggressive".
I know you're not anti Israel, but please don't portray them in this false light. Israel will not and never did war with any country that means them no harm.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:21:54 AM new
There's a difference in that the Taliban are terrorists. They're in charge.
My ancestors were nearly all wiped out by Hitler. Israel needs to be protected. I favor any method of wiping the Taliban out that won't hurt Israel.
My family that had come over to the U.S. before Hitler served in WWII. One of my great-uncles had to take photos of the bodies, many family members.
I have many kin fighting in this war. We've had family serving this country since WWII.
I used to have a Pakistanian penpal (by email). I wish I still had his emails to me, but they were all deleted when yahoo kicked off my auction account and email account. He sent a spam letter/email asking Americans to stop the killing, declaring that Jews were the enemy and that Palestine needed the protection. This came across as off the wall to me, since this had never come up with this guy and I had been emailing him for about a year. (He lives in Palestine.) I wrote back asking what he was talking about and stated that I was a Jewish Christian (because I had accepted Jesus). He wrote back, blasting me trying to get into a heated hate email argument with me. I couldn't understand why (I had never followed the stuff going on over that way at that time.) and emailed him back again asking for clarification. He emailed back, again stating that I was some sort of word (I guess it was bad and couldn't remember it now if I had too) and stated that the anger towards America was growing and that he hoped we soon felt the pain they had all these years. This was around April/May of last year. I emailed him back stating that I had thought of him as a friend, and that I was sorry that there was trouble going on and said if he wanted to talk about it to me, I'd listen (because I was kinda stunned and I cared about him). He never wrote back again. Kinda hurt. I'm still baffled by it.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:33:47 AM new
Hi saabsister - I know you aren't in support of these terrorists. We (collectively) just seem to have different views of what we need to do to stop this terror. Being afraid to attack an enemy because 'this might happen/that might happen' isn't the answer, IMO. I don't mean to imply you are afraid, but many here seem to be advocating withdrawing our presense.
Linda_K, are you advocating the use of nuclear weapons against all of those countries? Immediately? With no regards for our allies opinions? With the understanding that Israel will probably suffer immediately as a result?
This medium of communication is hard to relay exactly how each of us believes this issue should be dealt with and even try to keep the posts reasonable in length.
No to the immediate use of nuclear weapons.
Allies opinions? We need to do what our country thinks is in our best interest. If we get support from the world...all the better...but right now it's the US that's the target of these terrorists.
I tried to compare how I though the terrorists in other countries could be handled. If they harbor/support etc. these terrorists then yes, I believe we need to do exactly what we're doing in Afghanistan. Give them warning to turn these groups over or suffer the consequences. Then if they still continue to harbor them, bomb them....just like we did in Japan and are doing in Afghanistan. Should they still not get the message we just can't allow them to continue to grow in strength. I don't believe in my heart we (the USA) will be the first to use nuclear weapons, but I also believe the terrorists who do have these capabilities will do so against us....in a NY minute.
Do you want to up the ante this quickly - suppose China feels threatened and decides to nuke us? Again, we can only deal with that if and when it happens. I don't believe it will happen. It's my belief that most countries where these terrorists groups have made a home for themselves, don't want them in their countries either. Just like we know there are terrorists groups in the US....but we're starting to work to rid ourselves of them.
I just can't imagine being so willing to murder whole nations so easily. Civilians are killed in all wars. I just can't see advocating killing them as easily as you seem to be doing. See, this is the communication issue I'm referring to. I don't believe we need to destroy every person in those nations. Attacking them, just like we're now doing in Afghanistan, could help them decide they don't want to keep attacking our country.
(Since Americans were responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing and that at the Atlanta Olympics, by using your logic, the US was harboring terrorists and deserves punishment.) No, we weren't harboring them....we didn't even know they were here. It's when a country *knowingly* harbors them, that makes it different to me. AND we deal with those who are American's who attack the US....we can't so easily get physical custody of those in other countries, especially when the countries are harboring/protecting them.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:33:54 AM new
jamesoblivion- Israel took the entire Sinai desert from Egypt after Egypt attacked. Israel kept the terrority until the US put pressure on Israel to give the terrority back as part of the peace process.
"Conquer" was perhaps the wrong choice of words. "Capture" after being attacked would be more precise. Which is exactly what Israel did. Whether capturing terrority is for defensive purposes is irrelevant to the point.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:34:00 AM newreamond: Yeah, what James said. Israel's only goal is and has been to return to their "promised land" and live there in peace. They have never shown any tendency whatsoever toward world domination or expanding their borders.
tigressoflove: My ancestors were nearly all wiped out by Hitler
So were a bunch of mine. But that doesn't mean I'd avocate nuking all of Europe to wipe out any and all neo-nazis that may be in many countries there.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 12, 2001 09:44:58 AM new
godzillatemple- Laying waste to Germany is exactly what we did. If you wish to make a distinction between using a nuclear weapon and a chemical explosive I don't know how it would apply.
You can go down a list of German and Japanese cites nearly leveled by allied bombers in WWII. There were hundreds of thousands of "innocent" men, women, and children killed in these bombings.
This is/was not about hate, revenge, or retribution. It is about self defense.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:49:35 AM newreamond: Laying waste to Germany is exactly what we did
Well, either you and I simply have different definitions of "laying waste" (especially when comparing what we did to Germany to the proposed nuking of an entire region), or else you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about. Either way, though, continuing the discussion on these terms is rather pointless in my opinion.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:54:39 AM new
Thanks for some clarifications. I read many posts to mean wipe out all inhabitants in any country that harbored terrorists at all costs. I'll agree that some countries have knowledge of what's being being planned on their soil. That doesn't mean that the average Joe Blow is aware of the activity. (You could argue that some unapprehended individuals knew what was planned for abortion clinics here also. Perhaps our politicians didn't have the political will to protect the women and doctors at these clinics because abortion is a hotbutton issue. Now that we've all become more aware of these criminal tactics, maybe they won't be so tolerated.)
As far as Allies opinions go - yes, I think they're important. We can't hold the world at bay on our own. At least not do that and have lives free from fear. I think it's our business how we want to conduct war on our soil but when we expect co-operation from our allies, we draw their opinions in as well.
BBL. I enjoy the discussion, but have to get to the store.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:55:56 AM new
If the US hadn't gone in and took care of Germany, Hitler might have well accomplished his goal of ridding the world of Jews. He almost did.
posted on October 12, 2001 09:59:04 AM new
Look at the pictures of Dresden, Berlin and a host of other cities after WWII, and then look at the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths from these bombings.
I think it is clear who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
posted on October 12, 2001 10:17:30 AM new
saabsister- what weapon do you know of that can wipe out all the inhabitants in a region - not even a nuclear weapon can do that. Nuetron bombs are not even 100%.
Laying waste to a country doesn't require killing every human being. It only requires killing enough of them, along with their infrastructure to cripple their ability to harm others or make war.
posted on October 12, 2001 11:03:30 AM new
The Convention Against Genocide from the 1st Geneva Convention here
[quote]This convention bans acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. It declares genocide a crime under international law whether committed during war or peacetime, and binds all signators of the convention to to take measures to prevent and punish any acts of genocide committed within their jurisdiction. The act bans killing of members of any racial, ethnic, national or religious group because of their membership in that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, inflicting on members of the group conditions of life intended to destroy them, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and taking group members' children away from them and giving them to members of another group.
It declares genocide itself, conspiracy or incitement to commit genocide, attempts to commit orcomplicity in the commission of genocide all to be illegal. Individuals are to be held responsible for these acts whether they were acting in their official capacities or as private individuals. Signators to the convention are bound to enact appropriate legislation to make the acts named in Article 3 illegal under their national law and provide appropriate penalties for violators.
People suspected of acts of genocide may be tried by a national tribunal in the territory where the acts were committed or by a properly constituted international tribunal whose jurisdiction is recognized by the state or states involved. For purposes of extradition, an allegation of genocide is not to be considered a political crime, and states are bound to extradite suspects in accordance with national laws and treaties. Any state party to the Convention may also call upon the United Nations to act to prevent or punish acts of genocide.
The remainder of the Convention specifies procedures for resolving disputes between nations about whether a specific act or acts constitute(s) genocide, and gives procedures for ratification of the convention.[/quote]
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 12, 2001 12:47:58 PM newLaying waste to a country doesn't require killing every human being. It only requires killing enough of them, along with their infrastructure to cripple their ability to harm others or make war.
RAEMOND,if we bomb the hell out of Afghanistan destroying the infrastructure and killing most of the people but don't get bin Laden, do we succeed?
posted on October 12, 2001 02:33:43 PM new
Even if we do get bin Laden we do not succeed.
As the leader of Pakistan has said: getting bin Laden is like stripping one leaf from the terrorist tree.
Regarding The Convention Against Genocide from the 1st Geneva Convention--
The first line says it all --
bans acts committed with the intent to destroy.
Our intent is self defense, destruction is the means to that end.
Edited to add- This covention would apply to the terrorists and the Imam that just today in Egypt at prayers at the Mosque beseeched the "worshipers" to take up arms and kill Americans.
