posted on October 13, 2001 12:17:47 AM new
"do everything possible to assure that the cause that we ask them to die for is a valid one, truly in the interest of the defense of the country"
Imminent death whenever you walk out the door seems to be a good motivator to back this war. I am curious about what would would inspire in you an unslackable gung ho spirit -- flying saucers full of brain eaters from Alpha Centauri perhaps?
posted on October 13, 2001 02:57:37 AM new
Cooltom,
You'll spend other people's lives freely enough, how about your own?
All I see from you are snide dopey comments and a lockstep mentality with which you are completely willing to give away all of the things about this country that you claim to value so that you can feel safe and snug.
But you know what? You've never been as safe as you hope to be and you never will be. The world is a scary place filled with nasty people who would like nothing better than to get you.
As to terrorism, well, we've always had that haven't we? Wasn't John Wilkes Booth a terrorist? Sacco and Vanzetti? The list is quite long. Or the gang of people who beat up that kid last night on the corner of main street. They are terrorists too. Every burglar, rapist, murderer, and car thief is a terrorist. But you wouldn't send legions of police to destroy every block where those thugs live along with everyone it them, and at the cost of the lives of nobody knows yet how many. or would you? No, they are found and brought to justice, singly or in groups. A good many of them swear to kill everyone who they deem to be responsible for their miserable plight. Mostly they are just ignored. Different now, you say? Because there are so many victims? Yes, different, but only in scale. Yet you would find some perverse justice in killing any one who is in an area where these criminals might be regardless whether or not they had a thing to do with the crime. And you find in the doing a rightious cause worth the lives of your friends, your children, or actually anyone but you.
What response would you have if it turned out that these attacks were actually committed by Americans? Still going off to war? (oh, I forgot-YOU don't go to war) I guess you mean that if they are from Indiana you'd start bombing South Bend.
You know the saying 'talk's cheap?'. Well, sometimes it's worthless, not cheap.
posted on October 13, 2001 05:16:34 AM newI guess you mean that if they are from Indiana you'd start bombing South Bend.
That's hardly a fair analogy. I do believe that the Governor of Indiana would turn over any murderers in his state.
That is the nature of a military operation. You are going to have casualties just moving that many people from traffic accidents, workplace type accidents, disease, bad food or water, sunstroke, hypothermia, snakes, and every other hazard known to man.
Sadly you are right. In an operation like this, it's sometimes "mass confusion".
,.. there will be, inevitably, a time when a loss will be measured against the cause for which it took place, and believe me, that cause had better be good.
I do not believe that this dog and pony show stands that test.
Maybe, maybe not. I was irked last night watching the president answering questions... He was asked 3 times what the plan was for Afganistan after the fighting was over, and he didn't want to respond to that question. In my thinking, what happens after the fighting is over will determine if this was a "good cause" or a "dog and pony show". I can kinda' understand that any plan for afterwards can't be "set in stone" at this point, but I sure hope there is a plan in place, and that it's a good one.
It was unnecessary in your last post to include, "All I see from you are snide dopey comments..." . Rather than addressing the individual, please adhere to the subject matter.
posted on October 13, 2001 06:34:46 AM new
Yes we know. Those special ops are able to jump tall buildings in a single bound. With xray vision they see through underground tunnels.
You know I once thought our special ops could do the job too. In fact only a month ago, I thought this. Then the truth was revealed in a short news interview.
Those who want to live in a fantasy world thinking that superman will save the day, go hide your heads in the sand. At least you won't lose any sleep in your 'safe' fantasy world.
As for the first casualties of this war, the majority of them will never be buried. They are ashes in NYC.
posted on October 13, 2001 06:38:50 AM new
Twinsoft
First, you say that a forklift accident doesn't make the war on terrorism unjustified. Thousands and thousands of heroic deaths would not justify this futile war on terrorism.
You insult Americans when you say that a TV-based lifestyle will make them forget the deaths of 7,000 people. You insult Americans when you expect them to believe that bomb strikes at the rubble of Afganistan is a fair and effective method to solve the problem of terrorism. And, you insult Americans when you call them subversive when they find this way to wage war wrong.
Nobody in this thread referred to Evander Andrews as a hero. But he was an American who died in a futile cause and deserves more respect in this thread than the mention that he was only a forklift operator. My heart goes out to Evander Andrews who lost his life and to his family and friends and to all the thousands of people all over the world who will die in this abominable and crazy effort to eliminate terrorism by eliminating countries in which terrorists may live.
posted on October 13, 2001 07:21:00 AM new
Hjw, you are reading my posts and looking for an argument. We are obviously so far apart on this that there's no point in trying to find a middle ground. If you find my posts insulting, don't read them.
Your characterization of U.S. action as "bombing the rubble of Afghanistan" is wrong. Unlike terrorists, our goal is not to kill as many women and children as possible. Our goal is to stop a very real and undeniable threat.
If I were an Afghani who just happened to live "next-door" to a terrorist training camp, and I received a two-week warning that a country the size of America would be coming to sort the matter out, I'd pack up my camel and move on.
Thousands and thousands of heroic deaths would not justify this futile war on terrorism.
If by futile, you mean we should do nothing or let Bin Laden dictate our policies, think again. And yes, the deaths at the WTC and ongoing terrorism more than justify our actions.
posted on October 13, 2001 07:43:15 AM newhjwYou insult Americans when you expect them to believe that bomb strikes at the rubble of Afganistan is a fair and effective method to solve the problem of terrorism.
Unlike you Helen I can't speak for all Americans. You do insult me if you expect me to believe our mission is to bomb rubble.
posted on October 13, 2001 07:47:06 AM new
Twinsoft,
The post that I responded to was addressed to me. If you don't want me to respond to your posts then don't address them to me.
I'll probably respond anyway because that is my priviledge here... just thought that I would point it out to you that my response to you was in response to your response addressed to me. You can be sure that I will always respond to those comments.
Right now, I have to leave for a few hours but I'll be back.
posted on October 13, 2001 09:28:16 AM new
Hjw, you first called my comment "asinine." Then you said my next comment was insulting. If you don't like it, don't read. There's a handy little ignore button right on my profile. Feel free to use it.
posted on October 13, 2001 09:35:36 AM new
Don't know why everyone seem so quick to be offended. It seems to come down to you either trust the government or do not but at least right now with the volunteer army you have the choice whether to trust them with your life.
Unfortunatly they are either going to deal with this problem effectively or not. Most of us do not have the resources to do anything about it ourselves. I do not have the language skills, time or money to track down terrorist cells even locally much less overseas.
If they do not deal with the problem it could result in a change of administration.
Anyone that wants to make some statements about how this will effect the coming elections (assuming we have them) would be welcome.
posted on October 13, 2001 10:03:51 AM new
"Anyone that wants to make some statements about how this will effect the coming elections (assuming we have them) would be welcome."
I've been thinking about this lately myself.
How the Congress will shift in the next elections, whether people will go for a "don't change horses in midstream" line in the next presidential election, who knows.
What's more interesting to me is what the effect of this will be on the burgeoning 3rd party movement.
If I had been a supporter of one of the 3rd parties, Green, Libertarian, or other, Sept 11th would have changed my mind drastically. One of the things we've seen from the attack is the value to a presidential adminstration in having a pre-existing network of relationships - with legislative members of your own, and the other, party, and the value of having experienced people in your own adminstration, people who were already familiar to other world leaders, etc.
For example, I like Ralph Nader, as a consumer advocate. But I can't help but think that if he had been president now, that he would be woefully unprepared to deal with this situation. Not only because of his own inexperience, but because he didn't have a network, or have people he could call on who have the kind of network that's needed now.
Posing yourself as a "Washington Outsider," is a tactic presidential candidates sometimes use. It was one of the tones in Bush's campaign. But, when stuff gets serious, it's much more useful to have a wide network of insiders.
I'd be interested to hear if any "other-party" supporters have re-evaluated their political preferences because of what's happened.
posted on October 13, 2001 11:20:07 AM newFerrous Cranus: Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle she will not yield an inch in her position regardless of its hopelessness. Though her thrusts are decisively repulsed, her arguments crushed in every detail and her defenses demolished beyond repair she will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics.
Target: Target is the person everyone in a forum loves to hate. To some degree she brings this upon herself. Why Target places herself in such dicey situations is anyone's guess, but she seems genuinely oblivious to her precarious position. Her usual reaction is "Hey, what did I ever do to you?" or "Why do you all hate me?"
posted on October 13, 2001 11:29:24 AM newgodzillatempleTarget is the person everyone in a forum loves to hate
I confess to a selfish reason to enjoying 'Targets'.
It's a real ego booster to be able to feel like I have the military and diplomatic knowledge of a George Marshall in comparison to the views of a 'Target'.
posted on October 13, 2001 11:38:45 AM new
Nader spoke near here recently and I heard a bit of a radio interview. I was surprised to hear him come out strongly in favor of military action.
Here's a few things to consider:
1) Terrorists hide in civilian areas
2) There will claims of civilian casualties after every strike
3) News reports are not reliable - ours or theirs; neither are second-hand reports by "refugees"
4) Some collateral damage is inevitable
I don't believe the Telegraph's report any more than I would believe the Washington Post's claim of minimal or no civilian casualties.
The advantage to air strikes is that they cause a lot of damage with minimal risk to our troops. Were we to go into Afghan cities unprepared, and engage in building to building combat, in order to round up terrorists and spare the "citizenry," we would suffer much greater American losses. That would be unacceptable.
posted on October 13, 2001 12:00:17 PM new
Twinsoft,
Twinsoft, I am replying to your last comment addressed to me. If my replies to your comments bother you so much, just use the ignore feature.
You say that our goal is to stop a very real and undeniable threat...and by that do you mean Afganistan? I'll bet that our real goal is focused on another country.
Although our goal may not be to kill as many women and children as possible, we are, in fact, killing innocent men, women and children who are just as innocent as the men, women and children in the Pentagon and the WTC. We are trashing their homes and whatever rubble is left over from the last bombs that have fallen there for the last 20 years.
If our goal is to stop a very real and undeniable threat as you say, how will this be accomplished with bombs? We don't know where bin Laden is located and even if we found and killed him and all of his immediate network, there will be another network to take it's place...one that is even more energized to terrorize our country because we have retaliated. Are we going to deal with the networks in 60 countries as we are dealing with Afganistan?
If you are concerned about nuclear bombs, how can you rid every country of nuclear bombs without razing the rest of the world? Even if you level the mid east as some nuts have suggested, this threat will not be eliminated.
I don't believe that we should let bin Laden dictate our policies. But I do believe that we should not be blind to the hatred that is focused on this country. Could it be that we are seen as interlopers in their affairs? How would you like to have an Arab militia over here supervising your little world? If you believed that your land was holy, how would you like a bunch of Arabian soldiers camping on your holy territory? How would you like it if you were living in poverty and the Arabian's decided to arm your neighbors so that they could plunder your land and your people?
We should rethink our foreign policy. It's my opinion that under the Bush administration that things have gone completely to hell.
I had hoped that we could make a lot more progress in controlling terrorists by improving diplomacy, improving our intellegence capability, using special forces, defending our country and leaving everybody else the hell alone.
posted on October 13, 2001 12:00:47 PM newtwinsoft: Yeah, it's just too bad we can't develop a truly "smart" bomb. You know, one that goes from house to house, knocks on the door and asks "are YOU a terrorist?" before exploding.
I admit it makes me very uncomfortable to think about innocent civilians being killed, especially since I don't happen to subscribe to the viewpoint that "they're all terrorists" or "it's a cultural thing, so we'll have to kill them all". And I dearly, dearly, wish that we were at war with a particular government instead of a concept, since it's actually possible for a government to surrender and thereby cease the hostilities.
At the same time, though, I do agree with you that what we're doing is a necessary step, and I also strongly believe that we are trying our hardest to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Some may feel that our intent doesn't matter, only the outcome of our actions, but I still cling to my belief that there's a key difference between terrorists who actively seek out civilians and a military campaign that actively tries to avoid civilians wherever possible. It's the only thing that lets me sleep at night sometimes.
I'm not in Afghanistan, and I refuse to be an armchair quarterback and make determinations as to whether we should or should not have bombed a particular site. Perhaps the terrorists purposely placed military targets near civilians. Or perhaps our intelligence was less than 100% accurate. Or perhaps we simply screwed up. But I knew from day one of our attack that all it would take is one civilian casualty for the Taliban to cry out "look at what that horrible, evil, terrorist nation of Amercia has done to our poor, innocent people!"
I'm not callous enough to think that we should try to wipe out the entire population of the Arab world [and yes, contrary to what some people think, the use of modern nuclear weaopons is more than capable of killing every inhabitant there]. But neither do I think we need to stop our attack as a result of civilian casualities we have caused by accident. Apologize profusely, perhaps. But not stop.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[speling misteaks]
[ edited by godzillatemple on Oct 13, 2001 12:03 PM ]
posted on October 13, 2001 03:23:07 PM new
What I don't like about bombing in Afghanistan is this:
We told our "friends" over there in the middle east ~ especially Pakistan ~ that the bombing would last three or four days. That is what they told their people, that is what they expected. Now it has gone on for almost a week. Those leaders will not be able to hang on much longer ~ especially ~once again~ Pakistan. The longer we bomb the more people in europe and elsewhere are speaking out against it. Today thousands of people protested in London,Germany,Switzerland and else where.We cannot do this alone! We will be doing just that if we lose our allies and "friends".We were told that we were just "tenderizing" over ther so that the special forces vcould go in safely. If so what are we still doing bombing? There just wasn't that much there to bomb.
We shouldn't be doing this alone now either. We should be doing this whole operation with an international force. This will effect all nations not just ours. If they can do us, the US,the most powerful nation in the world, great harm they will not stop with us, they will go after Europe,Russia,Canada and anyplace that is not a Muslim nation...very likely they will even turn on moderate Muslims.We are all infidels to these terrorist extremists.All nations need to work together to eradicate this threat.
I do believe that once the bombing stops and the Taliban are ousted that there will be much rejoicing by those that will be able to go home again and by those that have been unable to escape their rule. I know the women and children there are waiting with great hope for us to free them from their living death. I just hope we help them with housing and setting up a good government that represents all of their people. We cannot fail them once this is done.
posted on October 13, 2001 03:33:22 PM newI'd be interested to hear if any "other-party" supporters have re-evaluated their political preferences because of what's happened.
Donny, I voted for Nader. I have very mixed feelings about the results. Prior to Sept. 11 I thought that the votes that Nader drained from Gore(probably) might make the two parties offer better or stronger choices for candidates the next time round. A candidate's connections to circles in Washington did not take priority in my opinion and possibly were the causes of problems - same old same old. I, like just about everyone, didn't envision anything on the scale of what we've recently seen. But I have that nagging question in the back of my mind - would this event have occurred if George W. had lost. His victory, as propped up as it seemed, may have been the last straw for the people who perpetuated this horror - their revenge for our putting George Sr.'s son in the White House and the appearence of a weakened presidency by the Congress's impeachment hearings. So I don't know if an outsider like Nader would have been better or worse for us.
Yes,deliteful, they're contemptible criminal acts. But we'd better start paying attention to what precipitates them and how we rebuild countries that we've bombed, conquered, annihilated, choose your word. Because these acts didn't merely happen like a genie released from the lamp. Someone rubbed the lamp whether it was poverty induced fundamentalism or something else, we'd better figure it out.
posted on October 13, 2001 05:52:37 PM new"It's a real ego booster"
No doubt a weak ego needs such a thing, as little terriers are compelled to bark at big dogs, but how can it feed an ego not to know the point of the post to which such a response is made?
posted on October 13, 2001 06:02:07 PM new
saabsister,
"would this event have occurred if George W. had lost" is a question I have as well. Since inauguration bush has seemed to be spoiling for a war, and there's a thread here somewhere to that effect. His affrontery in international relations was clearly incurring anger from several directions, including the middle eastern arab direction. Was it the figurative straw?
The shame of it is that the results of the multimillion dollar verification of the election results are in but not released because the media conglomerate which sponsored it feels that it would be 'innappropriate' at this time to do so. Nevertheless enough has been let out to show that the results prove that Gore got over 19,000 more votes in Florida than he was credited with. It should have been a landslide in that state--the other way. The republicans know all about this and have been extremely active to the point of criminal interference in keeping the result from the public.
posted on October 13, 2001 08:12:26 PM new
Hi Saabsister, thanks for your thoughts.
"A candidate's connections to circles in Washington did not take priority in my opinion and possibly were the causes of problems - same old same old."
Yes, cronyism and backscratching and party politics. In some ways they're useful - they make it easier to get things done, but, some of the things they get done aren't the things we want.
"But I have that nagging question in the back of my mind - would this event have occurred if George W. had lost. His victory, as propped up as it seemed, may have been the last straw for the people who perpetuated this horror - their revenge for our putting George Sr.'s son in the White House and the appearence of a weakened presidency by the Congress's impeachment hearings."
Well, it's something we'll never know. But, in the clips of the Al Qaeda training video I've seen, they were doing target practice using pictures of Clinton. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, one way or the other, whether Bush or Gore were president. So, if that nagging question makes you feel uneasy, it probably shouldn't. You only caused Bush to become president by voting for Nader, you didn't cause the terrorist attacks too Feel better?
I'm sort of surprised that I've never heard anyone suggest that it was Bush's shortened transition period (because of the recount), that made the attackers see us as vulnerable, or that the shortened transition forced the adminstration to play catch-up from day one and took their attention away from keeping an eye out for danger. The danger of the shortened transition was offered up by the Bush team during the recount process, one of the many reasons that we had to wrap that up quick and declare Bush president (the stock market didn't like the uncertainty, the transition would be too short, the crops would fail, etc.) I don't believe it, but it would be an easy argument to make.
posted on October 13, 2001 09:10:03 PM new
Wasn't there an independant study being conducted by one of the Fl. newspapers, Krs? Ever hear what happened with that one?
posted on October 13, 2001 09:14:04 PM new
"You'll spend other people's lives freely enough, how about your own?
All I see from you are snide dopey comments and a lockstep mentality with which you are completely willing to give away all of the things about this country that you claim to value so that you can feel safe and snug...
(oh, I forgot-YOU don't go to war)"
I've heard you talk of your Vietnam Vet status. There were many other soldiers in that war. One was me. Do bother to ask if one wishes to question anothers grasp of military matters. You might also inquire about my anti-war record while you're at it.
My S & D comment was inquiring just what event would cause an epiphany in you to see that the terrorist attack is a fight to the death with these guys. The mere fact that the terrorist used some of own aircraft filled with our civilians in order to crash into a building filled with still more of our innocent civilians doen't seem to be enough for you hence the question about the barin-eaters. One "Pearl Harbor" did it for me. In fact, one second after I saw the second plane hit the tower I knew who exactly did it and what needed to be done. In other words how many "Pearl Harbors" do you need before your resolve is to see this war to its just and logical conclusion?
As for why I am for total detruction I'll pass on a quite perceptive article on the history of the conflict between Islam and the West
It relates the efforts of a Western clergyman to open a dialouge with the Islam clerics. He told a few anecdotes...
"During another Islamic-Christian meeting, always organized by Christians, a Christian participant publicly asked the Muslims present why they had not organized at least one meeting of this kind. The Muslim authority present answered in the following words: "Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn." A dialogue between deaf persons? It is a fact that terms such as "dialogue," "justice," "reciprocity," or concepts such as "rights of man" and "democracy" have a completely different meaning for Muslims than for us.
In a Catholic monastery in Jerusalem there was ... a Muslim Arab servant. A kind and honest person, he was respected greatly by the religious, who in turn were respected by him. One day, he sadly told them: "Our leaders have met and have decided that all "infidels" must be killed, but do not be afraid because I will kill you without making you suffer."
We are not fighting simply the terrorists. The whole bedrock of Islam is that they are the superior religion and culture -- all others are to be vanquished. In a phrase they consider themselves as the "Master Race." Sound familiar? All of Islam believes this. All. Has anyone heard of a Muslim man of peace that has achieved world notice? A Ganhdi, M.L. King, Mother Teresa? The one that seems to have come closest in my memory was Anwar Sadat. Oh, yeah -- they shot him.
"killing innocent men, women and children who are just as innocent as the men, women and children in the Pentagon and the WTC."
Theirs knew the plane was coming.
"His affrontery in international relations was clearly incurring anger from several directions"
Not signing junk science treaties or attending kangaroo court international conferences does not indicate affrontery. The anger was not coming from people who had common sense.
posted on October 13, 2001 09:52:36 PM new
You can spout dogmatic distortions all day without establishing a truth in them, and in fact for each one you present you also allow for exception. As it happens, my pet muslim has made no mention of any command to kill me because of a directive from his leaders, and I'm sure that he would do that for he is just a [i]"kind and honest person, he was respected greatly by the religious, who in
turn were respected by him"[/i].
Your anti-war record speaks for itself right here in forum. You is or you isn't.
Feel better?