View Full Version : war
09-17-2001, 12:02 PM
If we go to war the usa will win. Why cause we can bomb the living hell out of them and two we have more man power and three we hjave allies and aficanston does not. Iran has closed it borders, The safe thing for them to do is to turn van ladein and other terrtoits to survie if not they are dead.
09-17-2001, 12:30 PM
War? Don't be ridiculous. For a start the russians failed to conquer afghanistan from 1979 (or whenever it was), and also consider two unwanted consequences. Most afghans despise the Taliban or ruling body and so it would be wrong to punish such people, either by bombing the living hell out of them or else simply imposing severe sanctions. Much more worrying for us Brits and the US, is that Mr Bin Liner !or whatever you call him! is a clever clever man. bin Laden, will have expected this and will undoubtedly have a surprise for us, should we go to war with him. I don't know wghat this could be, but i sure as hell know that he has the perseverance and patience to have managed to equip himself with a powerful arsenal that may even include a couple of nukes??? If you try to obliterate bin laden, bin laden will try to obliterate you. Thus, wave goodbye to the whitehouse, the pentagon and a lot of other civilian infested areas.
We must show terrorists that we will not tolerate this sort of thing, but not at the cost of encourgaing a more sustained attack from the terrorists themselves, whom are prepeared to die anyway amd are well hidden!!
If you go to war - AMERICA WILL NOT WIN - EVEN WITH THE SUPPORT OF HER ALLIES. America will not get rid of terrorism, but wll only create martyrs of these thoroughly vile people.
09-17-2001, 01:18 PM
We have only lost one war, If you are supporting van ladein. Well I have news fpr you he may have some nukes. But we have have ahell of a lot more then does. I know they are not smart enough to turn him over terrsiom will never go away but we can take out their cell van ladein that well help Just kill him don't give him a trail.
I was talking to a friend of mine and It seems like War is a possiblity.
A guy in Pakistan said they got every thing other than an atomic bomb.
Yes TICKERBOY, you have a point, but consider America, Britain an all put together. I say don't attack the country - attack The Taliban, for offering him a save haven and Bin Laden himself. But if it was something else, well that would be a massive suprise. Dont go to war yet...
For all we know It could be just a civilan, who just went schizo.
09-17-2001, 05:26 PM
yes we will win the war, not only will we win the war we will tear their country up so bad they will wish they never even mentioned the letters USA. Sure the Afganastons where fighting to free themselvs from Ruissa this is different. They are harboring ban latan and we gave them fair warnig so what we do to them is their fault. And also this will not be another Vietnam because it is more personal and their will be no politcal resrictions. We will win and bring them to their knees. GOD BLESS AMERICA
09-17-2001, 06:16 PM
........only the losers say that no one wins in a war......cause they lost.........
The United States shall prevail, and emerge victorious.......
09-17-2001, 07:48 PM
Why is everyone so AFRAID of this guy? He's not Spiderman with the ability to climb walls or something. Yeah, he's clever, but so was Hitler, and in the end it didn't do him any good either. Besides, he doesn't have a monopoly on cleverness.
If we DON'T pursue him, we can say goodbye to the White House, Pentagon, and everything else mentioned above PLUS our freedom, because then every piss-ant with a chip on his shoulder will draw the conclusion that the United States can be easily intimidated.
Finally, about how "formidable" these Third World countries supposedly are...everyone always forgets that these long-drawn out wars were essentially wars between the superpowers being fought through flunkies. Vietnam lasted as long as it did because the North Vietnamese could count on the support of the USSR and China. Likewise, it was US support (oh bitter irony!) that kept the Afghans in the field against the Russians, not their own bravery or fighting spirit or the power of Allah or some friggin' figment of their imaginations. I'm not saying Afghanistan will be a pushover, but for crying out loud, they're not Caesar's Legions either.
09-17-2001, 08:04 PM
In all probability the United States and her Allies will emerge victorious from a conflict with Afghanistan. Whoopidy doo!!! The fight is not with Afghanistan , the fight is against terrorism. Terrorism is not a country , it is a term applied to any person or faction that uses "terror" to impose it's will. I seem to recall that a lot of respected Israeli politicians were once terrorists, or were they freedom fighters? We will be fighting a faceless enemy with nothing to lose but their lives, which they seem very willing to give.
You can bring all the nukes you like to this party folks, but i'm telling you, you will not win. Why? Go up to your attic and get that ricketty globe of yours. Look at it good, make a list of all the potential flashpoints around the World. There are an awful lot right? Alot of dissaffected people with a cause to fight for,and not a lot to lose. Are we going to take on all of these peoples also? Are we really going to rid the World of terrorism? I seriously doubt it. The only way to do that would be annihilation of the human race. Is that what you all want?
Tell me now "who wins wars". I'll give you the answer. Nobody wins wars.
09-17-2001, 08:27 PM
You have all made very valid points for and against a war. I can truthfully say that after working for the air force for the last nineteen years as a civilian, we would win. The country is more united than I have ever seen.
For those of you who prefer diplomatic moves, please remember that the allies tried to appease Hitler and look what happened !
I believe that the only thing these guys understand is force.
I honestly believe folks, that we are staring World War 3 straight in the face. So you might as well get ready for it.
I have friends on active duty that have already began to pack their bags !!! What does that tell ya ?
I myself have been told to prepare for twelve hour shifts.
All of these are signs of impending battle; And to think I just bought my retirement place on a pretty lake in Arkansas. Now I'll have to wait until this stuff is over.
Yes folks, believe it! Its just a matter of time now.
09-17-2001, 09:21 PM
......For Christ Sake People.....Can We Just Move On And Let Our Reliable Army Handle This Matter? Im Gettin Sick And Tired Of Everyone Obssesin' On This Shit......It Was Bad But Life Goes On! By Your Consistant Whining And Crying You Are Only Letting Them Win......So Just Shaddap Already And Lets Resume Normal Functions!
P.S. Everlast, Its Not That Bad.....Its Really Not, Jesus......LoL
09-17-2001, 11:13 PM
Several points to consider for all those trying to outdo one another by shouting loudest in favor of bombing immediately:
A: I do not believe that the lack of a visible response means that we have no response. One of the problems with Desert Storm was that the Iraqis watched CNN too. I believe that President George W. Bush is smart enough to limit what he tells the press. (This willingness to disabuse the media of the notion that they are the self-appointed Fourth Branch of Government that over-rules the other three is one the things I like most about him, from the way he referred to a self-important NY Times reporter as a "major asshole" during the campaign to telling pesky journalists to "shut up" in Spanish during the State Dinner for the Mexican President Vicente Fox.) It doesn't mean that the U.S. Joint Chiefs are hiding under the bed and whimpering for Mommy just because you haven't seen them on TV revealing Classified Military plans. Have a little confidence, please. Steps *are* being taken, and I somehow doubt that President Bush's highest priority is pleasing a bunch of guys on an Internet fetish chat board with no concept of spelling or grammar.
B: While it is unquestionable that we have the firepower to reduce the entire Middle East to a sheet of radioactive glass many times over, is that really the most efficient method? Sheer force of arms alone will not be sufficient to defeat terrorists, we must out-think them as well. Sure, we could make all you testoterone-poisoned guys happy and send tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan, but that will be a bit of a tip-off to the Taliban & Associates that we're on to them; and they'll skip town right quick to find another hidey-hole. All our troops are then left sitting in Afghanistan with nothing to blow up except random bystanders, essentially. Fat lot of good that will do, won't it? (Unless of course you think that genocide of the Arab peoples is a positive step, in which case I refuse to waste another word to educate you about the reality of the situation.) You go try and kill some fleas with a jackhammer, and then come back and talk about how easy it will be to eliminate terrorist groups through bombing alone. Brute force is worthless if you don't have a solid plan to direct it. And that plan will take time to put into motion. (The D-Day invasion of Normandy wasn't knocked together in an afternoon, you know.)
C: Nukes are not an option. Not even as a joke. This is mainly due to the fact that Afghanistan is nestled all snug in between Russia and China, neither of whom will be very tolerant of us tossing nuclear missiles at their general direction. Sure, they've both said they won't interfere in our pursuit of the terrorists, but all bets are off if a nuke misses Kabul and hits across the border in Commie-Country. Think, will you?
D: I firmly believe that the present appearance of inactivity is a calculated part of the plan. I believe that we are currently putting the squeeze on Pakistan and Iran in order to tighten the noose around the Taliban, so as to limit their choice of bolt-holes and prevent them from scattering when we do strike. For now, let them sweat a little. Let them be afraid of not knowing where they may be hit. Let their vigilance wear down, let them get complacent when they think the heat's coming off... and then move as quickly and effectively as possible to catch them unawares. Be patient, Ezekiel 25:17 time will come.
E: I also believe that conventional military forces are only a component of the response we will put together, perhaps not even a primary component at that. President Bush said as much today that this is unlike any war in America's history. There are no beaches to storm, no territory to conquer. I believe that Covert Ops units and small, almost guerilla-style commando raids of Terrorist facilities will be more important. I have heard reports that Bush is "considering" repealing the prohibition against assassination by U.S. Intelligence services. Given what I believe about Point A., I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA hit-spooks are already preparing for the mission.
F: Revenge is a dish best served cold. I know you're angry, but if we go running off half-cocked in a blind rage, without the slightest thought about how best to achieve our goals, we will only make costly mistakes. We can't afford that, considering that we aren't going to stop with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. The Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and the rest of their ilk, possibly even the regimes of Iraq, Iran, and Libya (Khadaffi's been quiet for a decade or so, but that doesn't mean he's behaving himself, see Point A...) are next in line. We can't use up all our materiel and and willpower on Afghanistan's resident evils; this must be a meticulously planned and methodically executed process if it to succeed. You owe it to your country to THINK! (If nothing else, learn to spell...)
09-17-2001, 11:24 PM
I agree that terrorism as a method will never be completely eradicated, but that isn't the point of this operation. The point is to eliminate the large, state-supported networks of terrorists. By making it too costly for "Rogue States" to harbor them and keep them on retainer, terrorist groups that survive will be forced to stay small in order to keep mobile. They will then be small enough that they can be dealt with by traditional Law Enforcement agencies. True, there will always be new groups of terrorists, but I look at it this way: Batman goes out and lays the smack down on criminals every night. Further, he concentrates on extraordinary menaces like the Joker, Two-Face and Mister Freeze so the the police are freed up to deal with mundane thieves and gangsters. But there are always more to thump the next night. Does he decide that his task is hopeless, and hang up his cape for good? No. He keeps doing it because it must be done to protect the innocent. That's the price to be paid for maintaining the safety of those who depend on him. That's pretty much what's going to go on here.
Are we supposed to say "Gosh, ,Mister bin Laden, you're a menace, but if we acted against you somebody else would only take your place. I guess it's useless to resist you. You win, I suppose. The keys to the White House are under the mat." No. He is a tyrant, and tyrants are to be opposed at all times.
Read my sig, it doesn't get any clearer than that.
09-17-2001, 11:24 PM
Hope you read my post on the other thread, Mad....we're obviously on the same wavelength regarding the way this war will be fought. The chats I've had with others on different international forums indicate exactly what we've both been speculating, namely that things ARE moving, and we are NOT being informed of many specific actions for reasons that were made clear in the Iraq conflict. (Although personally I wouldn't be surprised if we're leaking a bit of "dis-information"). The residents of many other countries are ASTOUNDED that Pakistan caved so completely, and in awe of the tough line our diplomats are currently taking with foreign governments. The information coming out of Germany in particular seems to indicate we are taking forceful action constantly overseas.
Nice overall evaluation of the strategic setup, but I think you should emphasize the key to this entire war will be IRAN...for a number of reasons. They currently have ties to nearly 60 % of all terrorist cells, including bases within their country. They are a traditional enemy of our old friend Iraq, and at one time were a VERY close ally of the USA. If their overtures of cooperation are valid, we stand an EXCELLENT chance of being able to cripple both terrorism and Saddam within a 2 year period...without them, it will be much more difficult, (not impossible), and would extend the front tremendously. I sincerely hope they are taking this opportunity to rejoin the democratic allied nations..... Q
09-18-2001, 12:34 AM
I think the pressure people are making toward nukes, or bombing in general, is subconsciously a hope that these weapons will make the war end quickly and neatly. For reasons expressed in much greater detail above, that's not going to happen, and it will be very counterproductive to say the least.
Keep in mind that after Pearl Harbor, there was ample public pressure to strike back at Japan immediately, but that the US was not in a position to do so. Not until at least the summer of 1942 was the US in a position to begin fighting a truly credible war in the Pacific, by which time the Japanese had overrun the Philippines, taken Wake Island, and taken Guam, and had every reason to believe they were winning the war against the US. The key is to win this thing, and as stated above it's likely going to be much more of a Special Ops war than a war where Tomahawk missiles put a nice quick finish to an easily definable enemy.
One minor quibble, however..."guys on a fetish board with BAD GRAMMAR"? Bite your tongue, Mad! I'll pit my grammatical skills against anyone who posts here, thank you! :)
09-18-2001, 02:35 AM
I don't think Mad was pointing his pen at you, Daumantas....BTW, hard to compare these 2 incidents, because the strike Japan launched was targeted at a military installation, and their intent was to cripple us in the event we did enter the war...which, as you observed, they accomplished, for a period of time at least. This latest attack is civilian in nature with only a foggy motive if any , and hasn't impacted our military readiness much at all.... Nukes would be a disaster, and likely open the door to biological retaliation at the very least, due to the fact that their delivery system for any nuclear weapons they may possess is vastly inferior to ours. I think we'd be best off not touching that box marked "Pandora". Q
09-18-2001, 11:30 AM
Well, this is my first time postng anything in this area. The reason for that is, i imagine, basically because i'm Canadian. I admit i'm greatly saddend by what has happened to the United state's, and there is no doutd that it is a horrible Tragedy. I know that this tragedy will have reprocussions around the world and has touched many people. But i know my feelings are some what different to a point, or atleast not as strong as the Americans.
Not because i dislike the united states or it's people, but because it's in another country. I don't know anybody who was hurt, and i have no family up there. The next day, i neither saw the rubble or the sight of rescue workers. It was for all purposes, with the exception of the new's over the radio, a reguler day for me.
Before you judge me to harshly, ask yourselves, how many times you have heard of innocent people being killed in the news? How many times have you heard of innocent people being bombed, then cried tears of blood for them? for those of you who have, i applaud your empathy. Your kind will be the way of the future. For those who haven't i suppose your like me. A person, who unless directly involved, see's it as still as a great tragedy, but has a certain degree of detachment, or less emotional involvement.
Or Perhaps i have just been using that as some sort of twisted comfort. The fact that it IS another country and not my own. Perhaps that has placed me in some sort of denial. If it were my own i'm sure i would feel different. Perhaps other poeple from other Countries would know what i mean. I don't know if that makes me a bad person. Something i've been asking myself whenever the topic comes up. In time i hope i find the answer.
The only reason i'm posting on this particuler post is, unlike the others that seem to only direct to America to some point, a war would include everybody. I just thought i would bring up a few scary thoughts i've been having.
A) first of, terrism isn't a war we can win. It never will be. As somebody in this thread pointed out, as long as there are unhappy people in the world, terrism will exist. It's really as simple as that. We can close up the border's to our countries and not let anybody in, and have constant boat and airship patrol's over our countires, but really, if there's a will, there will be a way. Perhap's not all the time, but it only takes one careless person to cause such disaster. Sure, we can kill hundred's of thousand's of people, but will it actually do anything, or will it simply leave more terrorists in it's wake with simply nothing to loose anymore?
B) Bin Ladon. Now, this has pretty much became the assumption of the world who did it. and it certainly does point towards him, although i admit i haven't heard a deffinit yes or no as to whether it actually was him. Until then, i will keep my mind open to other possibilities. The simple facvt about this man, other then the fact that he seem's both intelegent and patient, is that he's a religious leader. Now, many might not think much of that, but from what i can tell it also means his follower's are religiouse fanatics. This put's them in a different place then the average soldier, espicially when you figure that they've been trained in Terrism tactics for a long time. Religiouse fanatics are willing to die as easily as they are willing to pick up there gun. That little fact, in itself, is scary.
C) Nukes. Now, that is a word that is very scary, just by itself. The fact that there are so many of them is even scarier. And finally, the thought of a religiouse Fanatc with a nuke, is probably the scarriest thought of all. I'd be willing to put down money that the US won't use Nukes. For a lot of reasons. Good Reasons. I think all of them have pretty much been said already in the forum. now, Bin Laden on the other hand, would have none of those problems. hopefully though, he doesn't have any.
D) Another point that nobody has brought up yet is the posibility of Chemical weapons. Now, i'm not sure where i heard it, but i do remember hearing that they've been working on chemical weapons over there for some time now. The last thing i want is this world becoming an episode of "The Stand".
So, the question is, where do i stand? Do i believe that there should be a war? No. A war, by any justifications, is still a war. And you can be sure that there will be many more dead people before it's over. Should it be just let be then? No. Not for vengenace though. But because of what else Bin Laden is capable of doing. a men like him, with his abilities, is a scary thought.
My solution? That's a tricky question. In my opinion, the focus should be on capturing Bin Laden, not on seeing how many Afganistans we can kill. Some might agree with me, but i know there are other's out there who just want to destroy Afganistan totally. Violence breeds violence, vengence breeds vengence. It is a viciouse cycle that can become very strong very fast.
If you blow up afganistand, what's to stop Mr Akbar, whose been working in the Nuclear plant for the last twenty years and is a model Employ, from snapping when he finds out his family, which had nothing to do with the destruction of the world trade center or the pentagon, and simply coming in one day and pressing a few wrong buttoms? (I know i'm over simplifying there, but you get the point)
I have said everything i have had to say. Perhaps what i have said, some people will not like. That is up to them, i never posted with the intention of upsetting people. I have spoken what i believe is the truth, and i have put a great deal of thought and time into this post. My opinion may change, just like anybody elses. Some may wonder why i posted this. I could have simple planted my reasons, A-D, against war. It would have been a great deal easier and less time consuming. It certainly wasn't to become more populer, and in fact it may very well cost me friends and respect that i have made on this forum. For some reason though, i felt the need to type this. Perhaps this is my own way of coping, of dealing with the insanity that threatens to take hold of us all. I will let the American people be my judge, and if they feel the need, my executioner.
09-18-2001, 02:23 PM
Cosmo, why would you think we would go crazy because you posted an opinion? Many of your points are consistent with thoughts we have already expressed...mainly that it is to our shame that we (USA) had to wait until we were the victims of horror before declaring war on this Evil. Absolutely agreed that when something happens in another land, it doesn't have the same impact. That said, we will still wipe this scourge from the face of the earth, because it what we HAVE to do now, to honor our fallen citizens, and because this quality is perhaps uniquely American (nah,....we just are pissed off right now), we will be very THOROUGH in doing the job. Yup,...there WILL still be terrorists in the future, but they won't be as well funded or have so many places to train or hide. Our goal is to reduce them to impotent little whispers in the wind of a free world, a pest that will be swatted every time it sticks its tiny little ugly visage into our view. The world will need to be vigilant, and never allow these demons to grow so strong and bold ever again, and that is the new price that must be paid for our glorious way of living....
Obviously we are all concerned about biological weaponry and other subversive tactics, and we have the resources to minimize these problems by not letting them have a safe place to manufacture this crap and the ability to easily transport it in whatever form. If you're looking for absolute safety or a guarantee, I'd suggest checking out some home appliances.....but we CAN win this war, and we WILL shove these idiots back into hiding under rocks and muttering threats into their shoes...count on it. Q
09-18-2001, 04:42 PM
I believe you and LordProtector are on the same page according to your opinion sub-divided "B".
What I interpret is that he is looking at the bigger picture where nobody actually "wins" a war. A phylosophical view if you will. And as you pointed out, strategy and not just brute force will prove most efficient in our retaliation.
Anyway, this is just my interpretation of LordProtector. I could be way off!
I do agree with the bit about spelling and grammar, but nobody needs to bother with that here. A reader can pretty much make out the general idea of the post for the most part. Your posts and my posts included...lol. Oh I do miss the days when the TMF had "spell-check"!
09-18-2001, 11:13 PM
I agree with LordProtector in that the coming conflict will depend on Strategy and Stealth far more than it will on Strength, true. I was just disputing his claim that terrorism will exist as long as humanity does so therefore hope is somehow inappropriate.
Sure, we'll have terrorism as long as we have people. We'll also always have hate, fear, stupidity, and selfishness as well. These things are a part of humanity that will never be entirely stamped out of our genes. But (and this is a very big but) they must always be opposed whenever they arise. The struggle against them is what makes us human. We will always have them lurking in the shadow of our collective unconscious, but that does not mean that they will rule us.
I rarely do this, but I must quote Captain James T. Kirk from the episode "Arena": "I come from a race of killers... but I choose not to kill today."
And as for the spelling issue, I just think that if you're going to call for something as serious as reducing a man and his nation to glow-in-the-dark sand, you have a responsibility to get the names correct. Otherwise, the innocent Mr. "Van Ladien" of "Aficanston" is in for a nasty wake-up call. ;P
(At ease, Daumantas. Qjakal's right in that I'm not aiming at you. From what little I recall of one of your Nylon Dungeon stories, your grammar was impeccable... At least, I think it was, as I was too disturbed by the misogyny to check for subject/verb agreement. No offense meant, though, it's just that I get deeply upset at depictions of the whole "pleasure slave" thing. I'm sure you're a great seafood chef, but I'm allergic to shellfish, you know?)
09-19-2001, 09:10 AM
Wasn't "Mr. Van Ladien" in an episode of "The Outer Limits"? LOL
09-19-2001, 10:10 AM
So far so good.
War is a serious matter, as we all know and a little light heartedness never hurts. Thank you guys for the comic relief in some of your posts (it's always appreciated).
I hope no one is offended by this post. Such serious discussions sometimes need to be depressurized. I just wanted to say thanks for the wink and the elbow poke.
Getting back to the subject, I have to also say that Mad makes a big pont when he says that our government is taking steps in response to the terrorist attack, we just may not see it reported on CNN. A good strategic move is to not make your plans known (public) so that you still have the element of "Surprise" on your side.
Whether we realize it or not, I'm willing to bet that covert operations still get carried out by the government, but when uncovered they will not hesitate to negate everything. Just something to keep in mind. The public does not like to be kept in the dark, but sometimes it's for the best.
I don't say this out of a crazy notion, I say this because I have a Military background and "know" this happens for a fact. :cool: Fellow Vets can vouch for me on this.
09-19-2001, 02:14 PM
You would normally be absolutely correct MM (as always), but in this case I think we need to differentiate between tactics and overall strategy. The operation is going to be different indeed, as a few of us have previously discussed, but I think our overall "strategy" is right out front...."We are going to find these terrorist cells and dismantle them....if you choose to stand in our way, you and your country do so at your peril." The element of surprise is always on the side of the offense in any conflict, so that remains stable throughout this campaign. Our preparations, which allow us to bring maximum "effective" force to bear upon our first target also allow them some time to fortify, although I think they're kidding themselves...these idiots in Pakistan waving anti-USA signs will melt away rapidly when the first Battleship/ Carrier combo comes over the horizon. Anyway, each of our objectives will require a different "set" of tactics and preparation, but our overall strategy isn't actually based on any surprise, but rather the superiority of our army, our motivation and morale, and the support we SHOULD receive from our allies. I'm still hopeful that we can sway Iran out of the dark ages they have been trapped in and back into the community of freedom and human rights. We're nowhere near perfect, but at least we seem to be on a highway that's traveling towards a goal. Trying to picture an appropriate flag for the future TMF Union that I'm visualizing....perhaps crossed handcuffs on a field of feathers? ;) Q
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.