Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is War The Right Answer? (con't From CivAv)  
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

Right, I am opening this up to continue a discussion which is here - http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/597595/, and have it in the correct forum. Anyway, here is my continuation

Tsully

I respect your opinion, however I think that you have missed what I was getting at. Diplomatic pressure is by no means the be all and end all, but it must be a part of a response.

They wanted a world war and a war they shall have

Why give into them? Why give them what they want. That strikes me as a very unwise thing to do.

until every last terrorist is hung by his ear and his throat slit

Um, if we go out bloodthirsty like this, then we are really no better than the terrorists. We have to say that we are better than this. We have to say that these people may be murders, but we are not, and they are not going to make us become murderers.

We unanimously KNOW they are guilty

Perhaps, however, America prides itself on being the land of Freedom and Liberty. Part of that is being "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". If that is suspended, then Freedom and Liberty are being eaten away, which is exactly what these people want. Sorry, but I could not stand the thought that these evil people actualy got America to do exactly what they want.

For instance, if I want to fly an American flag from my cubicle at work and it offends the Iranian in the next cubicle over, too damn bad. Pack up your turban and go back to Tehran.

You have every right to fly the flag. If the Iranian next to you doesn't like it, thats his bad luck, he is living in America. I agree with you here, but please dont go on with 'Pack up your turban and go back to Tehran'. Instead of being isolationist, people must learn to work together. Perhaps this means that Mr Iranian tells you he dislikes you having the flag there, you tell him that its your desk, and the flag of the nation, and that its your right to have it there, just as much as it is his right to have whatever he wants on his desk.

The American justice system, such that it is, is too lenient

Perhaps. Though I am not so certain how lenient a country that allows the deth penalty is. The point is, sentencing needs to be fair. In the case of Bin Laden, if found guilty (as more than likely he would be), the sentence must be imprisonment with no possibility of release, on an island (much the way that Napoleon Bonaparte was finaly exiled on St Helena). This is a much more positive move than killing him. It may cost more, but he isnt a martyr any more, he is a failure. I think that sending the message that terrorists are failures, not martyrs, is worth any ammount of money.

However, while imprisonment could be handled by the US, the trial should not. For a start, I seriously doubt a fair trial could occur with any American (or conversly with any Teleban supporter). A trial should occur in the Hague. An international terrorism court should be set up for cases such as this, showing international resolve. It should be an arm of the United Nations, but should be given scope to do what it sees fit, without being held down by beurocracy like many UN efforts.

So, (and you'll have to read my post in the previous post to fully understand this), we can't just go in all guns blazing. Bin Laden must be brought to justice and trial, alive, so that he can be shown for the coward and murderer he is, and shamed on the international stage. Not simply killed and turned into some martyr for fundamentalists for the next thousand years.

I welcome your comments on this issue

V/F

I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it


"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

OK, I'll be up-front. I haven't read that thread. I simply do not have the time. But I am sure that the topic of this thread accurately describes the discussion at hand. Here goes...

First off, of course war is the right answer.

An act of war was committed on the United States of America. Such attacks do NOT go unpunished; they never have in our history and hopefully never will be. Our very first priority is hunting down and attacking whatever and whoever did this. Now, we know Osama bin Lauden is involved, of course. We can go in after him. But, a larger question is if the Taliban was involved as well and if the Taliban is harboring bin Lauden. If the answer to either of those questions is in the affirmative, then a retaliatory strike, whether by land or air, is not only warranted, but necessary.

As to the people who 'want to bring bin Lauden to justice,' I ask, where is your brain? First, usually we bring ciminals to justice. Yes, bin Lauden is a criminal, BUT this attack was not of criminal nature, but an act of war. We should treat it as such and respond with the full force of our armed forces. We must eliminate bin Lauden and dismantle his network.

Another problem with 'bringing him to justice' is the retaliation. Woohoo, we have bin Lauden in prison. Now what? Well, brace for some sort of retaliatory attack for holding him-- you think his people will just give up? Absolutely not... we must cut the head off of the snake.

Anyway, with the Brits helping us out (our eternal thanks to you), this should come to a positive conclusion. God bless America and help our armed forces resolve the situation and prevent further attacks on civilization.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Yes, bin Lauden is a criminal, BUT this attack was not of criminal nature, but an act of war.

Sorry, but no. What was perpetrated was a highly visible act of mass murder. It was a shocking crime, but it is not an act of war unless America wants to turn it into that by retaliation. I for one think that is a road America should not go down.

Another problem with 'bringing him to justice' is the retaliation. Woohoo, we have bin Lauden in prison. Now what? Well, brace for some sort of retaliatory attack for holding him-- you think his people will just give up? Absolutely not... we must cut the head off of the snake.

I am sorry, but I am going to have to disagree with you there. The risk of retaliation is much greater if military strikes are launched. Putting him in prison may anger Al Qaeda people. Launching an assault against a Muslim nation will not only anger Al Qaeda, but a large number of Muslims around the world. Simply put, the idea that war will prevent retaliation is preposterous! Its not a matter of cutting the head off the snake. This 'snake' doesn't have a single head. It has many. Cut one off, and another will take its place. Cut the leading head off, and another will rise to the occaision. Terorism will be a tough one to root out, there will be many heads to cut off. Are we going to go to war with that many different people, or are we going to place them on trial - that is the question.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

>I for one think that is a road America should not go down.

Well, that is easy for you to say in your comfortable little New Zealand. We have had 7000 people killed. Over 250,000 people have lost their jobs over this. We are minus two office buildings and our main military headquarters was attacked! You DARE tell us not to retaliate?!

>The risk of retaliation is much greater if military strikes are launched

Well, I am hearing now that whatever we do, the chance of additional attacks is 90-100%.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

I want to add something else. Many people feel their nation and their way of life has been struck a nasty blow by evil people, who have committed terrible acts of murder. They KNOW this to be true, because their newsmedia tells them so. These people are now baying for the blood of the people who are in anyway involved in these awful crimes.

Lets reverse the tables for a second. Imagine for now that you are a follower not of America, but of Islamic fundamentalism. You have seen your people downtrodden and killed by states that are supported by the USA. The USA is the cause of trouble in your area of the world, interfering where they are not wanted. They are the cause of your problems. You KNOW this is true because this is what you have been told by the people you trust. So you bay for the blood of these evil Americans, and get it when 6000 of them are killed by commercial airliners flown by heros.

Now, I am not calling Americans angry at what happened terrorists, but before you go out baying for the blood of everyone wearing a turban (refer to the previous thread), just stop and think about that for a second. If you go out supporting fighting and violence, are you really any better than the terrorists? I hope this doesnt cause offence to anyone, because that is not what I intend. I simply want to piut the whole thing into an objective view for a moment.

Thanks

V/F

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineDasa From East Timor, joined Aug 2001, 760 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Well said, VirginFlyer. I have to say that I agree with VirginFlyer on this one. We shouldn't be looking to fight more wars, rather we should be looking to prevent them... I don't agree with George W. Bush's administration as I think he is just a bit too conservative and war-hungry to lead a country... But.. if he does go ahead with war, what are we to do about it?

User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Well, I am hearing now that whatever we do, the chance of additional attacks is 90-100%

Well, what exactly did you mean to prove by saying putting him in custody will cause retaliation.

Well, that is easy for you to say in your comfortable little New Zealand. We have had 7000 people killed. Over 250,000 people have lost their jobs over this. We are minus two office buildings and our main military headquarters was attacked! You DARE tell us not to retaliate?!

Just because I am from New Zealand doesn't mean that I have no idea of how things work. Don't be so presumtuous! I am aware you have had almost 6000 (lets not bring on media sensationalism here!) people killed, and that is absolutely terrible. 250,000 are out of work, and that is no good either. But that doesn't make it right to go out and kill more people. The cycle has to be broken somewhere, otherwise it will simply escalate, and more Americans will be killed, more Muslims killed in reprisal, more Americans killed in reprisal, and so on. Mahatma Gandhi said it best: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". Now, if people could come away from the crazy idea that they have to retaliate like school children, and instead searched for justice and fairness, then we war would be a much less common occurence. If America were to set this example, it would be a great leap forward for humanity, and proof that the American Dream lives on.

Now, I am not 'daring' to tell you not to retaliate. I am simply expressing how I feel. I truly feel that retaliation would be a very bad move. But I am not telling you to do anything. It is up to America as a whole to make that choice, and I just hope that they make the right one, whatever that is.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Dasa - write letters to your state and federal government expressing how you feel. Write also to the American Ambassidor and Consuls. Get as many other people as you can to do the same. One person may not be able to do much, but if a great number of people do, the message will get accross. Every little bit will help. Great to hear someone else against war - i was getting worried I'd be the only one!

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineCPDC10-30 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 4781 posts, RR: 23
Reply 8, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1439 times:

War isn't the right answer, but it is the only answer. What else can be done? Simply ask bin Laden to show up at a checkpoint so he can be taken to the Hague for a tribunal in the international court or something? Of course that won't happen.

Attacks on Afghanistan will cause more attacks on America. But as I've said before, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't...and the cycle has to end at some point and that is likely with the removal of the Taleban regime.

N400QX, we already know that the Taleban have been supporting bin Laden, more than just allowing him to set up his training camps. They've turned him into an icon. However, the US has to assume at least a vestige of responsibility, having supplied arms and money to the predecessors of the Taleban rulers.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

I'm no fan of Bush, but he has not just lashed out. He is clearly listening to wiser members of his administration.
I suspect all the motley bunch of 'anti-capatalist, anti-NATO, pro-Communist protestors are a bit disappointed that the US did not lash-out blindly after the attacks. Hence their rather muted response.
Sept. 11th happened because of intelligence failures, good to see the US and it's real allies not repeating that in their response.
The US policy towards Israel under Bush was, IMHO,
wrong-headed, until Sept 11th. But now that idiot Sharon has spat his bile at Israel's main ally, that will surely change. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
However, Bin Ladens group was bombing and murdering US citizens, and whoever got in the way, when the US was fully engaged in the peace-process. The last thing Bin Laden wants is peace in the Mid. East.
We are dealing with fanatics here, who hate the West, all of the West, US, European, Aussies, Kiwis, the lot.
They hate YOUR freedoms, your lifestyles.
They live by events hundreds of years ago, they only understand force.
We must, and I think we will be, careful. But firm.
The Taliban are the most vile. disgusting regime in the world. They have supported terrorism, been funded by Heroin smuggling, however much they may deny it now.
Ridding the world of them would be a positive to the long-suffering Afgans.
You cannot have religeous fanatics and zealots, of ANY faith, creating war and havoc in the 21st Century.



User currently offlineFlyBoeing From United States of America, joined May 2000, 866 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1427 times:

No American deserves to live in a world where terrorism and not democracy affects his life. We're not breaking the cycle of violence here because FOR GOD'S SAKE WE'RE KILLING COMBATANTS! We are better than they are. Let's just get that right on the table. When America makes war, it only tries to kill combatants. We go to pretty darned long lengths to only kill those who are responsible for disturbing the world peace. Look at our actions in Kosovo. Look at how we dealt with Iraq. Look at how our media castigated Clinton when a bomb went off target and killed a convoy of refugees. When we do this we damned well regret that we killed civilians.

And now we go to war against al-Qaeda. We go to war not to kill them symbolically - if we wanted to do that we could just manufacture bodies right on demand. We want America to live free. Yes, there will be more casualties, foreign and domestic. But there is a price to pay so that we can live free.

Would there be more casualties even if we didn't fight this war? Absolutely. Just because 2,400 people died at Pearl Harbor does not mean we have to forego further death and destruction in the name of defending our way of life. Part of that is spreading our way of life - democracy, rule of law, and freedom of speech - to the rest of the world so they don't see us as a threat any more. Another part of that is active defense. Terror is a threat to democracy, not to America. And democracy is greater than Islamic fundamentalism.

There is no "cycle of violence" here. We're not engaged in a clash of civilizations here. We haven't issued a fatwa to kill civilians and Muslims because we aren't interested in fighting perpetual war - we're interested in ending the threat to democracy. We're engaged in acts of rational self-defense.

We have to take a stand here and honestly say that there are some things that are good. One of them is a life free of fear. No American is to blame for the bad things that have happened. And no ideology is worth killing for. The only ideology that is worth defending is the freedom to have beliefs.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 11, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1426 times:

GDB - I think to the most part you are right. I have been very impressed by the way George Bush has gone about this - much better than I would have expected. I think Colin Powell has handled it well, as has Tony Blair. My only hope is that reason prevails, and this doesnt descend into war, which some people - including those on the thread that spawned this one - have been calling for, but which luckily Bush, Blair and Co seem to be very weary of. Still, I think President Bush's "Wanted Dead or Alive" comment was a bit unfortunate - not really the right message to be sending if you ask me. I agree with you so much when you say "You cannot have religeous fanatics and zealots, of ANY faith, creating war and havoc in the 21st Century", and I think thats why we need to be careful that what happens to Bin Laden and the Taliban is not a war, but justice. Hopefully this will set a precident for not just the 21st century, but all of mankind's future, where Justice, Compassion and Sensibility will win out over Unfairness, Brutality and Bloody-mindedness.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineIainhol From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1421 times:

You have to put a stop to such act and organizations, how do you do that?? We have to stick to our guns, look at what the Taliban has said.
1)We do not know where he is
2)If you prove he is at fault then we will give him up
3)We are hiding him for his security
4)If you prove he is behind this we will try him in an Afgan court.

You see they are wanting to to discuss, they know the US really does not want war, so the longer they hold off the more peace supporters will be pressuring the gov. This type of act has to stop, if it can be done peacefully and stick to the US demands I support it 100% but with the people we are against they want to play games, which means war is the only way!
Iain


User currently offlineTsully From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 651 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

For the benefit of those who didn't read my original post in the General Aviation Forum, here it is. In fact, the entire thread I started over there, entitled "An Invitation From Boeing" has been removed. I knew the administration of this site is too damn sensitive to bin laden bashing. They are POOR moderators of this site. They run it like a communist establishment. "An Invitation From Boeing" was in no way violating forum rules. But they didn't like it so they deleted it.

Anyway, here is my original post which started this debate:

++++++++++

VirginFlyer wrote:

What needs to be done must be done through diplomatic pressure.

Sorry, but I categorically disagree with you on this point.

Diplomatic pressure is utterly ineffective in drastic times like this. We must act swiftly, fiercely, and never look back.

I do not support the malicious killing of innocent afghanis (sounds like an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) but I will not condemn military action on grounds it could risk innocent afghan lives. That is the price of war. Ugly S.O.B. this whole war thing is, isn't it?

They wanted a war and a war they shall have. We are jumping full-body into this ugly caldron of terrorism, which means we cannot pull out until every last terrorist is hung by his ear and his throat slit - butchered in a manner befitting the animals they are. Then and only then can we rest.

It may be the “American Way” to try the accused before convicting them, but in the case of terrorism, what facts must we try? We know what they are about, what they do and what they want. And we unanimously KNOW they are guilty. I for one am not fond of the notion of bringing bin laden and his boys to America to be tried and put in prison for the next 480 years at the expense of us taxpayers.


The American justice system, such that it is, is too lenient. Way too bloody lenient. With organizations like the ACLU, bin laden would likely get off the death penalty, claiming it would "violate his religion" or other cockamamie idea. The problem in America is that we are too sensitive to things we need not give a damn about. For instance, if I want to fly an American flag from my cubicle at work and it offends the Iranian in the next cubicle over, too damn bad. Pack up your turban and go back to Tehran.

Now that I have digressed miserably, let me just say that in bringing the terrorists here, to America, for justice would simply result in a lessening of their sentences, compliments of the ACLU or other liberal B.S. organization.

Only in America can a serial killer like Charles Manson turn into a music icon.

Sickening but reality. Better we kill these bastards before they get into America.

I respect you as an individual, just not your view on this matter.


Go ahead folks, have at me... I've just opened myself up for criticism, but I'll take it with a grain of salt.



I love America. I guess that makes me Bush's poodle, but I'd rather be a dog in New York City than a prince in Riyadh.
User currently offline174thfwff From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1406 times:

We better attack, I lost 8 very good friends, almost second fathers to me. My brother firefighters were lost. You tell us not to attack.

ALL TREE HUGGERS DON'T WANT WAR, UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THEM OR THERE FAMILY!

Thses terrorists have been causing too much pain too long, and we need to stop them now!


User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 25
Reply 15, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1405 times:

We've all heard the following saying...

"Give peace a fighting chance."

Well what if we need of fight to achieve a long lasting peace?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

>I am aware you have had almost 6000 (lets not bring on media sensationalism here!) people killed

Sorry-- math error on my part... 5000 missing, nearly 700 confirmed dead in WTC and Pentagon, plus the 300 or so on the aircraft....

>The cycle has to be broken somewhere, otherwise it will simply escalate, and more Americans will be killed, more Muslims killed in reprisal, more Americans killed in reprisal, and so on.

And that is where you are wrong. You say the cycle must be broken-- well if we DON'T attack, WE will keep being attacked. To end the cycle, we must retaliate.

>Just because I am from New Zealand doesn't mean that I have no idea of how things work

Thats not what I meant. I meant that you, in New Zealand, do not know what it has been like to have two sites on your soil attacked, including the MILITARY NERVE CENTER! You have no right to tell us not to retaliate!

FlyBoeing-- you're right on.. 100% correct. So are you, Tsully.


Well, anyway, SecDef Rumsfeld is back from the theatre-- looks like the Operation will begin by Monday. Our prayers to the members of our armed forces that are in the region protecting their nation... Godspeed.


User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

Let me say one thing right now.

THERE WILL BE NO WAR.

War is a term that is being used to sensationalise what will actually be a series of surgical military strikes to get Bin Laden and perhaps a number of Taliban officials along the way.




Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1374 times:

It's all well and good, VirginFlyer and Dasa, to lecture the US that war isn't the answer, but when the other side has said their stated intention is to kill every American-civilian or military-that it can, anywhere, anyhow, any way, what do you say to THEM? Why don't you stop lecturing the US long enough to notice that the other side isn't interested in negotiations or U.N. Resolutions. All they understand is force. You cannot negotiate nor compromise with people who are willing to hijack airplanes, and send them hurtling at 350mph into 100-story skyscrapers, or into the heart of a nations Capitol. That's where you guys are wrong.

But you won't outright condemn this fucker Bin Laden nor these new-age Fascists called the Taliban, because you know they don't give a damn and won't listen, where if you at least vent your anger at America, your voice, no matter now wrong it may be, might be heard.

To this moment, the US has not fired a single shot in this new-aged war. The Bush Administration, for all your histronics over how war-hungry it is, has shown great restraint, and great care in presenting it's case to the world community of nations. In this country, that's called putting all your duck in a row. Yet despite the fact we've fired no shots, and have shown such restraint, people like you, and idiots like ADG, Airmale and Indianguy always pounce like a KKK lynching mob upon the US any chance you get.

Well, the time for talk is over, and this is one "moderate" (liberal in Zach,s eyes, I know. Haha), that says the time for just talking is over. While diplomacy has a place-and will continue to have a very important place in this quest against terror-it is time to seek out. hunt down, and eliminate these monstors of terrorism. Maybe you in your pacifistic ways would try to negotiate with someone after they killed upwards of 5000 of your fellow countrymen, but Americans aren't like that, as Japan found out after Dec 7th, 1941. As my President, George W. Bush has said, "Time is running out". I stand behind him, my brothers and sisters in our Armed Forces, and those allies who aren't blind fools like some of the crowd on this board.

I'm 40 years old as of this week, so the time where I could serve in the military has long past. But if given the chance to serve in the Armed Forces, I'd gladly give up my life to make sure the likes of a Bin Laden are erased from this earth, and to avenge the deaths of my countrymen, who died for no better reason than someone hated the ideals their country stands for. Zach, we're brothers-in-arms on this issue. The time for talk is over; the time for evening the score is fast approaching.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

And AerLingus, I have to respectfully disagree with you. This will be a war: it will be long, it will be, at times bloody. It will probably start in Afghanistan, and God knows where else it will lead. I believe it will lead to the ouster of the Taliban, and will, in time, lead to a full-scale invasion of Iraq to get rid, once and for all of Saddam Hussein.

As for you folks who bemoan the fact that the US might kill innocent civilians in the process, well, guess what? That's what happens in war. Seems to me the other side is ahead in the killing of innocents like 6000 to 0. That doesn't mean we'll target civilians, like these creeps do, but more civilians will die-in the Arab world, in Israel, in Europe, and in the US. For all I know, I could be a victim of this war. It will be a world war, of sorts-not the way WW II was, but it will have global dimensions. YOu can bury your head in the sand, but that's what going to happen. The next 5 years or so will be one of war. And it's a war I support.


User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1370 times:

Alpha 1... I don't know if I have ever agreed with you more. You are exactly correct. We not only have the RIGHT to go to war, we have the OBLIGATION to go to war. Wow... I agree with you so much, I don't know what else to say!  Big grin

Anyway, if this gets big--as it very well might--and eventually extends to getting Hussein (which should have happened already, but Bush41 didn't push for it), I'd change my life plans in a heartbeat. Come my 18th birthday, I may join the ranks of the United States Armed Forces. I am not very fond of the military life, but I guess my nation's needs override my own wants.

There WILL be war. There MUST be war. We WILL win.


User currently offlineN400QX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1362 times:

And the war is in progress as we speak...

From what I have heard, we have eliminated their "air force" and many air bases, as well as the defense ministry in Kabul and other various military targets. SecDef Rumsfeld said B-1, B-2, B-52, and US and Royal Navy ships were used in the attack. Big-time thanks to those B-2 pilots who flew non-stop from the Midwest to Afghanistan... great job guys.

Oh, and fighter cover has be reinstated over Seattle... probably won't make us any safer, but it is a nice show of force and makes us civilians feel better.

Please keep the President, SecDef, Joint Chiefs, and our troops in your thoughts and prayers. God bless America.


User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4574 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Tbar220 wrote Well what if we need of fight to achieve a long lasting peace?

I fear that you could be right on that count. I'll get to that once I reply to a few other comments.

N400QX wrote You say the cycle must be broken-- well if we DON'T attack, WE will keep being attacked. To end the cycle, we must retaliate.


Sorry, but I have to disagree here. If violence is fought with violence, then there is a cycle of violence, with attacks, counter attacks, counter counter attacks and so on. It is my firm belief that we need to fight this violence with Justice, not with more violence. Sadly, it appears that there may need to be some form of attack before Justice is possible. As with the previous comment, I will get onto that shortly.

Thats not what I meant. I meant that you, in New Zealand, do not know what it has been like to have two sites on your soil attacked, including the MILITARY NERVE CENTER!

No, we have never been attacked, however I know people who lived through the Second World War, and knew exactly what it was like to be captured as a prisoner of war in Singapore, or to sit in shelters as bombs rained down on whole cities. Perhaps these don't mean that much to you, but they do to me, and it sickens me that some people (no one on this thread, but the sick images posted in the previous one are a good example) try to glorify war. There is nothing glorious about killing someone, regardless of who it is that is being killed.

Alpha1 wrote All they understand is force. You cannot negotiate nor compromise with people who are willing to hijack airplanes, and send them hurtling at 350mph into 100-story skyscrapers, or into the heart of a nations Capitol.

I beg to differ. The Teleban were slow to negotiate, however they were showing signs on Saturday of perhaps coming to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, there will be no chance of that now that America has attacked. I think it is a terrible shame that America and her allies were not more patient, though I DO understand how their patience was worn thin.

To this moment, the US has not fired a single shot in this new-aged war. The Bush Administration, for all your histronics over how war-hungry it is, has shown great restraint, and great care in presenting it's case to the world community of nations. In this country, that's called putting all your duck in a row. Yet despite the fact we've fired no shots, and have shown such restraint, people like you, and idiots like ADG, Airmale and Indianguy always pounce like a KKK lynching mob upon the US any chance you get.

Well, thats no longer the case, but since you wrote that before, I will reply in that frame. I am happy that Bush and Co showed great restraint - its just a shame, as I said, that they could not have restrained for say another week. I OBJECT to being compared to the KKK lynching someone. I have no intention of lynching the US. I am by no means anti-US, in fact I believe very much in the United States of America. What I am against is a war prosecuted by the USA against Afganistan.

It will probably start in Afghanistan, and God knows where else it will lead. I believe it will lead to the ouster of the Taliban, and will, in time, lead to a full-scale invasion of Iraq to get rid, once and for all of Saddam Hussein.

A full scale invasion of Iraq? How many American lives will be lost doing that? How many innocent Iraqis will be killed in the heat of war. Most importantly - how many of its mid-east Allies will the USA lose by commiting such an unprevoked act (The Gulf War is over. Iraq has not attacked the USA in such a way to warrant a full scale invasion since. A full scale invasion would be an initial act, not a retaliatory one). If you seriously think this is a good idea, I suggest you check as to what happened in Vietnam. America does not need another Vietnam, and definitely should not WANT one...

That's what happens in war. Seems to me the other side is ahead in the killing of innocents like 6000 to 0. That doesn't mean we'll target civilians, like these creeps do, but more civilians will die-in the Arab world, in Israel, in Europe, and in the US.

Please don't tell me that you are counting. This isnt a video game. You don't get an extra life if you kill 10,000. It disturbs me very much that you seem to see this as some sort of game, which the USA is losing because it has not killed enough innocent civillians. If Justice is brought about in a peaceful manner, no more civilians have to fall victim to this.

N400QXwrote There WILL be war. There MUST be war. We WILL win.

There didn't have to be a war at all. The only reason there WILL be a war is because people go in with closed minds, refusing to accept anything other than more killing.

Now that I have addressed those points, I would like to say again that I believe the right way for Terrorism to occur is not through military attack that kills the Terrorists and the Teleban among others, but through the prosecution of these people in Courts of Law. Justice, not War. However, I am would like to clarify the difference between precise military strikes and an all out war.

What appears to be occuring now is the former, precision strikes taking out Teleban military hardware that would pose a threat to any one operating in Afganistan, be they Humanitarian, Law Enforcement, or Military. These strikes do not appear to be aimed against civilian infrastructure or the civilian population.

All out war is the other alternative, which means heavy bombing raids on Afganistan to destroy everything, civilian or military. This means soldiers going in, and killing Afghani males over the age of 18 because they are potential combatants, regardless of whether they are military or civilian. In such situations, regarldess of how high you believe the army's morals to be, attrocities against civilians will occur. It happened in the Second World War. It happened in Korea. It happened in Vietnam, and it happened in the Gulf. It will happen again if there is an all out war againt Afganistan, mark my words. Human nature is very difficult to change. An all out war will result in high casualties on both sides. And, as evidenced by the Vietnam experience, America has no guarantee that it can win an all out war.

So, as you have probably gathered, I am VERY much opposed to the idea of an 'all out war'. The very prospect is wholly unnaceptable in the modern world. HOWEVER, if precision attacks are necessary to ensure the safety of civilians and humanitarian, law-enforcement, peace-keeping and special forces personnel, then so be it. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and I am not blind, so I would support such action. However, the aim of such action should be just that - to ensure the safety of the aforementioned five groups. The strikes should not be aimed at killing the Teleban and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As I have already said (unfortunately, I think part of my reasoning for this was in the previous thread, which got deleted. Drat), killing these people will only create more problems. They need to be captured alive, and brought to trial, perhaps in an international court such as the Hague. America and the USA (and Australia, Canada, France and New Zealand as well) all have available Special Forces personel who could perform such an action, and bring these evil people out alive so that they could stand trial.

Anyway, I have to go now, but I am willing to continue this discussion with anyone else, and am happy that it has mainly remained on good terms. Thanks for keeping it civil, everyone.

Oh, and to modify N400QX's words, it isn't just America that is in need of of blessing.

God Bless us ALL



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineLAPA_SAAB340 From Spain, joined Aug 2001, 390 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1351 times:

VirginFlyer and GDB, I wanted to say that I found your posts to be very well written, and I happen to agree with most of what you say.

Alpha 1, when you say 'well, innocent people die in wars', is it then ok for more american civilians to be killed in this 'war' against terrorism? The victims of the world trade center after all did die in this 'war' didn't they? Or is it only ok if the innocent people dying are in another country?


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (12 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

VirginFlyer, the circle of violence will continue as long as they exist. They don't need a reason to continue it. To think ANYTHING will get them to stop is silly. To think putting bin Laden in prison will get them to stop is downright absurd. They have to be eradicated and that is the only answer.


"Shaddap you!"
25 Alpha 1 : We weren't MORE patient, VirginFlyer? For Chrissake, we waited ALMOST A MONTH to respond!! What the hell would you have us do-wait a year, and let the
26 Western727 : It is a popular misconception that freedom and peace are natural conditions. Those blessings bestowed upon us by past generations were paid for in bl
27 Alpha 1 : LAPA_SAAB340, you know exactly what I meant: I don't want to see innocent people killed, but the FACT is that civilians DO die in war-they always have
28 AerLingus : While we may not want the death of civilians in Afghanistan, we have to realise that these people allowed the Taliban government to oust the Afghan mo
29 Mx5_boy : Every single nation that harbours terrorists of any description should take this as a clear message. No more, and you will be a target. You cannot tam
30 Klaus : Please excuse me for not having read through the entire thread, this time; I´ve got too little time right now. One of the points where people get int
31 Western727 : Klaus, I agree. I do not feel that this will be a war of attrition. The resources of the two countries are far too disparate.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
This Is Not The Right Place ... posted Wed Jul 11 2001 02:20:40 by Ikarus
Why Is The VW Microbus Disappearing From The USA? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 22:30:44 by Birdwatching
The Real Danger Comes From The Right-wing! posted Fri Aug 5 2005 08:32:41 by Mrniji
Disaster Relief: Is Money The Answer? posted Sat Jan 1 2005 00:52:32 by Yhmfan
More Idiocy From The Right posted Fri Dec 5 2003 14:44:36 by Alpha 1
Gore Says Bush Is Fighting The Wrong War? posted Fri Nov 14 2003 20:52:11 by Galaxy5
This Is What The War Was Really About posted Wed May 7 2003 17:07:07 by Alpha 1
What Good Is Protesting The War Doing Now? posted Tue Mar 25 2003 23:31:07 by Dragogoalie
Why The US Is Losing The War On Terrorism posted Mon Dec 16 2002 08:00:21 by Twaneedsnohelp
Who Is One The Currency From Singapore? posted Fri Mar 15 2002 06:12:05 by Vw