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
Having trouble with a malware spam popup advert on A.net mobile site? Share details at viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1363111
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh