War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread) - Page 20

mac5732 · #**191** September 14th, 2001, 07:32 PM

In regards to global orgainization to combat terroism, you already have one organization but it is limited in power. This is Interpol.
It would be easy to expand and increase their power but all or at least majority of nations would have to agree and fund it. This has good possibilities. Problem is getting nations to fund and back it. Possibly put under the UN, also s World Court for World criminals, IE terroists, international drug lords etc. We already have one for Genocide why not for international criminals? As far as dropping bombs everywhere, I agree that you use small elite reaction forces, find their bases & camps, hit them and keep hitting them where ever they set up. Keep them on the run, no rest, this keeps innocent casualty rates down at least and puts pressure on them, Black ball and blockade any nation that hides & supports them, put international pressure on these countries..

just some ideas mac

geoschmo · #**192** September 14th, 2001, 07:47 PM

quote:
Originally posted by askan:
Ugh.
Isn't that what is happening now in the US?
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is just going to leave the world with alot of blind, hungry people.

I don't want my country to get dragged into a war (and my pathetic excuse of a leader will be there lapping at George W's feet). I want the US to lead by example. To act with good sense and not get alot of innocent people killed because alot of innocent people were killed.

Is that too much to ask?

Askan

I'm sorry Askan, but like it or not your country is in the war. Every country in the world is "in the war". Because this isn't simply a war between the U.S. and Bin Ladin's organization, or even between the U.S. and Afganistan.

This truly was an attack on the world, despite what our own over zealous superficial press likes to say. The sheer numbers of people involved and the choice of targets and means to destroy them chosen will result in this being on of the most deadly terrorist attacks ever for several nations. Many countries have already listed numerous confirmed dead, and scores of missing among their citizens either in the airplanes or in the buildings.

And even if your country is lucky to avoid losing any of it's people, you must realize, as your leader will no doubt, that it must be stopped or it could happen in your country too.

The people that perpatrated this act do not simply hate Americans. They hate all people different than them. Do you really think that if they could remove every American from the face of the earth tommorow they would stop? No, they would find someone else to hate then, and go after them next.

Also, as far as "carpet bombing" goes. I looked back over the thread and found where I mentioned it. I don't know if I was the first one to use it, or if I was responding to somone else. But I did not mean indiscriminate carpet bombing. I was merely saying that if we have proof that Bin Laden is behind this, and the Afgan government refuses to give him up, then we will have to go in there and get him. Not with a few potshot cruise missle attacks. It will require bobming of training and support facilities. It will require troops on the ground to feret him out of hiding. It will result in the loss of many lives. Americans, Afgans, and others.

If a terrorist organization is hiding next to cilvilian areas, then some innocent lives will be lost. That happens in a war. It is tragic, but it happens.

Geoschmo

LazarusLong42 · #**193** September 14th, 2001, 07:50 PM

dmm:

Yes, for most people I don't think that would do it. I wouldn't leave the USA for money. Many Palestinians wouldn't leave Palestine for money.

And sadly, even if they would, it wouldn't be an end to the conflict. The problem is thus: Israel feels the Palestinians are occupying their territories. The Palestinians reciprocate the feeling. Neither side is willing to live with the other. By definition, both sides are wrong, but they don't see it that way.

If this does turn into war--or somethign similar--there are going to be some very strange bedfellows, though. Let's say it's the Taliban/bin Laden. So, the US will suddenly be allied with the Russians and the Afghan rebels/Northern alliance--the very people we were fighting twenty years ago. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be, by transitivity, allied with Israel.

We'll be allied with China, for goodness' sake.

Of course, there are other ramifications. If Pakistan doesn't support us, we suddenly have taken a side in the India-Pakistani war, creating further division there.

OK... enough rambling. I'm going back to work

Eric

Exculcator · #**194** September 14th, 2001, 08:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:

Its like playing SE4. your opponent has already lost, and their strength cant compair to yours. you have been at war for hundreds of turns, and you push them into a corner and force surrender. but you leave them with nothing and no hope of striking back, yet you are the 'nice guy' and you dont finish them off. both your people hate each other, but for some screwed up moral reason, you both just sit there in some sort of cold war standoff.

You are 100% right there and up until WWI this was the accepted norm. You loose, all mine now, tough ****, end of problem.

But then propaganda crept in. Those big wars sure needed a lot of cannon fodder. So people had to be lured in.
'We are fighting the just cause'. Freedom! Democracy! Justice! for all. These became the slogans to rally behind. And people started believing their own propaganda, even after the war was won. And it was carried on into the next war and further into the cold war. The origins of WWI had nothing to with those concepts.
You may include the American civil war here, come to think of it. How many Americans today actually believe that war was for the liberation of the black man? Quite a lot I'd think.
A sense of morale has slowly crept into warfare that might not alltogether be that healthy.The resulting idea, to treat the vanquished enemy in a 'politically correct way', has created more problems than winning a war solved.
Not finishing Saddam off was a mistake, for instance. What if after WWII the Nazi regime had been kept alive? To keep the 'political balance' in europe intact.
Soft healers do indeed create stinking wounds.

But keeping up the idea that you are the 'Good Guy' entails that you must walk on glass, not to destroy that image.
America has been walking on glass a long time now, bearing the torch high. But cracks have appeared in the image, maybe it's time to drop the pretences.
America is an empire and it controls a huge part of the world, why not admit it.
But Someone will allways be on top and we could do a lot, lot worse than being under American domination.

tesco samoa · #**195** September 14th, 2001, 08:47 PM

geoschmo

I agree with you 100%.

I was just mentioning how they are being used as a corollary and a resultant within the same sentance.

Propaganda:
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

The thing about writting something in a forum or newsletter or email is that sometimes the meaning is lost or misinterpided.

That post was not written in the intent of producing any slanderous idea's against the pilliars that humanity is built upon.

------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+

geoschmo · #**196** September 14th, 2001, 09:04 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Exculcator:
How many Americans today actually believe that war was for the liberation of the black man? Quite a lot I'd think.

I do.

Exculcator · #**197** September 14th, 2001, 09:13 PM

Really?

Not the opposing views of being a federation of independant states and that of preserving the Union ?

Baron Munchausen · #**198** September 14th, 2001, 09:39 PM

I've picked up some interesting infomation, second hand. An acquaintance received an email from a friend in the military. He lives in New England, but the information seems to be relevant all over the country.

quote:

I'd like you to advise friends and co-workers that if they have nothing critical to do in Boston, they should NOT go. We were just briefed, unclassified, but the message was clear. We are still "under attack" and we need to be incredibly careful. You should also keep all travel, especially commercial air travel to a minimum, as we are getting strong indications that this is no where close to being finished

Just because this specifies Boston doesn't seem to me to exclude that similar warnings are appropriate for other cities in the US. Maybe Bush isn't exaggerating. Maybe we are at war. My best guess is that this email is part of an intentional strategy to warn people by word of mouth without making big public announcements and tipping off the terrorists. Let's all be careful, and let's all spread the word.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 14 September 2001).]

Lisif Deoral · #**199** September 14th, 2001, 09:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by dmm:
At the risk of sounding like an "ugly American" again, I wonder how many years worth of wages it would take to pay most Palestinians in Israeli-occupied territory to emigrate and never come back?

I suppose it won't work, and anyway it wouldn't be considered a "civilized" way to deal with the problem. I also suppose it'll lead to more problems sooner or later.

The Romans did something similar to Israel in 70 b.C. - with a much ruder attitude.
Well, you know what have been the consequences in the Last 1900 years, and what's happening now...

geoschmo · #**200** September 14th, 2001, 09:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Exculcator:
Really?

Not the opposing views of being a federation of independant states and that of preserving the Union ?

Nope. It was slavery.

The southern states might have said they were leaving the Union because of the "States Rights" and all that crap. But the only "right" they cared about was the right to own slaves. If they weren't afraid, correctly or not, that Lincoln and the other northern states were planning on abolishing slavery, they wouldn't have cared if you called it a "Union" or a "Federation of States" or a "Grand Kegger".

We stopped being a federation of States when the constitution was signed. If that was the issue, they would have seceded then. The fact is they didn't, until it became apparent that slavery was going to end.

And whether or not the federal government would have fought to preserve the Union regardless of slavery is irrelevant really. Becasue if it weren't for slavery, there would have not been a reason for fighting to preserve the Union, because the Union wouldn't have split.

Geoschmo