Jump to content

An Interesting Perspective


pkzip
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good for you PKZIP, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

Yes, the speech was GREAT, Dan Rather said that it was the best presidential speech of this century. I just about spit out my beverage when I heard him say that. Rather is about as far left as you can get without falling off. It was amazing!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kush, I simply limit my black and white perspective to the words of the founding fathers. Benjamin Franklin himself said that those who choose to surrender freedom and liberty rather than fight for them deserve neither.

I wasn't meaning to imply that there are many who don't fight and die and lose, there is always that. When I said majority I stick by that. I didn't say all.

Personally the only offense I took from your post was that you implied that I hadn't read my history, well considering that I never scored less than a 98 in any college history class makes me feel confident enough to throw my opionion into the fray without worry of reprisal for being a dummy.

Granted, I put alot of feeling into my arguments and sometimes add "flavor" to an argument.

Well no offense truly taken, and wasn't meaning to dick-size argue in this reply so take no offense from it.

Your friend is truly a hero (and lucky) to his people, and one thing that I think we all forget to consider about foreigners in some countries don't place the same value on human life as we in the affectionately called "WEST" do. So my argument, and the US argument doesn't necessarily apply to these people. They would much rather scream "Pray to Allah!" and pull the explosive cord.

Well, I have been keeping up to date on this crisis (Every day I read excerpts from 12 different newspapers, talk shows, newstations, and foreign publications) So I consider myself well-versed as of now.

The first day of the tragedy I was refreshing several newspages every 5 minutes and running live feed from MSNBC to keep up to date. Last night I was pretty lax but have been reading as much as I can today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Roger, sir. I had interpreted Jaguar's misguided attempt to discredit the source as a personal attack on me. I see from his and your comments that I was in error. I will now willingly swallow a "Chill Pill" roughly the size and shape of my foot.

Hehe, don't worry about it. Just wanted to make sure things were kept proper. Didn't mean to pick on you personally, so don't think it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to ask why we needed to stage in Pakistan anyway. I mean, it will be problematic, based on Reuters and AP feeds out of Peshawar and Islamabad, so why not set up staging elsewhere?

Then I looked at a topo. Sheeesh. I'm assuming the Hindu Kush range looks as bad in real life as it does on the map, and I'm also betting that it's a logistical nightmare putting a supply line over a mountain range anyway. Just curious, if you were staging this (essentially ground campaign), and Pakistan were not an option, how would you approach it? Just a hypothetical.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: pkzip ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by pkzip:

I was going to ask why we needed to stage in Pakistan anyway. I mean, it
will
be problematic, based on Reuters and AP feeds out of Peshawar and Islamabad, so why not set up staging elsewhere?

Then I looked at a topo. Sheeesh. I'm assuming the Hindu Kush range looks as bad in real life as it does on the map, and I'm also betting that it's a logistical nightmare putting a supply line over a mountain range anyway. Just curious, if you were staging this (essentially ground campaign), and Pakistan were not an option, how would you approach it? Just a hypothetical.


Here's the tactical low-down:

First off, anyone even attempting to parallel a US invasion to the Russian one should think again. The Russians were not just trying to displace a government, they were trying to replace it. Also, they were there for *10* years, which is something the US wouldn't even consider.

Also, the US is technologically leaps and bounds ahead of where the USSR was during that time.

At any rate, if the US were to invade on the ground, it wouldn't be anything like troops storming the borders. It would most likely involve surgical insertions to secure key areas (airstrips, etc) and then a movement directly into the country via air. When the Russians invaded, they mainly came in across their borders and through the mountains. Big mistake.

Now, let's say we're in the country. We've either destroyed all resistance, captured them (likely, think: Iraq), or sent them running into the mountains (also likely). With our current technology, hiding in the mountains won't work all too well. You've all seen COPS, right? Those choppers with thermal and NV detection would likely be deployed to hunt them down.

In any case, the Taliban's hold on the country would be nearly instantly destroyed. If they try to find refuge in the mountains, that not only puts them under our technological scope, but under Afghanistan's northern militia's guns as well. And, there would be no way for them to run a nation hidden in the mountains. As such, a new government would easily be installed, and the US and/or UN/NATO coalition would be able to build that government up to be defensible. So, if the Taliban attempted to take Afghanistan back through a coup, they would face a perilous and likely hopeless fight.

It would also force the Taliban to attempt to press terrorist cells into military service. Perfect moving target practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by MerfGlurf:

pkzip, you know the difference between a tactical nuke and a theater-sized nuke right?

Yes, I do, Merf, very well, for personal reasons I will not publicly discuss here. But thanks for checking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by pkzip:

"Newbie"??!!??

Ouch, like a knife in my heart. I've been lurking for years!

(Aramike, I had anticipated your response was going to be, "Ensign forever? That can be arranged." )


LOL! I had considered it.

So when you heading to the Insurgent forum, man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Here's the question I have: what use would tactical nukes be in this kind of conflict? Look at the nature of the Afghan militants and please tell me what good dropping even a tac-nuke on them would be.

A little overkill, I think.


Agreed, Aramike, definately overkill. And, on the other hand, I certainly hope that bin Laden or other terrorists don't get their hands on them. Could get messy.

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: ShoHashi ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, back on topic.

I'm sure you can guess what my position is, but I'll say it anyway.

If I was in a room with George Walker Bush (I'm assuming that's his middle name since his father's middle name is Herbert Walker) I would say the following:

"Mr President, don't do this. Humanity has already lost over 5,000 lives to bloodlust. Don't let that number become 500,000. By initiating this campaign, you will be transforming the second Pearl Harbour into the second Vietnam War.

You will be fighting a people who care less about their own lives than they do about your death. Bin Ladin is regarded as a hero by millions of people, many of which would be happy to die aboard a plane heading straight for you. Your campaign, if successful, will make him into a martyr of millions, and the destruction of his organization will inspire the building of another.

The war on terrorism is a war that will never end as long as terrorists have a cause to fight for. You may be successful in the operation you plan to implement, but you will never win by military force. Nobody will win, unless you believe in the existence of a devil.

The cause of this conflict is not religion, not even a twisted interpretation of it. Religion is just the coincidental source of unity which has been adopted by the people in their own campaign. They want non-interference from America in the affairs of the Middle East, including an end to the selling of arms to Israel. As long as that interference continues, the war will never end, and history has proven that America can't win a war that doesn't end, regardless of technology.

Gandhi once said, 'An eye for an eye only makes the world go blind'. He was a peaceful man, yet he succeeded in his campaign to free India from the British Empire.

The terrorists in the Middle East regard you as their oppressor. The moment you prove to them that you are not is the moment that the war will end. Killing their families will prove otherwise.

Think about it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I just noticed that, throughout that ENTIRE letter you failed to offer ONE, SINGLE viable solution as an alternative. Basically you just said "sit back and deal with it". So it's okay with you that innocent Americans are dying so that you can avoid seeing a war? You don't ALREADY see that as a war?

I wonder what your perspective would be if the buildings next door to you were blown up. Would you want to wait for the NEXT one to happen to take action? Would you want to wait until something TRULY heinous occured, such as NBC warfare?

Millions will die if we don't stop them. The intelligence community sees it (they predicted an incident like this one). Politicians see it. Military leaders see it. Law enforcement sees it. Will it not be "good enough" for you until it ACTUALLY HAPPENS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

What is it going to take? 100,000? A

MILLION? Is that what you want before we fight back? Is that what you need so your consciousness can rest easy in that we're doing the right thing?

How many dead Americans and Arabs will it take before the US administration considers the possibility that its policies toward the Middle East need to be changed?

quote:

The world has never engaged in a war on terrorism, whereas, we have tried diplomacy

I would like to read about some examples where America has directly and seriously negotiated with anyone in the Middle East on the issue of ending the sale of arms to Israel. If you can't find one, well then...there's the alternative you've been asking for.

quote:

We're NOT leaving the middle east. To do so would be to open the flood gates for ANYONE with a gripe to KILL people in order to achieve political ends. Is that what you want? Politics to be conducted through MURDER?

I don't want anything like that. But 'politics through murder' is exactly what the military strike will be. The terrorist attack was one way of saying "Leave us alone". The military response is the same way of saying "No way hosay", among other things. Both ways escalate violence, and I disagree with both ways.

To send a military response is to open the flood gates for another response from another organization of terrorists, assuming that the operation succeeds in destroying the current one.

quote:

If Roosevelt and Churchill were pacifists, Nazism would be the ruling party in Europe and genocide against Jews would have continued.

Even if Roosevelt and Churchill were pacifists, they would still have fought the Nazis. As I recall, it was Chamberlain who declared war on Germany.

quote:

So we let them KILL US to "prove" something to them?

No. We stop selling sophisticated weapons to their enemies in order to "prove" something to them.

It's no coincidence that Israel is now four times its original, intended size, not including the occupied territories in Palestine. It's also no coincidence that Israel is the only country in the Middle East (at least officially) with nuclear weapons in its arsenal.

quote:

And I just noticed that, throughout that ENTIRE letter you failed to offer ONE,

SINGLE viable solution as an alternative.

I just did.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At any rate, if I'm wrong, you'll get to brag about it when its all over. If I'm right, YOU will live in a better, safer world when it is all over.

If YOU'RE right, nothing changes.

Sometimes sacrifices must be made for what is RIGHT.

You see, I'd rather live in a world of struggle and bloodshed than in a world that rewards murder and fascism. And you know what? Both worlds are EXACTLY the same except that, in YOUR world, the murderers and fascists are in control.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So, in other words, you want us to set the precedent that, whenever someone

wants political ends met, they need only start MURDERING innocent civilians?

No.

quote:

That's NOT an alternative. That's giving into their demands, and ALL that does is shows the world that, whenever they want something political done, they need only start KILLING people.

Not necessarily.

quote:

Furthermore, since WHEN do we let the actions of MURDERERS dictate foreign policy? And, as a nation, we have a RIGHT to sell whatever we want to whomever we want. That's called "freedom" and it shall not be infringed.

That's interesting. So you're saying you want the freedom to give one group of people the power to wipe out another group of people?

quote:

At any rate, you're not suggesting an alternative, your suggesting that the acts of

terrorists are JUSTIFIED and that we, the CIVILIZED world, should change to accomodate THEM. No dice.

That's NOT what I'm suggesting. The actions of terrorists are definitely not justified. I'm suggesting that the reasons why they're so angry towards America are worth considering. It is true that "the ends do not justify the means", but it's also true that "the means do not disprove the ends".

quote:

At any rate, the whole POINT is that we do not sacrifice our freedoms to MURDERERS. Them dictating who our allies are is a sacrifice of our nation freedom. And to suggest that we should give in to ANY demands that murderers make is not a good idea. Think: we do it once, what is the NEXT person who wants to achieve a political end going to do? Try diplomacy?

First of all, from the point of view of the terrorists and the millions of people who support their ends (not necessarily their means), it is America's interference in the Middle East that is MURDERING millions of Arabs every year.

Secondly, are you suggesting that just because a small group of people are committing murder for a political end that we must ignore the millions of other people in the region, who have NEVER committed murder in their entire lives and do not support the act of murder, who also demand the same end? The terrorists are just a tiny minority of people who are angered by some of the actions of America in the region.

quote:

And your idea of going along with such demands won't escalate the violence,

especially after we set the precendence that MURDER can gain you leverage?

The actions of a few should not be used to condemn the demands of an entire people, especially when many of those people do not support the actions of the few.

quote:

The floodgates are already open, chief. They were opened in the 70s at the

Olympics in Germany. They were opened in the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. They were opened with the attack on the USS Cole. They were opened with the attacks on several of our embassies. They've culminated into a MASS MURDER of civilians in New York.

Are you suggesting that the so-called floodgates aren't ALREADY opened?

OK, I'll rephrase. The military strike would open the gates even further, escalating the flood.

quote:

So what? I don't see them deploying them in massive attacks on middle eastern

countries. They have a RIGHT to defend themselves, and to buy ANY kind of weaponry they want.

I do see them deploying tanks and helicopters against Palestinians who have little more than sticks and stones in their hands. Also, since when does defending themselves include the annexation and occupation of territories that do not belong to them, in addition to the forced migration of civilians from within their borders (sound familiar?).

quote:

Yeah, great idea. Let's just disarm Isreal so that we can have another Hitler-esque slaughter of Jews. That's what many Arabs are calling for, and their leaders don't seem to be holding that ideal back. So, would THAT be enough to make you want to fight them, or should we keep cutting deals?

I never said that Israel should be disarmed. I said that they should not be supplied with superior weapons anymore, as a clear message that America no longer supports the Hitler-esque slaughter of Arabs in the region.

The fact that America continues to support Israel despite this is one of the biggest reasons why so many people in the Middle East want America to stop interfering: American interference tends to lead to more Arab deaths, not to mention a lot of American deaths at the hands of terrorists.

quote:

Man I sure made a mistake coming in here reading Menchise's posts.

I'm out of here before I say what I want to say and get banned.

Huh?

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's interesting? How you're only presenting one side of the story. Why did Isreal aquire more land? Because they were ATTACKED. But you're not blaming the aggressors.

Why does Isreal require better weaponry? Because they are under attack. But you're not blaming the aggressors.

If Isreal REALLY wanted to destroy Arabs, they would have done so by now. And if they did not because of international pressure, WHERE did that pressure come from primarily?

The United States of America.

Is Isreal waging a SINGLE offensive war in the middle east? No, they are NOT. They're only fighting the Palestinians who resort to TERRORIST attacks. Who MOB and BEAT and KILL Jews. And that's Isreal's fault?

ALL of this is the result of Isreal being attacked, and you're blaming it on Isreal?

That, my friend, goes to show that your arguments are not based upon actual facts; rather, they are based upon hatred of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...