Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rhett

And so it Begins...

Recommended Posts

Guest $iLk
Here is a news article giving possibility of Chinese Fundamentalist forces allying with the Taliban.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Silk, you need to slow down, I believe the first story about Tactical nukes, you got from Debka, Debka is the National Enquirer of the internet. Think about this for a minute, Why would we bring Tactical Nukes into a country that borders Afghanistan, are these allies trustworthy? Might they turn on us and take those same weapons if they thought they could?

And fact of the matter is the only type of tactical nuke we would possibly use would be a burrower that would burrow a 1/2 kilck down or so and then explode, and one of those would come in on an aircraft.

No, sit back, the taliban is only our first target, we are going to go after others!!

If you really want to know what is going on, go to freerepublic.com for very interesting news and political discussion, or CNN.com, but forget about Debka!! PLEASE!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Can you imagine...some old fart on a Llama with a bag of chips.

Yeah I did it myself for a week.

No seriously I hope this thing won't get out of hand. I don't know if you've noticed, but some people think he's a charismatic guy (not me no more like Pakistan (half the country), Chechnya (sp?), Phillipines (moro and A.sayaf) and etc ). What I'm scared of is that whatever we do it might end up as a lose-lose situation. If he lives he would've spat at our faces and defied us, if he dies he becomes a martyr (Hitler and Neo Nazi anyone?) and the circle continues. That is my main fear (like the IRA problem here).

Britain at the momment has to deal with the real IRA as well. Though the Real IRA ain't as scary as the Al-Qeeda(sp?) but they are still a pain in the ass. They couldn't care less for peace talks. Who knows they might even try to take advantage of the situation. I hope once the coalition gets rid of this Osama problem they will turn their attention to other high profile terrorrists. I go to London a lot and I would like to stay in one peace.

Just my thoughts anyway..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Luc:

one question....why is Pakistand still recognizing the Taliban? why are they even giving the Taliban "ambassador" the ability to say anything? extradite the bleeder and beat him to within an inch of his life.

Well, Pakistan reportedly trained and set up the Taliban, so they have a vested interest. Many of the Taliban's training camps (as well as other 'terrorist' organisations) are located in Pakistan -- including the organisation that recently claimed responsibility for the legislature bombing in India.

Don't forget to check non-US sources for news. Some decent links are:

http://www.afghandaily.com/ http://www.myafghan.com/

I leave bias detection as an exercise for the reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Silk, you need to slow down

$iLk huddles in his bomb shelter shaking holding his assault rifle waiting for... THE BIG ONE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silk, it's highly unlikely that we would ever use nukes on the area for one major reason: We'd miss Osama, and he'd just use it to confirm that we were actually looking to whipe out islam.

We don't need to fuel Osama's propoganda war. He's doing just fine by himself.

Will we see pictures of dead children from conventional attacks. Yep. Just like the PLO used with Israel recently.

Gallion, what are you refering to: 27 years of war...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for this! Terrorism needs to be eradicated. I just hope we go all the way. We don't need a repeat of '90 where we stop outside the enemy's gates and ask them to be good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't care, wipe out Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, all that middle east terrorist spawning crap countries. Why loose American or any other supporting nations soldiers. Just do one big bang and then the life is better less things to worry about and very little American life lost, and that's what we ultimately should be concerned about, not the population of a country that supports terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Soback posted on 10-09-2001

I personally don't care, wipe out Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, all that middle east terrorist spawning crap countries. Why loose American or any other supporting nations soldiers. Just do one big bang and then the life is better less things to worry about and very little American life lost, and that's what we ultimately should be concerned about, not the population of a country that supports terrorists.

Are you really that garrulous with lives, lives of people that may or may not be innocent? True, why should the US loose more people in this mess, then by doing as what you suggested US's credibility and image as a free democratic nation that upholds that right of being innocent until proven guilty will be flushed down the drain forever.

Think about it.

How's the US gonna hold up their political heads after bombing and grinding everything into dust. Not to mention the human rights infringement.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Cmdr Jeffery Eu ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom is IN the US. Not outside of it. I was watching CNN and some people were burning an epigy (spelling) of Bush and a sign which said "BUSH WARMONGER". Their minds are very much set, no matter how US behaves, they will still be against us and trust me, if they had a chance to come here and wreak havoc every one of those that I saw on TV would, even some young kid (about 12 to 14) was jumping in from of the camera along with adults, thrusting his fist with incredible hatred in his eyes. So by US being kind and careful we will loose more US life's and gain relatively little (ex. Vietnam). If we use more drastic matters (what should be good warfare tactics) we will loose less life's, and end this with much better results for everyone. Who now thinks that Germany will try to conquer Europe again, or that Japan will try to dominate the seas? If we drop some nukes and warn the rest of the middle east that if terrorists will be found in their countries they will face the same fate I can guarantee you 100% that they will try to get rid of those terrorists themselves rather than face annihilation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what I am trying to say that it's kinda like the bully mentality. Unless he gets smacked hard enough he will persist in his ways and always try to threaten you or beat you, but once he gets slammed back hard he will understand that if he tries something again he will get slammed again only harder. We right now are babying around with them, (and I count the country/government/population as one, I meant look at all the taliban supporters in Afghanistan, without the people the government or country is nothing so people and their opinions even if they are oppressed play a huge role in countrys dealings because if people say enough is enough the government will be no more) so by babying around we are getting almoust zilch progress and might and probably will loose many American soldiers, but by slamming them hard they will immidiatly get the message and make a choice on if they want to live or basically die, then all we need to do is grant them the wish they would choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Soback posted on 10-09-2001

Basically what I am trying to say that it's kinda like the bully mentality. Unless he gets smacked hard enough he will persist in his ways and always try to threaten you or beat you, but once he gets slammed back hard he will understand that if he tries something again he will get slammed again only harder. We right now are babying around with them, (and I count the country/government/population as one, I meant look at all the taliban supporters in Afghanistan, without the people the government or country is nothing so people and their opinions even if they are oppressed play a huge role in countrys dealings because if people say enough is enough the government will be no more) so by babying around we are getting almoust zilch progress and might and probably will loose many American soldiers, but by slamming them hard they will immidiatly get the message and make a choice on if they want to live or basically die, then all we need to do is grant them the wish they would choose.

Isn't that a rather simplistic view of the complex relationship between governments, the people and country?

In an ideal world, yes, I would agree with you, but alas life here on earth is not ideal. From your two posts above, I gather that you follow the motto of, an eye for an eye, fair enough considering that terrorists struck the blow first but a nuke is tad different story, my boy.

Don't even attempt to tell me about being proactive because no matters what happens, after a nuke, there'll be no turning back. My question is this are you really prepared for a neverending war?

Look a Vietnam for example, at first the people of US were all out for stopping Commies, as the years go by what do you have instead?

I won't even mention about the huge economical and human drain on the US economy. Are the people of the US really prepared to suck up your guts and pay everything you have earned for a war that most probably won't end. Are you prepared to go to war personally and to see your children and your grandchildren fight this war.

I for one, am not prepared to see our world go down the dung heap. So, even though I agree with the retaliation, with the war against terrorism. I don't think shooting a nuke is a good idea.

[ 10-09-2001: Message edited by: Cmdr Jeffery Eu ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I agree with Commander Eu, but I will say it again, if an NBC weapon is used, ALL bets are off. If an NBC weapon is used, then we wipe them off the map entirely.

Teaches 2 things, 1: you don't mess with the US, and 2: if you use an NBC weapon, we will take you out and take you out BIG!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I am talking about. The war will not be never-ending but end rather quickly. Lets take this hypothetical situation.

1. We extend our terms to Afghanistan. Something along these lines. "You will surrender Osam and all his terrorist network, destroy/disclose all the terrorist camps in your territory or there will be serious replications"

2. If they do not comply we nuke them. By doing this we have done 2 things. We got rid of the terrorists organizations operating out of Afghanistan and showed other terrorist harboring countries that this is not a debate.

3. We extend the same terms to other terrorist harboring countries. They will either comply or face the same consequences, and believe me, they would rather comply once they see what happened to Afghanistan. That way the war would probably be over in about a year. Yes we would probably have retaliatory strikes but we would have them anyway and at least my way we will take care of the problem faster with great assurance that it will not happen again because any terrorist that wants to choose US as a target next time will know that not only his life is on the line (which they don't care about anyway) but also the life of his family, his people, his country of origin, his supporters and his believes. So from previous experience he will realize that if he does strike against US all that he believes in will be gone and that would serve no purpose. Also the people of the countries that are likely to sprout terrorism will try to contain and fight it themselves for fear of being discovered and annihilated.

The US lost the Vietnam war because people lost interest and even became against the idea of it when they saw how much life and resources it drained. This war is different in terms that the attacks were on US soil and US citizens. This is no time to baby around with this situation and be all gentle about it. If the US people will loose interest (and they probably will, I hate to say this but the majority of us have very short attention spans and only worry about how our stock will be doing the next day rather then seeing the big picture of how our kids will live) so once the heat has passed and our troops are still in Afghanistan and casualties are mounting people will start screaming and asking to end this war, and all the piece demonstrations (I can't describe to you how I hate them, I saw them at San Francisco and thought, what the hell are those people doing, what if their kids were in NY and died in those buildings, would they still be doing this, what are they contributing to this country, are they even for this country?) will win over and then 10 or 20 years later we will see another terrorist attack on US soil, and why? Because we didn't stamp it out the first time that's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Soback posted on 10-09-2001

We extend our terms to Afghanistan. Something along these lines. "You will surrender Osam and all his terrorist network, destroy/disclose all the terrorist camps in your territory or there will be serious replications"

2. If they do not comply we nuke them. By doing this we have done 2 things. We got rid of the terrorists organizations operating out of Afghanistan and showed other terrorist harboring countries that this is not a debate.

Somehow I don't think that it will happen anytime soon even with a nuke threat hanging over them. Instead I would think that they (as in Taliban) would welcome the US nuking them as they can use the deaths as a red flag, and any dead Taliban personnel, whether proven dead or not dead would be a martyr for the cause. Surely you can see that by nuking them, instead of just getting rid of Taliban and Osama, the US most probably incur global censure and there would be a major uprising.

Furthermore, the last I heard nuking Afghanistan would not even bring about the same number of casualties, then if they were to retaliate by nuking Manhattan for example.

Face the facts, nuking is like using a sledge hammer instead of a pin (special forces raids and attacks. And cost would be unjustifiable.

So in other words if the Red Army terrorist or the IRA would do the same thing as what the Taliban "supposedly" did to the US would nuke Ireland and Japan? I think not.

The reason why I'm saying supposedly is simple enough, no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they (the Taliban) and Osama, was involved in the US attacks for precisely the same reason why it is so hard to flush them out and to kill them, they work in cell groups and they unencumbered by emotions, family or anyother thing that a reasonably sane person would have or feel in the first place.

I respectfully submit that nuking Afghanistan would not bring the war to a quick end. Instead it will prolong the war as these cowardly terrorist will disperse and form up somewhere else to raise arms again. Maybe even in the USA!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Look a Vietnam for example, at first the people of US were all out for stopping Commies, as the years go by what do you have instead?

The Communists here at home (the anti-war protestors were, by accident or design - Marxist in their anti-war rhetoric) Prevented us from bringing our full weight to bear.

The NVA knew they couldn't defeat us in a land battle, and relied on their "allies" in the united states to push public opinion into ending the war.

I read an article written by an anti war protestor who regrets that he ever protested and realized that he was used by the communists.

In this war, our enemies domestically are already showing their heads in the form of peacenics, who see the United States as the Agressor and the Enemy of Freedom instead of the Defender and Promoter of Freedom. Their HATE AMERICA rhetoric will be what comes into play in a drawn out conflict, though this is different with no bogey man and a clear enemy who has attacked us. Those pushing for peace are either themselves anti-american, or influenced by anti-american marxist college professors.

Some of the stuff that is going on right now is sick to know we have these people over here. "the american flag is a hurtful divisive symbol", "god bless america is hate speech and is divisive against non-christians", I mean it is so pathetically hateful of everything we stand for it is sickening.

As for nuking Afganistan - attractive idea, too much baggage attached to it. Sure they will NEVER love America, no matter which hand we feed them with they will bite it. The only thing they understand is subservience to their mentally unstable leaders and their religious wackos (far worse than what our christian faith here is accused of being).

But at the same time, world opinion.

Sure I'm all for telling the UN to go F themselves, but what kind of democracy would we represent? The only power to use Nuclear Weapons EVER in a war. Looking back on Japan, maybe it was the right thing. Who knows. I know that nuking them is always an option, but I guess it won't hurt to give them one last chance to redeem themselves in our eyes.

I saw some afgan children giving the peace sign on MSNBC and thanking us for food.

The ones loyal to the Taliban are ALL men who are brainwashed into believing we are the devil. However, perhaps every crate of food that lands that says "from the people of the United States of America" will make them doubt somewhat their conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

And here's Neal Boortz:

"Oh  by the way. This isnt a nice thought, but someone has to say it. Im not buying any ideas of moral equivalency here. They killed our civilians. And I will freely admit that I value our civilians more than theirs. In other words --- they started it. If we dont finish it once and for all  shame on us.. "

heh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Actually, most US carriers and submarines carries tactical nukes. They've been there since day one in every modern conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Lets take this hypothetical situation.

3. We extend the same terms [comply or we nuke you] to other terrorist harboring countries.
They will either comply or face the same consequences, and believe me, they would rather comply once they see what happened to Afghanistan.{/QB] That way the war would probably be over in about a year. Yes we would probably have retaliatory strikes but we would have them anyway and at least my way we will take care of the problem faster with great assurance that it will not happen again because any terrorist that wants to choose US as a target next time will know that not only his life is on the line (which they don't care about anyway) but also the life of his family, his people, his country of origin, his supporters and his believes. So from previous experience he will realize that if he does strike against US all that he believes in will be gone and that would serve no purpose. Also the people of the countries that are likely to sprout terrorism will try to contain and fight it themselves for fear of being discovered and annihilated.

ouch - this is the attitude that the terrorists have. if someone hits you in the face for no appreciable reason that you understand, do you not hate that guy and plot to attack him at the first available opportunity?

let me illustrate. The Taliban hate the americans because the americans helped the Mujjahadeen (sp?) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, afterwards, the US ignored the problems in that country (an admitted mistake on the US's part). They now hate the Americans because they felt abandoned and they are right. They are wrong to suppoort terrorism as a form of revenge...but what options do they have? the point I'm making is that Afghanistan is a nation that has low to no education, that means that the people are manipulated by force (1 TV for every 1000 people, under penalty of death).

The lives of the Afghan people are governed by a blood thirsty regime that is bent on teaching the western world a lesson. If we perpetuate that idea, by dropping nukes all over the place, not only do we violate the human rights that we apparently hold in the highest esteem, but we become terrorists ourselves. There is nothing to be gained by nuking a desert full of innocent people that have not been taught how to respect human life as a sacred thing, as we supposedly have been.

an extremist view simply begets another extremist view.

Ghandi said - "an eye for an eye can only make you blind".

using the SAS and Special Forces to go after the specific targets that are responsible is just fine by me....but blasting a country into oblivion that's already in the stone age is just ridiculous.

Albert Einstein said; "I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

words to live by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to tell you something about human rights. It's a great concept but sometimes it gets twisted and confused. Police can't do their job because if they arest too many people of a certain race then they get investigated (what if they patrol an area that is predominatly of a certain race, will they not arest people of that race?) For example Sacramento has a population that is almoust 80% Russian, do you hear complaints that mostly Russian people get arested there? Also what about the lawsuits that criminals can file against the police for using excessive force, it might work if they were arested and found innocent, but what if you were arested and found guilty? You still have the right to file a lawsuit for excesive use of force. That's just wrong, in my eyes you give up your human rights and freedom when you decide to do something illegal and should not have any rights, an animal should have more rights then criminal and convicts do. So when a country supports terrorists and the population of that country supports that country they give up their rights to be treated like humans because they are not acting like ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what about the lawsuits that criminals can file against the police for using excessive force, it might work if they were arested and found innocent, but what if you were arested and found guilty? You still have the right to file a lawsuit for excesive use of force.

Let me clarify that:

What I mean is if you are arested and found guilty for possesion of drugs, rape, murder ect... .then you should not be able to complain how the police treated you, but if you are found innocent and you think that you were treated overly rough then sure complain all you want.

Whenever a police stops me I never complain, and they have stoped me for the dumbest reasons, ex. one time I didn't turn on my ligts (at night) after getting gas at the gas station and turned them on only once I pulled out of it. The cop stoped me, was very curtious, checked me if I was drunk, and asked me if I knew why he pulled me over, I said no and he explained that statistically people who don't turn their lights on at night are under the influence of alcohol and are concentraiting so hard on driving that they forget the simplest things or are just so drunk that they don't even realize it's night. Then we said good night and he went on his way and I on mine. Some people would complain because that officer pulled him over based on the statistics, well I was actually feeling safer because if I was a drunk driver then I wouldn't want people like me being on the road in the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Soback:

(...) in my eyes you give up your human rights and freedom when you decide to do something illegal and should not have any rights, an animal should have more rights then criminal and convicts do.


Huh? My first thought when I read this was just: BS. Now I have calmed down a little. Well, let me clarify.

Human rights are about that: humans. You just gave an example yourself. Excessive force by the police is wrong under any circumstance. You may put people in cells, you may force them to work (for the community by building roads and the likes), but you may not harm then physically, mentally or by soul. They are humans, and they keep being humans even if they decided to do somthing illegal.

Btw., what is this something anyway? Something like rape, murder, flying planes into buildings, or something like stealing food, or stuff? Each of these things are deemed illegal, but not a single one of these things should get rid people of their human rights. You may sentence them to death, but until you kill them, they got their rights.

Got that? If not, ask yourself if you are any better than the ones you accuse anything. Thanks!

Best regards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Let me clarify that:

What I mean is if you are arested and found guilty for possesion of drugs, rape, murder ect... .then you should not be able to complain how the police treated you, but if you are found innocent and you think that you were treated overly rough then sure complain all you want.


So you're saying if I'm caught with a couple of ounces of dope, I deserve to be beaten senseless, just because I've broken the law?

As soon as we go down that path, we become no better than the criminals themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess who!

quote:

The Communists here at home (the anti-war protestors were, by accident or

design - Marxist in their anti-war rhetoric) Prevented us from bringing our full weight to bear.

I think the biggest obstacle to 'bringing full weight to bear' was not the protests, it was that the South Vietnamese didn't support the war effort with any conviction, especially after Diem was overthrown.

quote:

The NVA knew they couldn't defeat us in a land battle, and relied on their "allies" in the united states to push public opinion into ending the war.

Are you sure that the change in public opinion had nothing to do with a) Persistent failure after 8 years of attrition, or B) Conscription, or c) that there was no end in sight, or d) all of the above?

quote:

In this war, our enemies domestically are already showing their heads in the form

of peacenics, who see the United States as the Agressor and the Enemy of Freedom instead of the Defender and Promoter of Freedom. Their HATE AMERICA rhetoric will be what comes into play in a drawn out conflict, though this is different with no bogey man and a clear enemy who has attacked us. Those pushing for peace are either themselves anti-american, or influenced by anti-american marxist college professors.

You've been reading too many of my old posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×