How should Bush respond?
Joe Hendricks
in NYC, but am curious as to others'
opinions on what, if any, retaliation
should be taken?
Joe
Alessandro Federici
news:3b9e2fe0$1_1@dnews...
First of all he should find the responsibles.
Dave Nottage
I feel for all concerned, but can this be discussed in .discussion, please?
--
Dave Nottage
Junior
John Jacobson
That depends on if it is a govt or a rogue terrorist group. If it is
terrorists, the US should consider any deliberate attempt by another country
to harbor or protect the perpetrators as an act of war, and invade and take
over such country until the perpetrators are apprehended. If it is a govt,
then it is an act of war, and probably requires neutralization.
I don't think there are many Americans that would disagree with stripping
such irresponsible rogue states of their soveriegnty in these circumstances.
NoOne
"Johannes Berg" <johann...@sipsolutions.de> wrote in message
news:20010911191446....@johannes.local...
> > and then blow them all to hell.
>
> We are all shocked by this event but lets hope we can deal with a
> terrifying act as this without blindly killing as well.
A nice sugary answer.
Finding the right people to kill is the problem.
Johannes Berg
To cause even more sorrow and pain and death?
We are all shocked by this event but lets hope we can deal with a
terrifying act as this without blindly killing as well.
johannes
Alexis Rios
Sue D. Nom
civilians in the name of ideology... and if the countries that are
harboring these terrorists don't give them up, then they, too, should be
bombed to complete rubble.
John Elrick
news:20010911191446....@johannes.local...
>
> To cause even more sorrow and pain and death?
"I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant."
Isoroku Yamamoto
The perpetrators should have thought of that before they did they only thing
that has historically suspended US moral judgement. Not long ago I wrote of
the nightmare of the technological and military might of the United States
in the hands of a Genghis Khan...in one instant the need for a Khan was
removed.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. May God have mercy on their souls...for I
fear we will have none on their living bodies.
John Elrick
Alessandro Federici
news:3b9e766b_2@dnews...
> "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant."
> The perpetrators should have thought of that before they did they only
thing
> that has historically suspended US moral judgement.
What is the US woke up a giant with their past actions?
Just a thought... What if these are already the consequences?
Igor Ivanov
thing
> that has historically suspended US moral judgement. Not long ago I wrote
of
> the nightmare of the technological and military might of the United States
> in the hands of a Genghis Khan...in one instant the need for a Khan was
> removed.
I think you need a reminder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the U.S.
military might was used against civilians in a most barbarian manner.
I hope in this case only those responsible will be punished.
Igor
Daaron
> news:20010911191446....@johannes.local...
> > > and then blow them all to hell.
> >
> > To cause even more sorrow and pain and death?
>
> "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant."
> Isoroku Yamamoto
>
I
> fear we will have none on their living bodies.
Eloquent, but difficult. The Khans and the Japanese presented an army in
conventional weapons and transportation-- even a population of supporters
following an emperor. Consider also Vietnam, when we could not find the
enemy, but we knew roughly where they were and could attack specific targets
of command, control, and communication value. Since terrorism uses the
publicly-available systems, you have no specific targets to attack.
If you know the targets, give the US military a call. They would love to
hear from you.
I agree with the sentiment that we should find the people involved and
reassimilate them with their god, but I would find it completely deplorable
to destroy mosques, cities, and majority-muslim countries to root out the
few.
Robert Cerny
But, the directly involved are dead. So, any terrorist group can claim or
deny responsibility. The act shows that there are really ill minded people
behind, but nothing more. It could be anyone. Even a frustrated american
individual or group fed by flood of criminal movies and knowing the guilt
would fall on some of known terrorists.
I'm with you America. From here it looks terrifying, so I can immagine the
feelings of people there. But I hope it won't escalate into hate, war,
bombing some countries, blind killing, as it would cause more pain and
innocent victims on all sides.
--
Robert
Joe Hendricks wrote in message <3b9e2fe0$1_1@dnews>...
John Elrick
news:3b9e8241_1@dnews...
I think you need to re-read history. Civilian casulties (if there were any
Japanese civilians at that point in time) were estimated at over 8 MILLION
if the homeland had to be invaded.
And, if you are one of those who believes that we started that war and that
Japan was an innocent bystander....
after today, I have nothing to say to those who believe that.
John Elrick
John Elrick
news:3b9e7a56_1@dnews...
No my friend. These may be the consequences of the actions of some US
leaders (not saying they are in any way shape or form, just granting the
possibility), but now the whole US is pissed.
The fallout from this will be around for quite a while.
John
John Elrick
>
> "John Elrick" <jel...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b9e766b_2@dnews...
> > "Johannes Berg" <johann...@sipsolutions.de> wrote in message
> > news:20010911191446....@johannes.local...
> Eloquent, but difficult. The Khans and the Japanese presented an army in
> conventional weapons and transportation-- even a population of supporters
> following an emperor. Consider also Vietnam, when we could not find the
> enemy, but we knew roughly where they were and could attack specific
targets
> of command, control, and communication value. Since terrorism uses the
> publicly-available systems, you have no specific targets to attack.
It is well known that North Vietnam won in the court of US public opinion.
Militarily they lost several times over.
Public opinion was instrumental in preventing the use of weapons of mass
destruction also.
The United States lost the Vietnam war. Public opinion will _not_ be on the
side of the rebels this time.
> If you know the targets, give the US military a call. They would love to
> hear from you.
I'm sure they have a far better idea of targets than you may believe. I'm
also sure they have ways of getting all targets. They may have been
restrained by lack of support and resources. These will now be available in
abundance.
> I agree with the sentiment that we should find the people involved and
> reassimilate them with their god, but I would find it completely
deplorable
> to destroy mosques, cities, and majority-muslim countries to root out the
> few.
I used the word "fear" intentionally. I think this one will blossom out of
control. I'd prefer to have settled our differences peacefully myself. I
just believe that for better or worse, today may have removed some of the
buffers that have protecting a lost of innocent people.
John Elrick
Igor Ivanov
> > military might was used against civilians in a most barbarian manner.
> > I hope in this case only those responsible will be punished.
>
> I think you need to re-read history. Civilian casulties (if there were
any
> Japanese civilians at that point in time)
Excellent! So the kids and elders in those two cities were also military?
200,000 civilians were killed! You may add to that a lot of civilians killed
in conventional bombings of Tokyo, as well as in some German cities by the
allies.
> were estimated at over 8 MILLION
> if the homeland had to be invaded.
So let's drop a bomb on a city instead of a military base? Anyway, I don't
know where you got the figure from but I have a suspicion it was conjured to
justify the bombing.
>
> And, if you are one of those who believes that we started that war and
that
> Japan was an innocent bystander....
Please don't draw conclusions out of thin air.
>
> after today, I have nothing to say to those who believe that.
>
Let me ask you a question, John. If there were a few mobsters living in the
same block where you live, would you justify a small bomb dropped on your
block to get rid of the mobsters?
Igor
ak
(I have tried my best avoid posting on the NY tragedy and keep to the
newsgroup rules ... but your posting just took the cake...)
What kind of a question is:
> And, if you are one of those who believes that we started that war and
that
> Japan was an innocent bystander....
Sounds like a 6 year old defending himself after beating up his 5 year old
brother to a pulp. "Mom, but he started it ...." How mature is that?
The question is not about who started it ... it's about they way you
participate. You just don't drop an H-Bomb on civilians and walk away by
saying "but, they started it ..." (speak like a 6 year old). "No, but the
six year olds in Hiroshima were all going to grow up one day and bomb Peal
Harbour - so kill them now, can we all sleep tight now?"
Besides, if you are thinking of dropping an H-Bomb (if you are indeed that
trigger happy) then please contemplate the possibility of dropping it within
your own borders (USA)! Timothy McVeigh's grave site is quickly replacing
"Graceland" in terms of popularity. Watchout broe, it's probably closer
than you think. Pop quiz: Which INDIVIDUAL was responsible for the
greatest number of American deaths ... take a guess ... he had a genuine (as
opposed to fake!) US passport.
Let's get back to Delphi please.
John Elrick
SNIP
> know where you got the figure from but I have a suspicion it was conjured
to
> justify the bombing.
Discussion ended. Repost after you buy a history book.
John Elrick
Kristofer Skaug
> I think you need a reminder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the U.S.
> military might was used against civilians in a most barbarian manner.
> I hope in this case only those responsible will be punished.
I agree that with respect to civilian casualties, this act is comparable
to Hiroshima, Nagasaki (and the fire bombing of Dresden). I don't see
that the US has a superior moral record in this respect. There's one
important difference though: Dropping those nukes, the US put a very
effective stop to a war which might otherwise have dragged on and
demanded a lot more casualties, both civilian and military, from both
sides. The same human life saving cannot be claimed by the WTC
demolishers.
Kristofer
John Elrick
news:3b9ebc6a_2@dnews...
> "Igor Ivanov" <igiv...@infoserve.net> wrote in message
> news:3b9e8241_1@dnews...
> > I think you need a reminder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the U.S.
> > military might was used against civilians in a most barbarian manner.
> > I hope in this case only those responsible will be punished.
>
> I agree that with respect to civilian casualties, this act is comparable
> to Hiroshima, Nagasaki (and the fire bombing of Dresden). I don't see
> that the US has a superior moral record in this respect. There's one
> important difference though: Dropping those nukes, the US put a very
> effective stop to a war which might otherwise have dragged on and
> demanded a lot more casualties, both civilian and military, from both
> sides.
Right or wrong, this was the goal of the decision makers. Thank you,
Kristofer, for putting this into these words. My postings on this subject
have been tainted by shock.
John Elrick
John Elrick
> John, John, John
>
> (I have tried my best avoid posting on the NY tragedy and keep to the
> newsgroup rules ... but your posting just took the cake...)
Thanks.
Now, go to the library and read about World War II. Find the section on
Operation Olympic and read the estimated casualties. Those figures were
prepared one year before the bomb was tested in Nevada. IIRC, 2 million
Allied soldiers and 8 million Japanese before the homeland was subdued.
Alternative two was a blockade that would have resulted in millions of
Japanese dead due to starvation and disease.
We're not talking about today...we're talking about a time in which 90
million people were killed in a war started by three powers that tried to
divide portions of the world among themselves.
And no, I don't think we should solve this problem by dropping a bomb. But
I don't run this country, nor do I influence public opinion.
If I left the impression that I support using weapons of mass destruction to
solve this problem, then I apologise for miscommunicating. I was attempting
to state the can of worms I feared this attack had opened up.
I'm hoping we can still resolve this matter with a minimum of casualties. I
am convinced, however, that if the goal was to strike terror into the heart
of America it had the opposite effect.
John Elrick
John Elrick
Igor,
I wish to apologize. My responses to you have been harsh, and unfairly so.
You are stating your views on this matter, and I am lashing out, partially
from anger at what happened today.
Please forgive my overstepping of bounds in my comments.
I wish to make it clear (as I said to AK), that my intent was to convey that
this bombing has created a nightmare. I do not believe that using weapons
of mass destruction is the solution, nor am I calling for it. I simply
believe that the situation has made it more possible.
I know my choice of wording did not convey this meaning properly.
As far as the other portions of our postings, can we just write them off and
move forward?
John Elrick
David Clegg
stripping
> such irresponsible rogue states of their soveriegnty in these
circumstances.
>
Or New Zealanders, for that matter! My heart and thoughts go out to all in
the wake of this terrible tragedy. I fear for our children and the future of
humanity, if this disturbing trend of violence continues.
--
David Clegg
dclegg_at_ebetonline_dot_com
Igor Ivanov
No problem, John. I understand, people, especially those close to the
disaster, are overstressed (is that the right word?).
Sometimes after re-reading my own posts later I find them unnecessarily
sarcastic. If you find it was the case in this thread, please accept my
apologies.
Igor
Alessandro Federici
> "Alessandro Federici" <al...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3b9e7a56_1@dnews...
> > "John Elrick" <jel...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > news:3b9e766b_2@dnews...
> > What is the US woke up a giant with their past actions?
> > Just a thought... What if these are already the consequences?
>
> These may be the consequences of the actions of some US
> leaders (not saying they are in any way shape or form, just granting the
> possibility),
Understood but the truth is in the eye of the beholder...
> but now the whole US is pissed.
> The fallout from this will be around for quite a while.
Indeed. Time will tell.
Alessandro Federici
news:3b9e57c0$1_2@dnews...
> I don't think there are many Americans that would disagree with
stripping
> such irresponsible rogue states of their soveriegnty in these
circumstances.
And my feelings are to nuke the bastards as well ( if they find them ) but
the issue is what happens after that...
What if this opens up more hate in those countries (still, assumed it is
them)?
John Jacobson
"Robert Cerny" <robert.q...@neosys.xrs.qwe.si> wrote in message
news:9nm7v8...@neosys.xrs.si...
> But I hope it won't escalate into hate, war,
> bombing some countries, blind killing, as it would cause more pain and
> innocent victims on all sides.
Hate is inevitable, as weak minds respond to things they can't possibly
understand. But it can probably be contained. The willingness to go to war
is probably not containable. There will be an immense pressure on the White
House to bomb Aghanistan, because that is perceived by nearly everyone to be
protecting the assumed mastermind, Osama bin Laden. What amazed me was the
language of even the most anti-hawk senators discussing the need for swift
retaliation. Several of them have called this an act of war.
My wife has heard through her newsgroup contacts that the military is
being mobilized for immediate deployment to the Middle East, particularly
the Persian Gulf. Several mothers of military personal say their sons were
being readied to ship out to the Middle East.
John Jacobson
> Just a thought... What if these are already the consequences?
Every historical event is a consequence of the past. That's a given. The
question is whether the consequences are worth the cause. That's the tough
question.
Dave White
--
Dave White
SpectraChrom Software
www.spectrachrom.com
dave(underscore)wh...@spectrachrom.com
"Joe Hendricks" <ser...@thassoc.com> wrote in message
news:3b9e2fe0$1_1@dnews...
Joe Hendricks
> Nuke 'em!!! Cowardly bastards.
I disagree (but appreciate the sentiment).
I hope that with conventional weapons
every country that has supported bin Laden's
organization, Al-Qa'ida, finds itself without
any military capability whatsoever within
the next 2 weeks.
Not a single weapon left. Let their neighbors
then decide their ultimate fate.
Joe
Dave White
John Jacobson
> reassimilate them with their god, but I would find it completely
deplorable
> to destroy mosques, cities, and majority-muslim countries to root out the
> few.
Exactly. The idea that we should blow the hell out of any country from
which a terrorist originates is the most dangerous possible political
repercussion of this tragedy. There will probably be a great pressure in the
Bush administration to "do something" like that, but then if we do that, we
(the U.S. I mean) have perpetrated an equally horrific or worse act.
John Jacobson
> I'm sure they have a far better idea of targets than you may believe. I'm
> also sure they have ways of getting all targets. They may have been
> restrained by lack of support and resources. These will now be available
in
> abundance.
Maybe not. There is a law on the books that the U.S. government can not
assassinate a foreign individual. While it is likely that they can
physically do so, they might have a lot of difficulty politically, legally
and logistically getting the proper approval for such a strike.
But then, we seemed to disregard this when going after Moammar Quadafy
(sp?).
John Jacobson
"Alessandro Federici" <alef@[nogarbage]bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3b9edce2_1@dnews...
> "John Jacobson" <joh...@xnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3b9e57c0$1_2@dnews...
> > "Joe Hendricks" <ser...@thassoc.com> wrote in message
> > news:3b9e2fe0$1_1@dnews...
>
> > I don't think there are many Americans that would disagree with
> stripping
> > such irresponsible rogue states of their soveriegnty in these
> circumstances.
>
> And my feelings are to nuke the bastards as well ( if they find them ) but
> the issue is what happens after that...
Whoa, I wasn't talking about blowing them up. Especially not with any
nuclear weapons. I was talking about increased espionage and perhaps
surgical missile strikes. I certainly share Tom Clancy's concern that our
intelligence operations are currently eviscerated and need to be beefed up,
and that we need to reinstitute sky marshals.
> What if this opens up more hate in those countries (still, assumed it is
> them)?
Indeed, there is probably little we can do to protect the U.S. that
wouldn't annoy the victims of our retaliation.
Jonathan Wilson
<su...@courthouse.com> wrote:
>Don't want to blindly kill... just want to kill those that kill innocent
>civilians in the name of ideology... and if the countries that are
>harboring these terrorists don't give them up, then they, too, should be
>bombed to complete rubble.
No, not the countries, nor many of the populous... Most of these
people either are not involved, or while they see the west as decadent
while they are oppressed would not contemplate such actions against
anyone.
Only those who are directly involved, or those specific people who
harbor such criminals... not the people of these other countries.
>
>Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>> > and then blow them all to hell.
>>
>> To cause even more sorrow and pain and death?
>> We are all shocked by this event but lets hope we can deal with a
>> terrifying act as this without blindly killing as well.
>>
>> johannes
--
Integrated 400 Solutions Ltd.
Jonathan Wilson, AS/400 consultant/director
24 Hours: 07775 638904
Richard Bayarri Bartual
John Elrick wrote:
>
> I used the word "fear" intentionally. I think this one will blossom out of
> control.
Me too. If Bush fails to respond with extreme force to what (at the
moment seems to have been) an attack by foreigners on the US, then
he is probably finished politically, and he knows it. And there is
more than mere retribution to be considered here: a failure to act
decisively will effectively tell any other potential terrorists out
there that they can do anything they like to the US and its international
interests, and that is a message which Bush would be _very_ unwise
to send.
> I'd prefer to have settled our differences peacefully myself. I
> just believe that for better or worse, today may have removed some of the
> buffers that have protecting a lost of innocent people.
>
Both internal buffers, and external ones: international opinion (at
least in those countries whose opinions the US gives an iota of
consideration to) seems to feel that this is declaration of war not
only against the US, but also against Western civilization, so
an extremely forceful response is therefore not only justified,
but required.
John Elrick
news:3b9ecb0f_1@dnews...
>
> "John Elrick" <jel...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b9ec008_1@dnews...
> > "Igor Ivanov" <igiv...@infoserve.net> wrote in message
> > news:3b9eaacf_2@dnews...
> > As far as the other portions of our postings, can we just write them off
> and
> > move forward?
>
> No problem, John. I understand, people, especially those close to the
> disaster, are overstressed (is that the right word?).
>
> Sometimes after re-reading my own posts later I find them unnecessarily
> sarcastic. If you find it was the case in this thread, please accept my
> apologies.
Thank you for understanding Igor. If only nations could resolve their
differences so easily.
John Elrick
Krasimir Stoyanov
> just want to kill those that kill innocent
> civilians in the name of ideology... and if the countries that are
> harboring these terrorists don't give them up, then they, too, should be
> bombed to complete rubble.
That is the PRESICE reason for what have happened. Just continue to bomb others,
and see what will happen. Some future Osama Bin Laden would steal a nuclear device
and . . . . . . .
USA lacks any wisdom, and innocent people are paying with their lives, including
americans themselves.
Krasimir Stoyanov
> I certainly share Tom Clancy's concern that our
> intelligence operations are currently eviscerated and need to be beefed up,
> and that we need to reinstitute sky marshals.
USA uses 30 billion dollars a year for intelligence. Is this not enough?
Krasimir Stoyanov
> important difference though: Dropping those nukes, the US put a very
> effective stop to a war which might otherwise have dragged on and
> demanded a lot more casualties,
Why hadn't the USA demonstrated the bomb by hitting a Japan military base first?
Before killing hundreds of thousands civilians.
Krasimir Stoyanov
> That'll work too.
Yes, the next assault on US could be nuclear too.
ak
I could not bear to watch when people were trying to escape the smoke and
fires - then the buildings collapse. Dear God! A tragic loss of innocent
lives. What a waste.
> Now, go to the library and read about World War II. Find the section on
> Operation Olympic and read the estimated casualties. Those figures were
> prepared one year before the bomb was tested in Nevada. IIRC, 2 million
> Allied soldiers and 8 million Japanese before the homeland was subdued.
> Alternative two was a blockade that would have resulted in millions of
> Japanese dead due to starvation and disease.
Looking for the perpetrators and bringing them to book is a SHORT TERM
solution. Personally, I have a problem with US policy of the Death
Penalty - I don't believe that killing will solve anything. Not for the
long run at least.
***American foreign policy and internal machinations of governance/power.***
That is what should be re-evaluated. US citizens always seem so ignorant
about
such matters? Why is that? Belgrade, Middle East, Africa, Cuba, South East
Asia,
China ... the list is endless - US policy of direct military intervention,
disregarding sovereign foreign borders, is something that needs to be
re-evaluated.
Also, the hands on approach to come to terms with people like David Koresh
is simply irresponsible (the FBI attack in Waco, Texas - remember that?).
Also, it does not help when world leaders start
negotiating and start an initiative to talk about real issues, the US
chooses to
walk out - Racism Conference is an example. That does not help at all.
Gives the impression that US is not willing to negotiate or even entertain
the talking exercise. Or worse: that US only wants to engage in acts of
brute force.
When ONE person bombs and kills innocent people - yes you can say he was
screwed up and that act probably had no basis for violent terror. But if 4
people (all having the ability to fly planes) get together and orchestrate
murder at this scale - it is time to ask what the hell has had them so
pissed off? Get them, find them - but killing them will make matters worse.
It is time that US understands that both their internal and foregin policies
are not that popular with citizens and foreigners alike. The US citizenry
have a democratic right to be involved to solve this.
In the end, what drives these bigots to murderous intentions. Let's find
**that** out -
that's the long term solution.
> And no, I don't think we should solve this problem by dropping a bomb.
But
> I don't run this country, nor do I influence public opinion.
You've hit the nail on the head. USA, like any other government, is *not* a
monolithic entity that you can ascribe adjectives like the "Great Satan" etc
to. USA, like every nation, is made up of a diverse mindscape. So, you are
American. True. Do you represent America? Yes. Are you the only one
representing and acting on behalf of America. Definitely not.
It's the government policy makers that represent you at a global level.
This is where the problem starts. If I am living in a house with my 4
brothers and families and one of my brothers involves himself outside with
an act that jeopardises the security of the whole house-hold - then it is
time to talk to that brother. Defend the house-hold tooth and nail but find
out how to stop this from happening in the LONG RUN.
> If I left the impression that I support using weapons of mass destruction
...
Kill only one, you kill the entire human race. Yesterday humanity was
killed a thousand times over.
Regards and keep well, John - our sympathies with those that were involved.
ak
John Elrick
> What happened yesterday was a human disaster of serious note (the
horror!).
> I could not bear to watch when people were trying to escape the smoke and
> Looking for the perpetrators and bringing them to book is a SHORT TERM
> solution. Personally, I have a problem with US policy of the Death
> Penalty - I don't believe that killing will solve anything. Not for the
> long run at least.
This is not a crime. This is an act of war. A criminal can be brought to
justice, or even rehabilitated. A "nation at war" real or shadowy, can only
be defeated.
Perhaps you are correct that US policy has been inconceived at times. Then,
if they must, attack military bases. I was upset over the attack on the
Cole, but it is a risk that Navy men take.
Using children (I'm sure there were kids on those planes) as weapons to
attempt to kill tens of thousands of civilians is non-defensible, even if
they are pissed off.
You forget, AK, that throughout history there have been those who attack and
kill for the joy of it. Nobody in Persia ever "pissed off" Genghis Khan or
his sons, yet they conquered and butchered hundreds of thousands there. No
one in Britan ever "pissed off" the Romans, yet they conquered and enslaved
the land. And what did the Dutch ever do to Hitler, even in his wildest
fantasies?
> In the end, what drives these bigots to murderous intentions. Let's find
> **that** out -
> that's the long term solution.
Here we are in accord. I recall watching the end of an episode of World At
War, and seeing the face of a young woman, perhaps in her twenties, being
led from the concentration camp where she was a guard. I wondered then, how
did this lovely young woman become capable of watching children die?
But that doesn't solve the immediate problem...people willing to do anything
to hurt the innocent. If they surrender, then by God let us try to
understand them. But if they don't, the only way we can be sure they won't
do it again is if they are dead. Sorry to be blunt on this, but right now I
don't see any other way.
Perhaps later, I will.
John Elrick
John Elrick
news:3B9F3F37...@krasimir.com...
Hiroshima (believe it or not) was also a military target - albeit a minor
one. It had been ignored through the war. I don't think there was any
military base left where the blast radius would not have devestated a major
city.
Oppenheimer argued that we should have just demonstrated the power of the
bomb somewhere away from populated areas. Perhaps he was right. At least,
if we had been forced to use the bomb against a city afterward, no one could
question that we didn't give fair warning. But we only had two and if we
had wasted one on a demo and lost the plane carrying the second, we would
have been back to months if not years of war (and countless civilian deaths
due to starvation and disease) while we built a third one.
The one point to remember is that, no matter how horrific the bomb was, the
alternatives did not involve fewer civilian casualties. The bomb also had
the side effect that it gave the Emperor an irrefutable excuse to end a war
that his heart was not in.
John Elrick
DOUG SAMUEL
<3B9F40A1...@krasimir.com>, kras...@krasimir.com said...
the intelligence community. We can always look back and see what went
wrong since hindsight is always 20/20. But the fact is, there needs to
be a re-evaluation of the intelligence procedures. certainly some
procedures should be examined and changed if necessary. If more money is
required, so be it. Yesterday should provide plenty of evidence for
those who require a cost analysis show a cost savings.
DOUG SAMUEL
> Dave White wrote:
>
> > That'll work too.
>
> Yes, the next assault on US could be nuclear too.
>
>
>
stop (and eliminate) those who organize the terrorist acts (such as Bin
Laden) a nuclear attack by terrorists on the US is a real and plausible
threat. Punishing those countries who support these high level
terrorists is key as well.
Putting the pawns used by people such as Bin Laden on trial (such as the
1993 WTC bombing) is a joke, and does nothing to stop the leaders. They
must laugh at us when we say that justice has been achieved for the 93
bombing since the suspects were convicted. The "workers" are expendable.
If we don't get the leaders, then it will continue.
Stan Stern
Stan.
John Jacobson
> But that doesn't solve the immediate problem...people willing to do
anything
> to hurt the innocent. If they surrender, then by God let us try to
> understand them. But if they don't, the only way we can be sure they
won't
> do it again is if they are dead. Sorry to be blunt on this, but right now
I
> don't see any other way.
I can understand your sentiment, but it seems to me that the people
willing to do these kinds of things are usually dead before any guilt can be
assigned. Suicide bombers and mercenaries ensure they won't do it again, by
killing themselves in the process. The problem then is not to find and
eliminate the individuals involved, it is to prevent people from becoming
these types of people, and/or infiltrating and internally disarming groups
of such people and their suppliers and infrastructure. What other solution
is possible that does not have a high cost either in human lives or civil
liberties?
This event has changed my mind about the CIA and FBI. I think our country
needs to seriously increase the money it spends on "human intelligence", in
other words, spies, moles and intelligence gathering. We could, and should,
also beef up airline security and safety measures, but that can only go so
far.
In the meantime, our govt should also take steps to help protect
Arab-Americans and Muslims from misguided reactions.
John Jacobson
"Richard Bayarri Bartual" <r...@visual-limes.com> wrote in message
news:3B9F255B...@visual-limes.com...
> Both internal buffers, and external ones: international opinion (at
> least in those countries whose opinions the US gives an iota of
> consideration to) seems to feel that this is declaration of war not
> only against the US, but also against Western civilization, so
> an extremely forceful response is therefore not only justified,
> but required.
Geez, this kind of sentiment scares the hell out of me, especially coming
from someone outside the U.S.. War is such a far greater evil than even this
horrendous attack, that I can not fathom letting this explode into a war.
The human toll for even a "suceessful war" like the Gulf War is staggering
in comparison, not to mention the human suffering that results from the
families of casualities, and the economic repercussions. I am hoping
everyone will keep a cool head, and not punish a president that keeps a cool
head.
--
John M. Jacobson
Visit Jake's Delphi Page at http://www.xnet.com/~johnjac
Home of VCL2CLX, Jake's Code Efficiency Challenge, "Delphi versus Visual
C++", and More...
John Jacobson
> USA uses 30 billion dollars a year for intelligence. Is this not enough?
Obviously not.
Mark Reichert
> the side effect that it gave the Emperor an irrefutable excuse to end a
war
> that his heart was not in.
Maybe not at that time, but his heart might have been more into it in 1931,
according to records recently discovered.
Mark Reichert
> Some future Osama Bin Laden would steal a nuclear device and . . . . . . .
Some future terrorist will steal and use a nuclear device regardless of
anything we do. If sheer revulsion doesn't prevent him, no bending over
backward or abandonment of Isreal will do so.
> USA lacks any wisdom,
Because you have all of it?
> and innocent people are paying with their lives, including
> americans themselves.
So Americans are completely responsible for this?
Mark Reichert
the
> same block where you live, would you justify a small bomb dropped on your
> block to get rid of the mobsters?
If my only other choice is to let the mobsters get away to kill again and
again, yes.
Mark Reichert
> Maybe not. There is a law on the books that the U.S. government can not
> assassinate a foreign individual.
I've heard it was a presidential order. All it would take to remove it is
another presidential order.
Joe Hendricks
> horrendous attack, that I can not fathom letting this explode into a war.
I disagree. War is a proper response to harboring nations.
If it indeed proves to be Sudan, Afghanistan and Irag,
may they cease to exist militarily within the month,
whatever the cost.
Joe
Jim McKay
Krasmimir,
You're premise misstates the circumstances.
Japanese leaders were warned about impending atomic bomb, and
continued to fight. After 1st bombing, again they continued to
fight. There's no way a conclusion can be drawn that a "demonstration"
bombing would have influenced those guys.
Those Japanese leaders were not a sane bunch... any hope of victory
had vanished well before the nukes were deployed. I'm not saying
it was right thing to do: I understand your point of view. I've
never concluded, personally, whether it was best decision. But
*not* doing and instead doing "demonstration" bombings was irrelevant.
The moral choice was US's. Japanese were not acting Moral in any way.
JMcKay
John Elrick
>
> "John Elrick" <jel...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:3b9f5c37_1@dnews...
> > But that doesn't solve the immediate problem...people willing to do
> anything
> > to hurt the innocent. If they surrender, then by God let us try to
> > understand them. But if they don't, the only way we can be sure they
> won't
> > do it again is if they are dead. Sorry to be blunt on this, but right
now
> I
> > don't see any other way.
>
> I can understand your sentiment, but it seems to me that the people
> willing to do these kinds of things are usually dead before any guilt can
be
I was most certainly not talking about the followers.
When Hitler died, the most fanatical Nazis followed him into death. The
others collapsed.
You notice it is followers who are dying for the cause, while the leader
hides out in a safe harbor. If he's so committed, let him fly the next
suicide plane.
John Elrick
John Elrick
news:3b9f9ce4$2_2@dnews...
No doubt. In 1931, his country had not yet paid the price.
John
John Elrick
>
> "Richard Bayarri Bartual" <r...@visual-limes.com> wrote in message
> news:3B9F255B...@visual-limes.com...
> > Both internal buffers, and external ones: international opinion (at
> > least in those countries whose opinions the US gives an iota of
> > consideration to) seems to feel that this is declaration of war not
> > only against the US, but also against Western civilization, so
> > an extremely forceful response is therefore not only justified,
> > but required.
>
> Geez, this kind of sentiment scares the hell out of me, especially
coming
> from someone outside the U.S.. War is such a far greater evil than even
this
> horrendous attack, that I can not fathom letting this explode into a war.
We _are_ at war, John. But there are ways of waging a war and ways of
waging a war.
Read Sun Tzu, "The greatest general is not one who wins countless battles,
rather it is one who wins without bloodshed."
John Elrick
Iman L Crawford
> and again, yes.
Unlikely if you grew up in that neighborhood. They would be your friends
and family.
--
Iman
"Tragedy is when I stub my toe.
Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die."
Stan Stern
I apologize for any un-intended insult.
Regards
Stan.
Alessandro Federici
> "Alessandro Federici" <al...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3b9e7a56_1@dnews...
> Every historical event is a consequence of the past. That's a given.
Action, reaction. Yes.
> The
> question is whether the consequences are worth the cause. That's the tough
> question.
Which doesn't have a logical answer unfortunately.
Michael Lehrman
> "I've heard it was a presidential order.
President Ford's, to be precise.
> All it would take to remove it is
> another presidential order.
And that would be the right thing to do under the circumstances.
ML
David P. Schwartz
> I know my own feelings, having relatives
> in NYC, but am curious as to others'
> opinions on what, if any, retaliation
> should be taken?
>
> Joe
This was an attack against "capitalism". It happened on US soil, but they
destroyed the "World Trade Center", not the "US Trade Center". I think an
appropriate response is for the "World Capitalist Powers", eg, the G7 and
others, to set up a leak-proof trade embargo against most of the
Middle-Eastern countries -- any of them that support or are sympathetic to
others with terrorist causes. Fight back with capitalism, just like what
we did with the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 60s. I'd hate to see us go to
war.
Send their oil freighters back home and tell them to pump the oil back into
the ground, and tell them we'll destroy any freighter that attempts to come
in or leave a port. If they think the idea of capitalism is so terrible,
they probably don't need any sort of foreign trade to survive, or they
don't realise how dependent on it they are for their basic survival.
They've manage to ravage their own lands, kill their own peoples, destroy
their own cities, and most of it has been funded by the sale of crude oil
pumped from their lands.
I'm sure that after a couple months of "capital starvation", most of these
anti-capitalist goombahs will self-destruct attempting to steal from each
other.
Let them eat crude oil...
-David Schwartz
Krasimir Stoyanov
> Some future terrorist will steal and use a nuclear device regardless of
> anything we do.
Looks like you accept it. Fine, so be it.
Krasimir Stoyanov
> The moral choice was US's. Japanese were not acting Moral in any way.
I am out of this discussion. If bombing of Hiroshima is a moral thing, then the
yesterday's events are moral too. Sorry, I don't like this way of thinking. Bye!
Krasimir Stoyanov
These money goes to the people working (directly or indirectly) for this system,
they all have the interest of getting the taxpayer's money, they will never say
"it is enough". They will use the events to ask for more, but "obviously" some day
the money would not be enough again, when the next disaster occurs.
Krasimir Stoyanov
> Not if we stop them first.
Childish way of thinking.
Why didn't you stop them yesterday?
Who said the next assault would be carried on by the same people?
> Lets face it, if we don't figure out how to
> stop (and eliminate) those who organize the terrorist acts (such as Bin
> Laden) a nuclear attack by terrorists on the US is a real and plausible
> threat. Punishing those countries who support these high level
> terrorists is key as well.
This is a pure fascism, punishing countries, oh, very well . . . .
> If we don't get the leaders, then it will continue.
I don't understand why you think these leaders are something that come out of thin
air. If you get the today's leaders, some years later there would come some others
to do the same.
Stan Stern
Stan
Krasimir Stoyanov
> Your approach was used after the 1993 bombing. We saw the results
> yesterday.
My approach? Used by US? No, and I even think US is not capable of being true moral and
wise world leader, they behave like arogant and stupid gangster, who happen to be the
strongest in town.
Krasimir Stoyanov
> Will they?
I don't know, I just try to think about it.
DOUG SAMUEL
<3B9FC519...@krasimir.com>, kras...@krasimir.com said...
> DOUG SAMUEL wrote:
>
> > Not if we stop them first.
>
> Childish way of thinking.
> Why didn't you stop them yesterday?
> Who said the next assault would be carried on by the same people?
>
You may think it is childish, but unfortunately it is the way it is. Are
you so naive to think that these assults are done on a whim with little
or no advance planning? These organizations have long range plans and
goals which is why they have remained in the news for the last several
years. Why didn't we stop them yesterday? Because of the unwillingness
of people in positions of leadership to take risks and get to the heart
of the problem. Assuming Bin Laden was behind this, what if we went
after him in 1993 after the first bombing at the WTC? Would this have
happened? Possibly not.
> > Lets face it, if we don't figure out how to
> > stop (and eliminate) those who organize the terrorist acts (such as Bin
> > Laden) a nuclear attack by terrorists on the US is a real and plausible
> > threat. Punishing those countries who support these high level
> > terrorists is key as well.
>
> This is a pure fascism, punishing countries, oh, very well . . . .
>
Your approach was used after the 1993 bombing. We saw the results
yesterday.
>
Robert Cerny
>Several of them have called this an act of war.
>
How smart...
> My wife has heard through her newsgroup contacts that the military is
>being mobilized for immediate deployment to the Middle East, particularly
>the Persian Gulf. Several mothers of military personal say their sons were
>being readied to ship out to the Middle East.
>
Yep. That's the most obvious reaction. Attackers probably (for whatever
reason) looking forward to it and expected it.
--
Robert
Loren Pechtel
>Sounds like a 6 year old defending himself after beating up his 5 year old
>brother to a pulp. "Mom, but he started it ...." How mature is that?
But when the younger kid gets the worst of it that doesn't mean
that the older was wrong.
I never beat them to a pulp but I did hurt the next door neighbor
kids more than once despite their being several years younger--it was
the only way I could stop them from hurting me. Two or three would
gang up and when they got the worst of it (ie, if I fought back at
all) they would go whining to daddy. Fortunately my parents knew what
was going on.
The neighbor kids never learned better, last I knew they were in
and out of jails from their late teens on.
>Besides, if you are thinking of dropping an H-Bomb (if you are indeed that
>trigger happy) then please contemplate the possibility of dropping it within
>your own borders (USA)! Timothy McVeigh's grave site is quickly replacing
>"Graceland" in terms of popularity. Watchout broe, it's probably closer
>than you think. Pop quiz: Which INDIVIDUAL was responsible for the
>greatest number of American deaths ... take a guess ... he had a genuine (as
>opposed to fake!) US passport.
The guys flying the planes that hit the two towers are certainly
individually responsible for far more deaths than McVeigh.
Loren Pechtel
<igiv...@infoserve.net> wrote:
>> I think you need to re-read history. Civilian casulties (if there were
>any
>> Japanese civilians at that point in time)
>
>Excellent! So the kids and elders in those two cities were also military?
>200,000 civilians were killed! You may add to that a lot of civilians killed
>in conventional bombings of Tokyo, as well as in some German cities by the
>allies.
The point is that had we not dropped the bombs the civilian
casualties would have been far higher. Thus it was the humane act.
>So let's drop a bomb on a city instead of a military base? Anyway, I don't
>know where you got the figure from but I have a suspicion it was conjured to
>justify the bombing.
I don't know the origin, either, but every estimate I've seen has
been in the 7 figures--well above what the bombs did.
As for bombing a military base--what major bases were left to
hit? By then we were going after infrastructure.
Loren Pechtel
>Looking for the perpetrators and bringing them to book is a SHORT TERM
>solution. Personally, I have a problem with US policy of the Death
>Penalty - I don't believe that killing will solve anything. Not for the
>long run at least.
For the long run we have to crush the governments behind this
attack. This was an act of war, plain and simple, and we should
respond militarily. Either bomb the governments to rubble or invade.
>Also, the hands on approach to come to terms with people like David Koresh
>is simply irresponsible (the FBI attack in Waco, Texas - remember that?).
Such cults often go out in a mass suicide when faced with
capture. We either ignore such groups and the crimes they commit or
face the occasional Waco.
>Also, it does not help when world leaders start
>negotiating and start an initiative to talk about real issues, the US
>chooses to
>walk out - Racism Conference is an example. That does not help at all.
We walked out because the conference was not doing what it was
supposed to.
>Gives the impression that US is not willing to negotiate or even entertain
>the talking exercise. Or worse: that US only wants to engage in acts of
>brute force.
Negotiation only works if both sides want to.
>When ONE person bombs and kills innocent people - yes you can say he was
>screwed up and that act probably had no basis for violent terror. But if 4
>people (all having the ability to fly planes) get together and orchestrate
>murder at this scale - it is time to ask what the hell has had them so
>pissed off? Get them, find them - but killing them will make matters worse.
>It is time that US understands that both their internal and foregin policies
>are not that popular with citizens and foreigners alike. The US citizenry
>have a democratic right to be involved to solve this.
Most likely, Osama Bin Laden. The suicide bombers don't exactly
have an honest picture of the true situation thus their motives say
nothing about the morality of the true situation.
Loren Pechtel
<ser...@thassoc.com> wrote:
>I know my own feelings, having relatives
>in NYC, but am curious as to others'
>opinions on what, if any, retaliation
>should be taken?
Find the government(s) behind it, blow their government to
rubble.
Loren Pechtel
<jel...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>Oppenheimer argued that we should have just demonstrated the power of the
>bomb somewhere away from populated areas. Perhaps he was right. At least,
>if we had been forced to use the bomb against a city afterward, no one could
>question that we didn't give fair warning. But we only had two and if we
>had wasted one on a demo and lost the plane carrying the second, we would
>have been back to months if not years of war (and countless civilian deaths
>due to starvation and disease) while we built a third one.
There's another problem: We didn't feel we could demo it--we
weren't certain enough of whether it would detonate. There's a random
factor that affects all atomic weapons that gives a non-zero chance of
a much lower blast than intended. Back then we did not have the
computer power to figure out these odds, all we could do is know the
chance existed.
For a crude U-235 gun device like we used in Japan the odds are a
few percent that the thing does nothing more than a big light show in
the sky.
For a crude Pu-239 gun device (which has never existed), the odds
are near 100%. That's why Pu-239 devices are the far more technically
complex implosion devices.
Loren Pechtel
<alef@[nogarbage]bigfoot.com> wrote:
>And my feelings are to nuke the bastards as well ( if they find them ) but
>the issue is what happens after that...
>What if this opens up more hate in those countries (still, assumed it is
>them)?
If we had found them yesterday I think that's exactly what would
have happened. I don't think it will happen now, though.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
>retaliation. Several of them have called this an act of war.
It *IS* an act of war.
Loren Pechtel
wrote:
> Exactly. The idea that we should blow the hell out of any country from
>which a terrorist originates is the most dangerous possible political
>repercussion of this tragedy. There will probably be a great pressure in the
>Bush administration to "do something" like that, but then if we do that, we
>(the U.S. I mean) have perpetrated an equally horrific or worse act.
The mere fact that a terrorist originated from somewhere is no
reason to attack that place. The support of that government for the
terrorist, though, makes his acts an extension of state policy. The
mere fact that he's not in uniform or using conventional military
tactics doesn't change his status as a soldier of that country. As
such, yesterday was an act of war by that country.
Loren Pechtel
<johann...@sipsolutions.de> wrote:
>> and then blow them all to hell.
>
>To cause even more sorrow and pain and death?
>We are all shocked by this event but lets hope we can deal with a
>terrifying act as this without blindly killing as well.
Yes, we *MUST* kill. It's not just this incident, we have to
make the price high enough that they won't do it again.
John Elrick
Whoa, Krasimir. The US has acted poorly at times, that I will grant, but
there is no nation on earth that has not been guilty of that.
But to say we are not capable...that's simply not fair. If we are "not
capable", then nobody else is either.
John Elrick
John Elrick
news:3b9fba4d....@newsgroups.borland.com...
It is the fact that anti-war congressmen are calling it that.
If the death count goes very high...I would not like to stand between the US
and retribution.
John Elrick
Johannes Berg
hacked in:
> Yes, we *MUST* kill. It's not just this incident, we have to
> make the price high enough that they won't do it again.
I think you are forgetting that this won't stop someone who feels
(relatively) safe far away. Nor will it stop suicide missions, those
people are dead anyway.
And if they *really* believe, they will all be willing to die, whoever it
may have been.
johannes
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
>War is such a far greater evil than even this
> horrendous attack, that I can not fathom letting this explode into a war.
Several bombs were dropped on America Sept. 11, bombs carrying almost 300
innocent civilians, bombs that then killed many 1000s more innocent
civilians. More people died in these bombings than died in Pearl Harbour in
1941, and you do not think you are *already at war*? An aggressor has made a
first strike and you are afraid it *might turn into a war*?
You are at war John, whether you or America like it or not and the only
rational *and moral* thing to do is to defend and retaliate against the
aggressors and their hosts. To do nothing, to try to appease this evil, is
to surrender to that evil.
--
Wayne Niddery (Logic Fundamentals, Inc.)
RADBooks: http://www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks/delphibooks.html
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a
cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the
wagon." - Winston Churchill
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> Yes, the next assault on US could be nuclear too.
If the US and its allies continue to turn the other cheek and do nothing
*substantial* in retaliation then I have no doubt terrorists, or some
nation, will indeed eventually use nuclear or biological force against the
U.S. andor an ally You cannot appease evil, that only makes evil bolder and
stronger. The only rational response to evil is its destruction. If the
destruction of the WTC and many 1000s of lives on September 11 does not
prove this fact then what will it take?
It is time to stand up to the terrorists and their supporting nations and
show them by deed the price they will pay from now on for continued acts of
terrorism.
John Jacobson
"John Elrick" <jel...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3b9fa356$1_1@dnews...
> You notice it is followers who are dying for the cause, while the leader
> hides out in a safe harbor. If he's so committed, let him fly the next
> suicide plane.
You gotta wonder why his followers don't ask that question.
I was on an ancestry kick for a while in grad school so I read up on
Vikings, being half Norwegian. I was impressed that their kings, like many
kings of the day, would lead the charges into battle and be right there in
the thick of battle fighting like everyone else. In fact, in 1066 when the
Normans invaded England, the Norwegian king was killed in a battle in the
Middle East. I imagine that modern wars would be quite more rare if
presidents and prime ministers were on the front lines with the troops.
John Jacobson
> We walked out because the conference was not doing what it was
> supposed to.
No, we walked out because we would not agree that Zionism is racism.
Richard Bayarri Bartual
John Jacobson wrote:
>
> Geez, this kind of sentiment scares the hell out of me, especially coming
> from someone outside the U.S.
What difference does it make if I am outside the US? Being Jewish is not
a prerequisite for one to be appalled by the Holocaust, or wanting to
see those responsible for it punished, and likewise, it isn't only
Americans who have been shocked and sickened by this dreadful act, or
only Americans who would like to see whoever is responsible for it impaled
on tall stakes in some suitably public place.
> War is such a far greater evil than even this
> horrendous attack, that I can not fathom letting this explode into a war.
It is already a war: under international law, the US has every right
to respond with force to any attack on it by an external entity, which
is by definition an act of war.
> The human toll for even a "suceessful war" like the Gulf War is staggering
> in comparison, not to mention the human suffering that results from the
> families of casualities, and the economic repercussions.
Perhaps it would behoove you to consider who it was that started the
(2nd) Gulf War by invading Kuwait (clue: it wasn't the US, or any of
those in the coalition that they put together). And while we're talking
about the costs of war, consider also that the US may have lost
at least 20,000 citizens in _one day_, i.e. half of what were lost
during _12 years_ of war in Viet Nam.
> I am hoping everyone will keep a cool head, and not punish a president
> that keeps a cool head.
>
If they do, then they will be perceived by both terrorists and those
who support them as being a "soft touch", and acts of this sort will
not only continue, but escalate. Perhaps you feel that losing lives
fruitlessly to acts of terrorism is better than losing lives while
wiping it out - hopefully, the US administration will feel differently.
Richard Bayarri Bartual
Loren Pechtel wrote:
>
> The support of that government for the
> terrorist, though, makes his acts an extension of state policy.
>
Actually it does, especially if the country they're attacking is
at war with them. Under the Geneva Convention, hostiles caught
on your territory out of uniform are considered to be spies rather
than POWs, and may be summarily executed without trial.
John Jacobson
> Read Sun Tzu, "The greatest general is not one who wins countless battles,
> rather it is one who wins without bloodshed."
Sounds like Sun Tzu would recommend beefing up the CIA then.
John Jacobson
"Mark Reichert" <ma...@nospammessagelink.com> wrote in message
news:3b9f9ce5_2@dnews...news:3b9f1ed8_1@dnews...
> > Maybe not. There is a law on the books that the U.S. government can
not
> > assassinate a foreign individual.
>
> I've heard it was a presidential order. All it would take to remove it is
> another presidential order.
Not even that, apparently. I heard Joseph Biden laugh at a reporter that
asked about "The Rule of Law" in regard to strikes against foreign
terrorists that engage in terrorism on American soil. He said there was no
such thing outside the borders of the United States, no international rule
of law, that exists to prevent a military strike in any country involved in
this act, even to kill specific individuals. This was in response to a
question about being able to mobilize a legal case under "international law"
for an attack or to bring the instigators to justice. He said that American
laws apply only in America, not overseas. no need to worry about the guys'
civil rights, or a protecting country's national sovereignty. So that law or
presidential order is probably pretty irrelevant afterall.
By the way, Biden was very PISSED!
Every single senator I've seen interviewed so far had the same thing to
say, that we must strike a retaliatory blow that is quick and unambiguous in
it's intent and effect. Period.
Joe Hendricks
> > I am hoping everyone will keep a cool head, and not punish a president
> > that keeps a cool head.
> If they do, then they will be perceived by both terrorists and those
> who support them as being a "soft touch", and acts of this sort will
> not only continue, but escalate. Perhaps you feel that losing lives
> fruitlessly to acts of terrorism is better than losing lives while
> wiping it out - hopefully, the US administration will feel differently.
Amen !!
Joe
Richard Bayarri Bartual
John Elrick wrote:
>
> If the death count goes very high...I would not like to stand between the US
> and retribution.
>
It's climbing: current estimates seem to be 20,000 killed in the
Twin Towers, and perhaps another 10,000 in an adjacent underground
mall. One can only hope that these are at least somewhat exaggerated,
but even if they are, the death toll is undoubtedly going to be
horrific.
John Jacobson
"Wayne Niddery [TeamB]" <wnid...@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3ba022ef$1_2@dnews...
> "John Jacobson" <joh...@xnet.com> wrote in message
> news:3b9f8ef5$1_2@dnews...
> >
> >War is such a far greater evil than even this
> > horrendous attack, that I can not fathom letting this explode into a
war.
>
> Several bombs were dropped on America Sept. 11, bombs carrying almost 300
> innocent civilians, bombs that then killed many 1000s more innocent
> civilians. More people died in these bombings than died in Pearl Harbour
in
> 1941, and you do not think you are *already at war*? An aggressor has made
a
> first strike and you are afraid it *might turn into a war*?
>
> You are at war John, whether you or America like it or not and the only
> rational *and moral* thing to do is to defend and retaliate against the
> aggressors and their hosts. To do nothing, to try to appease this evil, is
> to surrender to that evil.
But I fear that this is an enemy we can't wage war against, without
creating far worse casualities than this. What do we do, invade Afghanistan
just to get Osama bin Laden? That would require going through or over either
Iran or Pakistan just to get there. That's pretty problematic, as Pakistan
is a nuclear power and sympathizes with Afghanistan on most things. Then
there is the incredibly hilly terrain of Afghanistan and the former Soviet
republics to the north where he would likely flee if on foot or vehicle.
Of course, I guess Russia would love to see Afghanistan gets its ass
whipped. And NATO is obviously on board. Bush could probably put together a
massive coalition.
Richard Bayarri Bartual
"Wayne Niddery [TeamB]" wrote:
>
> You cannot appease evil, that only makes evil bolder and
> stronger.
>
As the old saw says, "evil thrives while good men do nothing".
Appeasement has _never_ worked at any time in history: it
didn't work when the Romans tried it with Attilla, or when
the Saxons tried it with Vikings who were constantly invading
Britain, or when Britain and France tried it with Hitler - in
all these cases, attempts at appeasement merely escalated the
problem by making those doing the appeasement look weak, and
giving their opponent time to build their forces up. One can
therefore only hope that Bush remembers the words of yet another
old saw: "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat
it".
John Jacobson
Maybe this is the sentiment that will drive an attack on Afghanistan. I
have bad feeling about this. International aid agencies are streaming out of
Afghanistan at top speed. At least one of the hijackers was identified as
from there. We suspect Osama bin Laden is there. All fingers seem to be
pointing to Afghanistan.