0
billvon

War on terror

Recommended Posts

Now that we've been in this "war on terror" for a little over six months, it would be good to try to sum up where we are:
-We've killed over 4000 civilians in Afghanistan (Sept 11th US death toll = 3000) (BBC)
-Bin Laden is still at large, and in fact we never even knew where he was to begin with:
"Despite a massive number of tips, rumors and other intelligence, the U.S. military has never had good enough information on Osama bin Laden's whereabouts to mount a mission to go after him, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday." (AP)
-Most of Al Quaeda is still at large:
"The leadership is still at large. Only six or seven of the 30 senior leaders have been eliminated," says Dr Magnus Ranstorp, deputy director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University in Scotland. (BBC)
-We've spent 17 billion over normal military spending on the war (LA times)
-We've removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan
-Bush has warned us that we will be at war for another several years - in fact, he's said that the war till now "is just the beginning." (3/5/02)
-There isn't much doubt that Iraq will be attacked next:
"This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world."
-Bush, January 2002
"There is no question but that Iraq is a state that has committed terrorist acts and has sponsored terrorist acts."
-Rumsfeld
I sure hope we can do better in the next six months.
-bill von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I sure hope we can do better in the next six months.

That old 'American Will' coming out in you? The great weakness of the United States. Responsible for the waste of numerous lives in Korea, Vietnam, and Somalia. Raised on fast food, 90 minute war movies, 10 minute video games and instant gratification.
It was over 4 months before we retaliated against the Japanese with the Doolittle Raid after Pearl Harbor. These things take time and a lot of perseverence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

-We've killed over 4000 civilians in Afghanistan (Sept 11th US death toll = 3000) (BBC)


Oh, they know enough about the country to figure this number but they can't come up with the where about's of Osama? I think this number is slanted or a blatant lie.
"No one won a war, by dieing for his country. He won a war by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
-George S. Patton
Uh, we killed a lot of civilians in WWII and not too many people protested that. Guess times have changed. Ahh hell. I'm probably gonna get flamed for this response. And this relates to skydiving how?
Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Bill, where did you get the figure for that many casulties? I'm guessing from the media, and you know they're always accurate and never push their own adgenda...

He put (BBC) after the figures so I guess that is where they are from. The BBC must be trusting the Taliban's casualty reports. Of course, they aren't known to distort the truth or tell outright lies either. The little problem of producing bodies to prove the casualties didn't even phase them.
In one instance we dropped about 3-4 laser guided bombs near a town and they claimed about 600-1000 civilian casualties. Man, that is an impressive casualty count from 3-4 bombs! It didn't matter that they were hiding soldiers and APCs in the town right next to the Mosque. But let's blame America first! We are in a sad state of affairs. :( Do you think this generation could pull off a war like WWII again? I'm starting to have my doubts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah- I'd love to read a news post that Bin Laden has been eliminated, even though Al Qeada will still go on without him. I have some reservations about the Iraq implication
I read just recently that we have spent over 50 billion protecting oil interests in that neighborhood, and have actually imported about 19 billion in oil- That math seems a little upside down to me-
Isreal and Palestine- For f*ck sake just let them nuke each other into oblivion and let God sort 'em out- I am really tired of that centuries old dispute-
We live on whatever we want, fast food or healthly stuff and can fill our minds with anything we want, from college degrees to a bong and hours of the Flinstones- and can make money in a multitude af ways- and then spend it any way we want - on sneakers made by 12 years olds in some horrible sweat shop in some godforsaken country for instance- or incredibly large SUV's that will never be taken off the paved road - And in the meantime wreacking wonderful havoc in several countires in the name of protecting our freedom and "national interests" - and don't forget there are lots of other dirty little wars going on that we don't even know about!
And beleive it or not, it's all for the Almighty Dollar, when it all boils down- And I for one, really really like dollars- Lots of them- to buy cool skydiving stuff, pay for nice meals, Harley-Davidsons and beer. Things that these poor people will never see or can even comprehend- But they all know what a US dollar looks like!!!!!
It's great being an American! ( And I mean that- I am also a Gulf War veteran! - And a veteran of the Bosnia effort, also-)
Let the flames begin!!
Wanna buy a duck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Oh, they know enough about the country to figure this number but they can't
> come up with the where about's of Osama? I think this number is slanted or a
> blatant lie.
Take your pick of sources. You can believe the US version of things - a few dozen. Since eyewitnesses have seen 30-40 deaths on several occasions, this is a little hard to believe. The University of New Hampshire estimates 3700. The Project on Defense Alternatives estimates 1300. Your choice.
At the end of the day, though, it's hard to claim that it's OK because there are "only" 1300 innocents dead. Imagine what you would say if the Arab press claimed that 9/11 wasn't so bad because only 3000 civilians died instead of the "American lie" about 5000.
>Uh, we killed a lot of civilians in WWII and not too many people protested that.
I wasn't around then. Are you saying that you would sanction the use of nuclear weapons to kill 350,000 innocent Arabs right now, if it would end the "war on terror" a little sooner? Think carefully about your answer, because that's exactly what we did at the end of World War II.
-bill von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

there are "only" 1300 innocents dead

You're not there, you can't tell me with out a doubt that those were innocents. I agree that civilian casulties are bad, but that is a fact of war. Also, look at the history of the USSR's war there and you'll notice that there weren't really any "innocents" since basically every peasant in the country did something to fight them. Let me clarify something, too, the USSR begain troop deployment in 1979 in Afganistan not as an invasion, but at the persistent requests of the government who had claimed themselves communists and tried to impose that on the peasantry. The government obviously didn't work and Soviet troops had to be called in to try to save the communist bloc a black eye internationally, which happened anyways.
The point of that is, in 1979, the USSR got caught up in what was basically a civil war for Afganistan and they found that basically every single villager in the country was in arms against them, which turned out to be a very bloody and ruthless war on both sides.
Quote

Think carefully about your answer, because that's exactly what we did at the end of World War II.

So Bill, you would have rather had over a million (estimated) US and allies deaths so we could have saved a couple of Japan's cities and "civilians"? Then how the hell could you call yourself an American? In the choice between loosing American lives and the lives of our enemy, I am going to choose them!
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Bill, you should probably try and make sure your "sources" actually have a clue on what the are talking about before you start spewing facts. You should also not make your statements so biased towards your anti-America side to avoid people laughing at your post. I guess it really was impossible to find any good things the U.S. has done.
-So, how hard is the ground?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You're not there, you can't tell me with out a doubt that those were innocents.
You weren't in the WTC - can you guarantee that _they_ were all innocents? I think I can, even if there were Jewish bankers there who send money back to the homeland, or aerospace executives who manufacture Israeli gunships.
I think you can argue over the numbers. I think it takes a lot of blindness to claim that all the people killed by our bombs were evil. That's the sort of thinking that leads people to become terrorists in the first place. I'd like to think we're better than that.
>So Bill, you would have rather had over a million (estimated) US and allies deaths
> so we could have saved a couple of Japan's cities and "civilians"?
No, I would choose neither personally. Drop em over a deserted part of Japan, and tell them that their bases are next. I think that's better than 350,000 deaths _or_ the mythical million deaths (which I view with as much suspicion as you view the Afghani death toll.)
>Then how the hell could you call yourself an American?
Ah! The usual attack on one's patriotism. "Love it or leave it, commie pinko bastard!" Different day, same attitude.
We will someday grow up and not settle our differences by killing people. We'll keep score by deaths avoided, not award victory to the best killers. I'd prefer to hasten, rather than retard, that day.
>In the choice between
> loosing American lives and the lives of our enemy, I am going to choose them!
Once again, if you could drop two nuclear bombs in Arab countries and kill 350,000 innocent people, and that _might_ prevent one terrorist attack by killing the 10 terrorists who plan to perform it, would you do it?
-bill von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Once again, if you could drop two nuclear bombs in Arab countries and kill 350,000 innocent people, and that _might_ prevent one terrorist attack by killing the 10 terrorists who plan to perform it, would you do it?
*** No because such a scenario doesn't even make any sense.


Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Hey Bill, you should probably try and make sure your "sources" actually have a
>clue on what the are talking about before you start spewing facts.
Right! Instead, use the US military numbers of a few dozen deaths. All those reporters, all those pictures of the dead - it's all a communist plot to deceive well-intentioned Americans into thinking that, somehow, US bombs sometimes actually miss their targets, which as we know from our experience in Viet Nam and the Gulf War is impossible.
Ah, sorry. The bad guys have become terrorists, rather than communists. So consider it a terrorist plot.
>You should also not make your statements so biased towards your anti-America
> side to avoid people laughing at your post. I guess it really was impossible to
> find any good things the U.S. has done.
You sound like a true patriot!
Comment: Maybe we should think twice about using nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Approved true-patriot reply: Why do you hate America so much?
Comment: I don't know how a missile shield will protect us against a terrorist with a box knife.
Approved true-patriot reply: Why do you hate America so much?
Comment: We are making the same mistake now in the Middle East that we made in the 80's, when we funded Al-Quaeda and shipped them tons of weapons.
Approved true-patriot reply: Why do you hate America so much?
Comment: They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Approved true-patriot reply: Why do you hate America so much?
So keep it up! At least it avoids talking about the issues, which are messy.
-bill von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think it takes a lot of blindness to claim that all the people killed by our bombs were evil. That's the sort of thinking that leads people to become terrorists in the first place. I'd like to think we're better than that.

I didn't say that they were all evil, I just stated that in the experience with the Soviet Union, a very large majority of the Afghan citizenship took arms against the opposing troops (USSR and the communist Afghanistan regime).
In the same respect, you can not claim that all the deaths were innocents either, on the opposite side, that is the sort of thinking that leads people to become bleeding liberals in the first place and I think we're better then that (to paraphrase a bit).
Quote

Ah! The usual attack on one's patriotism. "Love it or leave it, commie pinko bastard!" Different day, same attitude.

So, you're saying that I'm practicing McCarthyism because I believe that if I had to choose between letting my fellow Americans die or to have some of the opposing force die I would choose the opposing force? Ok, fine believe what ever you feel comfortable believing. At least I'm safe knowing you will never lead me into battle.
Quote

We will someday grow up and not settle our differences by killing people. We'll keep score by deaths avoided, not award victory to the best killers. I'd prefer to hasten, rather than retard, that day.

After the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the same things were stated, that by signing that document, war had been ended. Human nature disallows the thought to believe that we will ever reach that utopia. Do you know the origin of the word utopia, not just the meaning? If you know the combination of the Latin words that were used to name the book Utopia, then you'll know the point I'm trying to make.
Quote

Once again, if you could drop two nuclear bombs in Arab countries and kill 350,000 innocent people, and that _might_ prevent one terrorist attack by killing the 10 terrorists who plan to perform it, would you do it?

Not once did I advocate the use of nothing but conventional weapons in our current conflict. The use of nuclear arms is not something to be taken lightly, obviously, and I would be ecstatic if the only time that they were used were back in Japan. I was merely defending America's use of them then.
Do I have a solution for our current conflict? No, but you know, match grade 7.62 ammo is pretty cheap.
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with AggieDave here. There is quite a bit of support, among many historians, for the theory that dropping the two atomic bombs at the end of WWII ultimately saved more lives than they took. More people had died from the conventional bombings in Japan up to that point and it did very little to break the Japanese' will to fight.
I suppose you could argue that we had no business bombing Japan in the first place. But that would be idiotic.
FallRate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I agree with AggieDave here. There is quite a bit of support, among many historians, for the theory that dropping the two atomic bombs at the end of WWII ultimately saved more lives than they took.

I think you should read some more modern history books.
In my ever so humble opinion, the support you speak of was just an example of how a winning nation will write the history they want to.
More recently, the history I studied in college was a whole lot more questioning about exactly what role Hiroshima and Nagasaki played. Remember that Japan had offered the white flag after Hiroshima - before Nagasaki. The second was bomb completely unjustified, in my humble opinion. I even have a quote here from one of the bomber pilots, but I can't find it. Short story is that even he was questioning the second bomb.
The authors that I knew who were writing todays high school texts were a whole lot more cynical then those who wrote the books I had in high school.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think you should read some more modern history books.

Remember something, though, history books aren't fact, they are presenting an argument and trying to support it. Read 4 or 5 on a subject and you'll see some interesting and conflicing points.
One of the reasons for the second bomb was to totally break the Japanese government and especially the people. Even if the government broke, if the people thought that they should have held out and fought, that they had a chance, then they could have and probably would have risen again. That accompanied with the US rebuilding Japan after the war is what kept the situation, which could have ended up like German after the first World War, from happening. Was it a terrible thing? Yes, but wasn't a surprise attack on a Sunday morning in 1941 a terrible thing?
Now, if you want to talk about scary nuclear weapons, we can start discussing China...
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>In the same respect, you can not claim that all the deaths were innocents either,
> on the opposite side, that is the sort of thinking that leads people to become
>bleeding liberals in the first place and I think we're better then that (to paraphrase
> a bit).
I do not claim they all are. I claim that most of the accidental deaths were innocents. At least, I hope that our military is not relying on missing their targets and accidentally killing all the right people!
>So, you're saying that I'm practicing McCarthyism because I believe that if I had
> to choose between letting my fellow Americans die or to have some of the
>opposing force die I would choose the opposing force?
Killing ten of the opposing force to save 3000 Americans? No question - do it. Kill 1000 innocent Iraquis to save our oil interests? Again, no question - oil isn't worth it. In between - I will generally choose the option that results in the least people dead on _both_ sides.
>Human nature disallows the thought to believe that we will ever reach that utopia.
I am well aware of the origin of the word. I do not claim that we will ever reach utopia. Criminals and murderers will always exist. I look forward to the day that only a sick individual would deliberately kill another - whether they are motivated by fanaticism, patriotism or religion. Sick people will always exist, but someday governments will not implement their policies.
Look at the history of civilization. We've been gradually moving from tribes to fiefdoms to kingdoms to countries, each time a larger area that can live in relative peace. We have huge areas of the world at peace right now, billions of people living in relative peace compared to most of the history of the world. Despite the troubles throughout the world, the average person is less likely to die violently today than in any other time in history. I look forward to that process continuing.
-bill von

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Remember something, though, history books aren't fact, they are presenting an argument and trying to support it. Read 4 or 5 on a subject and you'll see some interesting and conflicing points.

Textbooks written for high school kids are suposed to be low on opinion. That's why I specifically mentioned them.
When I was doing my degree in Canadian History, I can assure you I read quite a few more then 4 or 5 books... :)_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frankly I don't believe a damned thing the news says. They have a tendency to instigate and fuel the whole damned thing.
Truth of the matter is we ARE NOT being kept informed, nor is the media for the sake of not killing our own service men and women. WE CANNOT know. The news CANNOT know. They are idiots. Bush, Rumsfeld, they are looking out for our best interests in the best way possible trying not to instigate WW3. This is a delicate matter and make no mistake about it. Terrorists are dropping like flies right now. None of us have a clue as to exactly what is happening. I know Marines that are on the ground in MANY countries hunting terrorists under the guise of "other" missions.
Common Bill.. More is happening then you are being lead to believe. Apparently Uncle Sam's tactic is effective. If you are thinking that things are winding down and the war on terror is getting lax than the terrorists probably are too. They will start showing their faces again allowing us to put a bullet between their eyes.
It is working.. We are actually being looked out for by OUR system of government. It is behind in the times but catching up rapidly. I for one think Bin Laden was dead a long time ago, either that or we already have him and he's being interrogated.
Semper Fi
Sgt. Cowan
Blue Skies ..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Remember that Japan had offered the white flag after Hiroshima - before Nagasaki.

Read a little deeper. They offered a conditional surrender that would have allowed their war machine to stay intact to fight another day (WWIII?). We dropped the second bomb to force them into an unconditional surrender. Compare the deaths from the bombs with the US deaths that would have occurred if we would have invaded Japan. It's nice to have these lofty ideas but they tend to fade when you are the one storming the beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Look at the history of civilization. We've been gradually moving from tribes to fiefdoms to kingdoms to countries, each time a larger area that can live in relative peace. We have huge areas of the world at peace right now, billions of people living in relative peace compared to most of the history of the world. Despite the troubles throughout the world, the average person is less likely to die violently today than in any other time in history. I look forward to that process continuing.

If you read the history, this process you look forward to was fueled by war, by people's deaths. Countries, tribes, regions, etc. are not going to 'unite' under one government without some crisis that requires them to do so to ensure their survival. More often than not that 'crisis' is war. Innocent people dying is a tragedy but there are things that are worse. There are things worth dying for. If you don't believe that then I definitely don't want you in my fox hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0