Re: It takes balls...

Post #8,590 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 11:59:46 AM Reply	Re: It takes balls... We are now what Britain was during the American Revolutionary War. Our defenses thusfar have been built with the notion that our enemies will obey the "rules of engagement". This is as flawed now as was the King's Army's philosophy some 200 years ago. The Brits expected the colonists to obey the rules of the game and were virtually helpless to the guerilla tactics the colonists employed. We like to think we are more sophisticated, and perhaps we are. But we will forever be vulnerable to this kind of cowardly act as long as we continue to make responses that are "considered, measured and appropriate." Know why no one tried hijacking an Aeroflot airplane out of the Soviet Union? Think there weren't people who desperately wanted out of there? Of course there were and the reason they didn't was that Soviet policy was to shoot the airliner down if it tried to leave Soviet airspace. The mongrels responsible for yesterday's activities are among the most dangerous one can encounter: religious zealots. You can no more convince them that their actions are counter-productive to their cause than you can convince them that their religious beliefs are invalid. One thing Dubya said last night really gave me some heart. As best I can recall it went, "we will not distinguish between those responsible for these attacks and the countries that give them safe harbor." I hope he can stick with that. I say, retaliate swiftly and ferociously. For openers, reduce Afghanistan to rubble and then bounce the rubble around a dozen times or so. They admit they are protecting bin Laden and even if he isn't responsible this time, he sure as hell congratulated those who were.
Post #8,646 by tuberculosis 9/12/01 3:16:21 PM Reply	Exactly Of course they're not going to engage the US Military directly. That would be suicide. But they want to destroy the symbols of American economic and military might. And they did. This clearly points out the stupidity of Bush's new missile defense policy BTW. Modern cruise missiles fly at regularly scheduled intervals, come with passengers, and can be had by anyone with a knife and some nerve. Bush's plan doesn't target those kind of cruise missiles though. Oddly enough, the fool has possibly done us a favor. Nothing cures a recession like a wartime economy and a people focused on a common cause. Left to our own devices we might have languished and fallen like Rome. Now, there's a surge of adrenaline, and a new clarity of purpose. On the military vs civilian targets thing: I am unaware of the military significance of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Those cities were selected based on size to showcase our new weapon. While I clearly support the use of nukes in that circumstance (the bombings actually saved lives that would have been lost in a conventional invasion), we are not squeaky clean wrt only hitting "military" targets. Little [link\|http://www.sherpaguides.com/georgia/civil_war/sidebars/sherman.html\|piece of history]: Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's "March to the Sea" is one of the most famous events in the annals of war. Much has been written about his Savannah Campaign, some acclaiming his brilliant military strategy, others denouncing his ruthless tactics. Sherman wanted to bring the war home to Georgians in harsh terms, proving that the Confederacy couldn't protect its citizens. He also thought that pressure on the home front might lead to desertions on the front lines of the Confederacy, as soldiers learned that their loved ones and property were threatened. Sherman's treatment of defenseless civilians and their private property is legendary, and his "March to the Sea" is frequently described as a "60-mile wide path of utter destruction" in history books, which is somewhat exaggerated if one has seen the beautiful antebellum homes in Madison, Covington, Milledgeville, and other towns on the route. Popularized in song and verse, an abundance of material exists on the March, written mostly from the Northern point of view. Northerners believe it was bold and effective stroke against the Southern foe; Southerners believed his destruction of private property was unnecessary and cruel; and that the March was successful only due to a lack of organized opposition. For Sherman \ufffd the man who said, "War is all Hell" \ufffd his style of warfare was a military issue, not a moral one: "This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the sad realities of war home to those who have been directly or indirectly instrumental in involving us in its attendant calamities," he said. For Sherman it was a type of rear attack, not on the army of the enemy but the people of the enemy. Why are we surprised at the use of similar tactics from others?
Post #8,838 by TTC 9/13/01 9:49:21 AM Reply	Re: It takes balls... > I say, retaliate swiftly and ferociously. For openers, reduce Afghanistan to rubble and then bounce the rubble around a dozen times or so. They admit they are protecting bin Laden and even if he isn't responsible this time, he sure as hell congratulated those who were. > Yup, do that... all who lives in Afghanistan REALLY deserves to die, no sympathy, military or otherwise. Nuke them! Oh wait... isn't that what the terrorists did? So what's the diff? An eye for an eye? Even if you have no evidence that binLaden was responsible? Because he sure as hell congratulated those who were? Then nuke the entire world then. I'm pretty sure there is at least one in every continent/country that "celebrated" the attack, sick as it may sound. If you want to vent your fustration/anger, fine. Otherwise, you're no different than those ****ing fanatics you're condemning.

Welcome to IWETHEY!