PDA

View Full Version : How many must die?



gamegod3001
09-14-2001, 10:15 PM
For those who belive we should not invade countries haroboring terioriast since incocent people might die.

How many people must loose there life until you relize? How many? How many people need to be killed? How many? How many lives need to be taken until something needs to be done? How many?

How long till you relize? How long? How long should we do nothing? How long? How long need we wait? How long? How long to something gets done? How long?

When will you relize? When? When will you figure out that your idea's don't work? When? When will it be when you discover that you your ideas are the cause? When? When will you dicover you are wrong? When?

kermi3
09-14-2001, 11:25 PM
Though I am certainly not in favor of sitting and letting othersrolling over us, we must remember before we go rolling over other contries, many of the people in those countries are totally innocent. Think about it, why would a governement take the international critisism if it didn't need the presumable income in bribes that terrorists bring in in order to stick around. Before we go smashing other countries we must remeber those civillian innocents are indeed just as innocent as those of our brethren who we now try to gain vengence for, we can't go in and kill them or we're just as low as the scum that attacked us!

rick barclay
09-15-2001, 07:13 AM
>we can't go in and kill them or we're just as low as the scum that attacked us!<

Sure we can. And I hope we do, because the overwhelming
majority of Americans see this in the exact opposite light.
When you see scum in your bathtub, you clean it with a
powerful cleansing agent. After the scum is rinsed away
and your bathtub is fresh and clean,
you don't look at the cleansing agent as anything other
than what it is: sweet-smelling soap.

rick barclay

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 11:07 AM
I think that if these organizations go into the desert and rocky terrain than it will require missiles, perhaps even small nuclear missiles in order to flush them out. On the other hand they could use guerilla tactics and hide in highly populated areas such as the cities of Afghanistan. In that case the US and UN will have to commit ground troops. I think that they will do whatever they have to do.

What about the responsibility of these innocients as you call them? Do they have no responsibility in life? What about their responsibility to fight for human rights and to fight against the Taliban? Are you going to go over there and watch over them for the next 10 years and make sure they don't organize another terrorist organization?

But the real question is how long until the terrorists get their hands on a nuclear bomb and set it off in New York or Washington or anywhere else in the USA? My guess is about four or five years from now. There are reports that Bin Lauden has acquired plutonium and other components for nuclear bombs.

You won't be here five years from now.

Zach L.
09-15-2001, 12:11 PM
> Before we go smashing other countries we must remeber those civillian innocents are indeed just as innocent as those of our brethren who we now try to gain vengence for, we can't go in and kill them or we're just as low as the scum that attacked us! <

Your right, we cannot just go in and kill everyone we see. We must refrain from intentionally killing innocent civilians. We cannot protect all of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan though. To do so, we would have to be so careful that we would accomplish nothing, and would lose a lot of troops in the process.

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 01:33 PM
This could be a war, not a tea party. If those nations do not comply than we will have a war. A war is about death. The USA will not go an bomb those countries unless they choose to harbor terrorists. If there is a war than the USA and NATO should use all means possible to win the war, that is if they can win. Like I said, we could wake up tomorrow and half the USA could be destroyed in a nuclear explosion.

kermi3
09-15-2001, 01:58 PM
If we were to go into a pure war, invading other countries, we would not be punishing the ones who are truely responisble. Much of the terrorism is carried out by nationalless peoples. They have homes, more importantly they have culters, but they can get up and move. If we were to invade then we'd be fighting the state armies of the local people who are not nomads, who, for the most part, are not responisble for acts of terrorism agienst the USA.

I don't want to be mis inturrpeted here as being pro terrorist or anything, I'm 100% for capturing, and if that's not possible killing those responsible, and doing what is nessicary to stop this from happening again. However, to kill innocents makes us as bad as them.


perhaps even small nuclear missiles in order to flush them out.

And if we use nukes we're worse than they are. We will have sunken WAY below their level

no-one
09-15-2001, 02:07 PM
those who support and abide by the terrorists actions are no better than they.

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 02:09 PM
Are you going than?

I personally think that that USA will only be around for about 3-5 more years. I guess it doesn't matter.

no-one
09-15-2001, 02:12 PM
i think a little longer like 20-25+, but about going i have to see what happens and why we are going to war.

besides im in the draft already so i don't really have to much of a choice. do i?

Zach L.
09-15-2001, 02:18 PM
> I personally think that that USA will only be around for about 3-5 more years. I guess it doesn't matter. <

And this is based on what?

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 02:19 PM
Your country is going to get nuked. Not from the outside but from the inside by terrorists. There is almost no doubt in my mind.

no-one
09-15-2001, 02:22 PM
whatever.

If we go Canada will follow you know that right?

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 02:33 PM
Not quite because it's very obvious that they will nuke Florida and that is a long ways from Canada.

no-one
09-15-2001, 02:34 PM
you think once America goes your economy is gonna stay stable? if we go the world economy goes with us.

Zach L.
09-15-2001, 02:49 PM
Running around carrying nuclear weapons is not something that is terribly easily, especially if you want to have many people around the country carrying them. There is definitely going to be more terrorism, but I'm more worried about biological terrorism than nuclear.

In any case, this act of terrorism will not cripple the U.S. (in the long term, it may serve to strengthen it), and other acts of terrorism will not cripple it. The most likely next stage of terrorist attacks that I think we are likely to see are smaller scale ones. This one was probably intended to send a message and get our attention, which it did.

Nick
09-15-2001, 02:52 PM
Any country which tries to nuke the United States will themselfs
get nuked before the first missles hit the US. Witchcraft means tactical nukes, not fullscale nukes I think. I think (hope) the Taliban will see that Bin Ladden is a criminal and will turn him over. Still it might be to late for them as the US wants to use this opportunity to weed out all terrorists.

Zach L.
09-15-2001, 03:00 PM
Yeah, I know what he was talking about. Still, nuclear weapons are not extremely easy to manufacture or to carry around. Biological weapons on the other hand are more easily made, and more easily used, and harder to prevent or stop. Thats why they worry me more.

rick barclay
09-15-2001, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Witch_King
I think that if these organizations go into the desert and rocky terrain than it will require missiles, perhaps even small nuclear missiles in order to flush them out. On the other hand they could use guerilla tactics and hide in highly populated areas such as the cities of Afghanistan. In that case the US and UN will have to commit ground troops. I think that they will do whatever they have to do.

What about the responsibility of these innocients as you call them? Do they have no responsibility in life? What about their responsibility to fight for human rights and to fight against the Taliban? Are you going to go over there and watch over them for the next 10 years and make sure they don't organize another terrorist organization?

But the real question is how long until the terrorists get their hands on a nuclear bomb and set it off in New York or Washington or anywhere else in the USA? My guess is about four or five years from now. There are reports that Bin Lauden has acquired plutonium and other components for nuclear bombs.

You won't be here five years from now.


This is why I respect you so much, Dean.

I knew you had more inside your head than some of your
previous posts would indicate.

rick barclay

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 03:08 PM
It might not be too tough to get a weapon of mass destruction into Floriduh, but it would be tough to get it into mainland USA. But you can't rule anything out. I don't think that the world sees the danger yet.

rick barclay
09-15-2001, 03:08 PM
> And if we use nukes we're worse than they are. We will have sunken WAY below their level<

Only if we use them first, and we won't.

rick barclay

rick barclay
09-15-2001, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Witch_King
It might not be too tough to get a weapon of mass destruction into Floriduh, but it would be tough to get it into mainland USA. But you can't rule anything out. I don't think that the world sees the danger yet.

The first step is to close our borders. We absolutely must do
that. I think we'll need one hell of of a lot of patrol boats
too, to guard our coastlines as good as we possibly can.

rick barclay

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 03:20 PM
I heard that the USA sent submarines and air craft carriers to the east coast. Infact I think the east cost is protected right now, but for how long? If the USA lets the middle east get away with this by treating Bin Lauden like a common criminal, as if he is a normal US citizen with rights, or something, than it's just a matter of time before the terrorists can continue.

I kind of doubt that they have a nuke yet, but they are definately in the process of building a weapon of mass destruction and infact nobody knows what they have. I'd like to know what lightofdawn will say after the country gets nuked. Hopefully he will die in the explosion because he deserves it if he is wrong about the use of force that he suggests.

Zach L.
09-15-2001, 03:29 PM
> If the USA lets the middle east get away with this by treating Bin Lauden like a common criminal, as if he is a normal US citizen with rights, or something, than it's just a matter of time before the terrorists can continue. <
From what the news over here has been saying (including speechs from Bush and Powell), they are not treating him as a common criminal at all, fortunately.

> I kind of doubt that they have a nuke yet, but they are definately in the process of building a weapon of mass destruction and infact nobody knows what they have. <
There have been reports that they have chemical or biological weapons (or at least are in the process of developing them) now.

Zach L.
09-15-2001, 03:31 PM
> I heard that the USA sent submarines and air craft carriers to the east coast. Infact I think the east cost is protected right now, but for how long? <
It is my hope that a very high level of security is maintained.

rick barclay
09-15-2001, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Witch_King
I heard that the USA sent submarines and air craft carriers to the east coast. Infact I think the east cost is protected right now, but for how long? If the USA lets the middle east get away with this by treating Bin Lauden like a common criminal, as if he is a normal US citizen with rights, or something, than it's just a matter of time before the terrorists can continue.

I kind of doubt that they have a nuke yet, but they are definately in the process of building a weapon of mass destruction and infact nobody knows what they have. I'd like to know what lightofdawn will say after the country gets nuked. Hopefully he will die in the explosion because he deserves it if he is wrong about the use of force that he suggests.

The key to Osama Bin Laden is his money. Find that. Confiscate it. And we win. Plain and simple.

rick barclay

gamegod3001
09-15-2001, 05:45 PM
orginally posted by kermi3
Before we go smashing other countries we must remeber those civillian innocents are indeed just as innocent as those of our brethren who we now try to gain vengence for, we can't go in and kill them or we're just as low as the scum that attacked us!

So the german citizens who did not like what was hapening to the Jewish race but did Nothing were also inocent. NO they were not.


orginally posted by Witch_King
What about the responsibility of these innocients as you call them? Do they have no responsibility in life? What about their responsibility to fight for human rights and to fight against the Taliban? Are you going to go over there and watch over them for the next 10 years and make sure they don't organize another terrorist organization?

I agree execpt for the part we probley will be there for the next 10 years as a peace keeping force.

>Your right, we cannot just go in and kill everyone we see. We must refrain from intentionally killing innocent civilians. We cannot protect all of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan though. To do so, we would have to be so careful that we would accomplish nothing, and would lose a lot of troops in the process.<

Also i agree to.


Orignally posted by Kirmi3
If we were to go into a pure war, invading other countries, we would not be punishing the ones who are truely responisble. Much of the terrorism is carried out by nationalless peoples. They have homes, more importantly they have culters, but they can get up and move. If we were to invade then we'd be fighting the state armies of the local people who are not nomads, who, for the most part, are not responisble for acts of terrorism agienst the USA.


But they are guilty, as guilty as any one else. They give the terriost some where to hide.

>I heard that the USA sent submarines and air craft carriers to the east coast. Infact I think the east cost is protected right now, but for how long? <

We had submarines along to cost during the cold war, as did the soviates.

>The key to Osama Bin Laden is his money. Find that. Confiscate it. And we win. Plain and simple. <

It's probley in a swiss bank. Also he has 2 brothers that live here in the U.S.A.

rick barclay
09-15-2001, 09:18 PM
>It's probley in a swiss bank. Also he has 2 brothers that live here in the U.S.A.<

If Dubya Bush had two brothers living in Kabul, what do you
imagine would happen to them?

I find this hard to believe. If I were President I'd find a way
to arrest them and hold them hostage until Bin Laden gave
himself up. This is toally insane.

rick barclay

Scourfish
09-15-2001, 10:44 PM
It's a lot easier than you think. Granted, Pakistan has a bomb; "a" bomb. They don't have the delivery system, though. While America has cross-continental rockets, Pakistan has the equivelint of a roman candle and some electrical tape to attach it. We could always go for a poor-man's nuke, which is an air-gas bomb, about 1/4 the power of the bomb that hit Hiroshima, and leaves no radiation.

doubleanti
09-15-2001, 10:45 PM
>If Dubya Bush had two brothers living in Kabul, what do you
imagine would happen to them? <

speaking of perspective... i can't imagine [because i'm a USer born and raised... but i'm asian and try to hold on...] but my english teacher was mentioning in class one of the past days about how their culture is totally different from ours, that they are raised with a completely different knowledge of Americans then we live to know... not that it's incorrect or what not, but not that our visions are incorrect either. thousands of miles is quite a way, and i've found that no matter how worldly you become, perspective always stands away from you.

so... who _is_ on first?

Scourfish
09-15-2001, 10:59 PM
No offense to my generation, but the youth of today are pansies. I'm all for going in and beating the **** out of every afghan in sight. In fact, I helped some relatives pound a sign that said "Nuke them all" into the ground. And later, my highschool bound sister says that the students in her govt. class did not like the sign. Im my opinion, my sisters school is full of pansies. Their view is to say to Osama "Please do not do that again. Here's five dollars."

I point all of them to what the great Heinlein said in the book Starship Troopers: Violence has solved more problems in the past than anything else.

kermi3
09-15-2001, 11:02 PM
What about the responsibility of these innocients as you call them? Do they have no responsibility in life? What about their responsibility to fight for human rights and to fight against the Taliban? Are you going to go over there and watch over them for the next 10 years and make sure they don't organize another terrorist organization?

I have to disagree with you here Witch King. Maybe I'm onl;y seeing one picture but....Many of these innocents struggle for livelyhood every day. Just to live. Thousands are streaming into Iran for refuge, and have been for a while now just for food. Iran has gotten to the point where it has had to close its boarders. Besides, it is hard to rise up agienst a government that controls all facets of the media. In case you haven't noticed Afganistan is in the middle of a dacades old civil war now. War ravages. Many of these innocents are just trying to live in a war torn country, rising up is not really an option.

___________________________


Any country which tries to nuke the United States will themselfs

I fully realize he ment tacticals. Or at least i hope he did! And I totally agree that if anyone nuked us we'd throw so many nukes at they would be dust right now. However, I do not think that we should, under any circumstance be the first one to use a weapon of mass destruction. Not only would it throw nearly all of world opinion agianst us but it would also make us TOTAL hypocrits.

_____________________________


So the german citizens who did not like what was hapening to the Jewish race but did Nothing were also inocent. NO they were not.

I do not blame them at all. Besides the fact that most germans, both who approved and who didn't, did not know about what was truely happening to the Jews. Furthermore, it isn't exactly easy to rise up, especially in small numbers agienst a facsism. There were Germans who did rise up, many were carried off by the SS, many even turned in by their own brain washed children. No I do not blame the germans now, nor the ones who did have anything to do with the holocaust. Howeverm, I am loose on my defnition of doing nothing. If they had a chance to do something, to truely do something and didn't, I may be tended to lean towards "passive approval" and thereby guilt.

Witch_King
09-15-2001, 11:55 PM
If the USA was hit with a nuke I don't know whether or not they would be able to respond. It doesn't matter how many nukes you have. It's important who hits first. In that case I think that the USA should store a couple nukes in Canada so that the whole continent doesn't get whiped out.

I would agree not to use nukes as long as you can strip these arabic governments of their weapons of mass destruction. I'm not sure if the USA can even win a war against the arabs without using weapons of mass destruction. They might not be able to win a ground war there. It's actually tough to say what will happen, but something has to be done, there is no doubt about that. Hopefully the USA will not get struck again in the meantime. Some people have been talking about biological weapons.

It's sure nice to be a Canadian!

doubleanti
09-15-2001, 11:59 PM
>doesn't get whiped out.

hypothetically. but i am a firm believer in the hypothetically happenstance of the universe in general.

minor notice: if the whole continent was wiped, that would include canada, i think you meant country...

kermi3
09-16-2001, 12:04 AM
First of all as to nukes...we could always strike back, no need to hide them in Canada either (sry Canada). That's what nuclear submarines are for.... :)

And as to war, I don't think it will be much of an issue as to needing to win the type of war you're talking about, i don't thinke we'll actually invade anyone in the conventional sense. If we did, and in the case that we win the US would be stuck occupying another country for a prolonged period of time with unhappy and rebellious natives. Basically right back to colonialism, it would never work. The terrorism that would be carried out in the new occupide terrirority would probably be unthinkable. And if we were to loose it would mean we'd lost thousands of lives in battle.

As to biological, i think you were joking Witch but to dispell anyone else's thoughts, that would effectively mean the end of most of the worlds population. There's no way to contain a biological agent from killing and spreading.

doubleanti
09-16-2001, 12:15 AM
let's not be the death of eachother PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it must be 5 billion years from now when we have no choice and the sun explodes......... PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kermi3
09-16-2001, 12:17 AM
hey if we die in 5 BILLION years because we haven't been able to get off this rock and settle somewhere else in all that time i think we deserve it on some level...don't you?

doubleanti
09-16-2001, 12:24 AM
zero.) dejavu, ......... i've seen our two posts before...............

one.) hey if we die in 5 BILLION years because we haven't been able to get off this rock and settle somewhere else in all that time i think we deserve it on some level...don't you?

haha, good point.......

too.) how can we define critical times? that's why my ideas/emotions on this are confused probably the most... i found it strange, and might have been just placing false patriotism just because. that, and it's 11:23, so maybe i'm just too tired...

Witch_King
09-16-2001, 12:32 AM
It could turn into a real war because nobody knows what Pakistan will do. They say that they will help but it's already turning buerocratic (how the christ do you spell that?). They are now saying that they will comply with the UN but not the US. Who knows what could happen!

doubleanti
09-16-2001, 12:38 AM
>Who knows what could happen!

i, in particular, don't know what anyone would ever do. and it seems to me like there are a lot of brewing politics over it. my english teacher said she didn't believe in anything unless she heard it from 5 sources... i agree... and personally i think following the many [perhaps 7 or so] WTC-related threads on this board is getting hard [possibly redundant]... just like i felt to let go of the girls thread after, being the fourth or so person to post... hmmm..........