Resisting the Blind Rush to War
- Thread starter lavender
- Start date
M
miles
Guest
I think the article is gratuitous. I take exception to the implication that we are going in blind. For them to say we don't know for sure who the perps are is laughable. Is the author from Venus or something?
"It is imperative that we give ourselves a decent opportunity to interpret the news blasted upon us."
What a meaningless statement! Do we wait for another attack?
This is the kind of philosophy that kept us from eliminating these murderers all along.
High school journalism. Rubbish.
"It is imperative that we give ourselves a decent opportunity to interpret the news blasted upon us."
What a meaningless statement! Do we wait for another attack?
This is the kind of philosophy that kept us from eliminating these murderers all along.
High school journalism. Rubbish.
M
miles
Guest
Pseudo-Pacifist
The source that reprinted the article describes itself as "Progressive!" How ironic.
The source that reprinted the article describes itself as "Progressive!" How ironic.
sexy-girl
sacrilegious
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2001
- Posts
- 19,584
the desire for war and the wish for revenge is very strong i never would want to hurt anybody ... but even i want to see these people stopped and made to pay ... but the principles of what make america great means they are meant to protect freedom and to protect the innocent ... do only those principles apply to americans ? ... as ive said in other threads the afghan people and the taliban are very different people ... the taliban ARENT native to afghanistan ... ive heard people say they should carpet bomb the whole country or nuke them ... that is not what america is about surely america is better then that
if you do goto war with afghanistan it could be worse then vietnam the taliban fighters have been fighting in the country for 27 years ... american troops wont be better just because they've had more money spent on them
i think the answer is to treat the people like terrorists and to send in small well planned raids to capture/stop the leaders of who carried out the awful act ... all out war will just lead to lots of deaths american terrorist and innocent ... and the worse thing is the leaders of the terrorists would probably escape if it was all out war
if you do goto war with afghanistan it could be worse then vietnam the taliban fighters have been fighting in the country for 27 years ... american troops wont be better just because they've had more money spent on them
i think the answer is to treat the people like terrorists and to send in small well planned raids to capture/stop the leaders of who carried out the awful act ... all out war will just lead to lots of deaths american terrorist and innocent ... and the worse thing is the leaders of the terrorists would probably escape if it was all out war
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/zines.html
It's no accident that a link to Common Dreams is found on Turn Left.
It's no accident that a link to Common Dreams is found on Turn Left.
morninggirl5
Secret Dream Machine
- Joined
- May 6, 2001
- Posts
- 10,647
sexy-girl said:
Sexy-girl, our military learned many many lessons since Vietnam. This time, we will be prepared to fight using the same tactics as our enemies. And our military men and women won't be going into this war with protesters calling them murderers fresh in their minds. (God, I hope and pray not. If they do, then I fear for the future of our country, because we will truly be lost.)
We won't tie the hands of our military this time by insisting on concensus for every battle. This is about our country and protecting our people. This isn't about protecting the French, English, Kuwaiti, or Bosnian people. This is about US, our families, our children and preserving our country for them.
My perspective is probably quite a bit different from most people my age and certainly those younger. My father fought in Vietnam and I know the effects that still linger today from that war for him. My grandfather has been the most important man in my life and he fought in World War II. He and I haven't talked about this yet but I know what he's feeling. Just like millions of other families he and his three brothers were all in WWII. Our country was attacked and they went.
That example is what we need to look at now. We as a country have to get past Vietnam and the damage that was done. Now is not the time to question our leaders decisions. Now is not the time to tie their hands and worry about the people of another country. Now is the time to protect the United States of America and her people and their future.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
That's what we're afraid of. And that's what will lead to our students calling our soldiers murderers. The blood lust is up. Thinking is passe.morninggirl5 said:
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Everyone needs to remember that the people on this board that want to nuke 'em, and the punks that are assaulting innocent muslims are not in control of the defense forces of this country.
The people in charge of the military are basically the same ones that ran the gulf war. In that war we BENT OVER BACKWARDS to limit civilian casualties. In Baghdad, we used only "smart" weapons directed at military and major infrastructure targets that had to be taken out in order to cripple their militatry's ability to fight. Any civilian casualties were accidental, and I think we conducted the war in the most honorable way possible.
The President has the benefit of being advised by his vice president and secretary of state, who ran that operation. They know what they are doing. He also has the counsel of his father.
We should remember that George Bush Sr. was the one who called a halt to the ground war after only three days. He had the option to let the killing go on for much longer, and he received enormous amounts of shit from monday morning quarterbacks because he "didn't go all the way to Baghdad".
I think these people (the terrorists) will be found and taken out with precision. We will be surprised at the skill and precision with which it will be done. But it will be a series of sporadic attacks, stretching over months or years, not a single massive, decisive attack.
My main fear is that the U.S. population will get impatient and not understandthat we must be in this for the long run, and we will not get the video gratification that the gulf war provided every night on CNN.
This one is going to take patience. It has to be looked on as a campaign on prevention, stamping out a few roaches at a time as we find them, over many years, instead of a holy war of vengeance, expecting to kill every roach in the world in one fell swoop.
The people in charge of the military are basically the same ones that ran the gulf war. In that war we BENT OVER BACKWARDS to limit civilian casualties. In Baghdad, we used only "smart" weapons directed at military and major infrastructure targets that had to be taken out in order to cripple their militatry's ability to fight. Any civilian casualties were accidental, and I think we conducted the war in the most honorable way possible.
The President has the benefit of being advised by his vice president and secretary of state, who ran that operation. They know what they are doing. He also has the counsel of his father.
We should remember that George Bush Sr. was the one who called a halt to the ground war after only three days. He had the option to let the killing go on for much longer, and he received enormous amounts of shit from monday morning quarterbacks because he "didn't go all the way to Baghdad".
I think these people (the terrorists) will be found and taken out with precision. We will be surprised at the skill and precision with which it will be done. But it will be a series of sporadic attacks, stretching over months or years, not a single massive, decisive attack.
My main fear is that the U.S. population will get impatient and not understandthat we must be in this for the long run, and we will not get the video gratification that the gulf war provided every night on CNN.
This one is going to take patience. It has to be looked on as a campaign on prevention, stamping out a few roaches at a time as we find them, over many years, instead of a holy war of vengeance, expecting to kill every roach in the world in one fell swoop.
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
Problem Child said:
Now that we have decided that... can we do it properly and get started... or is it supposed to be Bin Laden first and only?
M
miles
Guest
lavender
Sounds just like the V.C.
"Charlie don't surf."
Sounds just like the V.C.
"Charlie don't surf."
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
Lavy, I agree with your basic premise of how these operations will be conducted. I think it will consist mostly of smaller scale quick strikes, not set peice battles as in the Gulf War. But remember, in the Gulf war we used our special forces soldiers very effectively. They were right on the outskirts, and even inside Baghdad, directing the precision bobming strikes to knock out the Iraqi command and communications infrastructure.
I doubt we will see armor battalions in Afghanistan. We will probably not even have video other than gun camera video, because reporters will never be near the areas that are hit, until after it is all over and we are gone.
I doubt we will see armor battalions in Afghanistan. We will probably not even have video other than gun camera video, because reporters will never be near the areas that are hit, until after it is all over and we are gone.
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
People, no matter in what size groups they gather, still use communications, still need to move around. Our military has been concentrating for the last ten years on fighting terrorism and every service has some sort of specialized anti-terrorist group.
If these people gather, and talk, we will find them. The advantage we have is that the world seems to be unified with us, and the terrorists have nowhere to go except extremist states like Afghanistan. It may take years to find some of them, but eventually they will fuck up, and we will find them. If they try and fight us in the open they are doomed.
I have enormous faith in the guys we train to do this job. I've made many posts about the fact that we don't give them the respect and funding they deserve. We want to keep them on a shelf and forget about them, until this kind of situation comes around, and them we want them to jump up and go get the bad guys.
I have faith that they will.
If these people gather, and talk, we will find them. The advantage we have is that the world seems to be unified with us, and the terrorists have nowhere to go except extremist states like Afghanistan. It may take years to find some of them, but eventually they will fuck up, and we will find them. If they try and fight us in the open they are doomed.
I have enormous faith in the guys we train to do this job. I've made many posts about the fact that we don't give them the respect and funding they deserve. We want to keep them on a shelf and forget about them, until this kind of situation comes around, and them we want them to jump up and go get the bad guys.
I have faith that they will.
shadowsource
A Flash In The Pain
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,664
Do you still believe that it's better that we didn't remove our old client, Saddam Hussein, from power?Problem Child said:
registered "^^"
"^^"
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2001
- Posts
- 2,869
shadowsource said:
Hindsight is 20/20
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
shadowsource said:
It's not a matter of whether I or anyone else thinks it's better that we did or didn't remove him. It was a logistical and human price that we were not prepared to pay.
Removing Hussein would have required occupying Baghdad, causing more civilian deaths and tying up a huge military oocupation force, possibly for years. He has a massive nummber of hidden bunkers in the desert where he could have hidden out for a long time.
The American public was getting squeamish at the sight of dead bodies on the road to Baghdad, and did not have the political will to carry the fight to Baghdad as would have been required to find Saddam.
We quit because we didn't have the stomach to root him out and kill him. It's as simple as that.
My personal opinion is that we blew it when we cut back funding for the CIA in the 80's and when we passed the law prohibiting political assassinations. I'm not sure that a better regime would have emerged with the removal of Hussein, but if we had more human intelligence on the ground in these terrrorist sponsoring nations, we would have had the option of assasinating Hussein a long time ago if we thought it was necessary.
Last edited:
Problem Child
titleless
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2001
- Posts
- 27,935
I don't think we are really going to let that affect our decision-making in the future, do you?
