Onward ? Into Waziristan!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:

Your chances of dying in a terrorist attack are practically zero, there are hundreds of thousands lives that could be saved by the money you throw after fighting terrorism.

Watch yourself buddy. My chances of dying in a terrorist attack were actually pretty fucking good on 9/11, and many people I know got out by the skin of their teeth.

That’s easy to say when you live in Austria or North Dakota. Not so easy when you live next to Port Newark and NYC.

So?

Other people have pretty good chances of dying of cancer, in a car accident, on a crumbling bridge from the sixties.

When it comes to 300 million people you are all a statistic and 500 billion (so far) could have been much better spent.

Dickless, you’re missing my point. If we can prevent a damn attack, I want it fucking prevented, because it’s coming right at where I live, and that’s nearly garuanteed.

The terrorists are not going to hit West Texas, and they’re not going to hit Alabama, and they’re not going to hit Maine. They’re going to hit NYC again, and because of my propensity to be there, I DON’T WANT IT HIT.

It’s easy to pull your existentialist bullshit of, “We could all die at any time.” Easy because it ain’t you, it ain’t your family, it ain’t your girlfriend.

Sorry man, I like you, but I have to say you’re full of shit a good part of time.

So basically you want your decision to live in NY subsidized?

If it is so bad there, move.

The broader issue is though that there is a price tag on everything. No matter how many politicians claim that “we must do everything to prevent another 9-11”, it is nonsense.

We live in a world with scarce resources and billions of problems and 500 billion is a lot of money to prevent the equivalent of 1/10 of all yearly car crashes, 1/5 of all homicides, 1/100 of all cancer patients.

How much money does the tax payer have to pay, neglecting other concerns, so that you will feel reasonably safe.

Give me a number.[/quote]

So forget about terrorism and concentrate on what, drunk driving? Cigarettes?

OK, one more fucking time. The fucking army is there, the politicians are there, the government is there, they are all there for one basic thing- preserve the Constitution and our way of life. You do that by preventing foreign attacks on American soil. Nothing is more imortant to America than preserving America.

Now, being as I specifically have a very vested interest in NYC and my home in NJ, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to demand protection for the government that we have created.

We help the world out with their problems, and we stopped your Germanic counterparts twice when they got out of line. This should not be a case of the shoemaker’s children going barefoot.

If that’s not enough for you, then realize that no cancer or car crash has the ability to bring down our way of life. Terrorist attacks, and the fear that they cause both in terms of security and what my own government can do, absolutely do (They already have, to a degree, with the civil rights issues going on). This is bad.

And next time you guys need saving, you’re going to need us again, so maybe you should hope we stay around. Or you could just list some more bullshit facts that don’t pertain to the argument and try to convince me that riptides are more dangerous than religious fascists. Your choice boyo.

142

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

It’s easy to pull your existentialist bullshit of, “We could all die at any time.” Easy because it ain’t you, it ain’t your family, it ain’t your girlfriend.

If it were them that had been hit - the tune they’re a whistlin’ would sound distinctly different.

But we weren`t.

We are safer than you and it costs us a fraction of what you spend.

[/quote]

Because you’re a piddly shit country with no place on the world stage. Of course it’s cheaper. Security is always going to be cheaper on a trailer than on mansion.

143

Hedo, you’ve had some great posts here.

As I’ve gotten older, I have gotten away from blaming America completely for what happened on 9/11. I still do not agree with what the CIA does, or has done, to many governments in Central America and so forth, and I still do not agree with the policies in Iraq, or our support for Israel. There are many wrongs that we have done that will take many years and lots of diplomacy to rectify, and there are many things that I wish to change one day in this country, and I hope the Democrats can lead the way in that.

What I have also learned is that people are not essentially good, caring things. They will kick you when you are down, and take advantage of you whenever they can. Its just the nature of the beast. That being said, the only way to not end up dead is to be the meanest motherfucker on the block…not a bully, mind you, but like a wolverine- fine, as long as you leave us the fuck alone.

It is hard for me, on a moral level, to advocate total war. I can never condone killing women and children, and I don’t know that it will achieve our ultimate aim if we conduct it on a conventional scale.

I hate to say it… but a couple nukes on a couple cities would most likely end all of this. I get the feeling that eventually it will come to this, and it will bring them to the table quickly just as it brought the Japanese- nothing ends a will to fight like knowing you’re going to melt in the next battle.

If I was President… could I order such a thing? Would I support it if another President did? That’s another question… and it would be a gamble on what to support, being as I hate to think that I would be one of the people bitching about Nagasaki and Hiroshima and how we shouldn’t have used that bomb.

Things will have to get really bad, and I mean Vietnam era casualty lists and continuing terrorist attacks inside the country, before I could support such a thing. But… it would end it.

144

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

It’s easy to pull your existentialist bullshit of, “We could all die at any time.” Easy because it ain’t you, it ain’t your family, it ain’t your girlfriend.

If it were them that had been hit - the tune they’re a whistlin’ would sound distinctly different.

But we weren`t.

We are safer than you and it costs us a fraction of what you spend.

[/quote]

When were you attacked?

145

Fighting Irish, I usually like your posts, but his is pure horseshit. Shame on you!
So those guys from 11th September (who by the way are rotting in hell right now) make you so afraid you just wish that your elected uberdork government (that caused the problems in the first place) would push a button to end this nuisance? Do you honestly believe that with the trillions this GWOT will cost you, there aren’t diplomatic peaceful solutions? Why would it be so bad to withdraw your world police (a job you so seem to hate anyway, according to the forum)? Bribing Iran and manipulating them economically would be child’s play with that amounts of money. But it’s loss of face, eh?

I’ve had it with the human cockroaches, the hypocritical nazi insulting/comparing while on the other hand having no trouble to succumbing to their tactics. In one thread one guy even wrote literally that “this whole fascism probably wouldn’t be so bad or different” and that it will “probably come soon anyway”.

You’re the human cockroaches.
If you cannot accept that your government blew things (literally) and now you silently wish for nukes, just that things would stop being annoying for you. Well then, you probably deserve what you’ve sowed, I suppose.
I can’t take you serious anymore. You just disgust me.

America-bashing, like always, right? No.
I like America just fine, since I was a child. And was never a fan of the “arab” culture, to put it civil. And I can say that honestly because I had more fights with them, knew more of them, had more friends among them, worked with more of them, fucked more of them and visited more of their countries. And with them I mean turks, syrians, iranians, arabs and some other guys from the middle east as well as guys from practically all north african states.

P.S. I know that not all of the aforementioned people would be exactly flattered to be called arabs. No point in reminding me of that.

146

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hedo, you’ve had some great posts here.

As I’ve gotten older, I have gotten away from blaming America completely for what happened on 9/11. I still do not agree with what the CIA does, or has done, to many governments in Central America and so forth, and I still do not agree with the policies in Iraq, or our support for Israel. There are many wrongs that we have done that will take many years and lots of diplomacy to rectify, and there are many things that I wish to change one day in this country, and I hope the Democrats can lead the way in that.

What I have also learned is that people are not essentially good, caring things. They will kick you when you are down, and take advantage of you whenever they can. Its just the nature of the beast. That being said, the only way to not end up dead is to be the meanest motherfucker on the block…not a bully, mind you, but like a wolverine- fine, as long as you leave us the fuck alone.

It is hard for me, on a moral level, to advocate total war. I can never condone killing women and children, and I don’t know that it will achieve our ultimate aim if we conduct it on a conventional scale.

I hate to say it… but a couple nukes on a couple cities would most likely end all of this. I get the feeling that eventually it will come to this, and it will bring them to the table quickly just as it brought the Japanese- nothing ends a will to fight like knowing you’re going to melt in the next battle.

If I was President… could I order such a thing? Would I support it if another President did? That’s another question… and it would be a gamble on what to support, being as I hate to think that I would be one of the people bitching about Nagasaki and Hiroshima and how we shouldn’t have used that bomb.

Things will have to get really bad, and I mean Vietnam era casualty lists and continuing terrorist attacks inside the country, before I could support such a thing. But… it would end it.
[/quote]

FI

I lived in NYC for many years. Including during 9/11. Battery Park City was my neighborhood. I hear what you are saying. It’s a whole different perspective.

We didn’t start it. The world is waking up to the threat. The weak and meek never want to deal with a threat. The strong take it head on. The weak of course resent this and it’s more human nature then anything else. If they could stand up ,they would, but they made the bargain long ago.

I share your opinion about the Nukes. Unfortunately it will happen and it will happen here and then an unimaginable response will occur. Some of it revenge but much of it to avert further problems. Don’t look for any major power to stop it either. Too much self interest on their part. I think you will see a major WW2 mobilization within a few years whether a Republican or Dem gets elected. Just a matter of time.

147

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Fighting Irish, I usually like your posts, but his is pure horseshit. Shame on you!

So those guys from 11th September (who by the way are rotting in hell right now) make you so afraid you just wish that your elected uberdork government (that caused the problems in the first place) would push a button to end this nuisance? Do you honestly believe that with the trillions this GWOT will cost you, there aren’t diplomatic peaceful solutions? Why would it be so bad to withdraw your world police (a job you so seem to hate anyway, according to the forum)? Bribing Iran and manipulating them economically would be child’s play with that amounts of money. But it’s loss of face, eh?
[/quote]

No. I hate the government in power right now, and I believe that Bush and Cheney should be removed from office, at the very least for absolute ineptness.

I was, and still am, all for the war in Afghanistan. I am all for the destruction of the Taliban, and of negotiating (sternly) with Pakistan in order to let us go and kill who we have to.

I’m also for the withdrawl of troops in Iraq. Yes, I hate being the world’s police, and I don’t like that we intervene and invade so freely. You know this… but buying off Iran? Fuck them. I don’t give the guy who punched me in the eye a dollar, I throw him down the fucking stairs… which is why I think we should have gone after Saudi Arabia way before Iraq. Don’t give me this bullshit, you fuckers know where I stand.

What I am not for is standing down and apologizing, or buying off, the Muslim world. Violence begets violence, and we can be more violent than you. Imagine if we tried to buy off Japan or Germany. C’mon dude. There’s a point where diplomacy fails. I don’t know if we’re there yet with Islam, but what I am saying is that I get the feeling that we could be in for a clash of civilizations. I sure as hell hope not, though.

The Nazi shit comes from someone pushing my buttons. I push yours back. Such is life. I’m not repsonsible for something some other asshole wrote.

I never said they were human cockroaches. I just said a million fucking times that I can’t condone killing women and children. However, if it came down to it, like it has before, that it was really kill or be killed, then i’d rather have you dead then me. I disgust you? Sorry man.

And I agree they blew it. I’m not talking about nuking Iraq- I’m talking about the greater war that seems to be brewing, and if you cannot see that that exists, then you’re the ass, not me. hedo had a great point about first world countries not fighting anymore… and its not because they’re all scared.

[quote]
America-bashing, like always, right? No.
I like America just fine, since I was a child. And was never a fan of the “arab” culture, to put it civil. And I can say that honestly because I had more fights with them, knew more of them, had more friends among them, worked with more of them, fucked more of them and visited more of their countries. And with them I mean turks, syrians, iranians, arabs and some other guys from the middle east as well as guys from practically all north african states.

P.S. I know that not all of the aforementioned people would be exactly flattered to be called arabs. No point in reminding me of that.[/quote]

I wasn’t going to say America bashing. I’m all about it when the time is right and the protest is warranted. However, the very basic fact is that if they hit us again, and hit us badly, we will retaliate. What happens then is what I’m talking about… and I’m sure as hell not saying let’s do it now. I hope that day never comes.

148

[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
orion wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
JeffR, why do you call Orion bota? I guess I missed it’s inception. Just curious.

You do not want to know.

It is incredibly lame.

Well, now that he did say it, I found it somewhat funny. Not because I agree with it, but just because of the absurdity. [/quote]

I’ve seen that tape too on the History Channel and it is funny — conquered by guys on bikes!!

149

[quote]hedo wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hedo, you’ve had some great posts here.

As I’ve gotten older, I have gotten away from blaming America completely for what happened on 9/11. I still do not agree with what the CIA does, or has done, to many governments in Central America and so forth, and I still do not agree with the policies in Iraq, or our support for Israel. There are many wrongs that we have done that will take many years and lots of diplomacy to rectify, and there are many things that I wish to change one day in this country, and I hope the Democrats can lead the way in that.

What I have also learned is that people are not essentially good, caring things. They will kick you when you are down, and take advantage of you whenever they can. Its just the nature of the beast. That being said, the only way to not end up dead is to be the meanest motherfucker on the block…not a bully, mind you, but like a wolverine- fine, as long as you leave us the fuck alone.

It is hard for me, on a moral level, to advocate total war. I can never condone killing women and children, and I don’t know that it will achieve our ultimate aim if we conduct it on a conventional scale.

I hate to say it… but a couple nukes on a couple cities would most likely end all of this. I get the feeling that eventually it will come to this, and it will bring them to the table quickly just as it brought the Japanese- nothing ends a will to fight like knowing you’re going to melt in the next battle.

If I was President… could I order such a thing? Would I support it if another President did? That’s another question… and it would be a gamble on what to support, being as I hate to think that I would be one of the people bitching about Nagasaki and Hiroshima and how we shouldn’t have used that bomb.

Things will have to get really bad, and I mean Vietnam era casualty lists and continuing terrorist attacks inside the country, before I could support such a thing. But… it would end it.

FI

I lived in NYC for many years. Including during 9/11. Battery Park City was my neighborhood. I hear what you are saying. It’s a whole different perspective.

We didn’t start it. The world is waking up to the threat. The weak and meek never want to deal with a threat. The strong take it head on. The weak of course resent this and it’s more human nature then anything else. If they could stand up ,they would, but they made the bargain long ago.

I share your opinion about the Nukes. Unfortunately it will happen and it will happen here and then an unimaginable response will occur. Some of it revenge but much of it to avert further problems. Don’t look for any major power to stop it either. Too much self interest on their part. I think you will see a major WW2 mobilization within a few years whether a Republican or Dem gets elected. Just a matter of time.
[/quote]

My friend, I hope to God you are wrong, but I fear you are not. Or I hope I’m dead before I see the carnage it causes.

150

The ‘Bug Hunt’ will soon commence.

151

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The ‘Bug Hunt’ will soon commence.
[/quote]

See you in The Hague!

152

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hedo, you’ve had some great posts here.

As I’ve gotten older, I have gotten away from blaming America completely for what happened on 9/11. I still do not agree with what the CIA does, or has done, to many governments in Central America and so forth, and I still do not agree with the policies in Iraq, or our support for Israel. There are many wrongs that we have done that will take many years and lots of diplomacy to rectify, and there are many things that I wish to change one day in this country, and I hope the Democrats can lead the way in that.

What I have also learned is that people are not essentially good, caring things. They will kick you when you are down, and take advantage of you whenever they can. Its just the nature of the beast. That being said, the only way to not end up dead is to be the meanest motherfucker on the block…not a bully, mind you, but like a wolverine- fine, as long as you leave us the fuck alone.

It is hard for me, on a moral level, to advocate total war. I can never condone killing women and children, and I don’t know that it will achieve our ultimate aim if we conduct it on a conventional scale.

I hate to say it… but a couple nukes on a couple cities would most likely end all of this. I get the feeling that eventually it will come to this, and it will bring them to the table quickly just as it brought the Japanese- nothing ends a will to fight like knowing you’re going to melt in the next battle.

If I was President… could I order such a thing? Would I support it if another President did? That’s another question… and it would be a gamble on what to support, being as I hate to think that I would be one of the people bitching about Nagasaki and Hiroshima and how we shouldn’t have used that bomb.

Things will have to get really bad, and I mean Vietnam era casualty lists and continuing terrorist attacks inside the country, before I could support such a thing. But… it would end it.
[/quote]

Irish,

You and I have had epic brawls in the past.

However, it seems like you and I are drifting closer in outlook.

The more blood is spilt, the more markets are destroyed, and God forbid (our cities attacked again), and you will see an entire spectrum of our people hardening their outlook.

You can see it on this forum. Guys who usually toe a more pacifist line are getting sick of the lixys of the world.

Truth be told, I’d rather have been guilty of being too much of an alarmist.

JeffR

153

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It’s not your money. Why do you care?

It’s pure speculation, but I’m guessing that had you not invaded Iraq, Britain and Spain would have not been attacked.

Your actions are fueling extremist factions around the world. I’m guessing Orion isn’t too fond of living in a world where extremism gains even more ground.

For my part, I don’t like your soldiers shooting unarmed civilians, raping little girls, and bombing whole villages.

We have killed thousands of terrorists in Iraq. We have effectively beheaded the al qaeda - in Iraq.

There was virtually no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. More importantly, Ba’athists and Sadrists aren’t terrorists, yet, the majority of people shooting at you over there are from those two factions.[/quote]

The Iraq invasion didn’t cause AQ to attack us on 9/11. Nigeria and Kenya’s role in the world didn’t cause AQ from attacking them either. Those who become radicalized were prone to it.

All the American soldiers that I know take a very grim view of little girl rapers. So much so in fact that any American soldier who engaged in such activity would be in mortal danger from his fellow soldiers. What you are accusing the American military of is such a taboo here that you really show your ignorance of Americans by maleing such a predjudicial statement.

154

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

It’s easy to pull your existentialist bullshit of, “We could all die at any time.” Easy because it ain’t you, it ain’t your family, it ain’t your girlfriend.

If it were them that had been hit - the tune they’re a whistlin’ would sound distinctly different.

But we weren`t.

We are safer than you and it costs us a fraction of what you spend.

Because you’re a piddly shit country with no place on the world stage. Of course it’s cheaper. Security is always going to be cheaper on a trailer than on mansion.
[/quote]

Maybe.

We are also the largest economic entity in the entire world and we have beenhit twice by terrorists, more or less ignoring the constant terrorist activity in Great Britain, Spain, Greece, Germany and probably some other shit I have never heard about.

And yet, do we shit ourselves?

155

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

If that’s not enough for you, then realize that no cancer or car crash has the ability to bring down our way of life. Terrorist attacks, and the fear that they cause both in terms of security and what my own government can do, absolutely do (They already have, to a degree, with the civil rights issues going on). This is bad.

[/quote]

Riptides cause 100 deaths a year. 18000 are safed by lifeguards each year from being killed by riptides. I do not know what they cost but it is a tiny, minuscule fraction of 500 billion, yet 6 9-11s are prevented per year.

That is money well spent.

Then, no amount of terrorism can change the American way of life. A hysteric reaction to terrorism easily can.

If you had spent this money on your harbours and borders they would be tight like Borats sisters anus was in the golden days, and yet you spend it creating more terrorists.

156

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I hate to say it… but a couple nukes on a couple cities would most likely end all of this. I get the feeling that eventually it will come to this, and it will bring them to the table quickly just as it brought the Japanese- nothing ends a will to fight like knowing you’re going to melt in the next battle. [/quote]

Irish,

This is the probably the most uninformed thing you have ever written. I’m not judging morality or any subjective notion here. I’m talking about basic understanding of the threat of terror and how it relates to the Iraq war. So please, don’t dismiss this and hear me out.

Dropping nukes on a couple of cities (I think we all know which ones) might indeed bring Al-Sadr or the Ba’athists to capitulate. In fact, chances are very good that they’ll stop disturbing the Iraqi government after that. But that will have zero almost effect on NYC security. Are these factions after Americans? You bet! Are they after Americans who are in Iraq or the ones in America. Without a doubt the former.

They’re not gonna come after you if you withdraw from Iraq. They are genuine grassroots political movements in an oil-rich country who are interested in living peacefully with their neighbors. They just are not complacent about living in a country with a foreign military presence and the political bias that ensues.

It’s a simplistic view, I know, but it’s still the best I can do in a concise post. Adding history, geopolitics and alliances to write a book about it won’t change the outcome that I wanna get at: They won’t come after you! They have no reason to come after you.

Now, there are a few groups that never hid their desire to destroy the USA. As ridiculous and outlandish a claim as that is, 9/11 showed us that they were really determined, and indeed able, to do a shitload of harm. The main group is called Al-Qaeda. It’s a decentralized network of cells kinda like the net, with apparently operatives all around the globe.

I’m certain that there are some in the United States just as there are in France or India. The figurehead of the movement is Osama Ben Laden. A once politically motivated billionaire who was fed up with the corrupted and dictatorial regime of his country. That goal was relatively attainable, but now he’s gone mad and wants to conquer the world.

Obviously, no amount of nuking will convince him nor his followers to do otherwise. Leveling out Iraq, Iran and every other country will never bring him nor his cronies to the negotiation table. They will never surrender. They are criminal thugs who should be treated as such. They benefit from you going around invading countries, in the same way the Mafia benefited from police abuse. But the analogy stops right there.

While the Mafia was a centralized organization with the evident goal of making money, the Al-Qaeda people are in the business of dying not for the money or anything else, but for the sake of dying.

Until you realize that, you’ll continue to try solving the problem with the only tool you have: the military. In the meantime, the government will sneak in everything it can to erode your civil rights and liberties, sugarcoat it and claim that “it’s for your own good”. All the while, the number of terrorists who are after you will not decrease. If the CIA is to believed, the threat has even increased.

I know that you feel helpless and want something done about it - and believe you me, we all do - but dropping nukes or using brute force to topple regimes is evidently not the way to go. Again, not because of the morality of the thing, but because it simply won’t work. Afghanistan was the exception in my opinion, because you couldn’t have relied on their police to weed out the terror groups. You reap what you sow.

This fight isn’t about displays of force. Terrorist attacks are not preempted on the battle field, because most terrorists don’t do battlefields. The terrorist’s battlefield is the busy street downtown or the crowded tram at rush hour.

The quagmire that is Iraq is not about fighting terrorists that might get you in your sleep. The consequence of leaving Iraq the White House is worried about is the power that Iran gains from a free and democratic Iraq.

157

[quote]Sifu wrote:
The Iraq invasion didn’t cause AQ to attack us on 9/11. [/quote]

You figured out all by yourself that time goes in only one direction? Astonishing revelation that is.

You should publish a paper and call it “Cause and effect. How the future don’t affect the past”. I’m sure it’ll be a hit.

You know full well what I meant, don’t try to twist it into something it’s not.

There is no doubt that the American people didn’t condone such actions, but they are consequences of the war. The war wasn’t inevitable. In fact, it was based on lies. I wouldn’t be raising the horrors of those incidents, if the war was in self-defense or defense or a weaker country than Iraq. But it wasn’t. It was a war of aggression and the ensuing abuse must be stressed out. If nothing else, they might serve as a reminder the next time you feel like waging an unnecessary war.

I believe in the inherent good of human nature. But I also know that putting a 17 years old in a position of authority with an automatic weapon is a recipe for disaster. You only do it if you absolutely MUST. The Iraq war wasn’t such a circumstance.

158

Where should these nukes be targeted to have the right outcome, that is, stopping all terrorist activity?

159

I would not be in favor of nuking anyone. Just the threat of a retalitory strike might prevent future terrorists from using a nuke in a first strike terrorist operation.

160

“not be in favor”, how nice.
Couldn’t you say: “it’s totally out of the question”. Your formulation sounds like you still think of it as a possible future action.

If the government recognize that the population would accept a nuclear strike, chances are they would try and probably get away with it (for the moment). The republicans have lousy candidates and their only chances of winning are either a big scandal or an escalation of the “war”. A hardliner (like Giulianna) would be then probably more credible to the masses.

As to the question what to target- have no fear. I have absolutely no doubt that in any case the morons that be will botch that one as well, creating even more terrorists.