| What should we say as a deterent to a nuclear attack? What should we do if the terrorists attacked us by nuclear means? |
| Bomb Mecca and/or Medina, which could bring Turkey and other Muslim allies (and intra-US Muslims) against us |
|
8% |
[ 1 ] |
| Bomb the capital city of the main funding governments of the terrorists (mainly Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran) |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
| Continue what we're doing now |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
| Other |
|
33% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:53 pm |
|
First, this congressman who said 'nuke Mecca' is stupid either way. If he was serious, that is just stupid, and if he said it just off the top of his head to show 'radical action', that is stupid as well, because it shows him as some dumbass person who does not know how to organize their thoughts properly.
Clearly, I say 'no' to bombing Mecca. If other people are smart, they would too.
As for destroying that capital of each nation, that, in my opinion, is just reckless behavior, that would put the United States of America in an even worse light than it already is in. Half of these terrorist live in rural areas, spread out through the world. Destroying capital cities may kill terrorists, but it would also do much more harm to the innocent civilian population. Just because a group of extremists lowers themselves to that level does not give us the right to go to the level of flattening cities full of innocent people. Besides the fact of all of this unnecessary killing that would occur, this, in my opinion, would inflame the situation to a huge level, making the situation even worse. So, I don't approve of destroying capital cities either. That in my opinion is almost as silly as saying 'nuke Mecca'.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:54 pm |
|
If we can get concrete proof, then I would agree to the bombing. Although what happens to the people that had no part in it though?
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:59 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | First, this congressman who said 'nuke Mecca' is stupid either way. If he was serious, that is just stupid, and if he said it just off the top of his head to show 'radical action', that is stupid as well, because it shows him as some dumbass person who does not know how to organize their thoughts properly.
Clearly, I say 'no' to bombing Mecca. If other people are smart, they would too.
As for destroying that capital of each nation, that, in my opinion, is just reckless behavior, that would put the United States of America in an even worse light than it already is in. Half of these terrorist live in rural areas, spread out through the world. Destroying capital cities may kill terrorists, but it would also do much more harm to the innocent civilian population. Just because a group of extremists lowers themselves to that level does not give us the right to go to the level of flattening cities full of innocent people. Besides the fact of all of this unnecessary killing that would occur, this, in my opinion, would inflame the situation to a huge level, making the situation even worse. So, I don't approve of destroying capital cities either. That in my opinion is almost as silly as saying 'nuke Mecca'. |
I concur. Whatever happend to bombing military installations?
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:04 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I concur. Whatever happend to bombing military installations? |
Doesn't send too much of a message. But to both you and Founder, you give the country fair warning that if a nuclear attack or something like that that involves the deaths of millions occurs, then within a few days after that we will bomb them. This gives the citizens fair enough warning to leave, so that the bombings can begin while not killing innocents. And we could also do what we did in Baghdad--bomb key parts of the city so that we minimize the casualties of innocents.
And Tancredo is FAR from stupid. He is a very intelligent, very nice man--I've met him twice and he spoke at two functions I went to. He made it very clear what his goal was, and he's willing to risk any political backlash that may come from it.
And look. Iran and Syria are funding the terrorists in Iraq--there's little doubt about that. It also looks like Saudi Arabia is funding terrorists as well. That's why you single out those few nations that are really funding the terrorists significantly and bomb the capital cities of them. Besides, if they didn't want to risk that, and knew that we meant what we were saying, they would stop funding the terrorists anyway, right? Logical.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:07 pm |
|
And think: something like this was done during WWII to Japan, and what did it do to their efforts in the war? It stopped them. It's a similar principle.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:11 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I concur. Whatever happend to bombing military installations? |
Doesn't send too much of a message. But to both you and Founder, you give the country fair warning that if a nuclear attack or something like that that involves the deaths of millions occurs, then within a few days after that we will bomb them. This gives the citizens fair enough warning to leave, so that the bombings can begin while not killing innocents. And we could also do what we did in Baghdad--bomb key parts of the city so that we minimize the casualties of innocents.
That is stupid. What is the point then. Everyone is going to abandone the city, including terrorists, and then you just make millions of people homeless, jobless, etc. Yeah, that's def what we want to accomplish.
And Tancredo is FAR from stupid. He is a very intelligent, very nice man--I've met him twice and he spoke at two functions I went to. He made it very clear what his goal was, and he's willing to risk any political backlash that may come from it.
That has been said about many leaders, but that's what propaganda does to you. I am glad he is willing to risk backlash, because if he goes around saying things like that, he deserves it.
And look. Iran and Syria are funding the terrorists in Iraq--there's little doubt about that. It also looks like Saudi Arabia is funding terrorists as well. That's why you single out those few nations that are really funding the terrorists significantly and bomb the capital cities of them. Besides, if they didn't want to risk that, and knew that we meant what we were saying, they would stop funding the terrorists anyway, right? Logical.
So then we are at war with four or five nations at a time, when the real target is a few extremists? And we barely are having enough recruits to meet the demand these days anyways.... |
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:12 pm |
|
Want to know what I think? You're scary, RM.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:16 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | This gives the citizens fair enough warning to leave, so that the bombings can begin while not killing innocents. |
Unless they give off ultraviolet signatures or something, I don't know how one could tell the difference between "innocents" and "terrorists" on sight. . . .
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:19 pm |
|
Well, could you give me an idea on how to stop the funding of terrorists and how to react to a nuclear attack, hmmm? Give me ONE decent idea on how to do so. And remember: would those countries REALLY risk the destruction of their capital city? No, of course not. Therefore, they would stop the funding. All you have to do is say forcefully that we WILL do that, and then they will likely NOT.
And, Tach, I would mean that we could perhaps just bomb military and government complexes, perhaps, so that we would limit innocent casualties.
Remember, again: it worked in WWII. I'll change my mind if SOMEONE gives me ONE GOOD alternate response to Chicago or LA being blown up by a nuclear weapon from the terrorists.
Last edited by Republican_Man on Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
I wanna be Celine!
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:22 pm |
|
To be fair, RM is at least suggesting something be done. Its easy to criticise, but to offer a real suggestion or alternative is not so easy.
I don't know if we should bomb the cities, because too many people would die. Too many INNOCENT people. On the other hand, SOMEONE has to pay for murdering so many of our citizens. If we let them get away with this, not only do we let those people's deaths go unpunished but other nations will see they can attack us and get away with it.
I'm not sure what should be done if we are nuked....
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:24 pm |
|
Well, obviously if we are attacked, most of the Western World will be behind us, including the UN. So, I'm assuming it would mean another war/invasion in another country. That seems like a better idea than destroying entire cities.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:25 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I wanna be Celine! |
You can tell the person is obviously a terrorist because the form says to check one and they filled out an X. 
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Well, could you give me an idea on how to stop the funding of terrorists and how to react to a nuclear attack, hmmm? Give me ONE decent idea on how to do so. And remember: would those countries REALLY risk the destruction of their capital city? No, of course not. Therefore, they would stop the funding. All you have to do is say forcefully that we WILL do that, and then they will likely NOT. |
The question is not whether the countries are willing to risk the destruction of their city. It is whether the price of launching an attack on them is worth the damage to the United States.
There is no good way to stop the funding. We could surrender, which would mean the terrorists would no longer mean funding. Obviously that's an idiotic option. Or we could initiate clever PR campaigns. That's an option but not a realistically effective one.
Basically, you have to make it better for the governments to be friends with the U.S. rather than with the terrorists. And right now it looks like they like the terrorists better.
There is no good way to recover from a nuclear attack. If a city in the U.S. were to suffer a nuclear attack, I'm not quite sure how this would be any different from another 9/11. More devastating? Yes. But the root of the problem is the same: buildings are destroyed and people get hurt. The nation will mourn and the economy will suffer. This is the way of things. Just like any potential attack, nuclear or otherwise, eternal vigilance is the only defense.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Remember, again: it worked in WWII. |
Just because it "works" does not mean it should be done.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:25 pm |
|
Yes. I'm trying to bring the discussion to ideas on how to respond, not bashing of me, my ideas, or Congressman Tancredo.
Perhaps we could just bomb the capital city of the most supportive nation, like Iran or Syria, to show a message to all others.
And again, three words that you all seem to not understand: mutually assured destruction.
And there is NO WAY to get Syria and Iran on our side. No way at all.
And I'm willing to ante up the cost of bombings. Tach, give me a GOOD suggestion. None of your suggestions work. And you just said that it'll only be like another 9/11. No, it won't be. It'll be much worse, and we need a GOOD response. You have, simply, given none.
Last edited by Republican_Man on Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Well, could you give me an idea on how to stop the funding of terrorists and how to react to a nuclear attack, hmmm? Give me ONE decent idea on how to do so. And remember: would those countries REALLY risk the destruction of their capital city? No, of course not. Therefore, they would stop the funding. All you have to do is say forcefully that we WILL do that, and then they will likely NOT.
And, Tach, I would mean that we could perhaps just bomb military and government complexes, perhaps, so that we would limit innocent casualties.
Remember, again: it worked in WWII. I'll change my mind if SOMEONE gives me ONE GOOD alternate response to Chicago or LA being blown up by a nuclear weapon from the terrorists. |
Ok, just because you can't think of a good way to stop terrorist funding doesn't mean we go bombing by default. This is not world war II by the way. We are not fighting a group of nations in a turf battle, we are fighting an ideal, and a group of extremists, that are spread throughout the world.
I realize it is easy to criticize, but I really don't think the alternatives that are being suggested are even "real", they just sound like something thought up by a group of men in a bar while having a few laughs.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:30 pm |
|
^See, you have NONE. You have no solution. None of you have any solid response. I am the only one who's given one--an honest one, and yet you all bash it, myself, and my Congressman.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:32 pm |
|
All right, for what would you like a solution:
a) How to stop countries from illicitly funding terrorism.
b) How to respond to a nuclear or otherwise devastating attack by terrorists on the United States.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:32 pm |
|
The latter. But the former is a part of it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
Your "solution" isn't. Genocide, anyone?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:35 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | Your "solution" isn't. Genocide, anyone? |
Not genocide. Response. The only way to really get back at the terrorists, by hurting their main sources of income.
And now please, Theresa, just STOP bashing me and SUGGEST A RESPONSE.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:37 pm |
|
| Quote: | | Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. |
Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
And I wasn't bashing, sheesh. All those who don't think the same as you must be like, RM haters, huh?
Murdering millions of innocents for any reason, even retaliation, is WRONG. And I don't have a solution, and like I said, neither do you, except for murder.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:39 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | Quote: | | Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. |
Abraham Lincoln |
So now you're hiding behind a quote of our nation's greatest President so that you can attack me for my response and yet give none yourself? Oh, that's just right.
And I WANT to find a solution that could result in less casualties, but I just don't see one, especially since none of you are giving one.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:41 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Puck wrote: | | Quote: | | Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. |
Abraham Lincoln |
So now you're hiding behind a quote of our nation's greatest President so that you can attack me for my response and yet give none yourself? Oh, that's just right.
And I WANT to find a solution that could result in less casualties, but I just don't see one, especially since none of you are giving one. |
Hiding? I thought I made pretty clear what I meant. I just quoted Lincoln because he put it oh so much more eloquently than I could have.
Last edited by Puck on Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:42 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | And I wasn't bashing, sheesh. All those who don't think the same as you must be like, RM haters, huh?
Murdering millions of innocents for any reason, even retaliation, is WRONG. And I don't have a solution, and like I said, neither do you, except for murder. |
First, READ your wording, hmm? Read the wording of almost everyone here, okay? It's BASHING alright.
No, I DO have a solution. It's hurting the terrorists in their pockets--with money. Not murder. Sure, innocents will die, but it's necessary.
Give me an idea for a response that wouldn't cause many casualties. Please, I would like to hear it so that I can have ideas that would involve less casulaties.
And as I said, don't you think that those countries, upon hearing this message, would STOP funding the terrorists? It does NOT mean that we would absolutely have to use it. Do you not understand the concept of mutually assurred destruction?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
