China doesn’t have the missile capabilities to do that.
Britain is our allie.
France is our allie.
India doesn’t have the missile capacity, and has no military submarines capable of launching missiles.
You forgot Pakistan, which did their own nuke tests the same time india did theirs.
I doubt that another country would be able to get a nuke into the country using a bomber.
And only russia and the US have the capacity to launch Nuke missiles from subs.
China is trying to figure out how to do it.
We should make an example out of them.
Seems to work for prosecuters all the time.
There is a difference though.
Jews were persecuted by the germans, they were fleeing the concentration camps.
I suspect most of them know they did a horrendous thing by helping bin laden and want to escape punishment, just like a child does when he/she runs away from a parent to escape a spanking.
Why not have a draft instead?
Besides, if we nuke the country and make it a big lake, what would we need the military for?
Those people are fleeing Afghanistan because they dont want to get bombed to death, not because they are “guilty”. Just because they are running does not mean anything more than that. Granted, there are sure to be “guilty” persons that try to flee, but on the whole I wouldnt blame the common citizens. Surely they may not like the US but I doubt that the average citizen wants to kill all of us. It is exactly the same as German citizens during WWII. They supported Hitler but were unaware he was waging an annihilation of a race of people. Wouldn’t you get the hell out of town if you knew bombing was imminent? You would want to protect your family wouldn’t you? I have a gut feeling that Sadaam is behind this in some manner anyway…I think we will be at war with Iraq before long. As far as Afghanistan goes- you will most not see much on the news about any military activity there. It will probably be Spec Ops that gets Bin and you wont hear about it. It is better that the government dosent tell the public for awhile- that way, they have time to go after the rest of his organization without them knowing they got Bin.
You’re right. I don’t understand the terrorists’ thinking. Are you saying you can? Because I think it’s a mistake to assume that people who hijack passenger jets and fly them into buildings have logical motivations.
Of course I understand there’s a difference between seeking to understand the motivation and sympathizing with the act itself. And I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of empathizing with or excusing the terrorists just because you’re trying to figure out where they’re coming from. The U.S. government employs a lot of experts who spend their days doing just that, for intelligence, military, and political reasons.
But in choosing a course of action, all we’ve got to go on is our own frame of reference. Our frame of reference tells us you don’t target innocents, you don’t kill civilians.
And that if you do kill civilians, you should feel bad about it. In wars and skirmishes and pseudo-wars, America killed more than our fair share of civilians. Many more.
But we feel bad about it. We feel so bad about it sometimes, and take it so seriously, that we often fail to act decisively, and in our country’s own best interest.
I, for one, wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m glad that’s the way we are, and that death matters to us so much. The fact that we haven’t nuked Afghanistan already is, I think, testimony to our restraint, our wisdom, and—-yeah, I’ll say it—-our inherent goodness.
That’s our frame of reference. But now, haven’t we been forced into the position where all America can do is take care of her own, do what can be done to insure that OUR innocents stay as safe as we can keep them?
Do we have any choice but to look out now for Number One?
Does that sound jingoistic? Xenophobic? It shouldn’t. “Number one” includes people of all races and creeds. That’s America, last I checked.
To get on topic: I don’t think we can or will nuke Afghanistan. Why not? Because–and I’ll say it again–of our inherent (if sometimes clumsy and foolish) goodness.
But I think that, should they continue to ignore our demands, and if they continue to protect the people who did this and tweak their noses at us, we will raze that country and its populace conventionally.
But seeking to understand the motive of people who, by all rights, don’t appear to be using any form of reason as a guide is only likely to land one into more trouble.
The cause is The Cause, it could be said, and it is self-motivational. Once you think the cause has an end other than itself, you seek to pacify it, undermine its source. Uhhh, no-- the cause is itself, in this case, and the only way to eliminate a tautology is to destroy it.
“But seeking to understand the motive of people who, by all rights, don’t appear to be using any form of reason as a guide is only likely to land one into more trouble.”
Of course not, silly. I’m just saying I’ve been fairly active on the boards and by now it should be obvious what and who I am. You threaten to expose me for what I am; I’m pretty sure people here are already aware of that.
Eonwe, I believe those numbers were provided by the UN; I’ve been given several leads to investigate further. Additionally, you might want to look up “Anthony Arnove” on Google; he has several articles online on Iraq and has edited a book giving a left perspective on the situation. Full disclosure: he is a member of the International Socialist Organzation (which most of you probably know I belong to as well).
erislover, here is the conclusion of a report on mortality rates in Iraq (which also seems to be worth checking out, Eonwe) discussing culpability regarding the devastation wrought by sanctions in Iraq. Saddam Hussein certainly isn’t helping the situation, but there’s a strong argument for not holding him solely responsible. The afterword was written by David Cortright, who wrote a good essay here that makes a good argument against a military response to the attacks.
Hi, Olentzero. I’m going to make some points as I cite from those links, ok?
From the last link (it caught my eye first):
I hope he isn’t talking about the terrorists and is instead talking about some of the governments and peoples that may harbor some ill will towards the US.
This just isn’t a fact. There are plenty of conflicts through history that have been successfully managed through force. WW2, for example. Christian domination of Europe. America’s treatment of the American Indians.
Oh, nonviolence? Are we just going to ask those who were responsible to step into a cell?
Which tools are those? And how are they utilized?
He could have at least made some sort of moral argument instead of simply asserting his opinion (hey, not that we all don’t do that, don’t ge me wrong ;))
There is little for me to argue about the whole economic sanction thing. I think that they are not shown to be 100% effective in all cases, though they certainly have been effective here and there. In the case of Pakistan, obviously, it was an ace in our pocket. In the case of Cuba? Useless. In the case of Iraq? Well, we are all pretty much aware of the lack of effect on the government that the trade sanctions have had.
Certainly. The nation could have simply complied with diplomatic pressures but instead chose not to. It could have averted the utter misery of its citizens, but chose not to.
This is not a nice government. Are these the same kind of people we want to be friends with? What would we gain from that?
Wait-- this puts us in an untenable situation? Becaus they ruin their state? Because that government doesn’t act in the interests of its citizens? That is our fault?!
Well, sorry, but international opinion wasn’t really all that keen on simply toppling the goverment in the first place after we crushed their military. Instead we were supposed to back off, and we did. Then we were supposed to use diplomacy.
The problem with Iraq is that we lacked the conviction and did not follow through with our actions toward their logical conclusion. Why? Foreign pressure, or personal economic reasons? sigh
Logical solution: not letting the sick bastard have his own country.
Bullshit! It arises from not killing the bastard in the first place. It arises by allowing this sick bastard to have his own country with which to torture people who were unlucky enough to be born there. It arises because people got it into their heads that we can simply impose economic conditions on a country to get the bad guys be good guys. Fuck that. Don’t treat your citizens like shit and you wouldn’t have the UN trying to feed your people because you’re too stupid to do it.
ERIS this tries my patience. I cannot even read this without getting visibly upset. Seriously, I am sweating as I type this. Heh, man… need to lower my salt intake. [calms down]
When we find that someone is acting so blatantly against survival and some form of self-interest (however they choose to interpret that) and instead sacrifice their citizenry to all manner of horrors, the fault automaticall lies with them. Period. If this were a suicide case, we’d put him under psychotherapy. If this were a serial killer we’d lock him up for life. But no, the guy is in charge of a country and we assume that the fault must be external to him (at least partially). I’m sorry, but I simply do not agree.
Whatever. I see no point in pampering a disgusting dictator. This can encourage him to be a bastard to his citizens until we cower, “Oh no Mr Hussien, don’t kill your own people. Here, conquer Kuwait. We didn’t learn anything from WW2, we think we can appease your sick mentality!”
Ok, getting pissed again rather easily. I’m going to buy some cigarettes and return in a bit.
Olentzero, this thread is getting around that length where a moderator might just close it for length alone, so I will instead make a more general case instead of simply playing the quote game (or rather, I’ll start a new round of the quote game ;))
The title of this thread: “A nuclear solution to the WTC bombing?” is much more ambiguous than some would make it seem. My entire case in this thread is to use the unspoken threat of nukes as leverage to get these governments to aid us in pursuing terrorists in general. I am personally not of the opinion that we should find who did this particular event. If we have the evidence on which to pin them, fine. No sweat if we simply pin them for killing 250 people at an embassy, or 13 people with a car bomb. I just want terrorism eliminated.
My choice in advocating military force-- or rather, threatening it-- is to get these governments to abide by our pursuit to eliminate terrorism. I do not outright condone military action above and beyond the threat. However, I am also aware that some will, for some reason, call this as a bluff even in the face of past American aggression. And then we should use military force.
May I ask when you would feel military action is appropriate?
I would think so, especially given his attitude toward the acts in New York and Washington. Though most, if not all, terrorists harbor ill will towards the US, not all who harbor ill will towards the US are, or become, terrorists.
Which turned into the Cold War once Germany, Italy, and Japan surrendered. Thus jostling between the two superpowers for increasing spheres of influence, which turned hot at least twice - in Korea and Vietnam - and I would add Afghanistan to that list as well.
Which turned into warfare, more or less, between the Protestants and the Catholics. The Inquisition, to cite one example. The Edict of Nantes, to cite another.
Little Big Horn. Leonard Peltier. The general standard of living for native Americans today, and the piss poor job the Bureau of Indian Affairs seems to be making of it.
No, but we don’t need to send in squads of fighter jets, convoys of aircraft carriers, and thousands of troops to work with the countries in the area around an agreement to bring him to trial in international court.
I don’t know that myself. But if the US took the time to look for them I’m sure they would find some.
Well, before the Gulf War the US gained a steady supply of oil from the country. Remember, the Ba’ath Party was put into power by the United States. Saddam was “our man in Baghdad” for many years.
Not “our” fault, no. But since the US’ foreign policy stood behind Saddam, the United States does bear some responsibility for the situation. I don’t hold the American people complicit in everything the United States does, so I don’t believe it’s “our” fault. But the United States is complicit in the situation.
Oh, the US had the conviction, all right. It’s just that at the end of the Gulf War the Kurds in the north and the Sunni in the south (or was it the Shi’a? In any case it was the other branch of Islam in Iraq) were the only groups set to rise up and overthrow Saddam. Unfortunately for the United States that didn’t carry the guarantee of a steady oil supply that Saddam did, so they didn’t back the uprisings. Much better, in their opinion, to try to starve out a dictator who might be willing to negotiate the terms of oil exports than people who might not want to sell oil to the US at all.
The US had its chance, as I’ve outlined above.
Killing Saddam brings instability and the possibility of an outcome not favorable to US interests. If there was a guarantee that Saddam’s replacement were going to keep the oil flowing just as eagerly, Saddam would be a distant memory by now.
You may be right about this thread getting too big for its own good, so I’m going to take the chance to restate my case as succinctly as possible.
Terrorism arises from ill will towards the United States. That ill will comes from much more than some abstract conflict between the ideology of fundamentalist Islam and progressive Western society. It has its roots in the actions of the US in the Middle East. Those actions arise from US foreign policy, which is essentially to guarantee enough stability in the region to keep oil exports constant. That has meant military and/or political intervention if the situation threatened to become too unstable. Continuing that policy through military retaliation of any kind in response to the attacks of September 11th will only serve to deepen ill will towards the US and push more people down the path of terrorism.
Your prerogative, I suppose - though I see such a point of view as mistaken. But you already knew that.
There was a conflict of political ideology between the United States and Russia for almost 50 years. Why was there not a constant stream of political violence between them? Was it because each believed the other to be more or less evenly matched in destructive capabilities? Is political violence therefore only justified when there is a major disparity in strength between the two? Do you believe that the terrorist attack was political violence, but the retaliation is not?
I don’t think we’ve just found it; I think it’s been one of the major themes of the debate since we first joined it.
[quote]
There was a conflict of political ideology between the United States and Russia for almost 50 years. Why was there not a constant stream of political violence between them?
[quote]
Because we were civilized. Though it was clearly within each sides capability to do so, neither party sent agents into the other countries territory for the sole purpose of the wholesale slaughter of noncombatant citizens.
Both sides understood the difference between governments, military, and civilians, and they respected those difference, in part out of fear of similar retaliation, but also I think out of a general repugnance and horror about committing such an uncivilized act.
No. It was out of the belief that instigating overt and wholesale violence is ultimately self-destructive.
Size and relative strength have nothing to do with when violence is appropriate.
I don’t recognize a difference between political and nonpolitcal violence.
The differences that I recognize are “justified” and “unjustified.”
The WTC attack is unjustifiable.
A retaliation is potentially justifiable. In this case I would say that it would be justified under the following circumstances.
Noncombatants are not targetted, and their involvement and risk is minimized as much as is possible.
The goal is two reduce or eliminate the possibility of such an attack reoccuring, as well as demonstrate the consequences for such an attack.
I don’t believe that political violence is a necessary result of political conflict; if it were, democrats and republicans would have been having shootouts for years. But just because it ends up in violence doesn’t mean that there isn’t an ideology war behind it.
Where is that belief now? Can it be discarded because the ‘other side’ started it?
Given this quote from Bush last night:
I don’t think your first condition is going to be met.
From my point of view, these conditions are mutually exclusive, at least as far as the US’ approach is concerned. To Bush and Congress, reducing or eliminating the possibility of an attack, and demonstrating the consequences of such an attack, requires as great a show of military strength as possible, i.e. war. There has not yet been a war in which there have not been civilian casualties.
I believe the Democrats and Republicans have more in common than not, but that’s neither here nor there in this debate. Which it seems like it’s turning back into again.
True, but just because ideology is a factor doesn’t mean that ideology is the sole, or even main, factor of conflict.
I don’t think you noticed my use of the word “instigating.” That should clarify things.
I don’t see anything in there that says we will target civilians or noncombatants. A government harboring terrorists is neither. Bush did say that our war was not with the people of Afghanistan, you know?
You notice that I did not say that we wouldn’t kill civilians. I said we should not target them, and we should try to minimize their involvement.
If we performed a coup d’etat on the Taliban, snatched Bin Laden and dropped a fuel air bomb on each known terrorist camp, that would indeed be a pretty impressive display of military force as well as a demonstration of consequences.
Some civilians would be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they would die though they were not targetted.
(though anybody hanging out in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan right now, is looking for trouble.)
Such a strategy would be a maximization of military goals while minimizing civilian losses and IMO, would be an admirable strategy.
Oh no, I noticed it. Between the United States and Russia, instigating such violence would have resulted in mutual destruction. As such, political violence was unjustifiable. Now, of course, the US believes it will be able to retaliate against Afghanistan without fear of its own destruction in the process. So on with the overt and wholesale violence!
[quote]
**Given this quote from Bush last night:
Somehow I doubt it will be small consolation to those who survive that their loved ones weren’t targeted.
You didn’t say it outright, but you pretty much just called them ‘collateral damage’. McVeigh saw many of the victims in OKC as collateral damage; no doubt the people directly behind the attacks last week saw the victims of the WTC as collateral damage as well. How does that justify the US inflicting more of the same?
Apparently the Afghanis think anybody hanging out in Afghanistan is looking for trouble at this point. Seen the action at the borders lately?
