Where have I mentioned killing Afghanis in a holocaust?
Heck no. If and when the perpetrator is reasonably identified, and if it should be Bin Laden, and if our government determines that their government is aiding and abetting, then we should strike government military targets, and any known/highly suspected terrorist facilities. I have never been in favor of nor will I ever be in favor of carpet bombing Afghanistan. You are right that the Afghani people should not have to answer for what their government or this man does.
As for ‘we know’, consider that I am lazy, and it isn’t absolutely germane to the argument. You can have that one…for now.
I don’t know where you got from my statements that we should attack nations and groups indiscriminately. Of course we should have rock-solid evidence of who was involved before we proceed!
But that evidence does not necessarily have to get down to the level of individuals. The terrorist groups and where they operate will be fine.
Well, the idea of “let’s hunt them down and kill them” was put to Powell. He basically answered that an executive order forbids it. But … and he let the question dangle.
Message: All it needs is another executive decision. Meaning: It’s up to the President.
Conclusion: It’s under consideration.
Well if it is up to Bush, I feel good. Because he doesn’t mess around with criminals or whacos. He has the balls to deal with hideous crimes the way they should be dealt with…DEATH!
First of all, you are getting dangerously close to making this personal. You are all but accusing me of lying?
None of my comments that you have quoted were based upon the events of 9/11/01. They were all true, or at least the factual parts (given that I have for now conceded the Taliban protectionism) prior to Tuesday’s events.
Ok. now. let’s proceed then. You posted above postulating that we’d identified groups X & Y, that operated out of countries A & B. Now, what does the ‘this is war’ position dictate at this point, that differs from my position -which is, again, identify those responsible,( and I’m fine if it’s even such a thing as ‘Holt JayCees’ vs. ‘mid michigan males’ ), locate and secure them.
Does the war model include, say bombing (Holt in my example) because the group is there? Mine wouldn’t.
then I quoted several passages in this very thread where you indeed seemed to specifically blame Bin Laden, and assert that the Taliban were “supporting him, protecting him”. Seemed quite contradictory. So, when a debater says “I never said that” and some one quotes them as ‘saying that’, it is a debate tactic, not a personal accusation.
You may at this point (what an hour later?) be trying to qualify your comments, however, when you make the original statement, as you did, “if you read what I said carefully”, please don’t blame me when I then quote you back.
Quoting time to reply is a rather cheap shot at points, don’t you think?
Sorry, I was busy there for awhile.
I stand behind my comments fully, and they need no qualifying as what you think you see in them is simply not there.
Ahh, I see where you are confused. You have assumed that I what I am blaming Bin Laden of is complicity in Tuesday’s act of terrorism. That is patently not the fact. Bin Laden is wanted and has been pursued for his compliance/supposed compliance in the US Embassy bombings and the Cole incident. Those and those incidents are all that I refer to at this time.
I remain fully open minded in regard to who the benefactors of this latest attack are.
And when it is plainly obvious that you have no “facts” to support your ‘tactic’ (outside of those associations you have created in your own mind) it once again becomes nothing more than a personal accusation.
For the record: I am not trying to get under your skin. Just trying to shake you loose from my coat-tails.
PS: Why the Tuba refrence? Shouldn’t it have been David B or Gaudere
I agree with Wild Bill, in so far as it being better than the alternative- which would be bombing the countries that are possibly harboring the terrorists. Bombing would probably lead to war, possibly a draft, and the loss of countless innocent lives. The citizens of the countries in question have done nothing wrong. This isn’t as if another country organized this attack (so far as we know) so I find it most chilling that I’ve heard so many people suggest we do bomb. Dealing out justic to the individuals at fault is the best possible recourse we can hope for at this point.
Wring, I think you’re getting the wrong idea of what a “war model” would entail. It does not entail massive bombing of any country that has terrorists in it, or the random shooting of people who live in the same neighborhood as a suspected terrorist.
What it does mean is simple. If we have good reason to believe that a person is a part of a terrorist organization, or that a building or facility is being used by terrorists, then military force can be directed against that person or building.
Under a judicial model, that person would have to be arrested and brought to trial. And the building or facility could not be searched without first getting a warrant. But we have no possibility of bringing these people to trial, and they don’t operate in countries that will issue our troops search warrants.
I don’t think we should kill “suspected” terrorists, but we should target “known” terrorists with deadly military force, just like we would target enemy soldiers even when they are not in uniform. Of course, we may have a sticky point in telling the difference between a known terrorist and a suspected terrorist. You might come to different conclusions than I would about who falls into what category. But surely we can agree that there is a difference. If we have pictures of a guy going to a Hamas meeting, then he’s a known terrorist, and an enemy soldier.
Nobody (well, almost nobody) is advocating mass bombings of whole cities. The only way that could happen is if the countries that harbor the enemy soldiers refuse to hand them over if they have the capability to do so. And if they won’t hand them over, then our country will be at war with their country. And this is the kind of war that the US can win.
Obviously, the problem in this sort of war is intelligence. The US has the capability to bomb any point on planet earth. But, in order to fight the terrorists, we need to know exactly what point on planet earth they are standing on. And that requires intelligence. There are too many points on planet earth to just drop bombs on all of them and hope that a terrorist was there.
Hibbins your comments were posted in a thread about ‘what we should do re: the WTC boming’ - you seem to be blaming me for assuming that you were referring to that event and not something else entirely. gotcha. Perhaps you can understand, then why I see them as reference to the WTC bombing? The reference to length of time was not meant as the slam it seemed, just as a ‘hell you just said this’ sort of thing.
(the reference to Tuba is that she generally takes care of issues such as identity problems)
Lemur that answer is what I was looking for. However, if you scan about, you will see quite a bit of support for the alternative - ie, the ‘bomb the city that he’s in’ concept, including in this thread. This is exactly what I would suggest we not do. And, your post follows more of what I think of as the ‘identify/locate/secure’ mode.
My concern is that when folks use terms like ‘this means war’, they often mean (and in fact have spelled out in this thread and others) bomb the bejezzuz out of some area.
I see your point. It would bee easy to confuse what I meant given the context. I assure you I did not intend it as an indictment. I had even attempted to point out that fact but scrapped it for breavity. Rather foolish in hindsight.
Anyway, I agree with you up to secure. Sure capture is good, as long as we don’t put too many lives at risk to do it. My feelings regarding covert assassinations? Way too resource intensive, time consuming, and puts a bad taste in peoples mouths.
Military Excusions into another sovriegn nation w/o their permission (unless there is an open declaration of war against that nation. Currently there is not).
Wholesale bombing of cities on the basis of ‘we know/think/presume so and so is there’
Things I do want:
Identification of those responsable (and, since it is most likely a terrorist group, no, I don’t think we would need to demonstrate much more than belonging to that group).
Declaration of war against another sovriegn nation only when we have some evidence to support the allegation they are supporting/hiding the persons responsible.
Keep in mind, too, that this could easily become a witch hunt of massive proportions.
From what the news sources have been saying, they already have quite a few names of people involved.
Ditto
(All but the declaration of war bit. I assume you are refering to a “formal” declaration of war? That I wouldn’t require, just an adhoc agreement would be fine by me.)
Unless it is absolutely necessary to achieve a tactical military goal in the case we have made a formal declaration of war. I would think this could be avoided in all but the most extreme cases.
1)Ditto
2)Ditto (Changing “we have”, to our government has. A technicality I know. :))
… which describes most of the “wars” the U.S. has fought in over the last half-century. The last time the U.S. ever formally declared War on anybody was in 1941.
It was an executive order signed by Gerald Ford. There was a time when we went to assasinate foreign leaders. Castro, the target of 5 (CIA admitted) or 30 attempts (as he claimed), is still standing. And JFK’s death is still thought of as being Castro’s revenge.
