A newbie's perspective of this board.

[TheKurp]

Om, well said. Fortunately our leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, are reasoned and rational enough to see the forest for the trees and are calling for a measured, defined, and effective response while taking into account the long range ramifications of their actions.

I fail to see how opposing indiscriminant killing of innocent people can be viewed as "weak" and "ignorant". Controlling one's emotions long enough to subdue an instinctive primordial tendency towards rage in favor of a well thought out and more effective response takes far more intelligence and courage.

Appealing to people's emotions to incite indiscriminant violence is a tactic used throughout history by those who wish to control the masses by blinding them of reason. Intelligent people are immune to this. Reactionaries allow themselves to be led around like dogs - but instead of a leash, emotional appeals are the tether.

Through this tragedy, the United States finds itself with an unprecedented universal support from both its allies and its enemies. At no other time in our history have we been given the power we now find in our possession by virtue of the world acquiescing in our time of tragedy. We can accomplish great things, not only for ourselves, but for the world at large if we act responsibly in eliminating terrorism. However the first time nations abroad see on t.v. innocent lives struck down by a bullying U.S., we will lose the leverage the victims of this tragedy paid for with their lives and the anger will breed fare more terrorists than we can possibly fight.

I've been now chastised as being "liberal", "weak", and "ignorant". In light of the suffering caused by this tragedy it hardly matters to me. I'm not a particularly religious person but only a heart is required to empathize with those who have been touched in any form by these terrorists. We all have different reactions to this senseless act and I've vowed not to think ill of anyone regardless of their viewpoint.

Peace,

"The Kurp"

[Art]

Kurp,

The citizens of Kabul, knowing an attack is coming, are digging in, not leaving. Terrorists are likely in the city as well. If we bomb this city, and the people digging the trenches -- who are not military -- die, are they innocent? Should we hold a court case before we drop a bomb to assure we ONLY get totally guilty people?

The hammer can't pick out a single nail when 50 are bunched together. We shouldn't ask the hammer to do so. And, in this case, it IS the hammer that's coming out, and not the scalpel. Innocents will die. That's unfortunate. But, it's also a necessity.

If we attempt to be reasonable, measured, cautious and considerate in this strike back, we'll be a target forever. And, I don't think this will be a strike. It will be a sustained effort. It will not be a week-long air strike. It will be months of attacks and destruction. People will die. Avoiding that is not as important as being strong and unyielding in what MUST be done.

Sometimes you have to cut out the good to kill the infection. There's NO DOUBT to me, the infection will be cut out. And there's no doubt to me that requires a lot of good to be cut out as well. That's what happens in war.

I know you wish we could make individual people nukes, or we could rewrite history and not have carpet bombed cities in the World War, but we can't. When war comes, people die. And again, either you support war or you don't. You don't support war and support limits. You support what war is and what it means or you don't. NO, this isn't a traditional war. But, it is a war, that will be prosecuted to the full extent of our power, though I hope not to the level of nukes.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Om]

I am not inclined to debate this in this forum, Art, because frankly I find it a very poor one in which to try to discuss matters of this weight. Shades of meaning are too easily lost in the noise, things which could and should be more carefully defined cannot be. My thinking on this issue cannot be put into a short essay in this relatively anonymous forum.

If we could sit face to face, and look into one another's eyes, I would try to make you understand how I define "reason" in this context. I suspect that, after an exchange of ideas, and the non-verbal communication that people can only express with contact, that you would walk away convinced that I really and truly DO understand what you have said.

What I will say here, though, is that on a certain level it boggles my mind that you seem to assume to understand this matter in a way I do not, or feel any more deeply the pain of what has happened, or wish to visit destruction on those responsible any more fervently. If that's unfair, I apologize. If not ...

All I ask is that you allow for the possibility that those who espouse "reason" may in fact understand the feelings of those who do not, and that they may have incorporated those feelings into their thinking, and that they may STILL have reached the conclusion that "reason" has not lost its place in our lives.

I fully expect you to answer, my friend, and understand that you may well parse my words line by line if you feel so inclined, and that's fine. I won't debate with you beyond this post, however, not in this forum, about this topic, at this time. I won't because, when all is said and done, I don't believe we're really disagreeing at the basest levels about what must, and will, ultimately be done. I believe what differences we seem to be discussing are more in how we approach, and ultimately FEEL about what we are about to do, than the actions we are about to undertake themselves.

Other people think things through as well, my brother. Please do not do yourself, or anyone else, the disservice of assuming they do not.

[SonnyJ]

What I find surprising is that anyone who advocates a sustained, somewhat indiscriminate military effort (read: war) is viewed as being governed by their emotions. Why is this response any less intelligent or reasonable than a "well thought out and more effective response (that) takes far more intelligence and courage".

What is this response? How is it more intelligent? How is it more courageous?

My problem, Kurp, is that you speak in vague generalities and stereotypes, and you paint a broad brush with your comments. Those of us advocating total war (well, at least most of us) do not revel in the thought that innocent people will be killed. But that is an unfortunate, unavoidable byproduct of such an action.

How is it unintelligent to advocate such a response as this? Are you saying it isn't possible to set a high enough pain threshold to deter future terrorists? Are you saying the US shouldn't do anything possible to protect its citizens? What is your idea of a more reasonable, measured response? Do you know of instances where such a response has had an enduring effect?

These people have launched an attack on the sovereign soil of the US. If this is not an act of war, I'm not sure what is. It is apparent to me, though, that past responses have not been an effective deterrent.

It's time to raise the ante...

[Art]

Om,

I understand what you are saying. I fully comprehend that you are every bit as upset as I am. I simply don't get how anyone can ask for reason or restraint in this response, and still support war. That is solely where my question lies.

If you don't support war, then you can support reason and restraint. If you DO support war, you, by definition, support the total destruction of everything in the way of our power. I support war. If you don't, I'd like to talk about that.

While I recognize this isn't a war in a conventional sense, it IS a battle in which we have no ability to restrict. To succeed, you MUST use the whole of your power. We learned this lesson from Vietnam, where we restricted our ability to fight by limiting what we would send in and what we would strike.

Same with Korea, where we restricted our ability to fight and push through to victory. Unlike both of those instances, we were not directly attacked. In this case we were. And I find the mere thought of limiting our response to take ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS COUNTRY into account is outrageous. It's now time we stop worrying about others and start protecting ourselves.

Kurp says our leaders are rational enough to limit what we do. I haven't heard them talking about limiting themselves. I've heard them talking about leaving a spot on the map where a country used to be. If we kill 10,000 people for every American that was murdered, no one would DARE back people killing Americans.

We've never responded before. We've allowed attacks to kill our citizens while we've bent over backward blowing up empty buildings so we wouldn't kill their citizens. Now it's time to let the armed forces protect us by doing whatever is necessary and driving home that point that what happened Tuesday will never happen again.

You people that think a large scale destructive war won't limit people are also not thinking clearly. We've done pinprick strikes for years to retailiate for attacks on our country. That has merely steeled these people against us and allow them to dance in the streets when we are slaughtered.

We KNOW what happens when we are cautions and measured. We continue getting attacked. The attacks get bigger and bigger. People celebrate our terror. We do NOT know what happens when we unleash the hell of our armed forces upon every country that gives any safe haven to terrorists. My thought is, the world will be paralyzed with fear, as it is now. No terrorist attacks anywhere in the world in two days now. No IRA bombings. No attacks in Israel. The world is afraid of our response. You think once we do respond, if it's big enough, they won't stay afraid?

I do think they will. And, I think we know for absolute certain what they think when we slap them on the wrists. We have PROOF of what they think when we do that. We have solid evidence of how they react when we show restraint. It's now time to stop striking back. This isn't a boxing match. It's not a you hit us and we hit you game any more. It's time to take the gloves off and end the fight.

To end it, the horror of what we do, as with Japan in WWII, frightens the world into a new era. We have to have WWII resolve to win. We HAVE to take out people regardless of the cost. And if we don't, well, we never have, and you see where we are.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[TheKurp]

Ok Art and SonnyJ, just so I'm clear on this let's walk through a hypothesis. Let's say that we have substantiated proof that Bin Laden is responsible for the recent terrorist acts. We've received military intelligence that he's hiding out somewhere in Afghanistan. If I understand you both correctly, we start by wiping out the city of Kabul. I assume by this you mean raze every building. Or do you mean keep bombing away until nothing moves except that which is blown by the wind? Then do we follow that by destroying the cities of Mazar-e Sharif, Meymaneh, Herat, and Qandahar? Now to make sure you catch any terrorists fleeing across borders do you also take out Zahedan in Iran? Quetta in Pakistan? As a matter of fact, since Pakistan has paid only lip service to the U.S. in trying to apprehend Bin Laden, do you simply wipe out Pakistan, including the cities of Islamabad, Gujranwala, Faisalabad, Multan, Bahawalpur, Sukkur, and Hyderabad? Now since Bin Laden is a Saudi I expect that it would only be prudent to throw in Riyadh, Makkah, and Medina as well. You know what, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have been documented as hideouts for terrorists as well. Shall we take those countries out as well? Oh oh, a couple in Venice, Florida harbored two of the terrorists in their house. Fed them, talked with them, and went to the movies with them. Might as well take out South Florida while you're at it because it's a known haven for terrorists in the U.S. Surely this kind of action will strike fear in every one even remotely thinking of terrorism, don't you think?

"The Kurp"

[Om]

All right, then ...

Definitions, within this context:

"Reason" - being confident that who we're killing are the bad guys, before we kill them. "Shoot first, ask questions later" sounds and feels pretty good today ... but you have to be right. Come tomorrow, you have to have been right.

"Bad Guys" - the perpetrators of the 9/11/01 acts of war, and those who harbor them.

"Harbor" - If we find the bad guys are among you, and if we find that you KNEW they were among you, "sorry" ain't enough. Duck.

"War" - military action against our known enemies. I support it.

"Tactical War" - the reality of the 21st century. Like it or not ... it's here to stay. I accept it. It's what we saw in the Gulf. It's what we saw in Eastern Europe. And it's what we're going to see until and unless nukes come into play. If and when nukes do come into play, they will (by the grace of God) be "tactical" nukes. We've got ‘em, some of the bad guys got ‘em. It ain't gonna be pretty. But it will sure as hell serve the purpose of setting the world straight on what we're willing to do.

I don't buy equating the tactical approach to war with not responding or a slap on the wrist. And I hope we don't have to talk body counts to establish what is or is not sufficient response. You determine your objective by identifying your enemy and calculating the response that will take him down. You endeavor to hit him so hard that neither he, nor anyone who aspires to be like him, has the capability or inclination to threaten you again. You destroy as much property, infrastructure, ability to make war, and as many human beings as you need to accomplish your objective. And you don't stop until the objective has been met.

That, to me, is reason in the context of war.

I don't really think we disagree, Art. I want the bad guys dead. I want them to suffer, and since that means their wives and children will suffer and die alongside them ... I have to want that, too. I want them to suffer in such a way that their great-grandchildren will know that the world has changed and America has finally had enough. Scratch that – the way I feel right now, I don't WANT them to have great-grandchildren. Where we seem to diverge is in how willing we are to take out whole populations, who may or may not be the "bad guys," in the parlance of this debate, in the name of hoped-for, long-term deterrence.

Me, I want to know beforehand that we've done every "reasonable" thing to insure that the thousands of people we are about to kill are, by any "reasonable" standard, the bad guys. If that makes me soft in anyone's eyes, then so be it.

For better or worse, that's how I define "reason" today.

[ by Om on September 13, 2001.]

[Art]

Ok Kurp, let me answer. Reply within....

"Ok Art and SonnyJ, just so I'm clear on this let's walk through a hypothesis. Let's say that we have substantiated proof that Bin Laden is responsible for the recent terrorist acts."

Let's say, though we don't know for certain yet, or if we do, we're not letting on. But, let's guess and see what we can see.

"We've received military intelligence that he's hiding out somewhere in Afghanistan. If I understand you both correctly, we start by wiping out the city of Kabul."

You aren't understanding either of us correctly. Though, if we are at war with the country that harbors Bin Laden, then, likely, you destroy the capital first, and radiate power from there. Specifically, I think we won't necessarily fight any single country. But rather, we'll drop, men and bombs on terrorist camp sites in Afghanistan and other countries, and pursue them where they go.

However, that would be a new way to wage war. We start by wiping out every terrorist we know of and go from there. However, a simultaneous attack, or a wave of attacks spanning a dozen nations and hundreds of camp sites will require the approval of the governments of each of these countries. The first government that refuses that permission and stands against us, is the place we'll actually have to crush. Let's say that first place is Afghanistan. Then, yes, you reign terror on Kabul. You bomb it into oblivion. Hopefully though, you don't end it quickly with a nuke. That, to me, is a slippery slope.

"I assume by this you mean raze every building. Or do you mean keep bombing away until nothing moves except that which is blown by the wind?"

You pursue the destruction much like you bombed Berlin in WWII. You pursue it, hopefully, slightly less resolved than you bombed Japan in WWII.

"Then do we follow that by destroying the cities of Mazar-e Sharif, Meymaneh, Herat, and Qandahar?"

Actually, assuming a conventional war against the country of Afghanistan, you probably bomb these cities at the sime time you destroy Kabul. And you do it until the entire government of this country is destroyed. You do it until every piece of military in the country is crushed. You do it until the lesson is made that, again assuming conventional war against a country, you will never again let a terrorist set up a camp in your country. Ever.

"Now to make sure you catch any terrorists fleeing across borders do you also take out Zahedan in Iran? Quetta in Pakistan?"

Pakistan will allow, assuming a conventional war against Afghanistan, logistical support and staging. For this "favor" we will merely kill only the terrorists in the country and destroy the camps, with the help of the military leadership in Pakistan. If they refuse, you turn your attention to this country. You are now seeing why this can become a World War. Once countries resist, it becomes a standard war. As long as countries are on board, this will simply be our plans and select men landing and destroying terrorist cells in every location in the world. Countries won't agree forever.

"As a matter of fact, since Pakistan has paid only lip service to the U.S. in trying to apprehend Bin Laden, do you simply wipe out Pakistan, including the cities of Islamabad, Gujranwala, Faisalabad, Multan, Bahawalpur, Sukkur, and Hyderabad?"

At this point the Pakistan government has paid substantially more than lip service to our cause. In fact, they've agreed to unstinted assistance. However, if they for some reason don't, you then destroy everything you see here until they do. This isn't a case of might makes right. We've had might and not used it. This is NOW a case of right makes right, and we have the might. Every nation will stand against terrorism and allow us to operate within their borders in order to prevent the terrible confrontation of our military against theirs.

"Now since Bin Laden is a Saudi I expect that it would only be prudent to throw in Riyadh, Makkah, and Medina as well."

The Saudi's have personally thrown him out of their nation and condemn him, while remaining for a decade staunch supporters of this nation. We do not attack friends. Only enemies.

"You know what, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have been documented as hideouts for terrorists as well. Shall we take those countries out as well?"

Now you are catching on. We won't stand against any particular country until that country says, "Hey, no, you can't come in and kill terrorists living here." None will. We will absolutely enter these nations and destroy any known area of terror organizations. This is PRECISELY right. This is sustained. This is the end blow. This is exactly what we are talking about. You take on EVERY SINGLE country that has any terrorist camp operating within its borders. You put them on your side, or the other side. Their choice. Afterall, we don't want them, only the terrorists. Any country that allows these groups to train, will be forced to decide. Every one, at least initally, will go along with us.

It's when they stop, or don't, that we run into problems. But, that will NOT stop us. If Syria says we can't take out the DFLP operating in their borders, we simply go in and destroy them and get who we can. And, every time a terrorist is found, you kill him with a bomb or an inserted team of men. And, you bomb again. And when another terrorist is hiding somewhere, someone in that country will tell the government, who will be initially on our side and we will kill him.

"Oh oh, a couple in Venice, Florida harbored two of the terrorists in their house. Fed them, talked with them, and went to the movies with them."

And, you've forgotten. Kicked them out after a week. But, they didn't kick them out because of them being terrorists. These folks didn't have any clue. They kicked them out because they were rude. But, that's unimportant. The couple in Florida didn't harbor these men. For a guy with a dictionary, you should know what it means to harbor. Specifically it means you protect people with an offer of shelter from danger or the law or whatever. You can't be an unwitting harborer. There's intent and knowledge involved with harboring a criminal. You know he's in trouble and you give him refuge.

"Might as well take out South Florida while you're at it because it's a known haven for terrorists in the U.S."

Absolutely right. We WILL take out terrorist cells and people known to harbor terrorists in South Florida. We couldn't do it before because of the laws against such things. Now we are on war footing. Now we can. And, we'll also enter Canada and take out the Algerian terrorists there who helped these men get into the country. Sustained, vicious, uncompromising, unyielding, global war on terrorism. Absolutely right.

"Surely this kind of action will strike fear in every one even remotely thinking of terrorism, don't you think?"

Yep. It sure will. Because, we know for a fact that strategic strikes don't strike fear into anyone. Khadafi's daughter was killed when we attacked him. He should have been as we thought we were targeting him. He's a church mouse to us now. But, we still have to go into his nation and destroy camps there.

We KNOW Saddam still has a big mouth and defies the restrictions placed upon his country because we were strategic on his country. Not crushing. We know terrorists aren't afraid of us when we bomb empty buildings and avoid casualties. We KNOW what they think about us then.

We have a good idea how they react to devestation and destruction. We know it from Japan. We know it from Khadaffi. And, after we pursue all terrorists to their graves, we'll know it from them and the countries that allow them freedom to train.

Already you see the world is in fear of our response. Like WWII, the giant is awake now. It's time again, sadly, to act like one. We just didn't start this. We will now, like WWII, end it.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[The Sisko]

Well said Om. However, I think I may have a solution to this problem that everybody could agree on. Art, you and all the ones like you should get together and arm yourselves, take the first flight, ship or whatever you can get on and go to Afghanistan and take care of the problem yourselves. I mean obviously, our leaders have all turned into spineless wimps since the bombs aren't falling indiscriminately (I used that word since it seems to be one of your favorites)already. Kill as many and as often as you want to until your bloodlust is completely satiated and have a good time. Only problem is, I'd bet my next paycheck there wouldn't be any takers. (Insert excuse here).

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan Muslims from all over the world (including this country...I personally know two brothers who fought in the Afghan war and another who went to Bosnia to help with humanitarian aid) flocked to Afghanistan then later Bosnia to help defend their brotheren. Before that the same happened in Lebanon. When are YOU guys going to ante up and kick in like men? How about this, I'll personally donate my own AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammo to the first one who buys a ticket and goes. I mean our spineless leaders won't ever let the military loose to really do any damage and kill up anybody so you'se guys are gonna have to doose it yourselfs.

But before you go, take into account one thing. You seem to forget what the object of any war is. That is to WIN... not necessarilly kill more of them than they do you. We killed a heck of a lot more of the Vietnamese than they did of us, but in the end they WON. Why ? For the same reason that the Soviets couldn't beat the Afghans and the Germans the British. Heavyhanded moronic tactics taken to exact revenge instead of accomplish the objective at hand do nothing but waste valuable ordnance, men, and other resources and also serves to stiffen the resolve of the enemy. If you don't believe me think about YOUR reaction to the most recent terrorist bombing. You're not cowed and they won't be either unless you kill every single one of them....then that's genocide (not racism) and you're facing war crimes tribunals while some other guy from a neighboring country rams a car bomb into (insert any target here) and the whole thing starts all over again.

A measured response to achieve a specific objective to make the guilty pay (and I don't mean taking them to court) is the only rational way to go in order to achieve what you want. Then let it alone. Otherwise, we might as well just nuke EVERY other country in the world since they're either terrorists or potential terrorists and get it over with. Then, if the whole nuclear winter thing turns out to be a lie, problem is solved as we're the only country left in the world...Yaaaay!!!!

[The Sisko]

Art, you seem to forget that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I say Venice should be reduced to rubble....NOW!!!

[Art]

Om, reply within.....

"All right, then ...

Definitions, within this context:

"Reason" - being confident that who we're killing are the bad guys, before we kill them. "Shoot first, ask questions later" sounds and feels pretty good today ... but you have to be right. Come tomorrow, you have to have been right. "

Again, you are couching. You want to limit. There are no limits in WAR. You don't gather evidence to prosecute a war. You gather evidence to start one. In my view, we will prosecute that war against all known terrorist organizations world wide, with the wide support of their host countries and former friends. But, again, war is the impossibility of reason.

""Bad Guys" - the perpetrators of the 9/11/01 acts of war, and those who harbor them."

Bad guys are the perpetrators of the 9/11/01 acts of war and every single terrorist everywhere else, as well as those who harbor them. However, those who harbor them are in a unique time with the unique ability to stop harboring them and start helping to wipe them out. The first country that prevents that goal feels the thunder.

""Harbor" - If we find the bad guys are among you, and if we find that you KNEW they were among you, "sorry" ain't enough. Duck. "

We KNOW they know these guys are among them. We have satellite pictures of camps and bases in these nations. They are actively harboring and fostering the growth of these groups. The question is not what we knew. The question is what they will do now. Will they continue to harbor them, or will they kick them out for being rude. They'll have a chance. But they can't say boo. They can't ask for proof from us. They know what we know and we all know and have known what's happening. No more.

""War" - military action against our known enemies. I support it."

Then you support the lack of reason. You support war. Total destruction. You support waging battle and winning and doing what's required to win. You do not support reason. War is unreasonable. You can't support both.

""Tactical War" - the reality of the 21st century. Like it or not ... it's here to stay. I accept it. It's what we saw in the Gulf. It's what we saw in Eastern Europe. And it's what we're going to see until and unless nukes come into play. If and when nukes do come into play, they will (by the grace of God) be "tactical" nukes. We've got ‘em, some of the bad guys got ‘em. It ain't gonna be pretty. But it will sure as hell serve the purpose of setting the world straight on what we're willing to do."

Tactical war is different than war. Tactical war is a set agenda and only that. If we were at war with Iraq in 1990, it would have been totally different. In fact, we were not at war with Iraq. We were simply expelling a country from another and striking set military pieces, as well as cities. If we wage tactical war in this context, as you see with Iraq and their constant refusal to abide by their defeat, we'll be the ones who are actually defeated.

And, personally, war is an incorrect term. You are talking about a campaign. You are not talking about a war. There is tactical campaigning that can be limited, restrained and focused. We were able to do this to defend another country from Iraq. We are not able to do this to defend our country from others. When we defend ourselves, we go to war.

"I don't buy equating the tactical approach to war with not responding or a slap on the wrist."

The tactical approach has been used for a decade. What has it prevented? Even a large tactical campaign like the Persian Gulf accomplished what? We've killed more of their innocent civilians in the last 10 years by limiting Iraq than we would have by going in, taking out the capital and destroying Hussein. We've just fostered this death and terror for a decade and allowed some of you to feel better about the fact that we didn't and aren't somehow directly responsible for the starvation and conditions these people live under since we abandoned them.

Again, sometimes you have to cut out good skin to kill the infection. And, in the long run, you'll actually save lives by this. All we've done in Iraq is weaken the citizens to the point that they can't fight back. They simply die while the rulers of that country use food and medicine to buy more weapons. That's what your tactical campaign got you. It also got you this latest bombing, because the guy that probably did it is still mad about us being in his home country from during our tactical campaign.

We've seen what tactics have gotten us. We know what war has gotten us. We do better at war, and the world winds up a better place after it's done.

"And I hope we don't have to talk body counts to establish what is or is not sufficient response."

We killed an original estimate of 100,000 Iraqi soldiers in the Persian Gulf conflict. Though those numbers have been wrenched down some. We killed 2300 civilians. The U.S. lost 148 soldiers, and now, how many citizens in the WTC? How many more civilians have died due to our tactical campaign that was a success in Iraq that allowed the leadership to survive and continue to lead? Unconditional surrender is the only way to win a battle and save lives. That's it.

"You determine your objective by identifying your enemy and calculating the response that will take him down."

In war, you determine your objective to be total and uncompromising victory. Not taking back this line on a map or that hill on a map. Not pushing an attacker from another country. You win and wage war by fighting for victory and the surrender of your enemies. That's what war is.

"You endeavor to hit him so hard that neither he, nor anyone who aspires to be like him, has the capability or inclination to threaten you again. You destroy as much property, infrastructure, ability to make war, and as many human beings as you need to accomplish your objective. And you don't stop until the objective has been met."

Absolutely right Om. Well said.

"That, to me, is reason in the context of war."

And your final paragraph is wonderful.

"I don't really think we disagree, Art. I want the bad guys dead. I want them to suffer, and since that means their wives and children will suffer and die alongside them ... I have to want that, too. I want them to suffer in such a way that their great-grandchildren will know that the world has changed and America has finally had enough. Scratch that – the way I feel right now, I don't WANT them to have great-grandchildren. Where we seem to diverge is in how willing we are to take out whole populations, who may or may not be the "bad guys," in the parlance of this debate, in the name of hoped-for, long-term deterrence. "

We war with a country or a region and you don't stop until the war is done. You don't set forth artificial goals. Either you go to war, or you enter a conflict. You want a conflict that limits the death count today, but, ultimately has a higher body count than a war, in which you inflict so much terror and pain right away, that the people change forever.

"Me, I want to know beforehand that we've done every "reasonable" thing to insure that the thousands of people we are about to kill are, by any "reasonable" standard, the bad guys. If that makes me soft in anyone's eyes, then so be it."

Me, I want to know after the fact that terrorism can no longer function because we'll combat it everywhere, and we'll make it impossible for bad guys to train because everywhere they are, so are we.

"For better or worse, that's how I define "reason" today."

Again, war is the impossibility of reason. They are mutually exclusive terms.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Yusuf, reply within.....

"Well said Om. However, I think I may have a solution to this problem that everybody could agree on. Art, you and all the ones like you should get together and arm yourselves, take the first flight, ship or whatever you can get on and go to Afghanistan and take care of the problem yourselves."

Personally, I'd be happy to sign up when signing up is requested and more than pleased to properly handle and defend others, like you, too weak to fight yourself. You can thank the stronger people for their ability to defend even the weak. I'll protect you Yusuf. No worries.

"I mean obviously, our leaders have all turned into spineless wimps since the bombs aren't falling indiscriminately (I used that word since it seems to be one of your favorites)already."

It took 55 days after Pearl Harbor to reach the Marshall Islands and officially retialiate for Pearl Harbor. No one here thinks we should already be acting. It would be foolish to already engage the enemy. We have to get our logistics ready. Obviously our leaders know this which is why no attacks have begun. They will begin Yusuf. You'll be kept safe. You stay home and let the big boys fight this war.

"Kill as many and as often as you want to until your bloodlust is completely satiated and have a good time. Only problem is, I'd bet my next paycheck there wouldn't be any takers. (Insert excuse here)."

It's not blood lust Yusuf. It's called war. You change the world. It's war. Twenty million Russians died in WWII. Millions upon millions of people died to stop a fanatic. Terrorists are today's fantatics. If millions have to die to eradicate it, that's the cost we bear to cleanse the world from this type of insanity.

"When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan Muslims from all over the world (including this country...I personally know two brothers who fought in the Afghan war and another who went to Bosnia to help with humanitarian aid) flocked to Afghanistan then later Bosnia to help defend their brotheren. Before that the same happened in Lebanon. When are YOU guys going to ante up and kick in like men?"

My cousin is a pilot that has helped overthrow Milovich. He was also in the Persian Gulf war. Millions of Americans saved the world from facism. We've kicked in more men like the one's you describe than EVERY country in the world. My question is when are men like you describe going to turn inward and stop the armies of hate that reside within the borders of their country?

"How about this, I'll personally donate my own AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammo to the first one who buys a ticket and goes. I mean our spineless leaders won't ever let the military loose to really do any damage and kill up anybody so you'se guys are gonna have to doose it yourselfs."

If we declare war and strive to stamp out terrorism, our leadership will do precisely what you suggest it won't. I suspect it will do precisely what you suggest it won't. It is probably going to be a different battlefield than you are accustomed to. You keep your AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammo though. Look at them when we are eradicating a problem and saving the world yet again. You could even go to France, so if it escalates, you can be among the first to surrender.

"But before you go, take into account one thing. You seem to forget what the object of any war is. That is to WIN... not necessarilly kill more of them than they do you."

Absolutely right. The blind squirrel finds an acorn. The goal of WAR is to win unconditional and total victory. If it's war we go to, and war I do support, you finally figured it out.

"We killed a heck of a lot more of the Vietnamese than they did of us, but in the end they WON. Why ?"

Because we were never attacked. We never knew why we were there. Our president who took us there had earlier said he'd not send our boys to fight a fight their boys ought to fight. We were limited in men. Limited in means. Limited in objectives. We weren't there to win. Now, it's different. We have been attacked. The people that did this are training with guns in countries that protect them. We have a goal. We have the resolve to fight.

"For the same reason that the Soviets couldn't beat the Afghans and the Germans the British."

The Soviets couldn't beat the Afghans because we were supporting the Afghans. The Afghans have never seen the likes of our present army. We put 500,000 men on the ground, and you'll know what I mean. Not that I think we'll do that. Only that we are on the path for such a thing.

"Heavyhanded moronic tactics taken to exact revenge instead of accomplish the objective at hand do nothing but waste valuable ordnance, men, and other resources and also serves to stiffen the resolve of the enemy."

We last committed to war in WWII. We last had a no holds barred war that long ago. Vietnam was limited. Korea wasn't a war. Iraq was a campaign. We used limited war powers to wage battle against people who never touched us. Now we have someone who has. You don't see the difference?

"If you don't believe me think about YOUR reaction to the most recent terrorist bombing. You're not cowed and they won't be either unless you kill every single one of them."

We didn't have to kill every Japenese or German. We simply had to scare them into changing forever and control their power structure for 50 years. That's called winning.

"...then that's genocide (not racism) and you're facing war crimes tribunals while some other guy from a neighboring country rams a car bomb into (insert any target here) and the whole thing starts all over again."

Where has it been since the hijackings? The world is in fear of our response. Where has the hatred gone? Underground. Scared to death. And we are going to give them reason for fear. We are going to invade countries that sponsor these men. If the say boo, we'll aim and fire. That's war.

"A measured response to achieve a specific objective to make the guilty pay (and I don't mean taking them to court) is the only rational way to go in order to achieve what you want. Then let it alone. Otherwise, we might as well just nuke EVERY other country in the world since they're either terrorists or potential terrorists and get it over with. Then, if the whole nuclear winter thing turns out to be a lie, problem is solved as we're the only country left in the world...Yaaaay!!!! "

I don't believe in nukes here either. Not while the rest of the world is standing with us. The danger here is when countries stop wanting to let us take out the terrorist base of operations in their countries. Then the landscape changes. A measured response to achieve a specific objective has never worked. Not ever. Not once.

War for complete and uncompromising victory has been successful. Always. More than once. I know where my victory bread is buttered. You simply want to encourage another attack by restraining ourselves against an unrestrained enemy living in nations that hold them and help them. You just let us know when you're ready to prosecute this war as war is prosecuted. Let us know when enough has happened for you to agree.

If not now, when. When do you take the gloves off and finish this. And don't kid yourself. This can be finished.

ll take some time to begin to war. I personally will be p

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Hersh]

A missing point in this great discussion is that this is a war that may go on for the rest of our lives. While we may have mass strategic attacks (Taliban Government complexes, suspected terrorist training facilities)or carpet bombings, this is only the first chapter. There will no doubt be a huge increase in funding to stregthen the US intelligence agency to levels we may have never reached before. The large increase in the amount of spies and the ability to infiltrate different organizations will no doubt take years and there will no doubt be a never-ending amount of terrorist cells or organizations. Don't fool yourself that there is any quick and decisive solution, this is a problem that we will confront for years.

Another missing point: while we have the support of nearly the entire world now we must be sure to maintain that support in this long drawn out process and know the boundries of what they will support before we wipe out an entire country.

Just my opinion.

[Art]

Yusuf, they didn't violate any law. They didn't harbor a fugitive. They didn't aid a lawbreaker. The rented out a room to paying customers as a favor. Are you so stupid as to think we now must kill every hotel owner, rental car agent, plane school employee and the like that ever came into contact with people who paid their bills and otherwise were just strangers conducting commerce?

You can't possibly be that foolhardy. Please tell me you are not. Harboring a terrorist requires knowledge. It requires refuge and that is a known offering. Afghanistan KNOWS Bin Laden has camps in their nation. We've all seen the videos Bin Laden releases of his group training at these camps.

They know he's given speeches from within their borders issuing a holy war directive against us. Calling for our deaths. They know he's there. They know what he's said. They know what he's done. And they harbor him against justice. Renting a room from a landlord is not the same thing, nor can it be extrapolated by any mentally stable person to be the same thing. I'm sure you'll agree.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Om]

Art, my brother, I've said my piece, and tried to define what, to me, constitutes "reason" is in this context. With all due respect, I think you missed it entirely. If you honestly feel that writing, with apparent assumption some degree of moral or intellectual authority, that "war is the impossibility of reason," and feel that statement somehow lends weight to the positions you've taken, we may in fact be on opposite sides of a very deep linguistic chasm, indeed.

I love debate, I really do, but I don't have the stomach today to put my soul on the internet and have it met by dogma. What's happened to my country has left me tired, sick to my stomach, angry and hurt in a way I have never been before, and in truth not inclined to parse words.

Let's agree to meet over an ale or two someday ... and talk man to man. I'll buy.

[TheKurp]

Art, you're contradicting yourself now. In my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that we should take out Venice, Florida you replied:

"And, you've forgotten. Kicked them out after a week. But, they didn't kick them out because of them being terrorists. These folks didn't have any clue. They kicked them out because they were rude. But, that's unimportant. The couple in Florida didn't harbor these men. For a guy with a dictionary, you should know what it means to harbor. Specifically it means you protect people with an offer of shelter from danger or the law or whatever. You can't be an unwitting harborer. There's intent and knowledge involved with harboring a criminal. You know he's in trouble and you give him refuge."

Now Art, how do you know that the couple in Florida didn't harbor these men unless you gathered evidence, looked at the facts and concluded they were innocent?

Yet in your response to Om you state:

"There are no limits in WAR. You don't gather evidence to prosecute a war. You gather evidence to start one. In my view, we will prosecute that war against all known terrorist organizations world wide, with the wide support of their host countries and former friends. But, again, war is the impossibility of reason."

Now you've let the people in Venice off the hook because you stopped to gather evidence and decided they were innocent. Yet you seem unwilling to offer the people abroad the same benefit to prove their innocence before you annihilate them. Or are you saying that despite the fact that the terrorists lived and trained in this country for months it should be overlooked because it's in our backyard? Let me ask you, if Palestine bombed Miami because Israelis were conducting covert training sessions should we look the other way? I mean hey, if we refuse to cooperate then by your logic Palestine would then be justified in taking out the entire state of Florida for our refusal in allowing them to bomb Miami.

Art, I get the feeling that you aren't interested in true justice here. You simply want to exercise might because we're the biggest kid on the block and no one can stop us.

"The Kurp"

[TheKurp]

Art, you're contradicting yourself now. In my tongue-in-cheek suggestion that we should take out Venice, Florida you replied:

"And, you've forgotten. Kicked them out after a week. But, they didn't kick them out because of them being terrorists. These folks didn't have any clue. They kicked them out because they were rude. But, that's unimportant. The couple in Florida didn't harbor these men. For a guy with a dictionary, you should know what it means to harbor. Specifically it means you protect people with an offer of shelter from danger or the law or whatever. You can't be an unwitting harborer. There's intent and knowledge involved with harboring a criminal. You know he's in trouble and you give him refuge."

Now Art, how do you know that the couple in Florida didn't harbor these men unless you gathered evidence, looked at the facts and concluded they were innocent?

Yet in your response to Om you state:

"There are no limits in WAR. You don't gather evidence to prosecute a war. You gather evidence to start one. In my view, we will prosecute that war against all known terrorist organizations world wide, with the wide support of their host countries and former friends. But, again, war is the impossibility of reason."

Now you've let the people in Venice off the hook because you stopped to gather evidence and decided they were innocent. Yet you seem unwilling to offer the people abroad the same benefit to prove their innocence before you annihilate them. Or are you saying that despite the fact that the terrorists lived and trained in this country for months it should be overlooked because it's in our backyard? Let me ask you, if Palestine bombed Miami because Israelis were conducting covert training sessions should we look the other way? I mean hey, if we refuse to cooperate then by your logic Palestine would then be justified in taking out the entire state of Florida for our refusal in allowing them to bomb Miami.

Art, I get the feeling that you aren't interested in true justice here. You simply want to exercise might because we're the biggest kid on the block and no one can stop us.

"The Kurp"

[Art]

Sure thing Om. I understand how you feel. I'm surprised it isn't universally agreed that war is not a reasonable thing. War, by the very nature of it, is the most unreasonable thing in the world. Perhaps the problem is after Vietnam, Korea and Iraq, we've someone given people to think you can conduct reasonable warfare.

But, we'll talk about it over a few Guinness one day.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Art]

Kurp, I love ya brother.....

You seem to be using "you" as meaning "me". I tend to use "you" in the universal pronoun sense meaning. We know evidence was gathered on the Venice men and the couple. As I said, evidence is gathered to START a war. This is part of the evidence gathering. Once we know our foe in this case, the evidence will allow us to go to war.

The people in Venice have been investigated. We did stop to gather evidence and decide whether they were guilty or innocent. You appear to be suggesting that the country of Afghanistan be interviewed by the FBI. What questions are similar here? None.

The country of Afghanistan is fully aware of terrorist base camps operating within its borders. The country of Afghanistan is fully aware of the guns and videos and declarations of war from these very same terrorists. In fact, they've stedfastly refused to turn over these men, despite declarations if guilt by these men, such as, "Our victory at Yemen will be relived."

Terrorists training as sleepers in various countries in the world, including ours, are an entirely different thing to debate. The difference is in one case, you have state sanction for training and a safe haven. In the case of sleepers throughout the world, including in Afghanistan, the government is totally unaware these groups exist, and their training is conducted covertly rather than overtly.

When we had camps of armed men operating in this company after the Bay of Pigs, our government shut them down. We wouldn't allow these camps to grow and ultimately carry out what their training allows them to carry out. The difference is as plain and clear as it can possibly be. State awareness and sanction is what defines the harboring and fostering of terrorist groups. Clearly the agents in place throughout the world don't operate openly as terrorists. They work in secret as such.

Our war is against those nation states that know about the terrorists within their borders and who fund them and who foster their growth, and therefore their agenda. There is a distinct difference. And even where governments are not aware of the sleepers operating within their borders, once those men are discovered, and they are KNOWN, if the government refuses to assist in their eradication, they immediately are harboring them and helping them.

As a nation we know precisely where the home base of every terrorist group in the world resides. We don't know where every member is. You remove the known home base of these groups. You rip them at the roots and let the leaves, which are the sleepers, dry up. Every nation state in the world has spies working in other nations.

I imagine most nations in the world have active terrorist groups living and working and waiting to be activated. But, only a handful of nations hold the furtile breeding grounds for these groups. Only a handful of nations allow, and knowingly allow, these groups to reside within its borders and function.

These are the enemy. In Palestine, known groups of terrorists live and breed. The entire West Bank is aware of this. The leadership of the Palestinans is aware of this. To date, no one has ever thought it allowable to go in and destroy these groups. Today, we do. And if the leadership of Palestine says we can't, then THEY are on the other side of this war. That's how it, in my view, is going to work.

If I was interested in flexing my muscle as the biggest kid on the block, you'd have seen it a long time before now. What I'm interested in is attempting to get you people against war, or who don't seem to understand what it means to be AT war, to come to that realization fast.

The fact that we are the biggest kid on the block allows us to defend our home as no other nation can. The very fact that a group working with state support within a nation state conducted this attack allows us the right to take those groups out everywhere they are. Whether any government knew about the attack ahead of time is irrelevant. The government that knew the group existed to wage war on America and didn't stop them from functioning is relevant.

And still, as I've frequently said, every one of these countries will be given the chance to stand on the right side of the war against terrorism. Woe to the one that says no. We've directly been attacked. Our response is going to be war. War is not discriminate. War is a sledgehammer that will fall.

If you support war as our response, you support this hammer. If you don't support war as our response, I'll keep asking when you will support it. And, I'll ask you to point again to one strategic operation that has ever worked to limit future attacks. No limited repraisal will this time either, as it never had. Only this time, a limited response will encourage them to be bolder, since we won't even protect our own land.

If they pull out a knife, we should have always pulled out a gun. We never have. We've fought a knife fight with knives. If they send one of ours to the hospital, we should have always sent to of theirs to the morgue. We never have. We've always restrained ourselves. And we've, by that action, encouraged what happened yesterday because no one feared our response.

They do at this moment. Terrorism in the world is presently quiet. No groups want to show up and bring our attention down upon them. Again, we've ALWAYS reacted to these attacks as a boxer. We get hit, we hit back, wait to be hit again, then we hit back. Our responses to attacks have always been procedural.

When we hit back this time, the entire world's terrorist network needs to be struck down. And the countries that know about their existence will be the places we start that eradication. They shouldn't have been allowed to operate in these countries in the first place. We need to deliver a blow so fearsome and certain and terrible, that no one will ever allow these groups to spawn in their borders again. And if we don't, we'll be having these discussions over and over until we do.

Eventually one of yours will die. Eventually the crime will be so horrific you'll come on board. Hopefully we won't have to wait any longer. Hopefully we'll take the battle to them and end it while we have the power and resolve to do so. Before something else, something worse, happens.

But, Kurp, it sounds to me like you are less interested in striking back than attempting to somehow place blame on this country and let bygones be bygones.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[ by Art on September 13, 2001.]

[National Defense]

please explain how prohibiting plastic knives and scissors from carry-on bags produces any tangible benefit?

this is the danger--overreacting based upon past events without getting at the root cause (namely police should be in charge of airport security)

[Art]

ND, I'm so with you. The FAA has issued changes that do nothing to prevent the problem, but seem directly related to irritating passengers. Nothing in the directives of the FAA prevent what happened. It's just a waste of bandwidth. This is why airport security shouldn't be run by a governmental agency but rather the military. You put the defense department in charge of airport security, and the airports will be secure. You put a bunch of government workers in charge, and they put band aids on an amputation.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Om]

Yeah, we government workers are a pretty useless lot. Chrissakes, Art, are you trying to piss me off today?

It's working.

[Art]

Om, my beloved pa was a lifetime government worker. One of the smartest men in the world in terms of sheer intelligence. He was a genius at his job, working in the Dept. of Labor and the Office of Civil Rights. Despite his fatal flaw of being a liberal , he was my best friend and hero. And if he was still alive, I'd tell you the same thing I'd tell him. He's not qualified to secure an airport. No government agency is.

Hope you are tongue and cheeking this response, because I don't think it's outrageous to suggest defense experts are more qualified to secure airplanes than just about anyone else.

------------------

Doom is in the box.

[Montilar]

Ah, I see a fan of The Untouchables here. (i.e. he pulls a knife, you pull a gun....")

An excellent discussion by the way. This tragedy gives the US the opportunity to forge the beginnings of a "world coalition". Perhaps finally the true infant beginnings of a world government could occur from this?? Sadly the league of World nations from post WW1 and the UN from post WW2 to present were (or are) for the most part worthless and powerless. Unfortunately the US is one of the problem countries when it comes to the UN. (not wanting to share the power I suppose).

As was said in a post somewhere (either here or CPND), as long as you have the "tribal" associations scattered throughout the world, there's going to be senseless stupidity and hatred. Only once people begin to realize it's one world, will most (but never all unfortunately) people get on the same page.

As long as you can keep the support of the other nations, Art's scenario is the only truly way to combat terrorism. To just go after bin laddin does nothing; you have to go after all terrorists AND their supporting countries or structure. Anyone who is willing to harbor or support must be dealt with also. And that include any americans supporting terrorist activities such as in Ireland. Otherwise NOTHING will ever be accomplished. once given the opportunity to decide which side of the fence they will come down on, if the country's government chooses terrorism, then there is no other option.

If you really want to try and solve the issue. It's a long and horrible struggle to face.

[Om]

"You put a bunch of government workers in charge, and they put band aids on an amputation."

Of course my response was tongue-in-cheek, but that's a pretty broad brush, my friend. Last week, I don't bat an eye. This week, the hackles are quick to rise.

If we're strictly talking airport security ... fine. I agree. And I'm over it.

But now you're buying the first round.