World Trade Center

[Catlady]

Well I too usually try to get along, but those who strut about like bantams feeling that they are the only true Americans because they are now or have been in the military really send me through the roof.
I totally respect those who are in the military. They are doing something I could never do--not merely don't want to do, but COULDN'T DO--I'm sorry that I'm not sure I could kill someone, no matter what they did, but I like to feel that I have my good qualities anyway. While friends of mine tell me I can get quite intense and even vicious on strip, it's not for real, when the bout's over we shake hands and walk away friends. No permanent damage, or death involved. In fact the best I could probably do for the military is stay well away from it. I think however the best way to support and respect our military is to not get them killed unless we are quite sure that it's necessary.I wish we were more aware of how war does work. There will always be collateral damage and at times the collateral damage is worth it. However Saving Private Ryan et. al. is how it works, not some of the more sanitized versions we see. Actually I believe the Gulf War did more damage than Vietnam, it promoted the illusion that we can in fact wage a sanitary war, and as you say simply push a button without putting our own people at risk.
I do believe there is such a thing as just war--although I believe more often than not we invoke the name of God and liberty when the cause is not as just as we'd like to believe. I am urging caution in this case, because while we must respond decisively, being the world power we are, we have the power to inflict massive damage. I do not want to see us jump to conclusions and act to soon thus possibly sacrificing the lives of many of our military people and inflicting vast damage on a people or area and then find out later that we have misjudged the situation.
For Mergs, you're right I can't understand what you have to do. The very thought of having to send people with whom I have worked, and for whom I care to possibly die, and even worse to have to watch them die--not to mention having to inform their families of their demise if the worst happens--scares me to death and nearly makes me physically sick. I would never in a million years want that responsibility-- I'll stick to being an intellectual and shooting off my mouth, thanks. I both admire you for taking that responsibility and feel sorry for you that you have to do so.

As far as renting assassins, if we want it done we should at least have the guts to do it ourselves. I am not comfortable with US government sanctioned assasination. Sure whoever did this is a despicable creature who should not be allowed to marr the face of the earth with their presence, but I guess I see the slippery slope. How stringent are our standards of who needs assassination going to be?. I'd rather, for the time being, take the "high road" in that respect and live with the consequences. From a historical perspective, the times this nation has interfered in the politics of other nations have more often than not turned out to be to our disadvantage--once we liked Castro believe it or not, and it could be argued that if we stayed out of Vietnamese politics there might not have been a Vietnam War, although granted, no one can know for sure. Then of course, hindsight is great, but then it's not just hindsight, it's learning from past mistakes. Still I say if we want someone assassinated, we go ahead and do it ourselves and live with the guilt.

I'm just concerned that we'll make a decision in the midst of anger and unfortunately decisions made in that situation rarely turn out to be good ones. Granted if it were one of "my people"--e.g. family, friends, neighbors--I would probably be unbelievably angry, but I sincerely hope no one would take me too seriously until I was calm enough to have a little perspective.

I do have one question. What do you want me to do? Being nearly on the West Coast all I can do is donate blood and pray. If I had the expertise and money I would dearly love to fly to NY and assist in the rescue effort, but I don't. The only other thing I can think of is to offer what comfort I can to those around me in both the virtual and real world. Part of being one of the grown-ups is having to carefully consider your actions not act impulsively. If it is truly deemed necessary I will not feel too much sorrow for the death that has to occur, other than the regret that way back at the root of this somewhere, someone was not able to find a non-violent way to resolve the problem and that it had to come to this.

I'm reluctant because I don't want to start an argument on here, but on the other hand I feel I have to respond. I guess being a fencer makes me naturally somewhat combative. Please take most of what I say, as always, with a grain of salt.

[three_hundred_fifty_five]

These arguments are getting way too long.

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: three_hundred_fifty_five ]

[Event Horizon]

Col. Mergens, I always respect veterans and in paticular those who made sacrifices for their country during times of conflict. The ultimate sacrifice being their life. You are right, I don't know what you went through, but I think I can understand it to a degree. Because if we civilians cannot understand the horrors of war and how lives will be dramatically affected by sending soldiers to fight and die, then all of your (and other veterans) sacrifices will have been in vain. What is it that most veterans try to convey to people when they talk about their experiences (in my experience it has been mostly through literature: memoirs/short stories/fiction/drama)? I feel that they want us to know what they went through. They want to convey, as much as possible, what they experience so that the future generations won't have to experience the hell that they did. They want us to understand so that those who are making policy for this country (who may not have experienced war) can reflect and rely on the experience of all those who have before. You may or may not agree, I don't know. It seems from your last post you feel it's not worth your time to take part in this thread with me and the others, which is unfortunate...so as you say adieu, I say to you, thank you.

[Zelda]

Do we really want to degenerate into an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth? Remeber this, the three major religious groups Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe they are desendents of Abraham. Its what happens after that is where the different religions come into play. Much of what is written about "jihad"a and such is actually peoples interpretations of the words, not the words themselfves. I along with everyone else is shocked adnd saddened by this tragedy. However as someone szaid if we relatiate we have done what the terrorists wanted. As much as we dont want to, this best bet is to move forward and work with what we know, not hypotheticals. (please exucse the misktakes in this typing my backspace and elete keyts have died.)

[Haze]

I just need to clarify that I don't know what my position is on "retribution", "vengence", "an eye for an eye...", etc. and I sure wouldn't like to be the one who has to make the decisions. It's just that all I have been hearing on the US news channels is about america's "state of war" and speculation about what is going to be done now. The christian attitude I have been brought up with is one of forgiveness, and a guy from your government (I don't remember his position) went on Bloomberg and said that this "state of war" was just an emotional one, but I know there are many thousands of people in the US, UK and elsewhere in the world who have lost loved ones and will want some sort of revenge or "justice". If that "justice" were to involve anything other than direct capture of those responsible, then people who are not involved are likely to be hurt. I heard on the radio this morning that a muslim group here had already received hundreds of threatening emails. I was just saying that I don't want that, I'm sure no one else does either. I thought the changing of guard today with the US anthem was a very suiting sentiment, I wish I could've been there rather than just seeing it on tv. I apologise if I have said something here to offend or cause disagreement - these are just raw thoughts as I am trying to comprehend what has gone on. The pictures on tv are like a disaster movie, it is hard to understand that there are people who could even conceive doing something like this in real life.

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Haze ]

[arcon]

Mergs lets try and not make this personal.
It was bad judgement of yours to speak of the professionalism and skill of the terrorist so soon after the event.You pissed people off when you did this. No one wanted to hear it. It was inapropriate but understandable. Your military,not a politician or a shrink.

Discussing military blunders has nothing to do with this. When I "sucked you in"as you say ,i truly valued your opinion, due to your military background but as some here on this board have pointed out. We really dont like being talked down to, simply because we are not of the military mind.
As one person put it.....The militarys purpose is to serve and protect the U.S Citizens that pay their taxes and pay your salary. Your chief is elected by a majority of civilians. You may not know this, you may not care, but youre coming off to some as better than the non military citizen.
And you are not.

Respectfully yours
arcon

[Willow]

I'm a military wife. I move around with my husband and kids every 3 or 4 years (well, this last move was after only a year in MI...thanks to hubby getting promoted). I KNOW what's going on in the world. I KNOW what happens. We better make sure we know what we are doing and who to do it with. All it takes is one person getting ticked off to press a button and cause massive devestation. I'm all for getting rid of the terrorists. Just make sure that it's the terrorists you are getting rid of.

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Inquartata ]</STRONG>

Thanks. Remind me to be out of the room when you start arguing with people. The US Navy and Airforce IS overbloated and antiquated. Smaller, tighter stealth forces will be the wave of the future. I hope you don't advocate maintaining a healthy calvary as well.

Look, what those terrorists did was effective. They took down two huge buildings, killed thousands. Fight fire with fire. We need small groups. Sending out an aircraft carrier isn't going to capture or kill those responsible, and only demonstrate to those people that their actions were justified (however crookedly they can manage to rationalize it).

You can't fight terrorists by beating the chest and claiming to be the biggest one on the block, and we'll kick everyone of your sorry asses. I mean, why are there terrorists anyway? And why did they target the US? Could it possibly be that we've been beating our chests and claiming to be the biggest badass on the block and we'll kick everyone of their sorry asses?

[Purple Fencer]

I think we all need to calm down a bit. it's pretty sad when 355 is the voice of reason on this thread.

I mentioned on FS that I hoped a friend who was recently transferred to DC wasn't in the Pentagon when it was hit, and I was promptly jumped on for "disrespecting" the NY victims because I'm in California.

Strikes me that our relatively tight little group just got ripped asunder...and that sort of in-fighting is just what terrorists want. They know we're simply too large to defeat head on, so they make an attack and let us fight amongst ourselves while they laugh and celebrate.

Let's all chill just a bit.

[edew]

Inquartata wrote:
If so, that's because I know that returned aggression will never solve problems.

Very Gandhi-like, and very PC, but untrue. Ask the Jordanians how much trouble they had with the Palestinians after September 1970. Ask the Soviets how many of their people were kidnapped in Beirut in the heydey of the warlords' ransom industry. ( Answer: one. After they got word to the leader of the group holding their man that he should look in the trunk of a parked car on a certain street, where he found his uninvolved brother, quite dead, with his genitals stuffed into his mouth, none. )

Non-retaliation won't work in the immediate future. I'm guessing it will take three or four generations before non-retaliation will reap its proper rewards. As for the Soviets, that little job they did (as you described above) is exactly how the US should handle it, not go in and bomb innocents and perpetrators alike. Even though you wrote up the above descriptions, I am amazed you don't see the difference in the tactics in how to handle terrorists. Going in and killing everyone, with "oh well, some innocents will die as well, but that's what you get for living next to the guy" is exactly what will exacerbate the situation and send this to another round of terrorist acts.

If they were Middle-east fanatics, or a home-bred nut-case, we must ask ourselves why us? Why did they did this? If there is a reason for their hatred of us, then we must address that.

Lots of reasons, some complex, some simple, like "We support Israel" and "We use lots of oil" and "We're not fundamentalist Muslims, therefore we're oppressing fundamentalist Muslims". And we're a big, fat, soft, complacent target, unlike most alternative targets. Address it, sure. Capitulate, no.

How about, in their mind's eye, we (the US) have been keeping them in virtual poverty through (what they think are) embargoes, "unfair" treaties, covert support for oppositions, etc.

As for capitulating, it sounds as though for you, there are two answers, capitulating or all-out attack. There are many other avenues to solve this problem, and neither capitulating or all-out attacking is it. I don't ask for appeasement, and certainly not to those responsible for the acts, but we can do better using the carrot-and-stick approach than just the stick or just the carrot approaches.

[Stryder]

Edew-

I disagree. Our response must be immediate, accurate and clear. Fighting a defensive war against terror hasn't worked before and it will not suffice in the future.

These attacks have been a wake-up call for Americans. Our patriotism and resolve have weakened in the peace and prosparity we have enjoyed until now. As surely as "there are no athiests in a foxhole," so are there no liberals.

It is time for action. Not mindless rage, not wanton attacks against suspected sympathizers. Not the passage of laws or rules or policies that cannot deter terrorism in the least without robbing us of the freedom we seek to protect. It is a time for the US to use it's considerable power and influence to find the perpetrators of this cowardly attack and exact justice.

Call it revenge, call it a preventative measure, call it whatever the lawyer within needs to call it. People were attacked. A nation was attacked. A way of life, freedom, was attacked.

To respond by improving our mental health care programs in an affront to those who's lives were taken. Retaliation cannot bring back those who are lost, all it can do is protect those who are still here.

Mergs, Sam-
You have the experience that these children and civilians lack. With it should come temperance, so forgive them their meaningless words. They cannot be made to understand war until they have fought it. They cannot be made to understand loss until they too have given. It is your duty to continue to protect them, whether they understand your sacrifices or not. Those who know, thank you.

Thank you to everyone who has given blood, even though the supplies seem adequate now, they will be needed.

Thank you to the USFA for letting us know who has survived.

Please let us know any further developments as soon as you can.

[Event Horizon]

Stryder said

Our patriotism and resolve have weakened in the peace and prosparity we have enjoyed until now

I disagree with you on this comment. I think if a country has peace and prosparity it's because of the resolve of the country and the patriotism of the people: who believe in that country. That is why we are the strongest democracy on the planet and why so many around the world want to come here.

[Purple Fencer]

Stryder;

If I may clear up something...I served during peacetime, when the only action we really sw was the Lybia raid. I'm under the impression that Mergs actually saw combat, or was in a posiiton to order people into combat. I spoke as one who was prepared to do my duty. I think Mergs already has.

That being said...

Ironically, I found this on the KLOS radio website. it was read over the air this morning on the Mark & Brian show...known far more for four hours of daily comedy bits than any serious commentary. However, they've shelved the comedy since Tuesday morning and have been taking serious discussion calls and continuing to appeal for calm and blood donations. They've also stated that those who shot into the ISlamic Center in Texas are as bad, if not worse, than those who flew the planes into the WTC.

This is froma Canadian newspaper.

Tribute To America


The following, from a Canadian newspaper, is worth sharing.
Its subject is "America: The Good Neighbor"

Widespread but only partial news coverage was given recently to a
remarkable editorial broadcast from Toronto by Gordon Sinclair, a Canadian
television commentator. What follows is the full text of his trenchant
remarks as printed in the Congressional Record:

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most
generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out
of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and
forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying
even the interest on its remaining debts to
the United States.

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who
propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the
streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.


When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries
in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were
flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. The Marshall Plan and the Truman
Policy pumped billions of dollars into
discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about
the decadent, warmongering Americans.

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the
erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any
other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the
Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly
them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?


Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the
moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk
about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American
technocracy, and you find men on the moon-not once, but several times-and
safely home again. You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs
right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their
draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets,
and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting
American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through
age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad
and the New York Central went broke, nobody
loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other
people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced
to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even
during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired
of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with
their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose
at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada
is not one of those."

Stand proud, America!

[edew]

Originally posted by Stryder:
<STRONG>Edew-

I disagree. Our response must be immediate, accurate and clear. Fighting a defensive war against terror hasn't worked before and it will not suffice in the future.

</STRONG>

Stryder, I have never said that the US should take a defensive stance in this current situation. In fact, given the uncertainty of the current situation, I don't know what would constitute a "defensive" posture. We must be actively seeking and understanding who the perpetrators are.

Indeed, the several "defensive" policies being implemented at airports are bordering on ridiculousness. Not one of the current new FAA policies will address what we current believe had occurred in the hijacking. All it will do is bring on more inconvenience to the 99.999% of innocent travelers. That inconvenience will spill into ignoring the rules, which will then allow for lapses which will eventually open a loophole for another group of hijackers to exploit.

No, the US's response should be, as several officials have stated, measured, decisive, and complete. I would like to add secretive. Carpet-bombing all of Afghanistan probably won't even hit bin Laden (assuming he's the mastermind behind all this), and only fuels more antagonism for the US. Finding their locations, infiltrating their strongholds, castrating a couple of bin Laden's lieutenants is the type of message they understand. Bombing their mothers and babies as part of the "collateral damage" is only going to infuriate those who survive.

As a quote from the Princess Bride, "You have killed my father, prepare to die!" Some people just have that mentality. Joe Schmoe's brother is in the military, you kill him, well, he understands: it's part of war. You kill his brother's wife or kids, the Joe Schmoe's going to come back after you in some irrational senseless way. In a way, some of the immediate responses we're hearing from the US citizens are reminiscent of this revenge motif: you killed my brother/sister/mother/father/son/daughter, prepare to die. Fine. Just be sure you take out just the killer. Otherwise the killer's uncle's son, whose father you accidentally took down will repeat the refrain, "You have killed my father, prepare to die."

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by Zelda:
<STRONG>Do we really want to degenerate into an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth? Remeber this, the three major religious groups Islam, Judaism and Christianity all believe they are desendents of Abraham. Its what happens after that is where the different religions come into play. Much of what is written about "jihad"a and such is actually peoples interpretations of the words, not the words themselfves. I along with everyone else is shocked adnd saddened by this tragedy. However as someone szaid if we relatiate we have done what the terrorists wanted. As much as we dont want to, this best bet is to move forward and work with what we know, not hypotheticals. (please exucse the misktakes in this typing my backspace and elete keyts have died.)</STRONG>

You're right, absolutely. Eye for an eye is wrong. But that's not what I'm suggesting. See, eye for eye would be killing thousands of their civilians as the primary target. I'm saying destroy their military and government, and warn civilians to get out first. If they don't, their fault. They're collateral, not primary target.

Stryder, Mergens, I back you up. Fencing Angel, thank you. The rest of you, I'm sorry, make me sick. You are soft. You've been rotted by peace. You are more timid now than ever before. I can't believe some of the things you're saying.

Back to Zelda's comment: You said this is exactly what they wanted. That's like saying the kid hit you in the face because he wanted you to smear him across the blacktop. This is not what they wanted. What they wanted is EXACTLY what you people are talking about: For us to cower, and try to shake it off! We're like the biggest kid in the fourth grade who always gets picked on by the little bullies, because he's afraid to get into trouble by hitting them back.

As for all descendants of Abraham and seperation of religions. True followers of any of those three main religions should get along. It's the hypocrites and those striving for power who do this kind of thing. And it happens in every religion. So don't even try to bring religion into this, because that's not what this is about.

[attila]

Hey swordsen.

Though I can understand your pain- one of our locals died onboard one of the airliners--I cannot agree with your position. It smacks of an arrogance that belittles human life. What is your formula for the equivalence of an American life vs. everybody else? 1-100 or maybe 1-1000. Innocent or not-- are they all the same? My grandfather survived war- barely. He had holes all over his body. He personally took many a life- up close and personal. His was one of the most eloquent voices against violence I have ever heard. He instilled the thought that violence is always a last resort. Take a moment to clear you soul. This will pass. We will survive. As long as we don't do something stupid as a people in a moment of rage.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew:
<STRONG>
As for the Soviets, that little job they did (as you described above) is exactly how the US should handle it, not go in and bomb innocents and perpetrators alike. </STRONG>

You misunderstand me, I think. I never advocated carpet-bombing Afghanistan, or even Iraq or Libya. I say that the world's intelligence community knows very well who a large number of terrorists are, from masterminds like Osama down to messengers and those who turn their humble homes into safe houses on occasion. Every one of these, I say, should be, as the euphemism goes, "terminated with extreme prejudice". And a message should be sent thereby that those who give aid and comfort to the perpetrators will be considered just as culpable as the actual trigger men. This would either deprive the actual terrorists of the logistical support and camouflage without which they could not exist and work, or it would thin out the ranks of those from whom the terror groups recruit their killers very greatly. Either way, peace and civilized existence everywhere wins.

I do not, however, advocate the sort of tactic employed by the Soviets. We cannot violate our own Constitution and resort to torture as a matter of course. That sort of thing turns out to be so effective that the decision is soon made to employ it in other venues as well...domestically as well as overseas. And I do not think that's a precedent we wish to establish.


<STRONG>Going in and killing everyone, with "oh well, some innocents will die as well, but that's what you get for living next to the guy" is exactly what will exacerbate the situation and send this to another round of terrorist acts.</STRONG>


Again, not what I'm saying, although given the imperfect methods available to us and the fallibility of human beings the deaths of a few innocents is probably unavoidable. But those which can be avoided, should be. The definition of "innocent", however, should I think be narrowed somewhat. Those who are uninvolved in any way qualify. those who are dragooned into serving the terrorists in some way qualify. Those who freely choose to assist them in even minor roles do not, in my view. When I say "Kill them all" it is this latter subset to which I refer ( and it is still a tiny subset of even the peoples of states known to approve of and support terrorism, such as Afghanistan.

<STRONG>
How about, in their mind's eye, we (the US) have been keeping them in virtual poverty through (what they think are) embargoes, "unfair" treaties, covert support for oppositions, etc.</STRONG>

If their mind's eyes are so blind as to confuse civilian men, women and children with the acts of a government beyond the individual control of any of the former, then they merit no such consideration. Rational explanations such as you offer may emerge from their mouths or pens, but only as convenient excuses for their true motivations: unreasoning hatred, political gain, bloodlust, religious fanaticism, revenge for perceived personal failures, affronts or deprivations, and the general run of causes which motivate any garden-variety criminal. No one in the WTC, individually or collectively, enacted any embargoes, abrogated any treaties, or offended them in any way. That does not matter to them. They were killed because to them ( as Osama, for instance, has urged ) every American must die. That sort of attitude does not arise out of concern over political policies.

<STRONG>
As for capitulating, it sounds as though for you, there are two answers, capitulating or all-out attack. There are many other avenues to solve this problem, and neither capitulating or all-out attacking is it.</STRONG>

So name a few. I'm sure that the Israelis would be glad to hear them, at least. Or have they all been tried in vain?

However, consider that, to the terrorists, those two are the only alternatives. And they are the only ones they can understand in their foes.

<STRONG>
I don't ask for appeasement, and certainly not to those responsible for the acts, but we can do better using the carrot-and-stick approach than just the stick or just the carrot approaches.</STRONG>

Perhaps. But the peoples with whom we're dealing certainly seem to understand the stick a good deal better, and reject some rather tempting carrots on a regular basis...

[MikeHarm]

I'm not too worried about fighting Afghanistan, what scares me is if they decide after the investigation its Iran or one of the countries with nukes that we have to go to war against. I guess we gotta do what we gotta do though.

Mike

[Inquartata]

Iran has nuclear weapons?

News to me...