From a US Marine in Bosina

[cjolley]

Originally posted by thop
That the WTC gets blown up (by a car filled with explosives, parked in the basement, like it happened before): 4
The way it happened on 9/11: < 1

But a nuke? That's a whole different league. I give that a probability of 0 on a scale of 1-10.

You thought 9/11 was < 1 also....
We can't afford to anymore.
chuck

[Novdid]

Originally posted by cjolley
What post?
What offense?
I don't get it.
chuck

When I come to think about it maybe I forgot to click reply. But I don't know, I'm almost positive I did post it.

Well well, I don't have an urge to write it down again!

[Dr Mordrid]

Thop;

most institutions who have researched the potential for nuclear terrorism state that such an attack is almost certain within 10 years, and most of those studies date back 2-4 years.

Would you prefer to prevent this now or wait until it happens before trying to prevent the second, third or fourth one?

It's not that nuclear weapons are that hard to make. I could list a recipe for a basic bomb right here, complete with materials list and plans for both the core and the initiator (trigger). The science is basic nucleonics and is taught in every major university in the world.

The problem has always been obtaining the materials, which is where prevention comes in because left to their own devices terrorists will get them.

We have to be proactive in preventing this, and if that means a fight, then so be it.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

The thing the French, Germans and their ilk should get straight is that this is the prevailing opinion of them in the US and their incessant whining just brings on a big round of LOL's.

Originally posted by thop
I just hope that when the next 9/11 happens you won't be hearing many LOLs from those countries because of your attitude. It seems not only is teaching of geography neglected in the US but also of respect and discussion culture.

Not all Europeans are whining wussies, Doc.. two world wars made those with testosterone less vocal, that's all. I know Germans, Dutch, and Norwegians personally who do not fit this wussified stereotype, and don't want to take any more of this s*** from the radicals in the islamic world either. Just because they are not vocal does not mean they do not exist.

And, thop, the next 9/11 almost happened in Rotterdam in a tunnel under the Rhein, so if you don't wake yourself up and figure out that you are part of the West too, and just as much a target as we are (or even more, in different ways) you will just be caught there with your head in the ground wondering what the heck just happened..

[Dr Mordrid]

I meant of couse the German and French governments who seem to be making less sense with each suceeding generatioin, but it their citizenry insists on electing such types.....

Dr. Mordrid

[lurqa_MU]

ruthless defense = aggitation of terrorists

Originally posted by cjolley
If we do nothing at all to defend ourselves: 100%

What would you have thought the chances of Osama killing 3000 innocent shop keepers and secretaries by flying occupied planes into NYC buildings was before 9/11?
On a scale of 1 to 10.

chuck

I believe the point here is that, a ruthless defense (e.g. conducting war on a whole country because the leadership _may_ be sympatizing/assisting terrorists) is infact what will increase the probability of that disaster.

Terrorists and wannabes are not likely to see an attack on Iraq as a pre-emptive strike, they are more likely to see it as an unprovoked assault.

The thing about terrorism is that it requires very limited funds to carry out, and military might can't stop it. Consider if Iraq was totally nuked away from the surface of earth - It is pretty obvious that this would not cause the terrorism threat to be weakened.


The only available means I see to deal with terrorism are: information and a common set of values - accross borders. This means that people needs to change the way they behave. More respect for humans is required - less for nationalistic interests.


Regards,
lurqa

[cjolley]

Re: ruthless defense = aggitation of terrorists

Originally posted by lurqa_MU
[B]I believe the point here is that, a ruthless defense (e.g. conducting war on a whole country because the leadership _may_ be sympatizing/assisting terrorists) is infact what will increase the probability of that disaster.

Osama and his gang don't seem to feel constrained the way you think we should be.

...
The thing about terrorism is that it requires very limited funds to carry out, and military might can't stop it. Consider if Iraq was totally nuked away from the surface of earth - It is pretty obvious that this would not cause the terrorism threat to be weakened.

Well, we wouldn't have to worry about them getting supplies from Iraq any more, now would we?

The only available means I see to deal with terrorism are: information and a common set of values - accross borders. This means that people needs to change the way they behave. More respect for humans is required - less for nationalistic interests.

Think of the devastation across the whole of the Middle East if we decided that the common set of values we agreed on were theirs.

chuck

[The PIT]

Attack by Nuclear bomb will happen as will Germ warefare. As each year goes on this will increase. Then each country will have to ask how they're going to defend themselfs. Difficult choices will have to be made.

[lurqa_MU]

Re: Re: ruthless defense = aggitation of terrorists

Originally posted by cjolley
Osama and his gang don't seem to feel constrained the way you think we should be.

No, that is the whole point of terrorism. To conduct extreme stuff in order to attract attention. A constrained terrorist is not a terrorist.

Regards,
lurqa

[The PIT]

Re: Re: Re: ruthless defense = aggitation of terrorists

Originally posted by lurqa_MU
No, that is the whole point of terrorism. To conduct extreme stuff in order to attract attention. A constrained terrorist is not a terrorist.

Regards,
lurqa

Now thats a new one. We had the freedom fighter argument before.

[RedRed]

Well now, what do we have here?

Americans justifying their decision to blow out on Iraq, and smash a bit of enemy hardware. Some form of feelgood needs to be applied for the civs - Binladen is still at large.... Opppps dont mention bin Laden.....!

Liberal/Socialist Europeans, with their weak wristed international politics...

It all goes down the same way.... every time this debate happens....

lets just examine a couple of facts (for the debate, of course!)

1 60 percent of Iraqis rely on rationing to supply their basic foodstuff since the embargos were put in place. There is NO ability for these people to stockpile food. Should a war last more than a week, there will be starvation in the streets of Bagdad. Think about it....

2 The last war had coallition forces target the desaliination plants for Bagdahd. One of the facts that emerged only after the war in Kewait was the numbers of CIVILLIANS who died in Bagdad: 50000 PEOPLE from dysentry....

3 Iraq is a sworn enemy of Bin Laden - its personal, apparently. He might support Hammas and such - no threat to the west.

4 Saddam would be 10 times more difficult to eradicate than Osama was. Believe the propaganda or not, he does have quite a lot of support in his own country. Unless the country is completely flattened, rest assured that there will be tes of thousands of more potential suicide bombers created. Look at chechnia today.... Look at Afghanistan on Christmas eve.....

5 There is no sensible plan for replacing the regeime once Saddam is toppled. A US general will be unacceptable to the other ME countries, and many western ones..

6 the real source of WMD in the world is N Korea BUT america cant (and wont) 'go in' there, as wombat pointed out, because they HAVE nukes, and they now have the ability to delivery them as far as JAPAN. There isnt a mission that the US wwil attack them.

7 One of the least smart moves of Pres Bush was to define the 'axis of evil', its primarally as a result of percieved threats form the US AND the removal of oil shipments to N Korea that prompted them to restart their WMD programmes.

8 Fear N Korea selling a nuke, fully setup (perhaps missing a launcher) to Bin Laden, (if he can raise perhaps 100 Million). I would be very afraid....

Merry Christmas, and a happy new year....
RedRed

[KvHagedorn]

If N Korea DOES sell Bin Laden a nuke, and he DOES use it here, North Korea had better be afraid, because we won't be considering China's or Japan's feelings anymore. North Korea will be history.

[Dr Mordrid]

That should go for any rogue nation that puts the nuclear genie into terrorist hands.

This has nothing to do with a "feel good" response and everything to do with a hard-nosed willingness to do what has to be done, preferrably before some city gets wasted.

If some weenies get offended in the process...oh well. I doubt very many over here will shive a git.

Dr. Mordrid

[James_D]

Originally posted by Wombat
We don't want to provoke a war. We want a dangerous man to be removed from a position of power. We've tried the peaceful solutions, and the UN lets Saddam walk all over it. At this point, either Saddam attacks, or Saddam is dethroned by force. Why delay the inevitable and give him more time to hurt others.

The UN bungled this. Multiple times. Time to step aside.

But what gives you guys the divine power to go in an remove a dictator. And what are the motives??? And don't give the crap about dictatorships bla bla... why don't you stabilize the african region instead.


Your goals since the 1970's have been driven by BIG BUISNESS.

But at the same time, I have to give you credit, for many of the actions you have done. Europe has been a whuss from time to time. But mainly because of the Coldwar! What we see now is an upgrading of the EU forces. And with the new 10 countries joining the EU, we will see that EU will be more independent in action.

James

[Dr Mordrid]

As has been said many times: the business of America is business.

Without businesses, large and small, the taxes and the wages they pay (and the taxes paid by their employees, suppliers and their employees etc. etc.) who is going to pay for all those lovely social programs the liberals and social democrats are so fond of?

As for what gives us the power: the fact that we're the only ones who have such power along with the experience and means to use it effectively when necessary. The last time the continental Europeans tried fighting a war (against Germany in WW-II) it was a Chinese fire drill until the US, UK and Russians got directly involved. Haven't seen anything since that inspires confidence that anythings changed.

What are the motives? Preventing 9/11 from happening to us or anyone else again and yes; assuring a stable oil market and production, which is like it or not is in everyones best interest.

Why? If Saddam (or anyone else) were able to do nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail on his neighborhood the massive insecurity would make for $100/barrel oil, in which case the world economy would really go into the shitter. Not good for anyone, even socialists.

Believe it or not, the American government is acting in accordance with the wishes of the American people. The recent passage of two War Powers resolutilons in Congress with bi-partisan support in both houses and the results of the recent elections clearly show this. Bush & Co. are not acting alone in this at all.

You might also be interested to know that the first instincts of the American people are to define the problem and go about solving it. Once the debate over how to solve it is over, and it is, we don't stand around talking about it ad infinitum like many of those in the EU or UN. We act.

As for the new EU countries: they have so far been aligning with the US in terms of foreign policy. Many of them are already offering basing, overflight rights, troops (including some crack chem/bio warfare units) and material for the upcoming efforts in Iraq, for example.

This has been written about quite a bit in the foreign affairs press. The concensus is that they are closer to the days of their being upder the boot. This makes them more supportive of those still under it and those who helped in getting them out from under it. Some of the more "mature" European countries seem to have forgotten this portion of their history.

Dr. Mordrid