[CD]

http://www.foxnews.com/

Gives even more credence to the theory of using the middle east as a new nuke testing ground.

Jimmy Neutron anyone?

Could have cost the world thousands of lives.

[SK]

Originally Posted by CD

Gives even more credence to the theory of using the middle east as a new nuke testing ground.

Just like that ole song "Put up a parking lot", make that the whole middle East.

[FLHTbiker]

What really grips me as many Americans still blame Bush for everything.

I think its time to round up all of the Arabs put them in armed camps and sort them out. Send all of the non citizens back and then nuke all of the Arab country's turning the whole place into glass. I know we really can't nuke them but we could round the Arabs up and put them under guard.
We need to do something as it has just gotten to far out of hand. Those arrested in Britain were British born Arabs.

[Big Ben]

Yeah, rounding up people based on their nationality worked so well last time we tried it The Constitution was just a suggestion, not anything we should take seriously.

There are more than a billion Muslims in the world, and maybe a couple thousand terrorists. But hey, even if 99.99% of the people killed are innocent, well, we had to do something, right? Nuke away!

Time was, they had a saying that only 1% of bikers were outlaws, and the rest of the bikers were rightly pissed that they got treated badly because of that 1%. And that bad treatment was nothing compared to nuking babies.

What has happened to Americans that we've become such cringing babies scared to death of a few unshaven guys hiding in caves? An American citizen has a far higher chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by terrorists. Maybe we should nuke the clouds? Our country is strong, and we can handle this without overreacting.

I understand the frustration and the anger, because I feel it too. But sometimes there just isn't anything practical we can do beyond the law enforcement that worked pretty well in this case.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what y'all have written, and you're just blowing off steam, and if so, I'm sorry for overreacting. But I see people on the Internet who really think we should nuke the Middle East, and that's a dangerous and foolish road to go down.

[GreyBear]

I heard something on Paul Harvey the other day that turned my normally cast iron stomach. In China they had four (4) cases of rabies in humans. Thier answer was to kill over 70,000 dogs. They clubbed them to death in the streets. 70,000 dogs killed because 4 people had gotten rabies. I was aghast. What barbaric stupidity. What gross ignorant waste. And that was 70,000 dogs. How much more so when the numbers are millions and they are babies?
We have done enough of the wounded knee, General Custer "only good ( fill in the blank) is a dead__________. Hell I know people up North that feel everyone in the South is an ignorant redneck and deserves to be shot. What's the difference. Besides, from a practical standpoint....how ya gonna nuke the folks and not the oil?

[FLHTbiker]

Well, in just a few short years or sooner the Iranians will have nukes, do you think they will have any reservations on using them. Were going to have a nuke explode in this country sometime, someplace that will be brought in by terrorist. The experts all agree that its coming. They are more than the 1% of their breed. Its their religion that's doing this and they are tied to it pretty darn strong. They certainly don't care how many innocent people they kill which by now should be more than evident and especially after the arrest of the 21 that were going to blow up ten flu&^ing air lines bound for the US. Every one of them were second and third generation born in Britain. Maybe we simply need to hit them first. In war that is one of the things that every good leader knows, hit first, hit strong and take them out first.
Is it right, probably not, will it work, more than likely. All I know is something has got to be done. Quit frankly if I boarded an airplane and saw what even appears to be Arabs on board I'm probably going to leave. I as a citizen simply don't know which ones to trust and not.
They stated on the news tonight as reported by an expert that the Arab leagues in this country are really not cooperating with law enforcement. Our own laws are protecting their civil rights even the bad ones.
Maybe you have the answer Ben or a better way to deal with them. Lord know but these guys and countries have vowed to take us out.

[Big Ben]

Marc,
You say they're more than 1%, but what could you possible be basing that on? If they were more than 1%, that makes over 10 million terrorists. We'd all already be dead if there were that many.

You mention that the terrorists this time were born and raised in Britain. How could we hit them first? Nuke London? Seems a little counterproductive.

Pakistan has had nukes for quite a while, and they have closer ties to al Qaeda than any other country. Hasn't been a problem. North Korea has nukes, and Jong-il is crazier than Osama, Saddam, and the Taliban put together. Somehow we haven't seen a mushroom cloud yet. The Iranians are small potatoes compared to the nuts who already have nukes.

We're the strongest nation in human history. We beat the Nazis and the Japanese and the Soviets. We shouldn't be shaking in our boots like schoolchildren terrified of a few guys with an attitude problem.

What do we do about it? Intelligence gathering and law enforcement, like we're doing now. It works, and we don't have to violate our principles to do it. You'll notice that New Yorkers (the people who were actually hit) are less worried about terrorism than country folk who aren't even being targeted.

Even with the best safety regulations, thousands of people die in traffic accidents every day. Even with the best health regulations, people get food poisoning or overdoses of medication. A little bit of risk is the price we pay for freedom. We can take it.

[CD]

Yeah, probably a little over kill because the oil would be useless. Maybe some precision attacks on their homes instead. Definitely build up the Delta force and give them free reign.

Ben, you live in Japan, the home of revisionist history. I have a niece serving in the Navy in Japan. She gets a ration of crap from citizens and sees signs just off base about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks. Interestingly, they gloss over the reason they got their asses kicked in the first place.

Now here is the kicker, she is also deployed on a destroyer helping to guard Japan and ROK against a Nuke from North Korea.

How convenient eh?

You state how strong we are yet you live in a country that has a far lower chance of being attacked than the US does.

"What has happened to Americans that we've become such cringing babies scared to death of a few unshaven guys hiding in caves? An American citizen has a far higher chance of getting hit by lightning than getting killed by terrorists. Maybe we should nuke the clouds? Our country is strong, and we can handle this without overreacting."



Over reacting? Just what would it take for you to say "enough"? I was taught that when you are at war you use every weapon at your disposal to defeat the enemy. General Patton said that “War is simple, direct, and ruthless.” Maybe you missed the news? We are at WAR! Do you think they would have cared one iota for the thousands of potential deaths?

What if your job was to fly every day? A pilot or crew member? would you feel the same? My nephew is a pilot and it wears on him every day.

Perhaps you can stand by and watch your fellow citizens and soldiers get killed or maimed because fanatics like these are alive. As for me, I could never entertain the thought of turning the other cheek.

Fundamental differences of Liberals and the rest of the world I guess. Clinton and Bore would still be evaluating 911 and sending random cruise missiles to nowhere.

[Big Ben]

CD,
Tokyo has a far higher chance of a terrorist attack than anywhere in Arizona, and I'm also living within Taepodong range of North Korea. Three US military bases in close range, too, and they're all targets. (Believe me, I'm as annoyed as you are about the Japanese attitude towards our military.) I've got more reason to be afraid than you, but I'm not worried. Statistically, terrorism just isn't that dangerous, even if you live in Jerusalem.

The Delta Force idea I can go along with. Special forces can go after actual terrorists with precision and minimize civilian casualties. Nukes, not so much.

Sure, in war you use any weapon you've got against the enemy, but the problem is, we don't know where the enemy is, so we've got nothing. We're not fighting a traditional war here. Where are you suggesting bombing?

Turning the other cheek is the only option if you can't find the guy who hit you (or if the guy who hit you shoots himself before you get to him) and it's kinda dumb to randomly swing your fists into the crowd hoping you'll connect with someone who deserves it.

It's all fine and dandy to say "We have to do SOMETHING!" but sometimes there just isn't anything you can practically do. If you have any ideas, I'd be glad to hear them.

[CD]

"Pakistan has had nukes for quite a while, and they have closer ties to al Qaeda than any other country. Hasn't been a problem. North Korea has nukes, and Jong-il is crazier than Osama, Saddam, and the Taliban put together. Somehow we haven't seen a mushroom cloud yet. The Iranians are small potatoes compared to the nuts who already have nukes."

Ben, do you know how many times in the one year I was at Osan AB North Korea looked like they were going to attack? I do, it was thirteen times lucky thirteen in that case. If you think for one second that North Korea is anything more than a bomb on a very, very short fuse you need to do some research.

When Iran goes nuclear, they will use the capability. Why not? Poor country, no real concern for it's citizens lives. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/i..._iraq_war2.php

The threats are real and for you to play them off as just nuts with nukes shows an unrealistic view of the facts IMHO.

"Pakistan has had nukes for quite a while, and they have closer ties to al Qaeda than any other country. Hasn't been a problem."

Well, since at least part of the training and mission planning was done in Pakistan..... Are you really certain their stock pile is secure from infiltration?


Perhaps it's because Marc and I have both had the pointed end of bullets coming our way and it changes a persons perspectives a tad. But, if you look like a duck, quack like a duck and it's duck season, you are a dead duck.

[CD]

Ben, you have no idea of where and how much I travel for business. Phoenix International Airport is the sixth busiest airport in the USA. My warehouse is right at DMAFB smack under the approach end of the runway.

However, I also do not narrow my concerns to my personal safety and survival.

As for ideas? This is much like the border issue question when you stated that none of the ideas mentioned would work. Now that a substantial number of the National Guard is working on the border, illegals picked up attempting to cross at other than entry points is down drastically and arrests and illegals being caught at entry points is up drastically. Guess it didn't work to well eh?

You want some ideas? Remove the leash from the military SOCOM and Delta etc. Establish targets, laze them and take them out. Turn loose the the in country assets in Pakistan.

In short, get as mean as they do and then, a little meaner.

Now, you like to ask for ideas right? Rather than sitting back and saying mine won't work, propose solutions yourself. It is far easier to critique an idea than to propose an alternative solution. While I was a shop chief in a FACP (Forward Air Control Post) the commander had one simple requirement for those that wanted to challenge a strategy or plan. They had to not only prove why it would not work, they had to provide an alternative solution.

[Big Ben]

Kim Jong-il may be crazy, but he's not stupid, and he knows that we'd flatten his whole country if he ever used a nuke. And Iran is richer and more stable than Pakistan. Sure, these countries are threats, and we have to keep a close eye on them. But compared to the Soviets? Compared to the Axis? There is no way that these countries have any real chance of truly harming the US.

I truly appreciate the sacrifices veterans like you have made to protect the rest of us, and I'm sure it does give you a more visceral appreciation of the dangers of war. But I still think you're exaggerating the threat here.

OK, now you're putting out real ideas. I notice that you seem to have dropped the nuke idea Like I said earlier, more use of special forces is something I can support. I was objecting to solutions like "nuke 'em" and "round up all the Ay-rabs", which not only won't work, but would be actively evil.

The US still has one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, even with heavy law enforcement. But we don't go declaring a "War on Murder" and start bombing Detroit. Instead, we focus on better law enforcement, try to reduce the incentives for murder, and realize that murder is something that will always be with us no matter what we do.

But here you're asking for my solution to an unsolvable problem. The thing is, I did already propose my solution: diplomacy, intelligence-gathering, law enforcement, and military readiness. In other words, what we're doing now, minus the starting-pointless-wars thing. It works, as the foiling of the latest plot shows. There will always be some terrorism. Our goal should be figuring out how to reduce it while not letting it disrupt our way of life and remaining true to our ideals.

[Big Ben]

On a lighter note, this guy has a good idea that might work: Nuke the Moon!

[scooter]

The ones that have the most to lose, should Iran be allowed to become nuclear capable, it Israel. That much has been said by Iran's "brightest" in government.

The Israelis, however, will take care of the situation before it gets out of hand, much as they did in 1986, I believe. At least, I HOPE they do. It won't be pretty if Iran is allowed that type of weaponry. Rich or poor has nothing to do with their ideology concerning what they believe to be a direct threat to Islam and their very way of life....and WE would be next on their list because of our direct support of Israel.

Yes there ARE over 1 billion muslims...worldwide. Comparitively, only a very small portion are actually arab, and in the middle east. The vast majority are in the Indonesian are of the world. Of course, after the Tsunami there, a major change of attitude towards the west has occurred as a direct result of our humanitarian intervention on their behalf. I just wish the same appreciation for our effort could be seen more on the part of those in the middle east..but that is never to be.

Just mind your p's and q's along the way, have some awareness about you, and be naturally suspicious about anything out of the ordinary you might see. You'll probably be right and save a life in the long run...maybe even your own.

scoot

[GreyBear]

Ok so now it seems the heat has died a bit and some logic is being used. I would like to offer a few things to chew on.
No matter what the ratio of good guys to bad guys in the middle east, and among Islamics, I don't think anyone believes they are all wacked out tangos. So we have a ratio. Ben suggested 1% let's assume that it is 75% instead. That still leaves 25% innocent. We claim to be a Christian nation. We claim to hold a high moral ground. Is the slaughter of 25% of a billion people in line with that concept? You tell me.

Secondly WHY do these people and many others in the world hate us so? Because we have cable TV and 2 and 3 cars a family? Or because the US goverment has made a policy of backing people in power that were diametrically opposed to everything we as a country stand for so we could get a better deal on the resources of that country? Iran hates us...and they had a revolution to oust the sha that we had backed. Look around the world at who we have backed and what thier internal policies were. Hell as long as it was convienant we were Sadam's bosom buddy. Fact is ya sleep with dogs ya wake up with fleas. Our foriegn policy has been in need of a good flea bath for decades.

What to do? Well we do have to take measures to secure our country and it's people. And real measures not a way to get our men and women killed so the oil companies can boost profits. We have never gone after anyone that wasn't part of the profit supply line since 9/11. And the BS from Washington is pretty weak. Massive bogged down ground fighting is NOT the answer to getting rid of terrorists. It is important if you are really there to control the oil. We have spent BILLIONS of dollars on this war, we have re written the constitution of Iraq to make profits easier to take out of the country, yet we can't give then drinking water or a place to take a crap. Thats the way to make em like us?

Imagine if that amount of money had been put towards eliminating the real threats. Hell put a billion dollar bounty on Bin Ladin and see his head on a pike. Use the money for info and scalpel like precison hits so the bad guys disapear. Dropping cluster bombs is only a way for big business to make more money selling cluster bombs.

Read the guerilla warfare texts of people like Mao and Che. What we are doing creates a support base for insurgency. If you want to win a popular war you have to have the support of the local population, else you are doomed.

Finally. I personally am pretty fed up with the religion thing about terrorism. I have read both the Bible and the Koran and the people that use Islam to create suicide bombers are the same caliber as the whackos that burn books and bomb abortion clinics as soldiers for Christ....and neither of them would recognize God if he came up and bit 'em in the ass, no matter what they call him. There are always people that in desperation turn to someone peddling some form of after life salvation. Poor ignorant deluded and dangerous. Me, I would like to take all the "My God can beat up your God" folks and let them fight it out gladiator style, then crucify the survivors. Then maybe the people left could have some tolerance and a bit of peace and quiet.


Ride Free..........

[Red Rider]

I hate revealing too much on a forum, but I was one of those guys that fed the presidents (Bush/Clinton/Bush) that "bad" intel about WMDs. I did CN & CT missions over much of the world. I've been places that I never was and won't ever go again. "If I told you, I'd have to kill you" was a motto applied to me (others were the ones who'd say that that is what I should say - one even gave me that on a patch).

So anyway, here's some food for thought:

1. Iraq had WMDs. Get over it, Bush-haters. Not counting the ones that were relocated, we've publicly recovered over 90 ballistic missles, 500 G-5 arty chem/bio capable warhead shells, a working BioWar lab (well, not as good working as it was before the Tomahawks hit it). What we didn't find was a big sign in front of a compund that said "WMD Factory". What did anyone expect? Sarin gas is manufactered at every pesticide plant anywhere, Iraq had no need for seperate facilities. Need I go on? The press says that the bio war lab (run by the Ansar al Islam, a terror group with affiliation with OBL and Saddam) didn't count, because it was run by terrorists in Iraq and not by Saddam - does anyone understand that statement besides a "journalist"? Didn't the press say, too, that Saddam was actually keeping us "safe" from Islamofacists? And FYI - Amb Joe Wilson is a LIAR! And what he didn't lie about, he misrepresented. I have first-hand knowledge of that - but so does the press, and yet they treat him like he has any credibility?

2. Not advocating it - not for it, but rounding up people based on racial profile has actually worked nearly every time it was tried. Japanese and German Americans were rounded up during WWII because there were some traitors amongst them (everyone seems to forget about German-American internment, though it was nearly as big as J-A internment). As to Wounded Knee, Sand Creek or any other moral stains on USA history - we may not like those tragic events, but the winning team did them. One of our problems in Iraq is the enemy and their support base do not fully fear us because we are NOT indiscriminate with our wrath. Yet.

3. As to the Japanese - for my part, I have seen far less anti-Americanism there than here in the USA. I'd lived in Japan for years, visited there many times (work-related) and worked with nearly every element of their military & judical forces. The protestors there are few compared to here, and many are paid to be there by North Korea's puppet organizations in Japan.

4. The oil is underground and would largely be unaffected by nuclear weapon use. And if we used neutron bombs (don't have 'em now but can be made) we'd have even less worries. But it is not our way - yet.

5. Iran's wackos and North Koreas wackos are afflicted with similar neurosis. Don't count on rational behavior from them. But they are both different problems and have different solutions, even multiple ones. And did it ever occur to anyone in the free press that not everything we do - not every plan, not every tactic, not every approach, not every gambit - needs to be revealed to the world, and especially our enemies, beforehand?

6. No one gets to be an expert on world affairs by watching TV and chatting on forums. I spent over two dozen years in the field and there are still things I am surprised of from time to time. But not much.

7. Conspiracy theorists are whacked. I have run a few "conspiracies" against our adversaries, and they are REALLY hard work to accomplish even on a small scale. The theories usually result from a paranoid view of a few coincidences: i.e.; Oil pipeline "conveniently" discovered to leak in the peak of Summer? Yeah, because you can't examine the pipe as closely in the freakin' Winter or Spring.

8. Lastly - saying we are losing a war and us actually losing a war are two different things. But when our own people in their ignorance keep saying it, it don't help.

But enough. Got to finish detailing my ride. Maybe wash the air filter, too. Besides, if I were to say more, I'd have to kill myself first.

[Big Ben]

Red Rider, It's good to hear from someone with direct knowledge. Thanks.

But you know, the WMDs haven't been found by any stretch of the imagination. Look at the things you listed: missiles (nope, not WMD), shells that could be used to deliver chemical weapons (but no actual chemicals). And then you bring up the Ansar al-Islam weapons lab, but since you claim to have intelligence knowledge, you should know perfectly well that Ansar was a declared enemy of Saddam, in an area of Iraq Saddam had no control over. People argue over whether there were ties or contacts, but nothing has ever been proven, and either way Saddam had no access to that lab. Sorry, but none of those even come close, and if you have the knowledge you claim to, you know it.

About internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII, you can claim that "worked" only if you think that there's nothing wrong with locking up thousands and thousands of innocent citizens without trial. You know, Stalin's gulags "worked" pretty well too.

You're right that most of the Antiamerican stuff in Japan is concentrated around the people who live near bases. Most Japanese love Americans, they just often disagree with our foreign policy.

[scooter]

Ben,

It's interesting you say that about the Japanese around the bases there. Most of the Germans round the bases in Germany are the same way, especially the older ones, from what I remember. They appreciate what they were saved from, and I'm sure it galls, and at the same time, amazes them that our own nation is headed towards alot of the same moral pitfalls that led their own countries astray. It's as if they want to say "Hey, come back to your senses, and be the America that saved us, not the America that conquered us." Make sense?

scoot

[Red Rider]

Big Ben - OK, since when have ballistic missles been crossed of the WMD list? Oh, since the press decided they aren't. Check what the UN says about 'em - they called them WMDs. When you lob a thousand kilos of high explosive at 17,000 mph indiscriminately into a city, what part of mass destruction do you not get? So once and for all - what WMDs did Bush say we'd find that we did not find? A nuclear program? OK, it wasn't "active", as the parts were hidden throughout Baghdad - but you don't hide what you want to disclose. And they were trying to get more yellowcake from Nigeria - don't doubt that. Why try? They had no facilities, so why, hmm? Saying something isn't a WMD does not make it not a WMD. That is just being willfully wrong. Or maybe unwillfully, as in brainwashed by politics and blinded to fact.

As to the AI being "enemies" of Saddam - says who, again? Saddam said so, but yet their lab and training camp operated openly in Iraq. As to it being an area where he had no control - that is phooey. He had less control of the Kurds, but he still managed to gas them easily enough (but I guess that wasn't a WMD, just a can of Raid that got away from 'em). What about the Shia in the south? I was there when they were being slaughtered in that area that Saddam had "no control" of. Helo gunships strafing at will - not pretty. The AI operated there with his consent, and the Iraqi Intel Service met with them and with Zarqawi a number of times. THINK: it was not in Saddam's interest to admit ties to the AI, but if he wanted them dead (his established routine for ANYONE he disliked) why did they have no fear? Why did Al Qaeda (we called them UBLers then) send men to train on the 727 that AI had there? Why did Saddam let them have it there? THINK! "Oh, but Dan Rather said ....." Sheesh. And Castro's a hero and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "actually, in a strange way, he's a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good looking in a strange way" according to Mike Wallace. THINK!

I said the internments were a moral stain. They were. They are worse when you look at what happened to the assets of the innocent and where they ended up. But we didn't kill them, as the Nazi's were doing. Or as the Soviets did to the tune of 30 million. It was effective. See, I realize that even when it is and ugly truth, it is still truth. To deny it is foolish.

I worked with a LOT of Japanese that envied our foreign policy. They were tired of the DPRK running drugs and counterfeit money into Japan and the kidnapping of Japanese women for sex slaves to the DPRK VIPs. They were plenty ready to throw off the non-violence stuff and kick some buttocks...but their people still want "peace". Let the wolf take a sheep or two, maybe he'll get full and won't come back...that is Japan today. But it is changing...those Taepo Dongs are more than a slave raid threat to the West Coast of Japan. But we'll probably cover their six with our SDI/Aegis and other means, so they'll probably be able resume their tolerance of evil.

It is sad that so many are willing to believe the worst of our country and yet the best of Third World sh__ holes like Iran, Cuba, Syria, France (yes - a 3rd World SH) Venezuela and our so-called "free" press, with its insane agenda and willingness to accept fraud over truth if the truth supports the US and our interests- freedom. Check out how easy it was for Hezbollah to "fool" reporters, while the press gives away our surveilance methods. The press says they don't take sides? BS - they just don't take sides against anyone that may behead them for doing so.

Time for me to ride. Time for some others to THINK!

[Big Ben]

Red Rider,

Since when have ballistic missles been crossed of the WMD list?

You can't be serious. WMD was defined from the beginning as chem, bio and nuclear weapons. Treaties dealing with the issue almost always use phrasing like "Weapons of Mass Destruction (i.e. nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons)." Bush himself defined it that way in speeches. It's defined that way in most dictionaries. Everyone knew Saddam had Scuds, but ballistic missiles are only considered WMD when combined with one of those technologies. I can't believe you don't know this.

We know Saddam used gas in the Iran-Iraq war, and against the Kurds. But this was in the '80s and we haven't yet found anything suggesting Saddam still had those weapons. All the evidence shows that Saddam's nuclear progam ended in the early '90s, and if there were evidence to the contrary we would have found it by now. We've now spent years looking for this stuff, and there's still no sign of it.

As to the AI being "enemies" of Saddam - says who, again?

Saddam said so, and Ansar themselves said so. If they were friendly with Saddam, they wouldn't have needed to operate in the remote areas they did. Why don't you know this, if you're invovled in intelligence?

If it turned out the Kurds had WMD, it wouldn't make any difference for the same reason. The question was whether Saddam had them, not whether they existed within the geographical boundaries of Iraq, and so far there's no evidence whatsoever that he did. You ask "why did Saddam let them operate there?", but again, if you know anything about the conflict, you know Saddam wasn't in a position to allow or deny anything in those areas. Sure he attacked the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs in the years before we set up the no-fly zones (you have heard of those, right?) but since we set them up, Saddam had no control whatsoever over those areas, and you know it.


About the internment of citizens in WWII, I suppose you could claim it was "effective" in that no terrorism or sabotage or spying was committed by the people we locked up without trial. But that's like saying the Nazi concentration camps were "effective" in preventing Jews from using the blood of Christian babies. In other words, it assumes things that haven't been proved about what those people would have done otherwise.