Shall the USA strike Afghanistan?

[Olly]

Backgorund info:
http://www.reuters.com/fullstory.jsp...StoryID=215285

[Olly]

OF COURSE DONT FORGET THAT THERE IS NO OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TALIBANS ROLE IN THE ACTS.

[DerFarm]

Certainly!!!! Let's nukem into the Stone Age....uhhhhhh....wait a minute....wrong war.....drug flashback

[JungleMan]

Yup! r0x0r them!

[nishantp]

Well if they find proof that it was infact Bin Laden, then i think the US will ask once nicely for Aphganistan to turn him over to then. Then they will start vaporizing things.

[SteveCRM]

if they do, I don't want it televised...I don't want to see anymore, seeing people jump from the top floor of a building is enough for me. I don't want any more people to die

[SteveCRM]

Yes, even if innocent afghan people have to suffer.  4 57.14% 
Yes, but only precise strikes, no mass destruction.  1 14.29% 
No, this will only lead to new terroristic acts.  0 0% 
No, this probably will only lead to new terroristic acts and innocent people will suffer again.  2

how can you people stand so much violence?

[nishantp]

Originally posted by SteveCRM

Yes, even if innocent afghan people have to suffer.  4 57.14% 
Yes, but only precise strikes, no mass destruction.  1 14.29% 
No, this will only lead to new terroristic acts.  0 0% 
No, this probably will only lead to new terroristic acts and innocent people will suffer again.  2

how can you people stand so much violence?

Its a cycle really. THey're pissed at us for various (probably uninformed) reasons. They carry out a heinous crime, now were mad as hell and want revenge. Once we get it, they'll be even more pissed etc...

[goudabuddha]

I hate seeing the violence, but NOBODY f***s with the US without being vaporized, I don't care who they are.

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by goudabuddha
but NOBODY f***s with the US without being vaporized, I don't care who they are.

*ahem* vietnam...

[nishantp]

Originally posted by goudabuddha
I hate seeing the violence, but NOBODY f***s with the US without being vaporized, I don't care who they are.

I have to disagree. Will killing more innocent people bring back those who dies yesterday? i think not. It will spread hatred. And worst of all, the proud america of which you speak will have lowered itself to the same level as the terrorists. Calm down and think about that a minute.

[goudabuddha]

I see where ya'll are coming from, but I'd stil like to see someone get nuked. And by the way, I meant attacks on US soil, so Vietnam don't count, although I see your point.

[Chris Byrom]

Vietnam is not comparable at all. Nothing is.

The thing that caused this is ud trying to help the rest of the world. I say screw 'em, if this is what we get. Close the borders, kick back, and keep our money!

[Michael_Kamen]

Originally posted by nishantp
Well if they find proof that it was infact Bin Laden, then i think the US will ask once nicely for Aphganistan to turn him over to then. Then they will start vaporizing things.

Bush might not want to vaporise Afghanistan. The FBI has identified the hijackers as from Egypt and Saudi-Arabia.
This doesn't mean they didn't work for Bin Laden but they still haven't found a direct link to Afghanistan.

But if they do, Bin Laden is said to be hiding in the mountains so perhaps they would launch something in that direction.

[beachbum]

Originally posted by chrisjk
*ahem* vietnam...

Chris, I dont know how much history that you know but the war in vietnam was lost on political grounds and not on military. The combined forces of the U.S, Aust, NZ, Thailand etc defeated the Nth Vietnamese Army in every single battle. In fact the greatest defeat of the vietnamese (Nui Dat) occasioned the eventual political defeat of the U.S led forces. The press freedom provided during the war caught the military off guard and was one of the main reasons that the Gulf War press were so highly controlled and censored.

I dont agree with war on any level but I think that history is continually being rewritten with the media-led description of the events in Vietnam and other wars.
Regards
Stuart

[DWillems]

If Bin Laden is responsible he should be punished. If he's not extradited then we shall have to go and get him but no innocent people should have to suffer.

Levelling Afghanistan will only result in more bloodshed and hatred and will in the end have accomplished nothing.

It's better to concentrate on the responsables and his goons.
If Afghanistan wants to co-operate, all the better.
Furthermore, it should be a globally approved response, preferably approved by the UN (so that all nations will have their say). The response should concentrate itself to counteract terrorism and not wiping out a nation.

I hope Bush will understand this ...

[Planix]

THey're pissed at us for various (probably uninformed) reasons.

How much do you americans hear about what your government and military are actually doing overseas?

Are any of you aware that Clinton authorised the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan in 1998 on the mistaken assumption that this was a Bin Laden asset - potentially(!?) a weapons production facility.

As a direct result of the incompetence of US intelligence, and the typical imperialist knee jerk reaction of the US, some 2,000 to 3,000 Sudanese civilians - mainly women died.

When I see what some of you post I really wonder whether you actually believe the sanitised version of US behaviour on the world stage that you spout or whether you are having a joke.

The reality is that the actions of the US government overseas are often abusive and arrogant. Your media maintains this picture of the US as some world police force and pepetuates the hoary old myth about "protecting the free world". Nobody in the rest of the world accepts the presumptive right of the US to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries - and particularly not with military force.

There can never be any excuse or mercy for the sum who did this horrible thing to your country and your people. But, you must stop believing that the US is an innocent victim in an evil world. if you keep doing that you will gladly go out and *burn* thousands more innocent men, women and children as you pursue a policy of state terrorism - not Noble war.

BTW. I did not vote in your poll.

Terrorists are people who hate. They are people who have turned real people into two dimensional objects. When you can't look into the eyes of the woman whose throat you are cutting and feel the terror and shame or her death then you are the terrorist.

Your question makes me deeply fearful that you are becoming terrorists.

[ghost ryder]

exactly

the US is hated, and before they go off half-cocked and attack someone, they should change their policies, there is a reason that people palestinians were cheering the attack, thats coz for them, its like watching the big schoolyard bully get his cummuppence (spelling??)

and that is most likely the reasoning behind the attack, and while there motivation was understandable, what they did was atrocious and in my opinion makes any justification they had null and void, people in the WTC had NOTHING to do with the opression that they were dealt by the US, the white house would have been a more appropriate target (although still wrong).

i have a theory that the plane which hit the pentagon was actually going for the white house, coz it didnt actually hit the building, it sort of dived, and it wouldnt have been able to destroy teh whole building, plus the white house would have made more of an impact had it been destroyed

[kedaman]

Noble war that term should be forgotten!

There is nothing noble about killing, you should respect those who have accumulated such hate they could kill people because of it, because they suffer in dimensions you can't imagine. Violence solves nothing, it will only give birth to more hate and violence.

[plenderj]

Redaring the US blowing people up, perhaps I should draw your attention to this :

http://www.vbforums.com/showthread.p...hreadid=103234


Oh yeah, and whats the difference between the killings at the WTC and the pentagon, and a retaliatory strike ?
Innocent people are going to be killed in both situations.
At least in the attack against the US they didnt have proper weapons. If the US, or rather, NATO attack the terrorists it will be with proper weapons.

So more innocent people will probably end up dying in the retaliation.

[beachbum]

Thats it!!! I am gonna blow u up for cross posting
Pls send me your address in both postal format and latitude longitude format that can be recognised by my GPS.
I apologise that you may have to wait up to 14 days for delivery.

[Conogelato]

i fell that this situation are VERRY danger.

Think, not one of the resource involved vas foreinger:
No the camp for learning to fly
No the fly, all domestic
not the credit card used to pay the ticket
Only the people involved, and maby not all

Then how many immigrants have USA?

The USA economical sistem is liberal, this meanning that anybody can go to a factory and buy someting. Heaven Weapon (gun)

This is a different tipe of war!!!!!!!

in Normaly war (old) the industrial power of a country against the industrial power of another country, but new the attackers use the industrial power of the country that they atack, THIS IS REALLY NEW, AND DANGER.

I WHANT remember you that you are in danger, and the danger come from inside now,.

remember
No a forenger fly
and not one forenger fly scholl.......
How many people can have entred the usa in the lasts years?

They have attack not only a simbol, but the USA TRANSPORT SISTEM, THAT IS VITAL for a country big as usa.
i think this can slow down the industrial production if you can't find a efficent and secure sistem for get the worker to job from a town to another distant manny manny chilometers. The sky is steel closed, this meanning paralisy.

And how can you control your immigrant in a multietical country like yours?

I think, now, the war is changed, and the ennemy is not onlyaffganistan.
And is also denger ( and not right) to criminalize all musly, especial in a free a multietical country like yours, but how can you avoid to train the terrorist, and that hem use yours industrila power??

I THINK THE JOB NOW MUST TO BE IN CONSCIUS THERM, EAVEIN IN WHATZ YOU DO OUTSIDE USA, BECAUSE AFER WTC THE WORD WAS CHANGED.

Remember

No one resource used by the attackers was forengers

No the fly scholl
no the car rented
No the house were they lived
No the fly

do you think that destroy anothers country can reduce the danger?

[plenderj]

I suppose this would be an argument for extreme racism

[chenko]

Originally posted by goudabuddha
I see where ya'll are coming from, but I'd stil like to see someone get nuked. And by the way, I meant attacks on US soil, so Vietnam don't count, although I see your point.

If you (your country) has a nuke coming towards you which will instantly wipe out 99.9% of the country... do you sit there and let it hit you... no, you fire back... and not with any tiny missile... the biggest ****er you can find, and as many as you can... if they start firing nuclear missiles... well, start *****ing your pants mate

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by beachbum
Chris, I dont know how much history that you know but the war in vietnam was lost on political grounds and not on military. The combined forces of the U.S, Aust, NZ, Thailand etc defeated the Nth Vietnamese Army in every single battle. In fact the greatest defeat of the vietnamese (Nui Dat) occasioned the eventual political defeat of the U.S led forces. The press freedom provided during the war caught the military off guard and was one of the main reasons that the Gulf War press were so highly controlled and censored.

The US lost, I was just pointing out that

but NOBODY f***s with the US without being vaporized, I don't care who they are

Wasn't entirely true