TS | Crazyace
Posts: 272 +0
I just want to say if anyone reading these forums knows or is involved in the services, I support and pray for you.
God bless America
God bless America
War Has Begun
- Thread starter TS | Crazyace
- Start date
poertner_1274
Posts: 3,874 +3
Very good thread Crazyace. I just hope this doesn't go the wrong way and get REALLY bad. I pray every day for our men and women who represent the United States of America in all notions of the armed forces.
Same here.. Quick and painless as possible. War is war and I do not necessarily agree with it, but that does not change anything. We can only hope for minimal casualties.
I feel a little bad saying anything about the war.. Sitting here on my computer in America has shielded me from most of this stuff. Also, it really doesn't effect me in any direct way, but for those of you in Iraq or on the frontlines - I still wish you the best. I might never know what it is like to be IN war and I do not believe in prayer, but I think I can still send my blessings out to everyone despite these things.
I feel a little bad saying anything about the war.. Sitting here on my computer in America has shielded me from most of this stuff. Also, it really doesn't effect me in any direct way, but for those of you in Iraq or on the frontlines - I still wish you the best. I might never know what it is like to be IN war and I do not believe in prayer, but I think I can still send my blessings out to everyone despite these things.
Phantasm66
Posts: 4,909 +8
The general consensus seems to be that people want the war over as soon as possible.
negroplasty
Posts: 547 +36
Just been watching the news, apparently Iraq has launched two medium range missiles at the border area with northern Kuwait where thousands of British and American troops are stationed. Kuwaiti defense minister Sheik Jaber Mubarak Al Sabah confirmed the two missiles had hit the area. But there is no official word on casualties or damage. What scares me the most about this is the fact that the US and UK aren't going to stand by and let Iraq bomb their troops, I can only imagine what will happen next .
.
poertner_1274
Posts: 3,874 +3
Originally posted by timmoore
What scares me the most about this is the fact that the US and UK aren't going to stand by and let Iraq bomb their troops, I can only imagine what will happen next
This is sooooo true. I hate to say it, but I think Iraq will be in a world of hurt if they try to get in a bombing war with the US and UK.
bin Laden
Today is the 24th of March, 2003. The towers fell about a year-and-a-half ago. What has happened in that time? Well, very early on in the investigation the public knew, or was fairly certain who was responsible for the act. Other than the collection of some scattered operatives, a military operation in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq, what have we really accomplished in a year-and-a-half? This should've been resolved by now. The time frame and the results suggest several things.
So where is he? Nobody knows? It's still a mystery? If it is a mystery, then what does that say about the competence of our foreign intelligence? And if they do know where he is, then what does that say about our foreign intelligence, or our entire foreign policy for that matter? And even if we knew his exact whereabouts, could we do anything about it? Remember early on in the hunt, many believed him already dead, buried deep underneath some rubble? What happened to that opinion? I haven't heard that one lately. How come?
When a big murder happens here at home, anywhere on American turf, what's usually the protocol? Well normally a bureau gets in motion, and early on some suspects are detained, some leads are pursued, sometimes mistakes are made, but usually the positives outweigh those actions, and within a very short timeframe there is a conclusion. The media attaches itself to the event and most often the story doesn't have a chance to get old. And then the legal system steps in, and the rest is left to history. We're talking hours, days, and weeks here, not years. Who's best at investigating a crime?
So who's in charge of this investigation? Give the FBI a green light to act and it's of a very high probability that this whole matter would've been resolved by now. We have to ask ourselves:
"How bad do we really want this guy?"
We could speculate that even if we get him there's a dozen just like him ready to take his place, but that's not accurate. He's unique in many ways. He's already established himself to a high prominence, and he comes with an impressive resume, reasons not to linger on matters and to move quickly despite the social and religious fall-out. None of that should be a problem if he's sitting in an obscure cave somewhere, or if he's traveling desert roads by caravan, or is disguised as a Bedouin nomad, or is well insulated within the deep protections of armed personnel in Northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, or Yemen. None of that should have a bearing on the willingness to move against him. The world is a big place, but given the technology of this era, and what intelligence should be doing, then the whole situation should've been concluded already. There should be no shortage of leads especially as they point to a location, or series of movements. So if he's not dead, where could he be given the time frame we're now sitting on? Again, the time frame suggests several things, if not incompetence in the field, then what? One thing it demonstrates, we're foreigners in a foreign land even though we've made it our business for decades to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East, but now are unable to solve a singular matter, something that many Americans are screaming for.
Suppose he's insulated in a country. Is it worth it? It's war isn't it? One of the things about the declaration of war, you follow that thing you're after until it's done. If that means crossing a border to get whatever you're after, if you know something is there, you retrieve or destroy it, then you move on until the whole mission is accomplished.
If that state says: "Get out of our country!"
Then you say: "What are you doing with these guys, why are they allowed to do what they do against us? We're at war, we've told the whole world that we are now at war, and if you're not careful, you will be too. Give them up, or we'll do whatever we choose to do. That's war brother. And by the way, we have the most sophisticated military on the planet; nobody's going to come to your aid if you make the wrong decision. If you can't help us, then we don't give a %&#$ about you. Well? You better be careful what you say. This isn't intimidation, it's just life or death."
If an established government does the wrong thing, you temporarily move within its borders until this matter is put to rest. It doesn't matter which one it is. If it's Arabia, then Arabia should have a major problem on its hands. If you know where he is, you communicate it to the world through the media, you make your move, and then you clean it all up later. Of course the risk is how much of the Muslim World will rally in response to the move, or how much of an effect it will have on the economic climate.
But do we really want him? How much are we willing to risk in order to put out part of a fire? Is it worth further destabilization of the Middle East? Or is it worth the possibility of a new shift in power with states moving away from neutrality? Is it worth gasoline doubling in price? How much power does this guy really have?
As Jerusalem is to Jews, Mecca and Medina are to Muslims. Arabia is the heart of Islam. It's not Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, nor Egypt. It's much more, and even though its oil reserves are vast, its wealth is only a small part of its power and influence over the rest of the Arab World. Remember something, America has some type of modified alliance with this country. Not only does Saudi Arabia have significant tangible wealth that much of the mechanized world is dependent upon, but it's also a holy land to a large percentage of the global population. And now, a rogue member from one of its royal families has declared war against the West. Bin Laden is Arabian. How the established government there views him isn't important, if the money is being traced to Arabia, then we have a big problem. Until the matter of enabling al-Qaida is resolved by whatever means, this so-called alliance will continue to be a sham with both sides playing a two-faced game. The roots of destruction on this one originally comes from palatial realms. We can try to freeze all of the cash we want. That doesn't address the problem, nor does it stop pumps from pumping. And it doesn't slow down the religious momentum building up in the Middle East.
Essentially, what Bin Laden is saying is this:
Okay Islam, your rest is over. It's time to get at it again with the Western World. You have a duty to protect your faith; we need to drive out those people who don't belong in our backyard. We'll take any measure available to do so. Are you with us or not?
Not only is he well funded, but the Muslim media gives him access to much of the Arab World. But again, we don't know where he is, right? Even if we did know, what could we do about it, especially if he is operating in a place that we can't enter, for whatever reason? Even if he's only the leader of a small faction that operates within the Muslim community, if he's able to move freely past borders without impediment, then what's really happening?
We're at war. Correct? War is the ultimate game. And It's On, whether any of us want to admit it or not. And in war, sides take it to the limit in order to crush eminent dangers, unless they're not really at war. And if not, then they shouldn't be using the language of war. That's playing politics, and buffaloing the people.
If we have to disrespect the borders of a so-called ally in order to begin the hunt of big game, then we should get on with it. If the social ramifications are too great, then we shouldn't displace that sentiment and become unbalanced with other unrelated endeavors elsewhere in order to make ourselves feel better, to satisfy a hunger, even if it is unresolved business. Take care of the big game before it gets away from us entirely. Did Afghanistan yield anything? Will Iraq?
Our foreign policy is a joke, at some point we have to admit it. That in no way refers to the behavior of the United Nations, rather it has everything to do with how we've come to be defined by the global community, our consumptions, our business behavior, and our relationships with respect to aiding regimes and supplying them arms. We went for Afghanistan. Iraq looks to be next. After that, who knows? But unless it's solving The Problem, all of it might be a waste of time, energy, and most of all focus.
There's a monster on the horizon.
His mission is to be the next Caliph.
The time frame suggests a stalemate.
end
D.A. Pino, editor of The Gutters of California
Today is the 24th of March, 2003. The towers fell about a year-and-a-half ago. What has happened in that time? Well, very early on in the investigation the public knew, or was fairly certain who was responsible for the act. Other than the collection of some scattered operatives, a military operation in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq, what have we really accomplished in a year-and-a-half? This should've been resolved by now. The time frame and the results suggest several things.
So where is he? Nobody knows? It's still a mystery? If it is a mystery, then what does that say about the competence of our foreign intelligence? And if they do know where he is, then what does that say about our foreign intelligence, or our entire foreign policy for that matter? And even if we knew his exact whereabouts, could we do anything about it? Remember early on in the hunt, many believed him already dead, buried deep underneath some rubble? What happened to that opinion? I haven't heard that one lately. How come?
When a big murder happens here at home, anywhere on American turf, what's usually the protocol? Well normally a bureau gets in motion, and early on some suspects are detained, some leads are pursued, sometimes mistakes are made, but usually the positives outweigh those actions, and within a very short timeframe there is a conclusion. The media attaches itself to the event and most often the story doesn't have a chance to get old. And then the legal system steps in, and the rest is left to history. We're talking hours, days, and weeks here, not years. Who's best at investigating a crime?
So who's in charge of this investigation? Give the FBI a green light to act and it's of a very high probability that this whole matter would've been resolved by now. We have to ask ourselves:
"How bad do we really want this guy?"
We could speculate that even if we get him there's a dozen just like him ready to take his place, but that's not accurate. He's unique in many ways. He's already established himself to a high prominence, and he comes with an impressive resume, reasons not to linger on matters and to move quickly despite the social and religious fall-out. None of that should be a problem if he's sitting in an obscure cave somewhere, or if he's traveling desert roads by caravan, or is disguised as a Bedouin nomad, or is well insulated within the deep protections of armed personnel in Northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, or Yemen. None of that should have a bearing on the willingness to move against him. The world is a big place, but given the technology of this era, and what intelligence should be doing, then the whole situation should've been concluded already. There should be no shortage of leads especially as they point to a location, or series of movements. So if he's not dead, where could he be given the time frame we're now sitting on? Again, the time frame suggests several things, if not incompetence in the field, then what? One thing it demonstrates, we're foreigners in a foreign land even though we've made it our business for decades to meddle in the affairs of the Middle East, but now are unable to solve a singular matter, something that many Americans are screaming for.
Suppose he's insulated in a country. Is it worth it? It's war isn't it? One of the things about the declaration of war, you follow that thing you're after until it's done. If that means crossing a border to get whatever you're after, if you know something is there, you retrieve or destroy it, then you move on until the whole mission is accomplished.
If that state says: "Get out of our country!"
Then you say: "What are you doing with these guys, why are they allowed to do what they do against us? We're at war, we've told the whole world that we are now at war, and if you're not careful, you will be too. Give them up, or we'll do whatever we choose to do. That's war brother. And by the way, we have the most sophisticated military on the planet; nobody's going to come to your aid if you make the wrong decision. If you can't help us, then we don't give a %&#$ about you. Well? You better be careful what you say. This isn't intimidation, it's just life or death."
If an established government does the wrong thing, you temporarily move within its borders until this matter is put to rest. It doesn't matter which one it is. If it's Arabia, then Arabia should have a major problem on its hands. If you know where he is, you communicate it to the world through the media, you make your move, and then you clean it all up later. Of course the risk is how much of the Muslim World will rally in response to the move, or how much of an effect it will have on the economic climate.
But do we really want him? How much are we willing to risk in order to put out part of a fire? Is it worth further destabilization of the Middle East? Or is it worth the possibility of a new shift in power with states moving away from neutrality? Is it worth gasoline doubling in price? How much power does this guy really have?
As Jerusalem is to Jews, Mecca and Medina are to Muslims. Arabia is the heart of Islam. It's not Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, nor Egypt. It's much more, and even though its oil reserves are vast, its wealth is only a small part of its power and influence over the rest of the Arab World. Remember something, America has some type of modified alliance with this country. Not only does Saudi Arabia have significant tangible wealth that much of the mechanized world is dependent upon, but it's also a holy land to a large percentage of the global population. And now, a rogue member from one of its royal families has declared war against the West. Bin Laden is Arabian. How the established government there views him isn't important, if the money is being traced to Arabia, then we have a big problem. Until the matter of enabling al-Qaida is resolved by whatever means, this so-called alliance will continue to be a sham with both sides playing a two-faced game. The roots of destruction on this one originally comes from palatial realms. We can try to freeze all of the cash we want. That doesn't address the problem, nor does it stop pumps from pumping. And it doesn't slow down the religious momentum building up in the Middle East.
Essentially, what Bin Laden is saying is this:
Okay Islam, your rest is over. It's time to get at it again with the Western World. You have a duty to protect your faith; we need to drive out those people who don't belong in our backyard. We'll take any measure available to do so. Are you with us or not?
Not only is he well funded, but the Muslim media gives him access to much of the Arab World. But again, we don't know where he is, right? Even if we did know, what could we do about it, especially if he is operating in a place that we can't enter, for whatever reason? Even if he's only the leader of a small faction that operates within the Muslim community, if he's able to move freely past borders without impediment, then what's really happening?
We're at war. Correct? War is the ultimate game. And It's On, whether any of us want to admit it or not. And in war, sides take it to the limit in order to crush eminent dangers, unless they're not really at war. And if not, then they shouldn't be using the language of war. That's playing politics, and buffaloing the people.
If we have to disrespect the borders of a so-called ally in order to begin the hunt of big game, then we should get on with it. If the social ramifications are too great, then we shouldn't displace that sentiment and become unbalanced with other unrelated endeavors elsewhere in order to make ourselves feel better, to satisfy a hunger, even if it is unresolved business. Take care of the big game before it gets away from us entirely. Did Afghanistan yield anything? Will Iraq?
Our foreign policy is a joke, at some point we have to admit it. That in no way refers to the behavior of the United Nations, rather it has everything to do with how we've come to be defined by the global community, our consumptions, our business behavior, and our relationships with respect to aiding regimes and supplying them arms. We went for Afghanistan. Iraq looks to be next. After that, who knows? But unless it's solving The Problem, all of it might be a waste of time, energy, and most of all focus.
There's a monster on the horizon.
His mission is to be the next Caliph.
The time frame suggests a stalemate.
end
D.A. Pino, editor of The Gutters of California
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
New Affordable AMD B650 Motherboard Roundup- Steve replied
-
The Best GPU for Every Price Point- themastergoose replied
