iraq

[wine4all]

No it was supposed to get your ass-hairs up!

OMG it worked too well!!!

You look like David Hasselhoff!!!!!

(For those of you who don't already know what Krusty looks like, please visit the Gallery)

And... thanks I will this is only my second cup of coffee this morning.

 

[Ridcully]

The World is lucky that there are woosies in charge, there wouldn't be one left otherwise.
America is not the only country in the world with nukes, you set off an H-Bomb in Afghanistan and their neighbours (three Russian states, India, Pakistan and Iran) won't be too happy and most of them have nukes too.
I realise that retalliation is needed but a lot of thought must be put into the probable repercussions over the form that retalliation will take. As soon as America attacks anyone a lot of support will disappear immediately. The Middle Eastern countries, China and maybe Russia will retire to a neutral corner and start shouting.
Terrorism cannot be stopped by all out war I'm afraid, it's frustrating as hell to be without a clear enemy to hit in retalliation for the attacks but that is the way it is. It is not Afghanistan that is harbouring Bin Laden, it is the Taliban and they do not even speak for the whole country.
As an example, a lot of the IRA hide across the border in Southern Ireland, would it be ok then for us to attack Dublin?
The war against Terrorism is probably going to be the most frustrating that America has ever taken part in, the enemy is for the most part faceless and has no country of origin, or at least one you can blame.

 

[krusty]

Thank God for a little sanity, good point too, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, albeit short range, but what would stop these fanatics from stealing one if they really wanted it.

And Afghanistan is surrounded by countries that would all be exposed to nuclear fallout, nah...it ain't gonna happen dreamers.

Oh yeah winey, good to see you resort to name calling dude, I hope your younger family members don't use you as a roll model.

 

[Ridcully]

Specially seeing as the Taliban has a lot of support accross the border in Pakistan.
Also with their neighbours to the north selling nukes at bargain prices who's to say that they don't already have them?

 

[wine4all]

Mabey I should switch to de-caf?

 

[wine4all]

Originally posted by Ridcully
Specially seeing as the Taliban has a lot of support accross the border in Pakistan.
Also with their neighbours to the north selling nukes at bargain prices who's to say that they don't already have them?

*thinks to self* Hmmm.... mental note: don't forget to nuke Pakistan while we're at it... Right!

 

[Ridcully]

Best take out Russia, India and Iran while you're at it.
To keep things tidy you may just as well take out China too, they'll only start lobbing them back otherwise.

 

[krusty]

Yeah go after China, but call it a mistake, after all you got one of their embassy's that way already...

 

[wine4all]

Now you're gettin' it!!!

But seriously guys, I must admit that my original comments re: nukes were in the heat of anger and I was venting in this forum. After that I was having some fun with you "blokes" and learning some things while I was at it.

If NATO condoned the use of tactical nukes I would not be against it. I am sure that the leaders of our civilized nations will make informed and rational decisions and I support them whatever that is as long as it is not a half baked solution like the one in the Gulf War. Bin Laden, his organization, the Taliban and all their supporters need to be irradicated for the safety of the world!

No hard feelings... thanks for the input.

 

[wine4all]

Originally posted by krusty
Yeah go after China, but call it a mistake, after all you got one of their embassy's that way already...

OOPS! I hate it when that happens!

My Bad!

 

[wine4all]

I had to post just one more time since this is my 300th post. WooHoo!

 

[a13antichrist]

Surely we've got weapons other than nukes that can take out whole mountains at a time?? I say let's remove a landmark..

 

[Ridcully]

Fuel-Air bombs will have much the same effect but without the fallout

 

[Gonzo]

LET'S MAKE THIS CLEAR-I AM NOT PRO NUCLEAR WEAPONS, damnit. Thery are a weapon of MASS destruction, killing everybod: American, NATO, Russian, Chinese, Taliban. bin-Laden(well, we could shove one up his ass), and the long term devastation is unbearable to think about. The leaders of NATO alliance countries have some incredibly difficult & life-altering choices to make in the future. I, for one, hope they make the right ones-and that may include the use of such weapons. We can only hope it never comes to that.

The problem that an all out asault with conventional weapons is, they too are MASS destruction killers. There is so much history in this region of the world that any war is a a loss to the archealogical preservation that has occured. Hopefully, a long lasting peace without terrorism can come from this, because we all will lose so much during it's interim.

 

[Ridcully]

Sorry about that, I was getting a little carried away, fuel-air bombs do make a nice big bang though!

Actually, after listening to Colin Powell, it looks like it will be a much more low key but long term campaign. He mentioned that it would involve political, intelligence, financial, legal and military aspects. So I think we can put the fear of nukes being used back in the cupboard for another day.
This could be the start of something big, maybe even enough to save the human race from our headlong race towards self destruction.

 

[Q]

I'm not PRO-nukes either...I expressed a knee jerk reaction earlier in this thread and I regret it now.
...anyway, I swiped this next bit from fallguy over at OCN, who has had very a very level-headed attitude and reasonable solutions during this whole ordeal. IMHO.

Originally posted by fallguy:
Hmmm,
well if nukes aren't an option (and I would expect Russia, or indeed any neighboring countries to object strongly if they were), maybe it is time to rethink the use of conventional weapons.

Reading the article, there is already a group of fighters who are opposed to bin Laden - they undoubtedly have the information needed to find the headquarters of his movement. I would expect them to be heavily fortified, probably deeply bunkered. Much like the German U-boat pens at the end of WW2. We didn't use nukes to crack them though, we used a "Grand Slam" bomb, effectively 10 tons of high explosive released from altitude which went hypersonic before hitting the ground, and then only detonated under ground. The effective of this kind of explosive is a localised earthquake that can bring down practically any bunkers known to man. Put it this way - of they can cut through 40 foot thick rebarred concrete cielings (before detonating), I'm pretty sure they could deal with anything the Taliban could make.

I'm not sure what kind of message America wants to send, but providing air support (B1 or B2's would be needed to carry the weapons - they are damn big, I doubt you would get more than 1 per aircraft)to these group(s?) would send a very serious message to anyone out there - mess with America an we will, literally, flatten you. I've seen old pictures of a Grand Slam hitting, and it is truly an amazing thing - every building for miles is shaken to pieces, as the ground literally ripples......

Fallguy

link to the article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/07/gerecht.htm