PDA

View Full Version : How Should the US Respond


Frazod
09-12-2001, 10:35 PM
I'm kind of surprised that no one's done this yet (unless it's buried) but I'm curious where the majority weighs in.

Frazod
09-12-2001, 10:43 PM
This poll assumes that there is a primary national interest behind this (which I believe there is).

Raiderhader
09-12-2001, 10:47 PM
Well, I needed more combinations to find exactly what I am looking for but I went with missle strikes and Special Forces strikes. The reason being that missles by themselves won't accomplish the job, that has been proved throughout the past 8 years. I guess ideally I would say send in a special forces unit to take out Bin Laden so as to have conformation that the SOB is dead, then use tactical nuke strikes on the government of the country harboring him as well as all terrorists camps in the country. If that isn't enough start taking out terrorists strongholds in other countries.

Frazod
09-12-2001, 10:52 PM
I went with Tactical Nuke Strike. Best way to deal with this bin Ladin f#cker if we get a general idea where he is, and would send a clear message - we know how you bomb people, now you know how WE BOMB PEOPLE. Shall we continue?

I know there would be consequences, but don't give a sh!t. I figure anyone who'd try to nuke us in retaliation would probably do it anyway, and maybe this way we'll take them out first or at least give them pause.

Time to quit f#cking around and pull out the big guns. I want these bastards DEAD.

Raiderhader
09-12-2001, 10:56 PM
I have no problem with using nukes on these bastards, but I want visual conformation that Bin Laden is dead. I want a special forces sniper, or a CIA operative reporting to their senior that they watched the POS hit the ground after THEY pulled the trigger. I don't want to take any chances with this, get the bastard and be sure of it, then let loose the nukes.

Frazod
09-12-2001, 11:01 PM
Jamie, ideally we'd be able to capture bin Laden alive, publically execute him and then mount his head on the wall of the Oval Office. But I doubt if we'll ever find him - the guy is way too much of a p#ssy to ever partake in a stand-up fight - he runs like diarrhea.

I also don't like the idea of our troops actually going to Afghanistan - just ask the Russians what a pain the balls that ends up being. No more American lives should be lost over this scumbag.

Hydrae
09-12-2001, 11:04 PM
I went with the simple Special Forces strike. Somehow I just have a hard time justifying killing additional thousands of innocent humans. The term innocent could and perhaps should be argued with but I do no think it will solve anything to lower ourselves to their level.

Also, I do not care whether Bin Laden was responsible for this attack or not, the S.O.B. need to die anyway! We just need to try not to make him into a martyr, you can not kill a martyr!

Raiderhader
09-12-2001, 11:05 PM
But if you don't make 100% certain that he is dead, then more American lives would be lost. Food for thought anyway.


Ast o our boys going in there, I am not talking about a typical invasion, I am talking about locating, to exact a location as is possible, where he is and drop a special forces group in and let them do their good deeds.

Brock
09-12-2001, 11:09 PM
That is not an even exchange. The death of a few in exchange for dead Americans on American soil? No. We must take away these jackals' ability to make war. Afghan, Iran, and Iraq must be removed.

DaWolf
09-12-2001, 11:14 PM
Brock,
If that's the case, why are we stopping with those 3 countries? You'd have to nuke about every country in the mideast and wipe millions off the face of the earth, because some of those terrorist networks are spread all over the place, sort of like the mob networks in the US used to be...

Frazod
09-12-2001, 11:15 PM
I personally feel we should pay them back AT LEAST 10 to 1. At the very, bare minimum. Death is the only thing these turds seem to respect - give it to them by the truckload.

Probably not a good idea to nuke the whole region, though - the Russians and Chinese would probably take great offense to massive amounts of radioactive fallout so close to home. Can't say as I'd blame them.

KCWolfman
09-12-2001, 11:17 PM
Are you guys really serious about a nuclear strike?

Don't you think that China, India, and the Russias will have something to complain about with the fallout?

Brock
09-12-2001, 11:19 PM
Dawolf - Those 3 countries account for 99 percent of the terrorists' abilities to do what they do. I did not even mention Yemen or the Sudan, who also richly deserve a solid pounding.

kcmecker
09-12-2001, 11:21 PM
whatever we do, it's definitely not the last two options. To get these kinds of people's attention is to hit them where it hurts. Remember in '84 when we bombed Qadafi? We killed some of his family and you don't hear too much about him anymore. People like this are people of action not talk, courts and laws do not affect them.

Fortunately we don't have to take a very high moral road in this situation. Whomever is responsible has lowered their standards to the lowest possible and started digging. If innocents, (in those countries, I don't think there are (ie Palestine, and that idiot who said "that's what they get for messing with Iraq." )) are killed during the retaliation, it is a causualy of war. They had every opportunity to stop it and they didn't.

I am concerned though if we take a nuclear option. Though I feel it would be most effective in sending a message, I do believe we would suffer a backlash in world opinion. But what the hell, I'm tired of my Honda always breaking down.

Frazod
09-12-2001, 11:23 PM
Yes, I am. On a minimal scale - perhaps of the Hiroshima variety. If this guy is hiding out in the mountains, it would almost certainly kill less people than the WTC bombing did. China, Russia and India would certainly be pissed, but would not be willing to go to extremes over it. When it comes down to it, WE ARE THE POWER, and they aren't.

Would make a big impression, and I'm tired of playing games with these bastards.

When you care enough to send the very best...

KCinNY
09-12-2001, 11:26 PM
I forsee a full blown high pressure diplomatic offensive aimed at "moderate" middle eastern nations(Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, etc.) to turn over with full cooperation all suspected terrorists and enemies of the US.

Coupled with this a massive strike, probably followed by military occupation against those countries directly resposible for supporting the bastards that did this. Whether it be Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan or a combination thereof.

KCWolfman
09-12-2001, 11:30 PM
Tim, Personally, I am not willing to take that risk. China now has ballastics that can reach our country, so does Russia.

I just hope that Mexico doesn't have some wayward terrorists that piss off a nation retaliating with nuclear weapons. The fallout to our country would not be acceptable. I don't see why you think that Russia or China would accept it.

Brock
09-12-2001, 11:35 PM
Carpet bombing is just fine if we don't want to use nukes.

KCWolfman
09-12-2001, 11:37 PM
Carpet Bombing did not work for President Clinton against bin Laden.

Total destruction of the government center, a forced surrender to current rebel forces, and the turnover of bin Laden is what is required - minimally. Nothing else is acceptable.

Frazod
09-12-2001, 11:39 PM
Russ, were it up to me, we'd already have done it.

And also, if it can be proved that Iraq was behind this, I would also fully advocate nuking Baghdad. But I'd damn sure clear it with Russia first. Hell, I've always thought we should team up with Russia and wipe these f#ckers out together.

I believe our primary diplomatic goal should be to strengthen our ties to Russia now that they've emerged from the Communist muck and do everything to help them stabilize their current government. They are the most useful ally we could hope to have.

But don't worry, it's not up to me. I don't foresee a presidential run in my future. Probably a good thing.

Rausch
09-13-2001, 12:15 AM
I couln't agree more with Frazod.

Right now Russia is the lady to court. We strenghten our diplomatic ties, help them rid their own corruption and maffia, we got a friend for life....


Russia could be the greatest ally this country has ever known, if it decides to do so....

KCWolfman
09-13-2001, 12:23 AM
Russia has already suffered a Chernobyl. They would not accept fallout in their country any more than we would.

Rausch
09-13-2001, 12:30 AM
MY brother married a russian woman. He's now got a russian daughter until she is able to change citizenship.


Her family called here. They wanted to assure her that the Russian people, for the most part, support us in whatever we do. But noted that there was a large percentage of Muslims there now. There are a minority who do not support us.


She also stated that they hoped we could help them eliminate their terrorism problem or press Putin to move more on that issue.

Archie F. Swin
09-13-2001, 06:45 AM
An Allied Naval presense in the Persian Gulf, The Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian Sea should be unmatched in history. An Allied force should be quickly etsblished in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and the former USSR territories. While calculated strategic Scenarios are wrought, dust off Atomic Annie and prepare for World War III.

Rain Man
09-13-2001, 09:18 AM
Sorry guys, but nukes just aren't an option. You've got over a billion people southeast of Afghanistan who wouldn't take kindly to fallout.

I think we've got three options:

1) As I stated in another thread, we go in with a full invading force to take out the government and the terrorist and set up an election mechanism. The key here would be to minimize damage to the civilian population and liberally sprinkle the countryside with humanitarian aid.

2) Otherwise, send in the real-life versions of Arnold Schwarzenegger and remove the cancers in the dark of night.

3) In an ironic move, use our economy as a weapon. Parachute an envoy with a blank check into that five percent of the country that's not controlled by the Taliban, and tell them that they've just won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Include a catalog of (low to moderate-tech) weaponry that they can choose from with an 800 number and a promise of overnight delivery. Might be interesting as well to sanction volunteer American expeditionary forces in case any Americans want to volunteer to fight alongside these gallant souls, whoever the heck they are.

As was stated earlier, carpet bombing will be useless, because 98.7 percent of that country looks like it's already been carpet-bombed. And there's nothing to be gained by turning the populace against us when I really think that most of them are not too thrilled with their own government to start with.

HC_Chief
09-13-2001, 09:26 AM
Nukes are absolutely out of the question! Bordering Afghanistan: CHINA, Pakistan and Iran. Drop a nuke in the region, start WWIII - and EVERYONE dies: including you, your families, your friends, your pets... everyone.

If Israeli intelligence reports are true, that Iraq financed the entire operation, I say we garrison their country. Gulf War II - <i>this time, we're staying</i>.

Tell the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, his family and all the members of his wacked sect. If they don't, we give the MujaHadin air cover, artillery, weapons, supplies and funding... let them take back their country from the Taliban minority. Employ NATO SpcFor 'Rainbow Six' style to take out bin Laden and his followers - wherever in the world they may be.

Tell Pakistan to stay the hell out of the conflict - unless they want NATO forces to smash their country and let the Indians garrison it.

Archie F. Swin
09-13-2001, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by HC_Chief
If Israeli intelligence reports are true, that Iraq financed the entire operation, I say we garrison their country.

Wow! I'm hearing this for the first time . . . gotta link by chance?

HC_Chief
09-13-2001, 09:32 AM
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Gaz
09-13-2001, 09:40 AM
"Of all the countries, Iraq seems the most reasonable [candidate]."

That is not good enough. "Most reasonable" is not sufficient. If hard evidence surfaces that Iraq was behind it, then declare war and go to it. But not until then.

We have evidence that Bin Laden as his people were behind previous attacks. That is enough reason to go after him and the regime that harbors him. That should be a separate track from investigation of this tragedy.

xoxo~
Gaz
Needs a stronger case than that.

Brock
09-13-2001, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Kevin
3) In an ironic move, use our economy as a weapon. Parachute an envoy with a blank check into that five percent of the country that's not controlled by the Taliban, and tell them that they've just won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Include a catalog of (low to moderate-tech) weaponry that they can choose from with an 800 number and a promise of overnight delivery. Might be interesting as well to sanction volunteer American expeditionary forces in case any Americans want to volunteer to fight alongside these gallant souls, whoever the heck they are.

Kevin, I don't know about you, but I am sick of allying this country with "rebel" regimes only to have to kill that regime ten years later when they decide they don't like the Great Satan anymore. Bin Laden is one of them. We have no friends over there except Israel. The rest are at best potential enemies.

Fat Elvis
09-13-2001, 10:07 AM
Right after the attack, you stated that you doubt that the US would do what it takes to make sure that this would never happen again. Yet now, you are reluctant to attack Iraq.

Part of the neccesary action to make sure that this doesn't happen again would be toppling regimes that have a history of state sponsored terrorism. Whether or not Iraq was definatively involved in this particular act of terrorism seems irrelevant. Supposedly the war is against "terrorism" not just the perpetrators of this act; if that is the case, you need to take out and make an example of a country that sponsors these types of activities.

You cannot do a search on the web for "state sponsored terrorism" and not have the word Iraq appear in the article.

From a militaristic and strategic standpoint, making Saddam and Iraq our whipping boys for this action (rightly or wrongly) makes a lot more sense than a full scale invasion into Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a complete and total mess--ask Russia about that.
There definately needs to be a response in Afghanistan; hit them long and hit them hard, but the military presense should be minimal as we are not prepared to fight that type of war. We simply do not have the infrastructure to logistically support a sustained campaign in that region. Soften them up with bombing, supply the rebels with whatever arms they want, and use covert operations to take out leaders

Iraq presents a whole other scenario militarily. We are already there. We have bases nearby. We have the infrastructure in place for a sustained attack. We should take down Saddam once and for all and cripple Iraq's military machine for good.

HC_Chief
09-13-2001, 10:15 AM
FE - I agree completely. Provide support to MujaHadin and let them take out the Taliban for us.

Gaz - I agree that what is reported by the worldtribune is 'not good enough'. No one should expect action based on rumor or innuendo... I'm sure we've taken the information into consideration and are looking into every possible lead.

Gaz
09-13-2001, 10:17 AM
Fat Elvis-

If I gave that impression, I erred in my typing.

If Iraq indeed financed and organized this attack, then I would declare war on Iraq and destroy them utterly.

My point was that "seems the most reasonable [candidate]" is not sufficient proof to act.

If Iraq was behind this in any way, shape or form, there is an evidence trail. As soon as our government is satisfied that the trail is established, Bush should immediately ask for a declaration of war. Then we should destroy the government of Iraq with the full and unfettered might of the US military and whichever nations chose to join us.

With that evidence, we are committing our forces to retaliation against a legitimate target, rather than just striking out at a country we don't like.

And we already know that Bin Laden is culpable in previous terrorist actions. We should now do what we lacked the will to do before. Tell the Taliban to surrender him and his henchmen. If they do not, then I take on Afghanistan as well.

Is that clearer? Often, in my haste to reply, I fail to compose quite as clearly as I would wish.

xoxo~
Gaz
Just another warmonger.

Packfan
09-13-2001, 12:26 PM
What the US should do is give Afganistan 24 hours to produce Bin Laden. When they dont, we should buldoze our way through that country and any other country he flees to. If they do produce him, you hang him by his balls in public effigy in NYC. And then you bulldoze afganistan.

Its time to fight fire with fire. Its time to take STRONG action on the countries that produce these nuts. About 15 years ago, Lybians blew up a German disco where US soldiers hung out. Ronald Reagan orderd a cruise missle be sent into the living room of Khadafi's home, killing his daughter. Since then, Khadafi has been a model citizen. The United States prefers a more civil type of justice. Unfortunately, it hasnt worked. For the safety of American, its time to end terrorism once and for all. The only way you do this is to fight fire with fire. Forget trying to bring people to justice.

Its also time to end immigration in this country. Cuba sends us its prisoners, and the middle east sends us their terrorists. We welcome them in, only to have them turn on us.

The US has been to nice to the rest of the world. We need to take care of ourselves first.

stevieray
09-13-2001, 12:31 PM
Nice post, Ken.

ChiTown
09-13-2001, 12:31 PM
It pains me to agree with PackFan, but I just may have to do it.

To borrow a line from one of my favorite movies "Untouchables"

"They put one of your guys in the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue" (or something like that). Enough with the *****-footing. It's time to get down and dirty.

Frazod
09-13-2001, 12:43 PM
That quote, from the Untouchables, is: "If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He's sends one of yours to the hospital, send one of his to the f#cking morgue. THAT'S the Chicago way."

Another quote from that movie seems very appropriate for the way I feel about those responsible for this crap:

"I want him DEAD. I want his family DEAD. I want his house burnt to the GROUND. I wanna go there in the middle of the night and P1SS ON HIS ASHES!"

That pretty much sums up how I feel at the moment. I'm getting madder by the minute. Hope GW does something soon so I can get some sort of release for all this built up rage.

ChiTown
09-13-2001, 12:52 PM
Thanks, Fraz!

I knew I f'd up the quote:o

It takes a "true" Chicagoan to pull that movie line out of his a s s;)

Right now, I'm so pissed, I could eat nails and spit out molten steel.:mad: Let's hope our action is swift, strong and and accurate as hell.

Idahojim
09-13-2001, 02:10 PM
My guess is when all is said and done that the folks at Rand McNally will be coming up for new names for Afghanistan and Iraq.

That aside, I wish that the result of all of this would be a worldwide special force (meanest Rambos from throughout the world) that would go in and wipe out ANY terrorists who attack ANY country.

International law should forbid terrorism against civilians - and there should be no tribunals or courts. Terrorize and you die. Nothing more. Nothing less.

That would at least bring some meaning to the senseless acts we've witnessed this week.

HC_Chief
09-13-2001, 02:41 PM
jim - you should read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six... it's pretty much about what you suggest. SAS, Mossad, Delta, SEAL, GH8, etc. in a combined SpcFor assault team.

Personally, I think it's a great idea!

Boise_Chief
09-13-2001, 03:21 PM
The only way to actually respond is with everything we have. If you "send a message" It will only fuel them on. You have to Mount a WAR. Gather all info from intelligence agencies from through out the world and strike. Keep striking until you have no targets. With China and Russia in bed with us on this Warm up the ICBM's (Conventional war heads). It is hard to plan and execute an attack when you are hiding and running for your life. This is not a short term plan you would have to keep attacking for years maybe decades. Midnight hit squads invasions assasination everything. Pick up a big bat and play hard ball.

Boise.

Frazod
09-13-2001, 06:42 PM
Moving this back to the front page.

I must say that I am happy to see no votes for negotiating or blustering.

I would also add that I've rethought my position on the tac nuke, and after calming down a bit (I was pretty pissed last night), realize that it would not be the smart move - too many people and countries whose support we will need in any action would be outraged and would at the least not help us. All I can say is that I'm a rather emotional guy, and have learned from hard experience that the initial, angry response is generally not the best one.

If I could change my vote, I would - to large scale conventional attack followed by occupation.

Mile High Mania
09-13-2001, 07:02 PM
You know how world leaders and these types of people like to quote former leaders, authors, the bible, etc? Well, I'm waiting for the moment when Bush addresses the world and states his plan, something like...

"The people of America have spent the past 78 hours in anguish, saddened by the cowardly acts of terrorists nations. At this time, the United States, with full support of NATO and our allies, is prepared to retaliate with direct, decisive and unholy force. I have but one message for the individuals responsible for this act and the people harboring them. Quoting the great philosopher Booger ... 'I say we blow the ****ers up!' Good night and God bless America."

I hope nobody takes offense to that remark, and I also hope that you catch the movie reference. Anyway, I'm just ready to hear our plan of attack. This SOB must pay.

Raiderhader
09-13-2001, 08:33 PM
I have been thinking about the best way to do this, and while I don't have a whole plan, I do have the strating stages.

First we send in a SpecForc group (I prefer pure American, I don't dig this NATO talk, and for this action anyway should be only American) to bag Bin Laden (take him out alive for live torture and killing back in the states if it doesn't bring up too many tactical headaches, otherwise just kill 'em on the spot). After words you take out the taliban with a tactical missle strike follwed by US occupation of the country. While at the same time taking out the taliban, drop a nuke right on Saddam's presidential palace, followed with eventual (after it is safe to go in) occupation of the country. After this a longer term plan can start to unfold. Now i know most of you have come out against the use of nukes, but is there any way you could sign off on just this one in bahgdad? if not explain why and I'll modify the plan accordingly.


Hader,
Iraq has been a thorn in our side for too long

cheeeefs
11-22-2004, 10:40 AM
was reading through the archives, thought some might be interested in re-reading this post. Quite interesting.

KCWolfman
11-22-2004, 11:10 AM
Carpet Bombing did not work for President Clinton against bin Laden.

Total destruction of the government center, a forced surrender to current rebel forces, and the turnover of bin Laden is what is required - minimally. Nothing else is acceptable.
Wow, I was pretty smart three years ago.

Two out of three is not acceptable, however. We need to finish all of the above.

Fat Elvis
11-22-2004, 11:24 AM
Right after the attack, you stated that you doubt that the US would do what it takes to make sure that this would never happen again. Yet now, you are reluctant to attack Iraq.

Part of the neccesary action to make sure that this doesn't happen again would be toppling regimes that have a history of state sponsored terrorism. Whether or not Iraq was definatively involved in this particular act of terrorism seems irrelevant. Supposedly the war is against "terrorism" not just the perpetrators of this act; if that is the case, you need to take out and make an example of a country that sponsors these types of activities.

You cannot do a search on the web for "state sponsored terrorism" and not have the word Iraq appear in the article.

From a militaristic and strategic standpoint, making Saddam and Iraq our whipping boys for this action (rightly or wrongly) makes a lot more sense than a full scale invasion into Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a complete and total mess--ask Russia about that.
There definately needs to be a response in Afghanistan; hit them long and hit them hard, but the military presense should be minimal as we are not prepared to fight that type of war. We simply do not have the infrastructure to logistically support a sustained campaign in that region. Soften them up with bombing, supply the rebels with whatever arms they want, and use covert operations to take out leaders

Iraq presents a whole other scenario militarily. We are already there. We have bases nearby. We have the infrastructure in place for a sustained attack. We should take down Saddam once and for all and cripple Iraq's military machine for good.


Good grief. I can't believe I actually said that....

Pennywise
11-22-2004, 12:54 PM
We should bombard them with TTYL Nukes (http://img40.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img40&image=feuerfreimovie.swf).

cash1000
11-22-2004, 01:16 PM
It's called Armageddon, already been planned!

Rausch
11-22-2004, 01:28 PM
I couln't agree more with Frazod.

Right now Russia is the lady to court. We strenghten our diplomatic ties, help them rid their own corruption and maffia, we got a friend for life....


Russia could be the greatest ally this country has ever known, if it decides to do so....

Wow, was this guy off base...