Yes, and an arab terrorist went ahead and destroyed the World Trade Center. Doesn't that qualify as messing with us first?
No. The meaning of "messing" has already been debated in the Security Council, with France, Germany, China, and Russia ruling that 9/11 was a case of mass coincidental "pilot error" occuring simultaneously on 4 aircraft. It took the US veto to counter what would have been UN Resolution 10,456,872: 9/11 was a plot by the CIA to attack its own country.
Is it the only alternative that you see? How about withdrawing from the Middle East completely. 9-11 happened just because of the US foreign policy towards the Arabs in this region. Do you think that sending young people to die there for someone else's shortsighted goals is a moral thing to? And what if I killed you because I thought that you were dangerous to me? I would call this a 'pre-emptive killing'. Well, nice name, but to me this amounts to a plain murder, and so fortunately you are safe because I don't kill people just because they can be dangereous to me, but I reserve the right to do so if they attack me. That I consider moral and civilized in the first place. And I don't care if Saddam is moral or not. That's selfrighteousness. If you want to change the world start from yourself instead of forcing others to do so. Yes, I know, it's easier to force others when you are the greatest power in the world... I am afraid, Cathy, that you might be right, but I do hope that you are wrong. And I hope that this war is over very soon, except that I doubt it will be. I am really surprised that this subject appeared on this board so late. It's well overdue.
It's reassuring to know someone with your level of ignorance is in the market, Wally. Slaughtering defenseless civilians en masse because you don't like their government's foreign policy? By that reasoning the US is justified to slaughter French, German, and Turkish civilians because, well, what the hey, their foreign policy sucks?? Someone once said "Never argue with a fool, someone from a distance may not be able to tell who's who." So I won't argue - you must be absolutely right! Good luck to you.
No, no, no, no, and yes. I think we will have more 9-11 type events. I do not think we will ever have World War III in the classic sense due to Nukes. Guaranteed annihilation pretty much prevents this. I believe we would use nukes only if our soil is invaded. I believe some other major powers may do the same. just my 2 cents for what its worth. Jay
Let us hope we never see a 9/11-type event with nukes used against us. There is no "guaranteed annihilation" against an enemy that has no defined geographical border.
This is true. But it still wouldn't be WW III. Unfortunately, I think its just a matter of time before some pissed off radical gets a small nuke into the US. Boom.
>>If you want to change the world start from yourself instead of forcing others to do so. Yes, I know, it's easier to force others when you are the greatest power in the world...<< Well Wally, starting off with changing oneself first, that has been a method which has been tried and failed for the last 2000 years. Remember , that is what your good mate and leader Jesus preached. So that solution is virtually ruled out as well as unworkeable. In fact it could be argued that it is the Church(es) which have been one of the greatest offenders of wanting to change others by force, contraryto their teaching. freealways
It could be more serious than we think. We gave Russians a protracted war with Afghanistan, supplying them with all kinds of arms, surface to air missiles, antitank weaponry, intel.. Payback time now? Baghdad, Iraq -- US Surprised Iraq Using AT-14 Antitank Missile By Ron Synovitz RFE/RL correspondent Ron Synovitz is embedded with a unit of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division currently outside Najaf, a city in central Iraq now encircled by U.S. troops following 36 hours of heavy fighting. He reports that U.S. troops are encountering an unanticipated, and formidable, weapon in the Iraqi arsenal -- Russian-built Kornet antitank missiles. Najaf, Central Iraq (RFE/RL) -- U.S. military intelligence is warning American troops that Iraqi soldiers have begun to use a wire-guided missile system against American tanks that the U.S. military previously did not know they possessed... It is called the AT-14 Kornet surface-to-surface missile. It has a range of 3.5 kilometers, and it is emerging as the Iraqis' most effective direct-fire weapon against U.S. armor in the desert of southern Iraq. Iraqi commandos traveling in three-man teams dressed in black civilian robes and riding in Nissan pickup trucks have been moving against the flanks of columns of armor from the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division and launching broadside attacks from several kilometers away using the system. Those attacks have already disabled at least two Abrahms tanks and one Bradley armored troop carrier. U.S. military intelligence officials are extremely interested in capturing one of the missiles intact. They also are instructing American soldiers who destroy one of the Kornet launchers to save the remains of the system for close inspection. The Kornet is a Russian-built missile system developed by the KBP Instrument Design-Making Bureau in Tula. It is primarily designed to destroy tanks, but can also be used against fortifications, entrenched troops, and small-scale targets. It has been used by the Russian Army and has reportedly been sold to the Syrian Army. The appearance of the Kornet system in Iraq is of particular interest to U.S. officials because of a recent dispute with Moscow over its alleged weapons sales to Baghdad. The U.S. State Department has accused KBP of supplying Iraq with the Kornet missiles, something KBP and Moscow have vehemently denied. In a phone call on 24 March with U.S. President George W. Bush, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the American allegations of Russian sales of missiles, night-vision goggles, and radio-jamming equipment were "groundless." The AT-14 Kornet is a wire-guided missile system. In such a system, the missile literally pulls a thin wire along behind it as it moves toward its target. Those who fire the Kornet control it by keeping the sights of their launcher trained on the target. That way, the missile can be guided at moving targets like tanks and armored troop carriers. As a direct-fire weapon, the missile travels in a straight line, rather than in an arc, as it would with mortar or howitzer artillery. Direct fire is considered more effective than indirect-fire weapons like the mortar artillery because the person who is firing the weapon can see the target himself, rather than relying on forward troops to spot and provide information on where the target is. But the need to keep a Kornet launcher's sights locked on the target means that it must remain stationery after it has fired. After a Kornet missile has traveled 3.5 kilometers, the guidance wire has completely uncoiled and breaks. The missile then becomes erratic, no longer able to lock onto the target. Another disadvantage of wire-guided missiles is that they cannot be fired over trees, power lines, telephone lines, or water. That's because the wire will snag and break, or will malfunction, disabling the guidance system. That means the Kornet will lose its effectiveness against U.S. tanks once the U.S. forces advance near the canals and power lines around Baghdad. But for now, in the open desert, the Kornet's 3.5-kilometer range is helping Iraqi forces to equalize the advantage that U.S. weapons have had in earlier battles in this war because of their superior range. A U.S. Abrahms tank has an effective range of 3 kilometers and can destroy targets as far away as 4 kilometers: The range of depleted-uranium ammunition fired from the 25-millimeter chain gun of a Bradley troop carrier is classified information, but I have seen that weapon fired in battle here in Iraq and it rivals that of the Kornet WWIII? possibly. Region is getting destabilized. This is not a cakewalk. Remember, we are invading their country. Syria is helping, Iran is acting the same, and they have already admitted to nuclear programs. I know the responses now, let's take them commies out, nuke them to kingdom come yes this could be veeeerrrrrryyyyy serious :eek: :eek:
North Korea and the US 'on a slide towards conflict' Tracy McVeigh Sunday April 6, 2003 The Observer War in North Korea is now almost inevitable because of the country's diplomatic stalemate with America, a senior UN official claims. Ahead of this week's crucial talks between members of the UN Security Council, Maurice Strong, special adviser to the Secretary General Kofi Annan, was gloomy on the chances of a peaceful settlement. 'I think war is unnecessary, it's unthinkable and unfortunately it's entirely possible,' he said. Strong, who has just returned from a private mission for Annan in North Korea and is due to report to UN officials in New York tomorrow, said he felt both North Korea and America seemed to think they had time on their side but were both on a slide towards war. On Wednesday the UN security council will hear America's demand for sanctions against North Korea, which it accuses of planning to develop nuclear weapons. The Communist state has already said it would regard any such move as an 'act of war' and yesterday further warned that it would ignore any UN resolutions on the issue. It believes its dispute is solely with the US and wants direct talks with Washington - something the American government has refused to even consider. 'The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula is not something that should be discussed at the United Nations,' said the state KCNA news agency in Pyongyang. North Korea fervently believes it is next on America's list for pre-emptive strikes, says Strong. It takes George Bush's rhetoric in his 'axis of evil' speech as a very real threat to its national security. Washington says it seeks a diplomatic end, but has not ruled out a military solution. 'There is such a complete breakdown of trust and confidence between these two countries that they are now unable to read the intentions of the other so there is real potential now for this to escalate into conflict,' Strong said. He said the North Koreans were prepared for war but 'anxious for peace'. The stand-off between the two nations first flared in October when US officials said North Korea had admitted having a secret nuclear programme in violation of a 1994 agreement. As punishment, Washington and its allies suspended promised oil shipments. North Korea retaliated by taking steps to reactivate mothballed facilities capable of making nuclear bombs and withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also deported UN monitors. It claims it pulled out of the treaty because non-nuclear countries were supposed to be protected by nuclear powers like the US, not threatened. Meanwhile, North Korea accused Japan yesterday of plotting a pre-emptive strike following recent calls from Tokyo to beef up the country's defence capabilities against the Communist nation. Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba said on Friday that Japan had a right to launch a strike on foreign soil if an attack is deemed imminent. In the last two months Pyongyang has tested at least two short-range missiles. In 1998 it launched a ballistic missile over Japan's main island into the Pacific Ocean, showing that any target in Japan was within its range. http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,930570,00.html