do you guys think possible war?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fraggle

Senior member
Sep 17, 2000
474
0
0
hopefully the world's approach to terrorism will become more aggressive... the gloves come off.

i mentioned in another thread my opinion that the environment in which the majority of terrorist groups currently opperate needs to be taken away. the US and her allies should announce (and enforce!) a "gihad" (sp?) against any group/org/state/country/nation that conducts or condones or encourages or harbors terrorist activities or groups. no more economic sanctions -- if a country is found to be guilty of such crimes, the US should actually attack it, destroy its military capabilities, and confiscate its resources. hopefully it would not be necessary to do this again to any other entities, if executed properly.

this particular attack on the US is a very good excuse for setting an extremely harsh, and strong example, assuming it can be determined who is ultimately responsible -- there will certainly be a understandable sense of righteousness and little sympathy worldwide for the perpetrators. We have been treating terrorists and other threats with our own rules, and not theirs... let them have cause to fear a USA that has actually reached its limits of tolerance, and is not interested in being tied up in the rhetoric of politics and mission statements. in many cases of foreign policy, it is only by the US's good graces that it explains itself and its actions... if these (according to this attack) are the rules that they want to play by, then it's time for the US to stop explaining and say "just 'cuz" when they react to end the possibilities of such acts as have happened today. "a war to end all wars" may not exist, but the groups that are responsible for/endorse these actions do not deserve to face a United States that is wearing gloves.

ps. i'm looking back at what i've written and it may be one of the harshest views i've ever publicly expressed; i DO think that my anger has played a role in my assertations and that it should be tempered, as all actions have repercussions to consider. but the philosophy stands as it is, and i believe it should be incorporated prominantly into US foreign policy in respect to terrorism. i hate that it has come to this, and i'm grieving for the people that have been and will be caught up in the current and resulting bloodshed... today i'm grieving for americans, and in the future, i will grieve for the inevitable loss of innocent lives via american retaliation... but whose fault will those deaths be? i say the terrorists.

pss. another thing; prompted by my at least partial agreement shuxclams: BOMBS are the way to go. these groups do not deserve a chance to take potshots or win a little glory at taking american lives. let them understand just how superior a military force they are facing, as they cower in their bunkers with their suitcase bombs and small arms in their laps as US bombers relentlessly pound away from miles above them. let their soviet-cloned vietnam-era mig fleets be crippled and destroyed by supersonic US air force jets from a distance 2x outside their surveillence capabilities, yet 3x within ours. let them have no hope... except that the US will take pity and allow them to reenter a world that was too kind to them by far in the first place.
 

Dark4ng3l

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2000
5,061
1
0
Yes why do you think they are deploying aircraft cariers at new york? to help with the casualities?? to rebuild /clean up the city?? no way
 

b1er

Member
Oct 9, 1999
101
0
0
I was watching the tv today when the alert birds went up(F16's). All I could think was " My God,the USAF was actually flying air cover over New York City."

B1er,
USAF
 

Cooltech2k

Banned
Feb 9, 2001
2,001
1
0
War No... Maby a few covert attacks on undisclosed targets by undisclosed attackers... Basically a World wide version of SWAT to combat terrorisim..
 

iamshady

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,907
0
0
War is imminent, we have the support of our Allies and the support of our nation. It's just who and when unfortunately.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
25,666
10,386
136
To quote the Great Bush:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them"

If I were a member of Afghanistan's current government, I would be sh!ttin bricks right now. If I were a 'rebel' fighting for restoration of the old government, I'd be throwing a party. We're gonna do this one Republican style...i.e Iran-Contra style.

WHY RISK MORE AMERICAN LIVES WHEN WE CAN JUST GIVE MONEY, ARMS AND TACTICAL/STRATEGICAL/INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO THE REBELS????
 

iamshady

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2001
1,907
0
0


<< WHY RISK MORE AMERICAN LIVES WHEN WE CAN JUST GIVE MONEY, ARMS AND TACTICAL/STRATEGICAL/INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO THE REBELS???? >>



Because with Bush at the helm, he can bomb the sh!t out of anyone without impunity.
 

flyfish

Senior member
Oct 23, 2000
856
0
0
War. Yes it will be war sooner, or later. I have heard the Middle East referred to as a "tinderbox". Has anyone here ever used a tinderbox? The flame gets bigger and bigger, then before long you have a fire you can't put out. Are you prepared to pay $10, $20 $30 dollars a gallon for oil, will the rest of the world be willing to pay quadruple or more? I think things may get out of hand this time, but I hope not.

Edit>> I meant gas, not oil. Or did I? Anyway...you get the point?
 

db

Lifer
Dec 6, 1999
10,575
292
126
One of these days you will all of a sudden hear about all these Tomahawk missils going to ______.
That will be a begining.
 

stingbandel

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2000
3,270
0
0
I am not sure there will be a war yet but one thing for sure is to get the leader of this fuking terorist.






Darno
 

yoda291

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2001
5,079
0
0
I think it depends on whether or not any nation was involved. if, say, we find that afganistan is harboring them, there is literally nothing stopping us from reducing them to smoldering overheated ash. I mean, every nation on earth is officially abhorring this act. If we prove it was the afgans or osama, every other nation has their political hands tied. OPEC wouldn't dare. They have a lot of pull in the world economy, but not that much.

BTW, if gas and oil prices went up dramatically, I wouldn't mind giving up driving and I'd sell all my comps and just keep a laptop in a hearbeat. Please note that this isn't really all that big a sacrifice as I've already sold my killer rig.
 

cbuchach

Golden Member
Nov 5, 2000
1,164
1
81
I don't necessarily think a war will be had, rather more of a military operation. It so far seems that Bin Laden is responsible for the attack. And it is about time that he go. He has been reaking havoc on the US for too long and this gives us a good excuse/international support to deal with him. A small military operation to wipe out Bin Laden and his organization seems the most likely approach.

The general sentiment of the posts here and my own feelings tend towards a quick, decisive military action. We are mad and want to blow something/someone up. With Pearl Harbor the enemy was clear and easily found. In this case the enemy is an elusive individual. He will be found in time and dealt with. However, this will take time. And our primal thirst for blood/revenge must wait.

This is a good thing so that we do not act in haste.