|
Author
|
Topic: Haze gray and underway!
|
BULLET
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 01:45 AM
   
Just talked to an old Navy buddy in S.D. and the the "totally unofficial rumor" is that there are 2 carriers already underway and approx. 3 Boomers on station in the IO.Nothing warms my heart like the thought of Hornets armed to the teeth turning up their engines as cat steam drifts across the deck. The smell of JP5 and salt air blows past the JBD's as the carrier turns into the wind. The afterburners roar and the deck shudders as the Hornets are hurled out over the ocean. Like the brightest star in the sky they fly into the sunrise. To my brothers in the Navy, Freedom isn't free. Its time to go to work. Good luck! GO NAVY! IP: Logged |
semmern
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 03:18 AM
Aaah, that was wonderful  .IP: Logged |
gt
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 03:37 AM
Personaly I hope there will be a 'chirurgical' strike and not a 'area bombing'  ....so my whishes are more like 'Strike Hard Strike Sure', with no major war at the end of all this!
gt
IP: Logged |
BULLET
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 06:10 AM
You know, thats the only problem I have with all this. There's no real clear objective. It seems that we are just going to go kick some afgan ass for a while. Then when we have worked it out of our system we'll just come home. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for that! We should've done that a long time ago. Say one of our bombs turns old osama into the grease spot he deserves to be. How are we ever going to know? We could end up fighting a ghost for years. What if they fake his death? Maybe snipers are the way to go. IP: Logged |
gt
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 06:54 AM
Mhhhm yes snipers...I like even more this idea. But to me this looks like something 'hidden' (no big CNN coverage), America now needs a 'big show' to prove the world that they're ready to fight...the sad part is, that always the wrong people will (and have)suffer/ed...just a 'penny tought' gt IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 08:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BULLET:
You know, thats the only problem I have with all this. There's no real clear objective. It seems that we are just going to go kick some afgan ass for a while. Then when we have worked it out of our system we'll just come home.
I think you're right in general, but perhaps wrong in the specific. The prez has been pretty clear on the idea that anyone who _harbours_ terrorisim will now be a target regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with _this_ attack. So by hitting Afganistan (if that's where they're going) they still acomplish this goal regardless. BTW it's VERY important people know what happend in Afganistan. The war there is NOT about religeon, it's about the two ethnic groups that live there. After the Sovs pulled out they left a gov in command that was made up almost entirely of the minority group in the north. The southern group (can't remember the names, pullani or something like that) was pissed off as you might expect, and backed anyone with enough power to oust them. That happened to be the Taliban, who quite literally bought off all of the south with oil money from SA and then walked north. The thing is no one wants them there. The northerners certainly don't (and look on a map, see where Kabul is?) and it seems a very large percentage of the city folk would rather them just go away. All this terrorism is really a sideshow in their lives. So there's a very real chance that as soon as the ord starts falling there will be a coup, bin Laden will be handed over on a silver platter, and that will be that. So there definitely is the possibility of an end to this, and a quick one. Perhaps even more importantly, I think the secondary goal of uniting the worlds governments, even the ones that don't like the US, against terrorism could have long lasting effects. Maury
IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 10:21 AM
The terrorists who where on the planes had been in the U.S., Canada and Germany for the last 5 years training. Unfortunatly, WE were harboring terrorists.
I'm afraid that as long as there are wealthy radical Muslims, there will be a risk of similar attacks.IP: Logged |
Pachy
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 04:23 PM
quote:
I'm afraid that as long as there are wealthy radical Muslims, there will be a risk of similar attacks.
Well. There is a tiny part of them that really thinks we (westerners) are evil and should be destroyed. There is a significant part of them that was not originally convinced of that, but since they are in a state of extreme frustration and anger have decided to support and fund the former. My opinion is that terrorism must be cured as well as fought. Do whatever you want to Bin Laden and his followers, but do not forget to do the other part: remove sources of extreme anger and frustration by, for example, supporting peace efforts in the middle east. So that nobody will listen to the next Bin Laden wannabee.
IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 04:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lothar:
The terrorists who where on the planes had been in the U.S., Canada and Germany for the last 5 years training. Unfortunatly, WE were harboring terrorists.
I'm afraid that as long as there are wealthy radical Muslims, there will be a risk of similar attacks.
Lothar, "harbor" means to knowingly aid and hide. When you say "WE" just who do you mean? They "lived" here but did not receive any government or law enforcement protection like they are in other countries, and would have been arrested if "WE" knew what they were up to. We aren't going to attack Canada because some terrorists may have lived there. IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 04:41 PM
Pachy, Clinton, despite his faults, pursued a pretty strenuous middle-east peace policy. It was during his administration that bin Laden's network grew the most. He as been linked to the 93 WTC bombing, the US embassy bombings in Africa and the USS Cole attack. What did Clinton's efforts gain us?Bottom line, the terrorists want us completely out of the middle east and to abandon Israel. Nothing less will satisfy them. How can you broker peace with people who will settle for nothing less than complete victory? IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 04:59 PM
Jerry, you missed my point. It seems possible for these terrorists to train and live in a country without any support from that country. This means that they could literally be anywhere, even in countries which are hostile to terrorism such as the US. All they need are ideas and money, and a nice condo in Florida near a flight school.
This widens our target from "countries which harbor terrorists" to "countries which have citizens with dangerous ideas and money and the ability to make phone calls to Florida", a considerably bigger target.IP: Logged |
Pachy
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 05:09 PM
Yup, Bin Laden is not in the "curable" portion of my theory. I don't think that "abandoning Israel" is in order. But if you/we could reach a status where both sides have reasonable security (that means no more terrorist attacks inside Israel and no more Israelian military killing Palestinian civilians on a daily basis), there would be far less incentive to terrorism. IP: Logged |
Psi
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 05:34 PM
It will take the majority of the world to curb the terrorist threat. If the world is unified and all the borders are closed on those countries that harbor terrorists and after the US has done all the dirty work we can at least limit their ability to get into our world. And if there are more attacks we will know exactly where to look...P IP: Logged |
Nat
JAG
|
posted 09-16- 06:44 PM
Sorry Lothar, but it seems like you yourself have completely missed the point. The "War" is against terrorism and any country which harbors them, OK, the part about harboring I think you understand, but you haven't quiet got the other part, just because terrorists live in other countries in hiding, doesn't mean if we find them we go to war with that country. Whats happening here is that most if not all the western world is involved in seeking them out, if they are found they are captuerd or killed, everyone knows that there are terrorists hiding in maney countries, those of us in Europe have lived in the real world for a long time now, this isn't news to us and we've always tried to combat terrorism when we can, why do you think airport security is so tight here.Maybe it's me missing your point. We will always be at risk of attack, but that's nothing new, the point is to do our best to make sure these groups are chased and stopped actively, rather than waiting for them to do something first. But an atack of this size will in all probibilty be a one off, especialy now that we're hunting them. It's all about taking the fight to them, ot allowing them time to regroup, making sure that any country that even things of harboring them knows what the result wil be when they get found out, it's about taking down these large powerful terrorist groups in any way possible and where ever they are found. Tis wont stop the odd carbomb ect, but will stop and large attacks. At the end of the day, the only other option is to do nothing, or try to talk peace with people that only know about death, Bill Clinton tried, it had to be tried, but it hasn't worked (I dont criticise him for trying at all), now is the time to take this to a level terrorists understand, and at the end of the day, they can't win. IP: Logged |
Nat
JAG
|
posted 09-16- 06:50 PM
quote:
This widens our target from "countries which harbor terrorists" to "countries which have citizens with dangerous ideas and money and the ability to make phone calls to Florida", a considerably bigger target.[/B]
Not at all, countries that don't think like us are't a target at all, what are in our opinion "dangerous ideas" sould never be put down, or have you suddenly become a facist? Or, we could declare war on Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Jordan, Lebenon, Cuba Chile ect ect ect. The point is allowing different ways of thinking is exactly what democracy is, but forcin g your ideas on other people isn't. From what you are saying above, we should make war on ourselves because we don't agree with the Palistinians! People are allowed to believe what they want, wether we like it or not, but they are not allowed to use terror or military force to push these ideas on others.
IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 09:38 PM
Sorry Nat, I was using overly broad language. When I said "dangerous ideas" I meant "plans for terrorist attacks". It seems as if money and an idea are all that a foreign terrorist would need, once he has a staff, the planning, training and execution can all be done inside our borders.IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 09-16- 10:13 PM
The top planers and organizers would never put themselves at such risk by staying in the coutry they are going to attack. They send their hinchmen.IP: Logged |
Nat
JAG
|
posted 09-16- 10:22 PM
OK Lothar, I see your point, but that to me shows even more that we need to do this, if we hunt them down and keep them on their back foot, attack countries that harbor them so that others are less likely to, we can keep them running for a change, and hopefully wipe out some of the more active groups, or atleast cut down the time they have to put together effective plans. I see this as better than leaving them alone and giving them all the time they need to plan. Lets hope this is what happens.~Nat~ IP: Logged | |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
