InstantForum.NET v4.1.41BC Civ Forumshttp://www.1bcciv.com/forums@1bcciv.comThu, 08 Jan 2009 08:12:29 GMT20http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxWow. I did not think I would have to read that much the next time I came back. Facinating reads everyone. [QUOTE] I would suggest a threat to bomb a muslim site would encourage a terroist attack... Hate breeds hate. [/QUOTE]A threat might, but action would make the people think twice about following through with their leaders orders.[QUOTE] There was 3k 'insurgents' in Iraq prior to the US invasion. There are 30k now. [/QUOTE]True, but where did they come from? Most are not Iraqis but from Syria and Iran. Short term, it is good that they are fighting in Iraq and not the U.S. Long term, who knows.[QUOTE] Thinking as a terrorist... I bomb something, America bombs something of ours, new terrorists inspired, cycle repeat! [/QUOTE]That is not thinking as a terrorist. It is thinking rationally. They actually think that the West will cave... eventually... oh because it has.[QUOTE] PART ONE [/QUOTE] [IMG]emot/Shocked/shocked006.gif[/IMG]Seared, Ness and LC, you have heard one 'solution' to the terrorist problem and have voiced your disagreements. What 'solution' do you have for the problem? What should be done that is not being done? I think that the best way to convince those who disagree is to provide a superior plan.Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:49:58 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxI think That sum's it up quite well.Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:24:52 GMTToskhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxTosk, are you trying to assert that Rome fell, and the US could fall because of: (a) diffidence about maintaining national security by sufficiently supporting, and properly organizing the military; (b) deluded, self-defeating, and unsustainable cultural and political movements that reduce solidarity and commonality within the plethora of people who enjoy the civilization(s); and (c) disconnection of leadership and people, leaders who simply follow votes instead of principles (one is reminded of "I voted FOR the invasion before I voted against it . . ." for which Mr. Kerry and his party was so famous last fall)?Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:26:54 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxWhen using the Roman Empire to Illustrate or reinforce your point by comparing them to the U.S. if would be advisable to read, or read again, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and "The Modern Romans". Not only read but understand the points the authors are attempting to make.1) Militarily The Legion was still a formidable fighting force. But It was not the old Legion. The 90% Roman, drafted, professional force of earlier times was gone. It was now an all volunteer force that had a ratio of 6 foreigners to 4 Romans, and had been cut to half its strength, due to the belief that a leaner military with fast deployment capability (due to the Roman road system) was more cost effective than the older larger on site military. Only the NCO's and officers were still professional soldiers and even some of them were not Roman any more. In addition they were no longer led by proven military men, that had earned their ranks in combat, but by appointed political hacks. Kinda, sorta sounds like the U.S. military today to a lesser extent. ;)2) The empire was divided east and west and nearly at odds with each other as much as with "outside" interests. Both halves plotted with outside interests to get a leg up on the other half. A "if we are going down lets make sure they go down first" attitude.Kinda, sorta like LC's Jesus land map right? ;)3) And most importantly the leaders looked upon the people as the mob, they had no concerns for them other than taxing them. They were not answerable to them, and for the most part, felt that they really had no need of them. They had massive welfare programs, (Give them bread and keep them barefoot) a massive non Roman population, (who could give a flying fig who was in charge as long as they got their bread) multiculturalism throughout the empires, (can't we just all get along) elections were by assassination, (real assassination not character assassination)Get a couple cronies, whack the guy, take over, pardon the perps, sit back and await your turn. ;)Not at all unlike U.S. Politics. heheheThe above is quite simplified but those are the highlights of the causes of the fall. There is a ton of reading and diagnosis available out there have fun with the comparisons to the U.S. Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:54:25 GMTToskhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxScipio, if asking why sends me barking up the wrong tree every so often and I end up with a conspiracy theory, so be it.But I'd much rather ask 'why' rather than spending your life justifying without even being able to remember why it is you're defending that point. So have you beaten your wife and spent the next years justifying and re-justifying why she deserved it until you can't even remember why you hit her in the first place yet?Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:51:35 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] do you think, Scip, that bombing these structures, or even threatening to bomb these structures would pacify Islam Nation? [/QUOTE]Atlanta, 1860. I figure about 5% of the white people living there felt actual STRONG support for slavery, maybe 10%. These are the guys who would rather die than live in an abolitionist state.Another 10-15% felt supportive, though less so. This second group would probably not speak up spontaneously, nor act proactively, but would eagerly follow the lead of the first segment. This segment would also fight to the death with earnest, but was perhaps more subject to the vagaries of a situation, and might decide in any particular instance that self-preservation outweighed dying for the cause.Then you probably had about a 10% segment who, deep-down inside felt an incredible mixture of feelings, at some level, they felt slavery was wrong, but at another level their desire to fit in, to succeed, to have social identity, etc., led them to side with the Confederates most of the time. These folks would certainly enlist, and might even have felt a sense of pride, or even a heroic surge at times, but even more than segment two, they would readily save their own life instead of die for the cause.Then you've got another 10 or 20% who are truly ambivalent. They don't really care about slavery, and they don't really care about dying for the confederacy. Still, either because of proscribed social expectations, or no apparent other options, or a feeling of peer pressure, or whatever, they probably still would provide ambient support to the Confederate cause. As long as the cause seemed not to be "hopeless" it was easier and logical for them to keep their stock in the cause of the society in which they found themselves and to go along with what the outspoken minority was saying and doing.The remaining 50 or so percent were folks who all shared the strong sense that slavery was wrong, and they didn't want fight or die for the cause of the Confederacy, but evinced a varying degree of resistance to or anathema to that cause. Some of these folks probably even fought for the Confederacy, lent support in a variety of ways, and contributed to the cause, simply because they felt they had no other option. Some probably fled to the north as soon as possible. Some, were probably caught and killed.My numbers may be somewhat off, and the exact permutations will of course vary from society to society through history, but the basic point remains valid. It only takes a small percentage of powerful advocacy within a society to drive a revolution, even a violent, horrific revolution. The fact that the Jihadist movement spans many nations, and is explicitly advocated by only a small minority of Muslims spread dissolutely through those nations, does not exonerate the other 40-some-odd percent who are basically "going along with it," being sympathetic to it, and acting in complicity. Those people must CEASE to be quiet, apathetic, complicit, else actively supportive. That is how this "war" will end, when the 40-some-odd percent (or whatever number it is, it may be as high as 75%) of Muslims who provide the social foundation in which Jihadism has thrived stop providing that foundation, then the war will taper out. Until then, the only real option is to escalate until such time as that complicit segment ceases it's complicity. This is because, as Atrans points out, backing down, or reforming their socieites (e.g., reducing poverty, increasing literacy) MAY NOT WORK, and may in fact only lead to escalation of the Jihadist violence.Do we want to fiddle around trying out tactics that MAY NOT WORK? Or do we want to simply do what we KNOW will work, based on historical precedent? At minimum, the Muslim world should appreciate the nature of the sleeping dog which it has been taunting. We Anglophone Westerners are certainly not perfect. But being slow to anger, and being generally good natured is at this point in history, one of our strong suits. Winston Churchill commented on how this tendency contributed to complacency about Nazi rearmament in the 1930s. Despotic leaders, and people enamored with despotic regimes have a tendency to view democratic peoples as being decadent, weak-willed, un-disciplined, weak-spirited, easily coerced. Perhaps they're right a lot of the time, turn the other cheek and all that. But the truth is, the only nation to ever unleash nuclear armaggedon was the U.S.A., the very same nation which Osama, and other Al Qaeda pundits critique as being weak, cowardly, and squeamish. It may take a while for a democracy to become truly resolved to win, but when it does, it will.Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:28:18 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxMy comments: [quote]It certainly would not stop future attacks. Rather, it would eventually result in the destruction of humanity and life as we know it on this planet.[/quote]This was in response to a statement about the threat of bombing Islamic holy structures in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere...Scip's retort: [QUOTE]Two simple question to Ness and LC. Did the Japanese agree to surrender unconditionally either before or after the first bomb was dropped?Did the Japanese agree to surrender unconditionally AFTER the second bomb was dropped? [/QUOTE]There's one minor difference here. Japan was one nation. Islam nation, if you will, consists of nearly a billion citizins spread out over many nations. So getting back to my original point, which seeming was not addressed, do you think, Scip, that bombing these structures, or even threatening to bomb these structures would pacify Islam Nation? I'm not just talking about the terrorists here, or even those Muslims that, while not engaging, are sympathetic to the terrorists, I'm talking about every last one of 'em. You think we see fireworks on the Fourth of July??? Just threaten their most holy objects, and now we're talkin' end of the world type fireworks!Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:29:36 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] Curious, when America was attacked and it's 2 great buildings fell, what was it's leader doing? Oh yeah.. reading to children. And when he was told about the events [/QUOTE]Your conspiracy theories may save you from reality for the rest of your life Seared. Keep on truckin!Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:32:21 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxKay scipio, I've given a read, but a post like that deserves quite a bit more thought in a response and I would like to ask a couple questions... But they can wait as I'm running out of time. Though the Roman bit I can touch on now... [QUOTE]Is it an accident that we have the phrase “fiddling while Rome burns?”[/QUOTE]You've got great examples normally Scipio, but you've missed the Roman mark horribly. Rome didn't fall to barbarians, Rome fell to itself. The late and exceedingly inbred Emproer Nero did fiddle as the walls of Rome fell... He actually played a fiddle as the walls fell. It's what happens when your royal line is composed of a family pole and not a tree. Rome fell to it's own greed, surperiority complex, and eventual ineptitude of it's politicans. Rome was so corrupt that bribes is the only thing that kept them moving. Wanna know a scary difference between Rome and the current US? To my knowledge atleast, Nero wasn't involved in any business with the barbarians prior to the fall of Rome. [URL=http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html]Bush [/URL] on the other hand has numerous ties to the enemy he seeks. You wonder why Osama isn't even hunted anymore.... Guess who got paid off?Corrupted politicians and an arrogant population brought down the Roman empire. Curious, when America was attacked and it's 2 great buildings fell, what was it's leader doing? Oh yeah.. reading to children. And when he was told about the events... What did he do? Kept reading to the children for anotehr 10 minutes. Nero fiddled, Bush read.addited cause my grammar sucksSat, 13 Aug 2005 20:34:34 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxPART THREENow what does he have to say about how to fight back? Well first off, “The last line of defense” is preventing bombers from reaching targets. This is every inefficient, and costly. “A middle line of defense, penetrating and destroying recruiting organizations and isolating their leaders, may be successful in the near term, but even more resistant organizations could emerge instead. The first line of defense is to drastically reduce receptitivity to potential recruits to recruiting organizations. But how? Raising literacy may have no effect, and could be counterproductive should greater literacy translate into greater exposure to terrorist propaganda . . . Lessening poverty may have no effect, and could be counterproductive if poverty reduction for the entire population amounted to a downward redistribution of wealth that left those initially better off with fewer opportunities than before. Ending occupation or reducing perceived humiliation may help, but not if the population believes this to be a victory inspired by terror (e.g., Israel’s apparently forced withdrawal from Lebanon). If suicide-bombing is crucially (though not exclusively) an institution-level phenomenon, it may require finding the right mix of pressure and inducements to get the communities themselves to abandon support for institutions that recruit suicide attackers. One way is to so damage the community’s social and political fabric that any support of suicide attacks collapses, as happened regarding the kamikaze as a by-product of the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the present world, however, such a strategy would neither be morally justifiable nor practical to implement, given the dispersed and distributed organization of terrorist institutions among distantly separated populations that collectively number in the hundreds of millions”He suggests that fostering “moderates” within these societies is one option, though I cannot see how he sees it as a realistic one. And closes by saying “For no evidence (historical or otherwise) indicates that support for suicide terrorism will evaporate without complicity in achieveing at least some fundamental goals that suicide bombers and supporting communities share. Of course, this does not mean negotiating over all goals, such as Al-Qaeda’s quest to replace the Western-inspired system of nation-states with a global caliphate, first in Moslem lands and then everywhere. Unlike other groups, Al-Qaeda publicizes no specific demands after martyr actions. As with an avenging army, it seeks no compromise. But most people who currently sympathize with it might. Perhaps to stop the bombing we need research to understand the configurations of psychological and cultural relationships are luring and binding thousands, possibly millions, of mostly ordinary people into the terrorist organization’s martyr-making web.”While I sympathize with Atran’s imperative here to do more research, I frankly do not see how he can be so clear-headed about the facts of the matter, and yet so obtuse about what might be required to end the conflict. He says in his last paragraph “This call for research may demand more than any administration could politically tolerate during times of crisis,” meaning that, the “solution” which he is proposing is simply not pragmatic! While “research” on the Japanese Kamikaze phenomenon might have been nice to have in 1943, and had it existed in sufficient quantity, and quality MIGHT have provided some “secret propaganda weapon” which could have been deployed to bring the war to an end as quickly as did the A-bombs. But, was it realistic to think that this was a real solution? It would be like telling a cancer patient, “you can either have surgery, which is 75% likely to save you, but which is 33% likely to kill you. OR, you can wait until we finish this research we’re doing on this new chemo-therapy. We don’t know when it will be finished, nor if it will actually lead to a cure, but we think it might.”I say, surgery, now. Lets get it over with, and move on.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:39:25 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxPART TWOAs early as 1988, clerics who have vested interests in the political power sought by groups like Hezbollah, had already started to work with such political groups to interprete Islamic culture to be suited to recruitment and deployment of suicide-bomber soldiers. The founder of Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in 1988 “established guidelines for exceptional martyrdom operations involving human bombs.” Despite this very early date, I’m aware of very little contrary statements either from the secular or religious elements of the Islamic world. With the exception of a few outspoken commentators such as Salman Rushdie, there appears to have been very little explicit derogation of the Jihad ideology in Muslim societies. There is a widespread misconception that terrorists are predominantly the most impoverished, ignorant, and psychological disturbed peoples who have suffered the most as a result of the numerous conventional, and terrorist wars in the region. This simply is not true. Indeed, there are plenty of poor, disenfranchised, and miserable people in the region, but most suicide-bombers are in fact, college educated, who have lived in one or more of the Western nations, and speak English, French or other “Colonial” languages. “Research by Krueger and Maleckova suggests that education may be uncorrelated or even positively correlated with supporting terrorism . . . Only 40% of persons with advanced degrees support dialogue with Israel versus 53% with college degrees, and 60% with 9 years of school or less . . . Nevertheless, relative loss of economic or social advantage by educated persons might encourage support for terrorism. In the period leading to the first Intifada (1982-1988) the number of Palestinian men with 12 years or more of schooling more than doublted; those with less schooling increased by only 30%. This coincided with a sharp increase in unemployment for college graduates relative to high school graduates . . . Underemployment also seems to be a factor among those recruited to Al-Qaida and its allies from the Arabian peninsula”A team led by psychologist Ariel Merari interviewed 32 of 34 families of suicide terrorists who perpetrated attacks prior to 1998, as well as surviving attackers, and captured recruiters. “Suicide terrorists apparently span their population’s normal distribution in terms of education, socioeconomic status, and personality type (introvert vs. extrovert). Mean age for bombers was early twenties. Almost all were unmarried and expressed religious belief before recruitment (but no more than did the general population). Except for being young unattached males, suicide bombers differ from members of violent racist organizations with whom they are often compared. Overall, suicide terrorists exhibit no socially dysfunctional attributes (fatherless, friendless, or jobless) or suicidal symptoms. They do not vent fear of enemies or express “hopelessness” or a sense of “nothing to lose” for lack of life alternatives that would be consistent with economic rationality. Merari attributes primary responsibility for attacks to recruiting organizations, which enlist prospective candidates from this youthful and relatively unattached population. Charismatic trainers then intensely cultivate mutual commitment to die within small cells of three to six members. The final step before a martyrdom operation is a formal social contract, usually in the form of video testament.”Psychologist Brian Barber surveyed 900 Moslem adolescents during Gaza’s First Intifada (1987-1993). Results show high levels of participation in, and victimization in violence . . . Involvement in violence was not correlated with depression or antisocial behavior. Adolescents most involved displayed strong individual pride and social cohesion.” This was reflected in activities: for males 87% had engaged in delivering supplies to perpetrators, 83% had paid a social visit to a martyred family to pay respects and condolences, and 71% had been involved in tending the wounded (57, 46, and 37% respectively for females). “By summer 2002, 70 to 80% of Palestinians endorsed martyr operations.”“Previously, recruiters scouted Mosques, schools, and refugee camps for candidates . . . During the Second Intifada, there has been a surfeit of volunteers and increasing involvement of secular organizations (allowing women) . . . In contrast to Palestinians, surveys with a control group of Bosnian Moslem adolescents from the same time period reveal markedly weaker expression of self-esteem, hope for the future, and prosocial behavior. A key difference is that Palestinians routinely invoke religion to invest personal trauma with proactive social meaning that takes injury as a badge of honor . . . a critical factor determining suicide terrorism is arguably loyalty to intimate cohorts of peers . . . Such sentiments characterize institutional manipulation of emotionally driven commitments that may have emerged under natural selection’s influence to refine or override short-term rational calculations that would otherwise preclude achieving goals against long odds . . . In religiously inspired suicide terrorism, however, these emotions are purposely manipulated by organizational leaders, recruiters and trainers to benefit the organization rather than the individual . . . little benefit accrues to suicide bombers . . . but for leaders who almost never consider killing themselves (despite declarations of readiness to die) material benefits more likely outweight losses in martyrdom operations. Hassan cites on Palestinian official’s prescription for a successful mission: ‘a willing young man . . . nails, gunpowder, a light switch and a short cable, mercury (readily obtainable from thermometers), acetone . . . The most expensive item is transportation to an Israeli town. Total cost is about $150. For the sponsoring organization, suicide bombers are expendable assets whose losses generate more assets by expanding public support and pools of potential recruits. Shortly after 9/11 an intelligence survey of educated Saudis (ages 25 to 41) concluded that 93% supported Al-Qaeda. In a December 2002 Pew Research Center survey on growing anti-Americanism, only 6% of Egyptians viewed America and its “War on Terror” favorably. Money flows from those willing to let others die, easily offsetting operational costs (training, supporting personnel, safe houses, explosives and arms, transportation, and communication). After a Jerusalem supermarket bombing by an 18-year-old Palestinian female, as Saudi telethon raised more than $100 million for “the Al-Quds Intifada.”“In a poll of 1179 West Bank and Gaza Palestinians in spring 2002, 66% said army operations increased their backing for suicide bombings. By year’s end, 73% of Lebanese Moslem’s considered suicide bombings justifiable.”Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:38:29 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxPART ONE[quote] Scipio, you're still thinking in terms of traditional warfare when territory could be conquered... When people could be slaughtered or executed enmass. Think of the pure public outrage if that occoured now? [/quote]On the contrary. War is not about territory and never has been. It is about human minds. The purpose of warfare is not t destroy an enemy, nor even necessarily to destroy his leaders, his government, or his military. It is to take control of his society. This can be accomplished, and often HAS been accomplished repeatedly through history, not by killing anything close to a majority of his personnel, or destroying anything close to a majority of his material resources, nor even by having your forces occupy his territory. The German rout at Stalingrad involved the surrender of hundreds of thousands of German soldiers, who were not dead until long after they surrendered. The loss of the Phillippines involved also the surrender of huge numbers of allied troops. The Mexican-American war ended with Mexico surrendering after the occupation of Mexico City, despite the fact that only a fraction of the nations military had actually been destroyed. The same is true for the Ba’athist army in Iraq. Nothing like a majority of its troops were killed, their organization was disrupted, their will to fight broken, they surrendered in large numbers, and retreated and dispersed in large numbers.Note, it is also not even necessary to use uniformed soldiers, nor overwhelming force to exert control over another society through warfare. The Spanish elections were taken control of by Al Qaeda, simply by deploying a half-dozen highly-trained, and fanatical suicide bombers in Madrid, whose effect, in symbiosis with (a) Westerners generally very complacent, and pacifistic states of mind and (b) mass media’s complete lack of appreciation that it is beholden to the democracies in which it exists and should foster their perpetuation.People like to quote the term “asymmetric warfare,” as if this somehow invalidates the use of overwhelming counterforce on the part of the democracies. But if the fact that this is an asymmetric war does NOT legitimate the use of overwhelming force in the interest of winning, then winning must not be worth the trouble? My point is this: these flea-like terrorists groups, because they are led by quite ingenious, and perspicacious thinkers (whose true motives I’m sure have absolutely NOTHING to do with faith, or love of anyone, much less their own people or culture) who get the most effect with the least resource. In short, despite their diminutive and seemingly victimized status (a ruse which this culture encourages for the sake of fostering sympathy among Westerners, and contributing to complacency) these groups wield INCREDIBLE power. In the words of one recent U.S. Senator, “If we don’t watch out, we just might lose this war.” Remember, Rome was not conquered by Carthage, or Greece, Persia, India, China, or any of the other “Great Empires” of the day. It was conquered by a swarm of small “barbarian tribes,” who wielded much less sophisticated technology had much less sophisticated organization, and an ultimate smaller pool of resources on which to call. Many things contributed to the fall of that Empire, but we cannot overlook, arrogance (Rome will NEVER fall to those barbarians=it’ll all get better if we just talk nice to them, and don’t reserve the option to resort to force), complacency (I’m sure someone is taking care of this, I don’t need to worry about it, and in fact, I find all that to rather distasteful. I personally am against violence.). Is it an accident that we have the phrase “fiddling while Rome burns?”[quote]All of Japan was at war with the US. Dropping a bomb on Japan was dropping a bomb on the enemy. All of Islam is not at war with the US... Only a tiny minority. Punishing 1000 for the actions of 1? When japan was bombed, 99.8% of the population were probably directly involved in war efforts. Right now, it's probably reverse... Can you justify the killing of 100k civilians with a nuke because you're pretty sure you just killed 2000 terrorists too? When have you crossed the line into bein a much greater terrorist than the ones you are hunting? With that attitude in mind, I suggest we find a way to cause the earth to implode and ensure we've killed all the terrorists. [/quote]All of Japan was not at war with the U.S. There were highly-marginalized threads of anti-war in Japan all the way through the 1930s. The simple fact is, much like Ba’athist Iraq, post-revolution Iran, and other dictatorships, where a powerful elite rises to power either because it IS the military, or it is allied with the military, these marginalized opposition groups never thrived. They were no closer to thriving in 1945 than they were in 1939. The same is true of Nazi Germany. Does the fact that, “not all the German people were true Nazis” illegitimate the tactics that were used to end the war sooner? I have NO DOUBT that the vast majority of Japanese in the two cities that were vaporized would have preferred that the war simply end. It was not that the majority of Japanese were militant, it was that they were marginalized, disempowered, and overly-influenced by leaders, and those who were fanatic in their aspirations. Does this invalidate the probabilities that the society as a whole might well have continued to resist, and that the leaders would refuse to surrender in the face of an invasion? No it doesn’t. Both are true. Most Japanese did not want to be in war, because they did not actually stand to benefit that much, and stood to lose the most. A few of course were deluded, racist, arrogant, Jingoistic, whatever, but most of them just wanted to get on with their lives, though they certainly may have felt a strong “sympathy” for the Emperor’s movement, and very well might have died for him if asked to do so. People are not robots, they are complex packages of conflicting and often times ambiguous motives and drives. The effect of the bombs was to show the entire population how futile it was to continue to resist, and thus destroy the societies will to fight. The point was not to kill people, or showoff the U.S. power, but to demonstrate the simple mathematics of the war. Continue to fight: this is what your side faces. It is the same principle on which the Cold War stayed cold for so long, both sides knew that the cost of attempting to use their nukes far outweighed the benefits.Now as for the extent to which support for terror can be linked either to (a) political entities in charge of various ME nations, or (b) modal sentiment as it is distributed among the Arabic populace. Consider these quotes from Atran’s Science magazine article “Genesis of Suicide Terror”“The first major contemporary suicide terrorirst attack in the ME was the December 1981 destruction of the Iraqi embassy in Beirut (27 dead, over 100 wounded). Its precise authors are still unknown, although it is likely that Ayatollah Khomeini approved its use by parties sponsored by Iranian intelligence.” Hezbollah, the Lebanese party which has backed terrorism in southern Lebanon for years, has always had strong ties with Iran.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:36:37 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxI agree you must back up what you say with the action you outlined. From this, and your statement Scipio, I would also say, "watch what you say". The USA has 10 000 nuclear bombs, and I don't care to see a single one used. With the USA (leaders of the free world) using the bomb, why shouldnt Russia (who has 16 000 bombs) or China on the cultures they deem unexceptable and not bowing to their "superiors". [QUOTE] When it was discovered that these words were incorrect (which IU still beleive could have been done before the war was declared, but history is history), we changed our words to backup our actions. [/QUOTE]Nice quote Seared.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:40:10 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxScipio, you're still thinking in terms of traditional warfare when territory could be conquered... When people could be slaughtered or executed enmass. Think of the pure public outrage if that occoured now?All of Japan was at war with the US. Dropping a bomb on Japan was dropping a bomb on the enemy. All of Islam is not at war with the US... Only a tiny minority. Punishing 1000 for the actions of 1? When japan was bombed, 99.8% of the population were probably directly involved in war efforts. Right now, it's probably reverse... Can you justify the killing of 100k civilians with a nuke because you're pretty sure you just killed 2000 terrorists too? When have you crossed the line into bein a much greater terrorist than the ones you are hunting? With that attitude in mind, I suggest we find a way to cause the earth to implode and ensure we've killed all the terrorists.[QUOTE]While there are obvious social and religious problems I have with this senario, I bet it would stop a great deal of attacks.[/QUOTE]I would suggest a threat to bomb a muslim site would encourage a terroist attack... Hate breeds hate. All that would do is inspire new terrorists! There was 3k 'insurgents' in Iraq prior to the US invasion. There are 30k now. Imagine how many would be inspired to join the insurgency if their holy sites were attacked? Why enrage others that aren't terrorists (yet?) Moreover, do you think such a thing may inspire others similar to what happened in Britan? Thinking as a terrorist... I bomb something, America bombs something of ours, new terrorists inspired, cycle repeat!Back to the arms issue though... Can we be certain it was Iran's government that sent the weapons or could this just of easily been an individual effort? Ya, it would probably also be wrong to have sold/lost the weaponry to someone else... But the evidence here simply links the bombs to being made with iranian parts. If a Canadian man smuggled a bomb into the US, does the US declare war on and randomly bomb Canada or does it hunt down the single Canadian man responsible? I know the Iranian government should be responsible for knowing where the weapons they manufacture go and they can be held accountable there... But immididately blaming this on the Iran government and consider threats? [QUOTE]People will always find excuses to hate each other, the idea that hatred would go away if democracies abstained from the use of force is not realistic. [/QUOTE]Of course not... A show of force is required and Democracies need to be able to back their actions. However, where an when to initiate these displays of force is another issue... When will shows of force inspire more hatred then what it solves?[QUOTE]very often fail to understand that, words which are never backed up with actions, soon become useless either to influence, or cajol a certain type of person[/QUOTE]I am in favor of backing up words with actions and it is ultimately essential. Such as an invasion of Afghanistan. However in the case of Iraq, we've used words to back our actions. WMD's and harbouring of terrorists (9/11) being the 2 major reasons for Iraq invasion. When it was discovered that these words were incorrect (which IU still beleive could have been done before the war was declared, but history is history), we changed our words to backup our actions. No weapons of mass destruction hey? Oh.. umm.. he was a dictator right? Ummm... what else can we call it.. despot? Ya thats it!If action is used to back words, then great. It's when you've confused the situation and are now using words to back your actions that you need to realize something has gone wrong an re-evaluate the situation.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:28:27 GMTSearedhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxTwo simple question to Ness and LC. Did the Japanese agree to surrender unconditionally either before or after the first bomb was dropped?Did the Japanese agree to surrender unconditionally AFTER the second bomb was dropped?People will always find excuses to hate each other, the idea that hatred would go away if democracies abstained from the use of force is not realistic. Moreover, excuses to love each other have little historical precedent of providing sufficient basis to curtail ongoing aggression. Take for example, Israel-Palestine, the DMZ in Korea, the Pakistan-India border, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc., etc.Unfortunately, even people who grow up in the most nurturing, caring environments can nonetheless turn out to be selfish, sociopaths: many of the suicide bombers of recent years, and most serial killers being prime examples. Even Hitler, and Stalin seem to have enjoyed fairly normal childhoods. In short, even in the most enlightened, 'progressive,' and socialistic of nations (e.g., Canada) there simply is no way to insure that an emmanent personal-drive to be a good citizen will predominant in every single individual. Canada has its share of serial killers, and career criminals, just as does everywhere else. This is why we unfortunately need penal systems within any society, both to act as a deterrent on the malicious predispositions of the sociopath segment, and as a last-ditch, remove them from society mechanism. It is similar logic that underlies the existence of the UN Security Council, UN 'peacekeeping' forces, and UN coordinate military actions, such as the Korean War, and the resolutions requiring Ba'athist Iran to submit to regular WMD inspections.The irony is that, so many people who agree that the UN, and similar consensual international mechanisms are needed to meliorate international conflict, very often fail to understand that, words which are never backed up with actions, soon become useless either to influence, or cajol a certain type of person, and a certain type of polity, which is similar in many respects to a sociopath.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:04:30 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxIt certainly would not stop future attacks. Rather, it would eventually result in the destruction of humanity and life as we know it on this planet.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:26:19 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] I did hear someone give the suggestion (which would never happen in our politically correct day) that the U.S. should give a warning that if there is ever another Islamic attack on the U.S., we will drop a bomb (a moab bomb would do the trick) on the black obelisk in Meca. If they do it again, we would just keep bombing important holy Muslim sites until it stopped. While there are obvious social and religious problems I have with this senario, I bet it would stop a great deal of attacks. [/QUOTE]:shakes head in shame: The simple mind of a republican. :( Destroying what means most to someone (or even the threat) will only breed more hate.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:04:24 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxThe one difference between the Japan A bombs and nuking Iran is that it prevented an invasion of the Island of Japan from happening thus saving many thousands of Americans' lives. An invasion of Iran is not imminent... yet. I did hear someone give the suggestion (which would never happen in our politically correct day) that the U.S. should give a warning that if there is ever another Islamic attack on the U.S., we will drop a bomb (a moab bomb would do the trick) on the black obelisk in Meca. If they do it again, we would just keep bombing important holy Muslim sites until it stopped. While there are obvious social and religious problems I have with this senario, I bet it would stop a great deal of attacks.Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:56:01 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxNo, not a bad day at all. I'd just like to see this whole Middle Eastern "anti-West Jihad" war thing over with sooner rather than later. And I'd also like to see "us" win, though in fact, the spread of democracy across the region would be a win for everyone, not just us. Just as the defeat of Fascist Japan was ultimately a win for the Japanese people, though tens of thousands were killed by Fat Man and Little Boy. The obvious futility of continued resistance demonstrated through that display of force led the Japanese leadership to surrender unconditionally, the war ended, people stopped killing one another, and Japan became a happy, democratic place (for the most part). Shame this can't happen everywhere as a result of our hesitancy to insist that the world play by "our" rules, or else. Seems like if you have the power to save a life, you're obliged to do so, but then that would be Imperialist meddling in a "traditional" culture though wouldn't it?Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:15:48 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]I say we nuke 'em tomorrow. That'll teach those evil mullahs to say that bombing US is an act of divine justice. Give 'em a little taste of nuclear armaggeddon, and lets see how much lip they give back about developing their uranium enrichment program . . . Damn shame all those nukes are just sitting around rusting when they could be used to quell despots. [/QUOTE]Jeez, Scip, having a bad day or what?Sat, 13 Aug 2005 12:09:00 GMTLocus Coeruleushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxI read an article recently in which discourse from interviews of captured suicide bomber trainers was provided. I learned something from this that I had not previously known.The common suicide bomb is made of gunpowder, mercury, acetone, a light switch, some wire, nails or other objects for shrapnel and vest. Total cost $150. The real key to their destructive capacity is to detonate on in an enclosed area in which there are lots of people. A grenade in an elevator could easily kill everyone there I'll wager, whereas a grenade out on open ground will have much less devastating effect. It was common in WWII for ONE bomb to effectively sink a ship, or effectively cripple it and kill literally thousands of people. It not so much about the size of it, as it is about the way it is deployed.Anyway, the fact that Iranian armaments of ANY kind, be they pistols, bayonets, or cruise missiles, are filtering across, is absolutely unacceptable. I say we nuke 'em tomorrow. That'll teach those evil mullahs to say that bombing US is an act of divine justice. Give 'em a little taste of nuclear armaggeddon, and lets see how much lip they give back about developing their uranium enrichment program . . . Damn shame all those nukes are just sitting around rusting when they could be used to quell despots.Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:56:30 GMTScipio Africanushttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]Maybe hundreds, or maybe none, as the bombs will just be gotten from somewhere else. [/QUOTE]Even in "wartorn" Iraq, bombs don't grown on trees are aren't that easy to come by. If someone was getting bombs from sombody in Iran, then the reason is that was the easiest place to acquire them at that time. It doesn't mean they will get new explosives right away. It means whatever plans they had for [I]those[/I] explosives are put on hold till they can acquire more.Will they acquire more later? Probably, but every delay adds up to more time for authorities to catch/kill those involved. Every Delay, no matter how insignificant 'tens' of bombs is seen.Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:56:15 GMTmongoose201http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxIt does sound silly. It's funny that CNN decided to throw that silly terminology in instead of trying to find out a more specific number. Looks like they did their job in making the administration look "silly".Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:04:14 GMTjermhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxBy my original statement, I was referring more to the fact that, why not just say, "We found approximately 50 bombs” or something of the nature. I think the context in which it was used, "tens of bombs" is generally used for tens of thousands" or something in a large quantity where they have not counted them all, but can estimate at the approximate number by saying tens of thousands. Tens of bombs just sounds silly.Thu, 11 Aug 2005 02:07:16 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxI think the whole point is where they came from, not how many there are. Considering how easy it must be to get a bomb in a war-torn country, especially one such as present-day Iraq, we can only speculate on how many lives actually were saved. Maybe hundreds, or maybe none, as the bombs will just be gotten from somewhere else.Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:25:31 GMTCivFanhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]It only takes one to do what? [/QUOTE]Umm.. kill dozens of people. Not everything is about the "great scheme" of things. It's a lot of little things that add up to big things.. These particular bombs are confiscated, and perhaps a planned attack is thwarted for the time being, giving authorities that much more time to close in on those responsible.. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. But those 'tens' of bombs could add up to hundreds of lives saved. Oh.. and these days, nobody is using swords much in battle situations. Although I understand the analogy you were trying to make, we are not talking about hostage taking and we are also not talking about feudal Japan. ;)Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:33:00 GMTmongoose201http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] It certainly is impressive, especially since it only takes one. [/QUOTE]It only takes one to do what? I think finding a sword would be more impressive that a single small bomb. A single sword can kill thousands of people, a single bomb of the calibre they found might kill 20 people if all the people were concentrated in the trajectory path of the bombs explosion area. I mean, its good that they found them, but common, tens of bombs, if an Iraqi wants bombs, they can just take them from the numerous unprotected bomb storage areas in the desert like they did last year, and get thousands of bombs, tens is hardly impressive.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:12:06 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE]WOW, thats an impressive number. [/QUOTE]It certainly is impressive, especially since it only takes one.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:57:01 GMTmongoose201http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspxI don't actually believe this will lead to a Iranian war. We really do have bigger fish to fry and, if anything, we need to stabilize Iraq sufficiantly before we "try" anything.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:47:36 GMTFlayumhttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[QUOTE] One official said the shipment included "tens" of bombs. [/QUOTE]WOW, thats an impressive number.Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:19:55 GMTNesshttp://www.1bcciv.com/Topic1033993-56-1.aspx[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/10/iran.iraq/index.html]Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran'[/URL]Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:12:04 GMTLocus Coeruleus