Originally Posted by scott 63

This has struck me, too: how little call for sacrifice has been heard in the wake of what we are told is an epochal struggle against evil. Prior to the 3T, at least society had to accept the threat of vaporization as the cost of facing down communism. Here in 3T land, no sacrifice is too small. "Go about your lives as if nothing has happened." Huh?

You're spot on. Blair's exhortations confirm that the 3T continues. Comparing today to the the Blitz is farcical. During the Blitz, they evacuated the children and punished families for not following blackout rules. Hardly business as usual.

The sacrifice you are looking for is coming your way, you just aren't being asked. The same threat of annihilation exists today as did in the Cold War, it's simply directed elsewhere. All those ICBMs haven't gone away.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The sacrifice you are looking for is coming your way, you just aren't being asked. The same threat of annihilation exists today as did in the Cold War, it's simply directed elsewhere. All those ICBMs haven't gone away.

Much more to the point, neither have the nuclear warheads. After all, a truckbomb with a suicide jihadist at the wheel can be as effective a delivery system for a nuke as a MIRVed ICBM, with the added advantage of not leaving any sort of trail behind that could be relied on to furnish proof as to who launched the attack. Suspects, perhaps, but no proof. Thus, under the rules so many here want to see America be made to abide by, we would be strictly forbidden to retaliate, or to do anything else but bury our dead, and wait passively for the next attack.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The sacrifice you are looking for is coming your way, you just aren't being asked. The same threat of annihilation exists today as did in the Cold War, it's simply directed elsewhere. All those ICBMs haven't gone away.

Much more to the point, neither have the nuclear warheads. After all, a truckbomb with a suicide jihadist at the wheel can be as effective a delivery system for a nuke as a MIRVed ICBM, with the added advantage of not leaving any sort of trail behind that could be relied on to furnish proof as to who launched the attack. Suspects, perhaps, but no proof. Thus, under the rules so many here want to see America be made to abide by, we would be strictly forbidden to retaliate, or to do anything else but bury our dead, and wait passively for the next attack.

It is instructive to note, however, that even this board's most liberal posters (who shall go nameless ;-)) were yelling "nuke 'em 'til they glow" in the immediate aftermath of 911, and wholeheartedly supported the President in retaliating against Afghanistan. A nuclear truckbomb attack would make 911 look like a Sunday School Picnic... if it were happen, I don't see that many people, liberal or conservative, would have any qualms at all about nuking the home countries of the terrorists responsible.

U.S. Berated Over Indians' Treatment
Judge Orders Interior Dept. to Send Written Warnings About Its Credibility

Originally Posted by Mr. (or Ms.) Evelyn Nieves in the Wa[i

Po[/i]]In a scathing rebuke of the federal government's treatment of Native Americans, a federal judge yesterday ordered the Interior Department to include notices in its correspondence with Indians whose land the government holds in trust, warning them that the government's information may not be credible.

Perhaps the air, road, and social security "trust funds" should have a like warning.

Yesterday, he wrote that "the entire record in this case tells the dreary story of Interior's degenerate tenure as Trustee-Delegate for the Indian trust, a story shot through with bureaucratic blunders, flubs, goofs and foul-ups, and peppered with scandals, deception, dirty tricks and outright villainy, the end of which is nowhere in sight."

As it was with Clinton, so it is with the progressive Compassionate Conservative's administration. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The sacrifice you are looking for is coming your way, you just aren't being asked. The same threat of annihilation exists today as did in the Cold War, it's simply directed elsewhere. All those ICBMs haven't gone away.

Much more to the point, neither have the nuclear warheads. After all, a truckbomb with a suicide jihadist at the wheel can be as effective a delivery system for a nuke as a MIRVed ICBM, with the added advantage of not leaving any sort of trail behind that could be relied on to furnish proof as to who launched the attack. Suspects, perhaps, but no proof. Thus, under the rules so many here want to see America be made to abide by, we would be strictly forbidden to retaliate, or to do anything else but bury our dead, and wait passively for the next attack.

It is instructive to note, however, that even this board's most liberal posters (who shall go nameless ;-)) were yelling "nuke 'em 'til they glow" in the immediate aftermath of 911, and wholeheartedly supported the President in retaliating against Afghanistan. A nuclear truckbomb attack would make 911 look like a Sunday School Picnic... if it were happen, I don't see that many people, liberal or conservative, would have any qualms at all about nuking the home countries of the terrorists responsible.

You know, I really do think that I'd have a problem with nuking millions of innocents because of the actions of a few crazy terrorists, no matter what the motivation. But maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by jeffw

You know, I really do think that I'd have a problem with nuking millions of innocents because of the actions of a few crazy terrorists, no matter what the motivation. But maybe that's just me.

It's not just you, but there aren't many of us when it comes right down to it.

A similar problem, IMO, exists in the streets of urban America. Much hype about getting rid of the street terrotists(drug dealers, gangbangers, opportunistic rapists, etc) but seems the only thing that does the job is the extreme remedy of gentification, whose unfortunate byproduct is getting rid of all the decent people who don't happen to have incomes approaching six figures, who end up in the same boat as the riff-raff. Seems there ought to be a better way, but no genius has been able to figure it out yet, apparently.

Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The sacrifice you are looking for is coming your way, you just aren't being asked. The same threat of annihilation exists today as did in the Cold War, it's simply directed elsewhere. All those ICBMs haven't gone away.

Much more to the point, neither have the nuclear warheads. After all, a truckbomb with a suicide jihadist at the wheel can be as effective a delivery system for a nuke as a MIRVed ICBM, with the added advantage of not leaving any sort of trail behind that could be relied on to furnish proof as to who launched the attack. Suspects, perhaps, but no proof. Thus, under the rules so many here want to see America be made to abide by, we would be strictly forbidden to retaliate, or to do anything else but bury our dead, and wait passively for the next attack.

It is instructive to note, however, that even this board's most liberal posters (who shall go nameless ;-)) were yelling "nuke 'em 'til they glow" in the immediate aftermath of 911, and wholeheartedly supported the President in retaliating against Afghanistan. A nuclear truckbomb attack would make 911 look like a Sunday School Picnic... if it were happen, I don't see that many people, liberal or conservative, would have any qualms at all about nuking the home countries of the terrorists responsible.

You know, I really do think that I'd have a problem with nuking millions of innocents because of the actions of a few crazy terrorists, no matter what the motivation. But maybe that's just me.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Then again, are you sure you'll feel that way if one of your loved ones happens to live at the nuclear Ground Zero? I suspect if that is the case, you'll be out for blood just like everyone else.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

A similar problem, IMO, exists in the streets of urban America. Much hype about getting rid of the street terrotists(drug dealers, gangbangers, opportunistic rapists, etc) but seems the only thing that does the job is the extreme remedy of gentification, whose unfortunate byproduct is getting rid of all the decent people who don't happen to have incomes approaching six figures, who end up in the same boat as the riff-raff. Seems there ought to be a better way, but no genius has been able to figure it out yet, apparently.

Have you not heard of the latest Supreme Court verdict? Good grief, We The People can now confiscate private property for the sole purpose of enhancing the government revenue base. It's a beautiful thing, dude, as "the extreme remedy of gentification" is now solved. Any local government can now get "rid of all the decent people who don't happen to have incomes approaching six figures," and give whatever they have to Big Business interests like Pfizer, Inc.'s $300 million dollar Global Research and Development Headquarters on the City's waterfront.

Gee whiz, dude, you need to get up to speed with progress! It's here, it's now, baby! Sieg Heil!

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by jeffw

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The sacrifice you are looking for is coming your way, you just aren't being asked. The same threat of annihilation exists today as did in the Cold War, it's simply directed elsewhere. All those ICBMs haven't gone away.

Much more to the point, neither have the nuclear warheads. After all, a truckbomb with a suicide jihadist at the wheel can be as effective a delivery system for a nuke as a MIRVed ICBM, with the added advantage of not leaving any sort of trail behind that could be relied on to furnish proof as to who launched the attack. Suspects, perhaps, but no proof. Thus, under the rules so many here want to see America be made to abide by, we would be strictly forbidden to retaliate, or to do anything else but bury our dead, and wait passively for the next attack.

It is instructive to note, however, that even this board's most liberal posters (who shall go nameless ;-)) were yelling "nuke 'em 'til they glow" in the immediate aftermath of 911, and wholeheartedly supported the President in retaliating against Afghanistan. A nuclear truckbomb attack would make 911 look like a Sunday School Picnic... if it were happen, I don't see that many people, liberal or conservative, would have any qualms at all about nuking the home countries of the terrorists responsible.

You know, I really do think that I'd have a problem with nuking millions of innocents because of the actions of a few crazy terrorists, no matter what the motivation. But maybe that's just me.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Then again, are you sure you'll feel that way if one of your loved ones happens to live at the nuclear Ground Zero? I suspect if that is the case, you'll be out for blood just like everyone else.

Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Perhaps some people here honestly do have a mental block against comprehending the fact that there are a lot of other people out there who want us all DEAD, and will not be satisfied with anything less.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

... Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Well, the fact that the US controls more than half the worlds nuclear weapons may be a reason for thinking about how and when we might use them. Why is that surprising?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

... Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Well, the fact that the US controls more than half the worlds nuclear weapons may be a reason for thinking about how and when we might use them. Why is that surprising?

So, we give al-Qaeda every possible benefit of a doubt until they actually do it, while engaging in self-flagellation at every opportunity simply because we have said weapons?

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

... Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Well, the fact that the US controls more than half the worlds nuclear weapons may be a reason for thinking about how and when we might use them. Why is that surprising?

So, we give al-Qaeda every possible benefit of a doubt until they actually do it, while engaging in self-flagellation at every opportunity simply because we have said weapons?

David,

Why bother with Mr. Straw Man here?

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

... Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Well, the fact that the US controls more than half the worlds nuclear weapons may be a reason for thinking about how and when we might use them. Why is that surprising?

So, we give al-Qaeda every possible benefit of a doubt until they actually do it, while engaging in self-flagellation at every opportunity simply because we have said weapons?

No, Mr. Horn is merely expressing his deep and profound patriotic love of America. Which is what he's been doing since 1972, when he heaved his Vietnam medals at the White House. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

And then there's always Mr. Ad Hominem.

You'd think that after thirty years, they'd try to find some new material. :lol:

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Suppose one of our cities were attacked by a terrorists with a nuke, killing 50,000, and you were president.

Our intelligence agencies are nearly certain the group responsible is al Qaeda. They don't know exactly from whom al Qaeda got the nuke. Some believe from the Russian mafia, others from the Pakistanis.

What would YOU do?

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

And then there's always Mr. Ad Hominem.

You'd think that after thirty years, they'd try to find some new material. :lol:

And then there's always Ms. Snobby, whose snide little commentary is a regular feature at 4T.com. :lol:

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

And then there's always Mr. Ad Hominem.

You'd think that after thirty years, they'd try to find some new material. :lol:

And then there's always Ms. Snobby, whose snide little commentary is a regular feature at 4T.com. :lol:

Twit. You would think for somebody who claims to be the Devil's Advocate, you could come up with something wittier. Shoulda read the fine print, pal. I think, like Steve Jackson before you, you did a deal with "a" devil, not "THE" Devil.

Wally.

There has just been a story that suggests, to me at least, that we're still in a 2T: Pope Benedict XVI's condemnation of Harry Potter! (He claims that the series has a bad influence on children; what he neglects to add is whether the degree of that bad influence is greater or less than that of having oral and/or anal sex with those same children, as thousands of his own priests were found to have done).

Back in 1971, Tex Antoine - the beloved "Uncle Wethbee" on New York's Channel 7 - reacted to several days of constant rain by joking that the recent weather was like rape: You can't do anything about it so you might as well enjoy it! Well the you-know-what instantly hit the fan, with the feminists flexing their rhetorical muscles (no pun intended, or maybe there is a pun there) and forcing the station to fire Antoine, who a few years later was found dead in his Manhattan apartment of an overdose of sedatives and alcohol at just such a level as to make it inconclusive as to whether it was an accident or suicide.

The Pope's latest pronouncement conjures up memories of the Tex Antoine affair, in that it serves as proof that all of the older generations (older than my own, that is) are still thinking and acting every bit as hysterically as they were in 1971.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Suppose one of our cities were attacked by a terrorists with a nuke, killing 50,000, and you were president.

Our intelligence agencies are nearly certain the group responsible is al Qaeda. They don't know exactly from whom al Qaeda got the nuke. Some believe from the Russian mafia, others from the Pakistanis.

What would YOU do?

Were I to listen to the liberals around here, I wouldn't do a thing, militarily, as I would "know" that America really deserved the attack, and far worse. And when such passive inaction led to another, even worse, attack (and rest assured that it WOULD!!!), I would still do nothing militarily. And after a few more such attacks, I would offer a complete, abject, unconditional surrender. :evil:

In actuality, I would go after al-Qaeda and their suspected backers with both barrels (using Special Forces H/K teams, instead of large numbers of regular troops), seal off our borders as tightly as possible, and go all out to reconfigure our economy for autarky (whatever would be left of it after such an attack, that is), in support of a foreign policy of total isolationism. (Behind a beefed up defensive cordon around the country.) IOW, Fortress America, all the way!!! One would hope that after something like that, the American people would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to see all of that through rather than go through another such holocaust. :twisted:

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Suppose one of our cities were attacked by a terrorists with a nuke, killing 50,000, and you were president.

Our intelligence agencies are nearly certain the group responsible is al Qaeda. They don't know exactly from whom al Qaeda got the nuke. Some believe from the Russian mafia, others from the Pakistanis.

What would YOU do?

Were I to listen to the liberals around here, I wouldn't do a thing, militarily, as I would "know" that America really deserved the attack, and far worse. And when such passive inaction led to another, even worse, attack (and rest assured that it WOULD!!!), I would still do nothing militarily. And after enough such attacks, I would offer a complete, abject, unconditional surrender. :evil:

In actuality, I would go after al-Qaeda and their suspected backers with both barrels (using Special Forces H/K teams, instead of large numbers of regular troops), seal off our borders as tightly as possible, and go all out to reconfigure our economy for autarky (whatever would be left of it after such an attack, that is), in support of a foreign policy of total isolationism. (Behind a beefed up defensive cordon around the country.) IOW, Fortress America, all the way!!! One would hope that after something like that, the American people would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to see all of that through rather than go through another such holocaust. :twisted:

Special Forces sound really good except they are not the magic bullet that they like to portray themselves as. If they were, then Israel would not be locked in a death embrace with the Palestinians today. Israel has nuclear weapons, one of the best militaries in the world and quite adequate special forces. They are still struggling.

As for using nuclear weapons, I was wondering this morning what would have happened in Vietnam had we nuked Hanoi. It would not have made us popular but it may have made us feared enough to prevent any other nation from even considering messing with us. The questions are: how many cities would you have to nuke to make your point? What happens when you start nuking the wrong cities (see above)? Do you lose street cred if you hesitate to nuke Peshawar because Musharref is supposedly your ally?

Fortress America would be very 4T. I don't think a chemical attack would be enough to push the country if the timing were not right. Biologicals would make people pretty panicaky. However, a smouldering DC might just be the thing to put America "in the mood." Mukes are much more visceral.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

Funny how a discussion of someone else nuking us gets turned (very quickly, I might add!) into a discussion of us nuking someone else. :?

Suppose one of our cities were attacked by a terrorists with a nuke, killing 50,000, and you were president.

Our intelligence agencies are nearly certain the group responsible is al Qaeda. They don't know exactly from whom al Qaeda got the nuke. Some believe from the Russian mafia, others from the Pakistanis.

What would YOU do?

Were I to listen to the liberals around here, I wouldn't do a thing, militarily, as I would "know" that America really deserved the attack, and far worse. And when such passive inaction led to another, even worse, attack (and rest assured that it WOULD!!!), I would still do nothing militarily. And after a few more such attacks, I would offer a complete, abject, unconditional surrender. :evil:

You really haven't been reading much around here, have you? 'Course not... you already have your mind made up on how "most" people think and see only what confirms what you already believe. That't too bad.

In actuality, I would go after al-Qaeda and their suspected backers with both barrels (using Special Forces H/K teams, instead of large numbers of regular troops), seal off our borders as tightly as possible, and go all out to reconfigure our economy for autarky (whatever would be left of it after such an attack, that is), in support of a foreign policy of total isolationism. (Behind a beefed up defensive cordon around the country.) IOW, Fortress America, all the way!!! One would hope that after something like that, the American people would be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to see all of that through rather than go through another such holocaust. :twisted:

Now THAT makes a great deal of sense, which is probably why it's never been done. Why? It wouldn't get any airplay for Bush... any wiping out of Al Queda by Hunter-Killer teams would, by its nature, occur behind and underneath the scenes... out of sight and out of mind of the public. When it was over, AQ would mysteriously be no longer a threat... but neither would Bush be able to pat himself on the back with dramatic, "Mission Accomplished" flair.

Because what solved the problem would have officially never happened.

Originally Posted by Sabinus Invictus

In actuality, I would go after al-Qaeda and their suspected backers with both barrels (using Special Forces H/K teams, instead of large numbers of regular troops..

You would send a handful of guys into Pakistan to look for Bin Laden? Such an operation would have a near-zero chance of getting Bin Laden.

How is your decision to let the terrorists get away with it meaningfully different from what you claim the liberals would do?

Recent history strongly suggests exactly how post-Vietnam liberals react to terrorist attacks on America:

• The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.'s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.
  
  Clinton's reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing "a despicable and cowardly act" and said, "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration's work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). "If [the terrorists'] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly," Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post's John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, "While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton's foreign policy aims."
  
  As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden's organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing.

Read the entire record of liberal nonresponse to terrorism here.

Why do you consider the bombing of the Cole an act of terrorism? Wasn't it a military ship, docked not terribly far from a number of folks that the US was bombing or otherwise having less-than-friendly relations?