Sincronos.net Forums

Sincronos.net Forums

Nothing is permanent, everything is constant.
 
It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:21 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Important announcements will be posted here. Only Sincronos.net staff members can start new topics.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ten years.
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:11 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
Ten years and seven hours ago, approximately 3,000 people were murdered in downtown Manhattan, in Washington, D.C. and over a field in Pennsylvania by Al-Qaeda terrorists. Their "crime" was simply showing up for work that Tuesday morning.

At the time, I worked a night job, and was relaxing at home getting ready to catch a few hours' sleep. I remember playing some PC game -- probably Red Alert 2, I think -- with the TV on behind me, when the first news reports started coming in about a "small plane" having hit the World Trade Center. No one really seemed to think much of it at first...of course, that abruptly changed when the second plane hit, on live TV, with the news cameras having already been trained on the Towers, the upper floors of the first one already in flames.

The next couple hours were chaos, confusion, horror and disbelief. Seeing the Pentagon on fire after having been struck by a third plane. Realizing these were passenger jets, not cargo planes, which had been hijacked and used as missiles. Watching people begin jumping to their deaths from the upper floors of the World Trade Center towers to escape being burned alive. Watching the second Tower collapse, and waking my brother up just in time to see the first one join it. Hearing reports of a fourth plane, United Airlines 93, having crashed in Pennsylvania, and later learning that it had been brought down by the self-sacrificing heroism of its passengers. And feeling sick as I watched footage of people celebrating and dancing in the streets in Gaza, and other parts of the world.

I remember a national feeling of shock and near-panic that morning and through much of the day, which slowly settled into a sense of grim resolve later that night. Or at least that was how I felt, anyway, and in light of subsequent events, I think it's safe to say that many others did as well.

Ten years later Al-Qaeda has been decimated and Osama bin Laden is (finally) dead, though their affiliates, and other violent Islamic supremacists, remain a threat to the civilized world. They'd been at war with us (that is, the U.S.A.) for many years before then, and we've been at war with them ever since that day, and regrettably but in all likelihood will be for many years yet to come, until their ideology is stamped out. We neither started nor provoked this war, but by God, we must be the ones to finish it...because no one else will.

After ten years, the world has changed in many ways, but still remains the same in too many more. I've gained, and lost, many things over the past decade, as I'm sure everyone else has as well. And though many have, of necessity, moved on with their lives, ten years later there's still a damn hole in the ground in New York City where there should be something -- anything -- else, a testament to the self-inflicted paralysis of politics. And for that we, the American public, have only ourselves to blame.

But for right now, at this moment, I choose simply to remember.

Image

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
I can't say I fully understood what happened that day (after all, I was only 12), and I don't think I ever will. I remember the year before 2001, the dawn of the new millenium, and I remember it was a time of hope and excitement tinged with some fear that society would collapse with the Y2K bug. I was sceptical about Y2K, but ultimately I shared the feelings of millions that the new millenium would usher in an era of peace after the Century of Hatred had meaninglessly ruined so many lives, yet had lead up to a more peaceful and understanding world.

All I can say is that 9/11 was one hell of an antidote.

Corey, you say you must keep putting up the good fight until al-Qaeda's insane ideology is wiped out. I think that in itself is insane. How do you destroy terrorism? Let me save you uncounted years of contemplation and philosophy: you can't. To destroy terrorism, you must destroy terror, which is an integral human emotion. To destroy terror would mean to destroy an important part of the human psyche, the ability to feel fear. You are declaring war on yourself, and humanity both figuratively and literally, and that has lead you to more pain, more suffering, exactly what al-Qaeda wants. Don't play their game, you will lose no matter what you do.


I'm truly sorry for what happened ten years ago, and there's nothing I can say that can ease that pain that will never go away. All you can do is accept it and move on. Yeah, I know, not remotely satisfactory. You'd much rather blow shit up. Well, if it makes you fell better...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
Corey, you say you must keep putting up the good fight until al-Qaeda's insane ideology is wiped out. I think that in itself is insane. How do you destroy terrorism? Let me save you uncounted years of contemplation and philosophy: you can't. To destroy terrorism, you must destroy terror, which is an integral human emotion. To destroy terror would mean to destroy an important part of the human psyche, the ability to feel fear.
You might be right if I had said that "terrorism", in its most vague and generic sense, must be wiped out. But I didn't. I was much more specific about the ideology which drives al-Qaeda and their philosophical brethren, as they have been. And it is their specific beliefs which have fueled much -- no, not all, but a sizable percentage -- of the widespread and seemingly senseless violence which grips much of the world today, and has for decades. That is what must be eradicated, sooner or later, one way or another, because it is ultimately incompatible with civilization itself.

Quote:
Yeah, I know, not remotely satisfactory. You'd much rather blow shit up. Well, if it makes you fell better...
Didn't say that, either.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
CWS wrote:
You might be right if I had said that "terrorism", in its most vague and generic sense, must be wiped out. But I didn't. I was much more specific about the ideology which drives al-Qaeda and their philosophical brethren, as they have been. And it is their specific beliefs which have fueled much -- no, not all, but a sizable percentage -- of the widespread and seemingly senseless violence which grips much of the world today, and has for decades. That is what must be eradicated, sooner or later, one way or another, because it is ultimately incompatible with civilization itself.


Destroying an ideology is no easier. Take democracy for example. It arose in ancient Greece and Rome, and was lost for centuries with the rise of the European kings. By all accounts democracy as an idea should not have survived, as no one in living memory could remember such a thing. Yet it did.

CWS wrote:
Didn't say that, either.


Didn't need to. America's actions speak for themselves in this case.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:24 am
Posts: 947
Location: Oregon, USA
snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
You might be right if I had said that "terrorism", in its most vague and generic sense, must be wiped out. But I didn't. I was much more specific about the ideology which drives al-Qaeda and their philosophical brethren, as they have been. And it is their specific beliefs which have fueled much -- no, not all, but a sizable percentage -- of the widespread and seemingly senseless violence which grips much of the world today, and has for decades. That is what must be eradicated, sooner or later, one way or another, because it is ultimately incompatible with civilization itself.


Destroying an ideology is no easier. Take democracy for example. It arose in ancient Greece and Rome, and was lost for centuries with the rise of the European kings. By all accounts democracy as an idea should not have survived, as no one in living memory could remember such a thing. Yet it did.
That actually sounds more like it was destroyed, and then created anew centuries later; not that it survived. And even with that aside...Isn't suppression to the point of no influence close enough to destruction for practical purposes, at least for those centuries?


More generally...so what? The basis of any ongoing system is resilience in the face of entropy. Whether that's a star's gravity and temperature keeping its size more or less the same despite fluctuations in its fusion process, an organism's discarding of damaged cells and production of new ones in its place, or a political entity escaping or destroying known threats to its existence while bolstering its own resources. The end of these maintenance processes lead to the end of the system.

That it's a never-ending process doesn't mean it isn't important. Breathing, for example, is rather critical for the ongoing life processes of organisms like ourselves, and it doesn't end until our lives do.

snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
Didn't say that, either.


Didn't need to. America's actions speak for themselves in this case.
I think you're mixing up personal and national identities, here.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Quote:
I think you're mixing up personal and national identities, here.


Actually, I'm hitting two birds with one stone here. Corey seems willing (albeit reluctantly) to want to keep up the fight for the greater good. The USA has engineered two full-scale invasions over the last decade in an attempt to satisfy its want for revenge that has resulted in a lawless quagmire (Afghanistan) and a soon-to-be failed state (Iraq). Let me ask you a question here: the killings of bin Laden and Saddam aside, what good has it accomplished? To me, it seems that apart from deposing an asshole, pissing off the Taliban and sending bin Laden to a pineapple under the sea, nothing positive has come of this wasteful enterprise. You know, sixteen tons, and what did you get? Another day older and you're deeper in debt (eat your heart out, Tennessee Ford).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:54 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:24 am
Posts: 947
Location: Oregon, USA
snowman1989 wrote:
Let me ask you a question here: the killings of bin Laden and Saddam aside, what good has it accomplished? To me, it seems that apart from deposing an asshole, pissing off the Taliban and sending bin Laden to a pineapple under the sea, nothing positive has come of this wasteful enterprise.
I'm pretty sure the people of Iraq are better off than they would be under Saddam's "leadership". Operating as an insurgency instead of as the government of Afghanistan has impacted the Taliban's ability to gather and direct resources. And let's face it, Spongebob could use a new neighbor :lol:

And no one sterilized Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan in the process! For your claim of "rather blow shit up", there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of...blowing shit up.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
The Phiend wrote:
For your claim of "rather blow shit up", there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of...blowing shit up.


You haven't paid attention to the news over the past ten years, have you? :?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:15 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:24 am
Posts: 947
Location: Oregon, USA
snowman1989 wrote:
You haven't paid attention to the news over the past ten years, have you? :?
Spaced out, subjectively tiny acts of destruction don't provide the kind of catharsis you've implied. Unless the targets of said tiny acts are psychologically significant, I suppose....But if the end of Saddam and bin Laden were the sole goals, why are there still US troops in Iraq (especially Iraq, it's been how many years now?) and Afghanistan? Has to be something else to it.

Or has Libya gotten rolled into this "Saddam and bin Laden" thing when I wasn't looking?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
Actually, I'm hitting two birds with one stone here. Corey seems willing (albeit reluctantly) to want to keep up the fight for the greater good. The USA has engineered two full-scale invasions over the last decade in an attempt to satisfy its want for revenge that has resulted in a lawless quagmire (Afghanistan) and a soon-to-be failed state (Iraq). Let me ask you a question here: the killings of bin Laden and Saddam aside, what good has it accomplished? To me, it seems that apart from deposing an asshole, pissing off the Taliban and sending bin Laden to a pineapple under the sea, nothing positive has come of this wasteful enterprise.

All right, I have several points here.

#1: I'm not at all reluctant in my support for the US military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past decade. I support them fully, enthusiastically, and without reservation. What you fail to understand is that neither of those missions were ever about "revenge". They were about prevention. The attacks ten years ago showed us the price of allowing our self-declared enemies to go about their business and do as they please. It's not a price we're willing to pay again. Or at least not most of us, anyway.

#2: Another thing you don't understand (and in all candor, neither do I) is that, even bearing that in mind, for the past ten years we have been fighting this war with both hands and nine fingers tied behind our back, militarily speaking. Think about how little of our effective arsenal we've actually used. If we were truly as vengeful and indifferent as you believe, Afghanistan would be an uninhabitable, smoking crater right now. As would large areas of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and possibly Pakistan. And to be perfectly frank...after nearly ten years of continual bloodletting in counter-insurgency and nation-building, that idea really wouldn't bother me too terribly much. No other nation I'm aware of has ever attempted such things during an ongoing war, in the face of continuing regional hostilities; there's a reason the Marshall Plan wasn't implemented until after World War II was declared officially over. Yet there seems to be this stubborn belief among our political class, against history and logic, that if we fight this war in the "cleanest" and most diplomatic way possible or something, if we insist that our soldiers put themselves at additional risk on the battlefield to show deference to local customs or build schools or install plumbing while simultaneously fighting the enemy in their own territory, then eventually all the people who hate us will suddenly realize that we're really not so bad after all. Or so the reasoning seems to be. As I said, I don't pretend to understand it, because I don't think it makes any sense.

#3: On that note, I'm pretty sure the Taliban were already pissed off before we went over there, since they were sheltering and actively collaborating with al-Qaeda, blowing up ancient Hindu monuments, setting dogs on fire and beating little girls for wanting to go to school. With that in mind, WHO GIVES A SHIT how they feel.

#4: So, you don't consider the liberation of 34 million Iraqis from beneath the boot of one of the most cruel and oppressive regimes in the Middle East -- which is saying a hell of a lot -- to be a worthwhile accomplishment, huh? Interesting. That makes you an utter hypocrite on the subjects of Libya and Egypt, then.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
CWS wrote:

#1: I'm not at all reluctant in my support for the US military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past decade. I support them fully, enthusiastically, and without reservation. What you fail to understand is that neither of those missions were ever about "revenge". They were about prevention. The attacks ten years ago showed us the price of allowing our self-declared enemies to go about their business and do as they please. It's not a price we're willing to pay again. Or at least not most of us, anyway.


Constant vigilance is the price for remaining a vital, functioning country, I agree. The Afghan campaign I still think was revenge, pure and simple, as it seemed to be conducted (barely a month after the tragic attacks) with a lot of haste and questionable planning that aloowed bin Laden to get away and failed to eliminate the Taliban as a potent force. Iraq better fits your description of prevention though, but I fail to see how Iraq was in any way threatening anyone physically at that time.

CWS wrote:
#2: Another thing you don't understand (and in all candor, neither do I) is that, even bearing that in mind, for the past ten years we have been fighting this war with both hands and nine fingers tied behind our back, militarily speaking. Think about how little of our effective arsenal we've actually used. If we were truly as vengeful and indifferent as you believe, Afghanistan would be an uninhabitable, smoking crater right now. As would large areas of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and possibly Pakistan. And to be perfectly frank...after nearly ten years of continual bloodletting in counter-insurgency and nation-building, that idea really wouldn't bother me too terribly much. No other nation I'm aware of has ever attempted such things during an ongoing war, in the face of continuing regional hostilities; there's a reason the Marshall Plan wasn't implemented until after World War II was declared officially over. Yet there seems to be this stubborn belief among our political class, against history and logic, that if we fight this war in the "cleanest" and most diplomatic way possible or something, if we insist that our soldiers put themselves at additional risk on the battlefield to show deference to local customs or build schools or install plumbing while simultaneously fighting the enemy in their own territory, then eventually all the people who hate us will suddenly realize that we're really not so bad after all. Or so the reasoning seems to be. As I said, I don't pretend to understand it, because I don't think it makes any sense.


I'm well aware that the USA only used a small fraction of its military. And that it hasn't turned the Middle East into a giant smoking crater because the USA would be a giant smoking crater as well. As powerful as the USA is, it's nowhere near powerful enough to beat everyone at once, specially when some (ie Russia) have nukes too. With that "nation building" hing, France achieved that... while fighting off and beating the living daylights out of Europe. Building schools, showing respect for (some) local customs... it's called winning hearts and minds. You want the locals on your side, not supporting the Taliban. I don't see how that doesn't make sense.

CWS wrote:
On that note, I'm pretty sure the Taliban were already pissed off before we went over there, since they were sheltering and actively collaborating with al-Qaeda, blowing up ancient Hindu monuments, setting dogs on fire and beating little girls for wanting to go to school. With that in mind, WHO GIVES A SHIT how they feel.


I don't care what the Taliban think. I care about the innocents caught in the crossfire, and so should you.

CWS wrote:
#4: So, you don't consider the liberation of 34 million Iraqis from beneath the boot of one of the most cruel and oppressive regimes in the Middle East -- which is saying a hell of a lot -- to be a worthwhile accomplishment, huh? Interesting. That makes you an utter hypocrite on the subjects of Libya and Egypt, then.


There's one problem with Iraq as a nation: IT DOESN'T WORK. In a nutshell, there is no historical precedent for it, it basically lumps together Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims together. And they don't co-operate with each other. Under the Ottoman Empire, the Turks were smart enough to seperate these three groups geographically so that they wouldn't start all this bullshit. The British well and truly fucked everything up when they unilaterally created Iraq and lumped together these people who hate each other just so they could control the oil. Divide (or "unite") and conquer, if you will. Basically, what America has done is replace Saddam with a government dominated by one of these three groups. And the other two groups sure as hell won't co-operate with it, thereby ensuring continued hostilities and ramping up the hate. The situation is entirely different from Libya or Egypt.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
I'm well aware that the USA only used a small fraction of its military. And that it hasn't turned the Middle East into a giant smoking crater because the USA would be a giant smoking crater as well.
I'm rather curious as to how (or more importantly, why) you envision that happening.

snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
On that note, I'm pretty sure the Taliban were already pissed off before we went over there, since they were sheltering and actively collaborating with al-Qaeda, blowing up ancient Hindu monuments, setting dogs on fire and beating little girls for wanting to go to school. With that in mind, WHO GIVES A SHIT how they feel.
I don't care what the Taliban think. I care about the innocents caught in the crossfire, and so should you.
Well of course, but I thought we were talking about the Taliban? They're the ones you said we were pissing off.

snowman1989 wrote:
There's one problem with Iraq as a nation: IT DOESN'T WORK. In a nutshell, there is no historical precedent for it, it basically lumps together Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims together. And they don't co-operate with each other. Under the Ottoman Empire, the Turks were smart enough to seperate these three groups geographically so that they wouldn't start all this bullshit. The British well and truly fucked everything up when they unilaterally created Iraq and lumped together these people who hate each other just so they could control the oil. Divide (or "unite") and conquer, if you will. Basically, what America has done is replace Saddam with a government dominated by one of these three groups. And the other two groups sure as hell won't co-operate with it, thereby ensuring continued hostilities and ramping up the hate. The situation is entirely different from Libya or Egypt.
Continuing hostilities and ramping up hate...yup, entirely different from Egypt. :P

But moreover, I guess the Iraqis now have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to live as one nation or three, don't they? Surely you're not suggesting they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
CWS wrote:
I'm rather curious as to how (or more importantly, why) you envision that happening.


Think. Think real hard now. :roll: How would everyone else on the planet react if the USA suddenly unleashed its nuclear arsenal on the Middle East?

CWS wrote:
Well of course, but I thought we were talking about the Taliban? They're the ones you said we were pissing off.


Yes we were talking about them. But I didn't say that was bad, did I? I have no love for them, but let's face it. The USA handled the invasion of Aghanistan quite sloppily and didn't hit the Taliban jugular when it had the chance.

CWS wrote:
But moreover, I guess the Iraqis now have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to live as one nation or three, don't they? Surely you're not suggesting they were better off under Saddam Hussein.


Pfft, fuck no, Iraq is better off without him. However, the reason why Iraq didn't break up years ago is because Saddam was a bloodthirsty weasel who had no qualms using nerve gas to kill his own countrymen. Iraqis have a choice now, that is true and good. But I somehow think that they won't want to split up the country (excepting perhaps the Kurds) but will want to have the whole cake and eat it too (that sweet, sweet oil). Remember the American Civil War? Both the Union and the Confederacy had a choice too. They could have remained as seperate states, a war did not need to be fought between them, reunification would (and did) create a lot of unwelcome problems. But the war happened anyway because the Union did not tolerate seccession (even though it is a Constitutional right for a state(s) to do so, isn't it?).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:30 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
I'm rather curious as to how (or more importantly, why) you envision that happening.

Think. Think real hard now. :roll: How would everyone else on the planet react if the USA suddenly unleashed its nuclear arsenal on the Middle East?

Probably not by suddenly and spontaneously throwing aside all of their separate and highly conflicting personal interests to join together in a Galactic Federation of United Nations or something, and marshaling their largely nonexistent military muscle (except for China and Russia, neither of whom would likely be inclined to involve themselves) to wipe us out...which seems to be what you're suggesting.

The most likely outcome would be a lot of stern public talk but tacit approval from some quarters, vocal but toothless indignation from others, a strongly worded statement of disapproval from the UN, and a lot of quiet seething and vengeful plotting by those who are already doing so regardless.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
CWS wrote:
Probably not by suddenly and spontaneously throwing aside all of their separate and highly conflicting personal interests to join together in a Galactic Federation of United Nations or something, and marshaling their largely nonexistent military muscle (except for China and Russia, neither of whom would likely be inclined to involve themselves) to wipe us out...which seems to be what you're suggesting.

The most likely outcome would be a lot of stern public talk but tacit approval from some quarters, vocal but toothless indignation from others, a strongly worded statement of disapproval from the UN, and a lot of quiet seething and vengeful plotting by those who are already doing so regardless.


Maybe for some that would be true. However, you seem to disregard the possibility that everyone will seem to think the US government will have gone absolutely batshit-insane in the wake of their totally unexpected nuclear-induced annihilation of a sizable chunk of the planet, and will do anything necessary to preserve themselves now that the Middle East is an irradiated wasteland. After all, they could be next for all they know. Russia certainly won't sit back and let it slide with stern talk. It has a bigger nuclear stockpile than the US.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:53 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:24 am
Posts: 947
Location: Oregon, USA
snowman1989 wrote:
Remember the American Civil War? Both the Union and the Confederacy had a choice too. They could have remained as seperate states, a war did not need to be fought between them, reunification would (and did) create a lot of unwelcome problems. But the war happened anyway because the Union did not tolerate seccession (even though it is a Constitutional right for a state(s) to do so, isn't it?).
The Confederacy initiated military action, actually.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:04 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
snowman1989 wrote:
CWS wrote:
Probably not by suddenly and spontaneously throwing aside all of their separate and highly conflicting personal interests to join together in a Galactic Federation of United Nations or something, and marshaling their largely nonexistent military muscle (except for China and Russia, neither of whom would likely be inclined to involve themselves) to wipe us out...which seems to be what you're suggesting.

The most likely outcome would be a lot of stern public talk but tacit approval from some quarters, vocal but toothless indignation from others, a strongly worded statement of disapproval from the UN, and a lot of quiet seething and vengeful plotting by those who are already doing so regardless.
Maybe for some that would be true. However, you seem to disregard the possibility that everyone will seem to think the US government will have gone absolutely batshit-insane in the wake of their totally unexpected nuclear-induced annihilation of a sizable chunk of the planet, and will do anything necessary to preserve themselves now that the Middle East is an irradiated wasteland. After all, they could be next for all they know.
"Totally unexpected"...uh, what was this thread marking the ten-year anniversary of, again? :roll:

And incidentally, why does everything always come back to nukes? I never said anything about them. There's a hell of a lot we can do short of that, although granted, I guess I didn't rule it out either.

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1058
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
The Phiend wrote:
The Confederacy initiated military action, actually.


After the US refused to pull out its troops like the Confederacy requested.

CWS wrote:
And incidentally, why does everything always come back to nukes? I never said anything about them.


You kind of left the door wide open for them. Remember saying this?

CWS wrote:
...for the past ten years we have been fighting this war with both hands and nine fingers tied behind our back, militarily speaking. Think about how little of our effective arsenal we've actually used. If we were truly as vengeful and indifferent as you believe, Afghanistan would be an uninhabitable, smoking crater right now. As would large areas of Iraq, Iran, Syria, and possibly Pakistan.


But yeah, we're getting off topic here. :?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:16 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:24 am
Posts: 947
Location: Oregon, USA
snowman1989 wrote:
The Phiend wrote:
The Confederacy initiated military action, actually.
After the US refused to pull out its troops like the Confederacy requested.
The Confederacy still initiated military action, regardless of their reasons for doing so. I'm pretty sure the Union was more than slightly concerned about having a demonstrably belligerent group that close by.

Bear in mind that the first act of aggression was when the Star of the West, an unarmed civilian ship hired to transport supplies, was fired upon in January 9, 1861. Which was less than a month after South Carolina declared its secession, and the same day Mississippi became the second state to declare its secession. The Confederacy wouldn't even exist until the following month, so it was strictly a case of recently-independent South Carolina firing on an unarmed Union civilian ship. Sounds more like rebels or terrorists than a stable independent nation, doesn't it? Even up to the Battle of Fort Sumter itself, over half of the slave-owning states refused to consider secession until after both sides were inflamed by the battle.

And in case it matters, the Confederacy was never internationally recognized an an independent country, either.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Ten years.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:15 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:17 am
Posts: 3268
Location: NoDak, U.S.A.
If you guys are gonna go all the way back to the Civil War, I think a topic split will be required. :P

_________________
Image
Image Image
Snow banner by Synkopated; Family banner by The Phiend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL