War

[sexual_chocolate]

So I was curious what the climbing community is thinking about the war. About 80% of the general US public seems to support the war; I wonder if the percentages are similar in the climbing community. Any ideas?

[texplorer]

This is what you call a trolling post. Don't just say it - spray it

[sexual_chocolate]

No, not trolling. I was simply wondering if there was any original thinking happening in the climbing community. Maybe everyone is sick of the subject? I do know that there is some diversity in this forum, and was wondering if that diversity was expressing itself in any way towards the war. It just seems funny to me that we are bombing a country, and threatened by further terrorist acts, yet no one is talking about it. Why?

[Cpt.Caveman]

I'm not really joking at all. My opinion is not up for debate or discussion. There is no sarcasm in my reponse or any whimsical statement. You asked for it.

[panther]

He's right. YOU Asked for it and you got it. Crushing the enemy without mercy is no joking matter.

So what's your stand fruitcake?

[jon]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

I'm not sure I know whether or not to take these responses seriously. Is every subject open for sarcasm and whimsical treatment?

Well, it is a climber's forum, after all....right?

---

Ok you want my real opinion! I think we need Rangers to secure the airbase in Mazar e Sharrif and bring in Apaches, Longbows, and Pavelows. After the base is cleaned up and the perimeter is under control with the choppers its time to bring in A-10s, F-16s, the whole arsenal and operate them out of that base. Get a Forward Air Controller unit in there to call 24x7 air stikes on Talitubbyban forces. You want to demoralize your enemy strike them with aircraft taking off from their own damn country.

Secondly we need to look for a Land Rover north of Kabul in the mountains. I'm pretty sure most Afghanis don't have a fucking Land Rover so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Find Land Rover, find Osama. Then get rid of Talitubbyban because I'm still pretty pissed about them blowing up those statues.

So yes I am for the war.

I wasn't in the military but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

[Alpine_Tom]

Jon, the idea that bombing people is going to destroy their morale is one of those myths that has been disproved over and over again over half a century: bombing was going to bring England to their knees during the Blitz, it was going to destroy the morale of the Germans, it was going to prevent heavy losses in any number of island invasions in the Pacific; it didn’t work in Vietnam, it didn’t work against Sarajevo, it hasn’t worked in Cosovo. Hell, there’s hardly anything left to bomb in Afghanistan besides bomb craters and Red Cross warehouses, but we want so desperately to believe that bombing will “break their will to resist” because it’s high-tech and safe (to Americans.) If I were a tiny bit more cynical, I’d say it’s such a popular idea because it maximizes expenditures of weapons: bombs and high-tech missiles and high-tech planes, and makes tons of money for the defense industry.

I certainly support the idea of a war against terrorism (and I am as horrified as anyone by what happened Sept 11), but I just can’t get past the breath-taking self-serving hypocrisy. Suddenly we’ve discovered terrorism, as though Sept 11 is the first terrorist attack in history. (I guess it was, since it’s the first one against Americans, which is kind of the same thing.) Terrorists have been mutilating people by the thousands in Sierra Leone, where was the outrage? Israel-backed terrorists killed on the order of 10,000 civilians in the Sabra and Shahila refuge camps in the West Bank in the 80’s, where was the outrage? Thousands of civilians were killed in East Timor over the last couple of decades by our allies the Indonesians, hundreds killed in the weeks after the election two years ago, where was the outrage? In response to the “ethnic cleansing” terrorism in Bosnia during the last Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld said “we don’t have a dog in that fight.”Since the Taliban came to power they’ve been treating women like animals, forbidding them access to schooling, medical care, or even the ability to go out in public unescorted, and brutally murdering women who some man perceived “violated” these rules. Where was the outrage then? George W. agreed to give them $45 million this spring after they agreed to say that raising opium was against the teaching of Islam. (Remember the war on drugs? It was in all the papers for a while.)‘course, none of those people were white, and probably none spoke English, so it’s hard to get too worked up about it. This is different.

So now we’re cozying up to Pakistan, which is run by a military coup, and we’ve abandoning the sanctions we put in place in a (probably futile) attempt to limit their nuclear capability, because they might be able to help us at the moment. And we’ve got China, who’s been using terror against their own population for 50 years now, on our side in the “war on terrorism.”

So, what the fuck is this supposed to accomplish? We kill everyone who lives in Afghanistan, or has ever lived in Afghanistan (or until we get bored and leave first, after all, the Olympics are starting up again pretty soon) and that won’t change the nature of Islamic fundamentalism, all it does is provide further proof to them of the evil of the west. Pakistan is full of fundamentalist schools, where children are taught the same hatred of the west that Osama and his buddies expressed. It’s strong in Indonesia too, as well Iraq (where W’s daddy suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait after telling him the US “took no position” on Iraq’s claims on that bastion of democracy and freedom.) All over the Middle East, poverty and resentment are building up the appeal of this militant extremism, and we're going to stop it by killing people who think dying for the Prophet is the way to heaven?

Some moron (in the National Review, I think) opined that we need to invade them and forcibly convert them to Christianity. Setting aside the remarkable cynicism of that idea (Christ isn’t about salvation, He’s about crowd control) about 1/4 of the world’s population is Islamic. That’s a lot of people to invade and kill or forcibly convert.

[panther]

Alpine Tom please pick a side cause you sound like you are walking on the fence with your "educated rhetoric". Are you an American or do you think bleeding heart politically correct jargon is what we need right now? THE TIME IS FOR ACTION.

I don't envision for a second that this can be stopped with bombing. I prefer to think that we will drive about 25 divisions through that stinking shithole and raise Caine on their asses.

Maybe when one of these people drives a bus up to the front of your childrens school and detonates a device taught to them by some organization in the Sudan then you'll get on the right bus and get with the program.

Seditionists will be dealt with fairly too. Perhaps a little roughly but fairly with their goddamn constitutional rights intact and all...

[Lambone]

Fuck Terrorism!

But it's to bad that bombs are the only solution to this problem.

[sexual_chocolate]

Okay, I'm against the war, so the opinion poll seems to be running at 66% in favor, 33% against, with Alpine Tom giving an articulate and illuminating response, yet refusing to be counted as either for or against.

Any others?

[Cpt.Caveman]

I don't see any other solutions to a govt that supports\harbors terrorist of this magnitude and infamy and does not understand anything but bombs and destruction of their home.

I don't know how many times you have been shot at when serving overseas in the military Alpine Tom but my guess is zero. I have not been to Afghanistan but I have been overseas and seen first hand how some of these types can act. My former roomdog was injured with shrapnel in his eye and face in '93 from a large explosion. I was shot at time to time and vehicles inside convoys that I was part of were mined and destroyed by remote detonation. These were acts of people trained by terrorist cells, hirees from the middle east. They even trained snipers that killed americans there too.

People with nothing to live for and nothing to loose and that posses these "I will sacrifice my life for Terrorism in the US" attitudes are not to be taken lightly. Not even force and immediate actions will make them understand. You must eliminate them or put them behind bars. Unless you want one of them to blow up your house next. I sure don't.What do you propose Alpine Tom? Anger Management classes for them?

[Peter_Puget]

Yikes Tom did you update an old SDS Vietnam War position paper? Apparently the bombing had some effect witness the Taliban’s recent change of fortune. I wonder if the US hadn’t intervened would England have been brought to its knees? Certainly a question but certainly a valid factor you conveniently left out. Certainly bombing had a positive impact from the (US perspective) in Vietnam (eg Ke San ((spelling)) And certainly you must know that! Certainly you know that this wasn’t the first terrorist attack on the US. In fact the press has repeatedly discussed previous feeble responses to previous attacks as emboldening old Osama and certainly you must know this. You also know that our bombing of Afghanistan is nowhere nearly as destructive as it could be, so why the hyperbole about killing everyone in Afghanistan?

Whether you are for or against the war these falsehoods and exaggerations serve no purpose and are the perfect example of why these subjects should be not subject to debate here. It is even sadder when such a post is considered articulate and illuminating. No argument is being made.

Hope this doesn't upset Cavey but he is pretty much right on this issue.

[Matt]

For those of you who would like to learn more about Afghanistan, let me inform you of the following:

The Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs Student Organization invitesyou to a film screening to benefit Human Rights Watch:

            JUNG (WAR) IN THE LAND OF THE MUJAHEDIN

A Human Rights Watch film festival award winning documentary by FabrizioLazzaretti and Alberto Vendemmiati (2000).

WHEN:      Wednesday, November 28 at 7:00 PM

WHERE:      University of Washington, Kane Hall 130

Suggested donation:  $5

In this beautifully produced look at Afghanistan, an Italian surgeon and awar correspondent join forces and set up a hospital in a country that hascoped with war for the last twenty years.  After the Russians, the Talibantook society firmly into their grasp.  Houses and schools have beenburned, sons killed on the battlefield and almost everybody is hungry.Meanwhile, tanks have conquered the mountains, soldiers and trigger-happy,and the rugged landscape is strewn with mines, which maim countlessvictims every day.  The new hospital tries to help these war victims, butthe surgeon gets discouraged at times because the situation is nowherenear ending.

For more information on Human Rights Watch's Afghanistan campaign, see

www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/index.htm

[Gerg]

It's easy to say kill em all, send in the military, etc. It is an entirely different thing when it is your life on the line as a serving member of the armed forces. Put your money where your mouth is. If you are so gung ho about having US troops involved, why not join the services?

If the US is going to designate it's armed forces as an international police force (whether other countries want it or not), then we should treat all events the same. As Alpine Tom pointed out, there are so many events in the last 20 years that were not "justifiable" to enter because the US had nothing to gain. Either the US is the international police force or it isn't. Picking and choosing "favorite countries" and which fights to enter will lead to more unrest and irritation with US foreign policy.

I abhore terrorism. But it is also important to make a well thought out response. Gee, the Soviet Army bombed Afghanistan for years and years and didn't make any progress. Maybe there is a better way? Brute force does not solve all problems.

My wife and a lot of our friends are in the Army. Maybe that gives me a different perspective than someone who doesn't know any soldiers. For now it's a free country, think whatever you want.

gev

[Bob_Clarke]

It seems that so much of this began in the late Nixon/Ford to Carter era. Hijacked planes and taking American hostages then trading weapons for them. All the US government did was look like a scared sissy dog with it's tail between it's legs. Now over the years these "terrorists" have honed their skills to unheard of arrogance and destruction.

I believe they would fear absolute force. I believe in that absolute force - push that big red button. All at the same time, Kabul, Bhagdad, and Pakistan's capital.

[David_Parker]

I watched Saving Private Ryan again last night. WAR IS HELL! I also saw two other interesting shows on the Discovery channel. One was about all our new high tech stuff that in my mind goes a long way to do two things, 1. Save American lives and 2. Save enemy (or in this case non enemy but living in the wrong place at the wrong time) civilian lives. And these are only the devices they are willing to tell us about. This shit is so high tech and amazing it's scary. I was thinking it is good they are showing this stuff on TV because you have to believe that the enemy is watching our TV and if they are they should be shaking in their boots.

The other show was an excellent documentary on the whole gulf war in 1990. In a nut shell, Iraq got what they deserved and they were given plenty of warning and chances to withdraw from Kuwait. The things they did were horrific and cowardly. The reason that war was as long as it was is because the Iraqi soldiers couldn't surrender fast enough. In the end, Saddam did things that caused such environmental damage that it made Exxon Valdez look like a puddle.

If the Taliban is in communication with Saddam Hussein, then Saddam should be telling them they fucked with the wrong country. Hitler, Saddam, Bin Laden, they are all evil! I find it hard to believe that people follow these type of leaders. I'll leave that up to the psychology professors to figure out. But it doesn't take but a first grade education to know that if you hit someone, be prepared to get hit back, justified or not.

That being said, I can clearly see the things they see in America that disgusts the fundamentalists. I can see why they think the way they do. We are fat pigs, consuming the at an accelerated and disproportionate rate the worlds resources without an end in sight. Our presence through out the world and especially in the mid east is offensive to them. Unfortunately, because they are extremists, they are blind to the good we do or at least try to do.

I feel sorry for he people of Afganistan. But if it helps, they should feel lucky that it is the U.S. waging war on their turf. We will ferret out their enemies and destroy them. We will provide more aide to them than if we weren't in their country. And they are going to loose far fewer civilians than if any other country was doing the same! In the end, Afganistan will be a better place with the freedom to practice Islam they way they want.

The U.S. missed a golden opportunity to be a true world leader by striking back. What if we had set the unprecedented example of turning the other cheek. Isn't that what the Christian Religion promotes? What would the rest of the world thought of us if we did that. That we are chicken? SO WHAT!!!! WE KNOW WHO WE ARE! WE ARE USED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD THINKING ALL SORTS OF BAD THINGS ABOUT US!! Unfortunately the opportunity of turning the other cheek has come and gone and you can blame democracy for that. Like it or not, the general U.S. population, if polled, would support this war effort. How else do we justify our military spending. Those boys with toys have been waiting for this for ten years and nothing is going to hold them back. That makes us no better or smarter than they are. Just more powerful! And that is exactly what they hate.....catch 22!!!

Thanks for the opportunity to write this. I often have a much better time expressing myself in writing so although I have felt these things for some time, I've never really shared them with too many people. I hope it is stimulating and generates some more thought.

[Peter_Puget]

Ah Gerg what a sly ad hominem (this word had its spelling corrected) attack: "Put your money where your mouth is. If you are so gung ho about having US troops involved, why not join the services?" Somehow it reminds me of the rap bolters are pussies argument. Taken seriously the only ones who can advocate the use of armed forces would be soldiers. Are you serious?

Are you seriously saying that the US should not pick and choose the which international conflicts it should get involved with and to what degree? Are you really serious?

Here a quick one: compare and contrast US vs, USSR aims in Afganistan and how the convergence or divergence of aims affects how the USSR experience should be viewed. Obviously you brought this up because you know something. Educate me please without delay I have a meeting to head off to.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[jon]

Wow I better clarify myself before someone takes my words out of context. I agree with Alpine Tom about all the bad things going on in the world and our ever changing foreign policy, but Clinton cruise missle policy doesn't work and that means planes and troops, unfortunately. I feel very bad for these Afghan people, they have not seen peace in a very long time and what used to be a very beutiful country is now rubble. I don't believe putting their country below sea level is going to accomplish everything. Just because I say we should have planes and helicopters and some troops doesn't mean I think we should carpet bomb the whole place to smitherines. Modern warfare is controlled from the air.

I'm not gung ho about this, it's my view that unfortunately this has to be done though. And that means you go all the way or not at all. I have many friends who serve, I'm scared for them and their families. I'm the first male in my family not to serve, honestly not something I'm proud of. Past couple months I've wondered where I would be if I had gone to the USAFA, most likely wouldn't be here arguing with you.

[Peter_Puget]

Jon - I think Cavey was using poetic license when he said to bomb them below sea level. But my vote goes for blowing this entire thread up. It simply doesn't belong on a climbing site

[Bronco]

Alpine Tom:

The outrage you inquire about was in those countries/areas you mention. Just like the outrage is now here in the USA. I think you guys are making this way too complicated, we are attempting to break the organizations responsible for these attacks on our own soil. I agree most Afgans are inocent but, we have to be agressive and do whatever is necesary to punish and prevent. Keep bombing.

Gerg?:

Why are they in the military if they aren't willing to fight?

[Rodchester]

Daisey Cutters....yeah baby.

Get it straight and make no mistake...they want to and will kill you. This is kill or be killed.

No we should kill everyone...of course not. But we do need to kill all of them.

Yes...we do need to look at the root cause of thier anger. But don't make the simple simon assumption that a minor or evn major change in policy will make it all go away. No fucking way.

I seriously caution the simple simon comparisions between our ongoing experience there and Russia's (or even Britian's). Also camparisons with Vietnam are nothing short of comical and demonstrative of the intelect powering the thought.

Russians were invaders and conquerers. The Russians openly attacked Islam and closed mosques. Communisim is godless by idiology. Also the Afghans got their clocks cleaned until they were trained and supplied with superior eqiopment by the Western world. We are not there to occupy. They have NO ONE to supply them with superior equipment.

If you need a lesson on Vietnam...take a class. The differences are so many and so grossly simple I couldn't even begin to start.

So to sum it all up. Hunt them down like dogs and kill them. Starve them and take away thier support by changeing bad policies...but do not aboandon good policies just becuase the might have some bad effect.

Who knows what a daisey cutter is? We need to start using them there en masse.

have a nice day...

[Peter_Puget]

Amen Rod

[panther]

Gerg,

I served for seven years in combat arms. I personally know or rather knew people who were killed in the service and are buried in Arlington. The 18 Americans killed in Somalia on October 3rd 1993 were killed by men trained by terrorists intent on seeing the great Satan overthrown. How do you think Sammy Somalia figured out how to airburst an RPG round to take down a Blackhawk? - Uh yeah trained by persons we called terrorists. So a few years go by, a destroyer later, an embassy later, 3 NYC office buildings, the Pentagon, and about 7000 dead Americans later I gotta discuss this all on a fucking climbing chatboard?

Mike Durant may want to have some words with some of ya...

Today is veterans day and I've put my money where my mouth is so knowing someone or being married to someone who's serving is a far cry from BEING someone who's served. Where I went they didn't send female soldiers except in the rear.

Veterans the country over are turning over in their graves to see how their sacrifices have empowered persons in the rear to propogate false propaganda. The liberals have been allowed to make us soft for too long. It is now time to get out of the corner and start swinging until we knock them the fuck out.

Then we can discuss the merits of peace. Join the CIA or FBI if you really want to make a difference or have a problem with killing someone in Afghanistan. There are other options to serve and protect your nation and your families.

[Alpine_Tom]

I guess my verbosity obscured my opinion.

I think this attack on Afghanistan is counterproductive. Bombing a country that’s been brutalized beyond comprehension for two decades isn’t going to accomplish anything to make the U.S., or the world, safer.

It’s a stupid, arrogant, misguided effort to DO SOMETHING, DO ANYTHING, even if all it will do is prompt more attacks, which will provoke an “I told you so” response from the US government, and a continuing cycle of more bombs, more deaths.

We’re now embracing nation-building, (having carefully learned exactly the wrong lesson from Daddy Bush’s failure in Iraq) and we’re going to put in power in Afghanistan a ruling cabal that’s as violent and brutal as the Taliban (Hey, we armed bin Laden, and we armed the Taliban, we’ll just keep on doing it until we get it right.) And it’ll have no effect on terrorism because the money comes from Saudi Arabia, and they’re our buddies; we can’t do anything to offend them and their oil. Note that the Saudis have refused to give the US government information they’ve requested on the identities of the bombers, some of whom were Saudi citizens.

I don’t want my kid’s gradeschool to be bombed, Panther, but a “war on terrorism” seems like the most likely way to CAUSE that to happen. If Israel and Ireland are any example.

As far as my comments on the effects of bombing, PP, they didn’t come from an SDS position paper. The allies commissioned the Strategic Bombing Review after WW2 that came to essentially those conclusions: bombing doesn’t demoralize civilians, it just pisses them off and encourages resistance. Bombing London would have never won the Battle of Britain; only a land invasion, which Hitler never contemplated, would have done that.

What to do? Bush “demanded” the turn over bin Laden, and they agreed, conditionally, to send him to a neutral country, etc, and Bush’s response was “we don’t negotiate.” We were willing to send the Locherbee (sp?) terrorists to a neutral country for a trial, where they were convicted. Odd that W has so little faith in international law.

No, I’ve never actually been shot at, Caveman. Does that invalidate my opinions? The war’s being run and supported by draft dodgers and deserters (Dick Cheney, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey all managed to avoid any military service, and Bush went awol from is ANG unit.) So clearly prior military service isn’t a prerequisite to join the fun.

[Gerg]

"Are you seriously saying that the US should not pick and choose the which international conflicts it should get involved with and to what degree? Are you really serious?"

Often, it is worth it to take arguments to their logical extreme. Personally, I would prefer that the US picks and chooses its battles. I certainly do this to avoid wearing down my resources. It would be foolish to do otherwise. There are consequences in picking your battles (as there are for choosing to participate in every fight). As such, the US must decide where its values lie. What attempted to convey earlier was exactly this. To date, I have been consistantly disappointed in which battles have been fought and which have been overlooked. We must remember to think before we act. We must remember that there is a consequece for whichever action or inaction we decide to pursue.

"Here a quick one: compare and contrast US vs, USSR aims in Afganistan and how the convergence or divergence of aims affects how the USSR experience should be viewed. Obviously you brought this up because you know something. Educate me please without delay I have a meeting to head off to."

This point was brought up only to illustrate that brute force is not always the best way, independant of the aims of the US vs the USSR. It didn't work for the Soviets and others before them. I'm questioning if force is the best method. Sure I can force a square peg in a round whole but it doesn't mean I have chosen the best method.

We all know the saying "You can bring a horse (or camel in this case) to water but you can't make it drink". America often thinks that imposing democracy (or really a repulican state) on other countries is in their best interest. We often forget that this is not neccessarily what they want or need--ever play SimCivilization or its equivalent?--there are cultural developments that are necessary before changes can successfully occur. I'm not arguing that the Taliban is the best government or that it should stay in power. I am aruguing that even if we impose/encourage a democratic government, this doesn't mean that this is in Afghanistan's best interests. It could, in fact, bring about further enragement in the Muslim world, being seen as another example of American imperialism and an puppet government, even if it this is not the aims of the US.

Panther--My hat is off to you for having served. It is people like you that make this country as great as it is. I do not claim that being married to someone in the service was the same as having served. It does give me a different perspective, however, and that is all I meant to illustrate.

My beef is with US foreign policy and its seeming contradictory nature. I've always been a person who wants to do something right so I only have to do it once. Too many times the US does a bunch of half-assed nation building, doesn't do its homework before sending people in harms way, or ties one military hand behind its back in an effort to avoid bad publicity. Every action has a consequence. If the US leaders would think, do it once, do it wholeheartedly, and do it right, I would have no room to gripe.

gev

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Gerg ]

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Gerg ]