A Call for Reason

[AslanC]

"Nuke Meeca"? Holy crap!

Bush and his croonies about to start a war that could trigger a global confrontation! Millions of lives (living breathing people... human beings) could be lost.

Saudi Arabi is the country that the majority of the 9/11 pilots came from, but no plans to invade there.

Syria has sponsered more terrorisim that Iraq could ever hope to, but no plans to do anything about them.

This is pure and simple a Bush family vendetta, coupled with a need to grab more oil.

I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

Violence should always be the last option.

I cannot believe how many bloodthirsty posts I see on a Star Trek board. A place where people who love a show about peace and tolerance are supposed to be gathering.

Everytime someone not American speaks out against this stuff, the usual round of name calling and crapping on them abounds.

The minute any of them say anything about Americans we get the usual round of defensive postering and indignance.

Holy crap on a cracker can't we all just back up a bit and take a breath?

Remember one simple thing. Religion, skin color and nationality are all things that we use to divide us. But at the end of the day, shoot any one of us and we all bleed red.

Not everyone wants to kill America, just like not all Americans want to kill everyone who disagrees with America.

Whe youa re watching TV and see people burning American flags, remember the abject poverty most of these people live in. Most of them have a grade 5 or lower quality education.

They are as much victims of their countries propoganda machines as North Americans and Europeans are.

Please I ask all of you who are calling for blood, blood of your fellow man, to stop for two minutes and realize that violence begets violence... Only peace begets peace. When you shoot a man you don't make him see your point, you just end his life.

Ghandi understood that (go ahead and be as cynical about him as you want to be). Christ seemed to get it too. Both fo these men died for their believes, but they never killed for them.

[SIR SIG]

After seeing Styro's post, I think the bit about nuking Mecca was a joke.

Don't take it to seriously Aslan.

Although it does seem like a Bush family vandetta.

[Don Mappin]

Don't lump all of us Americans in the same group as those that say silly things like "nuke (insert name here)."

Most of us (Americans) are of a pretty even keel.

[calguard66]

I think you're missing the point.

First, what's wrong with securing US's oil supply? It's vital to our national security. It's the current equivelent to securing a supply of fresh water or seaport access in earlier times.

I don't advocate invading Iraq because they are a different color, or a different religion... I advocate it becuase I feel that, properly executed and followed through, it will improve the safety and security of the United States.

I do not hate the Iraqi people, I don't hate Muslims, I don't hate Iraqi soldiers. I even feel a certain amout of respect for the 9/11 hijackers. Had they flown empty aircraft into those buildings I might be arguing that they were legitimate military targets... the Pentagon certainly was. And we SHOULD be withdrawing our support for Saudi Arabia. We don't need them, their bases, or their oil. We can get everything we need from Kuwait and other smaller nations in the region.

I fought the last Gulf War as a frontline combat soldier, a tanker in the 3rd Armor Division. I didn't hate the Iraqi soldiers then, in fact I felt sorry for them. I also killed them as quickly and efficiently as I could. If they were not OBVIOUSLY trying to surrender when I spotted them, they did not get the chance. Often, due to US night-vision technology, I was able to engage them before they even knew I was there... no opportunity to even attempt to surrender. Such is the nature of war.

My point is that I don't care if they see things my way, if they can be persuaded to our point of view. If they do someday, great... if not that's fine too. I realize that many Iraqis dislike Saddam, but until they are willing to rise up and overthrow him themselves they must accept the consequeses of having such a leader. Right now today Iraq represents a danger to the United States, it's citizens, and it's way of life. Anyone who fits that category becomes a potential target of the United States military.

When directed by competent authority, we will eliminate those targets rulthlessly. Not out of hate, not out of fear, not out of prejudice... but out of duty. It's nothing personal, I'm a professional. If we can do it without a single Iraqi casualty, that's great. If we inflict 10,000 casualties, that's OK too... the citizens of the next nation that decides to play hardball with the US and threaten her security might remember and persuade their leaders to take a more reasonable course... or install new leadership.

That should be the attitude the entire US takes with any situation where force must or might be employed. Not the first option, not the last option, but AN option, employed to best effect.


"Persuasive in peace, invincble in war"

[Kronok]

You go calguard66!!!

That was one of the most intelligent things I have ever read.

Because of you, I am even MORE proud to be an American.

It is a privilege to be a part of a nation that is protected by honorable men like you.

Thank you.

[First of Two]

I agree nuking Mecca is a bad idea.

Medina should be part of the bargain.


Not long after September 11th, I had a nightmare in which I was watching CNN:

They announced that the terrorists had just attacked Disneyworld. I saw Epcot Center on fire and dozens of small forms laying about.

Then somebody else rushed on camera and announced that Mecca, Baghdad, and Tehran had been vaporized.

Saudi Arabi is the country that the majority of the 9/11 pilots came from, but no plans to invade there.

Don't be certain.

Syria has sponsered more terrorisim that Iraq could ever hope to, but no plans to do anything about them.

Don't be certain.

I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

Started, THEN lived through. War is often better than surrender. Ask the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto.

I cannot believe how many bloodthirsty posts I see on a Star Trek board. A place where people who love a show about peace and tolerance are supposed to be gathering.

Remember... some of us are Klingon fans?
How many Wars has the Federation fought?
Eugenics Wars
WW III
Romulan War
Klingon Wars/Skirmishes
Tholian Wars/ Skirmishes
Romulan Skirmishes
Cardassian War
2nd Klingon War
Dominion War
Tzenkethi War
Borg War
etc, etc, etc.

The Star Trek universe is not a peaceful one.

Whe youa re watching TV and see people burning American flags, remember the abject poverty most of these people live in. Most of them have a grade 5 or lower quality education.

Poverty is not an automatic badge of Innocence, just as wealth is not an automatic badge of Evil.

Please I ask all of you who are calling for blood, blood of your fellow man, to stop for two minutes and realize that violence begets violence... Only peace begets peace. When you shoot a man you don't make him see your point, you just end his life.

I'm just calling for the blood of their leaders. It's not my fault if they choose to fight and die for them rather than surrender.

Peace does NOT beget peace. How long would Ghandi have lasted against Adolf's boys?

When you shoot a man, sometimes you prevent him from carrying out his intent of shooting YOU.

Ghandi understood that (go ahead and be as cynical about him as you want to be).

Ghandi again? Here's an applicable Ghandi quote, just for laughs"

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi

Sorry man, but you hung my munchkin.

[Don Mappin]

Nice post, calguard66.

[qerlin]

Once again, I'm with calguard on this one.

"Only peace begets peace." Nice sentiment, but untrue, as much as I might wish it were otherwise.

War was a natural state for man until fairly recently. The relative peace (LIC not withstanding) of the later 20th Century was secured by fear -- fear of nuclear weapons. Fear of violence, and the application of such when necessary, is the underpinning of international and national law.

War becomes necessary from time to time. Personally, I'd love if we took the leash off this guy -- let him run reckless for a few years -- then when people say "We should do something!" and look to the US, we bloody secure the whole region.

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Well said both Aslan and Calguard.

Originally posted by calguard66
I realize that many Iraqis dislike Saddam, but until they are willing to rise up and overthrow him themselves they must accept the consequeses of having such a leader.

Except I wonder how well any of us would do, in their shoes. Fear is a powerful weapon, and I have no doubt that fear is one of Saddam's major weapons for maintaining power. I wonder, would any of us have the guts to stand up and fight his regime if we lived under it.

As has been pointed out by far more learned men than I, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. And by comparison to those who live under such regimes as Iraq's we do live in paradise. SOmething I think many of us too easily forget.

Oh I'm not saying there's any easy way through this, and I don't doubt that sooner or later this will result in yet more military action. I just wish there was another way, and I pity the people who will be caught in the middle, and likely suffer the most. And that includes both sides. I couldn't pick up a gun and go to war, but I have great respect for those who can. Or at least, the ones who deserve respect. The military has it's share of cretins just like everywhere else I guess.

Either way, I like to consider myself a practical pacifist. I don't like to fight, and I won't start a fight. But I do belive that if you are attacked you should defend yourself. Should we attack Iraq? I can't honestly say I have an answer. My common sense says probably, but my ethical self says no, find another way. Go figure.

[calguard66]

I quite agree. I don't particularly WANT to go to Iraq again. I realize that the average Iraqi doesn't have a real chance of overthrowing Saddam.

HOWEVER... as an American my most fundamental belief is that a person is individually responsible for the form of government he lives under.

As I have posted often before, there are two acceptable outcomes when fighting for freedom: victory and death. The average Iraqi has little chance of the first, but the second is quite possible. I realize that they may be unwilling, for whatever reason, to risk death but they must then accept the consequences of their inaction, including the possibility of an American 500lb bomb dropping down the chimney.

I realize it's a lose-lose situation... but life isn't fair. I will not risk the security of the United States, or the life of a fellow soldier, to safeguard an Iraqi who is the root cause of our being there in the first place. I will avoid harming them if I can, but allowing human shields to disrupt military operations simply encourages their use.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the decision to use force must be a practical one... not made in anger, not made in fear. It must be dispassionate, it must be reasoned... and when the decision is made in favor of force, it must be executed professionally and firmly, but again without emotion.

Anger leads to mistakes, it leads to useless deaths, it leads to avoidable casualties, atrocity, loss of focus... it leads to defeat.

Remorse leads to hollow victories, unachived objectives, hesitation, and also defeat.... and the most useless deaths of all, on both sides: death without victory, soldiers' lives wasted on an inconclusive battlefield.

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter
Well said both Aslan and Calguard.



Except I wonder how well any of us would do, in their shoes. Fear is a powerful weapon, and I have no doubt that fear is one of Saddam's major weapons for maintaining power. I wonder, would any of us have the guts to stand up and fight his regime if we lived under it.

As has been pointed out by far more learned men than I, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. And by comparison to those who live under such regimes as Iraq's we do live in paradise. SOmething I think many of us too easily forget.

Oh I'm not saying there's any easy way through this, and I don't doubt that sooner or later this will result in yet more military action. I just wish there was another way, and I pity the people who will be caught in the middle, and likely suffer the most. And that includes both sides. I couldn't pick up a gun and go to war, but I have great respect for those who can. Or at least, the ones who deserve respect. The military has it's share of cretins just like everywhere else I guess.

Either way, I like to consider myself a practical pacifist. I don't like to fight, and I won't start a fight. But I do belive that if you are attacked you should defend yourself. Should we attack Iraq? I can't honestly say I have an answer. My common sense says probably, but my ethical self says no, find another way. Go figure.

[Ramage]

I was reading an article last night (sorry, it was off-line in a small-print local paper, so I can't give a lin) that was comparing several different polls taken in about the last two weeks amongst American regarding a potential invasion of Iraq. The combined results were rather fascinating:

Should we force a regime change in Iraq? Yes, about 65%

Is it acceptable to do this militarily? Yes, about 60%

Should we do this if the US goes it alone? Yes falls to about 46-50%.

Would you support this action if it required troops staying in Iraq a year? 5 years? 10 years? Yes goes to 60%, 50%, and 25% respectively.

Same question as above but with only US troops involved? Percentages go down 10-15%.

Do you believe the Bush Administration is divided on whether or not to invade Iraq? Yes, about 65%. (Many cited the apparent split between Rumsfeld and Powell on the topic.)

Do you believe the president should go to Congress and ask for voted support before such an invasion? Yes, about 70%

The general point of the article was this. It was not that we should NOT invade Iraq, but rather that the public support for such an invasion is highly conditional. Another thrust to the article was that Pres. Bush, if he wants to have home support for such an operation, needs to make a much stronger public case for the invasion.

I think this board knows my general opinion on this topic. For those in support of such an endeavour, it appears that Mr. Bush needs to go much more public than he already has. Otherwise he may will find quickly dwindling support for his efforts.

[Surak]

I know your points and feelings as a soldier all to well calguard and you have a honourable view on that. In other time one would have called it "knightly virtues"

But being a soldier is not easy.
Well there is war there is the possibility that i have to send 100 soldiers to their death if ordered to do so. Some of them could be friends of mine. War is never fun. Ok true i am certainly not getting shot. Ok true i`ve never been in a trench sorrounded by Arty fire and odds are i will never be. Being an officer has advantages, but living with the decisions you have to make as an officer is not always easy.

Hmm perhaps we meet sometime in an maneuver. I`d love to discuss politics with you

Btw: a question for you if you have ever been in an maneuver with Germans. My impression was: German planes; crap compared to yours. US tanks;crap compared to ours. German ships; crap compared to yours. US Rifle ( M16 meant); crap compared to German rifle (H&K G 36).

[Capt.Hunter]

Yep, H&K all the way - why d'you think the SAS use them!

Now if we could just get a halfway decent rifle for our ordinary soldiers...

Cal, you always make good points about military force and its application. I agree if you're going to get into a war you should not fight piecemeal. However, your point about Iraqis not wanting to rebel and thus deserving the consequences of what happened is somewhat unsympathetic. Now, as an American, you have a historical example of a people rising up to overthrow an oppressive government, but there were advantages working on the American side - very little equipment gaps, large areas to hide out in, and an opposing force (the British Army) who were still used to fighting in line formation (about the most stupid thing you can do when faced with rifles). Even with the modern US citizen's Right to Bear Arms, I really don't think the American population would have much joy if they tried ousting a truly corrupt regime with an advanced military. The same applies to the Iraqis. And human nature means very few of us will take on a fight we know we can't win, unless we know we'll die either way. The Iraqis see they'll die if they stand up to Hussein, but if they wait it out and keep their heads down, they stay alive, perhaps hoping for a better government after he's dead. I wonder if anyone of us would react differently. I'd like to think I would, but then it's remarkably easy to say that from my comfy office chair here in a modern, democratic country...

[Capt Daniel Hunter]

Originally posted by calguard66


I guess what I'm trying to say is that the decision to use force must be a practical one... not made in anger, not made in fear. It must be dispassionate, it must be reasoned... and when the decision is made in favor of force, it must be executed professionally and firmly, but again without emotion.

Oh I agree with that. A soldier on the battlefield must act in the best interests of himself and his force. I've never had a problem with that. If a soldier spends all his time worrying about the people they are shooting at, he and his companions will soon be dead. It's not nice, and I don't like it, but it's true and it's necessary.

[calguard66]

My comment doesn't only apply on the battlefield. The same approach should be taken in the boxing ring or the Oval Office.

I agree that there is little chance for the average Iraqi... I agree that the option which maximizes survival is to lay low and hope both sides miss you.

My point is, if they choose that option they (and the rest of the world) have to accept what comes with it. They are placing their fate in the hands of others.

I restate my basic premise: Nobody can rule a group of people who absolutely refuse to be ruled. They can be killed, but they cannot be forced to submit.

For the pacifists, Ghandi is the perfect example.

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter


Oh I agree with that. A soldier on the battlefield must act in the best interests of himself and his force. I've never had a problem with that. If a soldier spends all his time worrying about the people they are shooting at, he and his companions will soon be dead. It's not nice, and I don't like it, but it's true and it's necessary.