rec.autos.simulators

by **Joe Ottoso** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:54:10

> > Did my statement contain anything about ease? Make no mistake, the USA
will
> > defeat any enemy that declares war upon it, no matter how arduous the
task.

> hmmm my history book saiz here that the vietcong declared war on american
in the
> vietnam war.
> do u mean to tell me that history books over in america say that the
vietcong
> was defeated in that war?
> i know countries tend to rewrite history how they like it to of been but
wasnt
> aware america have done this with the vietnam war

In Viet Nam and Korea, there was never any formal declaration of war issued
by the US. So they aren'y technically wars from a US perspective, and never
really were.

by **Robert Twee** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:57:41

This is really why the Muslims are not happy about it, especially since as
far as they are concerned, they got there first and the Jewish settlers now
trying to make them "second class citizens" are no more than illegal
immigrants. I daresay Americans wouldn't be happy if migrant workers
currently working illegally in the US for a couple of dollars per hour
decided to take over the country and put Americans into reservations. Well,
that's pretty close to what happened over there. You can read some of the
history by searching for the word "Zionism".

- Robert

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:02:01

When are you going to stop projecting your own labels upon my arguments?
I've never once said that the job will be easy. You are creating this "It
will not be easy" thing as a strawman for your own concerns. I *know* it
will not be easy, unless we're fortunate. That doesn't detract from the
fact that there's a juncture for the future of our country, for even our
species, that we must face. We are at a point in history where the weapons
are too powerful and the most blatantly irresponsible people have to be
eliminated. MAD worked because both sides were sane. Someone here is not
sane.

Well unless someone just hands them over, we're only going to get them by
invading someone. Even then, what if the terrorist ring is scattered across
many countries? We won't be able to get them all. We can hope there's an
epicenter somewhere. If there isn't, then we're *really* going to move into
a new era of warfare, one where the enemy has no location.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Robert Twee** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:06:52

> > > Did my statement contain anything about ease? Make no mistake, the
USA
> will
> > > defeat any enemy that declares war upon it, no matter how arduous the
> task.

> > hmmm my history book saiz here that the vietcong declared war on
american
> in the
> > vietnam war.
> > do u mean to tell me that history books over in america say that the
> vietcong
> > was defeated in that war?
> > i know countries tend to rewrite history how they like it to of been but
> wasnt
> > aware america have done this with the vietnam war

> In Viet Nam and Korea, there was never any formal declaration of war
issued
> by the US. So they aren'y technically wars from a US perspective, and
never
> really were.

He didn't say the US declared war (which they didn't), he said that the Viet
Cong declared war on the US. I haven't been able to find a reference that
says for certain.

- Robert

by **Isaac K** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:24:40

>>Of course, by sheer luck all of the most important target
>>ships WERE underway at the time, and they survived the
>>attack anyway.
>There is the cynical theory that the USA knew all about the
>pending attack and just needed an atrocity to galvanize the
>nation into entering WW II.

The *** theories just don't stack up.

For one thing, people still thought the most important ships
were the battleships, not the aircraft carriers. Ironically,
sinking the majority of U.S. battleships forced upon the U.S.
Navy an earlier adoption of carriers as their main fighting force.

Perhaps the most forward thinking person at the time in terms
of the importance of the aircraft carrier was Admiral Yamamoto.
Even he felt battleships were necessary for the main battle
after exchanging aircraft attacks. Even the success in Pearl
Harbor didn't change this basic view, since those attacks were
against more or less immobile ships in port.

Isaac Kuo

by **Quatori** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:15:16

In the swirling mists of history, on Thu, 13 Sep 2001 04:13:55 GMT,

>It is going to be messy. No doubt about it. But the Americans got themselves
>into this mess by thinking that a few bombs would scare these people away.
>It's a war now and it has to be faced.

It's remarkable to me how many people seem to have such an easy time
assuming that the actions of ONE administration is somehow permanently
representative of the mindset of every American citizen, to the extent
that you would make such an inane and crass comment. "The Americans"
had virtually nothing to do with the decision to bomb, the target for
the bombing, or the number and quantity dropped. Once a President is
elected, there is very little the people can legally do to affect his
choices. That's how a representative democracy functions. To imply
that somehow every American is responsible for bombing a location, and
thus that every American is responsible for this terrorist attack,
borders upon retardation.

-Quatoria
--
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that
faith does not prove anything.
-- Friederich Nietzsche
Shameless Plug - Visit www.hardnews.org for even more of Q's unpaid ranting.

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:52:57

Well, on the flip side, terrorists don't particularly care to distinguish
between us, we're "The Americans." So as far as they are concerned, we are
collectively responsible.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Quatori** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:51:34

In the swirling mists of history, on Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:52:57 GMT,

>> To imply
>> that somehow every American is responsible for bombing a location, and
>> thus that every American is responsible for this terrorist attack,
>> borders upon retardation.

>Well, on the flip side, terrorists don't particularly care to distinguish
>between us, we're "The Americans." So as far as they are concerned, we are
>collectively responsible.

Even more reason not to fall into the same sort of thinking. I would
think that this tragedy would illustrate exactly why we want to
rabidly avoid being in any way like those monsters.

-Quatoria
--
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that
faith does not prove anything.
-- Friederich Nietzsche
Shameless Plug - Visit www.hardnews.org for even more of Q's unpaid ranting.

by **Bent C Dalag** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:09:10

>2. The next one won't be a skyscraper, it could be a city. The
> "suitcase bomb" threat is finally going to get the attention
> it deserves.

It's amazing what you can do with a couple of well placed gas tankers,
and hijacking one is probably trivial. As was demonstrated on Tuesday,
there is no _need_ to smuggle in bombs when your target nation makes
their own bombs so readily available.

We had two rail cars full of gas and on fire in Norway a way
back. They evacuated half the town due to the expected
fireball. Luckily, the fire crews were able to keep it in check.

Bent D.
--

powered by emacs

by **Bent C Dalag** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:15:26

US support of the guerrilla was a key factor in Soviet defeat. The
guerrilla was defenseless against Soviet gunships, for instance, until
the US started shipping in Stingers. Then demoralization shifted from
the guerrilla to the pilots.

In an American (indeed, NATO) war against Afghanistan that is
considered by large parts of the world as righteous and justified, who
would dare support them?

Bent D.
--

powered by emacs

by **Robert Twee** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:23:17

> >2. The next one won't be a skyscraper, it could be a city. The
> > "suitcase bomb" threat is finally going to get the attention
> > it deserves.

> It's amazing what you can do with a couple of well placed gas tankers,
> and hijacking one is probably trivial. As was demonstrated on Tuesday,
> there is no _need_ to smuggle in bombs when your target nation makes
> their own bombs so readily available.

> We had two rail cars full of gas and on fire in Norway a way
> back. They evacuated half the town due to the expected
> fireball. Luckily, the fire crews were able to keep it in check.

That's the problem with terrorism, it's hard to create something good, but
very easy to destroy what you don't like. If your goal is peace and
advancement of the species then it's hard to defeat an enemy who's only goal
is destruction. Fortunately in the UK where we used to have the threat of
the IRA, etc., (there's more than one set of Irish paramilitaries) the
primary goal for them was to create economic chaos and advance their
political cause, not to kill people. They actually apologised sometimes when
people got hurt by mistake.

The people that did this on Tuesday clearly don't *care* about human life,
and appear to be opposed to the whole wertern ideology. It seems to be their
goal to cause mass destruction for it's own sake and there are many ways
they could potentially go about this.

- Robert

by **Robert Twee** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 19:26:48

> In the swirling mists of history, on Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:52:57 GMT,

> >> To imply
> >> that somehow every American is responsible for bombing a location, and
> >> thus that every American is responsible for this terrorist attack,
> >> borders upon retardation.

> >Well, on the flip side, terrorists don't particularly care to distinguish
> >between us, we're "The Americans." So as far as they are concerned, we
are
> >collectively responsible.

> Even more reason not to fall into the same sort of thinking. I would
> think that this tragedy would illustrate exactly why we want to
> rabidly avoid being in any way like those monsters.

This is precisely one of the points that I have been making, along with the
point that if we do fall into that way of thinking then it will ultimately
lead to a considerable escalation of the conflict. I am not mistaken in the
wording here, it is intentional: I am sure everyone agrees that this is
already a conflict.

- Robert

by **Joseph Huesma** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:27:18

>A nit--but an important one. Japan did declare war just prior to
>the attack. Unfortunately, the message was not translated and
>communicated to President Roosevelt in a timely manner.

>It is perhaps Japan's fault for not communicating their
>declaration of war in a more reliable manner.

IIRC, it wasn't the Americans that failed to translate the message in
time, it was the Japanese ambassador who wasn't a great typist and who
wanted to get the message right before presenting it, and insisted on
typing it himself.

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:33:23

Rich Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers.

I wonder if the Soviets would like a rematch also. Probably not, since they
have their hands full with Chechniya. But I bet they'd send advisors.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

by **Brandon J. Van Ever** » Fri, 14 Sep 2001 20:46:10

I don't think the USA will be satisfied with "tit for tat." I think the USA
is now becoming determined to *** these terrorists and terrorists in
general, as part of an international coalition to seriously damage
terrorism. Escalation cannot be avoided, short of sticking our heads in the
sand about what has happened. The only question is how far the escalation
will go. Judging by recent events, I'd leave it to the terrorists to
escalate in such a way as to make our jaws drop again. Since the enemy is
irrational and doesn't have a civilized sense of scale, I don't see why we
should worry about what they could do. They're gonna do what they're gonna
do.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

People who make personal attacks are useless.
I killfile them no matter who they are insulting.

rec.autos.simulators

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends

To my American friends