Imagine, for a moment, that you live in a small town somewhere near the Southern California coast. You’re going about your daily life, trying to scrape by in hard times, when the missile hits. It might have come from the Iranian unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) – its pilot at a base on the outskirts of Tehran – that has had the village in its sights for the last six hours or from the Russian sub stationed just off the coast. In either case, it’s devastating.
In Moscow and Tehran, officials announce that, in a joint action, they have launched the missile as part of a carefully coordinated “surgical” operation to take out a “known terrorist,” a long-term danger to their national security. A Kremlin spokesman offers the following statement:
“As we have repeatedly said, we will continue to pursue terrorist activities and their operations wherever we may find them. We share common goals with respect to fighting terrorism. We will continue to seek out, identify, capture, and, if necessary, kill terrorists where they plan their activities, carry out their operations, or seek safe harbor.”
A couple in a ramshackle house just down the street from you – he’s a carpenter; she works at the local Dairy Queen – are killed along with their pets. Their son is seriously wounded, their home blown to smithereens. Neighbors passing by as the missile hits are also wounded…As news of the “collateral damage” from the botched operation dribbles out, the Russian and Iranian media pay next to no attention. There are no outraged editorials. Official spokesmen see no need to comment further. No one is held responsible and no promises are made in either Tehran or Moscow that similar assassination strikes won’t be launched in the near future, based on “actionable intelligence,” possibly even on the same town. In fact, the next day, seeing UAVs once again soaring overhead, you load your pickup and prepare to flee.
Of course, it doesn’t matter – if it really doesn’t happen here.
Right?
Putin is playing chess, W is playing checkers.
“In fact, the next day, seeing UAVs once again soaring overhead, you load your pickup and prepare to flee.”
Ummm….no. I load my rifle and prepare to shoot.
Shooting missles at Iraq and at “terrorist strong holds” was Clinton’s bag.
Bush sent in troops.
“Of course, it doesn’t matter – if it really doesn’t happen here.”
You mean Southern California helping to take out the two tallest buildings in Moscow? I suspect there would be a little more collateral damage than the Dairy Queen chick.
RBG
You know, loose toothpaste?–usually you take a washcloth and wipe it up and wash it down the drain.
I love the feel of clean teeth.
Dick meets Bush. Har!
Thing is, if this really happened, the following would result:
1: Stinger missile teams (air defense artillery guys would actually be useful for once) and attack helicopters would immediately start search & destroy missions on the UAVs.
2: Every PACCOM Attack sub and Anti-Submarine Warfare ship/helicopter would immediately start hunting down the UAV’s subs.
3: Cruise missile would hit the facilities that control the UAVs.
“A Kremlin spokesman offers the following statement:”
Due to Moscow and the surrounding area being a radioactive wasteland this will be my last broadcast…
If we attack Iran we might find that basic plan executed on centcom by Russia, steelcobra; would that counterattack be justified, in your opinion?
So the administration is attacking Somalia in this fashion. Do you have an alternative proposal? I suppose you would rather invade the country?
If US military action was based upon strategy rather than profit motive, then we would have a couple dozen special forces in there shooting terrorists with cheap and precise bullets. Instead, we are killing women and children with high altitude bombing. Collateral damage is just another name for profitable cowardice.
#4 (for example), you ignorant, self-blind, A-hole American’s that just don’t want to get a clue! What happened in NY was tragic but not an excuse for the deaths, destruction and chaos produced in revenge. 10 times the amount of INNOCENT people have died as a result of US led actions in Afghanistan then died in the WTC and in Iraq that number of INNOCENT deaths is 100 times!
In revenge for 3000 deaths and the loss of 2 buildings, half a million people that were as innocent as those original victims are now dead and two whole countries have had their infrastructure, economies and future devestated. But apparently that’s all ok because “they started it”, which even if it was an accurate statement is the most juvenile BS excuse that I would not tolerate from a 5yo child!
And isn’t the US “one nation under [a Christian] God”? Can someone point out for me that place in the Gospel where Jesus advocates the killing of the innocent, or even the guilty, for any reason? I seem to remember some stuff about turning the other cheek, and some vague rule about not killing, but maybe I missed something.
This issue gets me worked up like no other, but I see a picture of a childs funeral in Iraq and wonder why that childs life is worth less than my own. Of course my child is worth more to me, but not to the world/god/universe and some of the warmongers among you would do well to consider this.
http://peachpic.com/out.php/i35_deathsinmiddleeast.gif
And just to clarify, by saying “ignorant, self-blind, A-hole American’s” I am referring my comments to that (unfortunately large and in charge) sub-group, not applying a label to Americans as a whole.
Interesting… not a single word posted about why California was allowing terrorists to openly congregate and use its territory for the planning and launching of terror strikes against other nations.
Is the small town Berkley?
@ #15…….
ROFLMAO
@ #14…….
The Bible says……An eye for an eye
My religion says……Touch me and I’ll rip your arms off and kill your family with them.
You shouldn’t start a battle without understanding the consequences of your actions, sure it was two buildings and 3,000…..but were you considering the economic cost of replacing the two buildings, the suffering of the 3,000’s families?. Destroying 2 or 3 countries and killing a few hundred thousand is still not enough, I say we scorch earth over there for good measure and show them some real suffering.
Pass the White Phosphorus.
Li, could you explain this profit motive? These missiles are very expensive, so a dozen special forces would be much cheaper.
This article is an interesting little bit of tripe. Completely wrong on so many levels, but let’s look at just one.
Russia/Iran bombing California vs. US bombing Somalia. Anyone see the weird disparity here?
1st, the US would never give permission for Russia/Iran to bomb the US or any of our “friends”. Does anyone involved with that article know that the US has permission to attack Islamic Militants in Somalia?
http://tinyurl.com/33qf9n
That’s why I find this article interesting, it uses a false premise to make its argument.
A better example would have been to imagine being in a village in Ecuador which get bombed because it harbors FARC terrorist. But then again, the premise fails because Colombia did have good reason to go into Ecuador.
14 MG. “What happened in NY was tragic but not an excuse for the deaths, destruction and chaos produced in revenge.”
Revenge? You think “Please don’t do that again” might have worked with the 9/11 terrorists and their handlers and safe-keepers?
Would you tolerate the excuse that Bin Laden & co obviously had no plans to stop such terror because of the perceived invincibility of using children as shields, as you obviously support?
The US is officially secular. So even the atheists have the right to self-defence when a loaded gun is aimed at them – doing their best not to hurt the innocent in the impossible situation the terrorists have created. The terrorists, on the other hand, assume their innocent shields will forgive them in heaven for the greater “good” they do.
You think those merciless Canadians are there for revenge?
RBG
#16 – Regardless to how you might interpret different passages, there were no caveats listed to “thou shalt not kill.” Thereofre it is not a valid or intelligent argument to claim that “an eye for an eye” extends to “a life for a life”
#19 – laying the deaths the US (along with its accomplices) has caused at the door of someone else may help you sleep at night, but it is invalid logic. You control your actions and what you do is your fault. Here’s an analogy for you by way of illustration.
Steve is on trial for the murder of Bob’s family. He takes the stand and claims “Bob killed my son, so a year or so later after I had gotten my resources together I got a machine gun and some grenades and attacked his house. Bob wasn’t home and unfortunately his wife, two of his children, his neighbours and a few people that happened to be in the street at the time were killed in the attempt. All these deaths are Bob’s fault not mine because he killed my son.”
By your logic Steve should be a free man by lunch.
To excuse the taking of an innocent life in such a way is to accept that the method of the terrorist is valid. I am not saying there is an easy answer, but to reduce ourselves to the level of our attackers is to become what we despise.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
#20
> Steve is on trial for the murder
> of Bob’s family…
Stop right there. “Trial”?! Hah. A better analogy is that Bob’s family is murdered one day while Bob is away. The united neighborhood watch which includes a dozen or two local mob bosses comes around and says they should form a committee to investigate. In the mean time, Bob does some investigation of his own and finds out that not only is Steve, another mob boss, at fault, that there is no one to rein in the rest of this idiotic bunch and their stupid turf war that has been going on for centuries. So, instead of just taking out Steve which would put another Steve in his place tomorrow, Bob decides the best solution for long term peace is to take down the whole lot of them.
Man, Are all American such violent, hateful, selfish, and most of all, stupid people? I’m sure not.
Kill!Kill!Kill! And then what?
With such a language, it’s no surprise that so many people in the world think it’d be a safer and more peaceful world without the USA. So they think: let’s get rid of them!!
I have enough friends in the US to know you’re not like that. But the posts in this thread are appaling!
#16 RedpawGraphics writes, “The Bible says……An eye for an eye. My religion says……Touch me and I’ll rip your arms off and kill your family with them.”
I’m not familiar with your religion, but it appears to be even more insane than the more common varieties practiced in this country. Let me know if you have any manifestos that you need to have proofread. I promise I won’t give the FBI any heads-up.
#22 – So, what ultra-enlightened country (that doesn’t rely on US strength) do you hail from?
MG makes the classic mistake. He misunderstands the world.
Within (some) nations we have the rule of law.
Among nations there is a state of nature. If that phrase is obscure to you, google it.
Pretending otherwise is nice for folks who don’t like to think about things too much, but adults have to actually move and act in the REAL world.
#20 MG. But Bob is hiding at home. We know that because he continues to lob grenades at Steve and his family, not to mention other families Bob doesn’t even know.
RBG
#14 Wow…. what a strange planet you live on. So by your reckoning, we should not have entered WWII after Pearl Harbor because we just lost a few ships and sailors.
Does anything in your calculus factor in the future? That is if a nation does nothing to defend itself against attack, then there will be more attacks to follow?
I, for one, am damn glad to know that we will respond with extreme force to an attack. We will not stop when the numbers are equal. We are not trying to balance a checkbook here.
Are people from the various middle eastern cultures likely to be more forgiving or less forgiving than Americans are, when their innocent friends and family members are killed in a war they didn’t start? If I recall correctly, we weren’t very forgiving when it happened to us. Unless those people are less prone to vengeance than Americans seem to be, our own future could be fairly violent.
The first step in understanding the world is being able to imagine yourself in someone else’s shoes.
#18, Ah yea,
Russia/Iran bombing California vs. US bombing Somalia. Anyone see the weird disparity here?
Yup, I do. The latter is accepted by most here as “deserving” while the former is dismissed as unwarranted. While the former is true, it is aggressive. The latter’s justification demonstrates pure arrogance.
1st, the US would never give permission for Russia/Iran to bomb the US or any of our “friends”. Does anyone involved with that article know that the US has permission to attack Islamic Militants in Somalia?
http://tinyurl.com/33qf9n
I read the article you linked to. There was no “permission” granted or acknowledged. It sounds more as if the US took the action unilaterally.
A better example would have been to imagine being in a village in Ecuador which get bombed because it harbors FARC terrorist.
If you live in that Ecuadorian village you might be concerned. If you live in a S. California village you might be a little concerned too.
#20, MG,
Good analogy. Although I think it is over the head of most of the commentors.
… but to reduce ourselves to the level of our attackers is to become what we despise.
I agree whole heartedly. Unfortunately, many Americans want to be complete pussies, sheeple, and slaves of the government.
#20–MG==I was going to let this thread go but once you have Catshit (#30) eating out of your hand, a stand must be taken.
Where to start?
Arguments by analogy always fail at some point==otherwise you are actually talking about the desired subject?
The USA certainly should have used non-military means of retaliation but BushCo and the NeoCons don’t have the intelligence to figure out the more nuanced course. They (aka McCain) STILL haven’t figured it out.
We are acting like the worlds bully when we don’t have the back bone to maintain the effort. If we are going to use military might, then yes==innocents will be hurt and that is the cost of war which is exactly what makes it a poor choice of response.
Whats going on here? Seems like I’m agreeing with you? OH===yea==nothing BushCo or the USA does is guided by the bible and its various and conflicting dictates so that is a very stupid way to approach any subject. Once we use the military, a 10 or 100 fold return of violence should be expected–thats what war is about. Cant do that with a mercenary army though==too expensive. And the reason BushCo lied, is that the American people would never support a real war (aka 10 to 100 times retaliation) whereas we were completely willing to provide that in WW2.
Real politik.
# 25, Bob
MG makes the classic mistake. He misunderstands the world.
How?
Within (some) nations we have the rule of law.
Very true. As well, there are several international dispute mechanisms in place too, including the International Court, the United Nations, and World Trade Organizations.
Among nations there is a state of nature.
There is ??? Let’s see, …
State of nature is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state’s foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In a broader sense, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym of anarchy.
When I start seeing words like “theory” and “hypothetical” used to describe a social science I just know someone didn’t pass the joint. In other words, not very relevant.
Anarchy. Kind of like what the US led invasion into Iraq caused?
*
#28, Gary,
Another one of your fine, well said posts. You are making a habit out of this.