Heaven forbid but...

speedman

New Member
Of course the loss of life would be the worst part about it but what do you think would happen to the airline industry if there was another terror strike on U.S soil? Obviously very bad, but how bad? Bad enough to put an end to some major airlines, make trying to become an airline pilot impossible...
any thoughts?
 

flyitup

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think that if we do go to war with Iraq, it's only a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Viper,

Are you implying that if and when we go to war with Iraq there will be another terrorist strike on the U.S.?

Please explain.
 

chrisdahut1

Well-Known Member
If we're gonna get attacked, I think it's going to happen regardless of what happens to Iraq. These people are brainwashed, they truly believed we are all the great satan, infidels and need to be cleansed of our sins. The question is, how long until we get attacked again, and how severe will the next attack be?
 

Raskolnikov

Well-Known Member
I think if we go to war with Iraq it will only further the hatred of terrorist groups toward the US and lead to more terrorist attempts. However, it would be VERY difficult for them to pull off again what the pulled on Sep. 11th. As soon as a terrorist tries to hijack a plane the passengers would rise up and put a stop to it. Or so I would hope.
 

Timbuff10

Well-Known Member
well with the capture of the latest beardo it seems we have screwed up their chain of command. I believe we now have pretty much all of their top 10 guys except for (their top two) mullah omar and bin laden. That has to really hurt their network!

I am sure he will sing pretty loud when we start pulling out his fingernails and a few other things.
 

vipermcg

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Viper,

Are you implying that if and when we go to war with Iraq there will be another terrorist strike on the U.S.?

Please explain.


[/ QUOTE ]

For the most part, yes. I believe an invasion of Iraq will only further the hatred that many Arabs have for the United States and increase the terrorist attacks. Basically, war is going to piss off alot of people that maybe felt neutral towards the U.S. The other day I heard that If we go to war, by the time the war would be over,the government expects a 90% chance that there will be an attack on either New York or Washington. Since I live in New York, how do you expect me to feel?
 

tonyw

Well-Known Member
I personally think that if we do attack Iraq, especially since all the "evidence" is George Bush saying "trust me" and we know that no politician can be trusted, will flame a lot of anti-American sentiment. We'll create another 10,000 recruits for al Qaeda. Now, a lot of those people will be idiots who are only good for strapping explosives onto themselves and blowing themselves up, but there will be a few smart people who can kill hundreds of people when they go out.

Just freaking lovely. I thought attacking Iraq was supposed to make America safer?
 

Timbuff10

Well-Known Member
what would you rather have? some lone azzhole with bombs strapped to himself jumping on a bus while the people that talked him into it are on the run slowly getting picked off, or would you like to leave Saddam alone so he can build more chemical weapons and perhaps a nuke in a year or two and then give those weapons to terrorists to use on us?

If you stick your hand in a bee hive they will sting you.

If you stick your hand in a bee hive then pull your hand out and stand there they will still sting you.

If you kill all the bees before they sting you, you will not get stung.

Lets go in there, get it over with, and help the iraqi people get a better way of life.
 

jtrain609

Anarcho-Bidenist
What about North Korea? They have are waving their arms in the air saying they have had a nuclear weapons program. Oh yeah, they have a multi-stage ICBM that can go 8,000 miles. That means it can hit the west coast. How many of you are on the west coast? Life in North Korea sucks too, and they are part of the axis of evil. But we can leave North Korea alone, when we're going to go destroy Iraq, and then occupy it with an American way of life. Imagine if someone attacked the U.S., and then when they killed a bunch of people put someone here to "oversee" us. Let's call that guy Mullah. Nuts eh?

Now imagine that happening in Iraq, only the guy that they put in charged is named Tommy.

I await flaming, because it will come.

Cheers


John Herreshoff
 

Eagle

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
...but what do you think would happen to the airline industry if there was another terror strike on U.S soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't IF it is When
 

flyitup

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
what would you rather have? some lone azzhole with bombs strapped to himself jumping on a bus while the people that talked him into it are on the run slowly getting picked off, or would you like to leave Saddam alone so he can build more chemical weapons and perhaps a nuke in a year or two and then give those weapons to terrorists to use on us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Took the words right out of my mouth...

That's EXACTLY the way I feel...
 

vipermcg

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
what would you rather have? some lone azzhole with bombs strapped to himself jumping on a bus while the people that talked him into it are on the run slowly getting picked off, or would you like to leave Saddam alone so he can build more chemical weapons and perhaps a nuke in a year or two and then give those weapons to terrorists to use on us?


[/ QUOTE ]

But we have evidence that "Joe terrorist" has and will continue to attack the United States. Even if Saddam is making nuclear/chemical weapons, we have NO evidence he would try and use those weapons against the U.S. That would mean the end of him and his country. What makes you think he wants that?
 

flyitup

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
we have NO evidence he would try and use those weapons against the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not the kind of evidence you looking for, but are you willing to bet your life against the fact that he would never attack us using weapons of mass destruction?

I wouldn't…

He’s a VERY evil man and needs to be dealt with…
 

FlyingCardinal

New Member
As an International Relations major at Stanford, I thought I might add something to this post. One of my teachers, Chip Blacker, was the National Security Advisor to Bill Clinton during his administration, and I consider him to be one of the best minds for this stuff in the entire country. Blacker, a Democrat, says that attacking Iraq is imperative to maintaining security in the Middle East. Although Iraq does not have the delivery systems to reach the United States, they have the means to develop them. In addition, Iraq certainly has bio/chem weapons. So the decision to take action now, while unpopular, assures the US and our allies that an invasion later will not be as a result of a terrible attack launched by head chief in Iraq. After the Gulf War, the UN seized over twenty kilograms of VX gas, a deadly chemical weapon. Roughly ten grams of VX can kill every person in the world, assuming it was spread out perfectly. I am simply saying this because I am certain that my teacher knows what he is talking about. As I said before, my teacher is not a big fan of Bush by any means, so don't reply that he is just another conservative sticking up for his president.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Even if Saddam is making nuclear/chemical weapons, we have NO evidence he would try and use those weapons against the U.S. That would mean the end of him and his country. What makes you think he wants that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why wouldn't he? He's a wacko with no respect for any life save his own. If he and his country were nuked as a result of an attack on our soil, he'd be a martyr. That's the way he'd see it anyways. He tests these things on his own people, and he and his followers despise us 'westerners'...I want some compelling evidence that he wouldn't be able to use WMD.
I believe the NK situation to be a little different. I agree that it needs to be dealt with, other than just ignoring them. They're using nukes as leverage...that's why they're flaunting it. The Iraqi's hide WMD, so they can develop and use it at a later date--probably vicariously through terrorism.
 

davetheflyer

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think that if we do go to war with Iraq, it's only a matter of time.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it's only a matter of time whether we go to war or not. My hope is that by going to war, we can hurt the bad guys' logistically and either postpone or reduce the effectiveness of future attacks.

I believe that we were living on borrowed time long before 9-11. It is virtually a miracle that we weren't hit long before even the original WTC bombing in 1993. (Actually, I do have vague memories of hearing about a car bomb near either the White House or the Capitol building in the 80s. I don't remember who was responsible, but it was hushed up quickly.)

As to the effect on the airlines, I don't even want to contemplate it. All of the airlines will never totally shut down, but American and Continental see, to be on the brink of bankruptcy. Delta is also losing money like crazy. Whether any of them would go totally out of business is a open question, but some or all of them would probably follow UAL and USAirways into chapter 11.

Either way, the market will become more and more flooded with pilots.
 

naunga

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Lets go in there, get it over with, and help the iraqi people get a better way of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I disagree with you on this, but lately I've been wondering where we (and the U.N. for that matter) get the moral authority to dictate how a country should be run.

I know that Saddam is not the beloved leader that he would have us believe that he is, but then again how is it that we can go over there and install one of our citizens as ruler (there's another term that's better, but I can't think of it right now)? What does a U.S. citizen know about the customs and traditions of the Iraqi people. Remember there was life in Iraq before Saddam. I just fear that we're going topple Saddam and then start building Mickey D's all over the place.

I believe that something needs to be done, but I just can't help but wonder if we're acting as a good member of the international community or if we're just so full of our "good intentions" that we believe that we're right no matter what.

Naunga
 
Top