![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 13:44:30
> Nuclear weapons should be used against the people of the nation who harboured those responsible for those despicable terrorist acts.
I respectfully disagree. I don't believe that an entire country (Afghanistan seems to be the current front-runner) should be held responsible for the acts of a few fanatics. Partying in the streets is an act of free expression, not an act of war.
Also, if it's the Palestinians, bear in mind that they don't *have* a country, and we'd have to nuke at least one of our allies (Israel) if we're going to nuke the Palestinians.
-elizabeth
Posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 15:23:43
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B) » thrud, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 13:44:30
>
> I respectfully disagree. I don't believe that an entire country (Afghanistan seems to be the current front-runner) should be held responsible for the acts of a few fanatics. Partying in the streets is an act of free expression, not an act of war.
>
> Also, if it's the Palestinians, bear in mind that they don't *have* a country, and we'd have to nuke at least one of our allies (Israel) if we're going to nuke the Palestinians.
>
> -elizabethI think Afghanistan is going to be tough. There are, it would appear, more than a few fanatics there, and Osama bin Laden seems to be a de facto government minister of some sort. From what I have read, there are more moderate elements of the Taliban who don't much like him, but they're powerless to do anything about him. Pariah status doesn't seem to have deterred the Taliban in the slightest from committing awful deeds, waging a kind of war on its own people, and its own past, in an effort to clease the land of all but a perverted form of Islam.
If the Taliban isn't willing to turn bin Laden over at some point, they may be complicit in the current catastrophe. I think any hope of any of them winding up in an international court (the most appropriate, least-likely measure) is faint, without considerable bloodshed to get at them, and it will entail war with the nation of Afghanistan, since many are loyal to the Taliban.
But for heaven's sake, whatever happens, no nukes. This ain't WWII anymore. It's not like we're the only ones who have them, or could build them. Do we want the next terrorist attack to involve a nuclear bomb someone drives into the Capitol Mall? Use even the puniest tactical warhead in a conflict with Islamic extremists, and you may as well call that sort of scenerio a given. It may still be, even in the absence of such provocation. That's why I shudder so much at the future prospects. We already know what's really possible now. Throw even a Hiroshima-size bomb into the mix (entirely realistic, unfortunately, given the military sophistication of some of the "rogue states"), and imagine what New York would look like right now.
Posted by Elizabeth on September 13, 2001, at 6:54:29
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B), posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 15:23:43
Adam,
Now you've got me thinking about another of those damned Tom Clancy novels! :-) I don't know much about the political issues involved, but I heard on the news this morning that Bush said that the airplanes were used as "weapons of mass destruction." That concerns me -- it means he might be thinking about retaliating with WoMDs.
-elizabeth
Posted by willow on September 13, 2001, at 11:00:39
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B), posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 15:23:43
Adam made very strong good points. I really don't understand the politics of the middle east, but he helped shed some light on them for me.
Concerning nuclear energy, it seems a practical way of producing large quantities of clean energy, unfortunately though in the long term it's by-products can be lethal. "Nuking" an enemy is not a feasible alternative. Finland is still having effects from the Chernoybol melt-down.
A nuclear bomb would be polluting our planet.
This was an act of war, perhaps this is how our wars will now be as the world community unites. If any country's government defends or protects a terrosist in my opinion this country is also declaring war.
This morning there was an interview of Pakistan officials. Reminded me of bob, "could you please repeat the question, I don't unerstand" Politicians shouldn't try to hide behind rhetoric, when just a straight yes or no will suffice.
Unfortunately during acts of war inoccents suffer, as the acts on Tuesday showed. I wouldn't pull any punches.
Willow
Posted by SLS on September 13, 2001, at 14:29:54
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B), posted by Adam on September 12, 2001, at 15:23:43
> If the Taliban isn't willing to turn bin Laden over at some point, they may be complicit in the current catastrophe. I think any hope of any of them winding up in an international court (the most appropriate, least-likely measure) is faint, without considerable bloodshed to get at them, and it will entail war with the nation of Afghanistan, since many are loyal to the Taliban.
I don't really know who the Taliban are. I guess I should pay more attention to current events.
Finding an answer to deter or preempt acts of terror will probably be difficult, if not messy.
This is messy:
Perhaps one place to start is to form a League of Nations separate from the impotent U.N. and attempt to attain the objectives set forth by Woodrow Wilson. This might be accomplished most immediately by building upon an existing vehicle, NATO; changing its name and allowing admission one by one to only those nations that agree to the international law, policies, and sanctions initially set forth within a constitution drafted by a convention assembled through open invitation. Within the purview of such an international tribunal, it could be declared that those who harbor the perpetrators of crimes against humanity are themselves guilty of committing crimes against humanity. These active participants are to be made liable and prosecutable with sanctions equivalent to those available to punish those who physically perform the offensive acts. If the executors of a country refuse to extradite a personage found guilty of such crimes in this international court, they can then be summarily indicted and tried in absentia if necessary. The threat of punishment for capital acts under these circumstances might be a deterrent to their complicity, as long as mechanisms of enforcement are constructed and demonstrated with resolve and without hesitancy. Alternatively, it might cause these conspirators to flee from justice and abandon their positions of power. Or perhaps the threat of an invasion by an international military force for the purpose of apprehension and compounded by economic sanctions would incite parties opposed to the ruling faction to rebel and seize power, especially if a party deemed favorable to international order be encouraged materially.
Upon reflection, I think my idea kinda sucks. It might create an oligarchy of bullies, and deny representation to the majority of the world's populace. It might make more sense to create an inclusive body of United Nations. Oops.
I don't know what to do. I hope someone does.
- Scott
Posted by stjames on September 13, 2001, at 16:11:07
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B) » thrud, posted by Elizabeth on September 12, 2001, at 13:44:30
> > Nuclear weapons should be used against the people of the nation who harboured those responsible for those despicable terrorist acts.
James here.....Great idea ! Given that one A bomb will fill the whole earth with fallout radation, lets move underground, too !
I thought eveyone got this years ago: All it takes is 1 atomic bomb and the whole earth is irradiated, the mushroom cloud quickly fills the entire atmosphere.
jamjes
Posted by stjames on September 13, 2001, at 16:26:58
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B), posted by stjames on September 13, 2001, at 16:11:07
http://www.ulib.org/webRoot/Books/National_Academy_Press_Books/nuclear_war/nuclear.htm
Posted by Krazy Kat on September 13, 2001, at 18:43:00
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B), posted by SLS on September 13, 2001, at 14:29:54
> Perhaps one place to start is to form a League of Nations separate from the impotent U.N.
=== Yes, it is impotent!
and attempt to attain the objectives set forth by Woodrow Wilson. This might be accomplished most immediately by building upon an existing vehicle, NATO; changing its name and allowing admission one by one to only those nations that agree to the international law, policies, and sanctions initially set forth within a constitution drafted by a convention assembled through open invitation.
=== This will take a long time...
Within the purview of such an international tribunal, it could be declared that those who harbor the perpetrators of crimes against humanity are themselves guilty of committing crimes against humanity. These active participants are to be made liable and prosecutable with sanctions equivalent to those available to punish those who physically perform the offensive acts. If the executors of a country refuse to extradite a personage found guilty of such crimes in this international court, they can then be summarily indicted and tried in absentia if necessary. The threat of punishment for capital acts under these circumstances might be a deterrent to their complicity, as long as mechanisms of enforcement are constructed and demonstrated with resolve and without hesitancy. Alternatively, it might cause these conspirators to flee from justice and abandon their positions of power.
=== True.
Or perhaps the threat of an invasion by an international military force for the purpose of apprehension and compounded by economic sanctions would incite parties opposed to the ruling faction to rebel and seize power, especially if a party deemed favorable to international order be encouraged materially.
=== True again.
>
> Upon reflection, I think my idea kinda sucks. It might create an oligarchy of bullies, and deny representation to the majority of the world's populace. It might make more sense to create an inclusive body of United Nations. Oops.=== I don't think your idea sucks at all. I just think something is going to have ot be done in the interim.
- K.
Posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:44:37
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B), posted by SLS on September 13, 2001, at 14:29:54
> I don't really know who the Taliban are.
Pakistani extremists currently in power there.
> I don't know what to do. I hope someone does.
Me too.
-e
Posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 8:05:14
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B) » SLS, posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 7:44:37
> > I don't really know who the Taliban are.
>
> Pakistani extremists currently in power there.I goofed, they're in Afghanistan, not Pakistan. Sorry about that!
-e
Posted by sweetmarie on September 15, 2001, at 6:01:25
In reply to Re: Nuke the Bastards (redirect from P-B) » Elizabeth, posted by Elizabeth on September 14, 2001, at 8:05:14
The Taliban are extreme Islam rulers. Much of their legislation is (amongst other things) what we would see as anti-women. This means that, for example, women are required to cover themselves up completely, or face very harsh punishment (e.g. public humiliation, ostracism and/or much worse). They are also not allowed to do other things such as singing in public, and violence against women, both within marriage and outside, is seen as pretty much O.K. They are also violently `anti-West`. Frankly, the whole set-up is - to me - obscene and unacceptable.
However, although this kind of fundamentalism is at the `core` of the recent terrorist attacks, the blame for the attacks cannot be automatically levelled at the rulers of Afganistan, however horrific their regime is.
Someone - a politician or religious leader perhaps - should make some kind of `statement` about where the blame actually lies, or more to the point, where it DOESN`T lie. Ignorance and prejudice will create huge hostility towards people whose only connection with these attacks is that they are Muslim/come from the Middle East etc. This issue NEEDS to be confronted before hated and racism becomes a major problem.
I really think that this issue needs to be straightened out before anything else is done.
Anna.
Posted by Dinah on September 15, 2001, at 10:14:36
In reply to Re: First Things First , posted by sweetmarie on September 15, 2001, at 6:01:25
You are right that prejudice and hatred towards those that are of the Muslim faith is reprehensible and should not be tolerated. You are also right in that just the fact that Afghanistan is a fundamentalist Islamic nation does not mean it is to blame. The Taliban government of Afghanistan is at least partially to blame because of their complicity with bin Laden. My understanding from even before this incident is that they are the only government that has been willing to give sanctuary to bin Laden. In addition they have allowed him to operate and train terrorists within their borders. They have allowed the free flow of resources to him. Other governments have turned a blind eye to the funneling of money to bin Laden from their citizens but bin Laden operates from within Afghanistan. This was known before the current incident and after previous terrorist activities by bin Laden.
If someone were to hide a mass murderer in his house and allow him freedom to harm others from that house, I am pretty sure that person would be considered a conspirator in the eyes of the law.
Finally, I don't consider "retaliation" or "retribution" to be what I or most others are looking for. Bin Laden has killed before and will kill again. His hatred of America is firmly entrenched. I would like to see him stopped before his next act of terrorism.
Posted by sweetmarie on September 15, 2001, at 10:36:07
In reply to Re: First Things First » sweetmarie, posted by Dinah on September 15, 2001, at 10:14:36
The Taliban government of Afghanistan is at least partially to blame because of their complicity with bin Laden. My understanding from even before this incident is that they are the only government that has been willing to give sanctuary to bin Laden. In addition they have allowed him to operate and train terrorists within their borders. They have allowed the free flow of resources to him. Other governments have turned a blind eye to the funneling of money to bin Laden from their citizens but bin Laden operates from within Afghanistan. This was known before the current incident and after previous terrorist activities by bin Laden.
I didn`t know this.
> If someone were to hide a mass murderer in his house and allow him freedom to harm others from that house, I am pretty sure that person would be considered a conspirator in the eyes of the law.
> Finally, I don't consider "retaliation" or "retribution" to be what I or most others are looking for. Bin Laden has killed before and will kill again. His hatred of America is firmly entrenched. I would like to see him stopped before his next act of terrorism.I agree - but, how?
Anna.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.