Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

50,000 dead in Vietnam VS. 20,000 dead in Manhattan -- WAR IS HERE
09/13/2001 | Lazamataz

Posted on 9/13/2001, 11:38:42 AM by Lazamataz

Mayor Rudy Giuliani has just requested 11,000 body bags, and I believe he is an optimist. If there are any fewer than 20,000 dead in Manhattan, it will be very surprising.

In Vietnam, we lost 50,000 of our men. Here, we lost 20,000. This is clearly a war. It will be long. It will be bloody. Since terrorists tend to be too cowardly for a standup fight, it will not be a 3 year long war, it is likely to be a 10 or 15 year long war.

This time, the American Squeamishness will not be there. We will not blanch if we lose 10,000 or 50,000 men in Afganistan -- for we know that failure to fight means another 20,000 civilians dead, in another city by another means.

Let us get to our grim task, and let us begin to eradicate the scourge of extremism and terrorism from our planet -- much as we eradicated Nazism, Fascism, and Imperialism so many years ago. We are as good and as strong as the World War Two generation -- now let us demonstrate our resolve and begin the long fight.


TOPICS: Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 9/13/2001, 11:38:42 AM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
This time, the American Squeamishness will not be there.

Laz, I hope you are right. The vast majority support a massive retaliation right now, but I just worry that as time goes on, wrists will go limp and knees will buckle.

2 posted on 9/13/2001, 11:43:25 AM by LoneGOPinCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Since terrorists tend to be too cowardly for a standup fight, it will not be a 3 year long war, it is likely to be a 10 or 15 year long war.

I disagree. If we choose more "police actions" of course you might be right. But all-out conventional warfare, invading and occupying these nations who harbor terrorists--and we know who they are--and governing them for a time until they can govern themselves through free elections and civilized institutions...

Sure, there'll be the occasional terrorist activity WITHIN THAT COUNTRY, just as there were Nazi "Werewolf" gangs operating in Germany for awhile after the war. But the era of international terror will be over...IF we do this right.

3 posted on 9/13/2001, 11:50:16 AM by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You know, you just shocked the heck out of me with these numbers. I never looked at it this way. Vietnam took years, NYC took seconds. WAR is the understatement and it is time to NUKE the rats. We have nukes that wipe out just small ares as we have em to wipe out vast areas. Lets go get em and this means 'Saydam' as well and all his 'brave' troops. Oh hyeah, Air-e-fat gave blood for the citizen of the United States. What you say lets get ALL his blood.
4 posted on 9/13/2001, 11:50:34 AM by gulfcoast6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Dropping bombs on isolated terrorists and their sponsors will not solve the mideast problem which deserves a more comprehensive solution.

We must take Iraq while the world is sympathetic to our plight. Pump enough oil to significantly reduce oil prices, stimulating the world economy. The lower oil prices will cause the mideast regimes to collapse so we must set up democracies there. Buy western Jordan for a new Palestinian state with infrastructure paid for by the Iraqi oil fields. Create US bases in Iraq from which to enforce regional stability. Afghanistan/Syria/Iran/Sudan are much easier to deal with once the US bases are in place with a million troops to back up our policies. And it gets rid of the requirement for US carriers over there and for massive military support of Israel.

DO IT NOW. WE MUST USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO STABILIZE THE MIDEAST AND NEUTRALIZE TERRORISM.


BUMP

5 posted on 9/13/2001, 11:52:11 AM by tm22721
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Some comments from an ex-Vietnam War Correspondent and staff-writer for a number of different publications The Washington Times, Army Times and Soldier of Fortune:

"A few unorganized thoughts regarding the events in New York:

(1) We lost. Our moral posturing about our degradation is merely embarrassing. We have been made fools of, expertly and calculatedly, in the greatest military defeat the country has suffered since we fled from Viet Nam. The Moslem world is laughing and dancing in the streets. The rest of the earth, while often sympathetic, sees us as the weak and helpless nation that we are.

The casualty figures aren't in, but 10,000 dead seems reasonable, and we wring our hands and speak of grief therapy.

We lost.

(2) We cannot stop it from happening again. Thousands of aircraft constantly use O'Hare, a few minutes flying time from the Sears Tower.

(3) Our politicians and talking heads speak of "a cowardly act of terrorism." It was neither cowardly nor, I think, terrorism. Hijacking an aircraft and driving it into a building isn't cowardly. Would you do it? It requires great courage and dedication -- which our enemies have, and we do not. One may mince words, but to me the attack looked like an act of war. Not having bombing craft of their own, they used ours. When we bombed Hanoi and Hamburg, was that terrorism?

(4) The attack was beautifully conceived and executed. These guys are good. They were clearly looking to inflict the maximum humiliation on the United States, in the most visible way possible, and they did. The sight of those two towers collapsing will leave nobody's mind. If we do nothing of importance in return, and it is my guess that we won't, the entire earth will see that we are a nation of epicenes. Silly cruise-missile attacks on Afghanistan will just heighten the indignity.

(5) In watching the coverage, I was struck by the tone of passive acquiescence. Not once, in hours of listening, did I hear anyone express anger. No one said, coldly but in deadly seriousness, "People are going to die for this, a whole lot of people." There was talk of tracking down bin Laden and bringing him to justice. "Terrorism experts" spoke of months of investigation to find who was responsible, which means we will do nothing. Blonde bimbos babbled of coping strategies and counseling and how our children needed support. There was no talk of retaliation.

(6) The Israelis, when hit, hit back. They hit back hard. But Israel is run by men. We are run by women. Perhaps two-thirds of the newscasters were blonde drones who spoke of the attack over and over as a tragedy, as though it had been an unusually bad storm -- unfortunate, but inevitable, and now we must get on with our lives. The experts and politicians, nominally male, were effeminate and soft little things. When a feminized society runs up against male enemies -- and bin Laden, whatever else he is, is a man -- it loses. We have.

(7) We haven't conceded that the Moslem world is our enemy, nor that we are at war. We see each defeat and humiliation in isolation, as a unique incident unrelated to anything else. The 241 Marines killed by the truck bomb in Beirut, the extended humiliation of the hostages taken by Iran, the war with Iraq, the bombing of the Cole, the destruction of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the devastation of the Starke, the Saudi barracks, the dropping of airliner after airliner -- these we see as anecdotes, like pileups of cars on a snowy road. They see these things as war.

We face an enemy more intelligent than we are.

(8) We think we are a superpower. Actually we are not, except in the useless sense of having nuclear weapons. We could win an air war with almost anyone, yes, or a naval war in mid-Pacific. Few Americans realize how small our forces are today, how demoralized and weakened by social experimentation. If we had to fight a ground war in terrain with cover, a war in which we would take casualties, we would lose.

(9) I have heard some grrr-woofwoofery about how we should invade Afghanistan and teach those ragheads a lesson. Has anyone noticed where Afghanistan is? How would we get there? Across Pakistan, a Moslem country? Or through India? Do we suppose Iran would give us overflight rights to bomb another Moslem country? Or will our supply lines go across Russia through Turkmenistan? Do we imagine that we have the airlift or sealift? What effect do we think bombing might have on Afghanistan, a country that is essentially rubble to begin with?

We backed out of Somalia, a Moslem country, when a couple of GIs got killed and dragged through the streets on TV. Afghans are not pansies. They whipped the Russians. Our sensitive and socially-conscious troops would curl up in balls.

(10) To win against a more powerful enemy, one forces him to fight a kind of war for which he isn't prepared. Iraq lost the Gulf War because it fought exactly the kind of war in which American forces are unbeatable: Hussein played to his weaknesses and our strengths. The Vietnamese did the opposite. They defeated us by fighting a guerrilla war that didn't give us anything to hit. They understood us. We didn't understand them.

The Moslem world is doing the same thing. Because their troops, or terrorists as we call them, are not sponsored by a country, we don't know who to hit. Note that Yasser Arafat, bin Laden, and the Taliban are all denying any part in the destruction of New York. At best, we might, with our creaky intelligence apparatus, find Laden and kill him. It's not worth doing: Not only would he have defeated America as nobody ever has, but he would then be a martyr. Face it: The Arabs are smarter than we are.

(11) We are militarily weak because we have done what we usually do: If no enemy is immediately in sight, we cut our forces to the bone, stop most R&D, and focus chiefly on sensitivity training about homosexuals. When we need a military, we don't have one. Then we are inutterably surprised.

(12) The only way we could save any dignity and respect in the world be to hit back so hard as to make teeth rattle around the world. A good approach would be to have NSA fabricate intercepts proving that Libya was responsible, mobilize nationally, invade, and make Libya permanently a US colony. Most Arab countries are militarily helpless, and that is the only kind our forces could defeat. Doing this, doing anything other than whimpering, would require that ancient military virtue known as "balls." Does Katie Couric have them?"

http://www.fredoneverything.net/NewYork.html

6 posted on 9/13/2001, 11:57:53 AM by Erboh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erboh
What a jerk this guy is. "We lost", "Our enemy is more intelligent than us", and on. Tell this a-hole to put a friggin' turban on his head and convert to Islam, 'cause he ain't no ally of ours.
7 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:03:56 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gulfcoast6
You know, you just shocked the heck out of me with these numbers.

That's my intent. The numbers do not lie.

8 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:04:48 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LoneGOPinCT
Laz, I hope you are right. The vast majority support a massive retaliation right now, but I just worry that as time goes on, wrists will go limp and knees will buckle.

Wrong. We had a hit that was nearly half the hit of the Vietnam War. We will not stop this fight in a week, a month, a year. We might cool down in a decade or two.

9 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:06:00 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
I disagree. If we choose more "police actions" of course you might be right. But all-out conventional warfare, invading and occupying these nations who harbor terrorists--and we know who they are--and governing them for a time until they can govern themselves through free elections and civilized institutions..

And in 20 or 30 years Iraq and Afganistan and Iran may actually become our fast friends, much like Japan and Germany our now.

But that is because we will have removed the evil that governs the nations.

10 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:07:49 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz, tm22721
I most heartily agree that we need to wage a total war against those who attacked the United States of America. I also agree on the need to take the oil fields of those nations that have supporeted terrorism against the USA. I have stated that prior to this post. As to occupation of those nations, I for one do not care at this point. The current occupants of those nations who have actively supported terrorism against the USA have forfeited all rights to any land. Beng a generally merciful person they are welcome to some unoccuppied desert that abounds in the area but no modern conveniences like electricity, running water, or motorized anything.

If a few million of those who supported this Jihad die so be it. The closest historical analogy to their war against us is the Japanese war against the USA.

As I said previously I am an easy going type. I say we offer the nations that have supported this an option. They can immediately hand over absolutely every member of these organizations and every national leader that has supported terrorism within 120 hours or face "total destruction." Included in this would be Soddomize Hussein, Ossama Bin Lauden, Muammar Quaddaffi, absolutely every last person who participated in the Iranian takeover of our embassy and every last member of Hammas. The nations of Iran, Iraq, Lybia, Yemmen, Syria, and Afganistan would then voluntarily submit to American control of their entire nations and confiscation of their oil and gas fields by the US Government. In the case of nations without such assets they are going to be really pressed to come up with suitable reparations but that is their problem.

Any nationals of those nations who are currently residing in the USA should face immediate internment and/or deportation. Any American citizen who engages in support of any of these nations or any of the terrorist groups should be immediately arrested charged with treason and upon proof of the activity they should be hung by the neck until dead (if they are devotees of Islam they should also have pork stuffed down their throats on the way to the gibbet).

As of this morning the mayor of New York City has requested 11,000 additional body bags. That number we may be assured will increase.

The war may take months or it may take decades. It matters not. It must be prosecuted remorselessly.

Stay well - YORKTOWN

11 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:16:52 PM by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Laz, I for one do not want to see US troops in Afganistan until it has surrendered unconditionally. And in my eyes, that means nukes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Soviet Union have 500,000 troops in Afganistan during the height of that war, just as we had 500,000+ in Vietnam? I do not want to see a repeat of that.

Truman knew what he was doing. We should stand off at a distance and pummel these countries that harbor and train terrorist and finance terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Afganistan, Syria) with nuclear weapons until we get their unconditional surrenders, then come the Nuremberg style trials and executions. IMHO, nothing less will end this scourge and minimize American losses.

12 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:19:04 PM by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Lazamataz
This time, the American Squeamishness will not be there.

The "American Squeamishness" arises when we are disunited, or when we are not serious about the fight.

Desert Storm and the bombing of Serbia were not America enraged. They were America mildly irritated. Hiroshima in 1945, Atlanta in 1864, that's America enraged.

14 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:25:07 PM by N00dleN0gg1n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Laz, I for one do not want to see US troops in Afganistan until it has surrendered unconditionally. And in my eyes, that means nukes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Soviet Union have 500,000 troops in Afganistan during the height of that war, just as we had 500,000+ in Vietnam? I do not want to see a repeat of that.

Idea: Lets put the Russians army together with ours and maybe toss in another million or two. Lets soften them up with neutron bombs first, for about 6 months of saturation bombing.

15 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:26:58 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Laz,

Why "try to shock" with these numbers, when nobody knows the numbers. Why not just see what the numbers are before ranting on. They will be shocking enough even if the are a fourth of what you say.

By the by, CNN is reporting Guliani requested 6K bags, not 11.

Early Pentagon numberes were 800 dead, now 1-200.

I don't think we should grandstand about the number dead here...there are enough to merit a "war" reponse.

16 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:28:51 PM by Axolotl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Axolotl
By the by, CNN is reporting Guliani requested 6K bags, not 11.

WRONG! I am looking at the number 11,000 body bags requested on Fox and ABC. Pull yer head out of it.

Why "try to shock" with these numbers, when nobody knows the numbers.

Pull yer head out of it. 11,000 body-bags are requested, meaning the number will likely be double that.

17 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:35:36 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
Mayor Rudy Giuliani has just requested 11,000 body bags, and I believe he is an optimist.

He's not being optimistic. I heard somewhere during this mess that NYC already had 30,000 body bags on hand; it's rather chilling to think they could actually run short.

This could also mean, not that they are expecting 40,000 casualties, but that they are finding bodies in parts. Sorry. I know that's horrible to think about too. But they dont just leave the parts around, they put them into bags and take them away.

18 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:36:04 PM by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All Yall
"...it will not be a 3 year long war, it is likely to be a 10 or 15 year long war."

Hell, it's already been going on 30+ years!! We HAVE to FACE the fact that Saudi Arabia is really the ONLY mid-eastern country that can FINANCE Jihad! They smile at our face and stab us in the BACK! Does Bush have the BALLS to confront our "friends" in the area that SUPPORT our enemies!!!! The MAIN job in destroying terrorism is to attack their greastest weapon... MONEY!!!
19 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:37:37 PM by FiddlePig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Axolotl
Look at this article.

Note this line: "New York City requested 6,000 body bags from federal officials, and The New York Times reported that a second request for an additional 5,000 bags was forthcoming."

6000 + 5000 = 11000. Funny how that math works out.

20 posted on 9/13/2001, 12:38:49 PM by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson