Comments on: Copters’ Missile Threat (and How to Stop it)

By: Harrt

Harrt — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:33:40 +0000

EVER WONDER WHAT YOU WOULD DO if you heard the Emergancy Broadcast System
air on radio warning that a foreign nuclear missile was headed your way? You turn on the
television, and a special news bulletin is already advising the public to evacuate the city
and get “as far away as possible and as quickly as possibly if you still can”. In a hurry,
you gather your family, everyone gets into the car, leaving everything behind. You notice
your neighbors speeding away in their cars at speeds up to 85 mph in a 35 mph zone,
running down everyone and everything that gets in their way, and some of them ramming
past other cars in a mad rush to get ahead of one another. You didn’t take notice when
they began, but off from the direction of downtown you hear air raid sirens blareing
away. As you speed out of your driveway, one of your friends from down the street comes
speeding on his way to leave town in his SUV at 75 mph and rams your mid size car out of
his way. Your family is now injured and your car disabled, and your use to be friend
continues speeding on his way in his damaged SUV, trying to save his own family and self.
And no one else will stop to offer you any help. They just keep speeding by, and would run
you over as an obstacle in their way if you tried to waive somebody down. After a while, you
notice far off in the western sky, the appearance of something re-entering the earth’s
atmosphere. You and your family were left behind in what rocket scientists call the
“KILL-ZONE”. MOST LIKELY, THAT SCINARIO WILL NEVER HAPPEN. In the event of a
nuclear attack, your government will not panic it’s people who they cannot save anyway.
THERE WILL BE NO WARNING. Hence if you are not a spiritually born again christian, you
will not have warning that you better make that last minute repentence. The flash will hit.
You’re suddenly in Hell. You don’t know what happened. You just know it’s to late to accept
Christ as your saviour by then. Meanwhile the thurmosphere explosion is scortching away
the ground where your hometown was only seconds before. If you are a christian, your next
concious thought will be you in Heaven. The enimy who fired that missile will have done
themselves more harm than they’ll ever do to you. But if you are NOT a christian, that
enimy will do more harm to you than they’ll do to themselves. That is because as long as
they are still in this life, they still have a chance to accept God’s free gift of salvation
through the blood of Jesus…That is if their heart isn’t to hardened to do so. The nonbeliever
who dies in a nuclear strike (or of anything for that matter) has his chance of being saved
from Hell taken from him for ever. Think of what it would be like to spend eternity in Hell
with the dictator of a country who sent a nuclear strike against your people and killed you.
Here’s even a worse irony…After you died in a nuclear attack as a nonbeliever, The dictator
of the country who sent that nuclear strike, by some unlikely miracle, realizes where he
stands spiritually, his heart is not quite to hardened, and accepts Christ and becomes a
christian. On Judgement Day, you will watch that former dictator be welcomed into Heaven
while you are being bound up to be cast into the Lake of Fire. SOUNDS UNFAIR???
ACTUALLY, IT IS FAIR AND JUST. That lost soul in Hell has had every opportunity to turn
to Jesus Christ and have his or her sins forgiven as anyone else had. One’s own self
rightousness will not make it into Heaven. Someone depending on self will not make it into
Heaven either. Only the rightousness given by Jesus Christ can get you into Heaven. The
invitation is open to everybody. There is nothing unfair about it. The only thing that will make
the difference between Heaven and Hell is if you were a born again christian before you left
this life. If you go to Hell some day, you will remember every time someone spoke to you
about your spiritual condition…including your memory of this comment.

By: JI Mansf

JI Mansf — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 14:38:01 +0000

Am I to understand that the “RULES OF ENGAGEMENT” preclude firing unless your fired on? I remember that one well — translated, “if he kills you I’ll shoot back.” Definate CRACKPOT INCHAGE rule… If it looks threatening guys, take it out and sort out the bodies latter. It someone complains or thretens to report you for saving your life and his show him the door right then and there, I’m sure he’ll change his mind on the way down. You DO have a right to come home alive and this is like someone giving you an order to shoot yourself in the head — you are not required to fallow that command either.

By: Chris Morgan

Chris Morgan — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:56:23 +0000

It is interesting how much Iraq 2007 is starting to look like Afghanistan in the early 80’s. We appeared to be wining now comes a new threat to our aircraft. Much like what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan.How or which country is responsible for the MANPADS, and more importantly which company shall ‘burst’ on the seen with new technology to defeat this new threat? hmm.

By: benjoya

benjoya — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:08:47 +0000

let’s remember that iran was helpful to us in afghanistan. they somehow saw past the anti-americanism (that some would define as their raison d’etre) because they were enemies of the taliban. (actually, only three countries ever recognized the taliban as legit — pakistan, UAE, SA)
and bombing iran would cause them to back off in iraq? huh? bombing iran would solidify ahmadinejad’s support, which seems to be fraying of late.
when they made an offer to us in 2003 (under the last president), why did we dismiss it out of hand? i turn to that old commie eisenhower’s answer: the military-industrial-complex.

By: whatever

whatever — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:01:06 +0000

>“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” — Karl Von Clausewitz
>
>Some may not agree with Clausewitz, but I find his perspective still relevant at times.
Camp, Clausewitz point was that a government should keep a tight reign on the military and keep the overall situation in mind.
Wars have a tendency to spin out of control with both sides going for total victory. Clausewitz argued that a government shouldn’t let patriotism influence policy but instead it should continuously evaluate if and how the war still served/could serve the policies and interests of the country.
Therefore the problem with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and half a dozen other countries as well as the factions in Iraq is that the US has to
(a) find a way to make a continued war in Iraq unattractive for those countries (bombing Iran and Syria could achieve that but it’s certainly not an option with the others)
and (b) has to keep them from going total war on us. i.e. good version: Iran supports the chaos in Iraq; you punish them with bombs; they see that it isn’t worth the trouble and back off. But just for a second imagine this was some other country using that logic on the US. Would the US back off? No. Even with all the violence in Iraq it’ll be half a decade at least before a US retreat, you can’t expect the Iranians to fold in less time. Especially as they’ll see it as an unjustified attack on their homes instead of a largely pointless police action based on false evidence half way around the world.
Iran has repeatedly made clear in the aftermath of 9/11 and the Afghanistan war that it would be ready to come to some kind of agreement with the US. But for some reason the US can’t look at Cuba and Iran rationally. The US has made deals with Kim Jong-Il (as crazy as they come) and the Uzbekistan guy (forgot his name, but he loves watching people being boiled to death). Despite the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, the Iranian leadership generally is quite sane.
Carrot and stick could be effective in influencing Iran although the US’s stick has become a lot less intimidating in the last 2 or 3 years so it would probably take a lot more carrots than it would have in early 2002.

By: benjoya

benjoya — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:02:00 +0000

i never claimed iran and nk have a common agenda. just that if we can talk to nk, how come we can’t talk to iran? the answer that “iran wants nothing in iraq other than to give us a black eye” is overlooking our common allies (hakim, maliki), and is a symptom of an all-too-common narcissism (“it’s all about us”).

By: Camp

Camp — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:35:36 +0000

benjoya,
. Your rationale is most interesting. Don’t forget that while “nations always act with their own best interest in mind, first & foremost”, they may also act in coordination & with cooperation to meet the same goals/objectives.
.
And while North Korea & Iran have similar threads, it does not mean they are of the same fabric.
.
Vacation Time…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=flVfMvM_W5g

By: benjoya

benjoya — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:02:51 +0000

meanwhile, nk is giving up its nukes. and we didn’t even bomb them. otoh, kim is a uniquely rational actor, right? we certainly wouldn’t want to talk to iran, cause it would give them a PR victory. christ, talk about child psychology.

By: benjoya

benjoya — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:32:35 +0000

and i might have a bias against saudi arabia, yes, for some reason i think saudis might not want the best for the united states. where did i ever get that idea? maybe because they’re a medieaval theocracy/autocracy. maybe cause they are helping the sunnis in iraq, who are responsible for the vast majority of american deaths. maybe cause we’re one by one eliminating their rivals for them, at our expense in blood and money.. or something else i can’t remember…

By: benjoya

benjoya — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:28:15 +0000

“And also keep in mind that nations always act with their own best interest in mind, first & foremost“
except for iran, who can’t be contained with threats of counter attacks, cause they’re CRAYZEEEE, right?