Geneva shmeneva

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The point is that the vast majority of people held in Guantanamo Bay wouldn't kill me - that's the problem.

 

If they are terrorists, they should be brought to justice. If they are not, they sure as s*** shouldn't be held in confinement for four years for no good reason.

 

Everyone uses the word terrorist like its an excuse to treat someone inhumanely. It's not. They are still human. And if the same people here who claim that our country is based on "Christian" values, aren't arguing this than maybe they oughta bone up on the texts they claim is the basis for our society.

 

Taking away the fact that what makes us better than the terrorists is our value of treating all men humanely and equally, is the idea that if this is a war of values and image, us treating these people humanely and equally (while bringing them to justice) helps win the people to our side who might just become the next generation of terrorists.

 

 

How many times does it need to be said? These people only understand force and violence. There is nothing we can do to change the minds of people who are programmed from birth to despise America and whose life aspiration is to do a homicide bombing and take as many of us with them as they can. To defeat them there must be no restriction on the level of violence we inflict on these people.

 

Winning the hearts and minds of a group of fanatics is a lost cause and only hamstrings the efforts being made to eradicate them.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

How many times does it need to be said? These people only understand force and violence. There is nothing we can do to change the minds of people who are programmed from birth to despise America and whose life aspiration is to do a homicide bombing and take as many of us with them as they can. To defeat them there must be no restriction on the level of violence we inflict on these people.

 

Winning the hearts and minds of a group of fanatics is a lost cause and only hamstrings the efforts being made to eradicate them.

Only by massive eradication and use of an incredible amount of violence can we show the terrorists that massive eradication and using incredible amounts of violence is wrong.

 

http://www.michaeljournal.org/images/iraq2.jpg -- I won't even hotlink the photo here because it is graphic. Click at your own risk.

 

We sure changed that savage's mind, right?

[kapkomet]

Only by massive eradication and use of an incredible amount of violence can we show the terrorists that massive eradication and using incredible amounts of violence is wrong.

 

http://www.michaeljournal.org/images/iraq2.jpg -- I won't even hotlink the photo here because it is graphic. Click at your own risk.

 

We sure changed that savage's mind, right?

Come on LCR. Even for you, that's just bull s***.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Come on LCR. Even for you, that's just bull s***.

I was just taking his philosophy to its extreme end. The entire idea was that we're telling them that bombing non-military targets is wrong yet during 'Shock and Awe' the US bombed refrigeration plants, power plants, etc. to make the peoples' lives miserable and that was deemed okay. Hell, the World Health Organization believed that up to a half million Iraqis would be maimed or killed.

 

It is a double standard to flout to demand that people don't bomb non-military targets to eradicate our way of life when it has become 'acceptable collateral damage' when the US performs such actions.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I was just taking his philosophy to its extreme end. The entire idea was that we're telling them that bombing non-military targets is wrong yet during 'Shock and Awe' the US bombed refrigeration plants, power plants, etc. to make the peoples' lives miserable and that was deemed okay. Hell, the World Health Organization believed that up to a half million Iraqis would be maimed or killed.

 

It is a double standard to flout to demand that people don't bomb non-military targets to eradicate our way of life when it has become 'acceptable collateral damage' when the US performs such actions.

 

 

Collateral damage is a part of war and always will be. This is unavoidable. You also know damn well that the US goes to every length it can to minimize death and injury to civillians. Nice how you pick an innocent victim and lump him right in there with the terrorists that we are trying to eradicate .......but they're all humans right?.

 

LOL!

 

Of course you're wrong, as always. Terrorists are not human beings. They are death worshipping savages who care nothing about the lives of innocents.

[Rex Kickass]

How many times does it need to be said? These people only understand force and violence. There is nothing we can do to change the minds of people who are programmed from birth to despise America and whose life aspiration is to do a homicide bombing and take as many of us with them as they can. To defeat them there must be no restriction on the level of violence we inflict on these people.

 

Winning the hearts and minds of a group of fanatics is a lost cause and only hamstrings the efforts being made to eradicate them.

 

Terrorism isn't a battle that's just right now, it's a battle for the future. And if you want to ascribe every poor muslim that Al-Qaeda tries to reach out to (and that's where the bulk of its recruiting is coming from) as a fanatic, get ready for a war that will never end.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Terrorism isn't a battle that's just right now, it's a battle for the future. And if you want to ascribe every poor muslim that Al-Qaeda tries to reach out to (and that's where the bulk of its recruiting is coming from) as a fanatic, get ready for a war that will never end.

 

 

As long as you have Madrassa's throughout the middle east programming kids to despise America. As long as you have children throughout the middle east who are taught to believe that suicide bombing is a noble cause then you will always have war.

 

 

Our biggest problem in this war is not finding and exterminating terrorist scum, however, it is people like you. People who lack the will to deal with the problem. People who say that it's too tough, people who don't like any methods that dont involve flowers and candy. The war against the Islamo-fascist movement is the first war in 2 centuries that the opposition can strike our homes directly and people like you wring your hands and say we can't do it.

 

If people like you were in charge there would still be a Nazi Germany because it would have been "too tough" to defeat them. If people like you were in charge there would still be an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Russia and on and on throughout history. Weak stomachs cannot protect people. It takes strong will, decisive action and the guts to see the thing through. Those requirements are something that you and those who think like you completely lack.

Edited June 10, 2006 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Balta1701]

Our biggest problem in this war is not finding and exterminating terrorist scum, however, it is people like you. People who lack the will to deal with the problem. People who say that it's too tough, people who don't like any methods that dont involve flowers and candy. The war against the Islamo-fascist movement is the first war in 2 centuries that the opposition can strike our homes directly and people like you wring your hands and say we can't do it.

But see, the problem with people on the other side is that they just assume that the only thing you can do to get rid of a terrorist is to kill them, and they ignore the fact that a lot of the actions you can take to get rid of terrorists, like torturing them, killing them with aerial bombs that take out 15 civilians, launching wars, etc., just wind up giving vastly more people reasons to become terrorists.

 

In a fight against things like Al Qaeda, violence can't just be a blunt instrument, it has to be a scalpel. If you kill 10 innocents in a bombing to get 1 guy, you can create 100 terrorists, or more. If you torture 1 terrorist, you can create 10 more.

 

The only way we're going to ever actually "Win" this fight is going to be through finding a way to balance those 2 parts. Killing a guy like Zarqawi with minimal collateral damage? Good move. Rounding up 1000 Sunnis and holding them without charges? Bad move. Bombing that kills a terrorist but also kills 10 civilians? The terrorist better be Bin Laden.

[kapkomet]

In a fight against things like Al Qaeda, violence can't just be a blunt instrument, it has to be a scalpel. If you kill 10 innocents in a bombing to get 1 guy, you can create 100 terrorists, or more. If you torture 1 terrorist, you can create 10 more.

 

The only way we're going to ever actually "Win" this fight is going to be through finding a way to balance those 2 parts. Killing a guy like Zarqawi with minimal collateral damage? Good move. Rounding up 1000 Sunnis and holding them without charges? Bad move. Bombing that kills a terrorist but also kills 10 civilians? The terrorist better be Bin Laden.

 

Ok, so, Einstien of foreign policy, what would you do? "Negotiate"? IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

To me, the weenie asses in this country want the war to be easy, "peaceful"... (love that oxymoron), and let them deal with the aftermath. "We didn't want this war"... too f***ing bad. They brought it to us. How convenient it is to forget that.

 

"Iraq wasn't part of 9/11"... NO!! It wasn't. But the IDEOLOGY was. And that ideology needs to be eradicated. Period. And it will last a generation, at least.

[Balta1701]

Ok, so, Einstien of foreign policy, what would you do? "Negotiate"? IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

To me, the weenie asses in this country want the war to be easy, "peaceful"... (love that oxymoron), and let them deal with the aftermath. "We didn't want this war"... too f***ing bad. They brought it to us. How convenient it is to forget that.

 

"Iraq wasn't part of 9/11"... NO!! It wasn't. But the IDEOLOGY was. And that ideology needs to be eradicated. Period. And it will last a generation, at least.

Iraq had nothing to do with that ideology either. Iraq wasn't producing terrorists, Iraq wasn't radicalizing people, Iraq produced almost no portion of Al Qaeda's men, Iraq was at least on some level a secular regime which allowed some degree of religious tolerance (even Christians in the government). You don't fight an ideology by strengthening it.

 

Sure, negotiating with terrorists is stupid on its face, depending on who you classify as terrorists. Negotiating with Bin Laden? Yeah, that would be insane. But that doesn't mean you can't cut off his supply of men by trying to actually make the lives better for the people of the region. That's the idea here...yes you have to kill some of them, but you also have to make sure you're not creating more than you kill, and we've been doing that since 2003. By a lot.

[Rex Kickass]

As long as you have Madrassa's throughout the middle east programming kids to despise America. As long as you have children throughout the middle east who are taught to believe that suicide bombing is a noble cause then you will always have war.

Our biggest problem in this war is not finding and exterminating terrorist scum, however, it is people like you. People who lack the will to deal with the problem. People who say that it's too tough, people who don't like any methods that dont involve flowers and candy. The war against the Islamo-fascist movement is the first war in 2 centuries that the opposition can strike our homes directly and people like you wring your hands and say we can't do it.

 

If people like you were in charge there would still be a Nazi Germany because it would have been "too tough" to defeat them. If people like you were in charge there would still be an Imperial Japan, a Soviet Russia and on and on throughout history. Weak stomachs cannot protect people. It takes strong will, decisive action and the guts to see the thing through. Those requirements are something that you and those who think like you completely lack.

 

I love how you think that because I believe all people deserve a degree of human dignity, regardless of your behavior - you equate that to flowers and candy. All I'm saying is that there are different ways to look at terrorism and how to fight it. You can fight it with fire and brimstone, but that battle never ends. Or you can go at it with an olive branch in one hand and a tommy gun in the other. Its what we did in Afghanistan in late 2001 and why that worked so well. Until we decided to move the war on terror to a secular country that didn't export terror, although was ruled by a bad person. If we cared about fighting the war on terror, maybe we would have gone after the country who protected and still protects A.Q. Khan - the guy who gives nuclear technology out to the highest bidders (North Korea and Iran) but somehow, that country is our ally. If we cared about fighting the war on terror, maybe we would have gone after the country who supplied most of the terrorists or the country that aided the money laundering necessary to give Al Qaeda the structure that it has - but somehow, those countries are our allies as well. If we cared about fighting the war on terror, maybe we would have gone after the country who financially supported the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their Islamo-Fascist agenda that they could pursue without relative consequence. But instead, we fought the four letter country that ends in Q and let the terrorists move there. Those would be the hard things to do that would do better to crush the terror cells in their homes.

 

But instead we did what's easy, and then complained when it turned out that after we made a mess, it turned out to be a mess. If we had real leadership, maybe this situation would be handled responsibly and we would do common sense, realistic and effective things to combat terrorism rather than break the law, violate American values and whine whenever they were called on it. If we found a sustained military effort was necessary to fight this battle militarily, real leadership would call on the American public to contribute to the effort and make sacrifices to make sure our country stayed strong at home, while our soldiers fought to make us safer rather than hand out tax cuts and tell people "just go shopping more."

 

I can't say that I could have provided the kind of leadership that would have defeated Japan and Germany, but I'm reasonably certain that our current government wouldn't have been able to do it either.

[kapkomet]

Iraq had nothing to do with that ideology either. Iraq wasn't producing terrorists, Iraq wasn't radicalizing people, Iraq produced almost no portion of Al Qaeda's men, Iraq was at least on some level a secular regime which allowed some degree of religious tolerance (even Christians in the government). You don't fight an ideology by strengthening it.

 

OMG. Iraq didn't have the ideology of the terrorist organizations? Wow. Now that's rich. I don't think I can even continue this conversation at all.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I love how you think that because I believe all people deserve a degree of human dignity, regardless of your behavior - you equate that to flowers and candy. All I'm saying is that there are different ways to look at terrorism and how to fight it. You can fight it with fire and brimstone, but that battle never ends. Or you can go at it with an olive branch in one hand and a tommy gun in the other. Its what we did in Afghanistan in late 2001 and why that worked so well. Until we decided to move the war on terror to a secular country that didn't export terror, although was ruled by a bad person. If we cared about fighting the war on terror, maybe we would have gone after the country who protected and still protects A.Q. Khan - the guy who gives nuclear technology out to the highest bidders (North Korea and Iran) but somehow, that country is our ally. If we cared about fighting the war on terror, maybe we would have gone after the country who supplied most of the terrorists or the country that aided the money laundering necessary to give Al Qaeda the structure that it has - but somehow, those countries are our allies as well. If we cared about fighting the war on terror, maybe we would have gone after the country who financially supported the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their Islamo-Fascist agenda that they could pursue without relative consequence. But instead, we fought the four letter country that ends in Q and let the terrorists move there. Those would be the hard things to do that would do better to crush the terror cells in their homes.

 

 

Rex. How many billions of dollars of aid have we sent to countries in the middle east? How many times have we stepped in to help out when they had an earthquake or some other catastrophe? It doesn't matter to these people what we do, they are all getting programmed from birth to hate us. As long as you have representatives of the Islamo-fascist movement controlling education over there then there's going to be terrorism and I don't see what you can do or say to combat that.

 

But instead we did what's easy, and then complained when it turned out that after we made a mess, it turned out to be a mess. If we had real leadership, maybe this situation would be handled responsibly and we would do common sense, realistic and effective things to combat terrorism rather than break the law, violate American values and whine whenever they were called on it. If we found a sustained military effort was necessary to fight this battle militarily, real leadership would call on the American public to contribute to the effort and make sacrifices to make sure our country stayed strong at home, while our soldiers fought to make us safer rather than hand out tax cuts and tell people "just go shopping more."

 

 

Funny how you talk about American values. You're spot on right. Only problem is that Americans are so spoiled, lazy and unwilling to get involved that they would laugh at such a request. Americans are not interested in sacrifice, hell, you can't even get them to stop driving their SUV'S for an errand thats 3 blocks away to save gas...( they sure want to b**** about the price at the pump though........THE IDIOTS!!). Americans want to drive their SUV'S, want a huge house, they want to all live the bling-bling high life and they all want to sit around and eat cheeseburgers and drink beer all day. What's worse is that they want to complain and file lawsuits when they have to pay for it all and when they become obese. What a bunch of spoiled, whiny b****es we have become. Our ancestors would be ashamed of us.

 

America has never been challenged as it is being challenged now and has never faced a greater threat than it does now. This is no time to be sitting around wringing your hands and whining about our methods, this is a time for bold, decisive action. We have the means to defeat terrorism but I'm afraid that we don't have the will to use them. Those who would hamstring our war on terror are every bit as dangerous as the terrorists themselves.

[YASNY]

What's wrong with wanting to drink beer all day?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Balta1701]

Rex. How many billions of dollars of aid have we sent to countries in the middle east? How many times have we stepped in to help out when they had an earthquake or some other catastrophe? It doesn't matter to these people what we do, they are all getting programmed from birth to hate us. As long as you have representatives of the Islamo-fascist movement controlling education over there then there's going to be terrorism and I don't see what you can do or say to combat that.

Funny how you talk about American values. You're spot on right. Only problem is that Americans are so spoiled, lazy and unwilling to get involved that they would laugh at such a request. Americans are not interested in sacrifice, hell, you can't even get them to stop driving their SUV'S for an errand thats 3 blocks away to save gas...( they sure want to b**** about the price at the pump though........THE IDIOTS!!). Americans want to drive their SUV'S, want a huge house, they want to all live the bling-bling high life and they all want to sit around and eat cheeseburgers and drink beer all day. What's worse is that they want to complain and file lawsuits when they have to pay for it all and when they become obese. What a bunch of spoiled, whiny b****es we have become. Our ancestors would be ashamed of us.

 

America has never been challenged as it is being challenged now and has never faced a greater threat than it does now. This is no time to be sitting around wringing your hands and whining about our methods, this is a time for bold, decisive action. We have the means to defeat terrorism but I'm afraid that we don't have the will to use them. Those who would hamstring our war on terror are every bit as dangerous as the terrorists themselves.

First of all, I think you're completely wrong in saying that America has never faced a greater threat than it does now. Do you seriously think that a few people capable of detonating bombs in department stores is as big of a threat as a nation that was armed with 20,000 nuclear warheads, most of them pointed directly at us? Or against a nation that believed so strongly in its own racial superiority that it tried to enslave the rest of the world and killed millions? Or against a military machine that was able to overrun almost the entire western Pacific in 6 months? Even if Bin Laden was able to do everything he wanted to do, and even got his hands on a nuclear bomb, this nation would survive even if we did nothing. It wouldn't be smart obviously, but there is simply no way that this is the greatest threat America has ever faced.

 

Secondly, with your 2nd paragraph, you illustrate one of the greatest tragedies of 9/11, the failure of the U.S. to use it as motivation to actually gear the people of this nation up to fight the war on Al Qaeda. What were we, the average American, asked to do after 9/11? Shop. That is the only thing that we were ever asked to do after 9/11. We weren't asked to enlist, we weren't asked to cut back on driving, we weren't even asked to sacrifice. The unity and determination that this country had in those weeks and months was used to get us to invade Iraq. Even if that war had to happen, then there was still a great opportunity for a real leader to use that disaster to unify Americans to make this nation a better place. Instead, we were asked to shop, and within a few years, the opportunity was gone.

 

Would actually asking Americans to sacrifice, to either enlist, or to conserve, or to cut back on driving & turn off their lights, actually worked? Personally I think it would have to some degree, especially if it was teamed with education programs designed to help people. But we'll never know.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

First of all, I think you're completely wrong in saying that America has never faced a greater threat than it does now. Do you seriously think that a few people capable of detonating bombs in department stores is as big of a threat as a nation that was armed with 20,000 nuclear warheads, most of them pointed directly at us? Or against a nation that believed so strongly in its own racial superiority that it tried to enslave the rest of the world and killed millions? Or against a military machine that was able to overrun almost the entire western Pacific in 6 months? Even if Bin Laden was able to do everything he wanted to do, and even got his hands on a nuclear bomb, this nation would survive even if we did nothing. It wouldn't be smart obviously, but there is simply no way that this is the greatest threat America has ever faced.

 

I really do believe that it is. If Al Quada is able to start a campaign of random bombings here in the U.S. they have the ability to really do some nasty economic and pshycological damage to us. The pussified American population would immediately go into their shell and the economy would go in the s***ter.

 

Even the big bad Soviet Union and all its nukes would never have been so foolish as to attack us. Mutual Assured Destruction was a stabilizing force that kept world order for 50 years. Much as I hate to say it, we're probably better off with the commies still in power over there. The Nazi's and the Japanese, for all their might, never had the capability to attack the U.S. directly. Additionally, the population of the U.S. was unified behind the cause. That is not the case now. Al Quada preys on fear and indescision and thats America's achilles heel right now, right alongside the addiction to oil.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, with your 2nd paragraph, you illustrate one of the greatest tragedies of 9/11, the failure of the U.S. to use it as motivation to actually gear the people of this nation up to fight the war on Al Qaeda. What were we, the average American, asked to do after 9/11? Shop. That is the only thing that we were ever asked to do after 9/11. We weren't asked to enlist, we weren't asked to cut back on driving, we weren't even asked to sacrifice. The unity and determination that this country had in those weeks and months was used to get us to invade Iraq. Even if that war had to happen, then there was still a great opportunity for a real leader to use that disaster to unify Americans to make this nation a better place. Instead, we were asked to shop, and within a few years, the opportunity was gone.

 

Would actually asking Americans to sacrifice, to either enlist, or to conserve, or to cut back on driving & turn off their lights, actually worked? Personally I think it would have to some degree, especially if it was teamed with education programs designed to help people. But we'll never know.

 

What Bush asked of Americans after 9-11 was to simply get things back to normal. Since then Bush has asked many times for us to try to conserve energy and his requests have been ignored. If he had asked young people to join the armed forces, people on your side would pillory him for asking for fresh bodies to send to Iraq. The word sacrifice is no longer in the American lexicon. You mention it to them and they immediately start whining and complaining.......like the little spoiled b****es that they are. The best thing to do at this point is to ask most people to just stay the hell out of the way and let the dedicated 10% take care of business.

[Rex Kickass]

Mutually Assured Destruction was not considered a viable policy option regarding the Soviet Union until the Cuban Missile Crisis had passed.

 

Japan did directly attack the United States and provided the impetus to finally push the United States directly into World War II. Although mass scale invasion of the United States was never an option for either power, the Germans certainly had the technology to create serious issues for the US across its eastern coast.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Mutually Assured Destruction was not considered a viable policy option regarding the Soviet Union until the Cuban Missile Crisis had passed.

 

Japan did directly attack the United States and provided the impetus to finally push the United States directly into World War II. Although mass scale invasion of the United States was never an option for either power, the Germans certainly had the technology to create serious issues for the US across its eastern coast.

 

 

What technology was this? They tried for 4 years to attack the US homeland with no success at all. As close as they ever came was that comical attempt to land saboteurs on Long Island.

 

Their "America bomber" program was an utter failure.

 

Their ballistic missile technology ( V1 / V2 ) programs were able to hit England a few times but it was still in its infancy even as allied armies crushed the Nazis.

[NorthSideSox72]

What technology was this? They tried for 4 years to attack the US homeland with no success at all. As close as they ever came was that comical attempt to land saboteurs on Long Island.

 

Their "America bomber" program was an utter failure.

 

Their ballistic missile technology ( V1 / V2 ) programs were able to hit England a few times but it was still in its infancy even as allied armies crushed the Nazis.

The Japanese were actually a greater threat to reach the US than Germany of course. And they did, in Alaska. And (little trivia here), there was that lone Japanese fighter-bomber that dropped an incindiary bomb in northern California in an attempt to start a forest fire. One way trip - pilot ditched the plane, I think. And that guy eventually became a US citizen, amazingly.

[Balta1701]

What technology was this? They tried for 4 years to attack the US homeland with no success at all. As close as they ever came was that comical attempt to land saboteurs on Long Island.

 

Their "America bomber" program was an utter failure.

 

Their ballistic missile technology ( V1 / V2 ) programs were able to hit England a few times but it was still in its infancy even as allied armies crushed the Nazis.

Oh great, even this turns into a WW2 debate.

 

The big reason the Nazis were unable to hit the U.S. was that the U.S. won the war too quickly for any of those to happen. Within only a couple years after the end of that war, technology in this country, based in no small part on items seized from the Germans, were accomplishing all the flights that would have been necessary to hit the U.S. They didn't have the time or resources because the U.S. army did a pretty darn good job.

 

On the other hand, the Japanese actually did have the technology to hit the U.S., and in fact did so. The Japanese navy did raid the west coast of the U.S., and there were also the famous Japanese balloon bombs, dozens of which actually reached the west coast, one of which killed a bunch of kids. Some of them in fact may still be lying around in the forests out here waiting for someone to walk up to them. Japan also had a very advanced biological warfare program, which, had the war continued, may have led to loading of those balloons with biological devices.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Oh great, even this turns into a WW2 debate.

 

The big reason the Nazis were unable to hit the U.S. was that the U.S. won the war too quickly for any of those to happen. Within only a couple years after the end of that war, technology in this country, based in no small part on items seized from the Germans, were accomplishing all the flights that would have been necessary to hit the U.S. They didn't have the time or resources because the U.S. army did a pretty darn good job.

 

On the other hand, the Japanese actually did have the technology to hit the U.S., and in fact did so. The Japanese navy did raid the west coast of the U.S., and there were also the famous Japanese balloon bombs, dozens of which actually reached the west coast, one of which killed a bunch of kids. Some of them in fact may still be lying around in the forests out here waiting for someone to walk up to them. Japan also had a very advanced biological warfare program, which, had the war continued, may have led to loading of those balloons with biological devices.

 

We're into the hypothetical now.

 

Japanese balloon bombs were almost as comical as the German saboteurs. They were wildly innacurate and mostly landed in the middle of nowhere. Even if the Japanese had managed to figure out a way to deliver their bio-weapons via that system the agent would most likely have been sprayed over open wilderness and dissapated in the wind long before they could hurt anyone.

[Rex Kickass]

I never said that Germany could reach the United States land, but they did create problems over the Eastern seaboard. They did infact, killing 5000 people off the US coast in 1942 alone and sinking nearly 400 ships.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I never said that Germany could reach the United States land, but they did create problems over the Eastern seaboard. They did infact, killing 5000 people off the US coast in 1942 alone and sinking nearly 400 ships.

 

 

That sort of thing happens in wartime.