| Author | Message | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 938 Registered: 3-2002 |
fine, enjoy it. when is the going away party? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 231 Registered: 1-2003 |
I couldn't stay there (Singapore) as long as I wanted to, but your complaints seem pretty trivial to me. I've asked several people to tell me the negative things about the country, but no one comes up with much at all. I didn't drive while I was there, and if I'm able to live there one day I don't plan on owning a car, so traffic infractions won't be a concern. It's all just a matter of priorities, and that country just does business in a way that sounds better to me. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 932 Registered: 3-2002 |
randall, btw, my guess is your visit to singapore was relatively short. if you spend much time there some of the restrictions start to gnaw at you. not that i throw my chewing gum on the sidewalk, or fail to flush the toilet (both fineable offenses); but the harsh treatment for speeding, bad parking, jaywalking etc along with their attempts at social engineering go just a bit too far. like everywhere, it has its good points and its bad. just don't want you to think its some kind of nirvhana. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 931 Registered: 3-2002 |
what, nobody lighting me up about my outrageous nuclear comments. amazing ! | ||
| Pat Pasqualini (Enzo)
Member Username: Enzo Post Number: 334 Registered: 2-2002 |
Randall If it is a terrorist action we don't OWE anyone anything. The only people that should know would be the good ol USA and our real allies. Terrorism is worldwide problem you are right there but events that happen here does not mean we owe a student in Malaysia an explanation | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 229 Registered: 1-2003 |
If it is a terrorist action, then we owe it to the world to share info. Terrorism is worldwide problem, not just unique to us. With the anthrax case, as far as I know, it was US made but no one knows who sent it yet. But, we should share the info at least until we figure out where it came from. | ||
| Pat Pasqualini (Enzo)
Member Username: Enzo Post Number: 333 Registered: 2-2002 |
How do you think you deserve to know when it has nothing to do with you. You said it yourself "Wasn't it some disgruntled American? What happened to that case anyway? Hushed up by the government? And wasn't some of it were just hoaxes" Your own words nothing to do with Malaysia so you don't deserve to know about it. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 168 Registered: 2-2003 |
"Why do you deserve to know the truth I didn't think you were a citizen of THE USA?" We deserve to know the truth so that we can defend ourselves if some idiot starts blaming it on other countries who are probably innocent in the affairs. Just as the US and other countries deserve to know the truth on what happened in some foreign country, so they can make an educated opinion or decision. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1164 Registered: 6-2001 |
MikeB: You're right. I am baised by my experience. I got to see the results of war, didn't like it one bit. That's why I think that those who haven't seen the consequences of this type of behavior aren't able to adequately judge what they are doing. Art | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3111 Registered: 9-2001 |
ins't it funny the same people who complained about the arms race in the 80s and about fighting the Russians through strengh and retaliation as a deterent are the ones now saying saddam would not be stupid enough to use WMD because we would nuke him. | ||
| Pat Pasqualini (Enzo)
Member Username: Enzo Post Number: 332 Registered: 2-2002 |
MFZ "We deserve to know the truth!" Why do you deserve to know the truth I didn't think you were a citizen of THE USA? | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 925 Registered: 3-2002 |
i think if the truth were known it would be out, whether or not it turned out to be an american or not - it might actually be interesting to see who hated daschle that much ! seriously though, i don't think they have figured it out. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 165 Registered: 2-2003 |
And who was it that was implicated in sending those anthrax-laced mail? Wasn't it some disgruntled American? What happened to that case anyway? Hushed up by the government? And wasn't some of it were just hoaxes? We deserve to know the truth! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 922 Registered: 3-2002 |
mfz, i actually like you but you would argue with god himself ! i figure if you can send anthrax through the mail, then thats as easy as a delivery system gets.....just have to get the postage right. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 162 Registered: 2-2003 |
"bio and chemical are much easier to deliver and therefore much more dangerous, and much less likely to trigger an annihilation response from us." Actually Ross, bio/chem weapons are more unstable, and has a shorter life span compared to nukes. These weapons are also no easier to handle than nukes, evident by the fact that you have to wear containment suits to carry them around. All info came from reading some primers on the local papers. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 916 Registered: 3-2002 |
i may be the only one here who thinks this way but.... i don't think having a nuclear weapon increases the threatening power of a country like nkorea or iran. it actually weakens its position. some of you are thinking traditionally, that if they have the bomb then we won't touch them. when in fact, that country has now saddled itself with a tremendous burden. firstly, the nuclear device they are likely to be able to make is probably of small size. larger ones would be undeliverable and therefore of no use. so then the small one, is only dangerous for countries close by. it might seem pretty cold, but since mexico and canada are still willing to tolerate us, the usa is not really threatened by nuclear bombs of any significance. (save your suitcase bomb flames coz most of that is mythical.) so who is threatened? well for concrete examples of the moment, we can say skorea, and any country within about 500-1000 miles of pakistan and india. if, for example nkorea delivered a nuke to skorea, we would vaporize them. it might not even make it as far as the un vote, but even if it did, i very much doubt there would be much hand wringing over that decision. although each case would have its peculiarities, overall i don't think nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state, are worrisome. bio and chemical are much easier to deliver and therefore much more dangerous, and much less likely to trigger an annihilation response from us. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 84 Registered: 12-2002 |
There are alot more than 50 countries in the world. And if 48 of them support us, it does NOT mean that the rest oppose us. Only some countries have actually gone on record with an opinion on this matter. As for "well the PEOPLE in those countries do not support us" - what about the PEOPLE in the countries that do NOT support us? It goes both ways. Don't try to apply one set of rules to the pro side and fail to apply them to the con or neutral side. Furthermore, Art, North Korea admitted to starting up their nuclear reactor WAY before this whole Iraq situation came to a boil, so do not try to equate the to. You actually made a good point - NK was doing this way before the Iraq situation, so choosing to do nothing about it just means we will be woefully unprepared when something DOES happen. Art, do you REALLY think Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-fahd, Al-Qaeda and others will stop their terrorist plots if we never went into Iraq? Do you think Al-Qaeda poses less of a threat to us today than it did in 7/01? Art, as much as you talk about how you've been in the military and have seen war and therefore are against it, I would say you are biased by your experience and cannot think about this situation rationally, and any argument that would lead to conflict gets dismissed by you due to your past experience. Here's some news for people... the USA *MUST* dabble in international affairs because we have vested interested in other countries. If we had not done this, we would never have won the cold war. Would we have won the cold war without bases in Turkey and Israel? What if Russia won the cold war? Would things be different? That would have happened if the USA had not "gotten involved" in world affairs. And as long as we get involved, others will hate us when we help their enemies or when they get upset that we have what they do not. The radical extremists who would harm and destroy us will not stop based on what we do going forward... they will keep doing what they do. If we choose not to do anything about it, all we will do is allow those who would harm us to do it freely without hindrance from us. Art, you keep talking about how there is no proof that Iraq has WMD and that they would attack us. What about the Iraqi terrorists recently apprehended? I guess they just wanted to tell us how great we are? And speaking of proof, it was IRAQ'S job to *prove* they had destroyed their WMD. They did not do that. I agree that the burden of proof is now on the USA and the other members of the coalition. I firmly believe we will find WMD in Iraq. If we do not, then it will say a lot. But don't dismiss the USA's actions as illegal and unfair until the existence of WMD is either proven or disproven in Iraq. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 88 Registered: 5-2002 |
Also, Aaron, Realistically, many of the countries that are in our coallition do not have military services to offer, but, there are other things that they help with. They are still useful. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 87 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art, the U.N. issue is more complex than it seems. We did not take the issue to the vote because it would have been vetoed. Otherwise, we would have had the majority. But why did France threaten to veto it? It was certainly not for moral reasons. This definitely matters. If a man is on trial for murder and all of his friends/accomplices are in the jury and he is acquitted, is this legitimate? --- No one knows how many countries we "bought" and it is my guess that the answer is "not many." Many nations did this out of their own accord, because they know that getting on the good side of the U.S. It is a smart thing to do, which I believe we will see with Spain over the next few decades. Since when do we need a majority of popular opinion to make a political maneuver? The founders of our country chose a representative republic form of government for a reason. There must be some level of trust and faith in the government. This is my philosophy and my belief. You don't have to subscribe to it theoretically, but in real life you must, because that is the way it is. There will always be dissenters, but just because there are dissenters, does not mean that they always know what is right. The president was elected for a reason. Sure, you can be cynical and say that the government is an aristocracy where whomever your daddy is makes all the difference, but in reality, our system prevents total morons from becoming president, contrary to Canada's beliefs. Rikky (with a Y) Alessi | ||
| Aaron Williams (Aawil)
Junior Member Username: Aawil Post Number: 112 Registered: 8-2002 |
Rikky, I understand what your saying. They keep mentioning that 48 country coalition.But out of the 48 how many think enough of the cause to send COMBAT troops into Iraq.Very Few. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 368 Registered: 11-2002 |
Arthur screw you! I served my country for 10 years, and I am no young twerp! I am 43 years old. I am just tired of all this crap you and people like you are spouting off. The fact is we will have to deal with these people one way or another like it or not. I appologise for saying you should leave but I will not appologise for telling you that you are a fool if you think we can just sit back and let this go. I have a 4 yo son and an 18 yo daughter and I will be dammed if I will sit back and leave it to them to take care of. All you want to do is stick your head in the sand and hope these radicals will go away. I would think a man with your experience would know that will not work. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1163 Registered: 6-2001 |
Charles: Since when do you get to dictate who stays and who goes. Have you ever served in the military, or have you gotten threw life on the backs of others who did. I served in the 60s, and 70s. To have some young twerp tell me I have to leave, because he disagrees with me is a disgrace. Rikky: The rule of law is that the UN needed to authorize the use of force. It didn't. International law allows force for self defense. Where is the threat? If there are no weapons of mass destruction, then I guess no threat. As to my predictions, they aren't mine. You can hear them, read them in various Arabic news sources, etc. Why do you think that Iran is starting up its own reactor, why do you think that N. Korea is accelerating his nuclear program (go to its website and read what its version of this issue is). I'm not saying the US is totally at fault, it isn't, but the current policies will cause us more and more problems, in my humble opinion. As to the 48 nations behind us: I have a simple question: how many of them did we buy? How much is this going to cost us, the tax payers when its over and done. Art | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 223 Registered: 1-2003 |
Rikki- No, I don't think it(Iraq giving away weapons) would have happened. If he gave that stuff away it could be traced back to him and would gaurantee a massive strike against his country. Why do you think Al Quaida was trying to make their own home brewed stuff? "Does a coallition of 48 nations mean anything?" Why don't you say a coallition of 1.2billion people (out of 6billion)? 48 nations doesn't mean much, since a lot of those countries were bribed into being "willing". And what about the peoples say in those nations? In Spain and Poland 90% are against this war. As long as democracy fails in other countries Bush has support. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 367 Registered: 11-2002 |
Ok Randall, move any where but here, how's that! I suppose you would rather have our children fight this war so you don't have to do it! | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 86 Registered: 5-2002 |
You think that if we would have refrained from going to war that the same thing wouldn't have happened? That is the whole reason we went to war in the first place. -Rikky Alessi | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 222 Registered: 1-2003 |
Rikki- I hope you realize that this war most likely forced chem/bio weapons onto the market. Do you think our magnificent homeland security wil be able to stop it from getting to US soil? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 221 Registered: 1-2003 |
I wouldn't go so far as to say "a war to end all wars", but I do think it's going to help start another arms race with a lot of countries including our allies. The "walk with a big stick" policy of our current administration even our allies have found intimidating. Why is it that anytime someone says something negative regarding US policy some fool jumps up and says "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT WHY DON'T YOU MOVE TO _________(fill in with any country that lower living standards)!!!" They never try comparing the US to a country that is similar or better than the US. | ||
| Rikky Alessi (Ralessi)
Junior Member Username: Ralessi Post Number: 84 Registered: 5-2002 |
Aaron - Just because the war can not be won in the short term does that mean that we should not fight it. This is the problem that I have with Art and your rationale - what do you think we should do? You can dissent all you like, but please offer a solution to the problem (this is my same problem with environmentalists). Should we not do anything about terrorism because people like you say that nothing can be done about it? The cold war was a war that we couldn't win, but oh wait, we won it. Sure, there are still some communist nations around, but it is no longer a threat. This is the outcome that the war with terror will have. We WILL win this war. Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism will not be totally erased, but it will in such small pockets that it will have no impact. Art, you say that we don't abide by the rule of law. Do you mean the United Nations? Do you seriously expect me to buy that because FRANCE did not support us that we didn't have the rule of law? Does a coallition of 48 nations mean anything? I really would like you to explain this rule of law rationale to me, because I just must be thick-headed and not get it. France has strong economic ties with Iraq. Chirac does not want to give their oil exploration rights split up between other (potentially) allied countries. France also has always been a rival with Great Britain. They have fought for hundreds of years- it is natural, look at the geographic locations of the two countries. Blair/UK is currently the power in Europe, arguably the #2 power in the world. France is #2/#3. Think about this, if Chirac gets Blair to back down, then Blair/the UK become tools - they do what France wants. This gives Chirac/France the superiority in Europe. This also gives credibility to Chirac in controlling the EU, and in making it do whatever he wants it to do. Basically, Chirac took a HUGE gamble. If he wins, he gains credibility, and power in Europe. If he loses (which he did, unless Iraq wins the war), he loses everything. Now, France will lose business with coallition forces. Their economy will suffer. Spain, who intelligently jumped on ship with the US, will gain new contracts, and prosper economically. Within a few decades, France will be the Germany of today, with Spain as #2. It is simple politics on the side of Chirac. No one can say that we failed to get international support, or we disobeyed the rule of law. Does it matter when pure politics are the driving force of the other side's opposition? With 48 countries behind us, we are hardly doing this alone. It is sad for Chirac also, as his politics miserably failed. | ||
| Aaron Williams (Aawil)
Junior Member Username: Aawil Post Number: 110 Registered: 8-2002 |
I agree Arthur. We may have triggered the war to end all wars. I guess Bush thinks that Homeland Security will actually work. All it really is, is a pit to dump money into and give idots like Tom Ridge jobs. | ||
| Charles Barton (Airbarton)
Member Username: Airbarton Post Number: 363 Registered: 11-2002 |
You people are totaly clueless! This is not about WMD, it is about freedom! We are at war with radical Islam, get use to it! These people will never understand anything other than strength. They are after our way of life. You can all stick your head in the sand if you want but sooner or later they will bring it to us. We are far better off dealing with this now while we still have the ability to win. Arthur I must respond to something you said in a post, "It's more than that. We have shown the world that we will do things because we can, not because we use the rule of law. In addition to increased terrorism, we will have everyone else doing their best to get a nuke, so that they have a weapon large enough so that we won't attempt to intimidate them. Sooner or later, we'll get to see up close and personal what the affect of this type of cowboy behavior will cost us." That is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard! This is not the first war we have been envolved in and almost everytime when it was over the world was a better place as a result. The rest of the world is not affraid of us, in fact it is us they turn to when they need help! I am tired of this kind of talk. We have the finest country on the planet for a reason. I think you guys should just move to Iraq and buddy up with Saddam, maybe you will be happier there! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1161 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ernesto: They did offer to provide proof, and we cut off the process with the UN. Art | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 985 Registered: 5-2001 |
I hope a LOT later then sooner | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1160 Registered: 6-2001 |
Aaron: It's more than that. We have shown the world that we will do things because we can, not because we use the rule of law. In addition to increased terrorism, we will have everyone else doing their best to get a nuke, so that they have a weapon large enough so that we won't attempt to intimidate them. Sooner or later, we'll get to see up close and personal what the affect of this type of cowboy behavior will cost us. I'm talking in terms of decades, not years. Unfortunately the current administion's vision does't go that far out. I'll probably be gone by then, and those kids in favor of this type of behavior won't have the memory to connect the dots to see the consequences of their actions so far in the future. Art | ||
| Aaron Williams (Aawil)
Junior Member Username: Aawil Post Number: 109 Registered: 8-2002 |
I don't think they thought the was through at all. The war can be won that's not the problem. Their WILL be more terrorist attacks here.That's my problem with this war.It makes us look like the bullies we say were against. Winning the war on terrorism is a war we can't win. | ||
| Mike Procopio (Pupz308)
Junior Member Username: Pupz308 Post Number: 207 Registered: 10-2002 |
Cuba, too! | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 982 Registered: 5-2001 |
You can't prove a negative. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 2162 Registered: 2-2001 |
I would stay away from NY, DC & LA. I think Miami is pretty safe. If they attack Miami all of South America will be at war with Iraq  | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1374 Registered: 2-2001 |
Well, if it is accepted that you once had a needle, and now you state you no longer have the needle, there would surely be proof as how how you disposed of that needle. That is the problem. Iraq states they no longer have WMD, so what happened to them? Where are the videos of them being destroyed? Where are the witnesses? Just saying that he no longer has them is not good enough. Ernesto | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 218 Registered: 1-2003 |
Ernesto- You are correct that "It is Iraq that has to prove that they no longer have the weapons, not the other way around." But how exactly do you prove something like that? If I accuse you of having a needle in your house, and you have to prove me wrong or go to jail, it seems to me that you're kind of screwed. I think it's interesting we can't apply our own basis of freedoms (the constitution) to anyone outside of this country. But back to the original idea. Once upon a time he had them. Saddam probably figures once Baghdad is focused on he won't be making it out alive, so if he has them I would expect to see them used then. As for giving them to terrorists, I don't think he would have done until some point during our attack. If terrorists use them and we blame Saddam, but Saddam is already dead, I don't think Saddam will really care at all. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1373 Registered: 2-2001 |
You have it backwards Arthur. It is Iraq that has to prove that they no longer have the weapons, not the other way around. And they havent done that. Ernesto | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1157 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ernesto: He admitted to having them prior to 91. He claims that he destroyed them. Our government has stated they have conclusive prove he has them. Every time they has shown the conclusive proof, either the proof has been shown to be fabricated (nuclear proof supplies to ElBarti at the UN), or untrue. Bottom line: we have claim we "knew" he has them. If they can't prove that, my government apparently lied. (Knowing is an abolute. They could have said they suspected he had them, but I suspect they felt they couldn't sell the war under those terms). Art | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1372 Registered: 2-2001 |
Saddam has admitted to having bio weapons, but hasn't proven that he has destroyed or gotten rid of them. I don't see how anyone can say that he doesn't have WMD when he has admitted to having them. Ernesto | ||
| Lawrence Coppari (Lawrence)
Member Username: Lawrence Post Number: 547 Registered: 4-2002 |
If he uses them at this point, it proves we were right all the time. He will only use them just before it is time for him to "check out". At that point, nothing would matter anyway. Even the French would turn against him at that point. I see his end coming in a bunker with forces closing on all sides, reminiscent of Berlin in 1945. Meanwhile his forces are attrited making the final steps less difficult. The stationary force defending Baghdad cannot withstand that kind of bombardment. If they stay there, they are dead. If they run, they are dead. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1156 Registered: 6-2001 |
Randall: If he had them, why hasn't he used them? I think that he doesn't, and if he did, why would he give them to terrorists, when for sure, we would blame him. He needs world opinion to try to stay in power, and therefore even if he did have these before, I bet they have been destroyed. If we do find WMD in Iraq, I'd be looking for the Made in the USA on them. If we don't find any of them, then maybe we ought to consder a regime change here, with a trial for war crimes shortly thereafter. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 975 Registered: 5-2001 |
The colors are used to make them look busy | ||
| Omar (Auraraptor)
Member Username: Auraraptor Post Number: 397 Registered: 9-2002 |
You mean colors right ;) | ||
| Ryan550 (Ryanab)
Member Username: Ryanab Post Number: 308 Registered: 3-2002 |
What are those colours for?? | ||
| Randall (Randall)
Junior Member Username: Randall Post Number: 216 Registered: 1-2003 |
So, we all know (or assume) Saddam has chem/bio weapons. It can then be assumed that by this point in the war he has either given or arranged for terrorists to have some. Do you think our country is going to step-up security enough to stop this? I personally don't think it's going to be possible to stop something the size of a Gatorade bottle from coming into our country, and I fear the leaders haven't thought things out enough. |