PDA

View Full Version : Big picture // HUGE picture.


mischief
May 23, 2002, 04:02 PM
With all the threads about politics, sexual preference, enlightenment and Bono I thought I'd start a thread on the HUGE picture. The HUGE picture is taken on a planetary scale with a temporal resolution of no less than ten years.

Ex:

In the Big picture it's a shame Israel uses Genocide as an excuse for it's existance while commiting Genocide against Palestine.

In the Huge picture it's a shame that the peoples of the middle east can't just get over it and live as the ONE family they really are.


This trick of scale has a parental context and accompanies something called "the Cosmic Giggle" which stems from fact that Irony and Humor are saving graces often ignored but neccesary to survival and growth. Hence Mischief and his Pies.

teabgs
May 23, 2002, 04:15 PM
If the Arabs would stop attacking Israel and promoting the destruction and violence towards innocent people there would be no more fighting. The reason Israel was created was because there was no other way for Jews to live in the region and not be oppressed by the other arab states.

Israel has never started a conflict between the nations; each time they have to fight it is because the arabs attck and Israel has ot defend herself. If the arabs stopped attacking, then Israel would not be fighting back and hence no more mid-east violence.

When all your neighboring countries are against you, the need to attack 10 times stronger then you recieve is necessary for survival.

mischief
May 23, 2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by teabgs
If the Arabs would stop attacking Israel and promoting the destruction and violence towards innocent people there would be no more fighting. The reason Israel was created was because there was no other way for Jews to live in the region and not be oppressed by the other arab states.

Israel has never started a conflict between the nations; each time they have to fight it is because the arabs attck and Israel has ot defend herself. If the arabs stopped attacking, then Israel would not be fighting back and hence no more mid-east violence.

When all your neighboring countries are against you, the need to attack 10 times stronger then you recieve is necessary for survival.

1. Granted: Violence begets violence, but there is more to it: The Allies drew up a map of the middle East with it's first boundries beyond "Redneck Geography" with Palestine where Israel is, then erased the word "Palestine", wrote in the word "Israel" and assumed no one would notice.


2. Not so: Call the whole thing Canaan. The name is old enough to cover both sides.

3. The whole thing is rediculous in the HUGE picture cuz they're all the same people. Israelis look different because they're genetically more European now than they were when last there was an Israel. As wrong as it is : If Israelis weren't visibly European there would have been intervention by now.

4. No one can own the land. Scoff if you want but I'm liking Redneck Geography for this context. There are TOO MANY COUNTRIES that aren't really countries. The British really screwed it all up by trying to put enough lines on the map to make everyone happy.

cleo
May 23, 2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by mischief

This trick of scale has a parental context and accompanies something called "the Cosmic Giggle" which stems from fact that Irony and Humor are saving graces often ignored but neccesary to survival and growth. Hence Mischief and his Pies.

Reminds me of a story told by Pema Chodron (a Vajrayana Buddhist nun). I don't remember which book it's in, so I'll paraphrase:

A god sees how his people bicker over stupid things, failing to see the big (or, HUGE :)) picture, and decides to teach them a lesson. He manifests in all of his godly glory, walking down a road that has workers in the fields on either side, wearing a hat that is half red and half blue. After he leaves, all of the people gather and talk about how magnificent the god is, how awesome his appearance was, etc. Then one follower says, "He looked so inspiring, standing there in his blue hat!" Someone who was on the other side of the road says, "No! He was wearing a red hat!" They people begin to fight with words, building walls and throwing stones. Then the gods manifests a second time, this time walking down the road in the opposite direction. After he leaves, the people are stunned. "We must have seen wrong, he *was* wearing a red hat!" "No, it was our mistake, you were right - he was wearing a blue hat!" Now the people do not know whether to fight or be friends. So the god comes back a third time; this time he stands in the middle of the road, spins around, and begins dancing. All of the people, seeing the truth, begin to laugh.

I think it's that last bit that is so important - just as a moment of hate can undo eons of good karma, so can a moment of laughter and goodwill undo eons of evil.

teabgs
May 23, 2002, 04:43 PM
you have some valid points BUT:

1)Jews were very much insterested in creating a large Arab state without religion behind it. This was all before WW2 and the whole Allies thing ever happened. The Muslim extremists did not want the Jews and started propaganda and violence towards them that eventually led rise to some of Hitler's views....thus stemming WW2.

2)you cant just say all arabs are the same....most are good people. There is only a small percentage leading them that are evil and promote violence. For instance, Palestinians in schools are taught to fight the Jews and their friends wherever they encounter them. On palestinian TV children's shows have songs sung by 10 year old girls about young boys fighting and killing the Jews and dieing valiently in battle, thus going to heaven.

3)Israel has offered land to the palesinians as their own to be seperate from Israel. BUT since the land didnt include Jerusalem they deny it.

4)true the allies f*cked up big time with the borders, but that doesnt give the palestinians the right to kill people. there is no reason why everyone cant work together liked civilized people and work something out. If they'd stop bombing and work WITH Israel instead of AGAINST Israel then something good could happen

mischief
May 23, 2002, 05:04 PM
"Jews were very much insterested in creating a large Arab state without religion behind it. This was all before WW2 and the whole Allies thing ever happened. The Muslim extremists did not want the Jews and started propaganda and violence towards them that eventually led rise to some of Hitler's views....thus stemming WW2."

Interesting. Though I doubt WW2 was caused by Arabs.

"You cant just say all arabs are the same....most are good people. There is only a small percentage leading them that are evil and promote violence. For instance, Palestinians in schools are taught to fight the Jews and their friends wherever they encounter them. On palestinian TV children's shows have songs sung by 10 year old girls about young boys fighting and killing the Jews and dieing valiently in battle, thus going to heaven."

Actually I was saying that cutting the definitions too fine is as bad as lumping them all together. As far as fixing the problem goes, we need to get back to basics: Both the Muslims AND the Jews trace lineage to the same source.

"Israel has offered land to the palesinians as their own to be seperate from Israel. BUT since the land didnt include Jerusalem they deny it."

Of course. If you woke up one day to UN troops telling you to move to the less habitable land in your area so Native Americans could have your condo how would you react? We need 1 nation out of this, 2 will never work.

"True the allies f*cked up big time with the borders, but that doesnt give the palestinians the right to kill people. there is no reason why everyone cant work together liked civilized people and work something out. If they'd stop bombing and work WITH Israel instead of AGAINST Israel then something good could happen."


I heard an interesting observation just after the last Israeli PM was Assasinated: There are no sensible people left in either country, All that's left are extremists on both sides.

True, Palestinians would do better painting the word "lieberstraum" on Israeli settlement buildings than bombing civilians. Neither group is likely to step off long enough for resolution without SERIOUS outside intervention.

No one has ANY right to take another human life. EVER.

cleo
May 23, 2002, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by mischief

Of course. If you woke up one day to UN troops telling you to move to the less habitable land in your area so Native Americans could have your condo how would you react? We need 1 nation out of this, 2 will never work.


Right on. I'm not sure why everyone is buying the line that a two state solution is the only answer. Sure, extremists on both sides are going to always want their own state... but hell, I wouldn't mind having my own state either! We're talking about far too little land with too few resources (real resources, like water, in addition to the religious spots everybody wants) to ever be able to equitably split into two states. The water grid is a HUGE issue that hardly ever gets talked about in the American media; I guess it just complicates things too much. Anyway, right on, mischief, for pointing out the absolute failure of borders drawn by imperialists (hello, Africa?) and for standing up for a one-state solution.

Flame on, everyone else. :D

mcrain
May 23, 2002, 05:18 PM
If you look at a map, the majority of the middle east is controlled by muslims. Only a tiny sliver is Isreal.

So, why do the Palestinians want to be there so bad? Why can't they go a little east?

I'll tell you why. The Isrealis have developed the hell out of that area, and the palestinians want to boot the Jews out and steal what's there.

They hate the jews. Period.

By the way, there is no such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian. The word is derived from the term philistines. Plus, the jews were there long before the muslims. But, even so, none of the muslims cared about or were all that interested in living in what is now Isreal before the end of WWII. It wasn't until the jews moved in and built stuff.

teabgs
May 23, 2002, 05:20 PM
a one state solution would be ideal but it wouldnt work out. as you said extremists...

I didnt say arabs started ww2 just that some things they said made it to Europe and then to hitler and he used that....


i think this thread is kind of like the land we're discussing. We'll never get anywhere when people have their minds already made up.

teabgs
May 23, 2002, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
If you look at a map, the majority of the middle east is controlled by muslims. Only a tiny sliver is Isreal.

So, why do the Palestinians want to be there so bad? Why can't they go a little east?

I'll tell you why. The Isrealis have developed the hell out of that area, and the palestinians want to boot the Jews out and steal what's there.

They hate the jews. Period.

By the way, there is no such thing as Palestine or a Palestinian. The word is derived from the term philistines. Plus, the jews were there long before the muslims. But, even so, none of the muslims cared about or were all that interested in living in what is now Isreal before the end of WWII. It wasn't until the jews moved in and built stuff.


that is a VERY good point. And I can't believe I didnt mention that before....

The reason why they want to take Israel's land and not go elsewhere....

BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS THEM. that's right, I said it. they werent incorporated into the other muslim nations because none of the other nations would let them in. The other Muslim nations don't want them in their land and so they're forced to live where they are, which is under Israeli law.

they're all just pissed because they are the white trash of the Middle east.

mischief
May 23, 2002, 05:34 PM
Environmentalism:

Current evolutionary theory states that Evolution happens suddenly in reaction to cataclysmic events that effectively "shuffle the deck" moving species around en masse and killing off some in the process. New species then emerge to fill voids. The crux of the process though is the sudden environmental stress and radical environmental change. All of Human history exists in the longest period of environmental stability ever observed on this planet.

In the last millenia Humans have become "half" a Cataclysm. We have been killing off and moving around species..... but too slowly for massive recovery. The Environmentalist stance of attempting to halt environmental change is foolish and counter productive. If we're gonna be a Cataclysm we must take responsability for what that means: we must move species around en masse as fast as we can so evolution can save our butts. We must get over our Egotism around Genetic engineering and "Playing God" and FIX THE SYSTEM.

If The Creator didn't want us t know something WE WOULDN"T KNOW IT.

If said being didn't want us doing something IT WOULDN"T BE POSSIBLE.

It's time to get over the HUGE picture "it" and get on with taking responsability for ourselves.

teabgs
May 23, 2002, 07:06 PM
I concur. People dont like to take responsibility for their actions and ignore the consequences. This needs to change.

Mr. Anderson
May 24, 2002, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by mischief
Environmentalism:
If The Creator didn't want us t know something WE WOULDN"T KNOW IT.

If said being didn't want us doing something IT WOULDN"T BE POSSIBLE.

It's time to get over the HUGE picture "it" and get on with taking responsability for ourselves.

It won't happen due to the money and politics involved. Any action taken will always be a little too late.

Look at the melting of the icecaps. Its pretty much assured that in the next century enough ice will melt to raise the sea level several feet by 2100. What are we doing? Nada, we have too many other problems (small problems) that need our attention that we're basically doing damage control as the problems arise and not worry about curring the system.

I hope that changes some day.

krossfyter
May 24, 2002, 02:55 AM
the primary goal of the arabs is for the iradication of all jews

how can you ever have peace if thats thier goal? you cant. not by human standards that is. not EVER through diplomacy.


most top arab leader....arafat the primary one....say one thing to the public then the total opposite to thier people. its called double speak.

Beej
May 24, 2002, 03:02 AM
I was watching a comedy show last night. There was a mock interview with God. He made a joke and the interviewer said she was surprised he made a joke. His reply was something to the effect of "You didn't think I had a sense of humor? Of course I do... I put I ran and Iraq next to each other, didn't I?"

Cracked me up! Not saying what's happening in that part of the world is funny, but that skit cracked me up.

krossfyter
May 24, 2002, 03:09 AM
heh thats funny beej.

macfreek57
May 24, 2002, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by krossfyter
the primary goal of the arabs is for the iradication of all jews

how can you ever have peace if thats thier goal? you cant. not by human standards that is. not EVER through diplomacy.


most top arab leader....arafat the primary one....say one thing to the public then the total opposite to thier people. its called double speak.


so irradicate the arabs!!!1:D

krossfyter
May 24, 2002, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by macfreek57



so irradicate the arabs!!!1:D


that is genocide and its illegal:D :D

britboy
May 24, 2002, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by krossfyter
the primary goal of the arabs is for the iradication of all jews


Not true. One of the main reasons muslims and jews do not get on is Jerusalem. Have you ever been there? Both religions claim the same site as *their* holy shrine: the Dome of the Rock. It's holy to islam, judaism and christianity. Muslims believe the prophet Muhammed ascended to paridise from there, whilst jews believe Abraham came close to sacrificing his son there (not sure what it is to christians, possibly something to do with Solomon's temple). Access to the site is restricted, with certain days allocated to each religion. Seems like a simple solution, non? Non. One of the principles islamic nations follow is to not allow other religions to prosper within them. How then can muslims allow jews (or christians for that matter) to use one of *their* holiest sites?

Anyway, to get to the point ( :rolleyes: ), their goal isn't to eradicate jews, to but gain full and unhindered access to their shrines, and have full control over Jerusalem. If it were christians living there (or hindus...), then it would be the same. It just so happens that in this case Jews are 'in the way'.

krossfyter
May 24, 2002, 07:05 AM
well from what im hearing it seems that most of them say that to the public ...you know about the dome of the rock issue....shrine..etc.etc. but to thier people or behind close doors they want the extinction of the jews.


now i could be wrong about some or all of this but so far thats what i have come up with.

britboy
May 24, 2002, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by krossfyter
well from what im hearing it seems that most of them say that to the public ...you know about the dome of the rock issue....shrine..etc.etc. but to thier people or behind close doors they want the extinction of the jews.

Behind closed doors.... well, they *could* be saying anything, including what you're saying. Then again, what's Bush saying 'behind closed doors' about the war america's running in the middle east? Is it really just against the taliban, or does islam come into it?

I'm not suggesting that that's the case, just pointing out that what's said behind closed doors is not always put into action, or even neccessarily meant.

On a personal level, i know many jews and muslims who get on just fine, as long as shrines aren't involved.

krossfyter
May 24, 2002, 07:17 AM
its more than just a land issue. there is so much involved to narrow it down to only that. the arabs have so much other land they are not even satisfied with it so they just want a strip more? thats not entirely true. i believe they dont want the jews on this earth anymore.

krossfyter
May 24, 2002, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by britboy


Behind closed doors.... well, they *could* be saying anything, including what you're saying. Then again, what's Bush saying 'behind closed doors' about the war america's running in the middle east? Is it really just against the taliban, or does islam come into it?

I'm not suggesting that that's the case, just pointing out that what's said behind closed doors is not always put into action, or even neccessarily meant.

On a personal level, i know many jews and muslims who get on just fine, as long as shrines aren't involved.


could be. however i would trust bush more than arafat behind them doors.
bush would never want a certain goup of people destroyed (well maybe the clintons but that another thing:D ) on the other hand that is a good possiblity with arafat and some of the other arab leaders. it is my understanding that arabs have that dynamic doublespeak nature about them.

britboy
May 24, 2002, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by krossfyter
its more than just a land issue. there is so much involved to narrow it down to only that. the arabs have so much other land they are not even satisfied with it so they just want a strip more? thats not entirely true. i believe they dont want the jews on this earth anymore.

Land is one of the most important things imaginable to islamic people. Take this for example: saudi arabia has the largest area of land of any country in the middle east. However, every single country that has a border with saudi is in constant conflict (in the political sense) with the saudi's over the precise line that the border follows. You ever noticed that some maps just put borders between saudi and its' neighbours in a dotted line? That's why.

britboy
May 24, 2002, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by krossfyter
could be. however i would trust bush more than arafat behind them doors.
bush would never want a certain goup of people destroyed (well maybe the clintons but that another thing:D ) on the other hand that is a good possiblity with arafat and some of the other arab leaders.

To be honest, i wouldn't be so sure. They're both politicians. Just because arafat happens to be from the middle east does not mean he's an untrustworthy fool. In fact, i think he's far more astute than bush.

it is my understanding that arabs have that dynamic doublespeak nature about them.

aaahhh, so that's where i get it from :p

teabgs
May 24, 2002, 10:36 AM
For the most part Muslims are not hateful towards the Jews.

HOWEVER certain militant groups and most of the Palestinians want the eradication of the Jews. Arafat certainly does. You can get Palestinian tv broadcasts from the Israeli embassy if you ask for them. Quite disturbing what they preach to children even more then to adults.

They basically say to "fight the Jew and his friends everywhere you meet him in the world." Well, the US is the Jews' friend since we're allied with Israel.

I used to work with this guy who was from Iran and we had a discussion about it. I am jewish and when the Palestinians started the large scale attacks on Israel in fall 2000 we were talking about it. He said that when he went to temple (In Iran) they would preach to fight the Jews and never give in to them. No matter what or where you are, you must ALWAYS fight the Jews.

He didnt buy into it and came over here though...he likes the jews cause they got him a visa and green card and try to help him whereas his own people just inhibit him.

mischief
May 29, 2002, 04:24 PM
Separation of Church and State:

I am of the firm belief that any government official who goes on the record saying that there needs to be more Religion in Government should get canned and banned on the spot.

I am of the belief that Government should not judge morality but should correct behavior and protect the citizens.

I believe that Vice laws are less effective than Vice taxes and public health care.

I believe that the millitary should not be a standing force but public service in the form of a well regulated Millitia of common citizens.

I believe that "The Nuclear Deterrent" is neither a deterrant nor an effective weapon.

I am genuinely PISSED OFF at how small-minded, fearful and selfish most people are.


OK, Rant over........... go about your business.;) :D :eek: :cool: :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
May 29, 2002, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by mischief
OK, Rant over........... go about your business.;) :D :eek: :cool: :rolleyes:

Ok, you haven't been around for a while, but did something happen today to get your panties in a bunch? Or are you just a one man, pie weilding, crusader?

mischief
May 29, 2002, 06:58 PM
I've been busy at work and not particularly inspired by what I've seen here recently. That's why I haven't been posting much.

As for the rant........

I Carpool every day over a winding and hectic mountain pass with my dad (we work for the same Architect) and NPR is the choice fodder for the morning.

Usually it's entertaining and only slightly annoying, what's happening in the world. Right now between Dubyaw, The "War on Terrorism", Bill Simon (a Jackbooted right wing thug running for Gvnr. of Ca.), India, Pakistan, The Vatican.......

The INCREDIBLE amount of NIMBY Bull ***** I hear about ALL of it........................ I just couldn't take it any more.

We must all choose to take responsability for our own actions and international military response, penalization, criminalization, rationalization and hipocrification Don't effing help.

britboy
May 29, 2002, 07:12 PM
Speaking of the 'war on terrorism' (as the politicians so love to call their crusade), has anyone here read the latest amnesty international report on human rights abuses? Both america and the UK were named as human rights abusers. Interesting, and not at all surprising.

You can read the american report here (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/usa!Open) and the UK one here (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/uk!open).

DavidOS
May 29, 2002, 08:11 PM
I have appreciated the intelligent posts on this thread. The world needs more mischiefs, Cleos, and Britboys.

I have especially agreed with Mischiefs posts. and especially with the ones on the Palestine issue. One thing is clear - the issue is very two sided (for crying out loud, people are dying, and killing, on both sides) yet the US (it's government and people) seems to take a horribly one-sided approach. This needs to change!

I have appreciated the unintelligent posts much less. The world needs less krossfyters, Teabgs, and macfreek57s.

I listen to a LOT of NPR too. My favorite program is the BBC. on here in Michigan from 10PM until 4AM and 9AM until 10 AM. an international perspective on news is enlightening, and enjoyable. The other programs are good too. I also like Talk of the nation - a show where listeners call in and express their questions and comments to a panel of guests. their have been discussions on the middle east on occasion, and some of the callers have made me want to cry. Unintelligent, "redneckish," and just plain wrong opinions like these make me fear for the state of the US, and the world as a whole.

the primary goal of the Arabs is for the irradiation of all Jews
come on folks, let's go back to the real world! This is simply not true. The primary goal is to live a peaceful, good life in what they believe is their native land, worshiping in the places they choose. By the way, the primary goal of the Israelis is to live a peaceful, good life in what they believe is their native land, worshiping in the places they choose.

The Israelis have lots of guns to defend their perceived right to the land, and the Palestinians have some guns, some suicide bombers, and some stones. ALL ARE UGLY WAYS TO DEFEND A PERCEIVED RIGHT. There is enough blame to go around. This IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE. we need to stop saying things like "the primary goal of the Arabs . . . " and start supporting peace. and that means supporting BOTH SIDES. NOT JUST ISRAEL.

Thanks folks,

and I can't wait to buy a new ibook soon!
Dave
:D

DavidOS
May 29, 2002, 08:28 PM
speaking of nuclear stuff . . . would it ever be moral to send a missile off? and thousands, perhaps millions of people (over the generations - radiation, etc.) to their deaths? no! it wouldn't, even if we had been fired at first and were on our way to our deaths. therefore, if there is no moral time to use nukes, why do we have them? as a deterrent? Well, they are only a deterrent if people think we might use them (and they do) but like discussed above, we should not think so. so as soon as the US comes around to that reality, and realizes it would be immoral to use nukes under any circumstance, then other countries know we won’t fire back and . . . the nuke deterrent effect will be dead. SO . . . it only works while we are ass holes. Great! Lets just get rid of the nukes now!

Dave

jelloshotsrule
May 29, 2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by britboy
Speaking of the 'war on terrorism' (as the politicians so love to call their crusade), has anyone here read the latest amnesty international report on human rights abuses? Both america and the UK were named as human rights abusers. Interesting, and not at all surprising.

You can read the american report here (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/amr/usa!Open) and the UK one here (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/eur/uk!open).

i'm not surprised that they are human rights abusers, but i am surprised it was listed officially...

and they didn't even take into consideration america's ridiculous lack of interest in american companies that use sweat shop labor in countries outside the us.... add that to the long list of ways the us is hypocritical when they try to tell others how to treat humans..

and i agree, the middle east is tough to call. it's NOT straight up israel is right. maybe they didn't start it, maybe they did, of that i am not an expert. but regardless, something has to be done to stop the violence on both ends.... simple as that (not so simple of course)...

davidos... i think you're jumping to conclusions on krossfyter and teabgs... i respect them both and think just because you disagree with them doesn' make them unintelligent or anything.... i don't know macfreek so much so i won't comment on him...

this all could relatively easily slide into the politics thread... well, some of it at least.

DavidOS
May 29, 2002, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


davidos... i think you're jumping to conclusions on krossfyter and teabgs... i respect them both and think just because you disagree with them doesn' make them uninteligent or anything.... i don't know macfreek so much so i won't comment on him...



Point well taken, rereading the post it did come out a bit strong against THEM rather than THEIR OPIONONS. I should have stuck with a line like this "The uninteligent and "redneckish" OPINIONS of . . . etc."

jelloshotsrule
May 29, 2002, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by DavidOS


Point well taken, rereading the post it did come out a bit strong against THEM rather than THEIR OPIONONS. I should have stuck with a line like this "The uninteligent and "redneckish" OPINIONS of . . . etc."

still seems a bit harsh.... and plus, teabgs said he's jewish... i dno't know too many rednecks who are jewish! :p

teabgs
May 29, 2002, 09:46 PM
Hmm....first of all as Jello pointed out (gracias) I am Jewish. So that puts me out of the Redneckish category. If you were to ask a REAL redneck if they knew any jews they wouldn't.

Now, where do get off calling me unintelligent? I am not uneducated nor am I ignorant. I'm not one to brag but I was in the top 5% of my graduating class and was one of the most honored members as well. I also have an A average at a prestigious university currently.

I have been to Israel, and have Israeli friends and unless you've actually been there you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS LIKE. To have friends killed by suicide bombers any day of the year. And I mean BEFORE the fall of 2000. When I was there a suicide bomber struck just a few miles from where I was...I had been in the same spot the night before.

The "goal of the arabs" does not exist. If you would have actually read my posts you would have seen that I said only a small percentage want violence. However, that small percentage is in power and controls the rest of the people.

I was at a kibbutz that is on the Northern most area of land in Israel. I touched the fence that was the border to Syria. The entire time I was there I could see the building that housed snipers with guns pointed at us every moment. If we tried to go over that fence, we're dead. Those were the small percentage. I was told that before they had come to power the fence did not exist and the villagers and Israeli's were friendly and used to socialize all the time. but no more.

Would you like a copy of a television broadcast from Palestinian TV aimed at children to teach them to fight the jews? Or one about the military training camps for children to teach them to kill. Where being able to put together a dismantled gun, load it, and shoot it in the least amount of time possible gets you awarded? If you would I will send as many as you'd like. You can private message me with your address. I'll pay.

Do not listen to the United States press. They are biased. Get real information before coming on here and spouting out your uninformed opinions.

You're being more narrow minded then you said I and Krossfyter are.

Krossfyter is a good man, I also dont know macfreek too well, but Krossfyter is a good guy and doesnt try to step on anyones toes unlike other people here....

DaveOS, please look into the matter some more before generalizing.

jefhatfield
May 29, 2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by DavidOS


Point well taken, rereading the post it did come out a bit strong against THEM rather than THEIR OPIONONS. I should have stuck with a line like this "The uninteligent and "redneckish" OPINIONS of . . . etc."

some views can come across as narrow or xenophobic when they really are polarized to one side more than another

i hope there is resolution in the middle east and someone somewhere still wont be happy

D0ct0rteeth
May 29, 2002, 10:16 PM
Actually i agree very much with Teabags.. and i am not Jewish. I feel it is necessary to say I have several friends who have been to Israel and have several jewish as well as arab friends.

There are several VERY well written books on this subject and I recommend reading them if you are at all interested in how this whole disaster came about. I feel "A Peace To End All Peace" should be mandatory high school history reading, and encourage you to check it out.

When you do some research what emerges, before one is even halfway through, is there is no one person responsible.. and I wouldn't neccesarly blame the palestinians or the israelis. But the Imperialist nations.

Picture British delegates clustered around outdated maps of Mesopotamia and the Holy Land, muffling curses as they try to pin-point elusive rivers -- with Semitic names they can't even pronounce but which they intend to use as arbitrary borders of the new nations they're delineating -- It was chaos

As the Ottoman Empire fell apart there were so many inept politicians who lied and even the Arabs often negotiated in bad faith, knowing that they could deliver on few if any of the promises they made in pursuit of their goals.

All of this bloodshed could have been avoided if the "Young Turks" (the reformers in the otoman empire) had been left to carry out their programs. After the war when the Allied Powers divvied up the Middle East, the result was frustration of the Arabs' legitimate desires for self-government in Palestine and Syria, and the introduction of the Zionist colonies led to more unrest.

The culprit can only be described as legendary British stumbling throughout World War I. At the core of Britain's Middle Eastern advisers was a group of bigoted, bumbling idiots, who could not see past the end of their noses. Sir Mark Sykes hated both the Jews and Arabs equally.

Along with Kitchener, T.E. Lawrence, Gertrude Belle, Abd al-Azziz, Sykes, Ben-Gurion, Attaturk, Woodrow Wilson, Emir Feisal, Lloyd George there is more than enough blame to go around.

Blaming the Jews for the problems in israel is like blaming a cab driver in NYC for september 11th... there is nothing he could do. Blaming Arafat is also utterly rediculous.

The distorted reality of the 1920's caused this problem.. and the distorted reality of modern society prevents it from being resolved. I beleive that Sharon and Arafat both want peace, but that can never happen. The Israelis cannot negotiate with the palestinians because Arafat cannot control the militants that are responsible for the terrorism. The Hamas (terrorist leaders) have repeatedly said that they will continue training aand attacking until the jews are dead. There is no way to appease them. Only by setting up a palestinian state AND the destruction of the Hamas can we even begin to hope for a short term solution.

A long term solution is a whole other story.

DavidOS
May 29, 2002, 11:18 PM
Hmm....first of all as Jello pointed out (gracias) I am Jewish. So that puts me out of the Redneckish category.

by using "redneck" as an adjective here, I don't mean strictly the average "redneck" sort of beliefs - i.e. all Jews are greedy, cheats, backstabbing etc. etc (all horrible and wrong views, for sure!)- but rather the more general attitude. The impression I got from some of your posts, teabgs, was one of complete blame for the problem to the Palestinians. You said If the Arabs would stop attacking Israel and promoting the destruction and violence towards innocent people there would be no more fighting. my argument with you was over this statement.

Now, where do get off calling me unintelligent? I am not uneducated nor am I ignorant. I'm not one to brag but I was in the top 5% of my graduating class and was one of the most honored members as well. I also have an A average at a prestigious university currently.

I clarified in my earlier post that I should have said your VIEWS where unintelligent. I apologize for the impression I gave. I do however still think that the view that it's all the Arabs fault (see above) is rather unintelligent, and unrealistic. By the way, though I am still only in high school, and have taken about a semester total of early college, I have good grades too, about the same as yours.

I have been to Israel, and have Israeli friends and unless you've actually been there you HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS LIKE. To have friends killed by suicide bombers any day of the year. And I mean BEFORE the fall of 2000. When I was there a suicide bomber struck just a few miles from where I was...I had been in the same spot the night before.

You are right, I do have no idea what it is like. I do not live in the same constant fear as you and your Israeli friends must - "who will be next?" I empathize with your loss, your fear, and your pain. It's real, it's well founded, it's horrible that it has to be there. PTSD - post traumatic Stress disorder - will continue to cause suffering to the Israelis for decades to come! It's bad, but indeed, even though I know these things on an intellectual level I do not know what it is like.

I also empathize with the Palestinian situation though. We have to remember that as both you and I agree, not all Palestinians hate Jews, and by no means are they all suicide bombers. None the less, THE ENTIRE PEOPLE suffers (just like the entire Israeli population suffers). Unemployment is well over 50% The death tole for Palestinians is 3 or 4 times greater than the Israeli's, and again PTSD will haunt the populations for many decades to come. A leading Palestinian Christian scholar spoke recently at Calvin College here in town. The told us of the suffering of the Palestinian people - and it is great! She told one especially horrible story of a kid small child who, when asked to draw a picture, with no guidance immediately drew pictures of destroyed houses, bombs, planes, tanks, bodies, and dead family members. I also read an essay (similar to many other essays) about how a pregnant women and her baby died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. They had to attempt to take a bumpy country road because when approaching the Army roadblock they were fired upon (somewhat understandable – indeed SOME . . . few(!) ambulances have been used as bomb transports. – but still unjust and terrible)

Both Parties suffer lots - interestingly from very similar ailments - fear, death, pain, loss, etc. etc.

The "goal of the Arabs" does not exist. If you would have actually read my posts you would have seen that I said only a small percentage want violence. However, that small percentage is in power and controls the rest of the people.

I did read your posts and I see that you do not think that all Arabs are bad. good, I agree, and am glad you made the point! Remember, my quarrel was not only with you. it was krossfyter who said the thing about a "goal of the Arabs."

I was at a kibbutz that is on the Northern most area of land in Israel. I touched the fence that was the border to Syria. The entire time I was there I could see the building that housed snipers with guns pointed at us every moment. If we tried to go over that fence, we're dead. Those were the small percentage. I was told that before they had come to power the fence did not exist and the villagers and Israeli's were friendly and used to socialize all the time. but no more.

how sad. again I empathize with you. For us, who are not so personally involved in the situation, it is important that we here opinions like these.

Would you like a copy of a television broadcast from Palestinian TV aimed at children to teach them to fight the Jews? Or one about the military training camps for children to teach them to kill. Where being able to put together a dismantled gun, load it, and shoot it in the least amount of time possible gets you awarded? If you would I will send as many as you'd like. You can private message me with your address. I'll pay.

I do not doubt that these things go on. Propaganda is a part of nearly every world conflict. Again, terrible! Think Nazi Germany. There too, millions of GOOD PEOPLE, the majority of the country!! was either convinced by Hitler’s propaganda, or too scared to stand against it. Some did take a stand. The same thing happens today in Palestine. It’s hard to know what to say to this propaganda problem. The Israelis of course feel very strongly it is their right to be in Palestine too. Their presence there causes much suffering. I would say that this belief and support of the Israeli occupation is just as sad. There are cracks in it too – like the solders and officers in the army who were recently expelled from the Israeli army for refusing to take part in the occupation. I think that All parties could settle and must settle for peace. The cycle of violence must stop, the whole “right of retaliation” does not work. Sooner or later one of the sides is going to have to take one for the “team” and be a bigger man – not retaliate.

Do not listen to the United States press. They are biased. Get real information before coming on here and spouting out your uninformed opinions.

remember, I said that I listen to NPR (rather different than most US media), the BBC (not US). I also read regularly from the local paper (more typical US), and CBC news online (I have Canadian roots). I am NOT getting all US press. I am doing my best to be informed from many sides of the issue. Remember that on the whole, the US media is very pro Israeli. that is why the US population is so pro-Israeli too.

You're being more narrow minded then you said I and Krossfyter are.

Well . . . I hope not. My whole point was not to be.

I said . . . "The Israelis have lots of guns to defend their perceived right to the land, and the Palestinians have some guns, some suicide bombers, and some stones. ALL ARE UGLY WAYS TO DEFEND A PERCEIVED RIGHT. There is enough blame to go around. This IS NOT A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE. we need to stop saying things like "the primary goal of the Arabs . . . " and start supporting peace. and that means supporting BOTH SIDES. NOT JUST ISRAEL." I am trying to give a ballanced look at the issue. I thought that I was making clear that ALL ARE UGLY WAYS TO DEFEND A PERCEIVED RIGHT. (suicide bombing too!!!!). I was trying to show both sides of the coin - the exact opposite of being narrow minded. I am sorry if you misunderstood me.

I am a very intense person, and feel very passionately about these things. looking back on these past few posts I think it would have been better for me to have not named names, not used the insulting terms I did, and focused more on the issues, the things I was trying to say. I am sorry. One lives and learns. I hope you will forgive me, and just think about my opinion (as I continue to think about yours). Have a good night.

Dave

DavidOS
May 29, 2002, 11:23 PM
Interesting, D0ct0rteeth. I think that some of what you said jives well with my last post. I work at a book store and, although I have not read any books (just lot's or arcticles, newspapers, etc. . .) on the conflict I have had my eye on a few different ones. There is a lot to read out there, and I will add your book to the list. Thanks!

Dave

jelloshotsrule
May 29, 2002, 11:26 PM
davidos-

that was a more productive, thought out post in my opinion.... and it's good to see that SOME high school students know what's going on and have interest... and don't just swallow everything they are fed. i was quite surprised you are in high school. just because most people at that age don't care and are ignorant of the truth and such.

word.

teabgs
May 29, 2002, 11:44 PM
Dave

much better post. No hard feelings.....

It's a bad idea to use names or derogatory terms when trying to discuss a subject such as this. People take things a different way then you may have meant. Let this be a life lesson.

I must say I'm impressed that you're in high school.

Stick with facts for discussions like this all will be a delightful (yet heated) debate instead of mudslinging....or pie slinging ;)


The problem is that a truce cannot happen with things as they are today. the only way to stop the violence is to change the mindset of a people.

By eliminating the Hamas this could be possible. Israel teaches peace in school whereas Palestinian schools do not, but say they do.

Another problem is Jerusalem. I dont even want to get into the history of conflict with this as I am tired and want to go to sleep. For a peace process neither side is willing to give up a claim to Jerusalem.

Here's the prob with that: If Palestinians (just using this term to use for the bad ones, but dont want to explain myself every time) were in control of it jews wouldnt be allowed in. period. Israel has given an entire section to the muslims in which Israelis do not go. They divided the wall to give the muslims part of it. they allow everyone and make everythign accessable whereas the palestinians want it to be theirs. Which also means chrisitans wouldnt have access....


Anyway, i'm glad your open to learning more and not stuck in your ways. dont change that.

Peace

krossfyter
May 30, 2002, 02:18 AM
teabags ...thanks for them nice comments...i appreciate it. jelloshotsrule...thanks for your respect.



davidos...



even if we dont agree i believe you misunderstood me in part. im sorry that you deem me as unintelligent even if you dont know me. seems rather "unintelligent" to do that to anyone...regardless of whats been posted. now i respect your view but i kindly disagree with you.

i want to make it clear that i believe both sides are at fault.
however i stand stong on the belief that part of the arab population vehemently wants the irradication of all jews and their culture.
i dont buy the bs that the liberal news is spitting out...and most conservative news. i dont buy the bs that arafat and his croonies are spewing as well. doublespeak from part of the arab world has confused many.

i agree with Benjamin Netanyahu (Former Prime Minister of Israel) on this issue.... and its hard for me to believe anyone else from there.

Benjamin Netanyahu is the man.

britboy
May 30, 2002, 07:43 AM
D0ct0rteeth~ whilst i agree that much of the blame for the current situation lies with the partitioning arranged after WWI, there is (as ever with the middle east) more than one side to the story. The french had much to do with the decision-making as the british. Also, don't forget the Zionist World Congress in Basle (switzerland) in the late 1800's, calling for the creation of a Jewish state in palestine. Plus of course the League of Nations, which had to ratify the proposals put forward by the british. It's not as simple as just saying "The culprit can only be described as legendary British stumbling throughout World War I".

In 1948, the UN proposed a new partition settlement, which would have left the palistinians in a much better situation than they are currently today. They rejected the proposal. Granted, the palistinians had control over the entire area prior to WWI, and wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a return to what they had, but the world was a different place then. Land was changing hands regularly, and the boundaries we have today weren't set in stone.

Coming back to events of modern times, both sides are guilty of terrorism, in my opinion. Just because the israelis are using an army, doesn't make it any less of a terrorist act. Going into palistine by force, taking control where they please... I still believe that the comments being spewed out by Sharon such as "Israel will fight, Israel will triumph and when victory prevails, Israel will make peace" do nothing to furthar the chances of peace. Sharon is simply not the right person for the job. Arafat came close with peace negotiations with Rabin, so he's shown that he's willing to move towards a solution. Sharon has yet to do the same.

Again, if you check my previous comments, you'll see that i done place blame with one side or the other, but with both. I'm just trying to point out that the tactics being used by israel, are not going to bring peace.

Of note, did you know that anyone who visits israel, and intends to travel furthar in the middle east, should get the visa stamped on a sepparate piece of paper, rather than in their passport? They're hated throughout the middle east.

teabgs
May 30, 2002, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by britboy

Of note, did you know that anyone who visits israel, and intends to travel furthar in the middle east, should get the visa stamped on a sepparate piece of paper, rather than in their passport? They're hated throughout the middle east.

uh, really? I know they're hated but...if youre not Israeli any other nation shouldnt care what your passport has a stamp in it.

And that is only if you care what some schmuck working at the airport thinks of you...If you have an American passsport in some countries its just as bad....in others you wont even have your baggage checked....

britboy
May 30, 2002, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by teabgs


uh, really? I know they're hated but...if youre not Israeli any other nation shouldnt care what your passport has a stamp in it.

And that is only if you care what some schmuck working at the airport thinks of you...If you have an American passsport in some countries its just as bad....in others you wont even have your baggage checked....


Really. They shouldn't care, but they do. You think having an israeli visa in your passport is going to do you any favours if you then visit egypt (for example)? Israel tried to invade egypt a few decades ago (with the help of france and britain). I doubt that will have endeared israel to other middle-eastern nations...

btw: it's a lot more than just caring about what some 'schmuck' thinks about you at the airport. It's about them having the power to give you a real hard time at immigration. Believe me, when i was living in Yemen, i had plain-clothes policemen following me around simply because i was a foreigner (even though i lived there for 5 years). Do you not think they could be suspicious if they had evidence that you'd been to israel, and do something similar?

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by mischief

I believe that the millitary should not be a standing force but public service in the form of a well regulated Millitia of common citizens.

I believe that "The Nuclear Deterrent" is neither a deterrant nor an effective weapon.


Ok. Well, we all knew that it was only a matter of time before I got involved in this. Look, mischief I like you and all, you know that. But dude, are you out of your ********ing mind? The military has to be a standing force. Period, there is no way around that. We are not in the 1700's anymore where it takes a country 6 months to get to us. We have to have a massive standing force, and it should be larger, with better equipment than it is now. People thought the end of the cold war would make the world more safe, but yet all it has done is give the radicals who were, for the most part, suppressed during the cold war, the ability to come out of the closet.

As far as Nukes being a deterrent. Why do you think the cold war never went hot? I can explain. It is real simple the only way not to fight a nuclear war, is not to fight a war at all. How many times since WWII have countries with Nukes fought? Never. The reason, because it would be too easy to use one. Thus, MAD became the theme, and it friggin worked, and still works.

teabgs
May 30, 2002, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac



As far as Nukes being a deterrent. Why do you think the cold war never went hot? I can explain. It is real simple the only way not to fight a nuclear war, is not to fight a war at all. How many times since WWII have countries with Nukes fought? Never. The reason, because it would be too easy to use one. Thus, MAD became the theme, and it friggin worked, and still works.


So then why is 500 nukes a bigger deterrent then 100? It equally as bad for human life. it really is.....there's no difference.

I don't think nukes should be in existance either. No good can come from them. a world where everyone is scared into not fighting isnt very good either. Even if there arent as many "wars".

And there's plenty of fighting to go around.

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by teabgs



So then why is 500 nukes a bigger deterrent then 100? It equally as bad for human life. it really is.....there's no difference.

I don't think nukes should be in existance either. No good can come from them. a world where everyone is scared into not fighting isnt very good either. Even if there arent as many "wars".

And there's plenty of fighting to go around.

I will tell you the difference between 500 and 100. Some will be lost at launch. Some in re-entry. Some will be shot down, others could miss there target. If there ever comes a need to use them. Then friggin use them. Don't dilly dally around with it. The world is a big place. The rule is simple. If you nuke us, then we will absolutly wipe you off the face of the earth.

Nukes serve a viable purpose in the world. yea, the freaks have come out since the cold war, but the war, and death that exists now is nothing compared to what it could have been, or would have been if the cold war would have been hot. Millions would have died.

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by teabgs

The problem is that a truce cannot happen with things as they are today. the only way to stop the violence is to change the mindset of a people.

By eliminating the Hamas this could be possible. Israel teaches peace in school whereas Palestinian schools do not, but say they do.

Well, like you said, this can be a heated debate, so . . . I would like to take issue with some of this. First . . . Hamas. Hamas sponsors terrorism - that's bad (duh.) we agree on this. but Hamas does not ONLY support terrorism. I heard on the BBC over the weekend that the one of the largest sorces of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people was through militant Islam groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. One has to understand why there is broad support for these groups. They GIVE THE PEOPLE FOOD is a large part. simply "eliminating Hamas" is unrealistic. Maybe the Israeli government should spend a whole **** load of money to help the Palestinians humanitarianly. Maybe they should stop going into he West Bank, and grant statehood to the Palestinian people. THESE THINGS WILL CHANGE THE MINDSET OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.

The Palestinians feel that the Israelis want them out of all the occupied territories, and are totally opposed to a Palestinian state. They feel that all the Israelis do is come in and demolish/shell homes, put up road blocks, kill family members, close schools, etc. etc. I think that the Israeli incursions should BE STOPPED NOW. They only increase the cycle of hate, and, most academics believe do little or nothing to stop the bombers (i.e. there are still plenty happening and is plenty of military action.) If some of these things happen, I believe that the suicide bombers will decrease, and I believe that the PA will be more willing to crack down on the terrorism.

You say that Israel teaches Pease in the schools. This brings us back to the propaganda thing. You mentioned the video as a proof of Palestinian teaching violence. What other evidence do you have for this? Consider the source of the video. It is in the Israeli’s best interest to make the Palestinians look as horrible as possible. You mentioned a biased US press, I would say that the Israeli gov. is darn biased too. I doubt that all, or even most Palestinian schools teach violence, however I do not doubt that a lot of them do. Again, this is sad, but I believe that Israeli Gov. should do some action propaganda of it’s own – show the Palestinian people they want to resolve the problem by giving them a Palestinian state, and stopping the incursions.

The Israeli gov. is guilty of propaganda too. Let’s think of the Israeli lobby in Washington – it is powerful, it is cut throat, it is unfair. It has Washington in it’s pocket. This is a strong form of propaganda. Also, I bet there are plenty of far right Israeli families and schools that still teach “this is our land – we deserve it all, it is ours, the Palestinians have no right to it.

I believe that a truce can work – it is just going to take one of the sides being a bigger man and stop throwing rocks back at the other side.

[Another problem is Jerusalem. . . For a peace process neither side is willing to give up a claim to Jerusalem.

yes, Jerusalem is a biggie. both parties want it, neither is willing to give up. THERE MUST BE ANOTHER WAY to get around this. I suggest international control over the site.

Here's the prob with that: If Palestinians (just using this term to use for the bad ones, but dont want to explain myself every time) were in control of it jews wouldnt be allowed in. period. Israel has given an entire section to the muslims in which Israelis do not go. They divided the wall to give the muslims part of it. they allow everyone and make everythign accessable whereas the palestinians want it to be theirs. Which also means chrisitans wouldnt have access....

first, you are right - Palestinian control over Jerusalem is not the answer (and nor is Israeli control) Palestinians have access? no. especially not now when they are restricted from traveling through the west bank at all. They can't even GET to Jerusalem. No Christian Access? BS! The Palestinian women who spoke here in town lived in Bethlehem, was a Christian, a Palestinian, and told us that all she had never met a Palestinian who hated her for being a Christian. Christian access would not be a problem. She had visited Jerusalem many times.

Like many have said both sides are at fault. I am vocally supportive of the Palestinians because I believe that the blind, one sided support most Americans have for Israel is unfair, and lopsided. I think BOTH SIDES use HORRIBLE ways to defend their perceived rights.

Krossfyter, please notice what I have said in earlier posts, I should have insulted your view, not you. Once more . . . oops! I still think that this line is very VERY wrong and, quite well . . . ignorant.

I will quote what I said earlier

The primary goal is to live a peaceful, good life in what they believe is their native land, worshiping in the places they choose. By the way, the primary goal of the Israelis is to live a peaceful, good life in what they believe is their native land, worshiping in the places they choose.

about the military, I like the idea of an only reserves army, but regardless, even if there must be a standing force, let me ask you this. Why is our military almost as big today as it was in the cold war? That is silly! The threat is gone! We know that the size of the army doesn’t do much to prevent terrorism . . . I say cut the armed services by 75% maybe then we could use the extra money to help inner city schools and families who are being held back by an inequitable system. Or we could use the money for nationalized health care FOR ALL!

About nukes – BTM, what would you say to what I said earlier – we should get rid of the nukes because there is no possible moral situation to use them in! also, no country has the capability as of yet to shoot done nuke (the us is the only country getting even close, but is still a long . . . LONG way off) Also, nukes don’t get “lost” at launch or re-entry. The tech is similar to the space program stuff and they don’t often “loose” rockets. There is only one “lost launch” in the history of US manned space travel – the challanger. It is ubsurd to say that for some reason 100 nukes won’t be able to get of the ground. Also – with nukes “targets are relative” no matter where you hit you are going to kill millions of people. And this is stupid anyways, because THERE IS NO SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE MORAL TO USE A NUKE!!

The end.

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by DavidOS

About nukes – BTM, what would you say to what I said earlier – we should get rid of the nukes because there is no possible moral situation to use them in! also, no country has the capability as of yet to shoot done nuke (the us is the only country getting even close, but is still a long . . . LONG way off) Also, nukes don’t get “lost” at launch or re-entry. The tech is similar to the space program stuff and they don’t often “loose” rockets. There is only one “lost launch” in the history of US manned space travel – the challanger. It is ubsurd to say that for some reason 100 nukes won’t be able to get of the ground. Also – with nukes “targets are relative” no matter where you hit you are going to kill millions of people. And this is stupid anyways, because THERE IS NO SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD BE MORAL TO USE A NUKE!!

The end.

Ok, I am not going to get into the liberal, nationalized health care rant with you. I will however argue this one till the end of the world. First, find a way to get all of the Nukes rounded up and destroyed in the world. You can't. Second, you can not reverse military advances. There will always be nukes from now till the end of time. Period. Now. There are moral situations to use them in, hundreds. Here is just one. We know that a militant group of terrorists have a nuke. They are going to use it. They are confined to a remote mountain range in Afganistan. They are very heavily fortified, and if we advance, we would loose at least 1,000 American soldiers. What do you do? I tell you what I do. I throw a nuke tipped tomahawk, and give them a nice little glow in the dark party.

How about WWII. Was that moral? You damn right it was. The commander in chief of the US has a responsibility to protect all of the people of the US including the soldiers. Had we gone into Japan, we would have lost 300,000 men or more. They started it, we ended it. I have no hard feelings towards them at all, and I admire their county and traditions, but they friggin brought it on themselves.

Oh, and yes, at launch, sometimes things go bad. Challanger is not the only time we have lost men in NASA's program. Remember the Apollo flight that cought fire on the pad, and killed everyone on board? And one other thing, there are ways to bring down a nuke, they just are classified. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

eyelikeart
May 30, 2002, 09:31 AM
I was reading through some of the posts in this thread...and then it hit me when B2TM said I will talk about anything but Politics...he he he...sorry...had to add that to it all...

please...continue with the discussion... ;)

britboy
May 30, 2002, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


How about WWII. Was that moral? You damn right it was. The commander in chief of the US has a responsibility to protect all of the people of the US including the soldiers. Had we gone into Japan, we would have lost 300,000 men or more. They started it, we ended it. I have no hard feelings towards them at all, and I admire their county and traditions, but they friggin brought it on themselves.


Actually it wasn't moral. Japan had surrendered to Russia a few days before the nukes were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. Those bombs were dropped because the US military wanted to see their real-world effect, and to show their power to the rest of the world. Kind of like a warning, i you will. But the point is, Japan had surrendered to a member of the allied forces, before those bombs were dropped.

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by britboy



Actually it wasn't moral. Japan had surrendered to Russia a few days before the nukes were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki. Those bombs were dropped because the US military wanted to see their real-world effect, and to show their power to the rest of the world. Kind of like a warning, i you will. But the point is, Japan had surrendered to a member of the allied forces, before those bombs were dropped.

*************!!!! Sorry, that is complete utter crap. The US demanded unconditional surrender to the US. That was our war, and the Russians knew it. We told them not to get involved, and they did anyway. Japans commanders in the field surrendered to Russian commanders, but the Government of Japan never surrendered to the Russians. They hated the Russians more than us. The US dropped the first bomb, and demanded a surrender, Japan refused, and then we droped the second. Remember, when the bombs where dropped, and when Japan actually said, we give.

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Ok, I am not going to get into the liberal, nationalized health care rant with you. I will however argue this one till the end of the world. First, find a way to get all of the Nukes rounded up and destroyed in the world. You can't. Second, you can not reverse military advances. There will always be nukes from now till the end of time. Period. Now. There are moral situations to use them in, hundreds. Here is just one. We know that a militant group of terrorists have a nuke. They are going to use it. They are confined to a remote mountain range in Afganistan. They are very heavily fortified, and if we advance, we would loose at least 1,000 American soldiers. What do you do? I tell you what I do. I throw a nuke tipped tomahawk, and give them a nice little glow in the dark party.

How about WWII. Was that moral? You damn right it was. The commander in chief of the US has a responsibility to protect all of the people of the US including the soldiers. Had we gone into Japan, we would have lost 300,000 men or more. They started it, we ended it. I have no hard feelings towards them at all, and I admire their county and traditions, but they friggin brought it on themselves.

Oh, and yes, at launch, sometimes things go bad. Challanger is not the only time we have lost men in NASA's program. Remember the Apollo flight that cought fire on the pad, and killed everyone on board? And one other thing, there are ways to bring down a nuke, they just are classified. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

True, I cannot personally get and destroy all the nukes, none the less I can say that this should be done, and I can try to convnince people of the point of view. If the US got rid of it's nukes it would be a good start, a good example. I cannot get rid of advances, true, but a group of people can make a moral decision not to use or do a certain thing. I am advocating the choice of "no nukes" get rid of them, destroy them, etc.

Your situation - I still say the situation is immoral - to start even if no innocent people where killed on impact, over the next hundred years thousands would die of radiation poisoning - the water table would go bad, the fallout would stay in the atmosphere and be dropped all around the world (like it is being today from the nukes blown up so far). Also, the situation is unlikely - any terrorist smart enough to build a nuke would do one or many of the following things

1. cram innocent civilians in the area to provide a deterrent for US nukes
2. build the nuke in a city
3. put the nuke in a shipping container or backpack rather than a missle (also b/c missiles are not easy to use - remember not even India or Pakistan can get their missiles here!)

I still say it is immoral I still say destroy the nukes.

WWII - not moral - the US killed INNOCENT CIVILIANS with those bombs - that is against today’s INTERNATIONAL LAW - all the conventional firebombing by the allies and axis was immoral too - it killed millions of CIVILIANS indiscriminately!

over 100,000 innocent civilians died within 4 months, and most likely another fer 100,000 over the years.- that is immoral - it is always immoral to kill civilians. The US troops should have been used.

I said there has been 1 lost launch - those 3 guys of Apollo one (I am a space nut) ED White, Roger Chaffe (sp?) and a third one who's name escapes me where not launching - it was a launch DRILL. it happened b/c the cockpit was 100% o2. but anyways . . . the point stands - you don't need 500 nukes to make sure one blasts off.

Dave

britboy
May 30, 2002, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


*************!!!! Sorry, that is complete utter crap. The US demanded unconditional surrender to the US. That was our war, and the Russians knew it. We told them not to get involved, and they did anyway. Japans commanders in the field surrendered to Russian commanders, but the Government of Japan never surrendered to the Russians. They hated the Russians more than us. The US dropped the first bomb, and demanded a surrender, Japan refused, and then we droped the second. Remember, when the bombs where dropped, and when Japan actually said, we give.

No, that is not justification for launching two atomic bombs. Why do you think two different types of atomic bomb were used? They wanted to see the different effects uranium and plutonium.

Also, i'd like to correct a statement i made earlier. Japan had not just had contact with Russia. This is a statement made by the CIA chief at the time, Allen Dulles: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...."

Still think the sole purpose of the a-bombs was to prevent the loss of american lives?

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by DavidOS



Your situation - I still say the situation is immoral - to start even if no innocent people where killed on impact, over the next hundred years thousands would die of radiation poisoning - the water table would go bad, the fallout would stay in the atmosphere and be dropped all around the world (like it is being today from the nukes blown up so far). Also, the situation is unlikely - any terrorist smart enough to build a nuke would do one or many of the following things

1. cram innocent civilians in the area to provide a deterrent for US nukes
2. build the nuke in a city
3. put the nuke in a shipping container or backpack rather than a missle (also b/c missiles are not easy to use - remember not even India or Pakistan can get their missiles here!)

I still say it is immoral I still say destroy the nukes.

WWII - not moral - the US killed INNOCENT CIVILIANS with those bombs - that is against today’s INTERNATIONAL LAW - all the conventional firebombing by the allies and axis was immoral too - it killed millions of CIVILIANS indiscriminately!

over 100,000 innocent civilians died within 4 months, and most likely another fer 100,000 over the years.- that is immoral - it is always immoral to kill civilians. The US troops should have been used.

- you don't need 500 nukes to make sure one blasts off.

Dave

Ok, 1st, if a freak that is going to kill 1 million Americans surrounds himself with innocent people. Sorry they had to die.

Second. WWII was moral. How many Chinese civilians did the Japanese kill? How many civilians did the Germans kill. The fact was the only way to win the war was bomb the hell of them until they quit. Does it suck. Yea, but was the alternative more or less moral. I would argue far worse. You know screw international law. The last time that I checked the constitution was the supreme law of the land, and that is what I live by. The killing of civilians is bad, yes, I will give you that, but if you kill 100,000 civilians to save the lives of 1 million, how is that immoral? What would you have done, said, OK hitler, have Europe. Japan, we are sorry for stoping oil shipments to you. We understand why you bombed out base in Pearl. We forgive you?

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by britboy


No, that is not justification for launching two atomic bombs. Why do you think two different types of atomic bomb were used? They wanted to see the different effects uranium and plutonium.

Also, i'd like to correct a statement i made earlier. Japan had not just had contact with Russia. This is a statement made by the CIA chief at the time, Allen Dulles: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...."

Still think the sole purpose of the a-bombs was to prevent the loss of american lives?

OMG!! Dude, WTF. The CIA was not even in existance then. The CIA was formed out of the National Security Act of 1947 1947 . There were two different bombs used, because of material shortages in the building phase of the program. If the Japanese wanted to surrender so bad, then why did they not do it after the 1st bomb? Why wait for the second, we told them it was coming. We bluffed with a third that did not exists. It was necessary, moral, and just. It was better for them and us. We would have lost 300,000 or more invading the island, and they would have lost close to a million. So kill 200,000 to save 800,000 is that moral?

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by britboy
Still think the sole purpose of the a-bombs was to prevent the loss of american lives?

Absolutely not. You guys are missing something here. Europe still had standing armies, Russia had to be shown that any further progress would be met with weapons of mass distruction.

There were plenty of people who wanted us to go fight the Russians to liberate all the countries they took from the germans.

The A-Bombs were used in the initial struggles of the Cold War, to send Russia a message - Don't Mess With the US. This one act shape the political structure of the next 50 years....

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Ok. Well, we all knew that it was only a matter of time before I got involved in this. Look, mischief I like you and all, you know that. But dude, are you out of your ********ing mind? The military has to be a standing force. Period, there is no way around that. We are not in the 1700's anymore where it takes a country 6 months to get to us. We have to have a massive standing force, and it should be larger, with better equipment than it is now. People thought the end of the cold war would make the world more safe, but yet all it has done is give the radicals who were, for the most part, suppressed during the cold war, the ability to come out of the closet.

the radicals did come out from the left and right and they are many small units, some as small as an army of one so they are hard to catch

as for our standing army, you know how precise and deadly our weapons are and how highly trained our troops are

look at the gulf war and the complete, unprecedented onesidedness of it

why should we spend more or have more troops?

sure we dont have the same manpower as ww II, but we are more accurately lethal and the call for more spending on military is not necessary

i say beef up our fbi and cia because that is what we need to catch small, highly mobile terrorists who, in most cases, are impossible to bomb or capture with a large force

it won't take an infantry division to get these terrorists and radicals, it will take undercover cia and delta force units which are much more effective and cheaper than 10,000 troops with the firepower of a supernova

this is the post cold war era of military engagements

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Second. WWII was moral.

whoa!!!! BIG MISUNDERSTANDING - I was referring to the bombs in Japan as unmoral - and I extended the thing to the fire bombing of cities - I do think the war overall had to be fought. It is one of the very few wars that I think had to be fought. I say the bombing of the cities was immoral - they just dropped bombs on the cities - they meant to hit plants, houses, everything!!! The only goal was destruction - break their spirit by killing them - that is wrong - war must be fought between armies, solders, etc. etc. No I DO think that Hitler had to be stopped! yikes! But no! I think that killing civilians as a method of winning a war is ALWAYS immoral.

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


OMG!! Dude, WTF. The CIA was not even in existance then. The CIA was formed out of the National Security Act of 1947 1947 . There were two different bombs used, because of material shortages in the building phase of the program. If the Japanese wanted to surrender so bad, then why did they not do it after the 1st bomb? Why wait for the second, we told them it was coming. We bluffed with a third that did not exists. It was necessary, moral, and just. It was better for them and us. We would have lost 300,000 or more invading the island, and they would have lost close to a million. So kill 200,000 to save 800,000 is that moral?

really tough moral issue here...my mom lived in hiroshima and survived and my dad, a japanese-american, was a sgt in the us army in the pacific and would have been in the invasion force

if the us invaded, many people on both sides would have died, including my dad possibly and i wouldn't be here to post

i think world war II was one of the very few times the usa had the right to be involved...vietnam, no way, i deal with the homeless and addicts on the street as a volunteer social worker...one third of them vietnam vets...they served their country in a useless war and got attacked and villified here when they came back and many vets turned to drugs...many are still lost souls

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 10:48 AM
it won't take an infantry division to get these terrorists and radicals, it will take undercover cia and delta force units which are much more effective and cheaper than 10,000 troops with the firepower of a supernova

exactly! like I said

Why is our military almost as big today as it was in the cold war? That is silly! The threat is gone! We know that the size of the army doesn’t do much to prevent terrorism . . . I say cut the armed services by 75% maybe then we could use the extra money to help inner city schools and families who are being held back by an inequitable system. Or we could use the money for nationalized health care FOR ALL!

britboy
May 30, 2002, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


OMG!! Dude, WTF. The CIA was not even in existance then. The CIA was formed out of the National Security Act of 1947 1947


:eek: Sorry, my mistake. That was a comment made in 1963, by Allen Dulles, who was at *that* time (1963) head of the CIA.

Yikes.... :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by DavidOS

Why is our military almost as big today as it was in the cold war? That is silly! The threat is gone!

*A* threat is gone, but there are still many more left. Its not a matter of going into anti-terrorism irradication mode. There are some serious threats out there that require more than special forces, threats that size you up by your army. If we reduce are military, it will be seen as a sign of weakness and cause more problems. We can't afford right now to take that chance.

The world socio-political climate is always changing, but lately (past decade or so ) there have been dramatic changes. Things need to settle down before we can start thinking about getting rid of armies....

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by DavidOS


exactly! like I said

Why is our military almost as big today as it was in the cold war? That is silly! The threat is gone! We know that the size of the army doesn’t do much to prevent terrorism . . . I say cut the armed services by 75% maybe then we could use the extra money to help inner city schools and families who are being held back by an inequitable system. Or we could use the money for nationalized health care FOR ALL!

Jeff, I agree with giving more funds to the CIA and FBI. I also agree with the LIF forces of today and the future. Also, that is a very interesting story about your Mom. I want you to know that I am not saying that what we did should be smiled upon, however, I believe the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

Duke. 100% right.

Now, David. Dude, reduce the miliatry by 75%, you are out of your mind. You have obviously never served our Country or have an idea at all about the military.

Here is a senerio. The "axis of evil". N. Korea gets excited and goes after South Korea. At the same time Pakistan goes after India. China, goes after Taiwan, and lo and behold here comes Saddam rolling into Saudi Arabia. Realistic, probably not, but prior to 9/11 neither was what they did. You have to be ready for the unrealistic aspects of war, to win a war.

Oh, and sorry, screw all the left wing, tree hugging, crap of National health care. That isn't the responsibility of our government. You want it, move to Canada. Period.

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Here is a senerio. The "axis of evil". N. Korea gets excited and goes after South Korea. At the same time Pakistan goes after India. China, goes after Taiwan, and lo and behold here comes Saddam rolling into Saudi Arabia. Realistic, probably not, but prior to 9/11 neither was what they did. You have to be ready for the unrealistic aspects of war, to win a war.


Absolutely. I wasn't listing specifics, but all it would take is a little show of weakness and crap hits the fan. Our cultures aren't to the point where we can do without large militaries. There are too many 'powers' out there that would rise up to fill any voids if we backed off. And there's no guarentee that they would do anything better, most likely we'd all take a step backward.

What is going to be interesting over the next 50 years or so is how the massive population and lack of food will excert pressure on political bodies to move in more aggressive ways. We are not out of the woods yet, by any means. As things get more crowded and vying for resources becomes more heated, you see a lot more 'military' actions. Provided a *solution* doesn't come along first.

britboy
May 30, 2002, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Here is a senerio. The "axis of evil". N. Korea gets excited and goes after South Korea. At the same time Pakistan goes after India. China, goes after Taiwan, and lo and behold here comes Saddam rolling into Saudi Arabia. Realistic, probably not, but prior to 9/11 neither was what they did. You have to be ready for the unrealistic aspects of war, to win a war.



On that i agree with you. The US is the only superpower (btw, i hate that term), and views it as its' duty to maintain something resembling world peace, where possible. As such, you guys need to keep a huge military force. Even right now, there are US troops deployed in numurous locations around the world.

All the same though, i still don't believe that the nuclear threat is absolutely necessary. Your argument about terrorists placing themselves amongst civilians.... innocent people should not be sacrificed for the sake of removing a few people. A different strategy needs to be found. Infiltrate, use intelligence... anything but pointing a finger and saying "everything within a 20km radius needs to die". The effects of an A-bomb are not just to destroy everything within the blast radius. The fallout effects last for decades. There are still people in nagasaki today, being treated for effects from the radiation they suffered.

Also, why the hell are scientists working on even more powerful bombs than A/H-bombs? Antimatter bombs are said to be 1000 times more powerful than A-bombs. What is it needed for? The US military already has enough destructive force to complete any task they put their mind to.

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 11:38 AM
there are over 1.37 million troops on active duty http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/

and less than 600,000 where in-country during Nam at any given time

less where needed in the Gulf War. EVEN IF there where those three wars you are talking about all at the same time . . . the US wouldn't be the only one involved - other countries would help. Also, we have almost as many troops in reserve - they can be called up in service within weeks!

so cut the army by 75%, increase the reserves slightly, or keep them where they are and it will be fine.

like you said the scenario of all three of those wars springing up is nearly impossible!!

Also, once wars begin recruitment can start.

so I still say . . . cut the army.

Spend more time and money on negotiations, on peace, and less for planning on war.

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by DavidOS
there are over 1.37 million troops on active duty http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/

so cut the army by 75%, increce the reserves slightly, or keep them where they are and it will be fine.

like you said the scenareo of all three of those wars springing up is nearly impossible!!

Speand more time and mony on negosiations, on pease, and less for planning on war.

I don't know where to start.

1.37 million troops - not all of those are fighting forces you know. I'm not sure the percentage, but I'll bet you its less than 50%. The logistical nature of support a modern military is huge. You put a pilot in an f16, fine. How many people do you think it takes to keep him there.....reduction isn't as simple as you would like it to be.

Three wars spring up simultaneously is totally possible. If a region destablizes, powers grab for what they can get while the pressure is placed else where. I'd not ever want to see it, but b2tm's scenario is effectively the start of WWIII. Don't ever say it can't happen, it might not happen, but you have no way of predicting it.

You can't really spend more on negociations unless you're trying to bribe your way to a settlement, and that only lasts until the next installment.

We do need to increase the intelligence spending, no question about that. It will end up being our first line of defense.

As for nukes, well, its an evil we have to live with. It maintains the balance, without them we'd be perceived as weak and vulnerable. The last thing we need is some rougue state coming in waving threats at us with a bomb to back them up and we're left with only conventional arms.

And what about bio/chem weapons? This is a huge worry today and it too won't be dissapearing anytime soon.

mischief
May 30, 2002, 12:00 PM
Okay. Lots of good points all around. I'm going to see if I can't wrap this up.

Duke/B2TM:

I fully acknowledge that at present and particularly in the past century the world has shown so little international impulse control that we're all kinda sitting around the saloon with ICBM's propped against the bar BUT: That's beginning to change. I believe that by the end of my lifetime Standing militaries will be a quaint concept, it'll just take some understanding, trust and compassion.

BTW: Most ICBM's in the US arsenal are in such poor repair that the Air Force has little confidence in their launchability or even their safe dissassembly.


As to Israel/Palestine.

Neither side has earned the right to decide the outcome and no nation or entity has shown the maturity to fix the situation. There is only 1 answer and neither side will endorse it: 1 nation of Canaan (sp?) in place of Israel/Palestine and "Checkerboard" forced integration of both nations.


The world needs more video cameras and better networking. If I could get streaming Quicktime feeds from anywhere in the world for current events the Propoganda machine would be quickly out competed.

I and millions like me are sick of living in fear and want to appreciate the world in peace without wondering if anybody's getting screwed.


Nationalized healthcare:

As a Canadian I take offense at being referred to as a tree hugging liberal.

Canada has an intelligent (IE we re-plant) forrestry plan and a socialist culture. Get over it cowboy. Canada's healthcare was working just fine until it ran into NAFTA.


The thing that gets me about Americans is their need to answer any given problem violently or confrontationally. War on Drugs (B$ BTW.) , War on Terror, War on Poverty. Criminalization of anything they don't like. Penalization rather than reformation. Death Penalty rather than Euthanasia. Treatment rather than Cure. Reaction rather than prevention.

Why is it so hard to act without fear and with compassion? How many times has the US been invaded since 1800? When was the Cold War ever anything but economically driven, Imperialist support for Millitary Industrial Complexes in the US, USSR and China?

What good came out of the Cold War? Nobody builds their own weapons anymore for one, they all buy from China (If they're poor), Russia (If they want it to work reliably) or the US ( If they want full tech support and a GUI).

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by DavidOS
there are over 1.37 million troops on active duty http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/
and less than 600,000 where in-country during Nam at any given time
less where needed in the Gulf War. EVEN IF there where those three wars you are talking about all at the same time . . . the US wouldn't be the only one involved - other countries would help. Also, we have almost as many troops in reserve - they can be called up in service within weeks!
so cut the army by 75%, increase the reserves slightly, or keep them where they are and it will be fine.
like you said the scenario of all three of those wars springing up is nearly impossible!!
Also, once wars begin recruitment can start.
so I still say . . . cut the army.
Spend more time and money on negotiations, on peace, and less for planning on war.

Ok, actually it is like 37% of all forces are combat forces. The number in NAM was less than 480,000 for one conflict, the same for the gulf. One conflict. Yes, that is fine, take weeks to muster forces. Wait until a war starts before you recruit and you know what you have. Western Europe around 1940. Seriously, I am not trying to attack you personally, but your opinions are not based on fact. I am telling you as an expert on the subject, the senerio that I described is in fact a plausible one. It is a worst case scenerio, but they have happened before. Nukes keep those cases from happening, because it allows us to react with massive force. As far as more powerful weapons, it is only a matter of time before someone has them. Better us first then them, that way a balance is maintained.

Britboy, I meant that if a group with a WMD was known to exist, don't use a 50 kilioton warhead for them, just a nice little 3 megaton one with a smiley face on it.

Oh, and as far as spending money on negotiations. It doesn't work. Never has, never will. We negotiated with Hitler, remember appeasement, how well did that come off? Stalin negotiated with Hitler too, now Russia is - 20 million souls. You cannot rationalize with a madman, and that is what many of the leaders are.

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Okay. Lots of good points all around. I'm going to see if I can't wrap this up.
BTW: Most ICBM's in the US arsenal are in such poor repair that the Air Force has little confidence in their launchability or even their safe dissassembly.

Nationalized healthcare:

As a Canadian I take offense at being referred to as a tree hugging liberal.


The thing that gets me about Americans is their need to answer any given problem violently or confrontationally. War on Drugs (B$ BTW.) , War on Terror, War on Poverty. Criminalization of anything they don't like. Penalization rather than reformation. Death Penalty rather than Euthanasia. Treatment rather than Cure. Reaction rather than prevention.

Why is it so hard to act without fear and with compassion? How many times has the US been invaded since 1800? When was the Cold War ever anything but economically driven, Imperialist support for Millitary Industrial Complexes in the US, USSR and China?

What good came out of the Cold War? Nobody builds their own weapons anymore for one, they all buy from China (If they're poor), Russia (If they want it to work reliably) or the US ( If they want full tech support and a GUI).

Ok. I can agree with you that the powers that be have seen that 10,000 warheads is a little extreme, and that is a good thing. Israel and the PLO. That will be fixed when one kicks the other off of the face of the earth. Or if Arafat goes then maybe they can have peace.

Canda is a socialism. I was not calling you a tree huggin liberal, but the people here who say, get rid of the military and lets have more, big government are the same ones that say we cannot forest in Washington because of a spotted owl.

Yes, when America feels attacked, we come out with a War on something. Oh, we were invaded in the Spanish American war, and during WWII. And the cold war was much more than you described. It was about stoping the spread of, and defeating Communism.

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Ok, actually it is like 37% of all forces are combat forces.

right, but same goes for the 480,000 in nam - there were plenty of support staff there too - so it still stands as a good measure - 480,000 vs 1.4 million plenty of troops for lots of wars I think there should be less you don't, fine. :p I stick my tongue out at you! :D

good points mischief, but I agree, maybe we ought to wrap it up . . .

mischief
May 30, 2002, 12:39 PM
"Israel and the PLO. That will be fixed when one kicks the other off of the face of the earth. Or if Arafat goes then maybe they can have peace."

Personally I think the best answer is Tourism on a mass scale. Lets send over millions of camera toting tourists in armoured Busses with Satellite uplinks and QT6 workstations so the whole world can see it live and un-spun. Then we send in the Clowns. ****** UN internvention, there's no talking to Zealots. A Pie for every moron with a gun, bomb or molitov.


"I was not calling you a tree huggin liberal, but the people here who say, get rid of the military and lets have more, big government are the same ones that say we cannot forest in Washington because of a spotted owl."

Big government is a propoganda term used by Republicans to describe Democrats controlling congress. Governmental bloat is more a feature of tagging on a nod and a wink for everyone and their grandmother with every bill. " Big Government" isn't about public health care, it's about a rich old boy's club on both sides of the congressional aisle.


"Yes, when America feels attacked, we come out with a War on something. Oh, we were invaded in the Spanish American war, and during WWII. And the cold war was much more than you described. It was about stoping the spread of, and defeating Communism."

S/ A war:

Yep, it really sucked how the US managed to break Spain and steal the habitable half of Mexico just to support "Manifest Destiny". RE Pearl Harbor: One air-to ground attack on the US's most outflung flank is NOT an invasion. It's an act of War. I was asking if you knew of any actual, mainland invasion of the US that actually threatened the security of the common citizen.

Defeating Communism? Please. The Cold war was about defeating Communism only in that if the USSR had stabilized it could have competed with US foreign interests. The USSR was never a viable threat. It's a freaking AGROCULTURAL state fer God's sakes. Yes, there was a massive buildup on both sides and both sides had many rash words about "destroying" the other, but it was never about G. vs. E.

Communism spread in a predictable pattern: A given country would rise up against it's Banana republic government and petition the US for help. When no help was forthcoming they asked around and took what they could get. The spred of communism was a direct result of US Propoganda about freedom and western corporate greed.

BTW: The world has yet to see a true Communist state. Marx was naive and believed revolutions would overtake Capitalism in Europe and the US where Infrastructure and $$$ could support Communism. Bolshevik Communists were more about changing who the Czar was and got caught in the whole world powers thing by accident. Stalin was initially operating under the assumption that Hitler would take Europe and leave the USSR alone. He was acting in the interests of HIS country. Hitler was CRAZY and broke the deal. Stalin had serious Paranoia issues and a rather Cossak approach to competition. All Communist states currently in existance are Hegemonies or Dictatorships with Nationalized resources.

britboy
May 30, 2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by DavidOS

good points mischief, but I agree, maybe we ought to wrap it up . . .


Agreed.... before sparks start flying :p Nice discussion all round though.

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 12:41 PM
Awww Man.

And right when I had gone to prelaunch on all of my ICBM's.

Dang.

Oh, well, till next time.

britboy
May 30, 2002, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Awww Man.

And right when I had gone to prelaunch on all of my ICBM's.

Dang.

Oh, well, till next time.


It's a shame Mcrain isn't around this week. I'm sure he would have loved to join in this one ;)

Have no fear though, i'm not going anywhere, and would most enjoy another friendly argument (even if i do get the odd fact wrong.... :D).

mischief
May 30, 2002, 12:52 PM
I was looking for a particular Crackpot site to lighten the mood but this one came up:

http://www.realestate3d.com/gps/USSpaceCommand-Lexicon.html

WTF????:confused: :rolleyes: is this?:confused:

mischief
May 30, 2002, 12:55 PM
Same issue, I was looking for 1 particular crackpot and found this:

http://www.senate.gov/~epw/loder.htm

Any idea what it is?

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by mischief
I was looking for a particular Crackpot site to lighten the mood but this one came up:

http://www.realestate3d.com/gps/USSpaceCommand-Lexicon.html

WTF????:confused: :rolleyes: is this?:confused:

Actually that is a breakdown of USSC sites and squadrons. Pretty common really. Just a massive amount of information and a badly designed site :D

mischief
May 30, 2002, 01:08 PM
Though I believe that the USSR and subsequently Russia aren't the fiendish evil nation often described this makes entertaining reading:


A description of a large scale Tesla style EM array:

http://www.humanunderground.com/ferdelance.html


A compilation of study into US, Soviet and Japanese research:

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/brightskies.htm


And, of course...... the ULTIMATE crackpot site:

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/frontpage/nov2.html


BTW: Just what does the USSC do?

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 01:23 PM
Hah, Tesla technologies and Electromagnetic Weapons, I have a little experience there. Have any of you heard of HAARP? Its worth a look/search....

The Fer-de-Lance, laughable, conspiracy theorists unite! If a grand unified theory were that easy, it would not have been kept it secret, especially with the change in the current political arena, someone would have leaked it.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure on that Future Tech link you posted there Mischief, but I'll read through it when I have some more time, contains way too much for a casual read.

mischief
May 30, 2002, 01:34 PM
And I'm aware of Tesla's "Wyclef Tower" and EM experiments. My question about the HAARP is: What practical use does it serve?

In terms of entertainment value, read through the 2nd one, the "Bright Skys" site. Fascinating sci-fi if nothing else.

Honestly I think a unified field theory that works has been around since Tesla/Einstein/Velakovski (sp?) but has been mangled by 3-4 generations of Classicist Particle-Physicists. When it's obvious that the Universe is a symphony of standing, contracting or expanding harmonics of distinct resonance and amplitude.

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Jeff, I agree with giving more funds to the CIA and FBI. I also agree with the LIF forces of today and the future. Also, that is a very interesting story about your Mom. I want you to know that I am not saying that what we did should be smiled upon, however, I believe the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

Duke. 100% right.

Now, David. Dude, reduce the miliatry by 75%, you are out of your mind. You have obviously never served our Country or have an idea at all about the military.

Here is a senerio. The "axis of evil". N. Korea gets excited and goes after South Korea. At the same time Pakistan goes after India. China, goes after Taiwan, and lo and behold here comes Saddam rolling into Saudi Arabia. Realistic, probably not, but prior to 9/11 neither was what they did. You have to be ready for the unrealistic aspects of war, to win a war.



too unrealistic for all those to happen

our military might is unimaginably strong

bush did not know everything so i am not a conspiracy theorist trying to take him down...the fbi and cia dropped the ball

large scale wars are in the past like knights and armor are

reduce the military spending by x amount of dollars and put those dollars into the national health care (for good measure, not original constitutional belief in 1776...and beef up the cia, fbi, and nsa...btw, nsa wants you backtothemac...i would go, but i can't run off to the east coast for less pay in the middle of starting my computer business...but the nsa needs good q and a people to make our govt networks more secure from terrorists

they want, the nsa, to pay someone with a master's degree 29k a year to do this...no wonder why they can't get anybody...who can live in dc or alexandria with those wages...plus the govt will let you go after 24 months due to lack of budget...there is my case why i can't join nsa and also why uncle sam needs to put money THERE

Backtothemac
May 30, 2002, 02:00 PM
Agreed Jeff, totally agreed. I would love nothing more than to serve my country in Washington, but like you said, who could live on that there? I think the counterterrorism wing of the government needs to get some serious funding. They should have anything they want regardless of the cost. If the DOD ever decides to actually pay people, then I would love to come.

B.A. Political Science / Emphsis in terror / counterterror
B.A. History / Military History

Total friggin bookworm :D

krossfyter
May 30, 2002, 02:07 PM
davidos sounds like ralph nader.

mischief
May 30, 2002, 02:07 PM
There's a lot of Hackers out there a pseudo-military contractor could hire and the Gvt. is much more likely to pay a Corp than develop an effective Agency.

Just a thought........:D ;)

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
they want, the nsa, to pay someone with a master's degree 29k a year to do this...no wonder why they can't get anybody...who can live in dc or alexandria with those wages...plus the govt will let you go after 24 months due to lack of budget...there is my case why i can't join nsa and also why uncle sam needs to put money THERE

I'd be surprised if the saraly would be that low. Its not realistic. I've been looking at the fed jobs (i'm in the area) and the entry level mostly start in the mid 30s (in general). Now I don't know about what the nsa would be offering, but anyone qualified to work there with a masters degree would be able to get at least 3 times that amount anywhere in the region.

As for practical apps for HAARP, well imagine being able to make a virtual antenna in the ionosphere that was 40 miles long/wide. That means you could generate ELF waves - not a simple thing to do on land because your transmitter needs to be as long as the longest wavelength. And what can you do with ELF waves? Lots - look through 100s of meters of rock, communicate with submarines, transmit radio around the planet, and much more. Arecibo is also a ionospheric heater, Tromso, Fairbanks and a few others around the world.

mischief
May 30, 2002, 03:00 PM
Tesla was quite successful with overlaying an ELF over an UHF as a secondary harmonic using simple high-amplitude oscillating condensers.

Ionospheric Heaters? If you're not being fecetious this doesn't sound like a particularly good idea unless you're looking for spontanious discharge (AKA " Bolt from the blue" ) or changing the state of the rarified gasses at altitude. Could you clarify?

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Ionospheric Heaters?

Putting a modulated frequency on the carrier wave (2.8 to 10 MHz) you set up a large area that 'oscillates' at the point of intersection. The HAARP antenna is a phased array, so you can 'steer' the main beam by adjusting the phase along each dipole. Think of it as throwing a pebble into a lake, watch the ripples expand and dissapate. You swing the beam across a large area to get a bigger exposure - going back and forth across the ionsophere. It works pretty well with the current setup, but the sites going to be expanded. When that's done they're going to increase the rf energy significantly, but even then you won't see any emmisions. Its effectively like the aurora but at much lower power levels - the solar wind is emmensely poweful. So no blue bolts of lightning.

mischief
May 30, 2002, 03:18 PM
If the thing is just taking pictures of the interactions between the solar wind and ionosphere then isn't it missing the vast bulk of EM interactions, which happen much further out?

I can understand wanting to know how much and what kind of energetic interactions are occuring at the ionosphere but are there no plans for large scale EM devices that are active rather than observational?

Perhaps I'm not following you.......

DavidOS
May 30, 2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by krossfyter
davidos sounds like ralph nader.

That's great! Thank you Kross! If I had been three years older at the time of the election I would have voted for him in an instant. I just finished his book CRASHING THE PARTY. A great read. That guy has some powerful insights into our culture, political system, and world as a whole.

Besides, Gore, and Bush even more . . . They just make me want to ralph!!

Maybe we ought to start the MLLC: the Mac Lovin' Liberal's Club!

and I just made member - interesting . . . i was a lurker until this thread came along . . .

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by mischief
I can understand wanting to know how much and what kind of energetic interactions are occuring at the ionosphere but are there no plans for large scale EM devices that are active rather than observational?

It insn't observational, that's just a possible side effect. Let me give you solid example.

Submarines under 200m water need to comunicate to the outside world. Well, regular RF doesn't penetrate to depth, so you need ULF/VLF/ELF. By using the ionosphere you can generate these (creating a virtual antenna 60 miles or so up above the earth) that retransmit a signal down to the sub. No need for buoys at the surface to give away position, etc. This is only one use, you can also find underground caverns/tunnels/bunkers to 100s of meters. Think about being able to find a nuke hidden underground....

mischief
May 30, 2002, 03:43 PM
Theories about such devices have ranged from FX including shells, torroids and spheres of compressed plasma to changing the state of inherently unstable elements such as Plutonium, effectively "dudding" warheads in their silo's.

Is any of this likely?

The observational data off the "Bright Skys" website regarding testing in Australia is fascinating. If you dig through it just looking at the tech and filtering out the rather paranoid politics is there anything there that's feasable?

Mr. Anderson
May 30, 2002, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Is any of this likely?

I've been in the field doing the work, believe me, finding underground cavities is doable. As for classification, well that's a different issue, you're basically measuring the resistivity of the ground, so its signal processing at that point.

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


I'd be surprised if the saraly would be that low. Its not realistic. I've been looking at the fed jobs (i'm in the area) and the entry level mostly start in the mid 30s (in general). Now I don't know about what the nsa would be offering, but anyone qualified to work there with a masters degree would be able to get at least 3 times that amount anywhere in the region.


the nsa got a grant and the salary is set in stone, so is only having one work for two years...live in a cheap place and 29 k is ok, but try to live in the most expensive housing market on the east coast next to nyc?

i worked for department of defense (on co-op/internship) and i also worked on a "set" salary with no chance of getting hired or getting a raise

the nsa deal is an internship, paid, but not high...the good thing is that they pay you to go to school for two years to get the master's degree...school is good but from what i found out, the degree is not accredited but as far as uncle sam feels, it's their degree so it counts for a gs-7 salary/internship (some unaccredited schools work hand in hand with uncle sam and count military service as college credit...but now i have seen actual regionally accredited schools take military service and even IT certifications as college credit like excelsior university, formerly regents university of the SUNY system

as far as uncle sam goes though, some internships are unpaid

no wonder why uncle sam can't get even mediocre talent...they go to silicon valley or to another good private sector job

krossfyter
May 30, 2002, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by DavidOS


That's great! Thank you Kross! If I had been three years older at the time of the election I would have voted for him in an instant. I just finished his book CRASHING THE PARTY. A great read. That guy has some powerful insights into our culture, political system, and world as a whole.

Besides, Gore, and Bush even more . . . They just make me want to ralph!!

Maybe we ought to start the MLLC: the Mac Lovin' Liberal's Club!

and I just made member - interesting . . . i was a lurker until this thread came along . . .


hey cool. i hit the nail on the head with that one.

rock on.

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by mischief
There's a lot of Hackers out there a pseudo-military contractor could hire and the Gvt. is much more likely to pay a Corp than develop an effective Agency.

Just a thought........:D ;)

data security, or network security is now politically correctly called quality and assurance or Q and A...when i was a kid, Q and A meant question and answer and was a classroom game...he he

the government here and military has always used local businesses for their higher level IT stuff

2600 magazine, the hacker quarterly, explained how they would get some 18 year old sans pubic hair, and give him or her a two week crash course on being a network administrator for the military...day one covered using the mouse among other things and until they got mac os 9 for their systems, they used to use nt 4.0

the government wants to attract better and better people and offering a free master's degree is a way to do that

but first, go thru the right hoops and get that darned degree accredited because not all takers will try to get only govt related jobs, some will need a real degree for a civilian job

also, pay fewer people in the program but pay them a fair salary and offer them full employment at something way over 29k...offer them 39k and then that makes more sense or however high they need to pay them to live in washington dc

during the height of the dot.com revolution in san jose, hamburger flipping jobs at fast food restaurants were paying starting at 32k a year!
...and office jockey jobs in dot.coms were equiped with 1,000 dollar european chairs and other strange perks that no longer exist

some people, like my boss at the volunteer job where i work, does things for causes, and she worked for 12k a year as a school teacher

in my more liberal and younger years, i would have gladly done peace corps or missionary work but now i have become another bill paying middle aged man who has become somewhat jaded:p

jelloshotsrule
May 30, 2002, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by mischief

The thing that gets me about Americans is their need to answer any given problem violently or confrontationally.

that's not fair to say.

that's just too much of a generalization.

word.

jefhatfield
May 30, 2002, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


that's not fair to say.

that's just too much of a generalization.

word.

i believe americans as a people are just as diverse as many other countries

but america as a country is very confrontational and we have, like it or not, become the policemen of the world

jelloshotsrule
May 30, 2002, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i believe americans as a people are just as diverse as many other countries

but america as a country is very confrontational and we have, like it or not, become the policemen of the world

oh i agree... just he said "americans". not "america".... a difference there.

i don't think he meant it as such a broad thing at all, as much as about our gov't. just wanted to clear it up.

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 07:57 AM
You guys are missing something again. We wanted to stay out of both WWI and WWII. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we were catapulted into the fray in 1941. So now our role on the international stage is a little different, but I don't think we go out looking for trouble. We're just trying to deal with the problems that come to us. That and trying to promote the American ideal which, honestly, doesn't necessarily work for everyone...

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
You guys are missing something again. We wanted to stay out of both WWI and WWII. It wasn't until Pearl Harbor that we were catapulted into the fray in 1941. So now our role on the international stage is a little different, but I don't think we go out looking for trouble. We're just trying to deal with the problems that come to us. That and trying to promote the American ideal which, honestly, doesn't necessarily work for everyone...

You are dead on the money here Duke. We were in a period of isolationism big time. The US has only gone looking once that I know of and that was Vietnam. The super majority of the wars that we have fought were brought on us due to threats of our vital interests. There is no way around that. Great post Duke.

britboy
May 31, 2002, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


You are dead on the money here Duke. We were in a period of isolationism big time. The US has only gone looking once that I know of and that was Vietnam. The super majority of the wars that we have fought were brought on us due to threats of our vital interests. There is no way around that. Great post Duke.


You're not serious, are you? How was Bosnia a threat to the interests of the US, or Somalia? America (or rather, the american politicians) has taken this role of world policeman upon itself, and seems to think the world should live to the same values as it does.

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by britboy



You're not serious, are you? How was Bosnia a threat to the interests of the US, or Somalia? America (or rather, the american politicians) has taken this role of world policeman upon itself, and seems to think the world should live to the same values as it does.

Actually, they were both in our vital interests. Read the preamble to the consitution. It is pretty clear that we will protect those who are sufferring. The US had a humanitarian interest in Bosnia protecting Musliums. Hey Osama, you hear that, we were protecting your guys!@!!

Somalia. Personally I would not have gone in there. That was a really bad idea, but we will have to go back to get Osama's men out of there.

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by britboy
You're not serious, are you? How was Bosnia a threat to the interests of the US, or Somalia? America (or rather, the american politicians) has taken this role of world policeman upon itself, and seems to think the world should live to the same values as it does.

We haven't taken the role upon ourselves. It was thrust upon us do to the nature of the vacuum left behind when the USSR broke up. We couldn't at that point, return to our isolationist pasts, we'd been at the forefront for so long, had our fingers in too many pies, so to speak, that going back watcher and not patroller would have left an even larger vacuum that would have given the rise to even more problems than we see today.

I'm not saying its right, but the alternatives would have sunk us deeper into chaos, which isn't good for business, you know?

teabgs
May 31, 2002, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet


I'm not saying its right, but the alternatives would have sunk us deeper into chaos, which isn't good for business, you know?

and thats is what drives the world unfortunately. Thats where the problems stem from. Instead of actions coming from beliefs and ideals they're all really a result of business.

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by teabgs
and thats is what drives the world unfortunately. Thats where the problems stem from. Instead of actions coming from beliefs and ideals they're all really a result of business.

and thats what causes a lot of the problems - catch 22 - you know? Because with our business we bring our culture and not everyone wants to be an American. Its hard to not be exposed to the American way of life especially with Hollywood/Coke/Pepsi/Levi's etc.

And I don't want everyone to try to be like us either. One of my favorite things is to travel and see other cultures, experience new ideas. We need to respect people who want to keep to their own heritage/culture, not go in and put up a McDonald's in every major city on the planet. Its sad to think about that, actually.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet


and thats what causes a lot of the problems - catch 22 - you know? Because with our business we bring our culture and not everyone wants to be an American. Its hard to not be exposed to the American way of life especially with Hollywood/Coke/Pepsi/Levi's etc.

And I don't want everyone to try to be like us either. One of my favorite things is to travel and see other cultures, experience new ideas. We need to respect people who want to keep to their own heritage/culture, not go in and put up a McDonald's in every major city on the planet. Its sad to think about that, actually.

when i went to england from southern california as an exchange student, all the brits i met in the pubs wanted to see the women that came with me from our college that were there for the semester...they wanted to see all the tanned american girls ala baywatch

...but i loved to see the english women since they were different in appearance than the typical so. cal girl...i thought their pale skin and cool way of dressing were very sexy and i thought the same of irish women when i went to belfast...i especially liked the girls who had porcelin skin and jet black hair who looked like the welsh catherine zeta jones...i am not the pamela anderson fan like many are

mischief
May 31, 2002, 11:00 AM
When I said "Americans" I should have said " When Americans get together in large groups, they tend to make Mob- Decisions rather than compassionate ones.

Honestly I think it's the age of the country that causes the problem. The USA is only 200 some odd years old. At this stage there is a very thin, weak national identity. As a result, policy decisions tend to be made from an "us and them" perspective as each group vies for impact on national identity.

The whole "Big Brother" foreign policy theory came out of Cold War protectionist rhetoric which evolved from Victorian "White Man's Burdain" and earlier "Manifest Destiny" issues.

American geographic isolation also contributes. Sitting on your couch it's very easy to think " Why can't those pesky (pick an epithet) just settle down!!".

When all the world only exists for you on CNN, TLC, PBS or NBC it's very easy to maintain this attitude. Adding a Video-Game military certainly makes it easier too.



BTW: I AM intentionally baiting you guys to stimulate discussion....... I'm trying not to get into a Flame War though. (I do have my Pie Kit on though:D ;) :p )

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 11:01 AM
was it the monroe doctrine that said we should keep our noses in our own side of the globe?

i forget. either that or some other pretty early president said it.....

britboy
May 31, 2002, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Read the preamble to the consitution. It is pretty clear that we will protect those who are sufferring.



So then why did the US loby for the withdrawal of UN forces from Rwanda in april 1994, when it was clearly a case of genocide?

The constitution is nice in theory, but in practice it seems to be implemented as and when is convenient.

Somalia... i agree. The US should never have gotten involved in that one. It did much to damage the public image of the US amongst middle eastern nations, and little towards the initial goal of the whole operation.

britboy
May 31, 2002, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield

...i thought their pale skin and cool way of dressing were very sexy and i thought the same of irish women when i went to belfast...i especially liked the girls who had porcelin skin and jet black hair who looked like the welsh catherine zeta jones...i am not the pamela anderson fan like many are


mmmmm... Irish girls... They're nice :p Red hair, green eyes, sexy voices...

Plus, they can most likely drink any one of us under the table :D

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by britboy



So then why did the US loby for the withdrawal of UN forces from Rwanda in april 1994, when it was clearly a case of genocide?

The constitution is nice in theory, but in practice it seems to be implemented as and when is convenient.

Somalia... i agree. The US should never have gotten involved in that one. It did much to damage the public image of the US amongst middle eastern nations, and little towards the initial goal of the whole operation.

Actually I would like to see the US withdrawl from the UN. It is nothing more than another bloated buracracy on the planet. And, it is unconstitutuional in the US, and sooner or later, someone will take it to the Supreme Court, and poof, the US will be out of the UN.

britboy
May 31, 2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Actually I would like to see the US withdrawl from the UN. It is nothing more than another bloated buracracy on the planet. And, it is unconstitutuional in the US, and sooner or later, someone will take it to the Supreme Court, and poof, the US will be out of the UN.

And have a repeat of the situation when america withdrew from the League of Nations? The LN was pretty much inneffectual after that, leading to more influence for germany, who pushed for the terms which allowed them to prepare for WWII.

There needs to be a body in place, to allow for discourse between nations, where everyone has a say. The UN is that body, and i believe it should remain to be so. It's achieved a lot of good in its' time. It's far from perfect, but unless a better solution is available, then keep it in place.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by mischief
When I said "Americans" I should have said " When Americans get together in large groups, they tend to make Mob- Decisions rather than compassionate ones.

Honestly I think it's the age of the country that causes the problem. The USA is only 200 some odd years old. At this stage there is a very thin, weak national identity. As a result, policy decisions tend to be made from an "us and them" perspective as each group vies for impact on national identity.

The whole "Big Brother" foreign policy theory came out of Cold War protectionist rhetoric which evolved from Victorian "White Man's Burdain" and earlier "Manifest Destiny" issues.

American geographic isolation also contributes. Sitting on your couch it's very easy to think " Why can't those pesky (pick an epithet) just settle down!!".

When all the world only exists for you on CNN, TLC, PBS or NBC it's very easy to maintain this attitude. Adding a Video-Game military certainly makes it easier too.



BTW: I AM intentionally baiting you guys to stimulate discussion....... I'm trying not to get into a Flame War though. (I do have my Pie Kit on though:D ;) :p )

we do not have an identity in the usa...but think of the brightside of it...with the lack of true culture, we invented our own like rock and roll, hollywood, and pamela anderson and baywatch

and the funny thing is... pamela anderson is a canadian from b.c.:p

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by britboy
mmmmm... Irish girls... They're nice :p Red hair, green eyes, sexy voices...

Plus, they can most likely drink any one of us under the table :D

hey, my girlfriend's irish! well, irish american anyways...

red hair, green eyes, sexy voice??? ha.

pale skin.

oh but she doesn't drink.. doh!

britboy
May 31, 2002, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


we do not have an identity in the usa...but think of the brightside of it...with the lack of true culture, we invented our own like rock and roll, hollywood, and pamela anderson and baywatch

and the funny thing is... pamela anderson is a canadian from b.c.:p


he he, reminds me of a joke.

What's the difference between an american and a joghurt?

A Joghurt's cultured...

hardy har har... :rolleyes: Sorry, i don't mean to just bash americans and their culture. I'd like to make it clear that i have nothing against the US, no personal grudge (except for the boston tea party ;)).... just enjoying good arguments. :)

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


we do not have an identity in the usa...but think of the brightside of it...with the lack of true culture, we invented our own like rock and roll, hollywood, and pamela anderson and baywatch

and the funny thing is... pamela anderson is a canadian from b.c.:p

oh, and also, talking about american culture...

when i think of icons from my childhood days, i think of televison and star trek especially...are you listening ensign paris?

and one american hero i looked up to was captain james tiberius kirk

william shatner is also canadian, too:p

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by britboy
i have nothing against the US, no personal grudge (except for the boston tea party ;))....


ohhhhh... get your bloody tea out of my face!

you crazy lobsterback!


edit:

jefhatfield- i think you're the only person here who quotes themselves in a response! ha.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule



ohhhhh... get your bloody tea out of my face!

you crazy lobsterback!


edit:

jefhatfield- i think you're the only person here who quotes themselves in a response! ha.

it's a crude way of getting a high post count!

duke is much more creative in getting a high post count in complaining about people having crude methods of increasing post counts and making posts about not caring about catching up to eyelikeart:p

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


it's a crude way of getting a high post count!

duke is much more creative in getting a high post count in complaining about people having crude methods of increasing post counts and making posts about not caring about catching up to eyelikeart:p

hey back off! my future partner doesn't care about his post count and would never falsely post just to increase it...



haha. naw i'm just kidding with ya. i think that's funny too.

you're not an artist though, just a techie, so you can't be expected to be as creative... ha!

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


hey back off! my future partner doesn't care about his post count and would never falsely post just to increase it...



haha. naw i'm just kidding with ya. i think that's funny too.

you're not an artist though, just a techie, so you can't be expected to be as creative... ha!

but i am getting fat enough (as a good techie should) to be a live drawing model...just a few more big macs and i can make my debut in the art world:p

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
duke is much more creative in getting a high post count in complaining about people having crude methods of increasing post counts and making posts about not caring about catching up to eyelikeart:p

I'm not catching up to eye!!

I do not complain....

oh, well, sometimes. I try to be fair most of the time, I've only started 2 threads or so that have been post count related, as opposed to the dozen or so that have been created about me and my post count...that's what steams me more than anything.

And I'll take the compliment about being creative...thanks (I think;)

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


I'm not catching up to eye!!

I do not complain....

oh, well, sometimes. I try to be fair most of the time, I've only started 2 threads or so that have been post count related, as opposed to the dozen or so that have been created about me and my post count...that's what steams me more than anything.

And I'll take the compliment about being creative...thanks (I think;)

watching you two guys is like richard pryor says is, "better than peanut butter":p

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
watching you two guys is like richard pryor says is, "better than peanut butter":p

what two guys?

you're the one he's responding to!

ha.

duke gets cranky when post count comes up. just goes to show that it's nap time

ps. this good thread is getting off topic, eh? still upset britboy didn't have a retort for my lobsterback comment.. ha

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

just goes to show that it's nap time

never underestimate the power of a good nap. I take them from time to time, 15 to 30 minutes and I'm up and going full speed again.....

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


never underestimate the power of a good nap. I take them from time to time, 15 to 30 minutes and I'm up and going full speed again.....

i hear that. i just usually get sucked into 2+ hours naps (cause i probably didn't sleep enough the previous night).... so i get groggy and more tired... but sometimes they're quite refreshing.

maybe as i get older........

britboy
May 31, 2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


ps. this good thread is getting off topic, eh? still upset britboy didn't have a retort for my lobsterback comment.. ha


Sorry, didn't know you were waiting :D

I've not heard of 'lobsterback' before, so i didn't know what to make of it. Explain, and i'll retort ;)

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by britboy

Sorry, didn't know you were waiting :D

I've not heard of 'lobsterback' before, so i didn't know what to make of it. Explain, and i'll retort ;)

while you crazy brits were trying to keep us americans from having our independence, you fought in brilliant red uniforms. i say brilliant because it was a brilliant move to do this. you made yourselves stand out well enough to be spotted very easily. and thus, you were defeated by us and the native americans who were hiding and whatnot.


so anyhoo, we call you lobsterbacks. ie, red backs........

cook that!. ha

ps. gotta keep up the foreign idea that all americans can't see past the borders... whoo!

britboy
May 31, 2002, 01:25 PM
You ignorant septic tank.

I'll say no more, except to include an accurate picture:

http://homepage.mac.com/schwuliduck/.Pictures/america.jpg

teabgs
May 31, 2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


hey back off! my future partner doesn't care about his post count and would never falsely post just to increase it...

awww....isnt that cute? jello's sticking up for Duke...that's simply precious :p

Jello's so in love with duke. HAHA! his partner harharharhar.... oh man, that's funny.

sorry to be childish but I found it funny :D

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by britboy
You ignorant septic tank.


Please, you're just a sore loser. I bet you secretly think the Empire is coming back......

teabgs
May 31, 2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by britboy
You ignorant septic tank.
[/IMG]

MUAHAHAHAHA! YEAH! hehehe...that's great!

:D
ignorant septic tank....

*tee hee hee*
:D

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by britboy
You ignorant septic tank.

I'll say no more, except to include an accurate picture:

http://homepage.mac.com/schwuliduck/.Pictures/america.jpg

how'd you get a picture of the map on my wall? they have those in yurop too?

is that you with the handlebars?

oh, and i was able to read all the colours. it's not that tough.

at least you have a good sense of humour. shall we get some tea and crumpets whilst we honor the queen???

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by teabgs


MUAHAHAHAHA! YEAH! hehehe...that's great!

:D
ignorant septic tank....

*tee hee hee*
:D

You been sniffing the glue again teabgs? You're getting unintelligible there.....

britboy
May 31, 2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


Please, you're just a sore loser. I bet you secretly think the Empire is coming back......


Not at all. I'm quite enjoying this :D

Septic Tank = Yank. It's cockney rhyming slang.

The Empire Strikes Back! Muahahaha!!!

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by teabgs
awww....isnt that cute? jello's sticking up for Duke...that's simply precious :p

Jello's so in love with duke. HAHA! his partner harharharhar.... oh man, that's funny.

sorry to be childish but I found it funny :D

hey. did you read the rest? it was even funnier cause i went on to correct myself and share a laugh with jef concerning duke's posting about not caring about posting.... ha!

learn to read. punkass

britboy
May 31, 2002, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


is that you with the handlebars?


No, that's just a photo from the halloween party we had here last time round.


at least you have a good sense of humour. shall we get some tea and crumpets whilst we honor the queen???

Thanks... :p Tea and crumpets, ha ha. I'm more of a coffee person myself. Honour (note: spelling ;)) the Queen? Hmmm, perhaps.

jelloshotsrule
May 31, 2002, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by britboy

Thanks... :p Tea and crumpets, ha ha. I'm more of a coffee person myself. Honour (note: spelling ;)) the Queen? Hmmm, perhaps.

ahhh, i'm an idiot! after all that effort i miss that one..... duh.


bloody hell!

britboy
May 31, 2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


ahhh, i'm an idiot! after all that effort i miss that one..... duh.


bloody hell!


*Now* you're pissed.... :D

I love that map though. "Here be dragons" .... cracks me up :p

teabgs
May 31, 2002, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


You been sniffing the glue again teabgs? You're getting unintelligible there.....

hehe...maybe ;)

I am feeling "different" today. could be a number of things...oh well...I'll be back to my old self once I finally stop being a nomad and have a place to live on sunday...and my mac back!

mischief
May 31, 2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


oh, and also, talking about american culture...

when i think of icons from my childhood days, i think of televison and star trek especially...are you listening ensign paris?

and one american hero i looked up to was captain james tiberius kirk

william shatner is also canadian, too:p

The rest of us claim no responsibility fo William Shatner. As far as I'm concerned he was born in a Studabaker at the Peace Park.;) :D

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by teabgs

I am feeling "different" today. could be a number of things...oh well...I'll be back to my old self once I finally stop being a nomad and have a place to live on sunday...and my mac back!

I feel for you, I'd have a hard time not having my mac to play on, let alone having a place to stay.

And as for Capt. Kirk, well, he's probably the best over-actor I've seen. The subtlies and levels he can reach....not to mention the blue women, raahr!

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by britboy
You ignorant septic tank.

I'll say no more, except to include an accurate picture:

http://homepage.mac.com/schwuliduck/.Pictures/america.jpg

i am a super patriot but i have to admit, being a patriot means defending freedom of speech

and i would like to say that the map on this link is so much the thinking of too many americans

we have so many freedoms, that we have the right of complete ignorance and too many americans take that to heart:p

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 04:00 PM
Man, have you seen the estimates on casualties in the first weeks of a nuke war with Pakistan and India? That is crazy. I would imagine that the final estimates would be over 40 million total. I hope they can back down and get there heads out of their A$$es. That conflict could spread into a regional war. Especially if China made a play for Taiwan.

mischief
May 31, 2002, 04:07 PM
India and Pakistan are so arrogant around this that I could see them just running Nukes across the border on the backs of 2 GI's.

If you want to find people that are REALLY against Nuclear arms look at the ICBM trejectories. Canada has always been against "The Nuclear Deterrant" because any missiles that fall short fall on Canada. The whole potentiality for Nukes in India/Pakistan is proof that the Nuclear arms race did less than nothing to discourage proliferation, quite the opposite.

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by mischief
India and Pakistan are so arrogant around this that I could see them just running Nukes across the border on the backs of 2 GI's.

If you want to find people that are REALLY against Nuclear arms look at the ICBM trejectories. Canada has always been against "The Nuclear Deterrant" because any missiles that fall short fall on Canada. The whole potentiality for Nukes in India/Pakistan is proof that the Nuclear arms race did less than nothing to discourage proliferation, quite the opposite.

Well the containment of proliferation really did work well. You cannot stop science. You cannot back up time. Thus, as long as someone tries hard enough to obtain the tech of Nuke, then they will. Now that being said, we have to have a deterent to the second tier countries that will obtain them. I just don't want to see the thing go nuclear, but if they go hot, it probably will. They have fought over the boarder region before, and they will do it again.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Man, have you seen the estimates on casualties in the first weeks of a nuke war with Pakistan and India? That is crazy. I would imagine that the final estimates would be over 40 million total. I hope they can back down and get there heads out of their A$$es. That conflict could spread into a regional war. Especially if China made a play for Taiwan.

even the us has vital interests in that area of the world as i heard there are 60,000 americans in the area of india or pakistan

monsoon weather is coming up there and that would mean rescue and recovery efforts in the case of any kind of war, nuclear or conventional, would be very hard to pull off...the press mentioned 48 inches of rain over many months

still, many people on the street here have no idea anything is going on and people are still focused on 9/11 and other news

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 04:17 PM
Actually, the State Department called for all non essential employees to leave. Britain has followed suite. It is getting out of control fast. This is what the bay of pigs must have felt like for our parents.
:confused:

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Well the containment of proliferation really did work well. You cannot stop science. You cannot back up time. Thus, as long as someone tries hard enough to obtain the tech of Nuke, then they will. Now that being said, we have to have a deterent to the second tier countries that will obtain them. I just don't want to see the thing go nuclear, but if they go hot, it probably will. They have fought over the boarder region before, and they will do it again.

what scares me more than nukes worldwide is chemical and biological weapons

and what about this botox phenomenon and reducing wrinkles using a militarily classified biological terror substance (botulism a)?

the implications are scary as i can think of scenarios of people using a now common medical substance as a weapon

when uncommon weapons will most likely not be used against us, the common stuff is what is dangerous...like "dirty" home made nuclear devices and other implements (think fertilizer and tim mcveigh)

we live in a scary world with uncountable sides vying for power, land, and recognition

the two superpower world in some way seemed safer

mischief
May 31, 2002, 04:21 PM
Apple has just hired on a whole whack of Indian programmers.......

I'm sure HR is scrambling with Legal as we speak to determine what Apple's obligation is in getting those employees and any vital data out.:confused: :eek:

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 04:26 PM
The thing that scares me the most is the thought of an accident at the CDC. That place has stuff in there that has never even been released to the public. I agree that the majority of the danger that we will face in the future is not nuclear, but in fact bio/cem. Iraq has over 30 gallons of botulism. Do you know how many people you could kill with a teaspoon? It is getting out of control.


I just wish we would quit D**king around with everything, and just do what needs to be done. Afganistan, and the war are terror are following Vietnam in form. It could be different though. Sad when you think about it.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The thing that scares me the most is the thought of an accident at the CDC. That place has stuff in there that has never even been released to the public. I agree that the majority of the danger that we will face in the future is not nuclear, but in fact bio/cem. Iraq has over 30 gallons of botulism. Do you know how many people you could kill with a teaspoon? It is getting out of control.


I just wish we would quit D**king around with everything, and just do what needs to be done. Afganistan, and the war are terror are following Vietnam in form. It could be different though. Sad when you think about it.

30 gals of botulism is 64,000,000 doses of botox assuming each vial is 2 oz., according to my rough calculations, so they can be a wrinkle free society in no time:D

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield


30 gals of botulism is 64,000,000 doses of botox assuming each vial is 2 oz., according to my rough calculations, so they can be a wrinkle free society in no time:D

That is a good one. How do you guys feel about us going in after Saddam? Do you think it would be good for the Iraqi people? How would it change the view of the US in the Middle east if we went in and actually helped them?

britboy
May 31, 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


That is a good one. How do you guys feel about us going in after Saddam? Do you think it would be good for the Iraqi people? How would it change the view of the US in the Middle east if we went in and actually helped them?


I don't think it would help the perception of america at all. Most of the hatred/distrust/whatever is because the US is seen to be meddling in affairs that do not concern it, and which it does not understand. Going in and replacing the leader of a country, simply because he doesn't capitulate to the US, is not going to make america look any better. (I know, it's a lot more that simply 'not capitulating', but look at it from the point of view of an arab)

He's actually done quite a few things to make himself popular amongst his people.

edit] another member of the 1k club... congrats :)

mischief
May 31, 2002, 04:41 PM
1. Stay out. Any interference will do anything but help.

2. Provide small arms in vending machines like old-style cigarette machines and just sit back.


Saddam Hussein is an Evil, Insane Dictator who deserves a long slow death, however at this time there is no one that could pull it off that the Saudi's wouldn't then make a target for Al Quaida. The whole thing's a mess over there. You can't help cuz that's interfering. You can't interfere because every time the West tries to help the natives thank them out one side of their face and call a Jyhad out the other. I suppose it's a fair trade for supporting them on one hand and screwing them with the other.

jefhatfield
May 31, 2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


That is a good one. How do you guys feel about us going in after Saddam? Do you think it would be good for the Iraqi people? How would it change the view of the US in the Middle east if we went in and actually helped them?

i think if we got rid of saddam, the world and iraq would thank us...but he would have a few disquised loyal agents wreak havoc (revenge) on the usa many years later when we least expected it

the terrorists will strike again but not soon, but when our guard goes back down...and perhaps not in an obvious way that would make us retaliate but in small bombings like pipe bombs and other unsolvable incidents which would destroy our sense of safety as much as 9/11, but with no finger to be pointed at anyone in particular

that is what is so terrible about terrorists...they can nickel and dime their enemy into submission and somehow get the international press on their side and some unsuspecting liberals

britboy
May 31, 2002, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by mischief

2. Provide small arms in vending machines like old-style cigarette machines and just sit back.



Damn, i was drinking from a bottle of water when i read that, and darn near choked myself with laughter!!! That's good, that's real good... :D :D :D

mischief
May 31, 2002, 04:49 PM
I sometimes think the Redneck approach to re-drawing the borders would alleviate a lot of stress in the world:

Draw up the Middle East and North Africa as one giant nation called "Yamoodybastads" Yamoodi citizens get to keep their provincial Identity for each sub-state and the whole area gets to be shared. Case closed.

krossfyter
May 31, 2002, 06:14 PM
damn...yall have streatched this issue everywhich way.

allow me to add more....


new theory---
osama bin laden and sadam hussien are behind the tension between pakistan and india. creating more instability in the region.

Backtothemac
May 31, 2002, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by krossfyter
damn...yall have streatched this issue everywhich way.

allow me to add more....


new theory---
osama bin laden and sadam hussien are behind the tension between pakistan and india. creating more instability in the region.

Actually, that is not at all unlikely. It is very possible that Bin Laden is behind the tentions. Think about it. He has been rumored to be in the boarder region of Kashmir. That would explain some of the cross boarder insurgency. Also, I would be my salary this year that Hussein is funding Osama. Especially now that his funds have gone bye, bye.

krossfyter
May 31, 2002, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Actually, that is not at all unlikely. It is very possible that Bin Laden is behind the tentions. Think about it. He has been rumored to be in the boarder region of Kashmir. That would explain some of the cross boarder insurgency. Also, I would be my salary this year that Hussein is funding Osama. Especially now that his funds have gone bye, bye.


yep seem very possible. it would explain a lot. i have to have more information to really believe this. right now it just seems logical and a high possibility.

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 07:00 PM
Yes, and very scary. India and Pakistan with Nukes, man that's going to be a problem if they go to a full fledged engagement. I was watching a show on the Discovery channel and they were doing war games in which India and Pakistan used their nukes. It basically ends civilization as we know it.

One interesting scenario is India, because it has the bigger and better equipped military easily pushes into Pakistan, then Pakistan drops the Bomb on their own country, taking out the invading army. Wow, now that's one to worry about. Of course then things go crazy.....

krossfyter
May 31, 2002, 07:21 PM
yep. i heard the nuke damage would be twice that of what usa did on hiroshima.

but ...why did they say it would be the end of civilization?

Mr. Anderson
May 31, 2002, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by krossfyter
yep. i heard the nuke damage would be twice that of what usa did on hiroshima.

but ...why did they say it would be the end of civilization?

Well, it would all depend on how many bombs they actually have, but what always ended up happening was another country would make a move with its weapons of mass distruction and crap hits the fan, some one takes a shot at Russia or the US and BOOM, that's it.

Did any of you know about the Russian Dooms Day Device? During the cold war 50s/60s the Russians basically took a huge ship, cargo or tanker, and want to build a really monstrous bomb, that if they got into a Nuclear war with the USA and were loosing, they would let this one off and it would take out everything, nothing would have been able to survive from the radiation. Unbelievable. I'm hoping it was just an idea and not a actuality. They did let off a 50 Megaton bomb during their testing phase, unbelievable.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 2, 2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by krossfyter
yep. i heard the nuke damage would be twice that of what usa did on hiroshima.

but ...why did they say it would be the end of civilization?

i heard the nukes we have today are something like 40-100x more powerful than hiroshima.

"luckily"... those countries (ind and pak) don't have those, they have ones just a bit more powerful than hiroshima.

of course, the more they use the worse..


oh yeah, i saw some thing on tv (at a crutchfield store) yesterday showing how the us used depleted uranium in the bombs during the gulf war. which means, there are tons of people (civilians) getting cancer and other diseases from the fallout. also, that is probably the cause for gulf war syndrome.

that's disgusting.

jefhatfield
Jun 2, 2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule


i heard the nukes we have today are something like 40-100x more powerful than hiroshima.

"luckily"... those countries (ind and pak) don't have those, they have ones just a bit more powerful than hiroshima.

of course, the more they use the worse..


oh yeah, i saw some thing on tv (at a crutchfield store) yesterday showing how the us used depleted uranium in the bombs during the gulf war. which means, there are tons of people (civilians) getting cancer and other diseases from the fallout. also, that is probably the cause for gulf war syndrome.

that's disgusting.

i read somewhere that there could be this super weapon either we or the iraqis used...a combo chem/bio weapon which is a chemical weapon which can spread the poison from person to person thru sexual, casual, or next generation contact thru genetic code...if this is true, it is the most dangerous weapon ever invented

outside of mercury poisoning, which can afflict a person and their ancestors...a chem/bio weapon is designed to do this damage on purpose and could effectively wipe out all life on earth

nuclear weapons can do that but at some point the damage of fallout will stop...maybe in 500,000 or a million years

genetic damage caused from a chemical weapon can render everybody sterile or pass the damage to anyone who contacts an effected person or who has offspring with them

a biological weapon at least has a chance of finding a vaccine if one is not already discovered...not as easy for a chemical weapon if it has the ability to spread from person to person like a cold

i would not put it past saddam to use a weapon like this since he has the funding, unlike al qaeda (which leads many to believe he was the actual boss behind the attacks on the us)

BTTM mentioned that mother nature will get rid of us when we become a real nuisance to life on earth...it is thru our own intelligence as humans but lack of judgement also that is our own way of wiping ourselves out

look at aids and ebola... those diseases are thought to have come from the rainforest...areas we did not belong in or have a right to cut down...there are many other diseases, much more frightening, that are deep in the rainforest and we should not go there...read the hotzone...the nobel scientist thinks that aids and ebola came from us meddling in the rain forest...those viruses are the protecting ring around the life there

plus, if we cut down the rainforest, we will also wipe out the likely botanical cures that are undiscovered there for every disease known to man

i wouldn't blame god and/or nature, but i would blame humankind if we did ourselves in...no one else is to blame

Backtothemac
Jun 2, 2002, 03:11 PM
The yeild on the bomb used on Hiroshima was around 10 - 15 kilotons. That is 10,000 - 15,000 tons of TNT. The missles that India and Pakistan have are in the 20 - 25 KT yeild. Now the US and Russia mainly have systems that yeild in the Megatons. MT. Now, you are talking about millions of tons of TNT. They range from 1 to over 50 MT. The Soviets tests a 58 MT device once.

Oh, the doomsday device. Totally false. Never happened. To have one device that could do that with standard nuclear design would require 100 x the amount of known uranium and plutonium.

So, a nuke war with India and Pakistan would not spread nuclear. If they, or anyone launches on Russia, if you know anyone in India or Pakistan, call them and tell them goodbye. Same for China. There is no senerio that would, or could explain the US getting involved in a nuclear war there. Remember the only country on the planet that can strike us with a strategic nuclear weapon is Russia.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 2, 2002, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Oh, the doomsday device. Totally false. Never happened. To have one device that could do that with standard nuclear design would require 100 x the amount of known uranium and plutonium.


It was a type of hydrogen bomb. There are ways of making much bigger bombs, but there is no use for them, both Russia and the US stayed with the current yield warheads do to delivery issues. You ever see the size of that 50+ MT bomb of the Russians? The plane could barely fit the thing underneigh in the bomb bay.

Here is a really good resource on the current state of weapons world wide

www.fas.org

Backtothemac
Jun 2, 2002, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


It was a type of hydrogen bomb. There are ways of making much bigger bombs, but there is no use for them, both Russia and the US stayed with the current yield warheads do to delivery issues. You ever see the size of that 50+ MT bomb of the Russians? The plane could barely fit the thing underneigh in the bomb bay.

Here is a really good resource on the current state of weapons world wide

www.fas.org

Oh, totally agreed. That will be the future of nukes. Small, compact, far mor tactical than today. Actually, tactical nukes do serve a purpose, and can be delivered on a far smaller delivery device.

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 06:38 PM
If Indians and Pakistanis are so stupid that they would start a nuclear war over some mountainous ****hole in the middle of nowhere, I have two words for that: Natural selection.

My solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Level Jerusalem. Ship everyone out and turn it into a radioactive parking lot. The religious lunatics and the terrorists will return to it and die of radiation poisoning. Problem solved.

****, I should start charging for this advice...

Alex

GeeYouEye
Jun 2, 2002, 06:47 PM
Hope it's not too late to join in on the discussion...

Anyway, here's my view on nukes. If in the right (read: sane) hands, the realization of MAD will kick in, and will serve as an effective war deterrent. In worked for 40 years in the US and USSR. Now, in the wrong hands nukes are very dangerous. Take India and Pakistan for example. Not only is the political situation more unstable than the cold war, but they have nowhere to take out any aggressive tendencies. The US and Russia did; they were able to vent their capitalism vs. communism battles in Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc. India and Pakistan have nowhere to do that, so if a conflict does arise between them, it will be there, not anywhere else.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 2, 2002, 06:54 PM
Alex, you're a moron.

Natural selection my ass. You're talking about millions of people being killed, more than at any single time in human history, as if it would be a good thing. Get a friggin' clue.

Do you realize what would happen if a nuke was dropped as an act of war today? It would provide reasonable justification to a host of other idiots to do the same thing, which in tern would end up wiping you off the face of the earth as well. Even if no other nukes were used, the fallout would be legacy that could have effects world wide. No one really wants this.

So unless you have something positive or at least intelligent to say, keep your comments to yourself.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 2, 2002, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
If in the right (read: sane) hands, the realization of MAD will kick in, and will serve as an effective war deterrent.

Take India and Pakistan for example. Not only is the political situation more unstable than the cold war, but they have nowhere to take out any aggressive tendencies. The US and Russia did; they were able to vent their capitalism vs. communism battles in Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc. India and Pakistan have nowhere to do that, so if a conflict does arise between them, it will be there, not anywhere else.

There is no guarantee that Mutually Assured Distruction would work in this case. The reasoning behind it would be self preservation more than anything else, with the two countries figuring they would be the only ones involved.

What they don't understand is that nukes are more a responsibility than a weapon of war. Its a sad situation, and we'll all suffer if things take a turn for the worse.

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Alex, you're a moron.

Natural selection my ass. You're talking about millions of people being killed, more than at any single time in human history, as if it would be a good thing. Get a friggin' clue.
Of course it would be a tragedy, but only for those who did not want nuclear war. So ship out the children and the non-idiots first, and let the zealots have at it.

Do you realize what would happen if a nuke was dropped as an act of war today? It would provide reasonable justification to a host of other idiots to do the same thing, which in tern would end up wiping you off the face of the earth as well. Even if no other nukes were used, the fallout would be legacy that could have effects world wide. No one really wants this.
And neither do I. First of all, I honestly believe a bit of fallout in the atmosphere would do us humans some good. We have a tendency to repeatedly forget the lessons we learn (and which we teach ourselves). A few more blips in the geiger counters would serve as an effective, constant reminder of the horrors of nuclear war. I would happily trade future mass death for a few more cancer cases. Wouldn't you? Secondly, since diplomacy in this case is futile, war seems like the only solution. I'd much rather have India and Pakistan blow each other up tomorrow than to see this conflict fester into something much worse, something entangling other countries in a network of conditional alliances a la World War I.

Alex

Mr. Anderson
Jun 2, 2002, 07:20 PM
If the war happens and they end up using nukes, there is no guarantee that the whole region wouldn't destabilize, which would trickle over to us and cause life as we know cease to exists. Israel would end up throwing in its defenses and BOOM! Its better if the issues are resolved now, peacefully and get on with living.

And be realistic, no one is going to ship anyone to a say zone. I'm more concerned about practical solutions not rants.

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 07:26 PM
Back on topic...
Originally posted by mischief
With all the threads about politics, sexual preference, enlightenment and Bono I thought I'd start a thread on the HUGE picture. The HUGE picture is taken on a planetary scale with a temporal resolution of no less than ten years.
Big picture: It's a shame there is so much conflict in the world today.

Huge picture: Who really knows what to do...

REALLY huge picture (on the scale of the universe): Whatever happens is completely inconsequential - we are but ineffectual specks inside a universe whose size is beyond our comprehension, to which we don't matter in the least.

We can have an effect upon the huge picture, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking we matter in the REALLY huge picture. :)

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
If the war happens and they end up using nukes, there is no guarantee that the whole region wouldn't destabilize, which would trickle over to us and cause life as we know cease to exists.
What whole region? They ARE the whole region. Russia and China would have no reason to join in. They'd probably enjoy sitting back and watching - 2 less nuclear powers in the world means more power to them.
Israel would end up throwing in its defenses and BOOM!
What do you mean? I don't see how Israel could possibly be involved in this.
Its better if the issues are resolved now, peacefully and get on with living.
I'm all for peaceful conflict resolution, as well. Unfortunately it is not always possible. If you believe otherwise, have fun convincing the Indians and Pakistanis of this.
And be realistic, no one is going to ship anyone to a say zone. I'm more concerned about practical solutions not rants.
I've already offered my solution, and I consider it quite practical, easy to implement, and even HUMANE (although it might not sound that way at first thought). What is YOUR solution? The world awaits, Mr. Dukestreet.

Alex

Backtothemac
Jun 2, 2002, 08:49 PM
The way to destabilize the region is to draw Israel into a war with the Arabs while Pakistan goes after India. The reason they want Kashmir is due to the fact that it is one of the only natural water sources for Pakistan.

All, in all from a tactical perspective, it could destabilize. China could see it as an opportunity to go after Taiwan thinking we would back down do to nuclear fallout in the area. It really could get messy.

sjs
Jun 2, 2002, 09:04 PM
Almost like a Tom Clancey novel B2TM, right? Just like 9/11 was alot like his books.

Thanks B2TM for the good, intelligent, realistic point of view you have argued for. I second most of the political stuff you have stated.

BTW, Mischief, this goes back a few pages to your comment about Canadian health care working fine until NAFTA. The only reason Canadian health care has worked is that the huge majority of Canadians live in close proximity to the US and can came here for treatment that is too slow or unobtainable in Canada.

In other words, the free system we have here enables the socialist system in Canada.

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The way to destabilize the region is to draw Israel into a war with the Arabs while Pakistan goes after India. The reason they want Kashmir is due to the fact that it is one of the only natural water sources for Pakistan.
But how would an Israeli-Arab war effect Pakistan and India, and what does Kashmir have to do with Israel?
All, in all from a tactical perspective, it could destabilize. China could see it as an opportunity to go after Taiwan thinking we would back down do to nuclear fallout in the area. It really could get messy.
I always forget that the current administration, owned by defense contractors, actually might consider nuclear war over Taiwan... sigh. :(

I think I should be appointed Ruler of the World... y'all might not like my political stances, but I think most of you Macrumorsians would be in favor of my 80% x86 Tax.

Alex

jefhatfield
Jun 2, 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

But how would an Israeli-Arab war effect Pakistan and India, and what does Kashmir have to do with Israel?

I always forget that the current administration, owned by defense contractors, actually might consider nuclear war over Taiwan... sigh. :(

I think I should be appointed Ruler of the World... y'all might not like my political stances, but I think most of you Macrumorsians would be in favor of my 80% x86 Tax.

Alex [/B]

he he...a 80 percent tax on pcs...i like that ;-)

let's hope that the india-pakistan thing works out peacefully though

..and the same for israel-palestine

one day, we will not have nukes...or they will eventually be "used"... but the decimation of all nukes may take decades...i am sure mankind will think of something deadlier...unfortunately

it is scary to live in a day where we can literally wipe out all human life on earth

on the grand scale of things, we still matter...maybe in a small, small way...but we still matter and we must try to keep on improving mankind little by little

Mr. Anderson
Jun 2, 2002, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant

But how would an Israeli-Arab war effect Pakistan and India, and what does Kashmir have to do with Israel?
[/B]

A big nuke event between Pakistan and India would cause all its neighbors to get upset, massive chaos, everyone gets scared. Fallout can go anywhere, dependent on the wind. Iran gets up set, Iraq takes advantage of the ensuing confusion - lets see, hmm, Israel is in range, we're all screwed, start dropping Scuds in Jereusalem again.....Israel, worried that somehow the next Scud might be a nuke (don't worry on how Iraq got one, it can happen), takes action and drops a few on Iraq....

Its not a long shot, it can happen. What it basically boils down too is everyone would be so scared they'd do almost anything to try and protect themselves and once nukes are used in a modern war, its sort of like removing the stopper from a bottle. I hope it doesn't happen, but you have to realize that it is a possibility, even if the odds are low.

jefhatfield
Jun 2, 2002, 10:10 PM
i don't like the odds...we must do what we can as a powerful superpower nation to stop a war between two nations with nukes

world war I started in the strangest of ways with an assisination of a seemlessly unimportant archduke and world war II was an extension of world war I

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet


A big nuke event between Pakistan and India would cause all its neighbors to get upset, massive chaos, everyone gets scared. Fallout can go anywhere, dependent on the wind. Iran gets up set, Iraq takes advantage of the ensuing confusion - lets see, hmm, Israel is in range, we're all screwed, start dropping Scuds in Jereusalem again.....Israel, worried that somehow the next Scud might be a nuke (don't worry on how Iraq got one, it can happen), takes action and drops a few on Iraq....

Its not a long shot, it can happen. What it basically boils down too is everyone would be so scared they'd do almost anything to try and protect themselves and once nukes are used in a modern war, its sort of like removing the stopper from a bottle. I hope it doesn't happen, but you have to realize that it is a possibility, even if the odds are low.
It's also a possibility that Osama bin Laden will shave his beard and start listening to Def Leppard. That doesn't make it likely. Sane countries don't go ape**** and start bombing each other when they're scared - they sit tight and wait for the situation to play out. Most middle eastern countries have (in my opinion) downright wacky belief systems, but that doesn't make them insane. World War I would have never happened if not for the system of alliances in place at the time. There is no such system in place in the middle east today.

You're saying that the middle east would explode because it's a powder keg - I'm agreeing that the middle east is a powder keg (more or less), but I'm saying that it would not be in any middle eastern country's best interest to start any kind of war while Pakistan and India are fighting, because THEY would KNOW that doing so would be virtual suicide. It's not like the fundamentalist Arab nutballs in charge in that region WANT chaos - they just want to see dead Jews/westerners. They would have no better chance of taking on the Great Satan in the event of a Pakistan/India war than during peacetime, and so they would not.

So, at this point, I'm not quite sure what I was arguing about, but I know it must have been something good and touchy, because otherwise I wouldn't have joined in. :)

Alex

alex_ant
Jun 2, 2002, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
we must do what we can as a powerful superpower nation to stop a war between two nations with nukes
What can we do, though? Threaten sanctions? Threaten Pakistan and India with our nukes? :) "No fighting, or else we'll fight you."

Diplomacy only works when country leaders are reasonable and rational. Unfortunately, if the leaders of these two countries were reasonable and rational, they probably wouldn't be on the brink of nuclear war over, of all things, a small piece of land in the mountains. I don't care if it's got water, or oil, or ****ing loads and loads of diamonds. You just don't go to nuclear war over something like that.

That's why I said that if they went to war, it could potentially teach them and the rest of the world an EXTREMELY important lesson, killing lots of people in the short term but saving MANY TIMES more people in the long term. Would I like to see diplomacy prevail? Yes. Would I also like to own a Ferrari? Yes... neither look like they're gonna happen, though. The Pentagon, I believe, carried out conflict simulations recently (I heard of this several weeks ago), where every scenario ended in nuclear war. Sigh.

Alex

Backtothemac
Jun 3, 2002, 08:12 AM
The reason that this has anything to do with other countries getting involved is destabilization. If, India and Pakistan go at it, then what if Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, start going after Israel? It has nothing to do with the war in India, but it is a seperate war. After all, if we had to get involved in India, then we would be spread thin enough that fighting an Arab war would be difficult and give the Arabs better odds.

As far as there being a system like the one that led to WWI in the middle east. Yes, there is one. Its called, attack one Arab nation and you attack them all. They are fanatical about it.

Now, if the region also destabilized in the eastern Asian arena, then it could be very bad. What would we really do if nukes were used, and then the Arabs went after Israel, and at the same time China went after Taiwan. Would we send me into the fallout zone? What about our using nukes? Can't appear weaker than the 3rd world countries right? Now do you see how it could escalate?

The only way in the world to win a nuclear war is the same way that we have been winning it for the last 50 odd years. Don't let 2 nuclear armed countries fight at all. Period. That is how you keep a nuke war from going off.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 3, 2002, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant

Diplomacy only works when country leaders are reasonable and rational. Unfortunately, if the leaders of these two countries were reasonable and rational, they probably wouldn't be on the brink of nuclear war over, of all things, a small piece of land in the mountains. I don't care if it's got water, or oil, or ****ing loads and loads of diamonds. You just don't go to nuclear war over something like that.


I was watching a show on the nuclear issues, about 3 months ago, and they went on to describe some of the issues our top military analysts were working on. The one they chose happened to be Pakistan and India. It won't start out as a nuclear war, but a conventional one. India will most likely overpower Pakistan and make a run for the capital, then in the face of obvious defeat, Pakistan drops a nuke, in their own country, on the advancing Indian army, turning the tide one more time.

Now, see, this is not my theory, but someone who gets paid to do this for a living. Its not that far fetched and it puts the whole 'nuke' issue in play, then chaos follows. And that's where it lead to in the analysis, everyone looses.

I agree with B2TM, the only way to work this out is to prevent it from ever happening, not an easy task. I hope it works....

mischief
Jun 3, 2002, 10:44 AM
I think what Alex MEANT to say was that the only solution that would wake up both sides is an act of the GODs. Say it gets hit by a very large rock. I agree that as an act of War it'd be a very bad idea, but in terms of "Okay, nobody gets Jerusalem" Taking it out with good plausible deniability.......



Anyway:

The desease issue was raised. This little article describes infectious immortality but the reporter never figures that out.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-859877.html?legacy=cnet&tag=st.cn.sr1.dir.


Think about how this stuff would spread with sexual contact.:eek: :D :cool: :confused: :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson
Jun 3, 2002, 11:55 AM
No flames.

The article you linked to is the old one about the 'smart' armor being developed at MIT. Very cool stuff, I can't wait to see the first prototype, but what were you talking about with the STD stuff....

mischief
Jun 3, 2002, 12:10 PM
Nanotech in the body fluids of a few GI's, the stuff is tuned to optimize tissues, provide regeneration, build arterial valves, build in fibre-relays along nerve paths, bind toxins, disasemble viruses and (most importantly) make more of itself.

A prophylactic wouldn't slow that stuff down........ After the first bordello we'd have immortality as an STD.:D

britboy
Jun 3, 2002, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by mischief
A prophylactic wouldn't slow that stuff down........ After the first bordello we'd have immortality as an STD.:D


You have got one twisted, dirty mind mischief :p

Mr. Anderson
Jun 3, 2002, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by mischief
Nanotech in the body fluids of a few GI's, the stuff is tuned to optimize tissues, provide regeneration, build arterial valves, build in fibre-relays along nerve paths, bind toxins, disasemble viruses and (most importantly) make more of itself.

That's actually been written up quite a few times in some old SF novels I read in highschool or college. I'll try and track those down, it was very interesting.....

mischief
Jun 3, 2002, 02:31 PM
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/0311/web-mit-03-15-02.asp

Mr. Anderson
Jun 3, 2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by mischief
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2002/0311/web-mit-03-15-02.asp

The nano tech will be used in an exoskeleton, not internally (yet) So it will end up being a suit the soldier puts on that works its magic at the molecular level. Still very cool though.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 3, 2002, 03:06 PM
what do you all (discussing nuclear issues) think about our use (the us) of depleted plutonium (or was it uranium?) bombs during the gulf war?


they were like armor piercing bullets in a way,b ut with bombs. they'd hit a target and then explode and release the plutonium into the air. now the area is stricken with cancer, which is clearly linked to the bombings....

i know less about nuclear stuff, but i was horrified when i heard/saw this... so i was wondering what the smarter people here think.

britboy
Jun 3, 2002, 03:23 PM
DU (depleted uranium) is quite a controversial topic it would seem. The MOD (ministry of defence) has even gone so far as to try to justify their use of DU. It makes quite interesting reading. click here (http://www.mod.uk/issues/depleted_uranium/misconceptions.htm) if you're curious :)

Personally i believe that the use of any method which is going to cause long-term suffering is wrong, and should be avoided. In the gulf war it was clear that the allies were far superior to the iraqi's in terms of fire-power, so why was DU used? Seems like a case of overkill to me.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 3, 2002, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by britboy
In the gulf war it was clear that the allies were far superior to the iraqi's in terms of fire-power, so why was DU used? Seems like a case of overkill to me.

You use the weapons that get the job done. Here's a bit for reference

'In military applications, when alloyed, Depleted Uranium [DU] is ideal for use in armor penetrators. These solid metal projectiles have the speed, mass and physical properties to perform exceptionally well against armored targets. DU provides a substantial performance advantage, well above other competing materials. This allows DU penetrators to defeat an armored target at a significantly greater distance. Also, DU's density and physical properties make it ideal for use as armor plate. DU has been used in weapon systems for many years in both applications.

Depleted uranium results from the enriching of natural uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Natural uranium is a slightly radioactive metal that is present in most rocks and soils as well as in many rivers and sea water. Natural uranium consists primarily of a mixture of two isotopes (forms) of uranium, Uranium-235 (U235) and Uranium-238 (U238), in the proportion of about 0.7 and 99.3 percent, respectively. Nuclear reactors require U235 to produce energy, therefore, the natural uranium has to be enriched to obtain the isotope U235 by removing a large part of the U238. Uranium-238 becomes DU, which is 0.7 times as radioactive as natural uranium. Since DU has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, there is very little decay of those DU materials. '

A more technical discussion can be found here:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/du/index.html

Basically, DU isn't the best thing to use if you concerned about sticking around after, that's for sure. But its not as radio active as you think at first.

Backtothemac
Jun 3, 2002, 03:53 PM
DU is a great weapon to use. It maximizes target damage, and reduces the risk of return fire from 1st hits. Some tanks can take a 1st hit and still fire, but not if hit by a DU shell. They should modify the manuals to say, please do not climb on tanks for photos after it is hit by a DU shell for at least 10,000 years...;)

britboy
Jun 3, 2002, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet

Basically, DU isn't the best thing to use if you concerned about sticking around after, that's for sure. But its not as radio active as you think at first.


I'm aware of that. My point was that the allies were superior to the iraqi's, to the extent that using DU was not necessary. Other, less long-term affecting materials could have been used.

Originally posted by Backtothemac
They should modify the manuals to say, please do not climb on tanks for photos after it is hit by a DU shell for at least 10,000 years...

:D That was dumb of the soldiers.... :rolleyes: As Duke says though, DU isn't all that radioactive. Hopefully no-one suffered too badly from their stupidity...

jelloshotsrule
Jun 3, 2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by britboy
I'm aware of that. My point was that the allies were superior to the iraqi's, to the extent that using DU was not necessary. Other, less long-term affecting materials could have been used.

:D That was dumb of the soldiers.... :rolleyes: As Duke says though, DU isn't all that radioactive. Hopefully no-one suffered too badly from their stupidity...

that's the thing though, people did suffer badly. and it's not the soldiers i'm concerned about as much, for they should know better...

but rather, the civilians who live in nearby areas.

whether it's "not too radioactive" isn't the issue, it still is. it still causes cancer and other diseases, and it still affects the natives of the land.

of course we weren't going to stay in iraq after shooting them up, so it wasn't our concern. let those arabs deal with it...

that's how our country thinks. and some of our allies.

uggh.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 3, 2002, 05:23 PM
It is pretty ridiculous. 'Ends justifying the means' scenario. But it might have been the first time we've actually used this weapon in a full scale battle, and that would take into account some of it. Hopefully the results from this will end up pushing DU out and a more viable, and less deadly in the long term, option available.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 3, 2002, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
It is pretty ridiculous. 'Ends justifying the means' scenario. But it might have been the first time we've actually used this weapon in a full scale battle, and that would take into account some of it. Hopefully the results from this will end up pushing DU out and a more viable, and less deadly in the long term, option available.

dare to dream. hmm.... i really hope that happens.. not sure it will though.