PDA

View Full Version : Macs and Terrorism


Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 10:32 AM
Given the new statements from Ossams band of happy men, and the arrest of a known dirty boming plotter, what should the US do now?

Here are a couple of quotes for you.

We have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children," and it says, "we_have the right to fight them by chemical and biological weapons so they catch the fatal and unusual diseases Muslims have caught due to U.S. chemical and_biological weapons."

Updated: 11:21 a.m. EDT (1521 GMT) -- 10 June 2002

_BREAKING NEWS_

U.S.: 'Dirty bomb' plot foiled
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Monday the capture of a "known terrorist" with connections to al Qaeda who allegedly planned to build and explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the United States.

What should be our plan of action?

eyelikeart
Jun 10, 2002, 10:39 AM
This is such a hard decision to make. The last 2 movies I've seen both dealt with foreign terrosim, and they both really make u think a lot.

The scary part about going after these groups, is that many of them are widespread around the world. If we get them in one area, it's likely they will have backup in another. And then there's the question of who's linked to whom; who's working for whom?

I think at present, hearing a quote like this shows no mercy upon us; so in essence, why should have mercy upon them? It seems they are very unlikely to ever give up on making us "pay" for our actions as the world's police.

I feel safe as a U.S. citizen because I have strong faith in our powers of govt. & military, but it's still very scary at the same time.

AlphaTech
Jun 10, 2002, 10:42 AM
Kill all them bastages... I've said all along that we should bomb the crap out of Afghanistan and put up a parking lot. Make it a testing site for nukes (from all countries) and let them deal with it. Or we could just send over wave after wave of bombers and carpet bomb the place...

"There used to be mountains in Afghanistan?"

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 10:45 AM
Here is my take on the matter.

We messed up in Afganistan. We should have gone in with a force the size of the one from Desert storm. We should have closed the countries boarders ourselves, and used our own troops, not Northern aliance to handle the problems there. Instead, we have another Vietnam where we are relying on the locals to do the fighting for the most part.

Now, how to fix it?

1st) Close our boarders. Sorry folks, especially to all the good people out there that want to come for a visit. See ya when we work out this little roach problem.

2nd) Go after them, the roaches, in huge numbers. Yemin, Saudi Arabia, Solmailia, anywhere they are known to be.

3rd) Give the military the funding they need to win this war, and actually declare a war. Screw the UN and their unconstitutional crap. Declare this a war.

4th) Do what we have to do to protect the welfare, security, and future of the US. Screw what the world thinks, and screw what any Arab country thinks. Take out Saddam, and you solve 90% of the problems. If they don't like it, then kick there A$$ too.

Fire away.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 10, 2002, 10:47 AM
Until something happens to increase the pressure on us, we should just continue the course we've set after 9/11.

this morning on the radio I heard about the newest warning.

possible nerve gas attack on the metro in DC on the 4th of July

I was expecting that the celebration on the Mall in DC on the 4th would be a likely target. There will be a lot of security, which might put a damper on the whole thing.

Bastards.

AlphaTech
Jun 10, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Take out Saddam, and you solve 90% of the problems. If they don't like it, then kick there A$$ too.

Fire away.

Small issue if we did take out that ******* Sadam... The people that would take over are worse then he is. It would cause more problems then it would solve. It would be far easier to just have several bombers 'accidentally' fly over wherever he is and drop their load. Get rid of the entire power structure over there. Then let Israel go in and mop things up. Give them the backing to do it right and be done with the matter. :D

eyelikeart
Jun 10, 2002, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
possible nerve gas attack on the metro in DC on the 4th of July


what a bunch of ********** cowards!!!

why not give up the pathetic fight and just go live your lives to actually do something constructive god damnit... :rolleyes:

Hemingray
Jun 10, 2002, 10:53 AM
So... I'm still scratching my head and wondering how the heck the "Macs and" part fits into this...

But while I'm here, I think we should all just sit back and sing "Kum-bay-ya" or however you spell it. But, since terrorists don't know what the word "peace" is or don't grasp the concept of the sanctity of life (ALL life), we have to do what we have to do to keep them in line. Whatever that is, so be it.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Until something happens to increase the pressure on us, we should just continue the course we've set after 9/11.

this morning on the radio I heard about the newest warning.

possible nerve gas attack on the metro in DC on the 4th of July

I was expecting that the celebration on the Mall in DC on the 4th would be a likely target. There will be a lot of security, which might put a damper on the whole thing.

Bastards.

I disagree. I think the initial structure of the Bush doctrine was dead on. Defined, and Accurate. It has been bastardized though be pressure from other countries that have their own agenda in the war. We need to stop listening to the whims of other countries that have not lost anything in this war. We need to take a 'first strike' response to the problem and deal with it effectively. Quit making new government bodies to solve the communication problems of current government bodies.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by AlphaTech


Small issue if we did take out that ******* Sadam... The people that would take over are worse then he is. It would cause more problems then it would solve. It would be far easier to just have several bombers 'accidentally' fly over wherever he is and drop their load. Get rid of the entire power structure over there. Then let Israel go in and mop things up. Give them the backing to do it right and be done with the matter. :D

Disagree big time with you on this. He is actually funding the terror attacts in Israel. He has known ties to Osama and he funded the 1st WTC attacks, and we think this one. No one is saying outside of the closed doors of the pentagon. His own intel people said he will have nukes in the next 5 years, and we are sitting on our A$$es because of what France, and Saudi Arabia think! Screw that. Time to lay the smacketh down!

Hemingray
Jun 10, 2002, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Quit making new government bodies to solve the communication problems of current government bodies.

I think the current new body being formed is ideal for the situation, since the threat is still very real. The CIA and FBI simply can't handle everything on their own during this period of change. Back during the depression we saw FDR create all of the "XYZ" agencies, like the "CCC" and "TVA" to help matters when the country needed direction. To me, this is essentially similar and a necessary action. We must be alert at all times, and if this helps facilitate that, I'm all for it.

AlphaTech
Jun 10, 2002, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Disagree big time with you on this. He is actually funding the terror attacts in Israel. He has known ties to Osama and he funded the 1st WTC attacks, and we think this one. No one is saying outside of the closed doors of the pentagon. His own intel people said he will have nukes in the next 5 years, and we are sitting on our A$$es because of what France, and Saudi Arabia think! Screw that. Time to lay the smacketh down!

What I was saying, is we can't just take out Sadam... we have to remove the power structure that is in place as well. Also we would have to take out the people that would fill the void left by him being gone. IF that is done, then it would all be good (from our side).

Level the cities, and leave the oil fields intact. Let another country that is friendly with the US take over what is left.

eyelikeart
Jun 10, 2002, 11:14 AM
I'd be way too concerned that if we did take any extreme measures against these people, of what we could possibly start...

nuclear weapons are such a threat to us as they are protection...

if we were to launch a nuclear attack...aside from the innocent lives lost, who woud retaliate upon us?

edesignuk
Jun 10, 2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by eyelikeart
nuclear weapons are such a threat to us as they are protection...

I have to say that I 100% agree with this.
As far as I can see starting any nuclear war is the begining of the end for the entire world, which really is something that we do not want to get into. The last thing we want is to end up in global nuclear war which is probably what would happen :(
Do NOT use nukes...pleeeeeease!

Mr. Anderson
Jun 10, 2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by verbose101
The last thing we want is to end up in global nuclear war which is probably what would happen :(
Do NOT use nukes...pleeeeeease!

we've got enough issues with India and Pakistan, we don't need to start with the terrorists. The problem is that if a bomb goes off anywhere in the world, it could be a terrorist attack, how would you know though?

Imagine if somehow Osama and crew managed to get a bomb inside Pakistan and it accidently went off? Everyone would think it was India and mass hysteria would follow.

None of this is good....

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 02:38 PM
Look, I am not advocating using nukes at ALL! I just think we have to change the focus and structure of the war itself. Don't factor in what other countries feel about the way we should defend our own borders. The French don't want us going after Iraq. Well, wonder how they would feel, had the planes on 9/11 gone into the Eiffel Tower. Wonder how they would think then.

Point is, we are *****footing around with the war, by letting these other countries tell us how to conduct our war.

eyelikeart
Jun 10, 2002, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Point is, we are *****footing around with the war, by letting these other countries tell us how to conduct our war.

this is true...but in reality...they can orchestrate us to a degree...

with threats such as July 4 in DC for example...of course we are going to react, but we have to do so with the right amount of finesse as not to piss them off enough to screw us...

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by eyelikeart


this is true...but in reality...they can orchestrate us to a degree...

with threats such as July 4 in DC for example...of course we are going to react, but we have to do so with the right amount of finesse as not to piss them off enough to screw us...

Yes and no. Seriously. What will France do if we go after Saddam? What if we did use a tactical nuke in Afghanistan? Who would really stop us, and what could they do about it?

The Bender
Jun 10, 2002, 03:06 PM
If only it were all really so simple to solve our problems. Here in Jerusalem, we have come to a point where even the taxi drivers don't have an opinion on how to act any more. Imagine that. That's a true sign of desperation in a population.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by The Bender
If only it were all really so simple to solve our problems. Here in Jerusalem, we have come to a point where even the taxi drivers don't have an opinion on how to act any more. Imagine that. That's a true sign of desperation in a population.

Yes, it is that simple. One of my best friends here is from Israel, and cannot believe that Sharron has not gone further than he has. The point being that when you are in school if someone threatens you, you kick there a$$. If you don't then you spend the rest of your school year defending yourself from the goon. So, that being said. Kick A$$ and take names. Make them fear us.

The Bender
Jun 10, 2002, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Yes, it is that simple. One of my best friends here is from Israel, and cannot believe that Sharron has not gone further than he has. The point being that when you are in school if someone threatens you, you kick there a$$. If you don't then you spend the rest of your school year defending yourself from the goon. So, that being said. Kick A$$ and take names. Make them fear us.

That's cute, but it's not a matter of kicking someone's a$$. The harder you kick someone's a$$, the more they will make sure they turn around and kick yours back later. Jews know that better than anyone.

Problem is, when you start removing checks and balances, and stop listening to what the rest of the world is telling you, it begins to get difficult to tell who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. That's how your neighbours down there in Alabama ended up lynching blacks for sport so long after the rest of us held our heads down with shame.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by The Bender


That's cute, but it's not a matter of kicking someone's a$$. The harder you kick someone's a$$, the more they will make sure they turn around and kick yours back later. Jews know that better than anyone.

Bender, I have to disagree with you here. Israel kick A$$ back in 67, and since then has not gone after the problem. You have to root out the problem at the source, and then keep the problem from growning back. How? PR my man, PR. Same with us, this is a game that we are going to have to play with the world as well. Now, should we be going after the Saudi's. Hell yea we should. That is the point. We are picking and choosing the definition of a terrorist to make other countries happy. Europe did not want Arafat labeled a terrorist, and you know what he is. He and the Islamic Jihad, and the PLO, and Hamas. They are all in bed together and funded by the Saudi's and the Iraq's.

The Bender
Jun 10, 2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Bender, I have to disagree with you here. Israel kick A$$ back in 67, and since then has not gone after the problem. You have to root out the problem at the source, and then keep the problem from growning back. How? PR my man, PR. Same with us, this is a game that we are going to have to play with the world as well. Now, should we be going after the Saudi's. Hell yea we should. That is the point. We are picking and choosing the definition of a terrorist to make other countries happy. Europe did not want Arafat labeled a terrorist, and you know what he is. He and the Islamic Jihad, and the PLO, and Hamas. They are all in bed together and funded by the Saudi's and the Iraq's.

What you are describing is not a solution, only a method of control. You keep beating them down to make sure they don't get up. This doesn't make peace, and it doesn't stop them getting to you once in a while. And one day they will get strong - they always do.

But I will agree with you on one thing: That is probably the best strategy we have at the moment. What's important is that we see this approach for the violent obscenity that it is. And when the time comes, we have the courage to stop killing and start build bridges.

Bedtime now. Be interesting to read what you have to say tomorrow morning!

Just one small correction: most of the funding for Palestinian terrorism comes from Iran, Syria, the EU (money diverted from humanitarian projects) and the US (fundraising). That also makes me think of something else: Most of the money that funded the IRA came from fundraising in the US, with the full knowledge of the government. I say: "If you support terrorism, you are a terrorist"!

eyelikeart
Jun 10, 2002, 03:45 PM
I don't think there is a real answer with it. Anything we do as a nation, as a protector is always going to be scrutinized by some group who disagrees. We'll always be a target as long as we are who we are. I wish I could foresee a world where we didn't have these factors affecting our future, but unfortunately technology has brought it upon us.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by The Bender


What you are describing is not a solution, only a method of control. You keep beating them down to make sure they don't get up. This doesn't make peace, and it doesn't stop them getting to you once in a while. And one day they will get strong - they always do.

But I will agree with you on one thing: That is probably the best strategy we have at the moment. What's important is that we see this approach for the violent obscenity that it is. And when the time comes, we have the courage to stop killing and start build bridges.

Bedtime now. Be interesting to read what you have to say tomorrow morning!

Just one small correction: most of the funding for Palestinian terrorism comes from Iran, Syria, the EU (money diverted from humanitarian projects) and the US (fundraising). That also makes me think of something else: Most of the money that funded the IRA came from fundraising in the US, with the full knowledge of the government. I say: "If you support terrorism, you are a terrorist"!

I have to agree that it is a method to the madness. I think the ultimate goal is to get rid of the radicals to the point that those that are left have no choice gut to negotiate. Now, that being said, the way to make them stop is for them to fear you above all else. They will not fear though, that is the entire problem. So those that choose to make war, get terminated. Period. Anyone doesn't like it, tell them to take a leap. Now, sooner or later, they will realize that they cannot defeat you, and then you have won.

As it is now, they believe that they can make the US and Israel do as they want through terror, and it will not work, nor will it ever work. Detonate an atomic bomb here, or use biological weapons here. And we can prove that someone did it.

If that ever happens, and you know someone in that country. You might want to call them and tell them goodbye, because they will be glowing for the next 10,000 years.

Taft
Jun 10, 2002, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Bender, I have to disagree with you here. Israel kick A$$ back in 67, and since then has not gone after the problem. You have to root out the problem at the source, and then keep the problem from growning back. How? PR my man, PR. Same with us, this is a game that we are going to have to play with the world as well. Now, should we be going after the Saudi's. Hell yea we should. That is the point. We are picking and choosing the definition of a terrorist to make other countries happy. Europe did not want Arafat labeled a terrorist, and you know what he is. He and the Islamic Jihad, and the PLO, and Hamas. They are all in bed together and funded by the Saudi's and the Iraq's.

I disagree big time with almost everything you've said on this thread so far.

First, there are *many* reasons that we have not gone after Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other known terrorist countries. Other countries do factor into this. But the American people do as well. Not eveyone in this country thinks that an aggressive attack on Iraq is a good idea. Also, the greedy interests of people and groups within our own government prevent us from going after some countries. I am convinced that Saudi Arabia is only our ally because we have a vested interest in their oil.

Second, other coutries *do* have concerns about terrorists. This "war" is not only our own. Terrorists have commited horrible crimes in European countries for decades, including Italy (Rome/Catholic church = prime target), Spain and Great Britan. Terror is a fact world wide and has been for a long time. We have only just recently tasted it in this country. Before 9/11 we were one of the few countries without major acts of foreign terrorism committed on our soil. Now many Americans are treating this as though we are the only people in the world that terrorism effects. Many people in foreign countries have been living with the fear of terrorism for years.

Third, your lack of concern for the other peoples in this world is nothing short of alarming. I know we are all rattled by these terrorist threats against us. Its scary. Especially for those living in the cities of the US. But to say, "******* the rest of the world!!! We're scared, we'll violate every international agreement, hurt anyone and anything as long as it makes *us* safe." That is just lunacy. The people of other countries are just as entitled to living their lives without a huge foreign government tearing their world apart as we are living in peace without the threat of terrorism.

Finally, "war" is not the proper term for what we are currently dealing with. Who are we fighting?? We are fighting a loose band of unidentified men from many different countries. As you have said, not all of them are from Afganistan. The very nature of these evil and cowardly men makes our current fight very different from any war ever fought. They do not have any borders. They do not have an army. They are simply a loose band of evil nut-jobs who want us dead. Timothy McViegh (sp?) wanted the government dead as well. He was dealt with in accordance to our laws and practices. There are many more like him in our very own country. Terror does not end with Al Qiada.

We need to fight these evil men with methods not employed in previous wars. We are *not* fighting a war. We must use diplomacy to get other nations to help us fight terror. We must have their cooperation to vanquish terror. Without their help we don't stand a chance in keeping informed about potential terrorist's locations and activities. The only alternative to cooperation is to invade and control EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH--an act that not only violates other countries right to exist but is also an activity that breeds resentment of the US and spawns the terrorists of the future. How do you think that the terrorists of today were created?? Well for a variety of reasons. One such reason is that the US has dealt horribly with foreign nations in the past. In the past, we have acted with only our interests in mind and have created some bitter enemies in the process. This does not justify terrorists' actions, but maybe it should figure into how we deal with foreign countries and their problems in the future.

We must use force to apprehend and eliminate those who are trying to hurt us. We must use intelligence agencies to collect information about our would-be killers and thwart their plots against us. Intelligent use of force is necessary when dealing with those who would try to hurt us. But sweeping military actions may not be the smartest and most effective move.

But none of this indicates a need to throw out our civil liberties or the rights of other countries or peoples of this world. The world is dangerous and full of crazy and dangerous people--foreign people and nationals. We need to come to terms with this as other countries who have dealt with terrorism for years have. We need to fight these murderers with vigor and perserverance but with an understanding that 9/11 shouldn't have changed how we view civil rights. Our rights are precious. Life is precious. *All* life is precious not just our own.

We must remember that our lives are no more precious than those of foreign peoples. That our rights do not supercede theirs. Forgetting that violates what our republic stands for: democracy and the right for its people to be free.

Taft

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 04:31 PM
Taft, I am not going to quote you here, but you have missed a big portion of what I am saying here.

1st) Yea, with all due respect to the clones walking around here in the US. Do you really trust and uninformed public to decide the actions of the government? But, if you do, over 70% of the people in the latest gallop poll support going into Iraq. Hell, even Gephart does. So, yea, go, and screw the backlash.

2nd) I understand that other countries have a vested interest in the war on terror. But we are defending our borders. We should not consult France and get permission to go after Iraq, neither Egypt, or any other country. Matters of national secutiry, are our governments concern, not Spains. Now should we all work together, yes, hell yes. But should we change the doctrine that is laid out to make another country happy? No, we should not.

3rd) I do have concern for the rest of the world. Look, reality is that unless Osama or someone like him goes "Sum of All fears style" and sneaks in a nuke, no one but Russia can reach us with one. The concern is that they will use them elsewhere. I don't want to see one innocent die. If by international treaties, you are talking about the UN, then guess what it is unconstitutional, and should be done away with. We should get the hell out of the UN and focus our efforts elsewhere.

4th) Actually, Taft, yes we are fighting a war. We actually declared war on a band of merry men like Osama before, and they were called the Barbary Pirates. We have done it before. Why did we not do it now? Because the UN forbids us to declare war. How screwed up is that. We cannot declare war because an unconstitutional document keeps us from doing so. Man, that is real smart.

Oh, one more thing. You are right. We need to fight this unlike any previous war. Why then is it being executed just like Vietnam?

mischief
Jun 10, 2002, 04:43 PM
B2TM is a southerner and a Hawk. He doesn't see beyond the simplified view he's created out of fear. The reason I haven't commented on this tread before is that it's rhetorical. B2TM wasn't looking for a discussion, just a mob for the international witch-hunt in progress he's feeling guilty about supporting. There is no reasoning with Zealots.

B2TM: You should be ashamed of yourself. You're spewing the same filth that Bin Laden is but you don't have the excuse of being a power-mad rich kid among the world's poorest and most vulnerable minds. You're a smart guy. Stop and look at the issue from as many sides as you can. Terrorism isn't just the product of Bin Laden and his ilk sellectively editing an Al Qaida version of Islam, it's a product of centuries of oppression. The West has had little concern for any of this oppression except when it helped make $$$....... then it was just fine.........

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by mischief
B2TM is a southerner and a Hawk. He doesn't see beyond the simplified view he's created out of fear. The reason I haven't commented on this tread before is that it's rhetorical. B2TM wasn't looking for a discussion, just a mob for the international witch-hunt in progress he's feeling guilty about supporting. There is no reasoning with Zealots.

B2TM: You should be ashamed of yourself. You're spewing the same filth that Bin Laden is but you don't have the excuse of being a power-mad rich kid among the world's poorest and most vulnerable minds. You're a smart guy. Stop and look at the issue from as many sides as you can. Terrorism isn't just the product of Bin Laden and his ilk sellectively editing an Al Qaida version of Islam, it's a product of centuries of oppression. The West has had little concern for any of this oppression except when it helped make $$$....... then it was just fine.........

Yes, I am a southerner and a Hawk, however that is not the topic of this. I am not part of an international witch-hunt. The fact is that we have been attacked. The countries that we have delt with have oppressed their own people. It has not been oppression by this country, but by there own. Sorry if you think that my opinion of war is different than yours, but the fact is that these people want to kill my family. Period. Yours, and every other Americans out there. If they had the ability, they would do it. If you think otherwise you are mistaken. So, how do you deal with that threat. I pose that question to you for a legitimate response. How do you deal with it?

mischief
Jun 10, 2002, 06:28 PM
There is a solution that doesn't involve massive carnage but it's too simple.

Laugh at them. If Al Qaida's a joke how can they recruit? We must make the stupidity of their actions obvious in the plainest way possible. Keep kill counts on the news, not the usual Jerusalem style 1 sided counts but a real measure. Keep tallies of Al Quaida members killed by their own stupidity, villagers massacred locally, all the stuff they're trying to keep quiet.

Basically I feel that a real PR war will do far more than Millitary action, particularly if we then send in a relatively neutral country like Australia or Canada to build roads and schools, monitor Human Rights and distribute simple cameras, the kind that you mail in for developing. Lets capture what's really going on out there.

The best use of the Millitary is the leaflets. Better to get into their heads than to bomb their villages. If Al Quaida can't convince the locals that they're any better than the Infidels how can they recruit?

Better yet: Let's send the Japanese to teach History to these folks, if anybody could tell you exactly what's been going on it's them. They know the folley of teasing the guy with the Rail Gun.

In short: Violence will only make more potential recruits, period.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 06:38 PM
In a Utopia that would work, but in the real world mischief, they would kill the people coming in on site. Remember in Afghanistan that was tried by the UN, and their missionaries were imprisoned. Think about reality here, and then you will see that you cannot reason with those who are illogical. They will not listen to reason. They do not want roads, or women to vote, or have a voice. They want to oppress their society through every means available. We have not harmed them, but they have harmed themselves. Look at Arafat back when Clinton was in office, he had 95% of what he wanted, and still would not do it. Why, because he wants Israel gone. Why does Al Qaeda hate us so much? Because we support Israel. Now that being said you still have not told me how I should respond to someone who threatens to kill 4 million of my countrymen, and 1 million of the children here. What else would a logical person do than say, "take them out before they can take us out?"

Mr. Anderson
Jun 10, 2002, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by mischief

The best use of the Millitary is the leaflets. Better to get into their heads than to bomb their villages. If Al Quaida can't convince the locals that they're any better than the Infidels how can they recruit?

In short: Violence will only make more potential recruits, period.

I agree and disagree. Leaflets are pretty much a waste on illiterates, which is what a lot of the these people are. Add to that the fact that we are dealing with a different culture that doesn't think like we do, reasoning doesn't always work because of their close mindedness. What might work on you and me, rational explanations, won't work on them. They are so use to propaganda that any thing we show them is going to be met with suspicion.

Violence from us will only make things worse if we can't move on to a better solution.

What we need to do is educate them, by what ever means. It won't be easy and not everyone will be willing to learn the truth, or for that matter want to know the truth. We can educate the individuals who have an open mind, know how to read and are willing to listen. It will end up being their job to pass this on to all the other people. It could take more than a couple generations, that's what you have to realize. Until then, the threat won't ever dissapear. Not a happy thought.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 06:40 PM
Ok, I've been laying low on the boards for a while and watching everything unfold, so it's time to come on back and let the flames ensue!

First, I'd like to CONGRATULATE Mischief and Taft for taking what is, in both the current political and topical climate, a rather brave stance. It's also the right one, imho.

Second, at the risk of offending someone (B2TM) whom I've grown to respect and admire, I'd like to observe that not all southerners are hawks. I'm from Montgomery, AL, and I'm far from it in this situation.

Finally, and here's where the offending begins, I'd like to say that it's irresponsible, foolish, infantile, and downright cowardly to advocate such a path as B2TM and Alpha have suggested. What sort of a world do we live in where the only distinction drawn between types of wrong (a disgusting concept in and of itself) is the announcement of force. How are we any better than the Al Qaeda militants that we are hoping to crucify if we advocate this course of action? What makes us any better? Is it because we will announce our intention to bomb a nation back to the stone age? I know that gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling deep down in my moral center. Or perhaps because we are simply reacting? Did you guys skip that day in kindergarten where the rest of us learned that just because someone hits you you shouldn't hit them back? Seriously, let's be adults here. I am disgusted at the peurile rhetoric that you guys are spewing. It's honestly turning my stomach to see such a well educated and intelligent person as B2TM reacting in such a disingenuous fashion. I WILL post more on this topic, rest assured. For now, though, this will do.

Again, to Taft and Mischief, and Duke's most recent post, thank you. You guys are RIGHT ON in you rational handling of this situation.

To the rest of you, I am saddened and disgusted.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker
To the rest of you, I am saddened and disgusted.

OK let me clarify this real quick. I am not advocating nuking the said countries or peoples. What I am advocating is carrying out the doctrine that Bush laid out. You are with us or against us. You are either peaceful and productive, or a terrorist. It doesn't matter where you hide, we will come and find you. Period. Since the speech before Congress we have fallen into a quagmire of political rangling with both ourselves and other countries. That is what I am disgusted with.

How can we advocate trying logic with those that are illogical. They only understand force. By this I am not saying all Muslims, but those few radicals. That is the point that I am making. And wsteineker, rest assure, that it is kill them before they kill us. I don't want it that way. I want peace, as do the people in this country and others but the fact it that if we lay down, and try to talk to them. There will be hundreds of 9/11's and that is a fact.

How do you stop a terrorist. Kill him before he kills you. That is a fact. Show me a better way. Please, I can't wait to hear it.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
How can we advocate trying logic with those that are illogical.

Is it fair to assume that this rule also applies to war hawk republicans who would blindly follow our Lemming in Chief George W. Bush right off a cliff? If it is, then I probably shouldn't even try to explain myself for fear of using the wrong tool on the wrong job. I don't pretend for one moment to be able to change your mind, buddy. I wish that I could, but I know that I can't. Let me eat dinner and I'll respond fully.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker


Is it fair to assume that this rule also applies to war hawk republicans who would blindly follow our Lemming in Chief George W. Bush right off a cliff? If it is, then I probably shouldn't even try to explain myself for fear of using the wrong tool on the wrong job. I don't pretend for one moment to be able to change your mind, buddy. I wish that I could, but I know that I can't. Let me eat dinner and I'll respond fully.

Please, you have to have more intelligence than that. Do you really believe that if Gore was in Office, that we would have had a different initial response?

You still have not shown me how to rationalize with a terrorist. Figure that out, and you will have the true meaning of life.

Eliot
Jun 10, 2002, 07:23 PM
While I don't advocate nuclear war on all and sundry(these things have a way of getting a "little" out of hand), I note with continued distaste that France has kept its old habit of being pro-distasteful regimes, only to pick up lucrative contracts when the fur stops flying.
The USA has a right to protect ITSELF......now you guys just have to work out what THAT means, without reference to the demands of the French etc. Just remember that you'll have to live with the consequences. There are no good horsemen left after an apocalypse.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Please, you have to have more intelligence than that. Do you really believe that if Gore was in Office, that we would have had a different initial response?

You still have not shown me how to rationalize with a terrorist. Figure that out, and you will have the true meaning of life.

First, I'd like to point out that I never said anything about Gore. Yeah, I voted for him, but that's not what's at issue. Don't stray from the topic.

Second, who says we have to rationalize with terrorists? Why not take the middle path and avoid them altogether. Not saying we can do it every time, but we can sure as hell minimize the problem. Take a few political science classes at the University (they're over in Ten Hoor), and you'll learn that terrorist organizations of this nature can't be wiped out. Nuke every country that you think responsible if you like, but you'll still have terrorists lining up to ascend to the head of an organization such as Al Queda. What we NEED to do is stop chasing wild geese half a world away and focus on good intelligence (something that Bush has shown himself very bad at) and domestic readiness (a little better here). Educate the AMERICAN people. Teach them how to react, what to do in situations such as we are now faced with. Like we did with nuclear drills after WWII. I hate to say it, but we are simply growing up as a nation. Ask the British, Irish, Israelis, French, and the other developed nations that deal with terrorism on a daily basis. It's ignorant and presumptive to ever think that we can stamp this out. It simply won't happen. Avoidance is probably the smartest course of action. Put up the spurs and six shooter, and stop with the cowboy *********. Try to avoid actively pissing off other nations. Do our homework, both as a government and as a populace. If I need to explain further, I will.

Durandal7
Jun 10, 2002, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker
Second, who says we have to rationalize with terrorists? Why not take the middle path and avoid them altogether. Not saying we can do it every time, but we can sure as hell minimize the problem.

Just how do you avoid them? The very fact that we are primarily Christians seems to infuriate these groups. The only way to avoid them would be to renounce all religion in the country and not intervene in any wars. Of course then they would be angry because we weren't intervening on their behalf. You have to learn that in their minds we are either "with them or against them."

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 08:21 PM
First off, my major at Alabama was Political Science. I have over 60 hours of poli science at the undergraduate and graduate level, so let me teach you a thing or two. First, you cannot ignore terror. If you you do, 9/11 will be your outcome. The problem is not Bush, but all of the Burocrats in our government. I am not advocating nuclear war on anyone. I am advocating a Doctrine that the president proclamed to the world.

Now, please don't tell me that you would advocate terror drills similar to the nuclear drills of the 50's. Yea, stop, crouch next to a brick wall and cover your head. Yea, that will protect you from that 50 MT soviet nuke. Real intelligent. Hey, here is a drill for you. When you work on the 98th floor of a high rise, and you see a plane coming with Mohamad at the helm, stick you head between you legs and kiss your A$$ goodbye. There is your drill.

The only way to combat a terrorist is to make him a dead terrorist. Period, there is no other way to do it. You cannot stomp out terror, you have to make them realize through force, that they will not succeed in beating you. You have to beat them at their own game.

To think anything less is insane.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by asurace


Just how do you avoid them? The very fact that we are primarily Christians seems to infuriate these groups. The only way to avoid them would be to renounce all religion in the country and not intervene in any wars.

I think you're missing the bigger picture with this one, man. It's only partly a religious issue. If religion is so important, why aren't these guys flying 737s into downtown Mexico City, capital of one of the largest "Christian" countries in the world. The problem that most of these groups have with us is our gluttony, wastefulness, and self importance as a nation. We as a nation have a nasty habit of marching into whatever backwater burg we please and forcing our will on the locals. It's called cultural imperialism, and it's generally frowned upon. That's what pisses these guys off, and I think anyone can understand why.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker


I think you're missing the bigger picture with this one, man. It's only partly a religious issue. If religion is so important, why aren't these guys flying 737s into downtown Mexico City, capital of one of the largest "Christian" countries in the world. The problem that most of these groups have with us is our gluttony, wastefulness, and self importance as a nation. We as a nation have a nasty habit of marching into whatever backwater burg we please and forcing our will on the locals. It's called cultural imperialism, and it's generally frowned upon. That's what pisses these guys off, and I think anyone can understand why.

Now, you are missing the much larger picture. See, this has nothing to do with our gluttony, wastefulness, and self importance. That is none of their friggin buisness even if true. We are not, nor have we ever been an imperialistic nation. We have fought where needed. We have never occupied territory in the Middle east. The radicals have a perceived ideal of the US that is nothing more than propaganda. They don't go after Mexico, because what would that prove. We don't judge them based on their 2nd tier status. Why should they have the right to judge us? They don't. They hate us because of our support of Israel. If we did not support Israel, we would not have the problems of terror.. This is political. War is a method to settle political disputes. They declared the war, and by God we should finish it.

Just to let you know. I am both a Political Scientist and military historian. If you come to the table with inaccurate data, it is going to get shot down.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
First off, my major at Alabama was Political Science. I have over 60 hours of poli science at the undergraduate and graduate level, so let me teach you a thing or two. First, you cannot ignore terror. If you you do, 9/11 will be your outcome. The problem is not Bush, but all of the Burocrats in our government. I am not advocating nuclear war on anyone. I am advocating a Doctrine that the president proclamed to the world.

Now, please don't tell me that you would advocate terror drills similar to the nuclear drills of the 50's. Yea, stop, crouch next to a brick wall and cover your head. Yea, that will protect you from that 50 MT soviet nuke. Real intelligent. Hey, here is a drill for you. When you work on the 98th floor of a high rise, and you see a plane coming with Mohamad at the helm, stick you head between you legs and kiss your A$$ goodbye. There is your drill.

The only way to combat a terrorist is to make him a dead terrorist. Period, there is no other way to do it. You cannot stomp out terror, you have to make them realize through force, that they will not succeed in beating you. You have to beat them at their own game.

To think anything less is insane.

Sorry for the quote format, but I'm not exactly fluent in these matters.

I too have quite a bit of time logged in political science classrooms. Take my 66 hours of classroom time, add it to study abroad at the University of Bologna, tack on 4 policy internships, then throw in time at both the USAF academy policy conference and the Kennedy School for Government (Harvard) world policy summit. Add to that my Oxford/Johns Hopkins/Harvard educated poli sci professor, and I think you'll quickly see that I'm not exactly out of my element here.

Ignoring terror is neither what I suggested nor what we did prior to 9/11. We ignored intelligence, good intelligence, and it bit us in the ass. Plain and simple. I said avoid terror, not ignore it. Read more carefully next time.

I don't advocate terror drills, either. I advocate education of how to handle yourself in the wake of, say, a dirty nuke attack. I'm sure you know that these operate just like regular bombs but spread radioactive debris over their field. Usually Cesium. It's not a "nuke" in the traditional sense, and shouldn't be dealt with in such a manner. Teach moms not to run in after kids, thus contaminating themselves. Teach people not to flee to the suburbs, thus contaminating others. Teach our citizenry that this sort of radiation can be contained and cleaned up instead of proffering fear and promises to get the bastards, wherever they may be.

And I'm not saying don't go after terrorists, either. What I AM saying is that it's fairly obvious that the US Army is pretty bad at doing it. How many guys did we throw at Afghanistan, only to lose Mullah Omar and bin Ladin? Seriously, use small, tactical units operating on g=solid intel. Deploy them repidly from, say, Seawolf class subs in the Persian gulf. Or from Carriers in the Med. Or from Aviano or Turkey. But don't just put the 2nd Army out in broad daylight. It doesn't work. We have to be SMART. You said that we have to beat them at their own game, and you're right. But last time I check, terrorists didn't fight the same way we did. Clinton was spot on when he said that guerilla and urban warfare fought by a smaller, highly mobile and well trained force was the future of military conflict. Let's stop using these 50 year old models and get with the 21stt century.

We can't just go John Wayne on terror. It won't work, and someone as smart as yourself must surely see that. We have to listen, plan, strike quickly, and most importantly, educate ourselves. Only then will we ba able to deal with what will always be an issue, be it large or small.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 09:03 PM
Ok, not going all resume here, but how in the hell are you old enough at 22 to have done all of that? I am lacking 15 hours on my Masters in Political Science, and still have both of my undergraduate degrees. If you re-read the posts you will see that I advocate not making the mistakes of the Vietnam era by letting other military personel fighting our battle. Now that being said. You were advocating nuke drill like the ones in the cold war. I was alive during the cold war. I remember a lot of it. Now that being said, you should understand that the problem is the failure of the intel community. Having worked at the CIA, I can say that there are problems in the communicating of agencies in our government. That is all I will say about that. I have never, in over 1000 posts brought that up. I have hinted at it, but never said it. Now, your idea of LIF fighting the battle. That is what we did in Afghanistan. It did not work. There is nothing wrong with a good ole 7'2 350 gorrila of an army going in and doing a job. Afghanistan was a success in the sense that the Taliban fell, but Bin Laden is still out there as far as we know.

Open you mind. Understand that liberal Political Science professors are not absoute in their opinion. Live a little. Have a 4 year old daughter, and see if you change your viewpoint. Have a friend from Israel that served their Amry that has had friends shot and killed in front of him. Have a family member killed in 9/11, or a friend.

They spew propaganda at us, they try to kill us. They want to kill us. So, therefore, kill them first. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Oh, and if they ever did come here. I would be the 1st one to step up and send them straight to hell to protect you. Would you do the same, or try to talk your way out of it? Ponder that?

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Now, you are missing the much larger picture. See, this has nothing to do with our gluttony, wastefulness, and self importance. That is none of their friggin buisness even if true. We are not, nor have we ever been an imperialistic nation. We have fought where needed. We have never occupied territory in the Middle east. The radicals have a perceived ideal of the US that is nothing more than propaganda. They don't go after Mexico, because what would that prove. We don't judge them based on their 2nd tier status. Why should they have the right to judge us? They don't. They hate us because of our support of Israel. If we did not support Israel, we would not have the problems of terror.. This is political. War is a method to settle political disputes. They declared the war, and by God we should finish it.

Just to let you know. I am both a Political Scientist and military historian. If you come to the table with inaccurate data, it is going to get shot down.

Don't be so condescending. It doesn't suit you. ;)

It has EVERYTHING to do with our wastefulness and cultural imperialism, really. And to say we aren't guilty is to turn a blind eye to Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, and Somalia. Don't kid yourself, man. You know better. I never said that we were military imperialists. We aren't. We don't occupy nations. We just march in, give them a US approved president, and continue on our merry way. We tell these nations how to run themselves, and then we act shocked when they don't like us too much. And to say that it's none of their business is absurd. If what they do is our business, so much so that we have policy committees set up to deal with it, then what we do is most definitely their business. You have to play by the rules here.

And if you don't like the Mexico analogy, I'll give you another. Why not fly a plane into, say, The center of Rome. Italy's pretty top tier. Wouldn't you agree?

Israel is an issue, agreed. I honestly think Truman made a HUGE mistake when, despite the advice of every cabinet member and his closest advisors, he made the religious decision to support Israel instead of the Palestinian nations. We've been paying for it ever since.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 10, 2002, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker
I think you're missing the bigger picture with this one, man. It's only partly a religious issue. If religion is so important, why aren't these guys flying 737s into downtown Mexico City, capital of one of the largest "Christian" countries in the world. The problem that most of these groups have with us is our gluttony, wastefulness, and self importance as a nation. We as a nation have a nasty habit of marching into whatever backwater burg we please and forcing our will on the locals. It's called cultural imperialism, and it's generally frowned upon. That's what pisses these guys off, and I think anyone can understand why.

i pretty much totally agree with you on this ****e.

that said, i do think some military action is needed and often inevitable, with the types of people that hate us.

but hmm. not sure the best way. someone smart has to figure that part out for me.

Durandal7
Jun 10, 2002, 09:13 PM
Liberal crap gives me a stomach-ache, Conservative crap gives me a head-ache.

Right now I have both so I'm just going to ingore this thread.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 10, 2002, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by asurace
Liberal crap gives me a stomach-ache, Conservative crap gives me a head-ache.

Right now I have both so I'm just going to ingore this thread.

yeah, i hear that.

go nader! oh wait, i guess he's liberal...... but not corporate owned. that's neither here nor there.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker

Don't be so condescending. It doesn't suit you. ;)
It has EVERYTHING to do with our wastefulness and cultural imperialism, really. And to say we aren't guilty is to turn a blind eye to Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, and Somalia. Don't kid yourself, man. You know better. I never said that we were military imperialists. We aren't. We don't occupy nations. We just march in, give them a US approved president, and continue on our merry way. We tell these nations how to run themselves, and then we act shocked when they don't like us too much. And to say that it's none of their business is absurd. If what they do is our business, so much so that we have policy committees set up to deal with it, then what we do is most definitely their business. You have to play by the rules here.
Israel is an issue, agreed. I honestly think Truman made a HUGE mistake when, despite the advice of every cabinet member and his closest advisors, he made the religious decision to support Israel instead of the Palestinian nations. We've been paying for it ever since.

OMG. Two of the battles that you quote are to stop the spread of communism. The only way to win the cold war was to stop the spread of it. PERIOD. That was not a party issue, but a common sense issue. Now, Panama. Let see get a drug lord, etc, etc. Now, I am not kidding myself. Name one country in the middle east that we, we, went marching into and laid down an America President. One, I friggin dare you. You cannot. How we live as citizens in this country is none of their buisness. It is our buisness that they are ploting to kill our citizens, our children our neighbors, ourselves. I don't care how they live there lives, as long as they don't try to end mine, or my countrymen. That is the end of the line for me. The issue of Israel is at best hindsight. We had an obligation to the Jews after WWII to assist them in forming Israel. We, the world, basically formed Israel. Now, they are our friend, and we will defend them. There is no need, because they could mop the floor over there. Point is. You are very mislead my young Padawan, and you have much to learn about the real nature of the world.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:26 PM
To answer your first question, I entered college just after my 17th birthday and I attend full time, year round. I pull 18 extra hours every summer, so that's 48 a year. Kennedy and Colorado Springs are conferences that I'm a member of, and internships are done between classes and at night. I have already completed a degree in international relations and political theory, and I'm currently working on a marketing degree.

I disagree that the problem was in the intel community. Bot FBI and CIA whistleblowers have, since 9/11, come forward and openly admitted that we had firm knowledge that something was going to happen here, but that the administration didn't give it a look. See

this series of Slate articles (http://http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066745&device=) if you don't believe me.

And I didn't say LIF needed to do the dirty work. I'm talking much smaller than that. Strike teams and undercover agents need to be responsible for this work, not a uniformed brigade.

Believe me, I sympathize with your desire to protect your family. I've seen pictures of them, and It's my opinion that you're quite lucky to have such a beautiful family. But why should we go in shooting, risking the live of, say, Afghani families either? I don't think our lives are worth any more than theirs. I do have friends in both the US and Israeli armies, active and retired, and I understand their positions. I admire and respect them. Theirs is a difficult and thankless job. That said, they're not the ones making the decisions. That dubious honor belongs to policy makers in Washington, and they are the problem here.

And finally, I don't take what my "liberal poli sci professors" say as gospel. I have thought and studied long and hard to come to these conclusions, and I wish that you would at least respect that, even if you can't agree with what I'm saying.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

yeah, i hear that.

go nader! oh wait, i guess he's liberal...... but not corporate owned. that's neither here nor there.

Heh. Fair enough, I guess.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 09:34 PM
You missunderstand. That is exactly what I am saying. Follow the doctrine. If you don't use a 500lbs gorilla, at least follow the Doctrine. The FBI and CIA are the problem. Field agents pass on data, and it goes nowhere. I know. I have done it myself before. I do respect you opinion, and as I have said elsewhere, I will defend you opinion to my dying breath. I don't doubt your ability, nor knowledge. Hey you know what an LIF is. ;) Now that being said. I do not advocate nukes. I do advocate a progressive stance that would attack the source. And yes, we do need a PR campaign.

Covert opps and strikes are the key to this type of operation. Give them columbian neckties in their sleep. The problem is we don't look like them, talk like them or anything like that that would allow us to operate in that fashion. So, you have to find another alternative. Intel will be key, but the agencies have to work together, which they have not. Share data. Work in the FBI or CIA and you will understand that this is a real problem.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

OMG. Two of the battles that you quote are to stop the spread of communism. The only way to win the cold war was to stop the spread of it. PERIOD. That was not a party issue, but a common sense issue. Now, Panama. Let see get a drug lord, etc, etc. Now, I am not kidding myself. Name one country in the middle east that we, we, went marching into and laid down an America President. One, I friggin dare you. You cannot. How we live as citizens in this country is none of their buisness. It is our buisness that they are ploting to kill our citizens, our children our neighbors, ourselves. I don't care how they live there lives, as long as they don't try to end mine, or my countrymen. That is the end of the line for me. The issue of Israel is at best hindsight. We had an obligation to the Jews after WWII to assist them in forming Israel. We, the world, basically formed Israel. Now, they are our friend, and we will defend them. There is no need, because they could mop the floor over there. Point is. You are very mislead my young Padawan, and you have much to learn about the real nature of the world.

OK, fist I'd like to observe that we didn't win EITHER of those conflicts, yet we somehow managed to "win" the cold war. Funny, isn't it, how what couldn't be accomplished militarily was resolved economically?

Second, Iran. You remember the Shah, right?

Third, I've never said that we should do nothing. I'm just saying that two wrongs don't make a right. What I have advocated is a smart, balanced approach. Discretion is key in this situation. Bush needs to realize that owning a ranch doesn't make you a cowboy. Even if it did, being president should certainly require a better mode of attack than "go in shooting".

P.S.- I am now a regular! And it only took 11 months...

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You missunderstand. That is exactly what I am saying. Follow the doctrine. If you don't use a 500lbs gorilla, at least follow the Doctrine. The FBI and CIA are the problem. Field agents pass on data, and it goes nowhere. I know. I have done it myself before. I do respect you opinion, and as I have said elsewhere, I will defend you opinion to my dying breath. I don't doubt your ability, nor knowledge. Hey you know what an LIF is. ;) Now that being said. I do not advocate nukes. I do advocate a progressive stance that would attack the source. And yes, we do need a PR campaign.

Covert opps and strikes are the key to this type of operation. Give them columbian neckties in their sleep. The problem is we don't look like them, talk like them or anything like that that would allow us to operate in that fashion. So, you have to find another alternative. Intel will be key, but the agencies have to work together, which they have not. Share data. Work in the FBI or CIA and you will understand that this is a real problem.

I agree with most of this one, man. Have to be honest. I have one key problem, though. When was the last time the CIA just HAD to use a white guy from Ohio to do its dirty work? ;) We both agree on the what, it's the how that finds us in contention.

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker


I agree with most of this one, man. Have to be honest. I have one key problem, though. When was the last time the CIA just HAD to use a white guy from Ohio to do its dirty work? ;) We both agree on the what, it's the how that finds us in contention.

When Clinton made it impossible for us to recruit people that were not so nice. It is real. I was there when that happned. Seriously. Get the bad guys to help on this, and it will be easier. Man, can you believe that we just agreed?

Oh, and Southern by birth Alabama by the grace of God :D

See, intelligent people can come to rational, reasoned responses that form policy. Hey you know that Policy is what gets funded. That is another part of the problem is that they are funding the wrong things.

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

When Clinton made it impossible for us to recruit people that were not so nice. It is real. I was there when that happned. Seriously. Get the bad guys to help on this, and it will be easier. Man, can you believe that we just agreed?

Oh, and Southern by birth Alabama by the grace of God :D

See, intelligent people can come to rational, reasoned responses that form policy. Hey you know that Policy is what gets funded. That is another part of the problem is that they are funding the wrong things.

Oh my dear sweet God, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but truer words were never spoken. Right on, man.

Oh yeah, and ROLL TIDE!!!!!!!!!!

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 09:52 PM
One more thing...

This whole conversation has really made me start thinking about becoming...a DEMI-GOD! *GASP* :)

Eliot
Jun 10, 2002, 09:52 PM
I'm not sure what to make of this, but in Afghanistan, recent US war movies are V.popular. The TV and film you guys export is so influential...... I guess this goes back to what BTTM said about what the US does being none of anyone's business.........sorry,it's kind of unavoidable on a global, media-driven basis.
Love you all, but you're the biggest dog on the block. I hope we won't have to think of you like a dog.:eek:

Backtothemac
Jun 10, 2002, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker
One more thing...

This whole conversation has really made me start thinking about becoming...a DEMI-GOD! *GASP* :)

There you go! We could use you on that side of the fence!!! Hey, plus it really draws the chicks in.....:p

mr.w
Jun 10, 2002, 10:01 PM
listen guys... i don't want to offend anyone here, but why the hell did these "terrorists" attack us in the first place??? Americas foreign policy is a joke, we have no business in the middle east. Our presence there is causing nothing but problems. We are, as a country, extremely narrow minded and greedy. The only reason we even care about what goes on in the middle east is purely out of our own self interest. Our lifestyles are completely dependent on middle eastern oil. OPEC is the #1 supplier of fossil fuels in the world. Because of that, we are willing to do whatever it takes to insure that our oil supply remains the same, and we can continue to live “comfortably.”

Our government continually lies to us, saying that our presence in the middle east is purely based on “peace keeping” and protecting the god given rights of oppressed people. Ya right. Like we’re really spending billions and billions of dollars just so middle eastern women can go to school. Were there for the oil and that's it.

None of the middle eastern countries actually want an American presence in their region so why should we be there. Granted we are the most powerful country in the world and because of that, many people think that it is our obligation to be the worlds “peace keeper.” I don’t buy it. Why should we be investing so many resources internationally when we have so many domestic problems? Drug use and pregnancy among teenagers is at an all time high, our economy is in a recession, and 51% of the country was robbed of an election. The government cannot mend the domestic problems, so we’ve decided to fix international disputes in the attempt to take the public eye away from the “real” problems we face everyday.

I agree that what happened on sept. 11th was a tragedy, and I am, as an American, scared. But it’s not like this action was completely unprovoked. I do not condone the “terrorists” actions, but they had a true cause, and were willing to stand up for what they truly believed in. How often are we willing to risk our lives for a cause???

We cannot just look at what happened as a terrorist action. To many people in the international community, our military is seen as a terrorist organization. It served a purpose, and unfortunately Americans have chosen not to look deeper into the actual problems our world faces and understand why these people attacked America.

We are an extremely hubristic society, and unfortunately hubris results in a tragic downfall. We need to change our ways or we are screwed. America needs to understand that we are not the only people in the world, and just because we want something doesn’t mean that we can always have it.

Anyway... what do some of the people in the international macrumors community think???

wsteineker
Jun 10, 2002, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hey, plus it really draws the chicks in.....:p

Right right...keep telling yourself that and maybe one day it'll be true. :p

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 12:22 AM
Mr. W. I will not even try to pull punches on this. WTF is wrong with you. There is nothing, that we have ever done to make the actions of 9/11 justified in any way shape or form. Should I have respect for idiots who are zealots and murder in the name of any God? No, I don't. Secondly, your wrong about the 51% that were robbed. No one was robbed of anything. Gore was presented the idea two weeks before the election that he would win the electoral college, but not the popular vote, and he said if that happend that Bush would accept defeat and so would he. However when the time came. BONG.

Now as far as your understanding of middle east policy, well, it is a joke. Yes, we rely on the middle east as a supplier of a vital interest to the US, but it is not just us, the world is dependent on oil. Wake up. Sure, telll you what. Lets stop buying it. Wait, quick question, you own a car? Use heat in the winter? Think about your own lifestyle before you come down on the world!

Furthermore, WTF are you talking about with us Peacekeeping in the middle east? Where is that happening? oh, what's that you have no examples?

Dude, sorry for being so harsh on you here, but man, think about what you said. Yea, there are causes that I would lay down my life for. I was in the military, as was my father, my mothers father, his father, etc. Get the point. Don't question the strength and the courage of this country while we are at war. Just no friggin smart.

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 01:48 AM
Whoa, I go to bed, sleep, get up and come to work... and you guys are still at it! I bow down to your zealotry.

But speaking as someone who lives a lot closer to terrorism than most of you, in a country where the population is very politically astute, I can tell you one thing from experience: Eventually the same old arguements over and over will begin to sound boring, and and people will just go back to work, no wiser, with no solution and no agreement. Here, people don't even talk much about 'the situation'any more, because by now they know all the points and they have made up their minds. But we aint any closer to peace.

The fact is this: The situation is so complex, and action relies on so many unknowns, that it is impossible to predict the long-term outcome of any given policy. It makes it very easy to say that you were right all along. Apparently good policies end up backfiring, and idiotic ones can have an unexpectedly good result. In a situation like this, the best thing for a government to do is to follow its instinct and do what it's best at, whatever that may be. Why? Right tools for the job. The government is the tool. If you don't know what the job is, you might as well let the tool do what it's best at (and believe me, Bush is a tool!). So with Bush in charge, you might as well rumble. If Gandhi was pres, peace might stand a chance.

Edit: I'd like to add another thing. When you can't predict the results of your actions, you should take particular care to act in a way that you feel moral. Most of the US are Christians, so should take their moral guidance from Jesus. It's my understanding that Jesus would not have gone in shooting lasers from his eyes or something. Maybe I'm wrong, after all I'm not a Christian.

Taft
Jun 11, 2002, 08:26 AM
wsteineker: I agree with most of what you've been saying here. I think that most terrorist hate us because we are greedy and materialistic and we stick our nose in their business...NOT because we are just Christian. I think that small, decisive, focused use of force is the only way to go in fighting these terrorists. I think we need to cooperate with other countries to resolve this problem in a way we ALL like. I think that our continued involvement in subversive and self-serving politics will only produce more bin Ladens.

Mr.W: While I agree with you on many points you made, I must draw the line at saying we are responsible for 9/11. We are not responsible. The terrorists were not justified. These were actions of men who are nothing short of insane. They want us dead. That isn't normal.

That being said, I agree that we need to pull our collective heads out of our a**es and start thinking globally. After we are finished disrupting the Al Qiada network, we should definitely change the way our foreign policy is handled. Not every decision should be made based on *our* best interests. There is a global community out there who doesn't like a lot of what we do. We should start respecting that.

America is not the solution to all of the worlds problems. In fact we are the cause of some.

Taft

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by The Bender
If you don't know what the job is, you might as well let the tool do what it's best at (and believe me, Bush is a tool!). So with Bush in charge, you might as well rumble. If Gandhi was pres, peace might stand a chance.

Two things. First, you can have peace. Just lay down and let the terrorists run you over. Now, is that better, you have peace. The same type of peace that the Soviets laid down during the cold war. Man, that is something that I look forward to. See there is a fundamental difference between freedom and oppression. We live free, and could never, never live under oppression. I, and 95% of all Americans would rather die than live like that. Remember, "give me liberty or give me death!"

Second. Who the hell do you think you are calling my President a tool. I don't say things about yours. Why? Because I am not there to judge his actions in a real way. See, you cannot trust the international media to formulate an accurate picture of our President. Have you ever met him? Know anyone who has? If so, you would not think the man is a tool. That was very offensive to me.


Also, I pray for you country nightly. I pray for peace nightly. But to ask me to view the world outside of my moral fabric is impossible. I cannot do it. I have my morals, and the morals that this country were founded on. We have stood for freedom and peace for over 200 years, and that will never change on my watch.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by Taft
That being said, I agree that we need to pull our collective heads out of our a**es and start thinking globally. After we are finished disrupting the Al Qiada network, we should definitely change the way our foreign policy is handled. Not every decision should be made based on *our* best interests. There is a global community out there who doesn't like a lot of what we do. We should start respecting that.

America is not the solution to all of the worlds problems. In fact we are the cause of some.

Taft

Taft, can you please show me one real example of something that we have done, said, or impacted that has justified one terror act? Please I can't wait to see this. See, you are mistaken about the government. Everything HAS to be done based on our best interests. Why? Because that is what the government has to do. What you want them to act in the best interest of Pakistan over the best interest of the US? How can you think like that? The only global community that exists that has any power is the World Bank, and the IMF. The UN has no power without us, and the UN is uncostitutuional. What are we to throw out the constitutuion now? Dude, wake up!

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


First, you can have peace. Just lay down and let the terrorists run you over.

Second. Who the hell do you think you are calling my President a tool. I don't say things about yours.

But to ask me to view the world outside of my moral fabric is impossible.

Hahahahah!

First: Stop being silly. I didn't suggest that, and nor does it fall under the heading of peace in my book.

Second: Have you never heard of freedom of speech? Go ahead call my pres whatever you want. I'll probably agree with you anyway.

Third: Maybe you missed my point. What I was trying to say is that if you define yourself as a Christian, surely you should follow Christian doctrine and take your lead from Jesus. Really I was asking what Jesus would do under these circumstances - I'm asking generally, because I don't know.

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


can you please show me one real example of something that we have done, said, or impacted that has justified one terror act?

Of course, nothing justifies any terrorist act, but unfortunately there are plenty of things that provoke them. It's in your own best interests to avoid those things, even though you feel you have a right to do them. If i take a half-hour walk down the road from my apartment I end up in Bethlehem. I have a right to take that walk, wearing an I Love America t-shirt, and it certainly doesn't justify any terrorist act. It would probably provoke one though, so I'm not going to do it, even if I really feel the urge.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by The Bender


Hahahahah!

First: Stop being silly. I didn't suggest that, and nor does it fall under the heading of peace in my book.

Second: Have you never heard of freedom of speech? Go ahead call my pres whatever you want. I'll probably agree with you anyway.

Third: Maybe you missed my point. What I was trying to say is that if you define yourself as a Christian, surely you should follow Christian doctrine and take your lead from Jesus. Really I was asking what Jesus would do under these circumstances - I'm asking generally, because I don't know.

1st wasn't being silly, but proving a point. Second, yea I have heard of Freedom of Speech, and I agree that it is a vaild opinion for someone who has had a reason to form that opinion. How can you formulate that opinion of our President from there? What you see in your media? Yea, that isn't biased is it?

Third. I cannot do what Christ would do. You see, I am not him. I cannot respond the way that he would. What I have to respond with is the idea that I was raised, protect what is yours, and protect your family. These guys are not going after military targets, they are going after civilians. They are cowards of the worst kind, and regardless of whether we do it with large armies, small armies, or no armies, we have to get to them before they get to us. That is the only way to solve this problem. Get them, and then launch one hell of a PR campaign in the Arab world to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Christ would probably turn his back to them and let them slay him. But he knew he was God, and he had all knowledge inside of him. I don't have that situation present in my life.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by The Bender


Of course, nothing justifies any terrorist act, but unfortunately there are plenty of things that provoke them. It's in your own best interests to avoid those things, even though you feel you have a right to do them. If i take a half-hour walk down the road from my apartment I end up in Bethlehem. I have a right to take that walk, wearing an I Love America t-shirt, and it certainly doesn't justify any terrorist act. It would probably provoke one though, so I'm not going to do it, even if I really feel the urge.

No, your missing the point. Show me something that we have done. Anything, to deserver the actions that are being taken against us. Come on. Anything. Wait, we did tell Israel to back down in 67. Could that be it? What is it that gives them the right to hate us, to call us the Great Satan. Spill, I can't wait to hear it.

Oh, and I don't care if you walked down the street in a shirt that said Palistine sucks, singing Christmas songs, walking with a naked woman, all while burning the Koran, that still doesn't give them the RIGHT to do anything violent towards you. That is the problem here. Your T-shirt would get you and anyone with you killed. Screw that.

The below is not directed at you my man.

Hey all you slack jawed terror freaks. Come real with it. Line up like men and fight on an actual field of battle, and you will get your A$$es handed to you on a platter. Your to cowardly though to do that!

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Show me something that we have done. Anything, to deserver the actions that are being taken against us
Oh, and I don't care if you walked down the street in a shirt that said Palistine sucks, singing Christmas songs, walking with a naked woman, all while burning the Koran, that still doesn't give them the RIGHT to do anything violent towards you. That is the problem here. Your T-shirt would get you and anyone with you killed. Screw that.


Hey! I didn't disagree with you! My point was simply that although it is not deserved and they don't have the right, it was still provoked. Provokation does not make the sin any better.
What I am advocating here is a pragmatic approach: If you know that you are doing something that is likely to provoke a demodraphic to a terrorist attack, maybe think about laying off of it. It feels uncomfortable because to some extent you are being dictated to. On the other hand, you are acting before anything has happened, and you are saving a lot of lives. You need to weigh up what is more important to you - the policy in question or the security you lose by implementing it.

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 09:09 AM
B2TM~ I think you're limiting yourself too much here, by looking at the problem from a purely american view-point. In america, you can say/do what you want, as long as you're not harming someone else physically. It's not the same in the middle east. They don't think the same, don't rationalise the same, and don't react the same. For many muslims, burning the koran, walking through the street with a naked woman, that is justification for punishment. Hell, in Saudi they still cut off your hand for stealing, and public executions (beheadings) are by no means unheard of. Whilst you might not consider america to have acted unreasonably, many arabs do. It all a question of perspective. Try not to be too narrow minded here.

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

I cannot do what Christ would do.
They are cowards of the worst kind,


Well, I didn't ask you to do what Jesus himself would do. I asked you what Christianity teaches that YOU should do.

As an aside, I've always been confused by this coward thing. To me, being cowardly means running away from a difficult situation. In the minds of the terrorists, they are meeting the Great Evil head-on. Is it just meant to be an insult to them, or do people really think of it as cowardice?

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by britboy
B2TM~ I think you're limiting yourself too much here, by looking at the problem from a purely american view-point. In america, you can say/do what you want, as long as you're not harming someone else physically. It's not the same in the middle east. They don't think the same, don't rationalise the same, and don't react the same. For many muslims, burning the koran, walking through the street with a naked woman, that is justification for punishment. Hell, in Saudi they still cut off your hand for stealing, and public executions (beheadings) are by no means unheard of. Whilst you might not consider america to have acted unreasonably, many arabs do. It all a question of perspective. Try not to be too narrow minded here.

Good to see you here this early! You misunderstand. I am not talking about us going over there and acting the fool. What I am saying is that the way we live our lives here, going to Mardi Gras, or partying in the streets after a football game. Realizing that women are our equal, having religious freedom, and education, is not a justification or reason for those freaks to want to kill us. Believe me, I know that this is not a US only thing. I know that it is the world against terror. I just want the world to start showing it a little more. Lets go after these guys the way we should.

Basically the point that I am trying to make is that Arafat is no better than Osama, and as such he should be taken out as well, and any other of the freaks that would kill an inocent person for their God.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by The Bender


Well, I didn't ask you to do what Jesus himself would do. I asked you what Christianity teaches that YOU should do.

As an aside, I've always been confused by this coward thing. To me, being cowardly means running away from a difficult situation. In the minds of the terrorists, they are meeting the Great Evil head-on. Is it just meant to be an insult to them, or do people really think of it as cowardice?

Anyone that would threaten a 4 year old little girl, or murder a six month old child in a stroller, or kill 3,000 people who are totally inocent in the name of God is a coward. Absoulte coward. Courage is the ability to face challenges and yet still conduct yourself in a moral way. Courage. The men who are fighting the real evil ones are the one who have courage. A coward will kill anyone to try to prove a point that has not actual basis.

Christianity teaches you to turn the other cheek. I cannot do that. Not all Americans are Christians, and even the ones that are cannot lay down and and be rolled over by terror. If you are Jewish, your teachings also say to favor peace. That is not the point. The point is how do you handle the situation.

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
[B]

Good to see you here this early!

I'd been trying to keep out of this one :)


You misunderstand. I am not talking about us going over there and acting the fool. What I am saying is that the way we live our lives here, going to Mardi Gras, or partying in the streets after a football game. Realizing that women are our equal, having religious freedom, and education, is not a justification or reason for those freaks to want to kill us. Believe me, I know that this is not a US only thing. I know that it is the world against terror. I just want the world to start showing it a little more. Lets go after these guys the way we should.


Absolutely right. You have the right to live however you wish to. What goes on in america your business. By the same token though, if you deserve to live how you see fit, surely the next person does too. Why is america getting involved in the conflict between israel and palestine? It doesn't affect your internal affairs at all. Sure, you could argue that osama and arafat deserve to be treated the same, but not by america. Arafat has not sponsored attacks against the US. There you have an example of the US getting involved in matters that do not concern it (from an arab perspective).

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Courage is the ability to face challenges and yet still conduct yourself in a moral way.

Christianity teaches you to turn the other cheek. I cannot do that. Not all Americans are Christians, and even the ones that are cannot lay down and and be rolled over by terror. If you are Jewish, your teachings also say to favor peace. That is not the point. The point is how do you handle the situation.

Are you unaware that in the minds of the terrorists, they ARE conducting themselves in a very highly moral way. Don't you mean - courage is the ability to ... conduct yourself in what B2TM considers to be a moral way?

I find it difficult to understand how someone can profess to follow a certain religion, then ignore its teachings as soon as the chips are down. That, I would consider cowardice.

One of the big differences between Judaism and Christianity is of pragmatism and idealism. Judaism doesn't have much of a problem killing the bastards before they get to you. Maybe you should convert?

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by britboy
Why is america getting involved in the conflict between israel and palestine?

It's several decades too late to be asking that one. The US is already too mixed up in the Middle East to be able to get out without leaving a bloodbath behind.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by britboy
Why is america getting involved in the conflict between israel and palestine? It doesn't affect your internal affairs at all. Sure, you could argue that osama and arafat deserve to be treated the same, but not by america. Arafat has not sponsored attacks against the US. There you have an example of the US getting involved in matters that do not concern it (from an arab perspective).

Actually, the reason that we are involved is because that conflict does have a direct impact on the US. 9/11 was becuase of our support of Israel. Now that being said, if Austria was conducting terror opperations against Germany then we would get involved. Why? Becuase we take care of our friends when they need us. That is the way we work. Oh, and Yes Arafat does deserve to get treated the same way by us. He had knowledge of the embassy bombings in Beruit, and should have been taken out then.

Are you unaware that in the minds of the terrorists, they ARE conducting themselves in a very highly moral way. Don't you mean - courage is the ability to ... conduct yourself in what B2TM considers to be a moral way? I find it difficult to understand how someone can profess to follow a certain religion, then ignore its teachings as soon as the chips are down. That, I would consider cowardice.
One of the big differences between Judaism and Christianity is of pragmatism and idealism. Judaism doesn't have much of a problem killing the bastards before they get to you. Maybe you should convert?

Now, this is not my moral fabric, but the moral fabric of civilized people that value life. How could anyone justify killing a child in the name of God? And no I am not throwing my religion out the door when the chips are down. I could take an extremist view and say that Christianity gives me the right to kill the non believer, but I am not. What I live my is my God, and the laws of my country. My country is at war, and as such, we are defending ourselves against a cowardly group of freaks that don't have the courage to fight like men.

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by The Bender


It's several decades too late to be asking that one. The US is already too mixed up in the Middle East to be able to get out without leaving a bloodbath behind.


Yeah, i know.... :rolleyes:

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


9/11 was becuase of our support of Israel

I could take an extremist view and say that Christianity gives me the right to kill the non believer, but I am not. What I live my is my God, and the laws of my country.

If 9/11 could be put down to any one thing, it would be the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

Does Christianity really say that somewhere, or are you making it up? I though Christianity taught you to convert the non-believer and turn the other cheek. Or something. Hey, maybe Christianity is cool after all!


Time to go home, dudes.

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by britboy



Yeah, i know.... :rolleyes:

Hey, you know who the US gives the most millitaty aid to? Israel. Know who gets the second most? Egypt.
It's kind of like a schoolkid putting two beetles in a jar together to see which one will kill the other first! :p :eek:

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by The Bender


If 9/11 could be put down to any one thing, it would be the US presence in Saudi Arabia.

Does Christianity really say that somewhere, or are you making it up? I though Christianity taught you to convert the non-believer and turn the other cheek. Or something. Hey, maybe Christianity is cool after all!


Time to go home, dudes.


No it doesn't say that. I was making an example of the stupidity of the whole thing. Extremists can find their message in a community chest card in monopoly. Now, the fact is that turning the other cheek is what Jesus would do, however, he knows we cannot be him, thus, we act as humans. As far as us being in Saudi Arabia. They asked us there. They have not asked us to leave, so F them. The freaks that is.

I think the mind of a terrorist is the ultimate for of greed that exists. They hate us because of what we have and they bastardize a peaceful religion to fit their cause.

Taft
Jun 11, 2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Taft, can you please show me one real example of something that we have done, said, or impacted that has justified one terror act? Please I can't wait to see this. See, you are mistaken about the government. Everything HAS to be done based on our best interests. Why? Because that is what the government has to do. What you want them to act in the best interest of Pakistan over the best interest of the US? How can you think like that? The only global community that exists that has any power is the World Bank, and the IMF. The UN has no power without us, and the UN is uncostitutuional. What are we to throw out the constitutuion now? Dude, wake up!

I have never heard a person speak so naively or egocentrically. We have done NOTHING to DESERVE terror attacks. You have completely missed the point of my posts and have only heard what you WANT to hear. Listen carefully. Very carefully.

While we have done nothing to deserve these attacks, our actions have pissed off the global community on a number of occasions. If you honestly believe otherwise, then you are ignoring FACTS.

Its not about putting our best interests first; of course we are going to do that. Its about thinking about how our actions will impact other countries and people. Let me use an analogy...

Lets say I am the US. And everyone else in the world is other countries. Lets say I have an army of body gaurds and that no one else on earth can match my strength. Now I want to be rich, right? I want money, and comfort and safety, right? Now, putting my best interests first, I might act to get more money, power and safety. That is fine, as long as I'm not stealing manipulating and crushing other people in the process. Its not as if I can do anything I want as long as it is in my best interest and just say "Screw everyone else." Right??

This is what I am proposing that the US do. OF COURSE we will act in our best interests, but we must consider that there are other people in this world whose lives are very precious, who have feeling and who deserve a good life--as good as any of ours. By acting against these people--by not considering THEIR lives--we not only violate the human rights we hold so dear in this country, we also breed resentment of the US by foreign people.

Now you might say, "So what if people don't like us? Whats the difference?" I'll tell you what: terrorists.

Fact: it doesn't matter WHY terrorists hate us. It doesn't matter if they have a good reason. It doesn't matter if they are justified in believing we are evil. WE MUST ACCEPT THAT THEY HATE US.

Fact: If we can reduce the number of people in the world who hate us, would it not be in our best interests to do so?

I'm not talking about bending over backwards to "make friends". I'm talking about thinking about how our actions effect foreign populations. I'm talking about thinking long term when we decide to use a population to fight our wars for us. Will an action such as this come back to hurt us? Will we piss some people so badly that they will hate us forever??

I think that sometimes the government and military forget to ask questions like this. They forget that their actions now could comprimise our safety later.

Think long term. Think globally. Have compassion for all people.

Taft

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Taft


While we have done nothing to deserve these attacks, our actions have pissed off the global community on a number of occasions. If you honestly believe otherwise, then you are ignoring FACTS.


What have we done to piss them off, please give me examples.

Originally posted by Taft


That is fine, as long as I'm not stealing manipulating and crushing other people in the process. Its not as if I can do anything I want as long as it is in my best interest and just say "Screw everyone else." Right??


Give me an example of this. Please. How do we steal and manipulate other countries.

Originally posted by Taft
This is what I am proposing that the US do. OF COURSE we will act in our best interests, but we must consider that there are other people in this world whose lives are very precious, who have feeling and who deserve a good life--as good as any of ours. By acting against these people--by not considering THEIR lives--we not only violate the human rights we hold so dear in this country, we also breed resentment of the US by foreign people.
Taft

Taft, WTF dude. Please show me how we violate the human rights of other countries. Give me just one example. How do we enslave these people? How do I make their life worse. Please. I need to know this for my own sanity. Especially if there is any factual basis for it.

Taft
Jun 11, 2002, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Taft, WTF dude. Please show me how we violate the human rights of other countries. Give me just one example. How do we enslave these people? How do I make their life worse. Please. I need to know this for my own sanity. Especially if there is any factual basis for it. [/B]

Alright, I'll go get you some links from the web. Keep in mind I'm at work though; it might take me a while. ;)

Taft

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Taft


Alright, I'll go get you some links from the web. Keep in mind I'm at work though; it might take me a while. ;)

Taft

Me too. My boss would crap if he knew what I did here all day posting to MacRumors!

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 10:57 AM
Here is what I am talking about. Way to go W!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54918,00.html

The Bender
Jun 11, 2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Me too. My boss would crap if he knew what I did here all day posting to MacRumors!

Heehee! I was just thinking about that on my way home. :D I arrived back at my apartment with the resolve to congratulate you for keeping this thread going so long in blatant contravention of your work guidelines. :p
MY boss is away in Germany this week... Hope he doesn't read MacRumors

mischief
Jun 11, 2002, 11:48 AM
Terrorists are inherently non-rational. Ignoring the issue doesn't make it go away, just as military action will agrivate it.

Al Qaida is using excerpts from the Koran and Imperialist rhetoric to recruit young, impoverished muslims from the poorest parts of the world. The old Hashishin lure of the Martyr has proved rather attractive to such impressionable folks.

Being that western interference and Jyhad are the cornerstones of the Muslim Extremist Zealot a solution must be found that's more subtle and psychological in approach.

Any solution must be exactly that: a solution. Reacting is what we've done so far and where has it gotten us?

B2TM: You are correct in that Israel is the best Goad Al Qaida has to recruit with. On that score It'd be the best long-term solution to not recognize ANY sovreign nation in what is now Israel until it can be ONE NATION. Supporting either side in an impossible battleis pointless and destructive.

I will qualify other mentionings the US interfering in foreign politics. Far too often American Citizens, often businessmen like Rockefeller or Hurst would strongarm and make dubious power deals in a given country the excercise his connections in Congress to get bailed out. So I suppose you've both been correct. The USA as an entity hasn't done as much as is often implied, it's the rich ****s playing 3 card monty with small countries that's caused more problems.

There's another issue here that's often ignored. These are an old people with an ancient culture that's dying. They're scared at a basic level because they know on some level that change is inevitable but they are proud and look back on once being the only educated people in all of their world other than the Chinese. It's really hard to face something like that. They know that they've fallen a long way from their relatively progressive ways just after the first Jyhad but few of them are educated enough to know why.

BTW: Assuming that military action will get the point across still assumes a rational mind. These are people happy to die for the cause. Killing them will actually make more of them. We have to find a way to make them ashamed of their foolishness without offending their rather delicate collective ego.

A pie in the face if you will.....;) :D :rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 12:47 PM
No need for pie. I can actually agree with that assessment. It is obviously a Catch 22 situation. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't, so we might as well do.

Great post mischief.

mischief
Jun 11, 2002, 01:04 PM
A psych-ops assessment.

We could:

Translate Monty Python's "Life of Brian" for Al Jazeera.

Officially stop recognizing either Israel or Palestine until they agree on a single identity.

Stop being so serious about this. A contest of who can be the bigger Badass will never work, we need to find an angle to heckle from.

Pray for a Messiah to unite the tribes and discredit the hardliners on both sides.Maybe from Ethiopia.

Start doing serious translation of A&E style Biographies of the personalities involved for Al Jazeera TV, do the same with History of the region.

Find a way to educate those peasants that are being used before they sign on to get dead.

mr.w
Jun 11, 2002, 01:05 PM
ok ok ok... B2TM - yes i drive a car, and yes i use heat in the winter, and yes i am a consumer, and yes i buy tons of crap i really don't need. I am as guilty as anyone else, but at least i realize what i am doing. This may be a hypocritical statement, and you may ask "Then why don't you change your lifestyle???" I simply don't know... i mean i'm 18 years old, and i'm growing up in in crazy times, and unfortunately most of the problems we face today, my generation will have to fix in the future.

I completely agree with the idea that we chould just stop buying oil from the middle east, but we need to have an alternate fuel source set up before we make such a drastic change. Hydrogen fuel cells are the wave of the future, as well as any renewable fuel source. we should be spending less $ building billion dollar planes and fighting stupid wars and invest in the future.

And again, i don't think what happened on sept 11th. was right, but i don't understand how we Americans are so suprised about it. I mean how are our own military actions overseas much different then those of the "terrorists?" How do we know that what we are actually doing is right? While it may work for us, it may not work for the whole world. And if you only choose to look at things in the monoscopic viewpoint of a typical american then i truely feel sorry for you. while we may be the most powerful country in the world, that doesn't give us the right to do whatever the hell we want to. America pretty much controls the WORLD market and we are using our power to manipulate the markets to work in our favor. I mean no-one truely likes us, andother countries only like us because they are scared of us. Even brittian, if you went to england you would be suprised... they don't really like americans and they are suposto be our "best friend."

well im just rambling on now, so give me something else to argue about...

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by mr.w
ok ok ok... B2TM - yes i drive a car, and yes i use heat in the winter, and yes i am a consumer, and yes i buy tons of crap i really don't need. I am as guilty as anyone else, but at least i realize what i am doing. This may be a hypocritical statement, and you may ask "Then why don't you change your lifestyle???" I simply don't know... i mean i'm 18 years old, and i'm growing up in in crazy times, and unfortunately most of the problems we face today, my generation will have to fix in the future.

I completely agree with the idea that we chould just stop buying oil from the middle east, but we need to have an alternate fuel source set up before we make such a drastic change. Hydrogen fuel cells are the wave of the future, as well as any renewable fuel source. we should be spending less $ building billion dollar planes and fighting stupid wars and invest in the future.

And again, i don't think what happened on sept 11th. was right, but i don't understand how we Americans are so suprised about it. I mean how are our own military actions overseas much different then those of the "terrorists?" How do we know that what we are actually doing is right? While it may work for us, it may not work for the whole world. And if you only choose to look at things in the monoscopic viewpoint of a typical american then i truely feel sorry for you. while we may be the most powerful country in the world, that doesn't give us the right to do whatever the hell we want to. America pretty much controls the WORLD market and we are using our power to manipulate the markets to work in our favor. I mean no-one truely likes us, andother countries only like us because they are scared of us. Even brittian, if you went to england you would be suprised... they don't really like americans and they are suposto be our "best friend."

well im just rambling on now, so give me something else to argue about...

OK, please do not think I am attacking you personally ok. At 18 you still have a lot to learn. When I was 18 I though I knew everything there was to know, and now I look back and realize that I knew nothing. Get a little salt under your belt, and then you will have a basis to go from. As far as our military actions being different. Tell you what Jr. go take WWI and WWII at a local college and you will see how they are different. We, do not target civilians. Yea, we did the the A-bomb, but that is not what this is all about. We target the bad guy, especially since Korea. America doesn't control the world market. China has more money out there and trade than we do. The IMF controls money in the world. Yes, the Brits do like us. We like them. We are on the same field with them, the same team. I know plenty, plenty of Brits, and they do enjoy America. My best friend here is Israeli and he won't go back. Every foriegner that I have ever met here comes, and does everything they can to stay. Why is that?

iGav
Jun 11, 2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by mr.w
Even brittian, if you went to england you would be suprised... they don't really like americans and they are suposto be our "best friend."


heh heh... Yeah we hate your guts...... :p So when you giving us our country back????:p :p

Actually we have a similar problem with countries hating us...... ask the Scottish, Welsh and the Irish........ not to mention the Austrialians, Germans and the French...... and the Argentinians as well.... but that's just because we beat them at football last week....... :D

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by mischief
A psych-ops assessment.

We could:

Translate Monty Python's "Life of Brian" for Al Jazeera.

Stop being so serious about this.

Find a way to educate those pheasants that are being used before they sign on to get dead.


Just a thought: they're having extensive talks in afghanistan right now, to determine who is in control of what (politics-wise). The funny part is, they're holding the talks in a german beer hall, flown out from germany specifically for this event! How's that for taking things less seriously? :D

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by iGAV

Actually we have a similar problem with countries hating us...... ask the Scottish, Welsh and the Irish........ not to mention the Austrialians, Germans and the French...... and the Argentinians as well.... but that's just because we beat them at football last week....... :D


heh, don't forget the germans :p

Do australians really have a dislike of us?

iGav
Jun 11, 2002, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by britboy



heh, don't forget the germans :p

Do australians really have a dislike of us?

I remembered the Germans....... :D

Austrialians... well..... some do some don't I guess...... :p certainly not as much as the Scots hate us....... :p

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by iGAV


I remembered the Germans....... :D



Now why didn't i see that when i read it before? Hmmm.... :rolleyes:

Nipsy
Jun 11, 2002, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

What will France do if we go after Saddam?

Probably surrender...they're good at it.
I beleive it was Carlin who called them cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys.

mr.w
Jun 11, 2002, 02:00 PM
B2TM- i agree, i am young and have a lot to learn, but on the same token I am not bias... yet at least. I am looking at life in a really broad scope, like in terms of the world as a whole. I've come to the conclusion that everyone is fighting for the same thing: to live longer, get richer, and be happier. <- (the American dream) But unfortunately, not everyone can have all of those things, there just aren't enough recources in the world. We are 4% of the world population yet consume 25% of the resources and produce 25%-30% of the worlds waste. Because of this un-equal distribution of resources many are left with nothing. For everyone to succede, everyone, and i mean everyone will have to give up many comforts that most of us take for granted. Here lies the true problem. The American lifestyle works for us, and because of that we are un-willing to give up what we have because to us the American Dream consists of what we currently have and if we were to give away something we would no longer be living the dream...

And another thing... I don't think it is fair that younger people (like me) are
often times disreguarded and labeled as people who "just don't know enough." I know that I don't know everything, but neither do you. No-one does, and just because you've been around longer doesn't mean are more correct then I am. But there is one thing that I am certian of; we are all in serious trouble if we continue to live our lives the way we have in the past 50 years.

wsteineker
Jun 11, 2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy

Probably surrender...they're good at it.
I believe it was Carlin who called them cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys.

Yeah, it was Carlin. God, I hate the French. On top of causing WWII, they waited about 30 seconds after we landed at Normandy (liberating their country from fascism-why can't they ever remember THAT?) to start making knee jerk anti-American remarks. *******s.

Oh yeah, and why do the French always have to make their country out to be better than what it really is? I mean, come on. The Maginot line? Hey, what if the Germans just GO AROUND IT! Like de Gualle wrote in his epic 3 volume autobiography..."I have always had a certain vision of France." Let me tell you all a little secret. The "belle France" doesn't exist. It's a myth. A Monet painting. In reality, France is a nation of waiters that don't work,public transportation that doesn't work, public toilets that don't work, unions that don't work, and a government that doesn't work. It's the world's most beautiful waste receptacle. My friend Mark Kohler (obviously German) once said that, in France, God had created the most beautiful country in the world. It is perfect. And God, knnowing in his infinite wisdom that nothing on Earth could be truly perfect, then proceeded to populate it with the French. Heh.

Oh yeah, and their football team SUCKS!!!!!

God, I hate the French.

mischief
Jun 11, 2002, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker



God, I hate the French.

You obviously haven't met the Quebequois. The French that even the French can't stand.;) :eek: :p

wsteineker
Jun 11, 2002, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by mischief

You obviously haven't met the Quebequois. The French that even the French can't stand.;) :eek: :p

Oh no, I've had the "privilege". Vive Quebec, libre Quebec, right? *******s. They're just like the French, but on my continent. That makes them SO much worse. Isn't there some kind of law?

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by mr.w
B2TM- i agree, i am young and have a lot to learn, but on the same token I am not bias... yet at least. I am looking at life in a really broad scope, like in terms of the world as a whole. I've come to the conclusion that everyone is fighting for the same thing: to live longer, get richer, and be happier. <- (the American dream) But unfortunately, not everyone can have all of those things, there just aren't enough recources in the world. We are 4% of the world population yet consume 25% of the resources and produce 25%-30% of the worlds waste. Because of this un-equal distribution of resources many are left with nothing. For everyone to succede, everyone, and i mean everyone will have to give up many comforts that most of us take for granted. Here lies the true problem. The American lifestyle works for us, and because of that we are un-willing to give up what we have because to us the American Dream consists of what we currently have and if we were to give away something we would no longer be living the dream...

And another thing... I don't think it is fair that younger people (like me) are
often times disreguarded and labeled as people who "just don't know enough." I know that I don't know everything, but neither do you. No-one does, and just because you've been around longer doesn't mean are more correct then I am. But there is one thing that I am certian of; we are all in serious trouble if we continue to live our lives the way we have in the past 50 years.

Dude, I don't belittle you because of your knowledge. At 18 I knew what I know now for the most part, I am talking about life experience. It is the most valuable thing that we gain. Sadly there is no Utopia, in the world, nor will there ever be. What people don't realize is that the freaks that crash planes in towers, also don't want anything like America in their country. They want McDonalds out of Saudi Arabia. Anyway, believe me, once you live and add salt to your knowledge, then you are going to be a dangerous person to debate with. Hopefully the site, and both of us with be here in 10 years discussing something other than terrorism. Hopefully, it is gone.

mr.w
Jun 11, 2002, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Dude, I don't belittle you because of your knowledge. At 18 I knew what I know now for the most part, I am talking about life experience. It is the most valuable thing that we gain. Sadly there is no Utopia, in the world, nor will there ever be. What people don't realize is that the freaks that crash planes in towers, also don't want anything like America in their country. They want McDonalds out of Saudi Arabia. Anyway, believe me, once you live and add salt to your knowledge, then you are going to be a dangerous person to debate with. Hopefully the site, and both of us with be here in 10 years discussing something other than terrorism. Hopefully, it is gone.

okay, I see what you're saying and I totally agree, let's just be friends... :) and we'll just see what happens over the next ten years. (wow that's a long time, I'll be 28 yikes)

mr.w
Jun 11, 2002, 03:01 PM
and by the way... love your avatar.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 03:27 PM
Ha! see, we can all get along. Thanks for the tar compliment. Dukestreet did it, and when you get to that stage, I am sure that he will help you. Congrats on having the courage to stand up to those you don't know.

wsteineker
Jun 11, 2002, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Congrats on having the courage to stand up to those you don't know.

Yeah, it doesn't get any easier. Just starts to be fun after a while. Right B2TM? ;)

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker


Yeah, it doesn't get any easier. Just starts to be fun after a while. Right B2TM? ;)

Oh, yea it does. Man, I wish I could go back to being 18 again. Trust me on this one. Enjoy every friggin day. Next thing you know you will be 32 posting on a website arguing with an 18 year old about the posibility of the G9 coming out. It is fun, it really is. It keeps me young, and due to the amount of time I am on here, alone. MrsBacktothemac is starting to loose her patience with me.

wsteineker
Jun 11, 2002, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Oh, yea it does. Man, I wish I could go back to being 18 again. Trust me on this one. Enjoy every friggin day. Next thing you know you will be 32 posting on a website arguing with an 18 year old about the posibility of the G9 coming out. It is fun, it really is. It keeps me young, and due to the amount of time I am on here, alone. MrsBacktothemac is starting to loose her patience with me.

I hear you, man. Hell, I'm 22 and I wish I could go back to being 18. Glad t know it only gets worse. ;)

And I feel you on the wife losing patience, too. My girlfriend is CONVINCED that I'm leaving her for someone on this board. Heh.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by wsteineker


I hear you, man. Hell, I'm 22 and I wish I could go back to being 18. Glad t know it only gets worse. ;)

And I feel you on the wife losing patience, too. My girlfriend is CONVINCED that I'm leaving her for someone on this board. Heh.

Yea, I understand about the ole lady. Hey, she knows that I am not leaving her, but the references by some about Cleo don't help me at all. Man, MrsBacktothemac has a better shot with Cleo :D

Oh, ***** where is the video camera when you need it. :eek: :D

jefhatfield
Jun 11, 2002, 03:48 PM
bttm, you both have demi-god status already?...that is great

great discussion you all have going on here

i used to think i was the oldest one here being nearly 40, and lo and behold, three posters showed up recently who were older than 40 and one was 47

age gives experience and thus better odds at making better decisions, but the brain does not seem to work any faster, perhaps even slower with age, and every age has a unique perspective

i see the need , in this time, to have a standing military and that it will take time for the terrorists to speak on rational terms

in world war II, we had to defeat italy, germany, and japan first (in that order) to be able to have rational dialogue with them...now those three countries are among our strongest allies in the world today...we may have to vanquish al qaeda, the plo, and saddam hussein before we can talk to the groups they represent

not too long ago, yassir arafat got the nobel peace prize and things were looking up, but there will be times of war and having to go back to the table again and again

certainly, a hundred years from now, the united states will have enemies still, but not likely the countries and groups that are our enemies right now

mischief
Jun 11, 2002, 03:50 PM
You will buy a Mug.............

Join our little cult....... You'll love it....... Really.......:D :eek: :rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by jefhatfield
bttm, you both have demi-god status already?...that is great

i used to think i was the oldest one here being nearly 40, and lo and behold, three posters showd up recently who were older than 40 and one was 47

age gives experience and thus better odds at making better decisions, but the brain does not seem to work any faster, perhaps even slower with age, and every age has a unique perspective

i see the need , in this time, to have a standing military and that it will take time for the terrorists to speak on rational terms

in world war II, we had to defeat italy, germany, and japan first (in that order) to be able to have rational dialogue with them...now those three countries are among our strongest allies in the world today...we may have to vanquish al qaeda, the plo, and saddam hussein before we can talk to the groups they represent

not too long ago, yassir arafat got the nobel peace prize and things were looking up, but there will be times of war and having to go back to the table again and again

certainly, a hundred years from now, the united states will have enemies still, but not likely the countries and groups that are our enemies right now

Hey, I wondered how long it would take for you to get in on this. I agree with you 100%, absolutly 100% That is the key. The future has to happen after today. We have been trying to put the cart before the horse, and they have to slow down and realize the real goal here is to help those people have a better life, and to live in peace. Great post jef.

Oh, yea, we the 1st Demi-God family. Thanks for the notice.

mr.w
Jun 11, 2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Oh, yea it does. Man, I wish I could go back to being 18 again. Trust me on this one. Enjoy every friggin day. Next thing you know you will be 32 posting on a website arguing with an 18 year old about the posibility of the G9 coming out. It is fun, it really is. It keeps me young, and due to the amount of time I am on here, alone. MrsBacktothemac is starting to loose her patience with me.

sssswwwweeeeeeeeeeeeet, at least i have that goin' for me... which is nice.

I'm telling you though ...... your age, in reality, is really only determined by the way that you feel. The number is only a label. For instance, I know this 75 year old guy and he still rides his dirtbike to work, while his label is "75" he still thinks he is 25. I guess your age is just what you think of it...

Hopefully the progression of biotechnology keeps on suprising us, and in 50 years we will all physically feel like an 18 year old.

jefhatfield
Jun 11, 2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by mr.w


sssswwwweeeeeeeeeeeeet, at least i have that goin' for me... which is nice.

I'm telling you though ...... your age, in reality, is really only determined by the way that you feel. The number is only a label. For instance, I know this 75 year old guy and he still rides his dirtbike to work, while his label is "75" he still thinks he is 25. I guess your age is just what you think of it...

Hopefully the progression of biotechnology keeps on suprising us, and in 50 years we will all physically feel like an 18 year old.

age is how you feel, or beter yet, how you hold yourself...one could be old and broken down physically but that won't stop their youthful mind if they have one

what has made me more middle of the road instead of being radical or liberal like i was in my younger years is the constant focus on paying bills and seeing the everyday things in life which do not make the headlines in the news

when my parents were raising me and my brother in the 60s and early 70s, they also had a store so they were busy...things such as the beatles, hippies, and the vietnam war just passed them by

due to my work world, i have no clue who the popular bands are today and i hear a lot of issues concerning teen pregnancy and drug abuse, but i am largely unware of the details...not because i don't care being that they rank among the top the issues that face society, but because my limited time and energy is going toward chores, jobs, and the occasional class at the junior college which is half older people like me

sometimes when i go to the campus at uc berkeley, i feel alienated from all the social activism that is going on...i realize on some level that these people will change, and in some cases, run society twenty years from now

the funny thing is that most of these passionate young people i meet spouting politics - usually left wing, ecology, and religion will be strapped with bills and chores (even by house husbands, too) and largely forget what they were preaching about in their younger days

i kind of understand now the apathy that many "over 30" had during the turbulent 1960s...they weren't spoiled middle class cows, they were busy raising the millions of us who now have kids ourselves in most cases:D

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by mr.w


Hopefully the progression of biotechnology keeps on suprising us, and in 50 years we will all physically feel like an 18 year old.


Strange though it may seem, i'm actually not looking forward to developments in that area. We have enough problems with overpopulation as it is, without extending life-spans by goodness knows how many years. I would rather it were not used for that purpose.

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by britboy



Strange though it may seem, i'm actually not looking forward to developments in that area. We have enough problems with overpopulation as it is, without extending life-spans by goodness knows how many years. I would rather it were not used for that purpose.

You say that now, but wait till you are 32, and have a child. You will think differently then. Time will change you my son.....:D

mr.w
Jun 11, 2002, 04:41 PM
there is just a wealth of knowledge to be attained here.

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


You say that now, but wait till you are 32, and have a child. You will think differently then. Time will change you my son.....:D


Yup. The world seems so much simpler from a 21 year olds perspective, i'm sure :)

But really, isn't 80+ years long enough to do your damage?

Backtothemac
Jun 11, 2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by britboy



Yup. The world seems so much simpler from a 21 year olds perspective, i'm sure :)

But really, isn't 80+ years long enough to do your damage?

Oh, yea, well no. I want to see my grandkids grow you know. There will always be a reason to live. I want to be here as long as I am functioning you know. I don't want to be around in a coma for 200 yeears, but yet have medical science advance to the point that you can function for 100 to 150 years. That would be cool.

britboy
Jun 11, 2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


Oh, yea, well no. I want to see my grandkids grow you know. There will always be a reason to live. I want to be here as long as I am functioning you know. I don't want to be around in a coma for 200 yeears, but yet have medical science advance to the point that you can function for 100 to 150 years. That would be cool.



Nooooooo!!! Then some smart-ass would decide it was ok to extend the learning period to 30 years or more. :( Not good.

150.... imagine how big your retirement fund could be by then :p