• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral


Ratings and Rigging

  • Pro Rating
  1. To whome it may concern ================== We are screwed by extremists - on both sides. Yet another PA deleted.
  2. I told you not to take my word for it, but to read it yourself. ...sigh Russ So I followed your suggestion and didn't take your word. I had to look through a copy of Koran. It took a while but I learned a couple things. Here is what chapter 5 basically talks about: - What animal is edible as wild game and how it should be cut besides other details - The story of Kane and Able - How to be nice to other people in society and how christians and jews are "people of the book" and are closest (i.e. in that you can marry one or eat their kosher food) - Some details of Moses and his 40 year journey - Some details about religious pilgrimage... (hajj?) - Vice of gambling Now who "paraphrased" all this as "KILL THE INFIDELS".... National Enquirer!?!? It seems paranoia is setting in this society fueled by media. And now this gvt has legitimized it in form of some useless alert mechanism that they cannot seem to agree on. We go about attacking countries preemptively out of this false sense of righteousness and all this will probably become a self fulfilling prophecy. --signoff--
  3. Seems like you totally missed the point Mr Jose. It was supposed to be sarcastic/ironic not funny! Do I have to explain why? The reason why we are not thinking too much about this war is because we don't have much to loose. Combine overwhelming military superiority with an enemy that's been softened up plenty with years of sanctions. Compare that to N. Korea that is probably sitting on nukes. As far as the forum goes.. it is TalkBack... and we are all adults who can hold our own here so chill out. Or go back investigate some more! Here is some help... should keep you busy(29/skydiver/2137/stiletto120/LEFT;)). As for Mr Russ's argument. I'd say bravo with a few exceptions. True Im not old enough to have any personal experience with nam but I do have plenty first hand experiences and not the kind you get watching desert storm on CNN. 911 was uncalled for and we did not deserve it. But the people that brought it on us were in past funded by us. We poured billions into their cause for our national interest in 80's. And once we achieved the ends we left. The horrible terrorist, environmental rapist, WMD possessing regime was still the same when we supported and funded them against the Iranis. In any case, they are no bigger a threat than N Korans right now. And the religious point you took is very dangerous. There is no such thing in Islam... so whatever someone told you is quoted out of context. Some cave dwelling moronic psychopaths narrow interpretation of religion not withstanding. KKK isn't exactly a representative of Christianity neither is nazism. Saddam and binLaden were an unintended consequence of our actions. What worries me are the unintended consequences of what we have set ourselves to do now. In the end... I hope nobody took anything personally here. Didn't mean any disrespect to anyone. Peace! --signoff--
  4. PLEASE PLEASE don't tell me I need to explain why this is ignorant and not even in the same realm of logic as the situation as Iraq. You cannot explain because you don't understand it or else you would have tried. PLEASE PLEASE explain why this is ignorant and not even in the same realm of logic as the situation as Iraq !?!? ... mind being shut to any other point of view. Hardly the case... I'm searcing for a point of view that proves me wrong but so far no one seems to be able to justify a war based on facts. They just know it is complex and justified. If you try to explain, you're called stupid. You did NOT try to debate anything. You just tried to sell some swamp land which was deemed stupid. I apologize if that caused any distress! The simple fact is that we're brought up to not question anything that the govt does (except for when the body bags coming back home... NAM). 911 was uncalled for but in the end it was a result of our govt's actions. What we cant defend we call complex and go back to our lives. What this redneck leading us does right now will come back and effect us in big ways later. -alphadog
  5. Now we're talking... So you are saying that the article makes logical sense except that logic does not apply to countries. That is an interesting point-of-view. By that assertion Iraq was right to occupy Kuwait. Soviets didnt do anything wrong in attacking Afghanistan. We're talking might is right here. Maybe Germans weren't so wrong in taking over half of Europe and more. They had the firepower ... french and brits were unfair (treaty of versailles), Stalin asked for it, jews were a nuisance and in the end they were a dominant race just like Americans are the dominant nation right now. Get real!
  6. I'd like to make an offer on that swamp land. How much did it cost you? What did NOT make sense to you anyway? Argue the point NOT hide behind stupid comments. -alphadog
  7. I thought it was beautiful because it effectively argued a very important point... We should be very careful how we carry ourselves now. We should analyze how are we perceived in the world. What goes around comes around. You think US'd would be the lone super power 10, 20, 50 years from now? It did atleast shut some people up here! Hard to argue this logic. Now can someone explain why did it seem so lame to them? Was it too hard to understand? -alphadog
  8. This is beautiful! ------------------------------ Patience with my neighbours, Mr Bush Terry Jones Sunday January 26, 2003 The Observer I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I! For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is. As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one. Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way. Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq. Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves. Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims? It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up. Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come. It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.
  9. alpha

    US may use nukes

    This is outrageous! I bet North Koreans would now feel vindicated for pulling out of Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. -------------------------------------------- US may use nukes January 26, 2003 THE United States is considering using nuclear weapons in a possible future war against Iraq to destroy underground command posts and stop Iraqi forces from using weapons of mass destruction, a top US private military expert has warned. Citing multiple sources, William Arkin said plans for using nuclear weapons against Iraq are being fleshed out at the US Strategic Command in Omaha, Nebraska; inside planning offices of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon and at an "undisclosed location" in Pennsylvania where US Vice-President Dick Cheney used to spend time during terrorism alerts. "Nuclear weapons have, since they were first created, been part of the arsenal discussed by war planners," Arkin writes in an article slated for publication in The Los Angeles Times today. "But the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold," he said. US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed in December 2001 a classified nuclear posture review that opened the possibility for nuclear weapons to be used against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, Nations such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria were added to the list of possible targets. According to Arkin, the review also called upon the military to develop plans to attack foreign weapons of mass destruction facilities, even if the enemy did not resort to them first. This work is currently under way at the Strategic Command, which Arkin says has already prepared a "Theatre Nuclear Planning Document" for Iraq to be used by the of Bush added and the Central Command, which will be executing an invasion of Iraq if Bush opts for one. A former US Army intelligence analyst, Arkin is no longer part of the US military establishment. But he is known for his strong Pentagon connections and extensive knowledge of military issues. Defence Department spokesman Major Ted Wadsworth refused to confirm or deny the report, saying: "That's something that policymakers have to talk about." Agence France-Presse
  10. I have a lot of perspective on how rest of the world views US. I think the majority here agrees that this war is atleast in part about oil. Is that oil the reason enough to further alienate a sixth (+) of world's population. Remember, the horrific acts of 9/11 were committed by people who were directly or indirectly affected by US's policies (be it israel or oil or iraq-1). We just don’t get it. You cannot pay anyone enough to die for something unless they actually believe in the cause. We can call them cowards all we want but we aren’t doing much better ourselves. We'd likely be responsible for half a million mostly civilian causalities as a result of this war… because of oil... using our military superiority. Yeah half a dozen warplanes lost to malfunctions, a couple dozen soldiers (preferably canadians or brits :)) lost to friendly fire… we don’t have much to loose. Most of it will come down to pressing buttons to destroy and kill and feel brave (opposite of coward BTW) about it. Think about it! So how do we deal with them… not by bombing them... that is exactly the reason they are acting like this in the first place. If US were to go ahead with this war for the reasons on the table, we would probably get cheap oil but this country would become progressively less secure.
  11. We are looking like thugs and bullies right about now. Why do we have to alienate rest of the world (including most allies) by acting like this? We used to have a higher moral ground and a very positive outlook for most of recent history... Would like to hear intelligent opinions! ------------------------------------------------- Iraq? It's the Oil, Stupid! by Robert Fisk • Sunday January 19, 2003 at 12:56 PM I was sitting on the floor of an old concrete house in the suburbs of Amman this week, stuffing into my mouth vast heaps of lamb and boiled rice soaked in melted butter. The elderly, bearded, robed men from Maan – the most Islamist and disobedient city in Jordan – sat around me, plunging their hands into the meat and soaked rice, urging me to eat more and more of the great pile until I felt constrained to point out that we Brits had eaten so much of the Middle East these past 100 years that we were no longer hungry. There was a muttering of prayers until an old man replied. "The Americans eat us now," he said. Through the open door, where rain splashed on the paving stones, a sharp east wind howled in from the east, from the Jordanian and Iraqi deserts. Every man in the room believed President Bush wanted Iraqi oil. Indeed, every Arab I've met in the past six months believes that this – and this alone – explains his enthusiasm for invading Iraq. Many Israelis think the same. So do I. Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil? The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-Opec fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil? Take a look at the statistics on the ratio of reserve to oil production – the number of years that reserves of oil will last at current production rates – compiled by Jeremy Rifkin in Hydrogen Economy. In the US, where more than 60 per cent of the recoverable oil has already been produced, the ratio is just 10 years, as it is in Norway. In Canada, it is 8:1. In Iran, it is 53:1, in Saudi Arabia 55:1, in the United Arab Emirates 75:1. In Kuwait, it's 116:1. But in Iraq, it's 526:1. And this forthcoming war isn't about oil? Even if Donald Rumsfeld's hearty handshake with Saddam Hussein in 1983 – just after the Great Father Figure had started using gas against his opponents – didn't show how little the present master of the Pentagon cares about human rights or crimes against humanity, along comes Joost Hilterman's analysis of what was really going on in the Pentagon back in the late 1980s. Hilterman, who is preparing a devastating book on the US and Iraq, has dug through piles of declassified US government documents – only to discover that after Saddam gassed 6,800 Kurdish Iraqis at Halabja (that's well over twice the total of the World Trade Center dead of 11 September 2001) the Pentagon set out to defend Saddam by partially blaming Iran for the atrocity. A newly declassified State Department document proves that the idea was dreamed up by the Pentagon – who had all along backed Saddam – and states that US diplomats received instructions to push the line of Iran's culpability, but not to discuss details. No details, of course, because the story was a lie. This, remember, followed five years after US National Security Decision Directive 114 – concluded in 1983, the same year as Rumsfeld's friendly visit to Baghdad – gave formal sanction to billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Baghdad. And this forthcoming war is about human rights? Back in 1997, in the years of the Clinton administration, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and a bunch of other right-wing men – most involved in the oil business – created the Project for the New American Century, a lobby group demanding "regime change" in Iraq. In a 1998 letter to President Clinton, they called for the removal of Saddam from power. In a letter to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House, they wrote that "we should establish and maintain a strong US military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests [sic] in the Gulf – and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power". The signatories of one or both letters included Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, now Rumsfeld's Pentagon deputy, John Bolton, now under-secretary of state for arms control, and Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's under-secretary at the State Department – who called last year for America to take up its "blood debt" with the Lebanese Hizbollah. They also included Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense, currently chairman of the defense science board, and Zalmay Khalilzad, the former Unocal Corporation oil industry consultant who became US special envoy to Afghanistan – where Unocal tried to cut a deal with the Taliban for a gas pipeline across Afghan territory – and who now, miracle of miracles, has been appointed a special Bush official for – you guessed it – Iraq. The signatories also included our old friend Elliott Abrams, one of the most pro-Sharon of pro-Israeli US officials, who was convicted for his part in the Iran-Contra scandal. Abrams it was who compared Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon – held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission for the slaughter of 1,700 Palestinian civilians in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre – to (wait for it) Winston Churchill. So this forthcoming war – the whole shooting match, along with that concern for "vital interests" (i.e. oil) in the Gulf – was concocted five years ago, by men like Cheney and Khalilzad who were oil men to their manicured fingertips. In fact, I'm getting heartily sick of hearing the Second World War being dug up yet again to justify another killing field. It's not long ago that Bush was happy to be portrayed as Churchill standing up to the appeasement of the no-war-in Iraq brigade. In fact, Bush's whole strategy with the odious and Stalinist-style Korea regime – the "excellent" talks which US diplomats insist they are having with the Dear Leader's Korea which very definitely does have weapons of mass destruction – reeks of the worst kind of Chamberlain-like appeasement. Even though Saddam and Bush deserve each other, Saddam is not Hitler. And Bush is certainly no Churchill. But now we are told that the UN inspectors have found what might be the vital evidence to go to war: 11 empty chemical warheads that just may be 20 years old. The world went to war 88 years ago because an archduke was assassinated in Sarajevo. The world went to war 63 years ago because a Nazi dictator invaded Poland. But for 11 empty warheads? Give me oil any day. Even the old men sitting around the feast of mutton and rice would agree with that.