diverborg

That's true but the desire for separtism is still there. Ok if not Tibet, then Taiwan's gonna get it. Just my humble opinion. I hope I'm wrong and this is all some stupid misinterpretation of their motives.

Pretty scary, that's what I see happening. The scariest part of the whole article though. I think we can pretty much say goodbye to Tibet. Funny, for some reason I remember the Chinese terrorizing the Tibetans and not the other way around.

phew, I've been crying since I read your post. I feel better now.

In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa was awesome -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present tense please Melissa and Rook _are_ awesome, just like the dropzone they've helped transform into the Oz of skydiving, Skydive Chicago! Quote Sorry, but I was referring to the interview which was past tense. I just worded it bad. I should have said, Melissa is awesame and her interview was awesome. Thanks for the correction.

I just checked it out. Great show, I'll definitely be looking forward to hearing more. Melissa was awesome, I loved how she described the world record jump. She has a lot of insight, and an she's an excellent interviewee. It helped me appreciate my sport so much when I listened to her advice and inspiring stories. Great job Melissa! Stump and Dave, your show rocks!

oh crap, I've been proved wrong.

Awww come on this is speakers corner not C-span what do you expect. Were all just a bunch of computer nerds trying to throw are opinions out. I mean for real, what good is it doing to argue on the internet? It's just a good way of venting frustrations against opposing views.

Oh it was just a joke, I didn't mean any seriousness by the comment. Maybe I should a put a few behind it. Sorry If I labeled anyone incorrectly, I've always enjoyed reading speedracer's posts. I was just hoping for another smartass remark in return.

no he's just one of these rare creatures we call a "lefty with common sense."

THANK YOU

Fighting to the death is little different than suicide bombing. I can't believe I am even wasting my time arguing this. Did any of the americans at the alamo launch themselves out of the canons, or light themselves on fire and go hug their enemy.

Since I didn't hear anything about suicide bombers, I'm going to guess the Revolutionary War. I could assume your not speaking from experience either, so both of us are uninformed. I was just trying to add a little common sense.

Thanks for clarifying, it does make me feel better. Your a good guy Bill even though I can't remember one thing we've agreed on yet.

Instead of me trying to argue, I'll refer you to my previous posts for billvon. I've already said all that I've wanted too.

WHAT? I don't think the objectives are the same. And I can't see how money has anything to do with it. I think it has more to do with jihad and 72 virgins waiting for you. I'll still stand by my original point, that you're not going to find very many Americans willing to do this. You say you know some, well, I'll take your word for it, but I would like to know a little background on these people. Perhaps you've met people that you think would do this just because they are die-hard Americans. I don't care how poor or desperate we become, it will always be easier to throw or plant a bomb rather than strapping it to yourself and running into a crowd. I would like to think we are smarter than this, evidently, you don't.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I'm just not gonna see eye to eye with ya on this one. I agree that there are plenty of Americans that would gladly die for their country, but I sure haven't met any in my lifetime that would knowingly strap a bomb to themselves with the intent of blowing up themselves with the enemy. I'd be very interested to meet some of these people your talking about. Going on a mission where the odds of survival is nearly impossible in order to protect your country cannot be compared to a suicide bomber. I am surprised that I'm the only one so far that is offended by this.

That's my point exactly, I don't even classify the kamikaze's the same as these guy's, and America has never even adopted the tactics of the kamikaze's as regular form of warfare. I think it's a long shot to say that this was Japans only line of defense as well as these suicide bombers being that their only line of defense. I still can't quite see the parallel for this one. Suicide bombing and guerrilla warfare, although both unacceptable in their time, do have some very big differences. I'll give a ten for creativity. Anyway my original point was that its going to be difficult to find Americans with the willingness to strap a bomb to their chest and walk into building and blow themselves up.

I do agree with that, however I don't think the goal of the mission was suicide. It was just a statistically unsurvivable mission that was necessary, thus being viewed as heroes if they chose to go. It really bothers me to classify these people in the same boat as a suicide bomber. It seems pretty disrespectful. Can you honestly not see the difference?

I know, I understood the context of why you said it. I was just trying to be funny and acting like the stereotypical redneck. Thats why I kept it separate from the rest of my post.

Good luck finding American soldiers to do that. I would rather run to Canada than to blow myself up.

Holy crap, those people had odd looking eyes. I missed that in the history books. We should have dropped at least ten more a-bombs. Slanty eyes are almost as bad as people with black curly hair and big noses, and worse yet people with towels on their heads. Anyway as far as my $.02 goes, WWII was a completely different era and type of war than those we fight today. Now we have to take in affect the mass slaughter of the jews and the chinese that were going on at that time, as well as all the countries that had been invaded. Civilian casualties were actually a goal of our enemies, there was no regard whatsoever to human life by these sides. The US would stand no chance in ever ending this war if it refused to drop a bomb because of civilian casualties in it's opposing countries. I still don't think it was ever the goal of the US to slaughter innocent lives, but to stop a superpower like japan we had to hit them where it hurt. Plus keep in mind we didn't have the intelligence back then that we have today. I don't think we had satellites that could point out right where their leader was or where all their military forces may be hiding. Our supplies were limited at the time and our strategy was to scare the shit out of em. According to Lawrocket's last post, these cities did have military interest, also keep in mind that the total Japanese lives that we were responsible for was nothing compared to the number of innocent chinese they had been killing, and we were able to put a stop to that. If you want to weigh it out we may have killed over 100,000 japs but this prevented them from killing maybe half a million or more Chinese (these numbers are just a guess) and God knows how many of our forces if we would have just done a ground invasion. As fantastic as the idea seems to hit only military targets and never civilians, it's just not realistic and we can't continue to blame the US for everything. Why shouldn't Japan and other countries take responsibility for their own civilian deaths because they brought it on themselves, instead of the usual anti-American copout used throughout history by them and people like you.

Actually that was pretty widespread on almost all newstations. It was quite awhile ago, and it was pretty shortlived in comparison to more serious issues. Can you honestly not remember this? The whole administration was under fire, they had trials and all. Do a search, I'm sure something will pop up. If you want dates and such, I don't have them right now. I was just going off of memory. I'm not the only one that remembers this, because I just had this discussion with a liberal friend of mine.

I would first like to start out by saying that I don't honestly know whether Iraq was a good idea or not, but... What cracks me up the most about these anti-Bushers is that these are the same people that were pushing to impeach Bush because he didn't take any action against the Taliban before 9-11. I wish these people would just make up their mind, or just quit taking any side against Bush even though it contradicts their own philosophies. Either you act on intelligence or not, you can't try to impeach him for one and when he does the other try to impeach him again. This president thingy might be a more difficult job than you guys think.

I would be interested in studying this if you have some exampes.