Didn't I post a thread on Saudis funding Al Queda on here a few days ago? Does this guilt-by-association apply to them. What about the pictures of Saudi royals shaking hands with every president for the last 80 yrs that the Saudi embassy has been running on as "Allies for Peace" advertisement on the television? Are WE then guilty by association?

Not trying to flame, just mincing my issues and confusing my metaphors. :D :D :D :D </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff6666">
Obviously the Saudi's are a completely seperate issue. Yep they do supply aid, yep they do need to be dealt with, yep we will get to them when the timeis right. Rightnow the immediate threat with the WOMD is Iraq not Saudi Arabia. One thing at a time...and since you are referencing previous posts [img]smile.gif[/img] Did you not read my most excellent thread on War and rumors of war??? :D </font>

Nope - not yet. I'll read it tomorrow, after court, about midday, which is the next time I'll have a chunk of free time. I'm looking forward to it though, as I'm a big fan of all your literature. :D :D :D [img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff6666">
Gee I ...I...don't know how to take that ;) hehe You might like the thread. Kind of interesting, ties a lot of things together. </font>

Where and when - the only thing I've heard is his promise to reward the families of dead Palestinian Suicide Bombers.

Who think that???? - I is certainly the first I've heard of it.

If that is so likely - why hasn't he done so already. He's had 4 years without inspections to do so.

And I really don't like 'guilty by association' argument - I just too easy.

To reiterate what has been stated repeatedly: you're in danger whether you like it or not. Osama's jihad is against "The West," which includes the UK. America got hit first because we're the biggest, most symbolic target and hitting Americans scores the most cool points in the Mid East fraternity of fanatics.

All the social betterment goodies he promised are pretty worthless is the kids get gassed on the way to school.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gilgamesh: [QB]I understand what you mean Mack, i want peace too, but doesnt it sound a bit stupid starting a war to make peace? (war on terrorism) for world peace? Mmm... Ill have to think this one through...

That bit of rhetoric didn't make sense when hippies spouted it in the 60's, and it has not improved with age. And what's this about "starting" a war? I was under the impression that the opening volley of the war was 9/11. To claim that the US/UK are starting a war is tantamount to saying that we started a war with Japan after they bombed the crap out of Pearl Harbor.

You'd be a fool not to be. Nobody with half a brain who is not divorced from reality is saying we need to send in the troops because war is fun. I fought in the last nig Mid East dust-up in '91, and that was sufficiently scary for me, and as wars go, Desert Storm was a schoolyard shoving match. The first 30 minutes of the Omaha Beach landing were worse that the entire war I was in.

YOur friends and family could also die in the next big terrorist attack. Hell, they could die driving down the road, or for that matter, cleaning the gutters and taking a nasty spill onto the pavement. There is a point where aversion to risk becomes a bigger risk in itself.

I want to get paid lots of money, but I don't wanna work and take crap from my boss. I wanna look like Mr. Olympia, but I don't wanna live a regimented lifestyle and spend 20 hours a week in the gym. I wanna go to Heavan, but I don't wanna die...

Peace is a precious thing, and precious things have a price, and that price is often hardship and sacrifice. I should think a Brit should know better than anyone the awful cost of a head of state ignoring the threat in his backyard, appeasing a tyrant and hoping the problem goes away. Neville Chamberlain thought he was doing the right thing avoiding war with Hitler, and as a result of his cautious altruism, England was very nearly bombed flat.

Here again, I notice nobody taking the tack that war is fun and everyone should fight in one in their lives.

I don't want to feel the pain of a knife in my back, yet this simple fact will not stop that mugger hiding over there in the bushes from trying to stick one in me. If he does, I might get stabbed, I might even get killed, but I will not go quietly.

Such as...?

Such as the families of 3,000 dead Americans at the WTC, of scores of Aussie partygoers in Bali, of the crewmembers killed in the USS Cole bombing, the families of the Kurds gassed by Saddam Hussein and mutilated by the Taliban troops financed by Osama bin Laden...

...compassion's a nice thing, Gil, but how's about spreading it around more evenly.

<font color='green'> Gil-I think your a bit out of line here. The War on Terror is not WW 3, nor is it WW 2. The reason WW 2 was so bad is because there were diffrent methods of warfare. The USSR bassicly threw people onto the battle field and that was that. Not too much stratagy on there part. And they did it to millions of people. It cant even be counted how many people the USSR lost in WW II.

It was more 'mass' than the War on Terror. Technolagy has changed. Now things are done in stealth. Of corse there is still front lines, and of corse there will be bloodshed and collertal damage. But I doubt the world will ever see something as horrific as WW 2 was. Not for a while at least.

What is going to cause it? Nukes? Your scared of the threat of nuclear war yet you dont want to go into Iraq? This may surprise you but </font> <font color='white'> Americans arent doing this just because we are having fun or any other silly reason. </font> <font color='green'> Anything else you can think of that will case such mass damage? Another sort of Blitzkrieg? Uhh, last I knew off No one that has the capabilty or want to do that sort of thing had a base in Eroupe. Its unlikely Iraq is going to fly from Bagdhad to London..

The War on Terror is to prevent things like this happening. As for England would be able to over come the Nazi invasion with out Americas help....That is quiet simply, silly. Pictures, Facts and Stories prove that. France would still has a Schwaztica (probably not spelled right) flying over it, Estonia to The Ukriane would stll be under Communist controll and Poland would still have the Warsaw Ghetto going. And its likely The Burmingham (is that how you spell it? I dont think I have ever seen it spelled) would now be called The Adolf Hitler Palace.

Also, just curious....If your Grandfather lost his abilty to talk how did he tell you stories?? </font>

If that is so likely - why hasn't he done so already. He's had 4 years without inspections to do so.

And I really don't like 'guilty by association' argument - I just too easy.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#ff6666">
Easy or not, it is real life. You dont want to get mixed up with the bad guys, don't hang out with them. Who is to say he hasn't. Did you know that on an annual basis (this is based on 1980's info) there are no less than 700 terror attempts stopped by US intelligence agencies and military that never make the morning news? You have NO idea just how much goes on in the world that no one ever hears about. I realize my word is all I have to prove this, but surely there are others here who have had military, intelligence or governmental experience that can attest to these facts.

Edit: got carried away with the 0 key [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

[ 11-26-2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Several excellent points, here. The primary one that I emphasize is that it takes just one side to make a war, and we were attacked first. Second, how do you think that all that rubble of your nightmares is going to be caused by? Certainly not by the Arabs. They couldn't even take Israel, much less the USA and the UK. If we were really angry, like at a sneak nuke attack on New York or London, we could convert the Middle East to a sea of radioactive glass in about two hours. We, of course, do not want to do this, but, make no mistake, it is within our capabilities.

That is a comforting thought. ;)

Mark