How idiotic is this point of view?

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by norompanlasolas: it always amuses me to see grown men in mature attitudes like saying, im bigger than him, ill beat him up because im stronger, i have a big brother, i have more missiles, more guns, im soo scared, well flatten the place, etc etc... pretty funny.

Ahh, I thought of Freud when I read that... [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]lol... at least you didnt think of jung!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[skywalker]

All I have to say is if you want Saddam, take him out and leave the rest of Iraq alone. Chances are we will kill thousands of innocents and he will escape. This scenario sounds familiar...anyone know where Osama is?

Mark

[Attalus]

Okay, speaking just militarily. The "two-front war" phobia is just that. Hitler lost because his "two-front war" was against the USSR and the Allies, the two biggest armies (eventually) in the world. The USA actually fought on at least three fronts in WWII (European Theater, China-Burma-India, and the Pacific), with smaller theaters like the Aleutians and North Africa/Mediterranean thrown in, and we won. True, terror could be a problem in the early stages, but as the ground troops and air forces neutralized the military assets of the "Union", this would fall away. Then, rule the Arab world militarily until democracy in some form is established. Oh, yeah, kill off all of the radicals that lead and train the terrorists. Militarily, that's easily doable, in, say, two years. Politically, harder.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by skywalker: What you speak of is pure freedom of speech. There is not much wrong with it. To have everyone in the USA follow and agree with the government would be closer to Dictatorship. It is because different views are allowed here that make this country so great. Mark You need to put it all in perspective.

Hiya Mark. Just couldn't resist putting my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] in regarding this one statement. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just recently, President Bush had an 85%+ approval rating, and he still enjoys one in the high 70's. Now...you said that if 'everyone in the USA follow(ed) and agree(d) with the government (we) would be close to Dictatorship'. So, by your interpretation, does that mean that we're almost a dictatorship? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Or, is it just possible, that maybe, just possibly, it could very well be that the majority of Americans are happy with the direction our President is taking our country, and are pleased as punch that we're finally going to finish what our pansy 'Allies' wouldn't let us finish properly about a decade ago...namely, stomping a mudhole in Saddam Hussien's ass? Sounds like Democracy in action to me. [img]smile.gif[/img] Well...I guess only the Polls will tell when 2004 rolls around.

Some food for thought.
Nachtrafe

PS: I agree totally with you on the Freedom of Speech point. That is one of the defining hallmarks of our country, and one of the cornerstones of it's greatness. [img]smile.gif[/img] Without such a thing this would be a far sadder world.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: our pansy 'Allies'

Just a never-ending cycle of bitterness and counter-bitterness isn't it.

[skywalker]

No, I meant was that if we were forced to follow, it would be a dictatorship. Approval ratings and not being allowed to question the government are 2 very different things. I think I chose an extremely poor set of words there. Sorry my intent was not to describe this government as a Dictatorship. I did not realize how blatantly wrong my statement was.

Mark

[ 09-10-2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[John D Harris]

Interesting, but it will not be a war against Islam, this is not a crusade, nor will it require bombing the smitherenes out of the country (doesn't anybody remember watching the gulf war?) 11 years ago we were dropping our bombs with a 80-85% accuracy (with in 10 yards of their target), now the tech for the "smart" bombs is lightyears ahead of where they were in '91. Does anybody remember all the talk about how we could never be able to invade Afghanistan (the had beaten both the English & USSR, major powers of their time. What chance did this arrogant Americans have?) Nuff said on that!
Skywalker is probibly closer to what will happen then he knows Sodamn Insane will be taken out either by us or his own people.

I have found it very interesting, that as each country that has objected to going after Iraq, has been shown our intel analysis they each and every one so far has started changing their tune. Heck even France, which is ADAMANT that the secret intel that we have on Iraq NOT be made public is starting to sound like they would support an operation. (I know the paranoid would explain this away as just another example of Bush bullying other leaders)

Sadam Hussein's track record and why we should preempt him:
1. has used chemical and biological weapons against Iran.
2. has used chemical weapons against the Kurds in his own country.
3. has harboured various terrorist groups and supplied them with money.
4. has been trying to buy nuclear and chemical weapon components around the world.
5. has a stockpile of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles especially equipped to spray chemical & or biological weapons. (this was verified after a hanger had the top sheered off by a nearby bomb impact.)

Ok would you let someone who has used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbor and an ethnic minority in his own country to go ahead and rebuild that capability? If so why?

In effect I believe taking a "wait till he does something else wrong with them" is irresponsible and immoral. What would the public response be say if he sold a nuclear weapon to a terrorist and they used it in London, Paris or Jeruselem? Those targets are much easier to hit and far closer than US cities.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Nachtrafe: our pansy 'Allies'

Just a never-ending cycle of bitterness and counter-bitterness isn't it.[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

It's not about bitterness. It's about follow-through. If the US' 'allies' had allowed President Bush to finish what he'd started in Desert Storm, Saddam Hussien and his Biological, Chemical, and (possibly) Nuclear weapons wouldn't be an issue right now. Why? because he'd be dead, or locked in a cell so deep in the earth that not even the moles would know where he is. If the US' 'allies' had the intelligence to stop hamstringing Isreal, and the intestinal fortitude to live with the consequences, instead of whining about them, then the Palestinian threat wouldn't even exist. If the US' 'allies' weren't such a pack of whining, liberal, feel-good-politic, panty-waists who actually got up off their collective asses and actually *DID* something about the things they constantly whine about, then the world really *would* be a better place.

So, I say again, it's not about bitterness. It's about anger! Anger at the politics of appeasement, anger at wishy-washyness, anger at cowardice. Our dear European 'Allies'(with a singular exception...and the British still aren't fully on-board) are so happy to enjoy the benefits of our money, our culture, our fashions, and our aid, but, when the chips are down, and there's real work to be done...well, then all you hear is the sound of crickets and cowards.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by skywalker: No, I meant was that if we were forced to follow, it would be a dictatorship. Approval ratings and not being allowed to question the government are 2 very different things. I think I chose an extremely poor set of words there. Sorry my intent was not to describe this government as a Dictatorship. I did not realize how blatantly wrong my statement was. Mark

No worries Mark. Mostly I was just tweaking your nose. [img]smile.gif[/img]