Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by aramike

  1. quote: The chief negotiator is a long-time Democrat who later went to serve under President Clinton and supervised Al Gore's recount battle. Reagan was indeed talking tough. Talking tough wasn't exactly (and isn't exactly) as useful as it sounds.The chief negotiator for the Algiers Accords was Abdulkarim Ghuraib, and Algerian. Oh, and the Iranians were not receptive to US negotiation at all throughout the crisis, until Reagan was elected. Coincidence? Not likely. I guess when you convert to liberalism you put on blinders to reality. It is quite accepted by both republicans and democrats alike that Reagan's election had a bit to do with bringing the Iranians to the table.
  2. quote: Then again I'm sure it is more comfortable the way Hannity proclaims it.Hannity hits the mark far closer than you would think. Carter hardly had anything whatsoever to do with the Algiers Accords. In fact, negotiations for the accords weren't even started until AFTER the elections in January '81. Reagan was already talking tough to the Iranians although he hadn't been sworn in yet.
  3. quote: An excellent paper by Mr. Scheuer (former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center) has been published in "The American Conservative", and I must agree with him...I agree and have always understood that premise, but it IS oversimplified. It's a similar concept to attacking a nation's nuclear launch capability without actually locating and attacking the silos themselves. It's not the same thing as completely DESTROYING said capability, but there can indeed be impacts. The suggestion that the Iraq War hasn't impacted Al-Qaida is flat out wrong. Does it completely cripple terror cell capable of carrying out attacks against the west? No. But it DOES impact that capability and has been documented to do so. But that's not really the point I was getting at anyway... Darkling summed it up well: quote: It was this type of thinking that led Carter to basically do nothing after the hostages were taken by Iran in the 70's. He felt that any Military Action they took, would only make things worse. Every attempt at appeasement was only met with more and more demands. By Paradox, Regan PROMISED a swift military response the MOMENT he became president. He won by a landslide and within Hrs. of him being sworn in, the Hostages were released. There are some who believe that a military response only creates more people "Mad at you" but it's my belief that a LACK of military response makes your enemies bolder. This is why the World Trade Center incidents happened, because our enemies wholeheartedly believed that the U.S. would NEVER come looking for them directly in another country. AND in addition, if we did come, as soon as a couple of body bags came home, we would turn tail and run. Here's to hoping that the Americans have the resolve NOT to turn tail and run.
  4. quote: Instead they go to train and learn how to cause mass murder. Within 10 years the United States will be attacked again, a long statement by Al Qaeda or whomever is responsible will say that "we did this because of your actions in Iraq."Yes, and those of your frame of mind will believe them because such a statement is clearly designed to empower those who believe in appeasement. Fortunately, however, no one will buy into it. Islamic terrorism didn't start after we invaded Iraq. The fact then that certain terrorist elements will use Iraq as another excuse shows that they indeed know that what they are doing REQUIRES and excuse, and is therefore wrong. Frankly this in and of itself shows the neccessity to fight them rather than attempt to appease them.
  5. I HAVE to point this out: quote: The only point where I will concur is that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. But that US folks come and believe they play the good guys, when the US has showered said dictator during the very same years he commited all these atrocities with US taxpayer money, loan grants, logistic, military and intelligence support let me think that some folks in your country suffer rather severe memory disfunctions... This is an absurd, emotionalized idea. So, if a country should come to do what is right AFTER doing what is wrong, the "right" thing to do is no longer the RIGHT THING TO DO? HUH? Also, the "right" thing to do is dynamic throughout time, in my belief. However this illustrates the need for a process to peacefully transfer power in a nation, AND for a DEMOCRATIC process with which to govern. Isn't it beautiful to be able to correct mistakes if they occur? Or should we just ignore that they ever happen because, hey - once you pick a side you're stuck with it... Disclaimer: I do not believe that it was wrong to support Iraq in Iran/Iraq War due to political considerations. When faced with two distinct evils it is wise to support the lesser evil and hope that both wipe one another out.
  6. $ilk: You would gain much more credibility sticking to the larger picture rather than attempting to illustrate that the larger scope of things is "bad" because of small, personailized instances. Maybe you aren't aware but for every story of an Iraqi that fell on hard times there are similar ones of Americans during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Perhaps you're suggesting that it would have been better to continue Colonial rule and slavery than it would have been to engage in conflict? I highly doubt that. For every conflict (just or unjust) there are innocents than suffer. For that reason, said suffering has little to do with whether or not a conflict is just and therefore attempting to make a point (such as your "Mission Accomplished" blurb) based upon personalized consequences (good or bad) would demonstrate a very limited understanding of the larger picture. And, in the scope of war, the larger picture is the point. quote: FYI, the country that has the biggest penitenciary population in the world is... the US. Check for yourself if you don't believe me.You may wish to retract that. The Russians probably don't lead this any longer due to the splitting of the USSR. However, I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you have access to accurate statistics regarding China, North Korea, Iran, etc. And in the case of China, I have a "feeling" that you're not only wrong, but that you're not even in the ballpark. A VERY educated "feeling".
  7. quote: I don't think that's the reason at all. I think the reason is because of things like in Saudi Arabia, the Royal Family basically takes the Nations oil wealth for themselves.Correct. And if there were a process for transition of power, no government would be empowered long enough to do it. Hence my point that the lack of said process is the root of the politcal upheavel.
  8. Actually, one of the prime reasons (if not THE prime reason) for the politic upheavel in the middle east is that there is a complete lack of a system regarding peaceful transfer of power. As far as appeasement goes, ask yourself this: if a dog behaves badly to gain a steak and you give him the steak, how do you think he'll behave next time he wants a steak?
  9. quote: You're joking right?Ummm, no. Read my comment again. quote: It's like Rosie said, "Oh here in America we have Christian Extremist". This is the biggest BS I've ever heard of in my life. A Christian might say that Homosexuality is a Moral sin equivalent to say Adultery. To Rosie, that person is an extremist. However, does that person strap a bomb on to his kids and tell that child to go and blow up a Homosexually oriented Church? The answer is no way, they would never do that. Muslim extremist however, do that on a weekly basis. That's like saying that me shooting you in the face is the same as someone swearing at you. Not quite the same thing. And WHERE precisely did I say "Christian extremist"? There are other forms of extremism present in the US. Remember Timothy McVeigh? I agree with your premise but as a response to what *I* was illustrating you're way off the mark.
  10. quote: Yeah, it's a flaw. So let's move further in your thinking line. What about hindouism ? It's even worse than Islam since they believe that they keep coming back as long they don't behave like good lil boys...How about Americans while we're at it? We have extremists too... Oh wait - the difference is that governments aren't openly supporting said extremists. Hmm... easy difference to see. Absurd comment.
  11. quote: Can you point to me a "pre-emptive" war that turned out successful for the aggressor nation? Vietnam? Afghanistan?If you're referring to a successful "preemptive war" as one in which the initial aggressor wins, there are countless examples: the Persians, the Romans, the Spaniards, the British, etc, etc... The list goes on and on. If you're referring to a successful "preemptive war" as one from a modern POLITICAL standpoint, the question would be irrelevent as there is hardly enough modern history with which to serve as a precedent. But, again, aggressors have been victorious many times throughout history. However, none of this has much to do with Iraq. quote: That being said - I could go on for a little while espousing my beliefs on the subject - but can you tell me exactly what we "pre-empted" by invading Iraq? That (maybe) Saddam Hussein would develop WMDs again in the future, and that (maybe) he would conspire to use them or (maybe) give them to terrorists (even though Saddam Hussein was in opposition to the goals of Al Qaeda and vice-versa)?Umm, the beauty of preempting something bad is that we don't have to find out. Which is why we do it. However, let's go with your "maybe" criteria. Since when is a nation that is OUTWARDLY hostile and uncooperative with us and has shown a HISTORY of WMD USAGE one that would not be a good target for preemptive attack? Should we have waited for something to happen first? Sure, maybe nothing would have happened. But then again, maybe something WOULD have. I'd rather err on the side of protecting my nation, thanks. In any case, I do feel that the Iraq war has run its course and is no longer truly necessary. But that does not mean that it was not necessary to begin with. I just don't think that there's anything left to accomplish there. Oh, and by the way - to say that we weren't provoked is absurd and ignores the politics of the middle east.
  12. Big special effects bonanza that takes you for quite a ride. A LONG ride. 7/10 Would get a better score had the plot been better suited to telling a story rather than moving the viewer from one FX shot to the next.
  13. quote: Institutionalized military preemption against perceived future threats presented by foreign states (in other words imaginary at the time the decision to preemptively attack is taken) is the MOST STUPID concept a leader could ever come with.Yeah, I suppose it would have been a terribly stupid idea to preempt Nazi Germany thusly saving millions... In case you haven't been paying attention, wars are almost always started through someone preempting something. They usually aren't fought following a friendly handshake.
  14. aramike

    Movie - Spiderman 3

    Hell, after seeing the trailers I feel able to review this crap, which is apparantly exactly what I thought it would be: crap. 4/10
  15. Wasn't there an ice age once or twice in the past? Wouldn't Global Warming have contributed to melting said ice? Tell me, then - what did man do to cause THAT sequence of global warming?
  16. I'll be impressed when (if) the practical applications roll out.
  17. quote: Originally posted by rapilot: I think the main reason game reviews are flawed is because gameplay is only one of several factors in the overall rating. They should instead make the rating all about gameplay. We should be rating the game and not the programming achievement of the product. It is no longer the early days of the video game industry. Back then it would make sense to give huge points for a game that makes achievements in graphics. Now, it is the gameplay that sets one game apart from another. I agree. But instead of making it technical why not simply call it "fun"? And ... ask not the question, "is this game fun?" versus the question, "is this game fun for the audience it's intended for?"
  18. LOL! Too bad that there's no reason for them not to be one company. Sure, they're competing with one-another ... oh yeah, and the thousands of other traditional radio stations out there. Monopoly on method of making sound come through your radio? Maybe. Monopoly on the end result which is sound coming through your radio? Hardly.
  19. Some snips: quote: Let me make sure no one misunderstands me. I don't know why the BBC and CNN would prematurely report the collapse of that building. OK. Go with that then. quote: There are many questions surrounding the events of 911 that have not been answered to the satisfaction of reason. LOL! Your assertions aren't remotely rationalized through reason and probabilities... quote: I really don't want to foster any ill will. But honestly, it would be nice to see something of substance rather than hollow accusations of ignorance on my part. Cure my "ignorance" and help another poor slob out whose trying to make sense of this felgercarb. I need a little more than "because I said so."I've backed up EVERYTHING I've said with reason. You've just chose to ignore it. Rather and more accurately, you've ATTEMPTED to burden ME with the proof that YOUR VIEWS (not commonly accepted as logical) are inaccurate. Umm, just so you know, in debate if you want to detract from common views, the burden of proof is on the detractor. You're akin to someone telling me that Elvis lives then tasking me with proving that he's dead. Silly. quote: I knew this before I went to work there but when I was an employee of a large military contractor I saw the effectiveness of the compartmentalization of information first hand. By only allowing someone to know about his small piece of the project and not the entire enterprise, it is possible to carry out very sophisticated projects while 98% of the people carrying it out do not understand what they are doing in relation to the overall project. It is possible to have someone make a part of a weapon system and believe they are making components for communications equipment. You understand this principle I'm sure.K... hogwash... "Sir, why am I reporting that a building has fallen when it clearly hasn't"? "You don't need to know that." Right. How the freakin' HELL do you think you can compartmentalized media stories? quote: So what about the Vietnam thing? You really have no valid argument for what you said do you? Of course not.Actually, he DOES have a point. Would you like for me to illustrate it for you? It's actually fairly easy. quote: What is the expert's opinion? He said: "blah...blah..." Actually, I said A LOT MORE than that. You just PATHETICALLY chose to choose two simple broad rationalizations to sum up the more complicated points. Forgive me if I'm not surprised by that amateur tactic. Heh, let me try it. You said: "I mean really man, if I have that all wrong I'd like to see the evidence to the contray." Good counter-point. How about this: "Why would the President resist an investigation into the events of 911 like he did?" I could go on and on with one-liners if you'd like. Let me answer one FINAL, STUPID question that you've asked: quote: Who, why, and how that other someone could know enough to write about a WTC 7s collapse before it actually did should be the real question here.Gee, Captian Obvious, a building collapsing would probably show some signs of it collapsing prior to its collapse. Duh. And, therefore, by showing those signs someone just *MAY* have predicted it would collapse. Duh. And they WOULD HAVE BEEN RIGHT. Duh. And the PRESS may have caught wind of that prediction and reported it, or mistakenly taken it as fact. DUH. You know what you're problem is, Frozen? Here, let me outline it for you: You come with an assertion. Others disagree. You accuse others of having no proof and ignore and/or simplify their arguments. You attack the FACT that they argued it rather than the facts they argue themselves. Tin hat.
  20. Thanks, Jaguar... Now for *MY* fun... quote: And I'm the King of England, a former employee of the 'Military Industrial ComplexÔÇØ, and a technical communication specialist. Ok ... I'm not the freaking King of England. You caught me. Information control can be anything from a filing clerk, a reporter for Az-Zaman, to a writer for the Us Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) Journal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Impress me with your intricate knowledge of the mechanics and limitations of such operations and why it just couldn't be so.I've given NUMEROUS reasons as to the lack of plausibility in your arguments. You can either keep asking me to restate them or respond specifically to them. In case you haven't figured it out yet - information control on an international scale isn't simple. Oh, and have you stopped long enough to examine the PARADOX of your argument yet? That being that the US government could control the dissemination of such information on such a grand scale yet NOT stop the availability of so-called information NOW? Kinda silly, if you think about it... quote: I don't see anything in your unsupported statement to convince me that they would ÔÇ£not likelyÔÇØ be able to. Care to elaborate or should I just take your opinion for it?I just did. Read above. OK, I'll restate it: US government able to restrict and control ADVANCE information on an INTERNATIONAL scale PRIOR to the events actually TAKING PLACE. Yet, SAME US government UNABLE to control people like Frozen Ghost from getting their hands on such information thereby "stopping" the perpetuation of a so-called "lie". Hmm. Odd. quote: Yes, the whole 911 operation, regardless of who did it, was to induce a very specific emotional and psychological response in the American public and the world. Do you deny that? All terrorist acts are by definition Psychological Operations calculated to induce a emotional and psychological response to bring about change. Umm, would you MIND NOT CHANGING your contexts when using terms? The 9/11 operation WOULD qualify as psy-op. The so-called GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION of the dissemination of information (which this discourse is about) is called Information Warefare. quote: Are you telling me that providing enemies (Ben Lauden was fingered 33 mins after the first crash), carefully crafted(but premature) reporting that massive buildings are falling in New York due to fire induced structural weakness (when none had ever done so before 911) and generally undercutting the sense of security of every American not a Psy-Op? Umm, no, it's not a psy-op. That's information warefare. Oh, and by the way - info warefare CAN be a part of a psy-op. But that's not what we're talking about here. quote: This has relevance how?Are you SO FREAKIN' IGNORANT that you can't see how the ability to send 1000s of reporters to REMOTE locales and the lack thereof would impact the effectiveness of free media? SERIOUSLY? quote: Are you to trying to suggest that someone who could manipulate the small IRAQI press because they are in complete control of it wouldn't be unable to manipulate the BBC and CNN because you assume they are not?No. What I'm suggesting is that the Iranian Army would have no problem dealing with Kuwaiti Army but would be completely overmatched by the US Army. There's no assumption in that the power of established western media is QUITE great in comparison to the power of a newly established Iraqi free press. quote: I need more an argument than that given the evidence in hand.Sorry dude, but in debate, the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. If you're asserting the governments can manipulate the media to perpetuate your theories, the ONUS is on YOU to prove it. I can easily prove the opposite to not be true. Have you ever stopped to wonder why the media continuously PANS Bush yet is SO impotent when faced with the most SENSATIONAL story in modern history? Clearly not. quote: One word, and since you're an old intelligence man from way back, you'll understand what I mean when I say ÔÇ£gatekeepersÔÇØ. Maybe you could elaborate on the necessity of regulating the flow of information or propaganda that is provided to local news organizations to ensure the event is perceived as designed. Example: Bay of Tonkin.Different media. Different time. As for the necessity of information flow, well, let me start by saying that I'm not from SO "way back" that I'm not up to muster on today's media doctrine. And, said doctrine does not include mass-manipulation of established media. Any idea why? I guess probably not. I'll tell you: IT WOULD BE DOWNRIGHT FREAKIN' STUPID. To rely on people who are NOT OBLIGEDto protect sensitive information is madness. To go further and rely on those who would PROFIT from LEAKING that information is MADNESS. Oh, but I'm sure that's just what they want us to think, right? This is getting silly... quote: You want me to just dismiss out of hand a major and quite incredible blunder made by not one but two of the worlds major networks on one the most significant days in American history for what reason exactly? I have yet to get anything from you but your emphatic unsupported opinion about how things are ... in CAPS YET. Sensationalizing things? Have you watched the actual footage in question? Besides, they hardly needed to sensationalize anything about 911, I'm sure you'll agree with me there. That is about the MOST UNEDUCATED and IGNORANT thing I've ever READ! In case you haven't learned this, most network news comes from contracted sources such as Reuters and the AP. Hmm, would it be THAT far of a stretch to propose that, say, the Associated Press mistakenly reported that a building fell and two networks who SUBSCRIBE to AP wires REPORTED that said building fell? Oh, and before you try to counter with "well, that's how the government plotted it then - use the wire services" let me cut you off by saying how freakin' stupidly risky that would be with so many cameras on scene anyway. No benefit. Therefore stupid. Yet government smart enough to cover up 9/11 was stupid enough to screw up that detail. Sure. quote: You want me to believe you had 17 years in military information control and you need me to show you the BBC NEWS, THE EDITORS article by Head of BBC World News Editor Richard Porter himself because you either have dismissed this out-of-hand because you just inherently ÔÇ£know betterÔÇØ, you don't know how, or you don't really care enough to look? In any case here it is amigo. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007...conspiracy.html 1: Why would I bother investigating something I KNOW not to be true. 2: So? They don't have the tapes. What about the 100s of other networks that have recordings from the day it happened? Did they ALL participate in a conspiracy? See, so much has to happen for your theory to be true. All of it improbably. But it really didn't happen. quote: I wish you fellows would educate yourselves before you try to have a conversation about something.Education includes more than finding one side of an opinion piece to take. You should try it. Oh, and I was educated to weigh my options and go with the most likely. As were most people here. You may not want to throw around the word "education" so easily around here. Most of us are quite learned. quote: You're wasting my time and propagating misinformation. Umm, I was about to say the same thing. quote: The footage is archive footage. ...that the BBC doesn't have archived. Right. quote: A key fact here is that the BBC admits the mistake.I haven't seen that. I've only seen that they say that they may or may not have. quote: Well, I'll have to say you haven't been either.Good meaningless shot coming from the guy in the tin hat. I'm pretty sure that I'm a bit more impressive to those who matter in this world. Maybe not all that much to the guy who can't differentiate between unlikely things and likelyhoods, but hey - oh well. quote: Well don't. You're an ex-military information control specialist. Trust government and big business, after all, you should know best that history has shown they have your best interests at heart. Odd. You picked the anti-establishment to trust. 10 points if you can identify THAT paradox. Heh, got more...
  21. Nomad, I understand your concept except that it's fundamentally flawed at its mathematical core: So, the rich guy and the poor guy split a turkey due to math and averages? Not so much if said turkey is TARGETTED at the rich guy...
  22. quote: I haven't decided which is worse: Thousands of our soldiers going off to die because they were lied to when they were told they were "fighting for their country" or some foreigner making a joke of it. The Worst: An ignorant fool who doesn't understand the difference between trained, armed men fighting terrorists overseas and untrained, unarmed men, women, and children being victimized at home. But alas, we just keep perpetuating the "lie" that Islamic terrorism originates in the middle east. Thank God you're ideologies aren't in charge...
  23. We shouldn't even BEGIN to touch stereotypes here...
  • Create New...