Jump to content

CommanderJohnson

Members
  • Posts

    721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by CommanderJohnson

  1. quote:Originally posted by Menchise: If you want to talk about lack of objectivity, try looking into the backgrounds of the Bush administration, particularly their ties with big oil and the big arms dealers like Lockheed-Martin. They would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a war with Iraq.Ok, please explain to me how the BIG OIL is going to benefit from an attack on Iraq when the rest of the Middle East CUTS THEIR OIL PRODUCTION? Everyone's been saying how "big oil" is going to be hurt by a war, not helped. quote: quote:He also has NOT had any intelligence briefings since he was an inspectorAnd yet he seems to know more than the government does. He's the only one who's presenting facts. All I get from Rumsfeld is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". He knows more because he presents some true facts and then follows them up with a bunch of BS analysis that doesn't prove that Saddam isn't a danger, that doesn't prove that he doesn't have WMDs, and only serves to give liberals a reason to rant and rave about how they are right, even though the "facts" dont REALLY prove it, they just throw bias around. Menchise, care to respond to the 8-10 points I posted earlier about Saddam? EDIT: Since when does "big business" BENEFIT from wars? Sure, they did during WW2, but currently, stocks go DOWN during conflict, especially when the oil prices go UP due to the Middle East cutting supply since we bug them (such as by an invasion). You keep spouting liberal rhetoric without any explanation... [ 09-19-2002, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]
  2. JAG is good, and the Law and Order Series are good. Not sure about the others...
  3. So many Stormcarriers. Greatest thing about them is when an enemy ship drops out of hyperdrive, the Stormcarrier's fighters blow the target to bits before the target's engines even re-materialize. Yeah, Dragon Lady's right, I fly a Stormcarrier.
  4. Well, I agree with Jag on this political issue (as expected), but time to throw in my response too. First, to respond to that article about Bush's agenda. The reason why we are still planning on attacking Iraq is because Saddam's letter proves nothing. Saddam SAID that he'd let weapons inspectors have unhindered access AFTER the Gulf War. He didn't, and then the UN was gutless and didn't stop him from playing the shell game. The US isn't going to back down until a UN resolution is passed spelling out specific guidelines of what Saddam will do, and what will happen if he doesn't. You can't blame the administration. They want to be sure that there isn't going to have to be a debate, and thus an opportunity for Saddam to weasel out of a US attack, if he plays a shell game THIS TIME with inspectors. This way, at the first sign of Saddam trying to kick out weapons inspectors, we can just replace em with bombs. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: if you choose to ignore this reality and surround yourself with information that only supports your idea's, then your only seeing part of the story....but you aren't alone.I guess I better try to sound more moderate/balanced. I have no illusion that the actions our government takes are often because of other motives and often benefit the politicians and their interests. HOWEVER, just because the admin may be pushing their own agenda through attacks on Iraq, the facts i've been listen and keep bringing up don't change just because Bush may want to attack Iraq in order to look good to his dad. Attacking Iraq is objectively a good idea (feel free to argue the points I raised), and it isn't "for the oil" (since, as i've already stated, attacking Iraq will INCREASE the prices of oil and hurt us, not help us) quote: I support the removal of Saddam with the sanction of the UN. I support the idea of international law and global cooperation. I do not support unilateral action by any man....elected or otherwise. And I say again, your copping out of the issue and saying that "the UN determines if Iraq is a threat or not". WRONG. Either Iraq is a threat, or Iraq is not a threat. The UN doesn't MAKE Iraq a threat or not a threat because of their vote. Your advocating relativism and it doesn't make sense. Either attacking Iraq is THE RIGHT thing to do, or the WRONG thing to do. That doesn't change just because the UN says so, and our actions should be based on whether or not it's the right or wrong thing to do, not based on the UN's opinion. So, what's your stance? Should Iraq be invaded or not, why/why not? "If the UN says so" doesn't address the question. (and please be sure to respond to the multitude of arguments that have been posted if you say they shouldn't be...I don't want to have to repeat myself) quote:I do not support the idea that America has some special knowledge or right to lead the world through force of arms....or threat of economic sanction. Erm, why not? The alternative is that every country tries to lead the world to shape it to their best interest, in which case we all suffer due to ultimate diversity. Using a real world analogy, why do you think there are only TWO major political parties (which are similar in a lot of ways to each other)? It's because if we had 50 (like Italy), we'd never have enough of a concensus in order to push forward a policy for the common good. Same concept in global relations. Right now, we effectively have 80-90% of the vote because of our power, and by dividing it up equally, no one will be any better for it. This issue is highly irrelevent to the main topic, however. quote:With a country that is so far behind the power curve (compared to other industrialized democracies) on a majority of issues ranging from; democratic participation of it's citizens, numbers of citizens incarcerated, distribution of wealth, institutionalized racism, nonsustainable (and growing) consumption rates, and a bizarre way of politicians buying office.....I don't know what you call it...governmental access? Democratic participation-we live in a free nation. We can't shove it down people's throats, and government is a required class in school. What else do you expect? Sure, it's a bad thing, but we also have a lot more freedom and a lot more people than most other nations, so you can't compare the two. Number of citizens incarcerated-so...what? With increased freedom comes an increased means to commit crimes. Distribution of wealth-NOW you HAVE to be kidding. Jaguar's right about our poorest being rich internationally, but also, people are poorly off because they CHOOSE to be poorly off. We have safety nets through welfare and charity to stop people from getting to a point that they CANT get better. Immigrants 90-150 years ago got here and became rich and pulled themselves up in society WITHOUT social welfare, there's no excuse for not being able to now. Also, what would you suggest, having the government STEAL from the people that WORK for their money? Because that's what the concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is, STEALING, which also undermines our free enterprize system and our democracy. Institutionalized racism-ok, now this is REALLY funny. First of all, other nations have less minorities to WORRY about racism to begin with, so you can't make a comparison. Secondly, we've had laws to combat racism. Just because minorities may not be as well off as whites does not mean that it's because of racism, institutionalized or otherwise. You can't assume racism just because of the final result, AND the quality of life for minorities has been improving. Consumption rates-new inventions keep the production as high as the consumption. Also, we consume more because we have more to begin with. Buying office-that's because of the costs, especially media, of running a campagin. Also, running for office is often not based in personal wealth but in fund raising via a political party which will support you. You don't buy offices because your rich, you get in office because your the best canidate and advertise. Sure, it should be open to more people, but with the vastness of the United States, it'd be impossible. quote: Where is that claim on leadership? Where is it? How do you disprove the claim on leadership? How? We are the strongest nation in the world economically, socially (since we support individual rights and freedoms and help our citizens), and politically/militarily! Without the United States, the world would crumble. We stablize the world due to our power, give markets to other nations and sell products to help the economy, and we are a strong framework for fledging democracies and a beacon of freedom for people of oppressive regimes. We should lead, and we must lead, and your points just bring up possible (not very well explained or warranted or with very bad impacts/effects) problems with the United States, while other nations have just as many if not more problems. quote:It is in the amount of weapons we have and the amount of wealth we gathered (and thereby deny to others)....that doesn't do it for me....it is immoral and ultimately self defeating. It's also immoral to FORCE people to give what they have to others. As i've said time and time again, less welfare, more charity. Your advocating replacing one type of oppression with another. Not to mention you aren't giving a better critera to determine leadership. And again, just because the "international community" says something is right doesn't make it immoral. Read my previous points on this topic and read the religion/spirituality thread that points out how MOST POPULAR VOTE does *NOT* equal *MORAL* since it justifies atrocities and oppression. quote: So you go with the flow if you want but all these things you believe in usually have a very different reason for being then you, and other sources, would have me believe. I may have the same posititon as those in power, but my warrants are explained better and often different. Action against Iraq is an OBJECTIVELY GOOD THING, no matter what the motives are. quote: But who knows...I'm young and still checking things out...that is why I am going to college to really explore why things are, the way they are....not have it fed to me by CNN. Colleges/Universities are liberal institutions and are just going to support your view (especially if you take a PoliSci or other political major), simply because the people in them, especially the professors, are often isolated from the real world. Hell, the people at Berkley still publish books on Marxism being great. If you want to discover the truth, you need to look at history and fact, and then follow all of your beliefs and mindsets to a logical conclusion, especially in different circumstances and with negative situations. Sure, it'd be nice if the international community worked together to solve problems, but what if they marked the US as a problem and said that we had to ship food to other countries and let our people starve? Not only is that immoral, but it destroys the concept of people WORKING for what they earn. It'd be stealing, and be breaking many different forms of morality. But hey, the US is only one country, so if your family starves because of it, that's allright. quote: I believe in the idea of law, due process, and fair play....not just for the first class citizens who can afford it....but for everyone of every skin color....foreign and domestic. Yes, everyone should be helped and the US should step down as the world superpower and totally scrap the constitution for a greater good...we shouldn't worry, the fact that the world is so diverse with so many different beliefs and attitudes isn't going to hinder the process...no one will go to war with each other and fight about the new distribution of wealth, and no one will abuse it...no one would ever see the weakness and capitalize on it...and there's no way that the people of every industrialized country in the world would rise up against the government at the point THEY START DYING for people in a country THOUSANDS of MILES away...why do you have a death wish?!?!? The only way your idea would ever work is if governments (especially ours) OPPRESSED their people, in which case you'd be doing evil means to achieve "good" ends. You can't FORCE the people of the United States to give up what they have for a greater good that you see. That'll just cause rebeliion and deaths and a reaction of oppression. If you want the world to be better, push it but don't force it, otherwise you'll just make it worse. quote:A commitment to truth is harder to live up to than a commitment to country. IÔÇÖll commit to both, and strive to use the former to help shape the latter. A fail to see truth in the methods you seem to propose. Some of your statements are true, but your advocacy is not. The United States stands for a number of abstract ideals that we have a unique grasp on and should never be lost, even for the utopian idea of a world socialistic society.
  5. quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Ok, first of all, just because you canÔÇÖt think of a third reason doesnÔÇÖt mean there isnÔÇÖt one. Furthermore, if the only two possibilities are the existence of god or that the universe has always existed then they cannot both be unlikely simply because only one can be true. Add in a few more options, on the off chance that there are possibilities that you may not have considererd (something besides god as you think of him is an example), and you still will have to have some possibilities that are not all that improbable. However, this is erelivent because whether or not the universe has always existed is, from the point of modern science, indeterminable with any great amount of accuracy. Well, it all had to start somewhere, and my two options are still the only concievable ones, except they would be amorhpous based on scientific discoveries. (ex. We find out some Alien being created the universe. Now, did the alien always exist, or did God create him/her/it? Still down to two options: What to have faith in, that the entity we can prove has always existed, or that the entity that we can prove was created by God? There aren't any other choices, and you can't assume that they are based on logic/reason without conceding my logic that since you CANT disprove God, He must exist) quote: However, we do know that the universe exists and thus there is no probability involved, it is a given. This is no evidence that god exists, and even the so called clues that have been given are really only proof of the unknown and do not point specificly to the Christian god, and often not to any god or anything in particular. I'm not contesting the existance of the universe, i'm contesting the SOURCE of the universe, and that can't be proven, and the universe currently existing doesn't even prove the source AT ALL, unless it's proving (under current logic) that something HAD to have created it (God, or another being, which would have had to have been created by something...) quote: Religious reasoning is based on god existing, and then connecting various events to his work. Scientific reasoning is based on proven theories and questioned hypotheses that may or may not be true, and evidence is put together without a pre assumed cause.Hmm, I might have to agree with you, at least partially. I think i'd have to agree that most religious reasoning is based on God existing, since if it was based solely on science, everyone would believe in God. I think you oversimplify it though. It is more about being *open-minded* to the idea of God existing, then attributing astounding qualities of the world, life, and fundamental concepts that almost all humans agree to Him. Scientific theories are formed out of hypothesis which ARE pre-assumed causes, that are proven (temporarily) or disproven. Besides, scientific and religious reasoning is not mutually exclusive. Religious and scientific reasoning never contradicts, so it's not a choice between the two. They both work together. "Religion without science is lame, but science without religion is blind."-Albert Einstine quote: quote: What?! What advantages of not believing in a God? You get to do whatever you want without any punishment beyond those that humans set up?!? That just pushes the idea that might makes right and morality (right/wrong) is defined by those in power. IÔÇÖm unhindered by the classic ideas of morality, and I consider myself better off because of this. "Unhindered"? Hmm, i'll respond to this farther down when you talk about it in more detail. quote: You may think this makes me amoral and bad (or perhaps evil, depending on whether you want to sound like Bush), but I donÔÇÖt see it as wrong in the least, I have my own ideas of morality. I consider my lack of classic morality to be a form of freedom; I was able to choose my own ideas of right and wrong based on my own judgment. Just because your ideas are different doesnÔÇÖt mean that I am amoral, simply that I am different.I think you seem amoral (or maybe not depending on your personal code), but I don't think that makes you "bad" or "evil". I do however believe that your mindset, in principle and application, allows for atrocities which most of society, and I hope you, would find morally repugnant and against all human decency. quote: What does this have to do with what you are saying? Simple, the advantages of not having a predetermined code of morality is the freedom to determine your own ideas of right and wrong.Hitler and the Nazis thought it was right to exterminate the Jews. The KKK thinks it's right to eliminate blacks, catholics, and other minorities. Greenpeace thinks it's right for humans to die if it saves the environment. Serial killers often think it's right to kill innocent people. Child molestors and rapists think it's allright to violate other people. By not having a common or predetermined form of morality, it justifies the changing of laws to suit the whims of the majority of a population, and it justifies atrocities as the ones listed above. Sure, on a small scale, me not having a code of morality and stealing $5 for someone isn't going to ruin society, but when every person in the world does it, or one of the examples I listed happens, it's different. The problem with that view is that WE determine what is moral/immoral and right/wrong. Sure, I bet it's nice to not feel restricted by a set of morals, but I bet you wouldn't like it if someone walked up to you and cut off your arm because he/she liked eating flesh, or some man raped you. The mindset may advocate pure freedom, but it must be followed to it's conclusion which is virtual lawlessness. quote: Bah, I donÔÇÖt see how accidentally shooting someone in a dark room on accident compares to not believing in god. You make it sound like its obvious, and that there is no reason to shoot in that room and every reason not to. Furthermore, you make it sound like itÔÇÖs reasonably probable that you could hit someone.The analogy wasn't based on the idea that God probably exists or has to exist, your just grouping me under the stereotype of "since he believes in God, all of his premises are based there". My analogy is based on the concept that you wouldn't shoot a gun into a totally dark room since you shouldn't automatically ASSUME no one is in the room because of the impacts of being wrong. Just because you don't KNOW if someone is in the room doesn't mean you should assume there isn't. That analogy applies to God because you shouldn't automatically ASSUME God doesn't exist when the downside to that is so immense. Just because you don't KNOW if there is a god doesn't mean you should assume there isn't. quote: Lets try a slight variation on your analogy, where instead of shooting in a dark room your shooting a rifle at a target a good distance away, and you have to consider the possibility of someone standing behind the target and that you could hit them if you shot. There is a reason to shoot, thatÔÇÖs what your there for after all, it is a form of personal entertainment or some such and you enjoy it. There is a reason (however small) that you shouldnÔÇÖt shoot, after all you could kill someone (if they happen to be standing behind the target, and were assuming the target is made of something the bullet will pass through).Your analogy is based on the premise that you KNOW if there is someone in the room (the existance of God), that you KNOW (almost certain) there is no God, and that our purpose on this earth is not detemined by God, but that we are "there for" (here for) doing whatever we want, and there's a very small chance that there is a god. Mine is based on the idea that when you don't know something that is important and could have bad consequences, you don't ASSUME the opposite answer to the bad consequences (in the case of God, that He doesn't exist). My analogy points out why people shouldn't just dismiss the idea of God (which is the position I am trying to prove), while yours operates under the assumption that your point (that we are here to do whatever we want) is ALREADY true without trying to lead to the idea that it is. quote: Bah, infinity is infinitely incomprehensible to the human mind so in effect youÔÇÖre talking about things that you simply canÔÇÖt understand. None of us can, itÔÇÖs impossible.Nah, infinity can be comprehended, mathematicians talk about it all the time, and it seems simple to me. Infinity is a series of numbers (which can be used for measurement) that starts and continues to the highest (or lowest) possible value (which humans can not determine). Thus, having an infinitely bad thing happen to you is something that no one in their right mind would EVER want to have happen to them. quote: Seriously though, how bad is being separate from god? It's theorized to be really bad. Also theorized that being with Him is very, very, very good. I guess it falls into the moral code too, if you follow/believe in the moral code/teachings of God, and you end up with Him, you'd probably enjoy it, but if you don't, you probably wouldn't. quote: quote: Hmm, i'm not entirely sure about how long you suffer in hell, but i'm pretty sure the passage says that the sinners will be sent to His left and the others to His right and the ones on His left will be separated from the Father forever. Regardless, even if it isn't the infinity of time, the infinity of the pain and suffering would probably be enough too to make up for the time (since if you believe in God, there's no reason He can't do it) No, IÔÇÖm fairly sure there is a judgment day, and while IÔÇÖm not sure what happens to people in hell, my understanding is that they cease to exist or some such. I think what I referred to about them being seperated to His right and His left is talking about judgement day, and the impact of being the "sinners" is to be forever separated from the father. Not sure if that's one of the Catholic church teachings or one of the lines in the Bible (i think it's in the Bible), but the meaning of being "forever separated" (if that's what it says), can be left open to interpretation (removed from existance, sent to hell, eternal pain, etc?) by us and we can just hope that we get it that way God intended. quote: Of course, most modern Christians like to forget about parts of there religions they donÔÇÖt like, such as hell and Armageddon and women being inferior and bringers of corruption and need I go on? I think all people disagree with parts of their religions (which is why I haven't chosen a specific religious sect/branch, although I do believe in God and Christ), but I think a lot of what you mention is because people blindly follow what their "religious leaders" say, without thinking about it. The things you mentioned are key things. Hell is often overlooked, people think that because they go to Church or Confession it's an automatic "ticket to heaven". Armageddon isn't really something that I believe needs to be worried about. We can't stop it, it'll affect all of us, and all it really does is spread fear and panic. Women being inferior isn't a tenant of most religions, and I think all the Bible really does/did is define gender roles (which could have, of course, been biased by beliefs at the time when it was written). The Catholic practice of not allowing women priests is inherently stupid, is widely disagreed with, and seems to contradict the tenants of most religions and with the new testament of the Bible. Anyway, back to the point, disagreements don't prove religions wrong, it just proves human infallibility. The central concept of Christianity has been alive for about 1980 years, only the periphrials change. quote: But only a Christian would consider love and hate to be so important.Any non-christians want to back me up on the position that love and hate are really important to a lot more people? quote: quote: Faith is based on the truth one feels and believes. ItÔÇÖs like the emperor and his new clothes darling, and IÔÇÖm not the one running around in the nude. ...I don't get it, sorry... quote: You need to have fun darling, get laid, beat up your younger sibling, whatever, but if you consider giving up personal enjoyment in the present on the faint possibility that you could be punished for all eternity (if being deprived of god is really so bad) after you die, your wasting your life. There is nothing but your pleasure to worry about, IÔÇÖm not saying live only in the present with no thought for the future, but if you value anything higher then your own enjoyment of life then you have your priorities backwards. First, to address the possibility of endless punishment/suffering/pain/separation from God, if you believe in the Christian or (probably Jewish or Islamic God), that separation would be the worst possible thing that could possibly EVER happen. So, it really would be "that bad", at least from my perspective (which, of course, could always be wrong). As for personal pleasure, I have nothing wrong with it, but I fail to see the problems with gaining it within the Christian concept of morality. (I would state my issues with everyone "valuing their enjoyment of life" as the most important thing, but I already stated the atrocities that can justify if everyone did whatever it was they wanted to enjoy their life...) The Christian concept of morality, doesn't preclude getting pleasure, and most of the points of that morality, if not all, seem to have logical fact basis for them. I fail to see how Christian morality precludes any activities that are not harmful to either: 1. Society's health 2. An individual's health Could you show me some examples of pleasure that Christian morality (not specific church doctrine), precludes? (the only reason I say not specific church doctrine is because some idiotic organizations...like the Catholic Church...are against the distribution of BIRTH CONTROL to third world countries with high AIDS rates. just because one christian church has a stupid position doesn't mean that Christian morality, as a whole, is flawed) quote: And I apologies if IÔÇÖm coming off all *****y and tactless tonight, but I didnÔÇÖt get near enough sleep last night.You aren't coming off negatively or tactlessly, at least to me. Besides, I don't know how I come off, probably cold, argumentative, and somewhat hostile, but I never worry about the tone or tact of my writing (although I often regret it when misunderstood). Only things that bug me in discussions/arguments are "ad hominems" and when people make strong statements without any explanation (neither of which have occured in this discussion)
  6. quote:Originally posted by Emmett.hendrick: Hey guys come on I have seen displays like this as a roleplayer, usually refered to as a LARP(live action roleplay). I have attended a few in the last few years. As a roleplayer I enjoy them and I think its unfair to laugh at it!!Seriously, how does it work? I don't see how you can adapt traditional D&D RPing to Live Action due to all the dice rolls, etc, so how do you/they do it? It seemed sorta cool, except also lame. quote:Originally posted by AllenKG2001: I wonder if SC will include this in BCG. Just imagine... "Sir, we're out numbered. What shall we do?" "Send out the Lighting bolt man!"Hey, someone needs to make a mod that includes a wizard. All these people with guns and fighters and missiles, and then this one caste that can cast spells.
  7. quote:Originally posted by MIKE113: Only tip I can give is don't run out of Radine, Plutonium, or Missiles !!! [/QB]Real men use guns.
  8. I was thinking Dungeons and Dragons, sorta like Baldur's Gate 2, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale 2, etc.
  9. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: I'm sorry, I hate to argue with Dredd, because I agree with a alot of what he says. BUT, God=morality NOgod=Nomorality has never computed with me. I know MANY athiests that would make many christians envious. They do not need the threat of eternal damnation to be moral people. They do not need a god or a religious belief to tell them what is wrong and what is right. That's the only point I wanted to make about that.Yeah, I *think* I agree with you, and I think my religious ranting just came across a little wrong. I know that there are plenty of atheists who are moral people and I probably know even more Christians (Catholics specifically since that's my environment) who are REALLY immoral. I think I may have mentioned it very breifly in my last post, but I believe people should follow a common morality that is based in Christian values. I don't believe that everyone needs to have my beliefs, and I don't think that morally good people who don't believe in God are going to hell, I just think that if you carry the concept of morality w/o God to a logical conclusion, that having an atheist viewpoint makes immoral actions a *LOT* easier. I'm not saying that it makes atheists immoral, just that there's a lot less reason TO be moral if you aren't worried about a God or afterlife.
  10. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Dredd I'm not going sit here and try to convince you...you'll have to grow up for that. I hope that wasn't an ageist comment, since if it was, this discussion is proving how wrong that mindset is. quote: This is about big oil. You keep repeating the catch phrases sprouted by liberals without giving any explanation, evidence, or warrants (just like liberals), and refusing to respond to my arguments. Although you fail to respond to almost all of my arguments from the past 2-3 posts, especially the ones in relation to Iraq being a threat, the one directly related to oil is the fact that an invasion on Iraq would most likely HURT big oil since all the oil output from the Middle East would decrease in response to a US invasion of an Arab state. If it was about oil, we'd lift sanctions and be nice to all the Arabs. quote: Oppression sucks and we should do everything within the realm of international law to insure democracy spreads. Ok, i'll take that "international law" comment as a concession that attacking Iraq isn't intrinsically immoral. Now, could you please respond to the 8-10 previously stated points about why Iraq is a danger and the regime needs to be changed or restricted? quote: We are supposed to be fighting terrorists. Did you forget that? Yes, terrorism is a threat and needs to be stopped. Regarldess of Iraq's links to terrorism, Iraq is a threat and needs to be stopped. Since when is the only threat area that the United States can stop is terrorism? We should stop any threat to our safety and freedom, not just terrorism. Sure, Bush and the administration may be passing it off as "war on terrorism", but if you'd refer to my previously stated (8-10) points, you'd realize that the benefits of stopping Iraq greatly outweigh trying to use the army to search the world for terrorists. quote: We did go to Vietnam to "save them". That is a fact. Yes, and we were wrong there. The Vietnamese were WANTING a government that could feed them, and that happened to be communism. Regardless of that, we were in way over our heads since we had to be careful not to bug China and we were fighting in terrian our troops weren't equipped for. All of that history however, has no relevence to freeing a people from a totalitarian dictator who lets his people starve and oppresses them with no regard for natural rights. quote: We don't have the right to invade country after country unless they are violating international law....the same law that we spit on with bilateral agreements. Ok, I think I covered this before, but here's another slant to it. You seem to be saying that "things are right because they are popular". I hope that you see the problem with that. That justifies any majority to oppress a minority since they are outnumbered or outvoted in the "international community". International law MUST Be based on a set of values or morality. I'm guessing that those values are those of rights and freedoms for all and natural law. Granting that those are the values the UN/international law are/should be based on, then we should always follow those values, not necessarily the laws. If the countries of the UN fail to enforce and live up to the values that they profess, then the UN has failed to do their job and the United States must act alone (which i'm glad Bush implied...either the UN does their job or they prove they have outlived their usefulness). It doesn't matter if the US has violated "international law" before or not. I don't think we have (feel free to point out examples for my education), but even if we have, that doesn't change the fact that Saddam is oppressing his people and needs to be removed. quote: You sound like some crusader from 1099. And you sound like a Nazi from World War 2 Germany. The crusaders were wrong in their motives and methods, and they were not trying to uphold a common sense of human decency and morality (i turn to natural law). I, on the other hand, am advocating that we STOP oppression that is intrinsically WRONG and EVIL, while you are saying that "it's Saddam's right to oppress whoever he wants". Even if that's true (which it's obviously not), the threat he poses to human life can DEFINITELY not be ignored. quote: Unilateral action will always cause problems....so we have to be sure in those cases.....and that to me means that our congress would have to make that call....not who ever is really in charge of the Bush admin. It won't always cause problems, and I do agree that Congress should vote on a war unless it is the immediate response to an attack. Pre-emption should get congressional approval unless it's NECESSARY not to. quote: This is going nowhere for now so I'm out....but really Dredd, open your eyes and see who calls the shots in this country.....for now anyway..... ANOTHER cliche theory. Could you PLEASE support your flippant comments with at LEAST some logic? I'm not asking for tons of evidence or articles, just some sort of logic to respond to this and my last 5 or so posts.
  11. XP's personal firewall is off, I have the latest connection software, and the website says nothing about some huge increase in members. Any other ideas? Please?
  12. quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: Well, IÔÇÖm agreeing with Dredd insofar as his faith is not based on risk analysis, and IÔÇÖm going on to say that the inverse is true, his so called risk analysis is based on faith. There is no empirical evidence that shoes god exists, therefore the probability of there being a god can only be calculated as infinitesimally low (similar to the probability of a secret cult of aliens living beneath the surface of mars, theoretically possibly but highly implausible). Thus, any true risk analysis based on the existence of god would take in the extremely unlikely chance of there being a god and would show that there is no real advantage to believing in god. However, if we were to take the view of someone who either believes in god or who isnÔÇÖt really sure, then the risk analysis turns out the other way. Rather then taking the logical path that places the probability of god existing as infinitesimally small, a person who believed in god would consider the probability of god existing as 100% and someone who wasnÔÇÖt really sure would consider godÔÇÖs existence to be reasonably probable. If either of these premises are true (that god exists, or that there is a reasonable chance god exists) would cause Dredds risk analysis to show that believing in god was advantageous. Thus, this logic will only convince someone who isnÔÇÖt sure or who truly believes in god, but not a true skeptic.Hmm, but i'd have to disagree with you there. A person with a totally closed mind wouldn't accept the risk analysis, but anyone that has an open mind at all or any sort of logic would give it some weight since it's impossible to disprove the existance of God. The fact that the universe exists and everything has a cause means that you have to have faith in one of two possibilities: 1. God created it (and God always was). 2. The universe always was (was=existed). Under your logic, a skeptic would dismiss both, since you can't prove either. Of course the concept of God is slightly less likely since it's an additional step back, but both are highly improbable. I think my risk analysis would be analgous to a totally dark room that someone could be in. Because someone COULD be in there, you probably aren't going to take a gun and start shooting up the room, or burn the room down, since there's always the possibility your going to kill someone. Now my point: Just because I cant PROVE that there's someone in the room/that there is a God, I'm not going to ASSUME there isn't anyone in the room/that there isn't a God, since if i'm WRONG, I'd kill someone/I'd go to hell. The way you do risk analysis is simple: Probability of result * Seriousness/Impact of result= Risk Even if the probability of the Christian God existing is .00000000000001%. The impact of having him pissed at you when you die is infinity. .00000000000001% * infinity = infinity, thus, you don't want to risk the impact, just like you aren't going to do something that could kill someone (although that impact isn't infinity, it is pretty close since murder is really, really bad).
  13. quote:Originally posted by Herbie: What would his delivery method be? Perhaps a camel? If he used it he would be nuked. I don't agree with Jag's timeframe, but I do agree with the threat. Saddam, of course, isn't going to set off a nuke and say "Hey, look at me, I blew up your city, nyah nyah nyah nyah.". What he will do though, is somehow find a way to let some other actor get ahold of the weapons to use against us, or give them plans for them, or he will use them to control the Middle East (via threat of force). quote:The only country threatening other, and making "contingency" plans for nuking people is the Good Ole US of A. The only country that decides who and what is "allowed" to have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Who gave them the right to decide. 1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed and ratified by almost every country in the world, states that no more countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and current powers should work toward disarmament (which is shown by our latest arms cuts). 2. The UN is against WMD prolif. 3. Yes, the US makes plans to use nukes if attacked by WMDs. It's self defense. 4. If you think it's allright for Saddam to have Nuclear Weapons, you ARE in a fantasy world if you aren't on drugs. quote: It's all about the oil. If there wasn't any oil do you think we would care. Here's the headline: What the **** is this cliche line? We didn't invade Iraq in the past 10 years, the oil was always there, and we had no plans for an invasion until AFTER 9/11, where we realized that PRE-EMPTION is preferrable to being like the French and waiting to get our @$$es kicked before deciding to defend ourselves. Also, what is making NOW the key time to getting more oil? And do you really think that the government expects to get more and cheaper oil from attacking Iraq? Most likely the other Arab nations are going to cut their oil supplies due to an US attack. We'll get *LESS* oil due to an attack, not more. These liberal slants are getting more and more rhetorical and less and less realistic... quote: That is why I respect the international community (Europe + Canada)......they have this strange ability to see through the crap my people call truth...heh heh....god bless you Herbie your more of a patriot then those two and you don't even live here....heh heh... He lives in a, basically, socialist society. Of course he's going to call US militaristic policy "Evil". He probably said attacking Afghanistan was wrong, the first Gulf War was wrong, and that we should have given up during the Cold War. You keep talking about the international community, but you still FAIL TO ADDRESS my previous points in my last posts. Is invading Iraq *WRONG* or not? You made a comment about ends not justifying the means, and now you fail to defend it. If attacking Iraq is objectively IMMORAL/WRONG, then the international community means nothing in this discussion. If it isn't WRONG/IMMORAL, then you have to address the 8-10 points I made about the problems with Iraq and how we are going to make the world a better place by invading. Oh yeah, and last I checked, England was part of Europe, and they are behind us...or are you only referring to the parts of Europe that agree with you? quote:You think that because I'm a citizen soldier I have to shut up and like our president select and his bogus policies....your wrong..I have to follow orders. I will. I think the point being made is not that you need to shut up and like our elected president, but the fact you are protecting the Constitution of the United States and the American people, yet your philosophy seems to dictate that you protect the entire world and international law before you'd protect Americans. quote: I believe in the ideas of truth, due process, and fair play. These ideas have been thrown away, remarketed, repackaged, and sold back to us.and the current version is crap. What happened to the ideas freedom, liberty, individual rights, Judeo-Christian values, and our Constitution? Did they get replaced with moral relativism, multiculturalism, acceptance, and passivity? Bringing it back to the subject, these totalitarian bastards and their regimes are oppressing their people, and your saying to follow "international law" which is dictated by a bunch of wimps who would rather accept immorality, oppression, and evil, than eliminate it?!? I'd rather us all be incinerated in a nuclear exchange than live in a society that condones oppression of people in the name of "acceptance of other values". quote:So I don't pray for war...so what.......I'll leave that to the peanut gallery. But when I see wrong I will speak out. You call it whining I call it the duty of any American that believes in democracy. Yes, discussion and/or awareness of policies is a duty of Americans. You see though, this conversation/discussion would NEVER happen in Iraq, because you get shot for it. It'd never happen in a lot of nations. And there are people like you who seem to think that it's OK that these conversations can't happen in other nations, because they are "soverign nations". We need to "accept" what they do. Like hell. There's no way our nation can stand by and WATCH while other nations oppress their people and grow to have no problem oppressing others. I guess my stance is spurred more on a more moral basis which the government will not admit to be operating on, but I also clearly see the danger Iraq poses. Either way, Iraq's regime needs to fall, one way or another.
  14. We're going to look so bad if we don't accept Saddam's letter. Geeze, it's going to be hell either way.
  15. quote:Originally posted by Dragon Lady: quote: Well, i've heard that you use reason/logic/brainpower to get to a point where you CAN have faith. My risk calculus just gets rid of the question of "What IF i'm wrong?". I have faith, it's just that my thinking helps me discount some of the doubts which just about everyone has. IÔÇÖm afraid I have to agree with Dredd on this point as well, there is no way that a logical, thought out, risk analysis would determine that believing in god is for the better because there is no logical reason to believe god exists. Furthermore, on infinitesimally small chance that god does exist, it is even more unlikely that he fits into the Christian mythos sufficiently that believing in him would make a difference. Thus we can see that this logic is derived to support faith, but stand up only under the premise that god either exists as imagined or probably exists as imagined. Any true skeptic would immediately dismiss this as preposterous. Could you rephrase? I got the part that you agree that a risk analysis can't make anyone believe in God, but then I lost your train of thought.
  16. Well, maybe Iraq is going to stop being so annoying. Lets see what this letter contains. Hopefully it'll meet with US approval, if so, it's better than going to war, even though it would be freeing a lot of people from oppression AND it'd be solving a problem that will undoubtably surface in the future. (Saddam will just wait for a gutless US administration...we all know it)
  17. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: This is getting out of hand.... I guess we both have fairy tale worlds....but in mine, Pax Americana is not a good thing. I'm simply advocating the safety and security of Americans and people throughout the world to be free from oppression, tyranny, and threat of death from biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. quote:International law, furthering democracy, and building a sustainable economy take priority..... International law-yep, it would be nice if the U.N. would do it's job enforcing it's resolutions instead of backing down all the time. Furthering democracy-yeah, I agree. We need to stop the oppression of people by totalitarian dictators. Too bad the UN isn't going to do it... Building a sustainable economy-well, sure. Go ahead and explain in detail if relates to the topic... quote:You advocate the way of empire, Empire? What? I'm saying we should stop totalitarian regimes, and you still fail to explain away the 8 to 10 points I listed about why Iraq is a danger. In no way am I advocating an expansionist empire (negative connotation) that is hurting the world. quote: might over right So your saying the stuff totalitarian regimes do is RIGHT?!?!? What the... Ok, i'm advocating right over nice. It's right to stop the problems in the world, it's "nice" to try to negotiate and be nice when it ISNT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. quote:and short term thinking so I cannot agree. Short term thinking is leaving it how it is because he's not a threat YET. Pre-emption is long term thinking. quote: In fact, the way you describe these various scenarios tell me that you lack an understanding of history and human nature. History-force ends totalitarian regimes, democracies and freedom promote peace. Human nature-if you believe that killing Americans will get you into the afterlife, they wont care about death. quote: believe that your ideas will ultimately bring war and global destabilization If we maintain resolve to stop threats, any war will ultimately benefit freedom and a common good. Global destablization? How? At worst it'd be only the Middle East, and maybe the destablization will end in a more stable and free world. quote: But honestly I don't have time to respond to all that fantasy. Your military arguments lack practical knowledge and the rest is just hawkish nonsense.....sorry. Heh hehyou typed me into submission...for now... What military arguments are lacking practical knowledge? They all make perfect sense. I assume your referring to the nuclear exchange arguments in regards to Pakistan, but those also make sense. There would not be any world escalation of a nuclear exchange since no one in Russia or the United States want the world to end. India and Pakistan would irradiate each other, and that'd be it. We have no interest in escalating it or helping one side or the other since we don't want a nuclear holocaust. We'd let em duke it out.
  18. Well, i've heard that you use reason/logic/brainpower to get to a point where you CAN have faith. My risk calculus just gets rid of the question of "What IF i'm wrong?". I have faith, it's just that my thinking helps me discount some of the doubts which just about everyone has.
  19. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: It is good to see that "liberals" aren't the only ones who believe in fairy tales.... Stalin was a nut....but not suicidal....the same applies to Saddam. Deterrence has been highly effective and will continue to be so... No link can be proven that he supports terrorists...except the families of suicide bombers.... Stalin was a great leader and rational, even though he was highly immoral and his whole basis was keeping and expanding Soviet power. Deterrence would dictate that the United States would never be attacked. There are two types of deterrence. Conventional and Nuclear. Since the United States HAS BEEN ATTACKED, it proves that deterrence isn't going to work. When people start believing that their own lives mean nothing and that they are going to heaven FOR KILLING AMERICANS, then they aren't going to care if we nuke them or bomb them back to the stone age. Your the one believing in a fairy tale... Oh yeah, and as I said in my last post, if Saddam thinks that he can "accidently" let a terrorist get a nuke and not get caught, he isn't going to worry about getting nuked. quote: quote: nothing else matters except the 8 first 8 things I listed in my last post I will never agree that the ends justify the means. Ok, you aren't making much sense. I list 8 things that are definitely wrong with Iraq/8 problems/threats/whatever you want to call em, and 2 possibilities, I say that we need to solve the problem (means=invading) then you say i'm making the argument that the ends justify the means?!? Ok, lets see how your argument makes no sense... quote:Saddam IS: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them Ok, stopping CURRENT evils through military action is immoral? Somehow, using the military to end an oppressive military/totalitarian regime is "bad means"? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Your advocating that if a country is carrying on a Holocaust, that we have to "be nice" and use only "diplomatic channels" in order to stop it. Saddam isn't going to suddenly stop oppressing his people, cause then he'd lose power. No other means are going to work to end his oppression of his people and his totalitarian regime. Geeze, under your logic the Civil War shouldn't have been fought since invading the South was using force to maintain the sanctity of the Union. Your interpretation of "never use ends to justify the means" is flawed. Your using that catch phrase to say "you can never have a good result from any action that I don't like". Invasion isn't immoral if it's to stop death and destruction. All just wars operate under the assumption of self-defense or defense of a moral good (following natural law for moral guidance). And this is self-defense (since I don't need to wait for someone to point a gun at me AND pull the trigger...i just need to know they are going to point the gun), AND morally justified (he's oppressing his people and you say that WE SHOULD LET HIM?!?!? quote:2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements Ok, are you going to make a clear advocacy or not? FIRST you say the UN and international law is critical, now you say that regardless of international law, attacking Iraq is immoral?!? Your "ends cant justify the means" argument only applies if the MEANS are intrinsically *IMMORAL*. If the means are IMMORAL, then "international law" doesn't matter. Under your "ends cant justify the means" logic, invading Iraq is immoral, thus it doesn't matter WHO authorizes it. So, make up your mind. Is invading Iraq immoral, or is it allowed if the international community says it's ok. If it's allowed, then "ends dont justify the means" doesn't make any sense. If it's immoral, then your advocating that we let every atrocity in the world happen as long as we aren't getting physically shot at. quote: 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons Ever hear of self-defense and defense of human life? Invasion solves the problem, and it's the only thing that will (proven empirically over the past 10 years). Only means available to stop him. quote: 4. Anti-America Combined with the others, proves self-defense. quote: 5. A totalitarian dictator Combined with the others, proves oppression of people. quote: 6. Irrational in terms of international actions Look at history, combined with others proves threat to United States. quote: 7. *WANTING* Nuclear WeaponsCombine with others. quote: 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) This one is really interesting. He obviously supports the goals of terrorist organizations like Al-Queda (same religious backing/terroristic), and yet you make the case that he won't give them weapons to use against us? There's very little reason why he won't either GIVE them the weapons, or tell them HOW to build the weapons. Both of which he is unlikely to get caught doing, ESPECIALLY if he only tells them how to build them. He's just as dangerous as them, and the only way to stop him is to invade. quote: PROBABLY: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons quote: 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States Ok, so we should let him wipe out thousands of lives. Right. *sarcasm* quote: Understanding why an administration does what it does is critical in a free society....this country was not supposed to resemble a totalitarian regime...and I dont think it was supposed to run by big business.. Now, the "big business" comment is just typical liberal BS, and i'm going to ignore it, and makes no sense in regards to an attack on Iraq. A war, more likely than not, is going to HURT the economy and HURT big business, not help. As for understanding why an administration does what it does, I agree, it is important in a free society. I also think that government should be transparent so we know everything it does. But due to the way the government works, and the fact we can't read people's minds, we cant ASSUME the intent of government, because we dont KNOW the intent. You think that it's some self-serving reason, and I think it's for safety and security of the nation. But since we CANT find out the intent, we must look to the FACTS and RESULTS of an action. I listed the problems with Iraq that exist now, and that need to be solved, and that would probably be solved through an invasion (which the administration is planning) We have to judge governmental actions by their probably results, not by SPECULATION of intent. quote: quote: 1. We wouldn't let the Pakistani government be overrun by extremists AND the leadership is pretty strong in the military to stop it. 2. If it was, we would make sure they get disarmed immediately. 3. If we couldn't get them disarmed we would probably invade before there was a threat. 4. Most likely, even if 1-3 didn't apply, India and Pakistan would kill each other from an extremist takeover before they'd bother us. 5. It doesn't matter who ELSE has nukes, Saddam is currently at the top of the threat list, and the only one to meet all 8 critera from my last post. 1) You think so? So your prepared to have troops there also? How many and how long and what cost? 2) How? 3) With what force, how fast, where would the build up without getting nuked? Attacking a country like that is a bit different from Iraq.... 4) What is wrong with you....if they start shooting nukes at each other it could lead to possible global destruction....what is wrong with you? 5) Yeah I thought the terrorists were....I wonder who it will be tomorrow... 1) The intent of my statement was that the PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT is strongly backed by the military. The leadership wouldn't let the extremists take over because the PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT would have the extremists shot. 2) We would turn to international law and the previous Pakistani government to get rid of their nukes quickly. 3) An invasion would be difficult due to the possibility of getting nuked, but in that case, we'd just nuke Pakistan, end of story. (not to mention the loss of American life due to an invasion would be much better than waiting for them to get a nuke into the US and kill us) 4) If they start shooting nukes at each other it'd lead to global destruction? What is wrong with *YOU*? A limited nuclear exchange in that part of the world would not kill us, since the number of nukes and power of them is nowhere near enough to cause a catastrophy. Additionally, i'm not saying that's a GOOD thing, i'm just saying that under your unlikely scenario of "Pakistani extremists take over", that the United States would probably not have to worry about Pakistan, since India would be the main target, not the United States. 5) Ok, tell me where the terrorists are, specifically? Thanks. If you can't target the terrorists specifically, you cut off their supply lines. Saddam supports the suicide bombers, and he probably supports Al-Q, not to mention that even if he doesn't support them YET, there's no reason why he isn't going to once he has weapons. quote: quote: Yeah, and Bin Laden knew that if his terrorists attacked the US, his entire training infrastructure in Afghanistan would be destroyed, his supporters would be killed, and he would probably be killed (which he is now). What is wrong with you?!?!?! He knew exactly what he was doing....we have caught how many out of the possible hundreds or even thousands of terrorists? His networks are intact and his organization is made to work under present conditions......and he probably wants us to attack Iraqwake up. Ok, he knew exactly that HE was going to get killed and his other LEADERS were going to get killed, and that his TERRORIST camps would be destroyed and the government of one of his HAVENS (Afghanistan) would be destroyed, and yet you make the case that all people (like Saddam) are rational and don't want to die? If BIN LADEN didn't care, then why should Saddam? Your sprouting two opposing viewpoints AGAIN. Pick one. Also, you claim that he WANTS us to attack Iraq. Other than the fact it's suspected Bin Laden is dead (even if he's not, my argument still stands since his top leaders have been killed), you were probably saying he WANTED us to attack Afghanistan. This is great, we assume that enemies WANT us to attack them, so we don't. That like assuming someone who pulls a gun on you WANTS you to shoot him, so you shouldn't do it. quote: We put him power because we know he will always act in his best interest...face it. Your argument doesn't work.You keep assuming that past events make current facts disappear. It doesn't matter if 15 years ago we called Saddam the second-coming-of-Christ, gave him our latest military hardware. and called Iraq a bastion of Democracy. CURRENT EVENTS REMAIN. 1-8 that I posted still apply. He is a threat and should be removed. quote: You buy all this crap but he is presently not a threat....and may not be for years if ever.... I posted 8-10 problems/threats from Iraq, and unless you explain away ALL OF THEM, there is justification for attacking him, and he IS a threat, unless "threat" to you is AFTER he already kills thousands of Americans. quote: quote: We should take out all the oppressive/totalitarian regimes. Solve all our problems. How bout we do one thing at a time hero...like kill the terrorists.....I guess it is more fun to put on a light show and justify that HUGE budget.... We can do two things at once, not to mention your implying that there's some reason to justify a HUGE budget doesn't make any sense. No administration wants to spend money for the fun of it (except for the democrats and all their stupid socialistic welfare programs). Iraq truly is a threat, and needs to be stopped. And if you want some justifcation for it, look at the fact he's making the UN (and international law) look like a JOKE. quote: We'll see if we solve the problem when we face the blow back of an Iraqi invasion....We won't see a significant blow back.
  20. quote: it makes it true for that said person who has that said faith. Uh, what? Having faith in Jesus's existance doesn't make it "true" in ANY WAY if Jesus DID NOT EXIST. Having faith that there is no God doesn't make God magically disappear so that it's "true for you". "I have faith that if I jump off this 100 story building, I will live." Hey, it's true for me since I have that faith, so when I hit the ground, i'll be in perfect health.
  21. quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: [QB]Ok so..... Then why didn't we go to war with Stalin...he was crazier.... Lets see. Lack of man-power, lack of public support for more deaths, a Soviet Union with nuclear weapons that would have wiped us out, the fact that ANYONE IN MODERN HISTORY WHO INVADED RUSSIA LOST? Oh yeah, not to mention Stalin was rational and wasn't going to attack us. Terrorists on the other hand WILL attack the US (empirically proven), and it's not a huge jump to think that Saddam might accidently LET a few terrorists get some WMDs to use against us. quote: As far as the rest of it guy....please....this is about oil....you can think all the happy thoughts you want but that's what it's about.....why pretend... As I already implied, nothing else matters except the 8 first 8 things I listed in my last post, and none of those are going to change, regardless of motive. I don't care if Bush is invading Iraq to avenge his father, or because Saddam said that his wife was hot. It doesn't matter WHY the government wants to invade, or if we'll make billions of dollars off of it, the first 8 facts I listed in my last post are unchanged. Attacking Iraq is a good idea BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS. I never even TRIED to say that the government was doing it for those reasons, i'm saying why it's a good idea objectively and also from a personal standpoint. quote:Plenty of nuts have nukes...well...maybe not yet...however if the Pakistani government is overrun buy extremist then Iraq would be a freakin joke... 1. We wouldn't let the Pakistani government be overrun by extremists AND the leadership is pretty strong in the military to stop it. 2. If it was, we would make sure they get disarmed immediately. 3. If we couldn't get them disarmed we would probably invade before there was a threat. 4. Most likely, even if 1-3 didn't apply, India and Pakistan would kill each other from an extremist takeover before they'd bother us. 5. It doesn't matter who ELSE has nukes, Saddam is currently at the top of the threat list, and the only one to meet all 8 critera from my last post. quote:You tell me...Iraq is not the threat. Saddam knows if he does anything with WMD his country is a glowing plain of glass....so where is the emergency? Yeah, and Bin Laden knew that if his terrorists attacked the US, his entire training infrastructure in Afghanistan would be destroyed, his supporters would be killed, and he would probably be killed (which he is now). Did he care? No. Will Saddam? Probably not. Also, if Saddam thinks he can give one to a terrorist and be un-linked to it, then he'll try to get away with it. Saddam has cared very little for his or his country's well-being in the past, he wont care if he's nuked. quote:That was my point, Iraq is just as likely as North Korea, or the PROC to launch a WMD. China may be militaristic, but they have a rational (somewhat) government, and they know they'll be nuked if they do anything. Not to mention they know that hurting the US will just ruin their economy too. Korea is too far away in weapons development to be a threat for now. They are probably next on the list though. quote:Iraq is symbolic, but if we *only* attack Iraq and not the others who pose the same threat to us, I find it hypocritical. We'll attack more than Iraq if they don't do what we want. Gotta love Bush in that aspect. quote:State sponsored terrorism, and terrorist groups themselves should be targeted, but we shouldn't just attack any country that has terrorists within it's borders. If so we should attack ourselves because cells of Al Qu... whatever are *here*. We should take out all the oppressive/totalitarian regimes. Solve all our problems.
  22. quote:Originally posted by IceCold: Hmmm.... Sounds like a ship SC would use. I expect to get one too since I came up with the idea.
×
×
  • Create New...