CommanderJohnson

quote:Originally posted by Paddy Gregory: [QB]Hmm, was McVeigh a muslim? MAJORITY muslim are the terrorists threatening the US. US domestic terrorists aren't a big enough threat to be hyped enough by the government to warrant increases in power. Only Muslim terrorists could be hyped enough for that, and then mainly muslims would be the only ones able to be arrested and condemned w/o rights. There's not as much danger as McCarthy's era.

RANDOM! RANDOM! RANDOM! RANDOM! BOOOOOOOM!

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: That's a bad example because you don't have to be Moslem to be a terrorist.Dont start giving me that PC ****. Sure, you can be a Quaker and be a terrorist, but the threats to American civilians are going to come, and would be percieved as coming, from MUSLIM terrorists. The whole point of this thread, I thought, was that the government is going to start violating peoples rights, like under Mcarthy, under the guise of war on terror. My example just proved how it wont be able to work today like it did then, mainly because the population knows and has information stating that the major threat to America IS muslim terrorists, and not people like Tom Cruise. I'm sorta half asleep, so I hope this is coherent, but let me rephrase fast: You say that Tom Cruise is a bad example because you dont have to be muslim to be a terrorist. I say that due to the current ease of access to information by Americans, no one would believe Tom Cruise is a terrorist because of: 1. All of the info available about him saying he's not. 2. He's not muslim, and the terrorists that are threatening the US are majority muslim. Thus any sort of movement to arrest non-muslims would quickly be discounted as oppressive and ended. [ 08-12-2002, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

So, does that mean that one day all light will stop moving? Ha ha, now the enviromentalists get to say how it's unfair that we use so much light when one day it'll become extinct...

quote: don't make Resnig a judge his life span may end up being shortened Resnig: The Terran Commander "John Doe" wins! :But...but, John Doe got vaporized riding on the ship...he's not even alive. Resnig: The Terran Commander "John Doe" wins! :*shoves Resnig out an airlock* Moron.

quote:the manual goes over it a little bit (ie: certain minerals will release radiation through your ship) but you gotta think. certain elements you would never mix xause of their volatility... same rule applies here, and the thing is you never know which ones not to mix until its too late *imagines the SC hunched over a chemistry book finding out which material combos cause huge explosions and laughing like an evil maniac*

Could I be placed in Diplomacy fleet? Shipname lawgiver, AE Dredd?

In the best interests of all parties involved, Saddam should be "killed in a friendly fire accident" in one of his palaces in Iraq. Short of that, we'll have to put up with him ranting and raving in a public forum, feeding propoganda to radical Islamic countries and supporting terrorists. As for that long explanation on the fall of the world due to China invading Russia, Russia would nuke China. They don't even need 20% of their nuclear capabilities to take out China. Besides, China knows that all it takes is a few nuke on Beijing and other major cities to defeat the whole concept of a war.

The republicans are more die-hard statist than socialist. They don't seem to believe in spreading out the wealth, just putting it into governmental industries. Short of that, great article. The current political system is just bad...

That movie was great, too bad *SPOILER* it was obvious who the killer was about 1/3 or 1/4 of the way through the movie. *END SPOILER* Go see it, then go see XXX. One good cop thriller, one good action flick.

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: That example is irrelevant because people wouldn't have believed it before the information age either, especially if they knew the person. Hollywood actors were targetted, and people believed that they were commies. With the information age, people know more about others in general, thus no one would believe Tom Cruise is a muslim terrorist. As for enemies of freedom, the republicans and democrats, at their endpoint/extreme, will do it in different ways. Democrats will take away all of our guns, preach about helping everyone, then get replaced by a military coup. Republicans will let us keep our weapons, but get a really strong central government and make people who disagree with imperialist policies simply disappear. Ah, that's why the world needs more people like us around to realize the idiocy of the current system.

I'd agree with SC or think it's a little bit better, just because you know what your going there for (action, action, and more action), and Vin Diesel is funny. If your looking for a sorta funny, lots of guns and explosions action movie, and a LOT of stunts, see it. You'll be looking back and thinking "wow, that was cool" SORTA SPOILER/QUESTION: At the end when he's riding Ahab, did anyone notice a black on/off switch on the top right corner of the panel that had the hard drive? It was only there for a second or two total movie time, but if so, I found it funny he was screwing around with the hard disk and missles when he could have just flipped the "off" button. [ 08-11-2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

SC's right, there wa something in the manual about volatile materials. I sort of skipped over the part, so i'd just say to be sure that: 1. No intruders are on board 2. You didn't buy anything that could be causing any damage. As far as my experience goes, no weapons or artifacts that are on my ship ever caused me damage. Check cargo items, illegal items, and minerals.

Being able to kill Saddam would be fun.

His epitath will probably read: "I STILL think that the United States will fail."

Yes, but that makes people much more critical of *any* news they get, thus are much less likely to believe any information saying that their 20 year old white friend that attends a baptist church, has 3 children, and served in the military for 5 years is a terrorist. The information age makes people more cynical, regardless of the disinformation.

The only problem with your idea that we're all going to be oppressed by the government is that today people have much easier access to information (we're in the information age now, remember?), so it'd be much harder to make people disappear, and even harder to make most citizens think that their neighbor is a terrorist. There's no threat there as long as people keep focused on stopping actual terrorists and not getting paranoid...

quote: ALL this topic is doing is really nothing...the outcome will be told in history and by the actions of a few men...they may decide the fate of the world.. Yes, but this entire topic will be a monument to the fact that I was right.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: It is official. I am a 19D! That's scout for all you pinko commie peacenik civilian types I'll see you ladies in the desert!Congrats! quote: Wrong, the UN stopped unilateral aggression beforeÔǪ.and they would do it again. But we would rather take on all the responsibility and strike quickly and alone....we'll we were thinking about it. When have they stopped, and how would they be able to stop, unilateral aggression from a nuclear armed country? If we decided to invade Trinidad (for example), do you think anyone would be able to stop us, or would even TRY? quote: He is a threat and if we have to act alone I wish us luck. But we don't have to make that call just yet so we should examine the situation in-depth. I'm betting Bush already made that call, sometime in 2003, and the countries that are helping us are helping us, and those that aren't helping just aren't helping. What is left to examine? The US is going to invade, and if anyone else wants to help, feel free. What else should we be doing? Saddam is dangerous being in power regardless, trying to avoid war is just leaving a problem waiting to happen. Invading is the answer, all that's left is who will help us. quote: I think you must be smoking something. In 1938 France, England, and Poland knew what was going on so they made a mutual defense treaty. The rest of the world was recovering from the last war and did not want another. So clearly France cared and you should get your facts in order. Yeah, clearly France cared about themselves, not about their neighbors or their treaty members. They ignored it when that other country fell (the one before Poland) When Poland started falling, they didn't try to help, they fortified their DEFENSE along Eastern France. They weren't planning an offensive, they saw Germany making aggressive moves toward allies and hoped that Germany would just stop with Poland. Then they had troops knocking at their door. quote: Because all your arguments point to another power hungry regime that wants to take over the regionÔǪif not the world. That requires the attention and action of the international community. It is clearly in everyone's interest that he goes away. We would be a threat to Europe before us anyway.....with missiles and what not. He doesn't have anything against Europe, he does against the US. As long as he only targets US, the big bad superpower, he's counting on no one to support us since we are far away from Europe. Also, why does it need the attention of the international community? Sure, he's a threat to all of them, but if the US takes him out alone because we feel he's an immediate danger, what's the problem? Dead is dead. quote: It just isn't clear. That is why we would have to go it alone. That is the wrong answer. If we do that we make ourselves responsible for any retaliation from groups that already are looking for a place to blow some stuff up. I don't want to fight a war on terrorism forever. I do want that crazy bastard dead but not with clumsy politics that will cause more problems. Umm, the groups that want a place to blow stuff up are already targetting the US, Israel, and our embassies. There's no reason why it'd increase if we attack Iraq. It might decrease because of a smaller recruitment base and increased freedom, but if groups want to attack us, they already do now. No reason why it'd increase just because we take out Saddam. quote:Yes and no. If we can't properly inspect then clearly we just don't know. However, from that info, to roll in guns blazing could also be wrong. We have some timeÔǪ.we should use it. Ok, lets make it a more common analogy. A cop wants to search a kid's locker at school. The kid welds his locker shut and stands in front of it. Why did the kid do it? The kid's obviously trying to hide SOMETHING that he doesn't want the cop to know about. What your saying is the cop should "call the kid's parents, talk to the principal, talk to all of his friends" (giving the kid time to get rid of the stuff in his locker) while the cop should clearly immediately arrest the kid and get his locker opened. It's clear that Saddam is hiding SOMETHING, but your saying that we should screw around with asking everyone else's permission first when it's obvious Saddam is doing SOMETHING wrong. We should go in and kill the little bastard. quote: Yeah his betters that leaked that info....those who are in the military, in uniform, that are sick of hearing about push over type BS talk from a bunch of chair borne ranger bureaucrats. His betters. TrueÔǪhe did serve 2 ┬¢ years of a four year tour with the air national guardÔǪ. I seem to get the impression (sorry if i'm incorrect), that you think that Bush and the buerocrats are detached from the men who are going out to fight and die for the country, while the people who are leaking the info are going to go out to fight and die. Now, i'm not sure where the leaks are, I heard it was somewhere in his administration, not the actual military, but the people who would have access to those plans and leak them are almost as detached from the death of war as Bush. Do you really think the 4 star generals (who will be far far far far far away from any combat) that hear POSSIBLE invasion plans really care about *your* life in a war against Iraq, and thus they leak the info? Sure, they don't want to have a lot of casualties on our side, but neither does Bush (he wants to get REELECTED), so the "horrible" invasion plans would have been discounted anyway. quote:MAYBE IF WE WOULD WORK WITHIN THE UN WE WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY TARGET! That's irrelevent. The reason why only the US and our very close allies are advocating an attack on Iraq is because we are the only ones being threatened. If we work within the UN, it would just cause all the other countries in the UN to say "lets take our time and work through it slowly", and they would say that BECAUSE they aren't being threatened. You can't assume the UN is the end all to the problems since the UN is made up of the same countries that ARENT BEING THREATENED NOW thus have NO NEED OR INTEREST TO HELP US. Saddam knows the simple idea of divide and conquer. If he ONLY messes with the US, he knows that the US is the only one that will be against him, and your saying that we should just let him use that to his advantage by being outvoted by the rest of the UN? Great idea. quote:Our misdropped bombs, left over mines, and ineffective policies claim more civilian life then terrorists....so far. We call it war. So do they. I get sick and tired of that argument every time I hear it simply because we don't AIM AT CIVILIANS. We dont intend for the bombs to kill civilians, the mines to kill civilians, or the policies to kill civilians. The planes flown into the WTC were not even POSSIBLY aimed at military targets, the suicide bombers in Israel target BUSES FULL OF CHILDREN. That's where the US has the moral highground. quote:It would be the fastest. And safest, and the only one with a GUARANTEE of working. If i'm wrong, what other options are there? (more specific than "working with the international community", please. That's not a plan of action, that's a plan of a plan) quote:I think the terrorist response will be terrible....perhaps off the charts. We are not invulnerable. If you can't see that something is wrong with you. We are virtually invulnerable to the acts of other NATIONS. I also fail to see how the "terrorist reponse" is going to be off the charts when if the terrorists were going to strike, they would have been doing it since 9/11, or when we invaded Afghanistan (talk about radical MUSLIMS. Terrorists would have been a lot more pissed about Afghanistan than about Iraq) and there wasn't a huge terrorist rampage after we invaded Iraq the FIRST TIME. Any increase in terrorism is empirically proven to be negligable. quote:If America has to engage the entire Middle East I fear for the planet. You do not factor in for the amount of terrorists that will fill the ranks. We can be labeled a rogue nation. It can happen. If it does it won't be fun. Free nations don't support terrorism. We engage the entire Middle East, there will be less terrorists in the long run and short term. No terrorists are going to fill the ranks. No way the US can be labeled a rogue nation cause we are the key to the world economy. Us free nations stick together.

Hey! I'm not on the member's page!!! Anyway, I wanna be in the Dipolmacy fleet. I have the urge to "negotiate" with those Terrans, know what I mean? (thinks about "The Fifth Element")

That sig says it all!

quote:When has the UN ever sanctioned one country taking over anotheror aggression without reason? You have been here the whole time right? I will put it to you again. Experts that have been called to testify about Iraq agree that he does not represent an immediate threat that the Bush administration would have us believe. So I would say before we run in guns blazing we use this time to create a multi lateral plan and then take action. Ok, lets try this again. I'm not saying that the UN will sanction Iraq invading other countries. I'm saying that once Iraq HAS WMDs, the U.N. is not going to be able to stop Saddam from walking into his non-WMD neighbors countries under WMD protection, nor will the U.N. stop Iraq from selling WMDs to terrorist groups if the only nation affected is the U.S. Have you studied history? Germany took over multiple countries before invading France. During all of that time, France didn't care. The same principle applies now. Why should we count on the *UN*, made up of MANY countries, to take care of the United States? All the other countries in the world aren't going to care if the US is the only one threatened. Also, if you read all of the articles I posted on this website, many experts believe Saddam is a very credible threat to be taken out. Especially read the *CIA REPORT*. Just because a bunch of anti-war hacks say "Saddam isn't that bad", doesn't mean that we shouldn't take him out. At the very least, he's hostile to the US and Iraq does NOT have weapons inspectors right now as mandated. That's justification enough for taking him out. quote: You work off the assumption that the international community is dumb as a box of rocks. I don't believe they are. They have shown more patience and deeper understanding then this country could begin to muster. Sorry but Europe lived war. We saved them and we think we some bad mo fo's....Vietnam took us sown a notch...as poorly thought out policy will. Perhaps we haven't learned the full lesson yet. Your extrapolation is based off of a poor assessment of the global communities situational awareness skills. They know Sadam is a problem and a threat. What they don't like (I believe) is the greater threat of a powerful country running around making calls without all facts. And I don't like it either. But Bush is now taking his time because his betters have told him to hush for a while. First, all the news i've seen since November has said that an Iraq attack wouldn't be until early 2003 at the earliest. That's STILL the news i'm getting. His "betters" haven't told him to hush, it's just that the worst invasion plans are being leaked and immediately discounted. Also, i'm not assuming the international community is dumb, i'm assuming that the international community isn't being threatened by Saddam, but the US is. Who is going to get a WMD set off in a major city? Not France, not Germany, not Australia, not Canada, not Mexico, not some Asian country, not Iran, and not Britain. You guessed it, the USA or Israel! Wow, and then you wonder why only us and our VERY close allies are advocating an attack on Saddam? Maybe because it's US WITH THE GUN TO OUR HEADS. quote: Global demonsrators at various conventions have been called terrorists and they didn't do anything but catch a beating. I do not assume that a group is actually terrorist because the admin tells me so. But I think one thing is true. As totalitarian regimes fall it will be harder to dismiss people out of hand. Uhh, ok, so your saying that the people who blow themselves up and kill CIVILIANS in ISRAEL are not terrorists? And you saying that Al Quida and other groups that TARGET and KILL civilians are not terrorists? Sorry to burst your bubble, but not EVERYTHING the admin tells us is lies, and for the purpose of this discussion, i'm referring to the terrorists above, not the people who protest outside the World Bank meetings. quote:Destroy Iraq! There gonna get us Destroy Iraq their gonna get us!! That's all I was hearing after 9-11 from our free media....but I'm still here somehow.... Yeah, but obviously you had other news sources of some sort that contradicted that message, and there was DISCUSSION in the media. Saddam's people dont have that luxury, and thus taking him out of power is the only way to free the people. quote: They are going to be glad to see a power-hungry and dangerous leader like Saddam go -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Make room for some CEO's Lets see: Bill Gates running Iraq: He makes a lot of money, puts some companies out of business, probably would hire the local population to build some skyscrapers for him. Computers in Iraq, plenty of free information for the population. Saddam running Iraq: Makes some weapons of mass destruction. Sells them to the highest bidder. Keeps his people dying by pissing off the United States and having sanctions and a long bloody war with WMDs declareded. Keeps the people oppressed or dead. I'd take the CEOs. quote:Cool more fighting....you like this cause when your old enough you can still have a war to fight? No, i'm like this because I highly doubt that any nation, after seeing that we have the balls to take out Saddam without help from anyone else, is going to make the same mistake twice. quote:You have no idea how pissing on the rest of the group leads to individual ruin. But one day you will have to work with others. I bet you don't run your personal life shooting from the hip. In the dream world that you seem to be living in, everyone is valuable. Every life is valuable, every country is valuable, everyone's opinion matters. If a country has a point saying that attacking Iraq is bad, no matter which country, that point is valid and should be considered. Now lets jump back to the real world. Everyones opinions matter in criminal activities and relationships. In international relations, it is totally different. What matters is power, utilitarian goals and results. If Trinidad doesn't want the US to invade Iraq because it's going to hurt Trinidad's supply of industrial sand, TOUGH. No one cares, and it isn't even going to SLIGHTLY affect Bush's decision to attack Iraq, simply because Trinidad can't do anything about it. Now if all of our European allies and Russia said they'd defend Saddam if we attacked him, then it'd probably change our minds. It's all about POWER, and you seem to ignore that. If we attack Iraq, what is any other country going to do about it? NOTHING. What could they do about it? Not much, since most of the world depends on THE US anyway. Does any country have a REASON to do anything negative to the US because we attack Iraq, and if they do, would they due to the fear of retalation? OF COURSE NOT. That's what it comes down to. There is no hidden "ignoring other countries is going to hurt us", because it's NOT. International relations is not a democracy, it's about what country has power over what country, and what country can hurt what country. The US is virtually invulnerable unless we start attacking democratic or free nations. quote: Don't have time for all that I'm a full time soldier at present. However I am joining the Guard and will reclass to 19D tomorrow. So after I get my PHD I will fill you in. For now I would settle for the UN.....international law....international decision making. Please, do me a favor. Ask some of the officers in the military if they advocate following the UN, international law, and international decision making. All of the literature I have read on the subject says that most military commanders HATE the idea of being ordered around by an entity outside of the United States. United States citizens should put their lives on the line for United States interests when the United States leadership and United States citizens say so, not when the UN does. quote: Terrorists are people. To stop them we have to understand what it takes to stop people from strapping explosives on their backs. We don't let terror win...we allow freedom and liberty to prevail. And if some people have gone so far as to remove themselves from the humanity we cherish we have to deal with them. Umm, I think very few people on this planet want to be considered the same species as the bastards who flew planes into the WTC towers and are killing civilians in Israel (even during peace negotiations). Terrorists dehumanized themselves by their actions, the US media and government is just repeating what I, and many others, already thought the second those planes hit the towers. And yes, I agree with you, we need to figure out what it takes to stop people from strapping explosives on their back, but I already know the answer. You kill the ones you can before they can do it, and then you replace the governments of nations that feed the propoganda that makes them do it and/or sends their families money to do it. It's sorta simple. You can't be a suicide bomber if your dead, and you wont be one if your country is removed from governmental oppression and you have something to live for (such as building your own country and economy instead of destroying someone else's). quote: That was a good article. However, a lot is based on the assumption that Iraq will fall over and the region does not go crazy. Of course it doesn't have to go crazy we can just piss enough people off that they feel they shouldn't deal with a rouge nation anymore. 1. There's no way Iraq would not fall over. The WORST case scenario that I could concieve of is all the Middle Eastern nations decide to support Iraq militarily. (that doesn't even make sense, but lets go with it...) In which case the US would probably call up all the reserves and MAYBE institute the draft, and then we would soundly defeat their militaries. Those countries are using Cold War tech during the Information Age. They would all go down very easily, and that's not even considering that we nuke the region, in which case there would be no contest. 2. If you haven't gotten it yet, the US can't be ignored by other nations because of how much trade we get from just about everyone. We aren't going to be marked as a "rogue nation", because all it will do is hurt the countries writing us off like that. It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis. Countries dont dictate policy because it's the "right thing" they do it because it either helps them or hurts them. Your saying that since we're at the top, we need to "play nice". quote:Lately though, Ashcroft and Bush and Ridge have done more to rip up the constitution than Reno or Clinton ever did. I guess as long as they aren't snatching guns I can take some solace. Happens during most major wars, it usually gets better after it's over. I agree with your comment about "as long as they aren't snatching guns". Bush's administration doesn't want to oppress the US citizens, they just want to make the US even more powerful (compared to the rest of the world) than it already is, and go down in the history books in a positive light as the leaders who wiped out terrorism from the globe. If they do it, I think everyone is going to be much happier . Just gotta hope Bush gets elected for a 2nd term so he finishes what he started. I'm betting it's going to come down between Bush and that really Bush-critical anti-war Democratic contender. *is praying Bush doesn't directly screw up a war or the economy between now and 2004* [ 08-09-2002, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Someone needs to take him out of the cloning cycle...I'd settle for altering his genetic code.

I agree with that article.

Sounds like some guy had a LOT of free time on his hands. All those documents and treaties. Ugh. Someone would have to pay me a lot of money to do all of that. The creator was probably some psychopath in prison who managed to see it in some perverted way. [ 08-07-2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]