CommanderJohnson

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: Do you honestly believe that a military force, whether it's from the US government or the exiled Iraqi officers, is going to just let go of its power after defeating Saddam? That is not going to happen, especially with Iraq's strategic value.Compare the above to my response. quote: quote:Do you really think a popular uprising isn't going to cost lives? Saddam has the weapons, remember?Of course it would cost lives, but compared to invasion it would be virtually bloodless. Do you honestly believe that a soverign nation, that wants Iraq to stop being a threat, is going to just wait for the people of Iraq is rise up? That is not going to happen, especially when there is NO guarntee they will rise up before there's a catastrophe. Yes, it's common sense that the military would take over if we took out Saddam and left. But it's also common sense that we should act for OUR best interests and NOT ASSUME that the population will rise up. [ 07-17-2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

I wonder if anyone is actually stupid enough to pay for their "exclusive content". (sorry if you paid for it...)

quote:Originally posted by Commander Elio Jason: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: [/rp] (clears his throat) . . . . Many of you know me, at least from my posts here. . . . . And you all know perfectly well.... . . . . . That i'm going to take a GAMMULAN STORMCARRIER AND BLOW GALCOM AND EARTH TO HELL WHEN MULTIPLAYER COMES OUT! YEE HA!!!!! (in case you didnt get the message, that's an affirmative)sounds simple right? and your gonna do this BY YOURSELF? You all can help if you want. j/k, of course i'm expecting everyone else to be doing it too. [ 07-16-2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

I agree that we can't disarm cause it's impossible to take back the possibility of some country making a hidden stockpile and using em.

More people play counter-strike than Everquest...right?

That's why you kill the dictator, then lift all the sanctions. No dictator=no problem with the country rebuilding. Just kill off Saddam and his cronies, then make a new government. Or for all of you "western puppet government" bad people, then remove his cronies, then leave the country without a government, then let THEM decide on it. Do you really think a popular uprising isn't going to cost lives? Saddam has the weapons, remember?

quote:Originally posted by Herbie: Your United States now stands on the brink of dictatorship, your inalienable rights have been alienated. Your President is a corporate crook, whose honesty during the last elections is debatable, who is in bed with major oil companies and the military/industrial complex. The only people who benefitted from the events of 911, are the United States Government, the military and the oil industry. Would it surprise you that most nations of the world now hold the United States in very low regard. Would it surprise you that eight of the nineteen hijackers of 911 are alive? Yes, thats right, they are ALIVE, they were not in the United States on 911 and many of them are airline pilots who work for foreign countries. So just WHO was onboard, who hijacked the planes, why do the official passenger list from the airlines not list the hijackers? Why did no one claim responsibility, oh sure we claim that Osama bin laden did, but WE TRAINED HIM. Osama was trained and hired by the CIA during the war with Russia in Afgahnistan. We gave him the weapons which we are now destroying. His family is personal friends with your President, hey but this is just the tip of the iceberg. Well, I guess i'm lucky i'm going to join the USAF in a few years. I'll be on the winning side no matter how you look at it.

I agree with Soback...i'm waiting for Menchise to post here with the far left's "We all should disarm" rant.

Yeah, if they have rules based space combat, it'll have to be like E&B. Some people like that, but the fan base will sharply decline at some point when the older players get sick of being so powerful, and the newer players stop coming because they are so weak and hate the fact the game caters to the people playing for 50 hours a week. That's why real-time combat is good....it's your skill, not how much time you play.

I thought I posted a topic on this awhile ago, but it seems I didn't. What do all of you think about Nuclear Disarmament? Good idea? Bad idea? How about unilateral US disarmament?

LOL! THATS SO FUNNY!

I wanna be a beta tester!!!!

quote: He may be doing his darnedest to get them, but he is not getting them! Iraq's WMD program is crippled and has been crippled for years! There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary unless you count the dubious sources that the media portrays as fact. Umm, your first article said at least 5% of WMD capability was left. Also, I maintain that he is getting them, and we just don't know about it because of the lack of inspections. Besides, him TRYING to get them is a good enough reason to get rid of him. Are we supposed to wait until he succeeds? Same type of thinking that led to 9/11 to begin with. "They hate us but can't do anything to us....still can't do anything....holy ****, there went the WTC towers!!" quote: Again, the facts say otherwise. Information gathered from the invasion of Afghanistan points to many countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt. They found NO evidence of an Iraqi connection! The only sources have been from so-called "defectors" that appear out of nowhere at the most convenient moments through Chalabi's back door. The facts say Iraq PAYS suicide bombers families. It was a big deal a few months ago, check just about EVERY news service and it'll be there. That's my source. Just go into google and type in "Iraq" AND "suicide bombers". Bet at least 3 news services will come up talking about the situation. quote:I agree, but it must be done by the Iraqi people, not the US government. US intervention has been, at best, a series of blunders. They gave the WMD to Saddam in the first place, they assisted the Taliban's rise to power, and the thin veil of democracy in Afghanistan's interim government is already showing a few holes. If the USA topples Saddam, odds are 2:1 that the replacement will be Chalabi, and history has already shown that he is not trustworthy.If you watched today's INTERVIEWS with the exiled generals from Iraq, they state that the only feasible and quick way of getting Saddam out of power is US military support. They also say he's (Saddam) is weak now. quote: For the people to stand up to Saddam, the economic sanctions need to be lifted, because at the moment, the people in Saddam's sphere of influence (south and central Iraq) are completely dependant on handouts from the Oil for Food program which are distributed by the Iraqi authorities. They cannot revolt in such conditions. Uhh, so it's better if we lift the sanctions and Saddam makes more weapons to suppress a rebellion? That really doesn't make sense. And if we remove the sanctions, do you really think they will be any LESS under his control? It's a DICTATORSHIP, you go against him, you get KILLED. He has COMPLETE control over EVERYTHING. Media, transportation, production, the military. quote: Again, the facts say otherwise. Here is a page from an FAQ on sanctions: Ok, other than the fact one of the things your article cites is a "lack of motivation", that can easily be contributed to Saddam. So can the utility and distribution problems. Just because he SAYS he's trying to fix it, doesn't mean he is. And again, it's a dictatorship, he has complete control. Your last article merely says that they can't say that it's the Iraqi government's fault. That article never refutes the fact that if Saddam WANTED the problems that exist now to happen, that the oil-for-food program would somehow get around that. Your source is clearly operating under the premise that "Saddam thinks human life is valuable". Thus, they say that "the problem is there is no cash to get some stuff delivered, and there's no way to get spare parts." Your authors never ASSUME that he IS trying to most of his people in poverty, and argue against the premise. They assume Saddam is trying his best, thus sanctions should be lifted. If he wanted them lifted, he'd comply with the weapons inspectors. How much more simple does it get? The UN was going to lift em till he became beliggerant. quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, if you've kept up on news, there are trades going on between other countries (I think Russia is one of them), without UN authorization, and that's for weapon material. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Give me a source. You seem to have a problem reading daily news, such as msnbc.com, or watching TV news programs. I think that one was from 60 minutes AND MSNBC, so it should have been on just about anything you could have read. Same thing for the suicide bomber one, but that one was big news everywhere. quote:Military sanctions do that, not economic sanctions. His control over the populace is actually tightening as a result of the economic sanctions, because now the people are completely dependant on him for the necessities. If Iraq's economy was allowed to recover while the military sanctions were maintained and/or tightened, the people would be in a position to oppose Saddam. What goods exactly are being restricted then? Last I heard it was only dual-use goods and military use goods that can be used to build WMDs or military equipment. quote: It matters a hell of a lot that there was espionage last time, especially now that there is talk of a full-scale invasion plan! Read between the lines, Dredd. They kicked the weapons inspectors out years ago before there were any "invasion plans". You keep saying, in essence "they need to be given a chance, it's wrong that the US is going to invade and the US shouldn't do it". They've been given a chance since they kicked the inspectors out to begin with until the invasion plans which came out around December. If Iraq was smart, they would have let in weapons inspectors/spies, whatever you want to call them, immediately after 9/11. It's not our fault that they were morons. There would be no way the US would invade if Iraq would just give in to the US/UN demands. quote: Now you're being unreasonable. Just because an organization is anti-war doesn't mean that it's not credible. The people in that group are anti-war because of the facts, not vice versa! The mere fact that they use facts makes them more credible than the mainstream media, which depends on sound bytes more than anything else. Actually, the people in those groups, as their logic dictates, are anti-war because of the number of people dying. Then after they point out the HUGE "humanitarian disaster", they point out all the so called "facts" that say sanctions are evil and should be removed, and how invasion would cost MORE lives or isn't needed. They ignore the idea that maybe it's the government's fault. The mainstream media is always going to be more credible because at least the sound bytes are meant to inform, not persuade. Sure, the way they are presented can sort of persuade, but when you watch interviews and read or listen to answers to direct questions, or watch notable parts of speeches, that is FACT. quote:Jealous? They arent going to be able to surpass us, and I live comfortably knowing we could nuke them off the planet with only minimal casualties in the US, compartively speaking.

When is the fleet server/fleet/multiplayer info going to be out? Does anyone know? [ 07-14-2002, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Yeah, it was.

I like Star Wars....so that seems cool. Don't worry though, i'll probably like BCO more though!

Computer? What kind of computer do all of you have, and how does BCM, and do other games, run on it? In a couple days i'm getting a: P4 2.4 ghz 533 bus speed CPU with 512 MB RDRAM 120 gb HD @ 7,200 RPM 20 gb removeable HD at 5,400 RPM (no games going on it) Geforce 4 Ti 4600 Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer CD burner, DVD drive...don't really care about them (ok, so this thread was intended for me to brag about my new comp.....anyone wanna beat that? was going to get the fastest P4, but it was a $300 price jump from the 2.4 ) EDIT: This relates to BC because I looked at SC's "Ultimate" reqs for the future BC games and decided to get a jump on it. PLEEEEASE dont increase the reqs. [/rp] *grovels* [/endrp] [ 07-13-2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Well, i'm about to have 5-6 computers networked in my house, so if I don't get on a fleet server , i'll be running one of my own.

quote:The people are dying despite the program. The aid goods that the Iraqis receive are in proportion to the oil that it exports. Even a country as oil-rich as Iraq cannot feed the population on oil exports alone. The allegation that the Iraqi leadership is using the export revenues to buy items other than aid goods is also false since the trade contracts must be approved in advance by the UN. Saddam has no problem allocating the resources in such a way that "his people" are good, and everyone else has to fight for food or starve. Also, if you've kept up on news, there are trades going on between other countries (I think Russia is one of them), without UN authorization, and that's for weapon material. Another thing Saddam is using his money for is PAYING THE FAMILIES OF ISRAELI SUICIDE BOMBERS. I just remembered that after Jaguar's post. That's sort of straightforward: Money goes to suicide bombers. Not a stretch to say probably to their organizations too. quote:Blaming the deaths on aggression in the Gulf War is also false, because the economic sanctions have no negative effect on Saddam's dictatorial position, and it was Saddam who ordered the invasion; the sanctions do the most damage to the well-being of Iraqi civilians, who were not responsible in any way for the invasion of Kuwait. No effect on Saddam's dictatorial position? It helps stop the MILITARY from rebuilding, and the MILITARY is *CRITICAL* to any dictatorship! The people were responsible for the invasion by supporting Saddam during it and after it, and even if they ARENT responsible for it, Saddam is responsible for the sanctions by not complying with UN weapons insepctions. It doesn't matter if there was spying going on or not. If he wanted the sanctions ended, he would simply NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE. If he has something to hide from us, it's probably something bad that justifies an attack. The 60 minutes article was centered around an Iraqi high-up official talking about how the US wouldn't accept a known terrorist from their prisons and wouldn't sign a contract on it, but he also talked about weapons inspectors. quote: The German government's attempts to pay the reparations led to a hyperinflation crisis in the mid 1920s that made German currency worthless. It was not due to the world economy, which was booming at the time. At the time, the world economy was horrible. Western europe was paying back loans to the US, Germany was playing reparations to Western Europe, and the United States was MAKING loans to Germany. The entire world economy was screwed up. Then the US economy fell flat on it's face because of how the US was centered on manufacturing cars and couldn't shift to a better production ideal. It wasn't because of the reparations Germany was in shambles, it was cause of the world economy in combination with it. If the world economy was better, the loans wouldnt have been taking place, and we probably would have stopped Germany before they started attacks. quote: It's not that hard to determine how popular a dictator really is. Saddam is relatively popular because of the bombings and economic sanctions that have brought most of the country to stone age conditions, thus providing Saddam with someone to blame on a silver platter.Now your ascribing intenetions to the Iraqi people, and it's illogical. Saddam attacks Kuwait. UN beats Saddam, imposes sanctions. People blame the UN for the sanctions? The LOGICAL thing, and the thing that should be assumed, is they blame SADDAM/Their Government, for the sanctions. Saddam may be able to rant and rave about it being the US's fault, but your never going to know the truth since it's a DICTATORSHIP. In response to your final article, it is obviously biased lefist ****, moreso than most of the other stuff. You blame the main-stream media for being biased, but it's a LOT less biased than that. "Education for Peace in Iraq center"?!??! Gee whiz, I wonder how credible that is. Also, all of the evidence cited in there is at least 2-3 years ago, before some things, such as hiring suicide bombers was found. Also, they could have rebuilt since then, and they weren't totally disarmed at the time of that article either. It doesn't matter who armed them either. I don't care if we GAVE them nuclear weapons, and now we want them back. They aren't going to have them now, and if we have to bomb them to hell and invade to get them back, we should. quote:Tell me. Why at the G8 EVERY COUNTRY LEADER was against Bush plans to topple Arafat AND attack Iraq? That's 7 vs 1 (Canada has a hard time to admit, but that's another story). If the United States are alone in their corner, what make then right? Cause most countries are full of peace loving liberals, probably because of the perception that any fighting is closer to THEM than the US. Nuclear disarmament protests first caught on to a significant degree in England. Also, this is a democratic country. If you pay attention to the original premise of the thread (the US constitution and what actions would be in our best interests), that pretty much covers it. It's about US interests/ideas, not the world's. If the US people want something, we should do it. We aren't under a "world democracy". quote: On the contrary. I think it'll only make things worse. It will show the arab natons once again that the United States think they can impose their decisions to the world. They already think that. And we CAN impose our decisions on the world if it's in our best interests, and we should. ESPECIALLY when we, and they, are at danger from Saddam. Just because they don't admit it publically doesn't mean it isn't true. I bet that some arab nations are going to let us use their territory and airbases, and THAT shows if they want us there or not. If they don't we'll only be using aircraft carriers. quote:How can you be sure he doesn't have better technology? and even then, if he had MDWs as you say, what does it matter? Because RUSSIA doesn't have better tech, and that's where he's probably getting supplied from. Also, if he DOES have better tech, even a BETTER reason to attack him, so he doesn't destroy US when he gets MORE of it and decides to take over the middle east again. quote:WTF do you have against China?? China isn't bad, you, along with all you republicans, think that communism is evil, so communism must be destroyed. And how do you think China can be taken out? They are not hardboring terrorists, they are not planning invasions, and I didn't heard of government oppression. (enlighten me if you have), so why would the US need to show THEY are the bully? They are a threat to Taiwan, they are trying to compete with the US militarily, they are modernizing their forces, they can destabilize asia. I do not believe we need to "take them out" though, since eventually they are going to become a democracy because of popular demand and how tired they are going to get of the poor human rights. We should only militarily attack China if they attack Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea.

quote: Show me one single sentence in that article that remotely implies such things. The sentences referring to all of the people dying cause of sanctions. There's a little thing called the "oil for food program". It allows money from oil sales to go to Iraq to buy aid goods. The fact the people are dying is not OUR PROBLEM, but the fault of the Iraqi leadership for not taking care of the population and getting into the war in the first place. The whole idea that WE are killing people is debatish, leftist, ****. quote:When was the interview? What was the person's name? What was the person's title? Did this person explain why? I saw it on 60 minutes about a month or two ago, it might have been a re-run. It was post weapons inspectors being kicked out and i'm pretty sure it was post 9/11. I think it was the ambassador, but i'm not sure. You may want to do a search for it, i'm sure someone on here saw it. The person kept babbling about how the US is evil and "has no right", etc etc. Even if you disregard that, listen to some of Saddam's speeches, he doesn't care about weapons inspectors, he just wants to be a pain to the US. It's like he WANTS to get attacked. quote: Saudi Arabia screws with oil prices, and they're one of America's biggest allies in the region. Try again. Saudi Arabia didn't start an aggressive war with other US allies. YOU try again. All of the factors combine to make it in the US's interest to attack. "Oil" isn't the ONLY one, which is why in my last post I pointed out all of the different ways, in combination, that if Iraq's current stance doesn't change, attacking is the only smart thing to do. quote: It is because of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq that at least 200,000 civilians have died from starvation and preventable diseases.No, it's because of Saddam that they have died. Not because of the sanctions. The sanctions would be gone if he complied with the agreements. Also, if that was the issue, he wouldn't be BUYING MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM RUSSIA. He might be buying "dual-use goods", which are what your referring to. And i'm pretty sure that they are now allowing Iraq to buy those "dual use goods", or if not, they were considering it in the UN before Iraq became belligerant....again. quote: Anyone who has studied the inter-war period of the 1920s and 1930s would know what an effect this has on the politics of a country. It was the harsh reparations imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles that directly contributed to the conditions in which Nazism thrived.Oh, and not having sanctions would solve the problem of Saddam better? Oh...wait...no...cause it didnt help THE FIRST TIME. The "harsh reparations" only had the effect they did because of the GLOBAL ECONOMY at the time. The reparations, in themselves, didn't cause the problem. quote: The economic sanctions on Iraq only strengthen Saddam's popularity. If these facts still don't convince you of that, just think back to how popular Bush became on 9/11. He had the population eating out of his hand before he mentioned any plans for retaliation. I'm sorry if you dont know this, but the country is run by a DICTATOR. That means that if you DONT like Saddam, you get shot. Killed. Dead. His popularity will always be or seem high for that reason. However, I personally don't advocate sanctions on Iraq. I advocate getting weapons inspectors back in and then removing the sanctions (WHICH THE UN PROPOSED TO BEGIN WITH!!!). If that doesn't happen, I advocate INVADING IRAQ, getting rid of all of their WMDs, getting weapons inspectors back in, then removing sanctions. I think sanctions are the least effective form of containment, but they shouldn't be removed without a better idea. Also, just re-read my last post for the more on-topic info, mainly why invading Iraq would be in our best interests as AMERICANS. EDITL Oh yeah, and in response to that last article. It doesn't contradict my reasoning given in the last post for attacking Iraq, since i've never given Bin Laden terrorism as a justification for it, and Ritter is hardly a perfect source. If that article was true, the entire international community would be pressuring the US to not undertake ANY negative action toward Iraq, and to remove sanctions. Not to mention that some part of the media would be pointing it out. Also, wasn't Ritter fired from his job as chief weapons inspector? Or replaced? That can lead to bias. Sure "mainstream media" might be bad, but so is "leftist ****". I typically take the most believable parts of info such as history, the facets of dictatorship, the logical motivation behind actions Saddam is accused of, etc and i don't believe most of Bush's hype. Ritter's stuff is just as bad as CNN. [ 07-13-2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

[/rp] (clears his throat) . . . . Many of you know me, at least from my posts here. . . . . And you all know perfectly well.... . . . . . That i'm going to take a GAMMULAN STORMCARRIER AND BLOW GALCOM AND EARTH TO HELL WHEN MULTIPLAYER COMES OUT! YEE HA!!!!! (in case you didnt get the message, that's an affirmative)

Ok, I think I better clarify since I admit i'm probably coming across a little too strong, probably from being caught up in the argument. I don't believe we should invade Iraq for their oil. I do believe though that Iraq has an obligation to honor weapons inspectors and to not directly interefere with US interests by artificially screwing up oil prices. I also believe that Iraq has an obligation to follow all sanctions imposed by the victorious countries as a result of the Gulf War. THAT is a typical idea of soverign nations. If you lose a war, you do what the winner(s) say according to the agreements. At BEST, Iraq is violating the trade restrictions by SMUGGLING IN military equipment. At WORST, they are building WMDs, as shown by their inability to let in weapons inspectors. Iraq with EITHER of these is in violation of international treaties, is a slap in the face toward US hedgemony (which is critical to maintaining stability in many regions), is a threat to our allies in the Middle East, and is a threat to the OIL SUPPLIES that the United States *depends* on. That's directly interefering with US interests. So, in essence, I believe that unless Iraq follows it's obligations to the international community and the United States, they should be invaded for the safety of all parties involved, including the United States. We can not stand by as Saddam gets weapons and gets into a position to threaten us when it's very likely it's coming. My reasoning, is not based on the flawed principle of "Every life is valuable". My reasoning is based on the simple fact that if Iraq continues to ignore all warnings, it increases the probability of danger to such an extent that we need to attack. It's the same principle you live with in your everyday life, if you fail to submit to a breathalizer test, they take your drivers license away. If you plead the 5th amendment, they lock you up for contempt of court. If you refuse to be searched at an airport, they won't let you on the plane. If Iraq refuses to let in weapons inspectors, the post-war agreement is rendering null and void and we start attacking them again. Simple as that. I highly doubt anyone can justify "Letting Iraq back out of international agreements with the UN and the United States" as being in the *UNITED STATES* best interests. And that's what it comes down to.

It's not dreaming, it's thinking big, and my officers are well guarded by how many marines...oh yeah...FORTY! Forty marines! Wow, isn't that nice to have *40* marines on board? As i've said before Earth+RANDOM=Heaven on Earth!

Mine's been jamming too. I'll post more once I know LordDavid hasn't been kicked out . Are you two Progen?

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: ....but aren't we just going to get a RANDOM, cloak for awhile, then just blow Earth up?Nope. Its not as easy as you might think. Unless of course you're playing a server with a bunch of hapless n00bs. Or working with the best fleet around *stands proudly* How can you be working with the best fleet around unless your a Gammulan? I don't see how that's possible, since everyone knows the Gammulans are the best. And don't worry, we aren't going to simply OTS Earth, we're going to totally terraform it, and then entire SOL system, with a RANDOM, and we're going to be taunting you while the missile is in flight all the way to impact. .......BOOM! (billions of screams heard on Earth) [rp] Illusion Illusions. Why do you think we (Galcom) kicked your a** in 2 wars? You think you're better, but your fleets get vaporised as our fleets continue their inexorable advance. Ha. Take that. [/rp] [/rp] You see, I was taking into account the one HUGE, GIANT, GREAT difference between those wars and now. I wasn't fighting in those wars. Prepare to be RANDOMED! Ha ha ha ha ha!