CommanderJohnson

What's a sniper check? And are officers required to return salutes? That's gotta get annoying having to salute every single person you come near.

quote:Originally posted by Emmett.hendrick: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: quote:Originally posted by Emmett.hendrick: I'm a Wraither not stupid!Aren't they the same thing? DOWN WITH GALCOM! We'll see! When we slip right through you defence net and cripple the Gammulan empire from the inside out, and your commanders are crying that the ships are useless because they can't get any supplies/fuel, meanwhile the other Galcom fleets are walking all over you because of our efforts. Lets see if your still as brash! BRING ON THE WAR WRAITH IS READY! ...I think the Wraither just gave us his battle plans. HA HA HA. Gotta love Terrans.

YEAH! OUR OWN THREAD!!!!!

Long term goal: Take over Earth. Or RANDOM it. If needed, i'll sacrifice myself to manually fly the RANDOM to impact.

Name: Dredd Ship: Lawgiver Ship Type: Stormcarrier Location: Gammula Status: Itching to kill some inferior life forms.

quote:Originally posted by Emmett.hendrick: I'm a Wraither not stupid!Aren't they the same thing? DOWN WITH GALCOM!

The whole flap over Lott seems, to me, to be a media created frenzy that is supported by Liberal political interests. The media doesn't seem to focus on Lott's apology or the CONTEXT of his statement, but just that he said that if Thurmond was elected before, a lot of the problems we have now would not have existed. Ok, it was his 100th BIRTHDAY. Lott made a POSITIVE/SUPPORTIVE comment about Thurmond's political career. He thought that Thurmond's election would have been beneficial to the country, and he said it without analyzing all of Thurmond's past political convictions. The comment wasn't planned, and if anything, Lott was probably thinking that if Thurmond, with the beliefs he holds NOW (at his 100th BIRTHDAY) was elected to power, the country would be better. Lott NEVER said in his speech that he supports segregation, and his clarification that his speech was NOT in support of segregation should be ENOUGH. Instead people take Lott's comments, analyze them to the point of "well, Thurmond believed this and ran on this platform, thus Lott must be supporting everything Thurmond believed". The initial logic isn't sound (that if someone believes something or runs on a platform, and then you support them, that you automatically believe in and support EVERYTHING that person says), and then the liklihood of it even crossing Lott's mind that Thurmond was racist in his political platform (which is really unlikely since Thurmond STOPPED being racist, thus it's doubtful Lott would hold a grudge and keep Thurmond, on his 100th birthday, marked with the label of "segregationalist") makes it insane to believe Lott should be removed because of his comments or the backlash from them. Sure, Jaguar's objections to Lott because of his concessions to the democrats may be true, but Lott's statements at a friend's BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION shouldn't have anything to do with it.

So, in the military, if you're in the military, you have to salute every single military person you pass?

IE is the best and you all know it! Microsoft gets a lot of heat, but their browser is the fastest. Netscape seems to have longer load times. (I couldn't resist, Dragon Lady )

quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: I'm sure that there have been a lot more than 500 objectors in the US military to World War II. Does that mean we should have let the Nazis take over Europe? I don't think so.At the first day of war germany invaded poland, and started attacking other countries without reserve. It's not the same as Palestine vs Israël - they aren't fighting an open, declared war. Yes, tension is high, and terrorist are attacking on a regular fashion, but it's still not war. And in WW2 the enemy was clear. How many people supported the action of germany? In the present case (Is. vs pal.), you will find that many people support either's action - and view the other as the enemy. in ww2 the opposition was only about being against supporting europe struggle vs germany. 1. Ok, so "declaring war" would make it so that the objectors in the military are somehow less important than them objecting now to the military actions? What does "declaring war" have to do with it. I'm pretty sure we were at war with Japan the second they started dropping bombs on our ships at Pearl Harbor, waiting for Congress to SAY we are at war is just a legal technicality that's irrelevent. It's the troops job and they should deal with it regardless of it being a "declared war" or not. Israel doesn't have a national guard like the US does (as far as I know). If we had terrorists blowing up buildings and there were some National Guard members who agreed with the terrorist ideologies, they would have to deal with it and keep doing their jobs ANYWAY to stop the terrorists, regardless of their personal feelings. 2. There were plenty of objectors to us helping out Europe in WW2, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have. (this is just an argument against that stupid "WE are Israelis against fighting" website) 3. So you're saying that the number of people supporting a cause determines whether or not it is right, or if it is valid for people to support or oppose it? I'm sure a good number of the Germans supported the war, as did the Japanese, some Russian (to a point), and the Italians. Israel vs Palestine is clear. There are TERRORISTS that are blowing up ISRAELIS for a "cause". The terrorists are the "enemy". The Israeli people are NOT the enemy, no matter how you cut it. The "power" that the Israeli government has over the Palestinians is not based in the INNOCENT CIVILIANS that the terrorists keep killing. It's based in the MILITARY TROOPS that Israel has at MILITARY BASES and Israel's POLICE FORCES. The Palestinians are the enemy because they ignore the distinction between ending their oppression (by targeting military installations and the foundations of the government's continued power) and just killing innocent people to send a message (which is what they are doing NOW). I'm sure a large number of people in the Middle East supported the 9/11 attacks. That sure as hell didn't make THEM right.

I kill bad people with Stormcarrier. Go Gammulan Empire!

I'm sure that there have been a lot more than 500 objectors in the US military to World War II. Does that mean we should have let the Nazis take over Europe? I don't think so.

No officers on here? C'mon, I want someone tell me what it's like being an officer in the Air Force, or any other branch....

Just responding to one point above: It doesn't matter how many poor or homeless people (people who don't have any ambition to work) get together and want handouts. It's still objective STEALING when the government takes money from those who have worked to earn it and give it to those who haven't. Being benevolent when stealing doesn't make it right. That'd justify my robbing anyone as long as i'm hungry.

Thank you $ilk.

IMVHO I agree with your analysis that having a huge strike fleet not do much damage to a station is a bit much.

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:I'm not sure what to say though, I know perfectly well that WMDs are more of an excuse to attack then anything else, but it's a good enough excuse. And besides, the actual reasons (being prevention of terrorism, oil, and such not) are perfectly adequate.Considering that you haven't countered the argument that attacking Iraq will stimulate terrorism rather than prevent it, among other costs that far outweigh any benefits (which are marginal at best for the people in general), your assertion seems premature to me.[/QB] I've already countered that BAD ARGUMENT about 50 times. And to counter that, you STILL haven't responded to my multitude of numbered points why the results of an Iraq attack would be GOOD. Now, to answer your "stimulate terrorism" argument, you need to weigh the impacts of a worst case scenario in each of our views. Now, in either worst case, all of those GOOD RESULTS that I listed earlier on this thread will happen. Now lets say worst case scenario (in YOUR view) from an attack. We attack Iraq. There's more terrorism. They try to blow up various embassies and ships around the world with more frequency. Our increased security measures may or may not mitigate it. There's a body count of 5,000 per year. Hell, make it 10,000. Ok, now lets compare it with the best case scenario from MY view if we DONT attack. Saddam gets WMDs or hides them. The current level of terrorism and hatred toward America continues (no reason for it to drop). Some terrorist gets a Nuclear or Biological weapon (from Iraq). They don't even need to get CLOSE enough to buildings to get affected by security measures. They infect people with smallpox or set off a nuclear device in Atlanta or New York. At ***LEAST*** 100,000 killed, and that's probably a VAST understatement. Weigh the body counts, buddy. If terrorism increases from an Iraq attack and there's a reduced chance of a WMD attack (since Iraq wont be able to supply em), it's always going to be better than the increased risk of a WMD attack. Oh yeah, and all of this assumes that the people of Iraq wont WANT to be freed from an OPPRESSIVE REGIME and helped into some sort of FREE regime where they actually have freedom of information, and they get fed, etc without the constant threat of death. For a mindset that values individual lives, people seem to not care that the Iraqi people are constantly oppressed. EDIT: As for Ritter's little speech, you all know how much MONEY he is making off of giving these speeches and lectures for the left about our Iraq policy, right? And you all ALSO realize that if the US really was obstructing the inspections, there would be many OTHER inspectors agreeing with him, and there would be people on the inspections team speaking out THIS TIME when inspections start again. Ritter is about to go totally out of the spotlight because, guess what, ITS NOT HIS JOB ANYMORE. [ 11-21-2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Explain what this is? EDIT: WOW! That's gotta cost a fortune, and the graphics dont even look that good. What rich nutcases are buying it? [ 11-21-2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: Cmdr_ Laracuente: you could have easily taken out that station with your firestorm... all you had to do was cloak. Also watch your orientation on the station when you jump in. if you do it right you can get inside the arcs of some of the turrets.I think the conclusion was the failure of the mission was due to command errors....by Rensig.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: We are down to twenty corporations that own and operate the media.thats books, magazines, TV, cable, satellite, and obviously fair and balanced news outlets. Frankly, i'm sick and tired of this constant "coroporations bad" rhetoric. The whole reason corporations have formed and SURVIVED is because *the people* which your so fond of saying will "rise up" SUPPORT THE CORPORATIONS. A few people didn't suddenly say "lets get a lot of money so we have influence over everything". What happened was there were simple people, with good ideas and good businesses, who had THE PEOPLE buy their products or services. They made a lot of money off of it. When they overstepped their bounds, anti-trust legislation happened. Monopolies of the were broken up and people STILL SUPPORTED these companies/corporations. The corporations have a lot of money, gained from THE PEOPLE supporting them. So they use that money to make more money, by using their wealth to buy air-time on TV and support networks so that THEIR CORPORATION/COMPANY is portrayed in a good, money-making light. And guess what? It's the PEOPLE who made it this way, and are keeping it this way through their monetary support, not some evil entity called "the corporation". Then you look at Iraq, since this is what the topic should be focused around. I have yet to see a CAUSAL LINK between "the war on Iraq" and "the interests of big corporations". And i'm not asking for a correlation, which everyone is so fond of pointing out, i'm asking for CAUSATION. I want someone, who is so fond of blaming the corporations for EVERYTHING, to explain: 1. How, EXACTLY (how it should be/how it is now), is the media being manipulated from the truth in order to support a war? 1b. How you think it SHOULD be portrayed is any LESS BIASED than the "corporation biased news"? 2. Why does a war on Iraq UNIQUELY benefit CORPORATIONS? (explain why a war on IRAQ as opposed to one on Iran or North Korea BENEFITS corporations...there are plenty of "GOOD" reasons a war on Iraq is best) 3. How EXACTLY do you propose the system should be changed so that there is no "evil manipulation"? Unless someone is going to prove me wrong, it seems that this argument is really simple. The people with the radical leftist/anti-war/anti-corporations views are mad because the amount of monetary support for them and their groups PALES IN COMPARISON to the monetary support to the major US political parties, and major US businesses/corporations. They don't like the amount of air time and support they are getting from THE PEOPLE so they attack the opposition. It all comes down to popular support, and the leftist view is in the vast minority. Yelling that your right won't change minds....

quote:Originally posted by J.Smith: neither party is what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers did not want political parties in the first place. So if you really think about it our entire political system is against what our founding fathers wanted. George Washington didn't want political parties. Our founding fathers STARTED the other ones.

I'll take a quote from the article Menchise posted: quote:C17. Do the American people support a war against Iraq? Yes and no. If asked do you support the United States preventing Iraq from killing you or your parents or your children, or indeed from killing even just those people who live in New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco, a considerable majority of Americans will most certainly say yes. On the other hand, if they are asked, should the United States blast Iraq ‑- a country it has already devastated for over a dozen years with hundreds of thousands of casualties -- into the dark ages, with countless further victims -- in order to make the point that we are callous enough and violent enough to do it -- and to steal for ourselves direct control over the resources of another country, it is reasonable to guess that a considerable majority of Americans would say no. Currently, as we write, reports suggest that about 70% of the British population, by polls, opposes the war plans, despite the British government being the only one in the world solidly behind Bush. This is very interesting. Two things seem to explain the British being more anti‑war than Americans. One, the planes that crashed into buildings on 9-11 didn't do so in London. And two, there is in Britain a mass-circulation press which is conveying actual truths and morally civilized reactions to the on‑going events, more widely than these are being conveyed in the U.S. Reaction in the U.S. is definitely behind. But it is also catching up. C18. Why does the U.S. government want to go to war against Iraq? Because Iraq's leader is not in Washington's hip pocket anymore, where he was, when Washington liked him quite a lot, while he was committing his worst crimes. Because underneath Iraq is the world's second largest reserve of oil, which the U.S. government would like to control, particularly given the instability of Saudi subservience. Because around the world are country after country who are suffering the accumulating damage of corporate globalization and being pressured by their populations to extricate from the American Empire's hold over their policies, and waging violent destruction on Iraq sends a very loud message regarding just how high the price will be for extrication from U.S. domination. Because anything remotely resembling a legal and moral approach to international problems is ridiculed and rejected by U.S. elites because legal and moral approaches to international problems would, in case after case, lead to outcomes contrary to their agendas and interests. And because intense focus on Iraq is serviceable to Bush and Co. seeking to divert attention from the condition of the U.S economy and corporate corruption leading up to the November U.S. elections, and hoping to undermine social spending that is strongly favored by the population, in the interest of tax cuts for the rich, which is strongly opposed by the population. 1. Popularity doesn't determine right/wrong. I don't care if every other person in the world said attacking Iraq was a bad idea, if the information about Iraq i've been hearing is true, it's a good idea. 2. If you asked Americans if you think allowing oppressive regimes that torture and kill their people and give them no rights is something we should allow to happen if we can stop it, i'm guessing a vast majority would say NO, WE SHOULD NOT ALLOW IT. As for Saddam: 1. We liked Iraq when he wasn't a threat. The fact we used to like him, maybe even support him, is NOT an argument why we shouldn't STOP HIM NOW. What's wrong with nations being in our hip pocket? At least then there isn't a danger of them doing things that are going to hurt us. What kind of logic is the author using? Nations NOT being with us is a good thing? He must wanna commit suicide. 2. Tax cuts for the rich just make it fair. Why should the rich be punished for their success? Besides, that's just typical democrat rhetoric, the tax cuts are equal for EVERYONE. If one group pays MORE taxes, they should naturally be saving MORE money from a tax cut. It's unjust to only give the cuts to SOME and not to all. 3. Oil? Globalization? I'm sorry, there is no alternative, and it makes no sense that a war on Iraq would HELP our "oil interests". It'd probably just flood the market, driving down demand and making companies lose money. And to bring the topic a LOT more on subject since people aren't very good at responding: quote:Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about. If we want to keep the discussion moving, please respond to that and to my 4th to last post on the America's Role 2 Topic , that lists why my arguments still apply. It's irrelevent why we attack Iraq, it'll still be solving all the problems.

The really ironic thing is that no one can really stop the Israeli government from doing whatever they want. They can fight off their neighbors, and if we tried to go in to make peace, the stupid Palestinians would probably try to kill us too with suicide bombings. That's what they get for trying to kill everyone...

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Darling please do not be put out...someone else will play with you. Please forgive the ignorant who still believe in people....I know it is dreadfully out of fashion and sooooo provincial... but please, allow the foolish to have their say.... Truly you must ask yourself...where has your pie gone?No, I believe in people, that's why I think the government "helping" people is stupid because they should be able to help themselves, for the most part, at least in the United States.

If she wasn't who she was, she wouldn't be facing jail time. It's really sorta stupid.