CommanderJohnson

The easiest way to stop hacked games (distributed online), is to make them too big to copy (like 4+ CDs).

Thus the Stormcarriers (Gammulans) win! HEH HEH HEH!

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: When you shut off launch control, why don't intruders just shove your cargo our airlocks then?1. When I said that personnel use airlocks, did i say ANYTHING about cargo? 2. Have you EVER known a feature in the game that allows intruders to take anything and walk off the ship? Apart from stealing a shuttle, which has cargo capabilities? 1. Nope, you never said anything about cargo. I'm just saying that if I was an intruder, and I couldn't launch a shuttle, i'd just shove that expensive Phased Array IOD right out an airlock. 2. Not implicitly. I know that the intruders have to carry the cargo to shuttles, so I thought it'd be just as easy for them to carry it off the ship.

We did make Israel, and it would work, if there werent so many radical muslims around them bombing them, it might work better.

When you shut off launch control, why don't intruders just shove your cargo our airlocks then?

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr:

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: quote:Originally posted by Fox__Trot: Ah sorry SC but if my officers are kicked out of the bridge (and arent re-entering) doesnt that mean that the bridge is blown totaly? No. Didn't it occur to you that their path to the bridge could be inaccessible? Well if they were in the bridge when they got kicked out, then the path OUT of the bridge would have had to be inaccessable, right? Something isn't realistic here....

What would be good for a mod is if you made it so when you activated the hyperjump engines, you were left motionless in space for X amount of time while the hyperjump engines charge, that way it's harder to escape from combat and a good way to get killed.

So, the other Supernovas aren't important? What's important about 10, hmm?

kill em all, let god sort out the pieces.

If she wins it will be a sad, sad day for the United States government and the United States people.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: Lawsuits fix everything I guess... maybe I should go run into a car on foot... then I can sue. Wouldn't count on this money because the UN will probably say "It's 'racist' for you to sue an Arab group because you have a white woman as a spokesman". You know it would shut up all the liberals who scream 'racist' every time you disagree with them if you just shot back : "so what's your point?" I don't think they could handle that.Watch the 4th congressional district primaries in GA, and go to Bye bye Cynthia . Read the site, it'll talk about how she accuses Racism every time someone points out how she is wrong. It's one thing to cry Racism when it is racism, but it's another to cry out racism because your a minority and your wrong. We're all human, and we all make mistakes (except for me)

quote:Originally posted by Wody: quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Each and every member of the armed forces is required to take an oath to the constitution of the United States.Unfortunatly, there is no constitution in the US, The patriot act thing that was passed after 9/11, is so that the president can declare a national emergency without explaining what this emergency is, which suspends any human rights and the constitution, for an indefinate period of time. So all the US is right now, is two words away from a dictatorship. Greetings, Wouter Dijkslag Yeah, and lets see how many people in the military start taking and following orders to occupy US cities because of the Patriot Act.

Babylon 5 Mod!

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:Our weapons are Important, not because they give us a chance against the military, but because it gives us a chance against the politicians themselves and any police force etc that they might have protecting them. A few thousand police, will NOT stop 1 million heavily armed citizens, nor would it stop the military backing that we would receive.The local police and National Guard units are more likely to be on your side than the military, because they live in closer proximity to the people, hence they have a better understanding of the community. That's why, whenever there is a riot or some mass demonstration, the government calls in National Guard units from other states. Another example of this tactic was during the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The local police and Red Army units refused to intervene in the mass demonstrations, so the government had to call in Red Army units from the countryside. Note that the Massacre resulted in just that, a MASSACRE. If all of the citizens were armed, the outcome may have been vastly different, and the democratic movement may have gained more power than it did, even IF the protesters were massacred. Sure, the National Guard might support the citizens if the government goes off the deep end, but so would the military (since it is a volunteer army made up of citizens, they would never start KILLING US CIVILIANS because of "orders", it just wouldn't happen). Regardless, it is still better if the protestors had 500,000 people with guns + the national guard as opposed to no one with guns + the national guard. In revolutions and wars that are employing oppressive forces with weapons, it all comes down to numbers, and when one side is using weapons and the other side isn't, the revolution stands no chance.

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Had they done nothing he would have a bigger military today. No I believe that if America acted within the realm of international sanction we would no longer be the main target for terrorists. And yes at times America would feel that it was not getting it's fair share....what was the figure on how much of the world's wealth we hold like over 80% or something....yep when you've been living fat it is hard to get on a treadmill. Especially for the country with the most obese personalit hits real close to home. Note that today Saddam is STILL a danger. The "international sanctions" DONT SOLVE. The UN DOESNT solve. There's nothing the international community is going to do, and giving the choice to them just restricts the US. Also, sure, your right, we have 80% or so of the resources. No one has a right to make us give them up except the American people (CHARITIES, VOTING). Giving that right to the international community is betraying the foundation of this country. I don't care how alive you think the Constitution is, you can't extrapalate THAT horrible idea as Constitutional. quote: Any threat to the world as a whole requires that all parties do what they have to do to fix it. If we are the biggest problem in some area's then we have more work to do. But what the hell, it is better then the alternative. Yes, all parites should fix problems in the world, but should not be forced to since it violated the NATURAL RIGHTS of everyone in the United States. What your saying is "since the US happens to have worked to the top of the food chain, the rest of the world has a right to ROB THEM". Gee, nice to know hard work (it doesn't matter how "unfair" (arbitrary term) the work was, it still is proven that WITHIN the accepted system, the US "worked" to the top)) quote:No America is suffering because of poor policy and bully tactics. Other countries will fight when it is clear no other option is available. Global pressure on that region would allow us (all) to take action without serious adverse effects to any single country. Lets see, almost all options are already exhausted (give some if they aren), and there already IS global pressure on the region with no result. The more likely scenario is that no other country wants to attack cause the gun isn't aimed at their heads, they don't want to lose troops (and lose elections), so they are going to leave it alone till they are a target. Then they'll come back BEGGING US FOR HELP. quote:They know a lot about us. Wealthy Arabs in many mid east counties drink coke and wear jeans but do not take kindly to American politics. Because we act like hypocrites by condemning terrorism then support a country like Israel. Yeah, so do really rich billionares in China. But if they speak against Communism or for Democracy, they are never heard from again. Same applies to the Middle East. You can't trust the BS coming from the Middle East, and even those wealthy arabs probably DONT have all the information about America. They are still fed lies from their churches and government, and they probably don't hear a second side to the stories. Just cause they get US products doesn't mean they know anything about America. quote: I don't think it can be that clean and neat. They have their rulers and those rulers fight for Arab interests. Now take America...the country that supports Israel and endorses policys that kill children and violate national sovereignty. We are clearly the greater evil in their mind. Until we rethink our position on some issues we will always be the greater evil and will have a hard time getting anything done over there. We sure shouldn't rethink our policy just because a bunch of wackos think that we are trying to kill children. Also, think about it, no matter how we rethink our policy, SOMEONE is going to be pissed at the US. The question is, what regimes should we support? Democratic regimes which, for the most part, support us and don't target civilians, or should we support Arab nations, most of which are totalitarian or theocracies, which don't mind targetting civilians, and believe in very low human rights. The regimes aren't going to end unless we FORCEFULLY get rid of them, and we're the only ones that are going to do it. quote:I disagree. It seems like the world is becoming more dangerous. Less known factors. More gray area. That means more thought and group effort is needed. If the US has less power, it destablizies the world cause we have less power to fix it. Think of how biggers powers cause numbers of wars to decline as time went on? If the US gets weaker, it just causes other countries to be stronger comparitively, and fight. quote: posted 08-13-2002 09:15 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You expect me to take you seriously, after you say this. It is obvious you are spouting the liberal line here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've watched him talk and heard about his history. I am not impressed. He didn't dodge a draft so I give him points for that. But overall he represents (to me) a manifestation of a broken system full of low grade and corporate owned leadership. Of course I don't expect you to take me seriously. Your just lookin for a reason not too. But you are a gun freak so I understand quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You do not know the REAL Bush, and that is too bad, fact of the matter is, you haven't a clue what Bush is going to do. I have an inkling, and it will NOT be an invasion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The real bush eh? Beer bong and line of coke anyone.... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keep spouting though, because you just make people realize how uninformed you truly are. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You to man. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, you keep talking about this "international law" that we should abide by. I don't believe that the US should police every conflict in the world. I think the US should carry out actions in regards to international relations that BENEFIT or PROTECT America and Americans and our interests. "International law" would dictate that we are the world's police force, since we have the money and military to take care of regional crises (even if we aren't really affected by them), the "world community" would want us to step in to help. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like I said we should do our part. Since we insist on preparing for war with somebody we fill the role nicely.... No but should not fall on us totally.not at all. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, what good is this "international law" that you keep referring to (without really explaining the qualities of) doing in regards to Iraq? It hasn't done anything over the past TEN YEARS. Sure, the US might not have been 100% behind the "international community", but what exactly would they have done if we were? I'm sure they would have made statements as to what they would do if the US supported them. What you seem to be advocating is that the US give up their autonomy in world affairs to "benefit the global community", even though it would probably hurt America and cost American lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had they done nothing he would have a bigger military today. No I believe that if America acted within the realm of international sanction we would no longer be the main target for terrorists. And yes at times America would feel that it was not getting it's fair share....what was the figure on how much of the world's wealth we hold like over 80% or something....yep when you've been living fat it is hard to get on a treadmill. Especially for the country with the most obese personalit hits real close to home. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Views on SUVs and global warming and the environment, etc, should not be turned into laws by the world and DICTATED to the United States. Just because the whole world doesn't agree with US policy doesn't mean that the US isn't right, and it doesn't mean that they have a right to change it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any threat to the world as a whole requires that all parties do what they have to do to fix it. If we are the biggest problem in some area's then we have more work to do. But what the hell, it is better then the alternative. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the same principle is happening now. Other nations don't want to invade Iraq because it might hurt their trade and economy, or they might lose troops to a fight that "isn't directly bothering them" (yet). They don't want to fight because their people are anti-war and they will lose the next election if they send and lose troops to fight Iraq which is far away (from most Western European countries). If France had invaded Germany after the FIRST treaty violation, Germany would have probably been unable to wage the war that they did. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No America is suffering because of poor policy and bully tactics. Other countries will fight when it is clear no other option is available. Global pressure on that region would allow us (all) to take action without serious adverse effects to any single country. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's why the US is trying to get internal Iraqi groups and exiled Iraqis to rise up and help in any conflict against Saddam. If his own people are turning against him, less backlash. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is one plan. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They get the feeling their "culture is being attacked by a bunch of infidels" because they dont KNOW about us. Ever hear the concept that you fear what you don't know? They fear us and hate us BECAUSE of the regimes they are in. They don't get two sides to every story. They get the "right side" and believe it, or they think about the other side and get killed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They know a lot about us. Wealthy Arabs in many mid east counties drink coke and wear jeans but do not take kindly to American politics. Because we act like hypocrites by condemning terrorism then support a country like Israel. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The regimes need to be taken out first, and we need to take the hits for it, but in the long term it will stop a lot more problems and save a lot more American lives. The totalitarian regimes aren't going to just disappear, especially when they are the only ones with serious weapons AND they hire mercenaries for the military -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think it can be that clean and neat. They have their rulers and those rulers fight for Arab interests. Now take America...the country that supports Israel and endorses policys that kill children and violate national sovereignty. We are clearly the greater evil in their mind. Until we rethink our position on some issues we will always be the greater evil and will have a hard time getting anything done over there. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe I haven't been reading enough and watching the news enough, but I haven't heard any talk about "strike Iraq and fast" over the past 8 months. All i've heard is talk about planning and waiting until sometime next year to cause a regime change, and I agree with that idea (sorry if I gave the impression I advocate an immediate invasion, I believe in planning too) (and that was Colin Powell's accessment I thought...) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not anymore thank god those plans leaked or we would probably be deploying right now. With an unclear goal and no guess as to what might happen after. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I still highly doubt the protectionist attitude you claim the higher up's have. They all have the same goal, at least the major players. They want to save as many lives as possible (so they get re-elected), they want to win, and they don't want to lose much military equipment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is strange but I think the generals today are a different breed then the ones of the cold war. So far they have been doing right by the average joe in this situation. I really think my commanders have a higher level of respect for the lives of their soldiers....in the abstract. If we are told to go to war then yes it's all about bean counting but there is more general concern I believe. Especially with a volunteer Army. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- US civilians would not die in a war on Iraq. I also realize I don't know enough about the leaks or the way they were considering plans to continue discussion on the subject. However, I simply believe that any sort of war plans being leaked were probably not feasible or serious options to begin with, and if they were, the amount of intel leaked would not have been enough to disregard the idea completely. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. Without the support of the Arab community I think that the fallout would be enormous. We have to get those other countries on board to legitimize this fight. I think if we work within the idea of international law and use group effort we will be successful. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And while true world cooperation would not be feasible at the current time, weakening the United States by giving up autonomy in international affairs would just make the world a much more dangerous place, and cause a lot more deaths. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. It seems like the world is becoming more dangerous. Less known factors. More gray area. That means more thought and group effort is needed. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point is they WONT let another Vietnam happen because it will hurt reeelection prospects. Also, he's in office because of his money, that's agreed, but so would any other potential President under the current political system. At least he seems like he'd be better than Gore would be. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We'll I doubt these generals want to watch another bloodbath without good cause and clear objectives. Votes are one thing but so is having your first command an exercise in filling body bags then withdrawing. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Most Americans see Saddam as a threat (at least the ones that have access to media/internet). Getting rid of Saddam *IS* in the best interests of this country. Look at the threat of terrorism, and then look at Iraq (anti-US nation), probably trying to get them (or are hiding SOMETHING dangerous). Just put two and two together (and combine all the other reason's i've stated, and others have stated, for attacking Iraq on this thread). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point is that they are so obsessed with one person they are losing perspective. They can't deal with him in a conventional way and I think it's driving them crazy. But it is a different world then 10 years ago and these old dogs aren't getting any younger. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Mexico had previously tried to create a genetically engineered virus to wipe out all of the Chinese in the world, had inspections mandated on to it after losing a war with China, and then suddenly refused to admit genetic virus inspectors while there was terrorism against the chinese by various terrorist groups, I really wouldn't care, and I doubt many Americans would either. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok whatever. Thinking of your own example, again, why don't you apply it to other countries? If, after World War II, Germany ordered all occupying troops to leave, and then refused to admit inspectors mandated by international treaty to look for weapons, wouldn't you feel it justified to invade Germany? Iraq is hiding something, and we need to take out the country before it's too late. quote:That is why it falls to those of civilized society to make sure that we play fair. Always. Every time we do something that is morally questionable we create more problems. That is also why use of force must be considered carefully. Part of that is having a cultural feeling that we can whip the hell out of anyone....when that may not be ultimately true. It is ultimately true, and bombs ACCIDENTLY hitting civilians is playing fair, even under just war theory. quote:We have a problem. We jumped on board with a group that is surrounded by people who hate them. It's a mess and violence isn't going to fix it. Both sides kill civilians and both call it casualties of war. The difference is with power comes responsibility. Most people over there are not terrorists. They are poor and trying to make ends meet. We don't have a problem, the Arabs do. It's not OUR Fault that the idiots invading Israel after it was created, and then the Israelis fought back and got MORE land. They got what they deserved. Also, the difference between Isarael and the Palestinians is the SAME difference (maybe even worse), as between America and Al-quida/Bin Laden. America and Israel TARGET terrorists/military targets, and may kill civilians. Palestinians/Bin Laden TARGET civilians or anyone else. That is notably repugnant under almost all religions and moral frameworks, and makes us better than them. Also, I agree most of them aren't terrorists, and I don't think they deserve to get killed, but if they aren't trying to STOP the terrorism, they can't really complain. For some reason the ignorant bastards think blowing up buses during peace negotiations is going to get something. Thought they would have learned after ALL THESE YEARS. quote:Regional stability is key. We will have to hold that country together...then we would have to fight off terrorist attacks here and there. And if the entire Arab world calls for Jihad it is not going to be pretty. Those are very negative effects and quite possible. At the point the **UNCONTESTABLE** positive effects I listed happen, there is NO reason why it'd suddenly cause regional instability, or an increase of terrorist attacks. Also, when those thins I listed happen, there's no reason to think that they'd cause a Jihad. There's no logic behind the argument. And then, even *IF* your argument is true (which it isn't), the benefits of getting rid of Saddam (a much BIGGER threat to regional and world stability, since WMDs would let him do a lot), far outweigh any sort of "Jihad"/Terrorism. quote:Rebuilding is not that fast. Quality of life still gets better because they are then free.

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:...I don't believe in taking rights away from American citizens unless it is a dangerous and immediate threat to the lives of Americans, and those rights should be given back immediately.Be afraid, be very afraid. Since the Reagan administration, all it takes for those liberties to disappear is for the President to declare a national emergency, and the President is not required to justify the declaration, so it can be done at any time for any reason. Such a declaration would suspend the constitution indefinitely, and grant control of just about everything to the federal government. What's worse is that there is no procedure for declaring the end of a national emergency, or for the restoration of the constitution, so the USA is only two words away from becoming a permanently full-blown police state. The lucky thing for us is that the people who make up the military and the government are citizens, and are highly unlikely to allow the constitution to be scrapped for any meaningful length of time (not to mention that the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS really stops that threat)

quote:Originally posted by Commander Elio Jason: your not the first person to think this one up you know. Let the poor guy live in his dream world and feel special.

I bet he said no because the SC doesn't really exist! It's all a fraud!!!!

The ease at which privacy/rights violating legislation gets passed through Congress is extremely frigtening. I do believe it is reasonable to search Middle Eastern foreigners, and on fingerprinting international visitors (hey, they aren't US citizens, don't have the right to the protection anyway), but I don't believe in taking rights away from American citizens unless it is a dangerous and immediate threat to the lives of Americans, and those rights should be given back immediately.

quote:Originally posted by $iLk: quote:What i'm saying is that since free nations don't support terrorism, that if we invaded and took over the entire Middle East and replaced the governments with democracies and freed the people, none of those nations would support terrorism anymore, there would be less terrorists, and thus less terrorism. Your logic does not follow. I can give a dog a car but that doesn't mean he can drive it. Governments are only as good as the people who make it up. Our culture isn't exactly popular with theirs. Their culture makes 'democracy' infeasible. Their "culture" has been created through constant uncontested government propoganda combined with oppressive regimes where dissent is punished with death or prison. Removing the oppression creates a free flow of information that would cause a democracy to become feasible. If you look around the world, there aren't any "free" countries giving significant support to terrorism. It'd be unfair to assume that there is no hope for the people in the Middle East. quote: Why? Cause a few days go by without a post? Yes quote:You seem to want us to be the world police force. Sorry but we should do our part to promote peace and abide by international law. Share the responsibility and understand that we make up a small percent of the global population. If we, the only true superpower, were to act within the limits of international law any would be dictator would find himself very alone when he stepped out of line. Ok, you keep talking about this "international law" that we should abide by. I don't believe that the US should police every conflict in the world. I think the US should carry out actions in regards to international relations that BENEFIT or PROTECT America and Americans and our interests. "International law" would dictate that we are the world's police force, since we have the money and military to take care of regional crises (even if we aren't really affected by them), the "world community" would want us to step in to help. Also, what good is this "international law" that you keep referring to (without really explaining the qualities of) doing in regards to Iraq? It hasn't done anything over the past TEN YEARS. Sure, the US might not have been 100% behind the "international community", but what exactly would they have done if we were? I'm sure they would have made statements as to what they would do if the US supported them. What you seem to be advocating is that the US give up their autonomy in world affairs to "benefit the global community", even though it would probably hurt America and cost American lives. quote:Stop whining about loss of rights etc. I don't think any global organization would really want to take your right to do much of anything.....however when global temperate is clearly rising, they may ask the one country with the highest levels of green house emissions (thad be us) to get straight (along with everyone else)....etc. But your right...telling people that their gas guzzling SUV has to go is a clear infringement on the right to look cool and wreck the planet. Stop whining about the loss of rights? Ok, lets think for a second here. The Constitution, and this nation, was founded on the principle that the CITIZENS of THIS NATION elect representatives to PASS LAWS that THEY WANT/ARE IN AMERICA's INTEREST, always being responsible to those who ELECTED THEM. What your saying is that the United States Constitution and citizens should follow laws that THE WORLD WANTS, that are decided on by OTHER NATIONS that do not always have goals that are in line with THE CITIZENS of THIS NATION. Views on SUVs and global warming and the environment, etc, should not be turned into laws by the world and DICTATED to the United States. Just because the whole world doesn't agree with US policy doesn't mean that the US isn't right, and it doesn't mean that they have a right to change it. quote:They had no international law that was followed. But WWII taught us about nations acting selfishly will cause great harm. And the same principle is happening now. Other nations don't want to invade Iraq because it might hurt their trade and economy, or they might lose troops to a fight that "isn't directly bothering them" (yet). They don't want to fight because their people are anti-war and they will lose the next election if they send and lose troops to fight Iraq which is far away (from most Western European countries). If France had invaded Germany after the FIRST treaty violation, Germany would have probably been unable to wage the war that they did. quote:Maybe...maybe not. Colin Powell seems to think an invasion is maybe not such a hot idea with anti-American sentiment running so high. That's why the US is trying to get internal Iraqi groups and exiled Iraqis to rise up and help in any conflict against Saddam. If his own people are turning against him, less backlash. quote: They go to an extreme when they feel that their entire culture is being attacked by a bunch of infidels. And it is. You take leaders of totalitarian regimes that want to keep their positions and it becomes clear why they can't accept your big picture just yet. The Middle East with democracy would be great. However launching a full blown invasion may not be the way to get there. First they have to stop hating us. Then they have to start hating the people in power that control their livesand so do we. They get the feeling their "culture is being attacked by a bunch of infidels" because they dont KNOW about us. Ever hear the concept that you fear what you don't know? They fear us and hate us BECAUSE of the regimes they are in. They don't get two sides to every story. They get the "right side" and believe it, or they think about the other side and get killed. We can't get them to stop "hating us" until their leaders are gone. We can't FORCE the free flow of information into a totalitarian regime, cause they won't allow it. How do you think slavery in the US worked for so long? The people in power (whites) kept education (and thus reading, etc) from the slaves. Read "The Life of Fredrick Douglass". It shows tactics on a grass roots level how totalitarian regimes keep their power, in the setting of US slavery. The regimes need to be taken out first, and we need to take the hits for it, but in the long term it will stop a lot more problems and save a lot more American lives. The totalitarian regimes aren't going to just disappear, especially when they are the only ones with serious weapons AND they hire mercenaries for the military (there was a post on here about Iran hiring mercs to fight off protestors) (no Russian Revolution there...the people hired don't care about killing civilians of the country they are hired in). quote:The generals in the higher levels of the Armed Forces today served in Vietnam as LT's!! You are crazy! They support Collin Powell's assessment. Any plan would need overwhelming force and total commitment. All the others in the Bush admin think Iraq is a joke. They are the ones who are pushing for just any kind of strike and fast. They are the fools who haven't lived it but think they are experts. In my mind this is a great achievement for our country. When a military realizes the potential human cost and acts to preserve life rather then lie about it and seek some twisted notion of glory. A great day I believe. Maybe I haven't been reading enough and watching the news enough, but I haven't heard any talk about "strike Iraq and fast" over the past 8 months. All i've heard is talk about planning and waiting until sometime next year to cause a regime change, and I agree with that idea (sorry if I gave the impression I advocate an immediate invasion, I believe in planning too) (and that was Colin Powell's accessment I thought...) I still highly doubt the protectionist attitude you claim the higher up's have. They all have the same goal, at least the major players. They want to save as many lives as possible (so they get re-elected), they want to win, and they don't want to lose much military equipment. The people in the White House, and the high up military officers, are probably all thinking about lives the same way. It's not military vs administration. Sure, the military people served during wars, but that doesn't mean they are going to value YOUR life more. They knew how much their life was valued in war, and that's how the system works. Your little more than a casualty number to Bush, Powell, and the other generals at the pentagon at the top. I just don't like the perception your getting that somehow the generals CARE A WHOLE LOT ABOUT YOU while Bush and his administration doesn't care if you rot in a foxhole. They all probably care about the same, maybe for different reasons, but they all care. quote:What is wrong with you? Who do you think take most of the casualties in war besides the civilians?!?!? At every level there is an enlisted soldier working with an officer. They have the highest clearances and bring most of the common sense into a situation. They have friends and kids. An NCOs job is to accomplish the mission and take care of soldiers. They know better than any ten star what the deal is. US civilians would not die in a war on Iraq. I also realize I don't know enough about the leaks or the way they were considering plans to continue discussion on the subject. However, I simply believe that any sort of war plans being leaked were probably not feasible or serious options to begin with, and if they were, the amount of intel leaked would not have been enough to disregard the idea completely. quote:I don't take it too far. How do you consider yourself critical? You don't even want to face the possibility that there is a bigger world than what's between the Atlantic and Pacific. You don't want to consider what it really means to HUMAN life when this country endorses terrorist policies as long as it is in line with "American goals". I've thought about the whole concept of world cooperation years ago, and I think it's a great idea. But short of a discovery of aliens or some sort of international threat or catastrophe affecting everyone, people's goals around the world would be too far out of sync with each other to be fair. Under your advocacy, it would be unfair to the citizens of the US. And while true world cooperation would not be feasible at the current time, weakening the United States by giving up autonomy in international affairs would just make the world a much more dangerous place, and cause a lot more deaths. quote: Yeah like Vietnam..... This guy doesn't know what he had for breakfast let alone how to guide a super power. You want to know why he is in office? Because he is weak and he comes from money. You wonder why there is infighting in his admin...because he can't control them. The point is they WONT let another Vietnam happen because it will hurt reeelection prospects. Also, he's in office because of his money, that's agreed, but so would any other potential President under the current political system. At least he seems like he'd be better than Gore would be. quote: He has surrounded himself with hawks that are going to tell him what to do every step of the way...when they can agree. I know that most Americans don't want to kill people. However, we have in that admin a group of people that are obsessed with killing this one man. They are arrogant and they do not have the best interest of this country in mind. Most Americans see Saddam as a threat (at least the ones that have access to media/internet). Getting rid of Saddam *IS* in the best interests of this country. Look at the threat of terrorism, and then look at Iraq (anti-US nation), probably trying to get them (or are hiding SOMETHING dangerous). Just put two and two together (and combine all the other reason's i've stated, and others have stated, for attacking Iraq on this thread). quote:Once again I think your way off the mark. I think they don't want one nation playing war in their back yard without having considered their opinion. How would you feel if China somehow started landing forces in Mexico? If Mexico had previously tried to create a genetically engineered virus to wipe out all of the Chinese in the world, had inspections mandated on to it after losing a war with China, and then suddenly refused to admit genetic virus inspectors while there was terrorism against the chinese by various terrorist groups, I really wouldn't care, and I doubt many Americans would either. quote:What do you mean? I am saying that marching off to war without the proper discussion and debate is the wrong answer. I interpreted your comment as "we shouldn't bomb enemy targets during war because we might kill civilians". quote: It doesn't matter what is being aimed at when a 2000lb bomb blows up in the middle of a densely populated civilian area....in the mind of a 16 year old boy that has to police up what's left of his mom. So we have to be sure that it is the right call....because we just made an enemy for life....and the cycle continues.... Well, I seriously think that attacking Iraq, after much planning, is the answer. I agree with your position of making sure it's the right call, I just don't believe that you can justify that boy turning around and blowing up the World Trade Centers (full of civilians), because a bomb aimed at a military target killed his mother. Sure, his mother (a civilian) was killed, but that CANT be legitimate moral justification for attacking civilians, otherwise the US should just start carpet bombing Baghdad. quote: The majority of Muslims don't want to destroy us. They want us to leave them to their affairs and stop supporting Israel. However when we use/support state terrorism to fight for our interests we then make it morally acceptable for them to do the same to us. SNAFU. And you don't think the Muslims would do the same thing to the Israelis if they somehow took over Israel? Yeah, right. We don't support Israel targetting and killing civilians, and any civilians that do die are because of a legitimate threat to their nation. The Israelis arent going to waste expensive bombs to kill civilians, they are going to use them on suspected Hamas sites, etc. Also, I still fail to see how it is morally acceptable for terrorists to TARGET civilians when our allies and ourselves TARGET military targets. If it's morally acceptable for them to TARGET civilians, then it's morally acceptable for us to carpet bomb Baghdad, is that it? Well, always can look at the good side of that. We wont have to lose many American troops in Iraq since the city would be leveled.... quote:It is not that simple. But some would have us believe it is. Violating international law and cowboy tactics don't make people happy. Anyone. Well, lets just take it down to the GUARNTEED level. If we invade Iraq, inspect for weapons, and change the regime (which i'm sure is going to happen), the following are GUARNTEED: 1. Iraq will not have WMDs or build them/be able to guild them. 2. The people of Iraq will be free from an oppressive dictatorship, have access to information, and have a voice in government. Those two results aren't really arguable, and I fail to see how either of those are NEGATIVE effects. quote:If we tried that I bet we would truly understand what a full blown Jihad is all about. One man does not have the right to decide that. I'm not saying we SHOULD do that, i'm saying that if all the Middle East decided to defend Iraq and we did, it wouldn't be that bad. And no, I doubt it'd result in a "Jihad", since the quality of life in the countries that the terrorist come from would probably increase so much that they wouldn't be able to RECRUIT anymore terrorists. It would only increase if we tried post-WW1 sanction on the Middle Eastern countries, instead of rebuilding. Then we'd be screwed.

1. "Fighter Asset" 2. The missiles should hit if your in range. Last thing: Yeah, dragging with a shuttle is faster.

I've had the same issue...I dont think that it's something we're doing wrong...

And I thought this topic was dead... quote:Through international cooperation and law we could make it very difficult for any would be renegade power to get away with programs of murder....but then we would have to look at ourselves....wouldn't we... Yes, we could use our supreme and unmatchable power to lose our autonomy as a nation, give power to others, and screw over our own Constitution and freedoms. Once every nation in the world is under a govenmental system similar to our own, i'd probably agree to it. Short of that, you gotta be joking. quote:However your earlier observation was clearly incorrect. So this brush off, is just an easier way for you then admitting you were wrong.... Ok, my earlier observation was off point, I was probably have asleep. What I meant to say was that the treaties established after WW1 were broken by Germany well before Germany invaded France. Instead of forming an army and invading Germany for taking over the de-militarized zone in western Germany (which was forbidden by treaty), they decided to negotiate with Hitler and hope that he didn't continue his military ambitions. Seems a lot like the situation with Saddam "let's just let him violate the sanctions on him, he isn't going to do anything". And I thought FRANCE was stupid... quote:Perhaps unilateral action of this kind is just what Bin Laden wanted.....but I bet you dismissed that already Sounds just like the previous argument "bin Laden WANTS us to bomb Afghanistan". Hell, it doesn't matter if Bin Laden WANTS US unilateral action or not. Sure, he might want it, but once he gets it, he'll wish it didn't happen. quote:Moderates shifting to extreme is not a reason? Now, unless your going to start arguing this point, people in the middle east go from moderate (non-terrorists) to extreme (terrorist) when they are oppressed by a government and have no hope of anything better to live for (such as freedom). Getting rid of Saddam seems much more likely to breed hope than take it away. The *more likely* scenario is moderates will like what they see and become pro-American and less extreme. quote:I don't like your analogies they reduce a complex situation into a simple platform that supports lack of thinking...I'm not into that. Yeah go kill the little bastards.....that always works Hey, my analogy works REALLY well (just realized that). All you have to do is fill in "Saddam", "the UN", "Iraq", etc for the people involved. If you think MY scenario is obviously "arrest the kid", then it's contradictory for you to believe that we shouldn't take care of Iraq unilaterally if need be. And to continue the analogy, note that the entities that YOU would think the cop should discuss the issue with can't really do anything to stop the cop, and probably wouldn't even try. Glad you agree about killing the bastard. quote:An entire command is in the loop on understanding the military situation in the Pentagon. From the LT that gets photos to the major that sorts them out etc.....there is an entire chain of command....all kinds of people. And thatÔÇÖs not even mentioning the enlisted that make it happen. Regardless, those officers or enlisted aren't going to be the ones putting their neck on the line, especially the higher up they are, so they DONT care about your life. The leaks are either irrelevent (since the plans were going to be discounted), or intentional (to leak that we ARE going to do it). The enlisted soldiers at the Pentagon (i'm not sure) very doubtful have enough details about war plans to leak enough to get them cancelled, and even if they did, they wouldn't be the ones getting shot at. All i'm pointing out is the people higher up really aren't "on your side" against the "evil Bush administration" that wants you all to get killed. I'm critical of the government, but your taking it a little bit too far. Again, there's no reason why Bush would want a war plan where tons of Americans and their equipment would be lost, since that HURTS reelection prospects and the Republican party, AND it looks bad in history books. They aren't trying to get you killed... quote:I thought you said this guy was a threat to whole planet earlier? The perception by our allies should be/would be/is that Iraq isn't THEIR PROBLEM since Iraq doesn't SEEM to have anything against them. Thus they don't care about the closer proximity, since the terrorism and attacks will be centered on Americans and America, not France. quote:Your high ground is the skulls of the civilians that die by the whim of a shoot from the hip policy. Intent and reality don't matter to the young men who see there people die by American policy and ordnance. Ok, I thought I already said this multiple times. If we didn't do what you seem to call the "shoot from the hip policy", we'd just send in ground troops and that would mean more people on BOTH sides of the conflicts would die, and civilians would probably die regardless. AIMING at civilians though, is much worse than accidently killing them. If you can't make that clear moral distinction, we can't really argue it, but I assume you can. Also, I agree with you, the people getting killed and attacked see "dead as dead", but under your logic, since civilians are "legitimate targets" (hey, you somehow claim that since we kill civilians accidently, they have a right to TARGET our civilians), why don't we just take some B-2's and carpet bomb the entire city of Baghdad? Forget aiming for certain sites, just wipe the whole city out. It's war, right? Them vs us, and since we both kill civilians, lets just do it 100%!!! quote:Terrorists are not stupid. They bide there time and wait for an opportunity. Right now our own policies are setting the stage to further their aims. The first time the Arab world wanted us there. This time it is clear they do not. Ok...replacing the regimes in countries that supports terrorism HELPS terrorists aims. In order to make the argument, you have to ASSUME the intent of terrorists, you have to ASSUME that they are organized and though it out, and you have to ASSUME that the world is going to bend to their PREDICTIONS that you ASSUMED to begin with. The most logical assumption is "Country supporting Terroism/Building Weapons of Mass Destruction is invaded and has it's regime changed and weapons programs wiped out, it = Less terrorism, less weapons of mass destruction". For that argument, all you have to assume is the invasion works and that they all aren't hydras. quote:Whatever. Could you explain that one in more depth?. What i'm saying is that since free nations don't support terrorism, that if we invaded and took over the entire Middle East and replaced the governments with democracies and freed the people, none of those nations would support terrorism anymore, there would be less terrorists, and thus less terrorism.

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: The HUAC hearings under McCarthy did not merely prosecute members of the Communist Party; it prosecuted almost anyone who openly criticized the government, especially about HUAC. Anyone of those defendants who weren't a party member were branded as sympathizers and marginalized.That's why i'd be virtually impossible today to do it. The HUAC hearings, if conducted today, would be criticized on their merit, and the people critizing would not be branded as sympathizers because the free flow of information would allow many more people to see that the hearings WERENT WORKING and were going after the wrong people. quote: For the first couple of months, any public figure who linked the cause of the attacks to US foreign policy - or anything that the US did - ran the risk of demonization and marginalization (this was happening in Australia too). That's because those people are wrong, not to mention the same sort of marginalization will happen today. quote: I remember watching the interviews of celebrities on Leno and Conan in the first few weeks. What struck me about it was that they were all saying the exact same thing, and I mean exact: a verbatim recital of what the Bush administration was saying. His words became theirs.That's because he was right.