Lotharr

A good warning. Perhaps bringing these countries into a world community where their input means something and can effect change could limit the violence. I don't think I agree with all of the above. Soldiers do fight for themselves and dehumanizing the enemy is key in instilling the idea that killing is ok. There is an inherent block in the human mind when it comes to killing another human. Training techniques and buffers i.e. thermal scopes...weapons HUD etc seek to buffer the killer from the killed and increases efficiency and resistance. Read "On Killing" Grossman sp? a very interesting book on the psychology of killing on a couple different levels and what it can mean to society. He also puts out that the only thing the military is after when conditioning a solider is getting them to kill. The only thing that will save a soldiers sanity (for the most part) is that the killing was authorized. So when given a lawful order from an accepted authority it's ok. Also, how society treats those soldiers when they return from duty is another huge factor. Look at post Vietnam soldier with serious emotional problems as compared to any other war and this becomes clear. Shell shock type damage aside. And when you say developing countries culture impacts violence levels I would agree. However the leadership is usually the key problem. Most people don't want to go to war. However barbaric tribal systems are different. When killing people is an everyday thing type o' deal. However I believe that Muslims are way past this. However dictatorship type government is a serious problem to peace and forward progress. And after that we have to deal with economic freedom as well. As long as one culture holds all the cards and forces its will on others it will be a target. Bottom line. When dealing with personnel prepared to strap an explosive device on themselves to further their beliefs something is very wrong..we see it all through history.those who are prepared to sacrifice the most often succeed the most. [ 06-18-2002, 09:07: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Heh heh...know what you mean....I took my (at that time) girl friend to see it...it was my revenge for making me watch Titanic at the theater....

Interesting....look at some of those points you made above....we may have come full circle...there is a portion of this country that lives that way. And there may be more to follow. Granted it is not as bad here as elsewhere in many respects.. however, having the luxuries that many others do not have does not mean this current mode of operation is inherently effective for promoting the general heath of a society. Further, as time moves forward, I believe we will see these problems manifest themselves more acutely. The world is starting to move into economic power blocs. Look at our immediate neighbors and how we have treated them. Tell me if you think they are going to make effective partners in the coming multinational economic scrambling to secure resources. We are creating a monster right now that may come back and bite us very hard. I firmly believe that alternatives can be reached that will allow people more democracy, more freedom. Give economy a high role but not the dominant one. Increase responsibility levels in all people and promote harmony. We can make these things happen. It is a challenge but laziness and the easy road were never personal choices I have made. I have talked to a lot of other people from many different countries. They all say this country is a scary place with crappy food....and I agree. Its not all negative but I cant really remember what the good parts were.. And I for one am tired of it. So am going to try to make a difference...and try to insure you have just as many toiletry options as before....

quote: At least in this country I have a choice of what I wish to produce, and I have the choice of what I will consume. It's all about free choice and freedom. A republican form of government and a free enterprise capitalist system, it's all about freedom of choice, gotta love it!! I don't measure the amount of freedom and democracy my country has by the quantity of brand name toilet paper options available....that's current brainwashing... I would actually like to see something with more substance...

BAH! BRASIL! BRASIL!!

Did you watch that movie "Event Horizon" EP5? Any way I was digging around and I liked the thoughts on innovation and how the copy machine didn't come about because we were trying to improve carbon paper. This idea fuels the notion that research into area's that have a bad label or lack practicality can often be rewarding as hell.

BRASIL! BRASIL!!....

quote: Lets say though we start being attacked by terrorist coming out of secret cells in Canada. Do you believe the Canadian Police force have the man power and resources to track these cells down? preventing them from crossing into the US to attack, and maintain law and order for there own citizens? Ok if they are in secret cells how is anyone one or anything going to detect them until it is too late? No really....the doctrine of anonymous cells is highly effective at keeping these personnel hidden until it is time to execute their missions. The only way to even begin to counter this threat is with operatives inside terrorist networks. And this is even harder still, in my opinion, because one doesn't take a few classes and fit right in.... quote: It appears from the article their own government doesn't think even their military is capable of the job right now. Let alone their under funded over worked police force. So who does that leave to do the job of tracking down possible terrorist cells in Canada, our police force? I don't think so. It would be our military the same way were doing it in Afghanistan right now. This is what Canada doesn't want to occur. Hence the sudden worry about beefing up their military. Piece's of the government.... Afghanistan probably had one of the highest levels of terrorist forces in one area that we could spot. Maybe the closest thing to a home base. We went in there a wrecked the semi permanent camps and various weapon dumps to demonstrate our power and strike back. Because these camps were ignored or even funded by the Taliban sp? government we had a target. I don't think Canada has this problem. I strongly doubt it..... I think someone would have noticed a bunch of guys with AK-47's running around with black masks chanting in Arabic negotiating obstacle courses... I'm not saying that Canada shouldn't upgrade but if America keeps dumping huge amounts of money into R+D no one will be able to keep up....well maybe the EU..... [ 06-17-2002, 11:15: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

quote: Canada should have a stronger well equiped military. Not to compete with the United States but to defend their country from a possible terrorist insurgent set on attacking the United states. Then there would be no need to send US forces into Canada for homeland defence. This would allow the US to expand our war against these terrorist to the countries that they call home. Such as Iran, Syria, Iraq, The west bank, and Lebanon to name a few. In turn preventing future attacks against the US and our allies. I disagree. Soldiers are not cops. They shouldn't be treated that way. Having Canada field a bigger, better, shinier, with all the toys, type Army would not solve the problems you are talking about. I think E5 made the right point. Terrorist do not fight in a conventional way therefore a conventional response is a waste of time, money, and equipment. Like I posted earlier anyone dealing with these problems should have sensitive areas protected by personal paid for (possibly trained by an Army liaison) by the corporation that owns / operates them. Power plants, dams, etc. They should be mandated by law to provide security for these installations, and further, to meet the standard established by law and be inspected by maybe military personnel. Using the military as cops is the wrong answer. We have too much mission as it is. Activating Guard / Reserve units is also the wrong answer for a long term strategy. Canada has no need to base their military plans off what we do. None. Assisting us hunt down killers is another matter. The world has a moral imperative to stop terrorist attacks and capture any would be bomber.

quote: "The Americans know we do not pull our weight," he writes. "And although policymakers usually deny the existence of linkage between and among issues, the lamentable condition of the Canadian Forces may have something to do with our inability to get the Bush White House to take a positive interest in Canada's softwood lumber difficulties or U.S. attacks against our Wheat Board." I think there is linkage in a lot of issues..... I try to keep blunt statements and personal attacks separate....even if the two sometimes seem to overlap.... Better if you can just let it roll off and drive on.... EDIT AFTER POST I was writing this as you posted your response....and a good one at that.....I think some people need a good butt kickin' from some "wus liberal" so they can put some ideas into terms they can understand [ 06-13-2002, 15:13: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Because at this particular time you are living well. This does not mean you will continue to do so. If and when, you or your kids....who are hard working and responsible....get canned and can't find a job to save your life you'll wonder where the government fits into the picture. Maybe you don't have a corporate job that will drop you in a heart beat....if only stuff a few more bucks in someone's pockets that are fat already....but others have. Entrepreneurs are even more vulnerable to the sweeping tide of the market. Your attitude about not wanting to help fellow citizens is one that saturates our culture. It is also, in my opinion, why terrorists can and do infiltrate (with relative ease) a society bent on collective self interest. Not all…we have very concerned and motivated people out there trying to make a difference….but there are too many that could really care less about the plight of others. It is sad. But perhaps it will change when things don’t keep going their way…. Yep....no matter what your personal perception is about the Constitution....people make societies to gain the strength of unity and reap the mutual gain as a collective. The vast majority of people will fall on hard times. But not everyone has the social or family net to catch them when they fall. People want this. Not all....not the ones who can afford the vote....they probably will never have this concern.....but they get to make decisions that have a serious effect on policy...bizarre... But that's just my two cents.

I don't want that knuckle head anywhere near my section.... But we do have some latrines that need to be GI'd....

Produce....consume....produce....consume.... *switches of the TV* *shakes fog out of head* ...hello world....what a strange place... heh heh...your brain washing or mine.....

This is the way I see it. Canada is next to us and as such they have a certain level of neighborly commitment. They need to support our efforts in some area's. However trying to be lil' America is the wrong call. If they are a part of NATO they have to be ready to field a force on NATO missions and honor their agreement. How they handle their military is not the way we handle ours because of international positions. However , being next to the world's superpower means they are inherently defended and a part of our national defense. We build the weapons, we have the best standing Army and we claim to have beliefs in fair play and the moral right to lead, so we take the front in world affairs exposing us to backlash. So why would Canada need a large Army? They don't have this role. No country in this world can stand alone against our military power. The guy in the article talks about negotiating from a position of weakness...how could any country really be strong against us? But we are allies so the point is moot. Military buildup is ridicules for a lot of countries. We share a treaty and we are all (supposed) to work together when the need arises. Leaving all to focus on domestic or economic issues. Not my country....we want the BIG stick...so be it. So this means Canada doesn't need a large army to fight in a conventional war. If this scenario ever materializes Canada, and everyone else, would have to build anyway. Except China I guess. My point is that an Army should not be used to police boarders and prevent terrorists from getting in. That is for civil agencies and law enforcement groups that utilize investigators and researchers. Hire local, train well, and employ them to defend the soft civil targets have corporations float the bill. Make it mandatory. Keep the Army on track with the objective of winning conventional wars. The Armed forces of a country is there to fight and win wars. However we are in a Presidential war on terror and we employ our military in a civil defense capacity. Untimely degrading our war fighting ability by spasm response to covering a huge underbelly....one that can't be covered ultimately. So to expect Canada to do what we do is unrealistic. They don't have the enemies we do because of the policies they employ. They should support our efforts to defend innocent lives but maybe we should fund these efforts. They aren't the targets….we are.

I played the first one and had a blast. I think I'll buy it just for that....and if it's got any of the components of the first one it should even be fun for a while...maybe an hour or two.

The bottom line for a whole lot of people is the alleged free market is a nice way of sayin your gettin screwed... And the fears of globalization are big time. Take America and put it on a global scale. A thriving and spoiled tiny overclass and a large underclass with poor social support. I think this is the fear. However, it sounds like not all are interesting in having a McWorld so I guess we'll see what happens....

quote: It works though. If you hadn’t noticed I'm a big fan of expediency and practicality. Anyway, I'm not talking about the US intervening, that’s entirely unnecessary. Israel is fully capable of dealing with the Palestinian threat on their own, the US would at most shelter them from diplomatic consequences. If you call struggling to secure our boarders, arming our local police and other agencies to be ready for a biological attack working.....I don’t. It tells me that something is very wrong with some people and we need to understand why they would want to kill our people….we have to then work towards a relationship of understanding a mutual respect. Some people are so far-gone that you can’t talk reasonably with them anymore but the vast majority are not like this. We have to insure that the moderate does not become the extremist. And this is not achieved by acting like Nazis. Have the Israeli’s handled the problem in the past? I mean really created a lasting peace? quote: Some things don’t take well to being worked out. Should the Israeli’s try to talk to the terrorists (something that hasn’t worked so far) while more of there citizens are being murdered by crazed yahoos? That's where a concerned and objective third party comes in. A third party that cares about both sides concerns and needs. However…to have the support from each side this third party can’t be biased….so we need to lose the unwavering sanctioning of all Israeli actions….and I think we are. We have to explore where they have done wrong and bring it to light. All sides have to acknowledge responsibility for their actions and realize that there can be another way. We do this and at the same time, find and kill those who would stand in the way of a lasting peace. We don’t just kill anyone, we kill those who are extremely disruptive to peace. But we give everyone a shot and if they screw it up to the point of killing children we take them out after proper review. quote: Yep, and when dealing with an opponent that will not reason military intervention provides the only real solution. Mass executions and “ethnic cleansing” as you put it are the only real response that will make any difference there Ok Mrs. Malosivic sp?.... I recommend you see a professional....I think you need to sit down and discuss some issues.... quote: While you may not be willing to, there are soldiers who would be. More to the point, there are no doubt soldiers in the Israeli army that would be delighted to execute Palestinians on a massive scale, and they would be the ones doing it. Being that the Israelis defined what ethnic cleansing is all about in the modern era, I think they would actually choose the opposite. How they feel now and their own past shows that this final solution of yours is a policy they would most likely avoid at all costs. You have no insight into the mind of a soldier. A real soldier prizes the morals that go into a cause. These days the morals are about honor, integrity, teamwork, and courage...things you fail to factor into your equations on the human condition. The difference between a soldier and a murderer is a fine line but the difference is overwhelming. Anyone can pick up a weapon and be a murderer. It takes something more to be a soldier. Like the differences between the majority of the German infantry and armor formations and the SS units and brownshirts back in WWII. I know from your previous posts that you don’t understand the idea’s behind this morality so if your confused I understand. But trust me when I tell you that when most citizens’ picks up a weapon to fight for his or her country they are not looking forward to it. So please don't call murderers soldiers...cause it just ain't the case. quote: Massive executions, it’s really the only way. Not necessarily everyone, but enough that there simply is no population base to recruit terrorists from I think you like to say stuff like this just to get a rise out of people.... There are a whole lot of Muslims in the world....you gonna kill 'em all? quote: True, but it’s not America that I’m talking about, it would be ridiculous for anyone to expect us to stick our neck out to deal with the Palestinian problem, that is the Israeli’s job. Oh, and one thing I would like to point out, the only kind of foreign policy that would prevent yahoos from trying to bomb us would be a passive one, and that would have far more dire consequences. That may or may not be correct. You can't just have one or the other.....international politics is a dynamic thing. Finding the proper ratio is what’s important. I am not prepared to lose a city because we have to have oil to stabilize the economy....we should look towards a more achievable, stable, and lasting solutions. There have been vast oil resources uncovered in Russia why not go there and get there infrastructure up and rolling? Why not instead of building better ways to bomb peasants we could focus on renewable energy tech etc There are so many other things we could be doing.... quote: Rome fell apart from internal conflict, it’s foreign policy was quit effective. It was overrun by barbarians right? Funny how all the surrounding subjugated countries just kinda let it happen... Rome is case and point of how a break through in various tech allowed it to control a vast empire with the arrogance to match. But it fell apart because of piss poor foreign and domestic policy. Trying to dominate never works in the end. Earlier we talked about how power seems to become an end unto itself. You said this is ok because the implosion that results will take care of the problem. If I remember correctly after the fall or implosion of Rome didn’t the world face a Dark Age that lasted for quite some time? I don’t think another dark age would be good for man….cause it will probably include another ice age. [ 06-11-2002, 12:19: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Good idea Dragon Lady…..that would really cut down on extremist recruitment.... The US probably needs to rethink foreign policy in general. We have this nasty habit of laying down the law because we have a big stick. However, we all have to live together. Forcing our will on others never leaves good feelings. I do believe this country needs to take an active role in world affairs. I just think we need to tone down the rhetoric and build coalitions to work it out. That does not mean we leave out military options. It means that if we do use the military we keep the end goal in mind and we act with devastating effectiveness until that goal is achieved. And keep in mind the goal has to be obtainable….I don’t think anyone would or could slaughter innocent people. As a soldier I do not have to follow the order to shoot an unarmed woman. Military action is effective only when it is used in the proper diplomatic context. Since we have so much power we find that using a military solution is an easier and more expedient method then grinding it out. One very important sub component of solving the problems in the middle east will be armed missions. Not to round up and slaughter innocent people but to get those people who have become so blinded with hate they have lost all perspective. And if this includes the Israeli’s then so be it. Terrorists have to be eliminated. However if we do not focus on the source and take a hard look in the mirror we aren't going to accomplish anything. Now we just caught some freak in DC trying to build a dirty nuke device. This guy does not represent the feelings of the majority of followers of the Muslim faith. However our very color sensitive decision making process will probably ignore this fact....and I think we'd all agree that he is just one of many who will attempt this. The odds of success increase with every attempt. You have to ask yourself is it going to worth it in the end? I don't know what that end will be, but once an extremist group detonates one of those devices in a US city things are going to get crazy. Loss of people, loss of personal freedom, increased Federal power etc. It's going to be a mess and all because some people think that hitting back harder is the only solution. How childish is that? You realize that the atmosphere can only handle so much radioactive material before we can’t live here anymore right? And the stuff that is detonated in TV land will not just stay there right? So some say nuke em' now but I wonder how you'll feel after fallout travels here and starts causing all kinds of problems for us and our families. I just don't want American's killed because fifty years ago a poor choice was made that is not being fixed with current and previous policy... only exasperated. The decisions that are being made now, remind me of a Roman type policy that always fails in the end. These are my opinions that perhaps in time will change [ 06-10-2002, 16:03: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

So if you follow that line of thought only Christians or Jews or whoever are the real people of god are and should have that land. Because it's in their bible as such....right? Or can that be argued? Or can common sense take over...like the fact that the Palestinians were there in much greater numbers and were forced to become refugees. Where does one insert common sense? The statement was made back in the day by the Arabs: You have no right to this land today. If you come here we will fight you. Wasn't this told to all? Wasn't this clear? So they started fighting and they continue. They have a yahoo set of beliefs and so do the Israelis and so do everyone else. In a democracy are not the citizens responsible for the actions of their government? And if they are to be considered the governing force in a country does that not make them responsible for the actions of that government? In no way shape or form do I advocate terrorism or killing children. But I can understand a people fighting perceived oppression against a much stronger enemy. I believe this country found itself in a similar situation at one point. These people had their land taken recently and they fight. The only way they can and the only way they know how. It is a poor method to achieve their goals. But so is the response. Peace has to be the objective here. Understanding the recent past and ancient past are two different things. Meeting violence with more violence never really solves anything unless you can stomach ethnic cleansing as a viable answer. People need to put their ego's on hold and realize that everyone including America made mistakes in this situation and should seek to work it out. I have no idea how to go about getting these two people communicating but it has to be done..maybe on different levels. Both sides need to be represented and both sides need to compromise. The crazy actions of the few should not represent the feeling of the whole. But how is the whole to feel after the few make poor choices and they suffer for it?

Is this another stickdeath production?

I bet we can chalk this one up to BS posturing....but with any tense and unstable situation a small push is all it takes...

I think any talk of a conventional engagement between Israel and neighbors is pointless.... as things stand now. The US supports Israel and that doesn't look like it's going to change. Now if they launch any kind of NBC attack without US authorization it would be a whole new ball game. Hell even with authorization I don't think it would work out for them..... The difference between being a power and a super power is force projection capacity on a global scale. Theater wise Israel is top dog no doubt. That's why their enemies keep strapping bombs on their "soldiers". As committed as the Israeli’s are to maintaining their position.... forces out there are just as, if not more, committed to changing that. Maybe they want Israel to lash out with weapons of mass destruction...who knows. But it never looks right when tanks are shooting at people with rocks....

So from a military point of view one could say that any male between those ages are a "legal target"?

Isn't every Israeli citizen between the age of 18 and 40 or something a soldier on active or reserve status?

Beer beer beer said the Freshman! Have fun...grow the brain!