street228

I believe, many do not recognize,how over extended, our military obligations have become; nor, how much MORE will be required, if we continue with this type OFFENSIVE, throughout the world. Even as Hitlar's Germany, was the most advanced and most powerful country of it's day; the ONLY thing that stopped them, was their OVER extended responsibilities, and inability to distribute resource. A lesson, worthy to be observed. I see this interim, as a political card dealt, with mixed result. It gives bush an ability to back peddle, as even HE recognizes, he has bitten off more than he could comfortably swallow. It, also, has the dual benefit, to appease the IRAQI population(to some degree)as to the oppressiveness of U.S. occupation;thus reducing the ANTI-AMERICAN sentiment among the average citizen of IRAQ. As with EVERY move, I have observed, from the BUSH administration; there is multiple purpose.(shrewd, but deceitful to the American populace) ANOTHER benefit(most important to this administration, as PRINCIPLE,is beyond their comprehension),to this early (symbolic)handover of power, to the interim government; is PURELY a political attempt, to win favor for re-election among the AMERICAN people. I believe, in months to come,(just as when the statue was pulled down) evidence will PROVE this to be PRIMARILY a U.S Propaghandanized attempt to manipulate a twisted perspective concerning the attitude of the average IRAQI. I believe, the majority, just want us out. PERIOD! Sure, those who benefit from Saddam's fall, are happy....but there are (most likely)JUST as many(minus a couple hundred thousand,we killed) who were equally happy under saddam, as they are sitting beneath this NEW idea of government. I do NOT question, we can deal with Iraq, or Afghanistan, regardless of how those people feel. I DO question our ability to deal with a REAL threat, be that it show its face ,in the near future; while we continue to play MILITARY POLICE, throughout the rest of the world. THIS is the REAL threat to AMERICAS security, which AMERICANS NEED recognize.

I believe, many do not recognize,how over extended, our military obligations have become; nor, how much MORE will be required, if we continue with this type OFFENSIVE, throughout the world. Even as Hitlar's Germany, was the most advanced and most powerful country of it's day; the ONLY thing that stopped them, was their OVER extended responsibilities, and inability to distribute resource. A lesson, worthy to be observed. I see this interim, as a political card dealt, with mixed result. It gives bush an ability to back peddle, as even HE recognizes, he has bitten off more than he could comfortably swallow. It, also, has the dual benefit, to appease the IRAQI population(to some degree)as to the oppressiveness of U.S. occupation;thus reducing the ANTI-AMERICAN sentiment among the average citizen of IRAQ. As with EVERY move, I have observed, from the BUSH administration; there is multiple purpose.(shrewd, but deceitful to the American populace) ANOTHER benefit(most important to this administration, as PRINCIPLE,is beyond their comprehension),to this early (symbolic)handover of power, to the interim government; is PURELY a political attempt, to win favor for re-election among the AMERICAN people. I believe, in months to come,(just as when the statue was pulled down) evidence will PROVE this to be PRIMARILY a U.S Propaghandanized attempt to manipulate a twisted perspective concerning the attitude of the average IRAQI. I believe, the majority, just want us out. PERIOD! Sure, those who benefit from Saddam's fall, are happy....but there are (most likely)JUST as many(minus a couple hundred thousand,we killed) who were equally happy under saddam, as they are sitting beneath this NEW idea of government. I do NOT question, we can deal with Iraq, or Afghanistan, regardless of how those people feel. I DO question our ability to deal with a REAL threat, be that it show its face ,in the near future; while we continue to play MILITARY POLICE, throughout the rest of the world. THIS is the REAL threat to AMERICAS security, which AMERICANS NEED recognize.

quote:Well street, while you're celebrating that, the rest of us will celebrate something worth celebrating: freeing the Iraqi people from living in fear of a murdering and oppressive regime. -------------------- I have NEVER felt, it was bad to put down a bad dictator,(LETS FREE CHINA, HOW ABOUT NORTH KOREA? ...lets see..how about VIETNAM???(private joke here)...LOL) or to free people FREE anyone from a hostile DICTATOR, but to be perfectly honest, I think your celebration is hypocritic. WE DID NOT go into IRAQ to FREE ANYONE, that was purely a fallback position,(smartest move BUSH has made, concerning this war)..and even if you will not admit it, I believe you know it, as does the REST of the country. WHAT I am celebrating...IS winning a FIGHT FOR TRUE FEEDOM AND TRUE DEMOCRACY, and The PRINCIPLES which THIS country was FOUNDED!!!! A fight AGAINST socialistic and communistic ideology, which is being PROMOTED by YOUR OWN PRESIDENT....and you YET, refuse to admit, he lies to you.

quote:Well street, while you're celebrating that, the rest of us will celebrate something worth celebrating: freeing the Iraqi people from living in fear of a murdering and oppressive regime. -------------------- I have NEVER felt, it was bad to put down a bad dictator,(LETS FREE CHINA, HOW ABOUT NORTH KOREA? ...lets see..how about VIETNAM???(private joke here)...LOL) or to free people FREE anyone from a hostile DICTATOR, but to be perfectly honest, I think your celebration is hypocritic. WE DID NOT go into IRAQ to FREE ANYONE, that was purely a fallback position,(smartest move BUSH has made, concerning this war)..and even if you will not admit it, I believe you know it, as does the REST of the country. WHAT I am celebrating...IS winning a FIGHT FOR TRUE FEEDOM AND TRUE DEMOCRACY, and The PRINCIPLES which THIS country was FOUNDED!!!! A fight AGAINST socialistic and communistic ideology, which is being PROMOTED by YOUR OWN PRESIDENT....and you YET, refuse to admit, he lies to you.

quote: I guess some of them have not taken the time to read my posts in the other threads and the links in them. If they did, they would not still be holding on to that fable about Al-Qaeda not being in Iraq long before we attacked them. Bush's "COMMUNIST" bed buddy Putin...MUST be speaking the truth!!!roflmao and as far as the other link: The question of whether IRAQ had cease fire agreements with, or international relations with .. IS NOT THE ISSUE. AGAIN!! twisted conclusions, as to HUSSEIN and ALQUEDA connections, IN RELATION to 9/11 (i.e.DIRECT involvement,with the ALQUEDA or LINKS in regard to the ALQUEDA ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES......"CAN NOT be SUBSTANTIATED!!" you are YET, spouting the FALSE conclusions, which BUSH used to get congress to allow him to jump into a PREIMPTIVE ATTACK on another country(something our country has NEVER done in its ENTIRE existance) This is a RULE BY FORCE; COMMUNIST ideology, and is TOTALLY unacceptable to the MAJORITY of Americans. The BUSH administration, is in a scramble to justify their actions. EVEN BUSH has ceased his blatant DRIVE of irrational TV broadcast,though, his ratings have shrunk,in conjunction with the TRUTH coming out. Even Bush is smart enough, to know the people are on to his, circumnavigation of our constitution and presentation of lies. WHY must you still worship him, and buy into warped presentations of what this country IS, and what are TRUE and conclusive FACTS??

quote: I guess some of them have not taken the time to read my posts in the other threads and the links in them. If they did, they would not still be holding on to that fable about Al-Qaeda not being in Iraq long before we attacked them. Bush's "COMMUNIST" bed buddy Putin...MUST be speaking the truth!!!roflmao and as far as the other link: The question of whether IRAQ had cease fire agreements with, or international relations with .. IS NOT THE ISSUE. AGAIN!! twisted conclusions, as to HUSSEIN and ALQUEDA connections, IN RELATION to 9/11 (i.e.DIRECT involvement,with the ALQUEDA or LINKS in regard to the ALQUEDA ATTACK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES......"CAN NOT be SUBSTANTIATED!!" you are YET, spouting the FALSE conclusions, which BUSH used to get congress to allow him to jump into a PREIMPTIVE ATTACK on another country(something our country has NEVER done in its ENTIRE existance) This is a RULE BY FORCE; COMMUNIST ideology, and is TOTALLY unacceptable to the MAJORITY of Americans. The BUSH administration, is in a scramble to justify their actions. EVEN BUSH has ceased his blatant DRIVE of irrational TV broadcast,though, his ratings have shrunk,in conjunction with the TRUTH coming out. Even Bush is smart enough, to know the people are on to his, circumnavigation of our constitution and presentation of lies. WHY must you still worship him, and buy into warped presentations of what this country IS, and what are TRUE and conclusive FACTS??

quote:America isn't the problem; extreme Islamic fundamentalism is the problem. How do you explain the Muslim incursion into Kashmir and the resulting Pakistan-India conflict, or the Al Qaeda spin-off Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines fighting the Christians there, or the terrorists of Chechnya? What's the Middle East connection to those hostilities? There is enough BLAME to go around. I Never made the allegation, that there were'nt EXTREEM Islamic fundamentalist groups, nor did I say...." ALL" such groups were entirely a product of AMERICAN foreign policy. My ENTIRE discussion, is in relation to: AFGHANISTAN, 9/11,and IRAQ;... THESE things, in conjunction, with BUSH's methodology concerning HIS WAR on TERROR; An observation, as to WHO the TERRORIST are. The falacies concerning our involvement within IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN, and our neglect, as a nation, to ACCEPT responsibility for our ACTIONS. etc. etc.(read above) I am NOT making statements, to DEFEND the RADICAL muslim.....NOR will I DEFEND, arrogent, self rightious, RADICAL AMERICAN EXTREMIST(BUSH-WAR-ITES); who DENY responsibility for flagrantly irrational FORIEGN POLICY!!! It takes TWO to TANGO!!...Does it NOT?

quote:America isn't the problem; extreme Islamic fundamentalism is the problem. How do you explain the Muslim incursion into Kashmir and the resulting Pakistan-India conflict, or the Al Qaeda spin-off Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines fighting the Christians there, or the terrorists of Chechnya? What's the Middle East connection to those hostilities? There is enough BLAME to go around. I Never made the allegation, that there were'nt EXTREEM Islamic fundamentalist groups, nor did I say...." ALL" such groups were entirely a product of AMERICAN foreign policy. My ENTIRE discussion, is in relation to: AFGHANISTAN, 9/11,and IRAQ;... THESE things, in conjunction, with BUSH's methodology concerning HIS WAR on TERROR; An observation, as to WHO the TERRORIST are. The falacies concerning our involvement within IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN, and our neglect, as a nation, to ACCEPT responsibility for our ACTIONS. etc. etc.(read above) I am NOT making statements, to DEFEND the RADICAL muslim.....NOR will I DEFEND, arrogent, self rightious, RADICAL AMERICAN EXTREMIST(BUSH-WAR-ITES); who DENY responsibility for flagrantly irrational FORIEGN POLICY!!! It takes TWO to TANGO!!...Does it NOT?

Here is a LINK, all you "BUSH-WAR-ITES" will enjoy!!. quote:The high court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi can continue to argue for his freedom in court, repudiating administration arguments that presidential say-so was enough to keep Hamdi locked up without charges or trial. "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.e...t.ap/index.html Just WANTED to show you something, which MANY of my friends, and I are celebrating!!! It has been a long hard fight, but..... WE WON!!!! DONT EVER, underestimate what concerned CITIZENS can accomplish, within our GOVERNMENT!! Your BUSH, is NO God, and WILL, in FACT be STOPPED.!!! [ 06-29-2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Here is a LINK, all you "BUSH-WAR-ITES" will enjoy!!. quote:The high court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana-born detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi can continue to argue for his freedom in court, repudiating administration arguments that presidential say-so was enough to keep Hamdi locked up without charges or trial. "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/scotus.e...t.ap/index.html Just WANTED to show you something, which MANY of my friends, and I are celebrating!!! It has been a long hard fight, but..... WE WON!!!! DONT EVER, underestimate what concerned CITIZENS can accomplish, within our GOVERNMENT!! Your BUSH, is NO God, and WILL, in FACT be STOPPED.!!! [ 06-29-2004, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote: /me reaches over and grabs bag from street LOL I dont mind sharing, but where the hell's the soda!!

quote: /me reaches over and grabs bag from street LOL I dont mind sharing, but where the hell's the soda!!

posted 06-28-2004 02:31 PM quote:Is this to suggest that we should recognize the people who participated in the 9/11 attacks with the same status we recognize say....Great Britain...or Canada? If so...why should we recognize like this?Well, maybe NOT Canada or great britian, but at least as much as we recognize, the NORTHERN ALLIANCE within afghanistan. It is unreasonable to assume, just because, they chose to attack the WTC, that they are any less than they were, when we USED them to repel the Northern Alliance. quote: quote: In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11 I'm not so sure about that. I've spoken to a few people that I consider average and they were very well aware of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.Though, the number of Americans, who acknowledge there to be a differance; is, indeed, increasing, THAT differentiation, was in almost total obscurity, when bush presented his justification to ATTACK that country(Iraq). EVEN NOW, upon these boards, if you read carefully, ANYTHING in regard to IRAQ. It is very apparant, those who condone this war on IRAQ, use the terms TERRORIST,alqueda, and iraqi(bathist) synanamously. Bush was VERY successful in the outcome of his propaghanda strategy...thus, the reason he has survived in the polls, at all!! quote: quote:COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been. There are some fanatic groups that state (as far as I know), that they will not cease attacks on the United States until every single American is gone from the Middle East.SOME have evolved to this position, that is true; however, THAT extreme radical stand, is only reinforced by denial of negotiation. I do NOT believe, people want to die, just for the sake of killing. regardless of how much propaghanda, bush has presented. I can not accept, that EXTREME ideology would have near the appeal, to one who was recognized, as having a legitamate complaint.Nor, can I accept, that extreme ideology, to be as abundant, as this administration has proclaimed. There are NOT enough dead "terrorist",nor dead AMERICAN citizens, to substantiate such a claim. I remember, when TERRORIST, were hijackers, trying to get the american public's attention, as to what damage, our foreign policies were inflicting upon their culture, and country. They were NOT killing, but trying to negotiate SOME terms. WE took on a policy of non-negotiation,and would execute them, rather than give them the alternative to surrender. THIS is where things began to change. You leave a man, ANY MAN OR ANIMAL, NO WAY OUT. then they will kill themselves to kill you. IT is part of the human/animal phsyche. EVEN our domestic strategy, of KILLING someone who runs away(by local police) is working toward breeding a more RADICAL domestic problem. IT is the methodology which NEEDS reworked. NOT ALL situations, people, or organizations are the same;however, the over-all concept, of KILL first,and ask questions later, Will inevitably create MORE... McVeys, and Osamas and ALQUEDAS! As I mentioned before. YOU CANNOT stop something a person MIGHT DO, or even does, UNTIL he makes some attempt to do it. To attack, on mere assumption, is the MOST DANGEROUS (so called) defensive strategy there is. The ONLY way to 100% STOP these type of attacks, is to put EVERYONE IN A BOX. Not MY idea, of living in a FREE society. Use the SAME logic, that bush is using with alqueda, to stop car accidents. you would have to harrass or incarcerate EVERY driver, of every car... pull road funding from any city which allows drivers of cars, involved in accidents, within their city.(radical, irrational, and anti-productive to achieve the end result) THE ANSWER: Increase of DEFENSIVE measures. PLAN and execute OFFENSIVE measures, in a more RATIONAL and ACCURATE MANNOR. ALWAYS ALLOWING the enemy the OPTION to surrender. THIS will DEFLATE the legitamacy, and psychological strength of the organization, as a whole. There would be NO advantage in killing one's self, to kill two of the enemy. quote: quote:REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status. So are you saying that if you look to the root of things, we, the United States, are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11? These are just some of my thoughts and questions. I appreciate the dialog as this has thus far been very...interesting...to read.Yes! this is EXACTLY what I am saying, but this is only my opinion, based on every FACT, I can dig up; however, that which I consider FACT, is far more critical to: actuality and objective verification, than what some people accept for fact. quote: [ 06-28-2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: street ]

posted 06-28-2004 02:31 PM quote:Is this to suggest that we should recognize the people who participated in the 9/11 attacks with the same status we recognize say....Great Britain...or Canada? If so...why should we recognize like this?Well, maybe NOT Canada or great britian, but at least as much as we recognize, the NORTHERN ALLIANCE within afghanistan. It is unreasonable to assume, just because, they chose to attack the WTC, that they are any less than they were, when we USED them to repel the Northern Alliance. quote: quote: In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11 I'm not so sure about that. I've spoken to a few people that I consider average and they were very well aware of the differences between Afghanistan and Iraq.Though, the number of Americans, who acknowledge there to be a differance; is, indeed, increasing, THAT differentiation, was in almost total obscurity, when bush presented his justification to ATTACK that country(Iraq). EVEN NOW, upon these boards, if you read carefully, ANYTHING in regard to IRAQ. It is very apparant, those who condone this war on IRAQ, use the terms TERRORIST,alqueda, and iraqi(bathist) synanamously. Bush was VERY successful in the outcome of his propaghanda strategy...thus, the reason he has survived in the polls, at all!! quote: quote:COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been. There are some fanatic groups that state (as far as I know), that they will not cease attacks on the United States until every single American is gone from the Middle East.SOME have evolved to this position, that is true; however, THAT extreme radical stand, is only reinforced by denial of negotiation. I do NOT believe, people want to die, just for the sake of killing. regardless of how much propaghanda, bush has presented. I can not accept, that EXTREME ideology would have near the appeal, to one who was recognized, as having a legitamate complaint.Nor, can I accept, that extreme ideology, to be as abundant, as this administration has proclaimed. There are NOT enough dead "terrorist",nor dead AMERICAN citizens, to substantiate such a claim. I remember, when TERRORIST, were hijackers, trying to get the american public's attention, as to what damage, our foreign policies were inflicting upon their culture, and country. They were NOT killing, but trying to negotiate SOME terms. WE took on a policy of non-negotiation,and would execute them, rather than give them the alternative to surrender. THIS is where things began to change. You leave a man, ANY MAN OR ANIMAL, NO WAY OUT. then they will kill themselves to kill you. IT is part of the human/animal phsyche. EVEN our domestic strategy, of KILLING someone who runs away(by local police) is working toward breeding a more RADICAL domestic problem. IT is the methodology which NEEDS reworked. NOT ALL situations, people, or organizations are the same;however, the over-all concept, of KILL first,and ask questions later, Will inevitably create MORE... McVeys, and Osamas and ALQUEDAS! As I mentioned before. YOU CANNOT stop something a person MIGHT DO, or even does, UNTIL he makes some attempt to do it. To attack, on mere assumption, is the MOST DANGEROUS (so called) defensive strategy there is. The ONLY way to 100% STOP these type of attacks, is to put EVERYONE IN A BOX. Not MY idea, of living in a FREE society. Use the SAME logic, that bush is using with alqueda, to stop car accidents. you would have to harrass or incarcerate EVERY driver, of every car... pull road funding from any city which allows drivers of cars, involved in accidents, within their city.(radical, irrational, and anti-productive to achieve the end result) THE ANSWER: Increase of DEFENSIVE measures. PLAN and execute OFFENSIVE measures, in a more RATIONAL and ACCURATE MANNOR. ALWAYS ALLOWING the enemy the OPTION to surrender. THIS will DEFLATE the legitamacy, and psychological strength of the organization, as a whole. There would be NO advantage in killing one's self, to kill two of the enemy. quote: quote:REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status. So are you saying that if you look to the root of things, we, the United States, are responsible for the terrorist attack on 9/11? These are just some of my thoughts and questions. I appreciate the dialog as this has thus far been very...interesting...to read.Yes! this is EXACTLY what I am saying, but this is only my opinion, based on every FACT, I can dig up; however, that which I consider FACT, is far more critical to: actuality and objective verification, than what some people accept for fact. quote: [ 06-28-2004, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: street ]

quote:Leaving before the Iraqi's are prepared to provide their own security will be giving terrorists a new operating theater. WE GAVE alqueda that(a new operating theater), when we attacked that country(IRAQ) and drove it into anarchy....GET REAL!! We will most likely have troops in iraq for many years to come.(both officially and in a non-official capacity, just as we do NOW, though the numbers of each will swing)

quote:Leaving before the Iraqi's are prepared to provide their own security will be giving terrorists a new operating theater. WE GAVE alqueda that(a new operating theater), when we attacked that country(IRAQ) and drove it into anarchy....GET REAL!! We will most likely have troops in iraq for many years to come.(both officially and in a non-official capacity, just as we do NOW, though the numbers of each will swing)

quote: I ought to start an ignore list here, and just place your ignorant rants on them.PLEASE: put ME on it too!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE please please!!!Street begging

quote: I ought to start an ignore list here, and just place your ignorant rants on them.PLEASE: put ME on it too!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE please please!!!Street begging

I bought x2,I was a little disappointed with how dark everything was, as well as how tedious it bacame. I guess, my eyes are'nt what they use to be.I Played with it for about 7 evenings...just long enough to get past the tutorials and get into the game real good. I agree with you, takvah, It now sits on the shelf(along with several thousand dollars of other games) Though, I like good graphics, this comes secondary to me. there are only a few games which I LIKED, out of a couple hundred purchased over the last 10 years.! !X2 had SOME good points, but as with most space sims.. it is truly pathetic, where these other games stand, when compared to BC/UC.

quote:He has NO point Street, NONE!!! If a terrorist attack occurred with one of these weapons, you and Kartoffel and Takvah would be the FIRST ones jumping up and down and Screaming at the top of your lungs that Bush and company didnt warn us, and why didn't they. ADMIT it, because you would. YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST ONES.... you'd scream and yell and have a cow about how Bush missed it, and why didn't they warn us, and what an awful job that Bush was doing that the terrorists were able to hit us that way and we didn't get warned. ADMIT it, you would indeed be the first ones to come down on Bush. You know, and I know it. Bush can't win with you guys..... You hate him too much. Your raving nonsense, JAG. I have NEVER had ANY problem with the fight on the ALQUEDA. My only concern, is the BUSH METHODOLOGY in regard to HIS manipulation, of the public.(i.e. using FEAR to justify ATTACKING AND INVADING to control RESOURCE) as far as beer coolers...LOL how about shoe boxes...lunch boxes...lockers...car trunks...car doors....car ignition....backpacks...etc. etc. etc. LIVE IN FEAR!!!..I dont care!!! Use your brain!.....it is more likely a neighbor would cut your throat for the noise of your stereo!!! I REFUSE TO LIVE IN FEAR, because an organized group ATTACKED the WORLD financial institution within the U.S., and A RADICAL president USED that excuse to manipulate a following!!! HE HAS A VERY VIABLE POINT...and this has NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTISEN POLITICS, but EVERYTHING to do with METHODOLOGY and ETHICS!!!

quote:He has NO point Street, NONE!!! If a terrorist attack occurred with one of these weapons, you and Kartoffel and Takvah would be the FIRST ones jumping up and down and Screaming at the top of your lungs that Bush and company didnt warn us, and why didn't they. ADMIT it, because you would. YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST ONES.... you'd scream and yell and have a cow about how Bush missed it, and why didn't they warn us, and what an awful job that Bush was doing that the terrorists were able to hit us that way and we didn't get warned. ADMIT it, you would indeed be the first ones to come down on Bush. You know, and I know it. Bush can't win with you guys..... You hate him too much. Your raving nonsense, JAG. I have NEVER had ANY problem with the fight on the ALQUEDA. My only concern, is the BUSH METHODOLOGY in regard to HIS manipulation, of the public.(i.e. using FEAR to justify ATTACKING AND INVADING to control RESOURCE) as far as beer coolers...LOL how about shoe boxes...lunch boxes...lockers...car trunks...car doors....car ignition....backpacks...etc. etc. etc. LIVE IN FEAR!!!..I dont care!!! Use your brain!.....it is more likely a neighbor would cut your throat for the noise of your stereo!!! I REFUSE TO LIVE IN FEAR, because an organized group ATTACKED the WORLD financial institution within the U.S., and A RADICAL president USED that excuse to manipulate a following!!! HE HAS A VERY VIABLE POINT...and this has NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTISEN POLITICS, but EVERYTHING to do with METHODOLOGY and ETHICS!!!

quote: Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity. What, I am saying: is too Acknowledged them as a legitimate enemy, on the SAME ground as ANY enemy, which we would be at war with. And NOT to seperate them as a NON-entity, using broad based terminology (i.e. TERRORIST), in order to degrade their standing, as an organization, with a purpose for hostility. As for AMNESTY, I do not believe ANY country could offer terms, under the present international threat from us (the U.S.) At this point and time, they probably would NOT consider surrender, WE have not hurt them, but helped them. They are NOT under enough pressure to have any need to surrender; THUS, the REASON to concentrate upon ALQUEDA, rather than ATTACKING, and THREATENING to attack 3rd world countries,(as with IRAQ). Put THEM under ATTACK, and give them the OPTIONS, to negotiate surrender...Then, and only then, do you put them in a position; other than, "NOTHING TO LOOSE" quote: Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy. PROPARTIONAL to what? We have slaughtered IRAQI soldiers,(NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS published) who were defending their country. In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11. THIS is what I was referring too, when I spoke of american's REVENGE mode, mind set, needing to come to an end. AND the number of DEATHS we are responsible for....is (most likely) much, much higher than you could imagine. This is based on the REALITY, of the MASSIVE amount of bombs we dropped on thier positions...AND THE TYPE of bombs we used. quote: You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted? DO NOT mistake, my statements as SYMPATHETIC to their cause....I AM NOT!!. I am only recognizing, the REALITY of cause and effect. And I only wish to see the situation HANDLED in a mannor which has potential for RESOLVE. I would NOT be so quick, as to place the entire finger of blame, ENTIRELY upon them. We DID betray them, in the first place.!! Though, this does NOT justify their retaliatory methodology, It DOES justify their cause to MANY who join their organization. JUST AS our OUT RIGHT attack on IRAQ will do the same. quote: Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack? COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been. But I DO propose: More balanced international relations, would help not to INSTIGATE future attacks, on our country. REGARDLESS of what we do, we will piss people off. BUT to go OUT OF OUR WAY, to abuse, and harm the insignificant.....IS WHAT CREATED THIS PROBLEM.... REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status. NOW.. We CANNOT continue to fuel a raging fire, through arrogant bully type behavior(as is with the BUSH methodology), but MUST put the fire out((through force...YES..UNTIL they are willing to surrender or come to SOME terms)) We MUST attack the FIRE itself...(i.e.ALQUEDA) but to deny any HOPE for TERMS, creates a vacume for negotiating ANY resolve, other than total anialation. THIS cannot be done, unless you KILL every man woman and child, even REMOTELY connected to every individual involved in the organization. NOT POSSIBLE. quote: I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue. No Problem, I do not make my statements, to be argumentive( as do some), but ONLY to offer a more balance view toward a workable METHODOLOGY.

quote: Street, so your saying if we acknowledged their organizations existence, and gave them the choice to surrender it would help? Do you think they would even surrender if the opportunity were given? I call your attention to the whole "amnesty" thing that Saudi Arabi has done. I haven't really heard any results about that, which to me indicates that it didn't work out that well. It just seems to me that they wouldn't surrender even if they were given the opportunity. What, I am saying: is too Acknowledged them as a legitimate enemy, on the SAME ground as ANY enemy, which we would be at war with. And NOT to seperate them as a NON-entity, using broad based terminology (i.e. TERRORIST), in order to degrade their standing, as an organization, with a purpose for hostility. As for AMNESTY, I do not believe ANY country could offer terms, under the present international threat from us (the U.S.) At this point and time, they probably would NOT consider surrender, WE have not hurt them, but helped them. They are NOT under enough pressure to have any need to surrender; THUS, the REASON to concentrate upon ALQUEDA, rather than ATTACKING, and THREATENING to attack 3rd world countries,(as with IRAQ). Put THEM under ATTACK, and give them the OPTIONS, to negotiate surrender...Then, and only then, do you put them in a position; other than, "NOTHING TO LOOSE" quote: Also, from what I'm reading it seems that you think war should be proportional, i.e. they kill 3000 we kill 3000. But I must ask you, do you really think a war can be won in that way? Throughout history it seems to me that wars are won by a massive offensive in which devestating damage is done to the enemy. PROPARTIONAL to what? We have slaughtered IRAQI soldiers,(NO OFFICIAL NUMBERS published) who were defending their country. In the MINDS of average American, They are the TERRORIST responsible for 9/11. THIS is what I was referring too, when I spoke of american's REVENGE mode, mind set, needing to come to an end. AND the number of DEATHS we are responsible for....is (most likely) much, much higher than you could imagine. This is based on the REALITY, of the MASSIVE amount of bombs we dropped on thier positions...AND THE TYPE of bombs we used. quote: You also mentioned that you recognize what happens when people become opressed and hunted. Do you still have sympathy for them if they are the ones who caused themselves to become opressed and hunted? DO NOT mistake, my statements as SYMPATHETIC to their cause....I AM NOT!!. I am only recognizing, the REALITY of cause and effect. And I only wish to see the situation HANDLED in a mannor which has potential for RESOLVE. I would NOT be so quick, as to place the entire finger of blame, ENTIRELY upon them. We DID betray them, in the first place.!! Though, this does NOT justify their retaliatory methodology, It DOES justify their cause to MANY who join their organization. JUST AS our OUT RIGHT attack on IRAQ will do the same. quote: Also, lets say hypothetically speaking, we (the US) pulled completly out of the Middle East and the terrorist attacks on the US continued. What would you be proper course of action at that point? For that matter, what could we possibly do being that we'd have no military units (in this hypothetical situation) in the Middle East whatsoever to counter attack? COMPLETE withdraw from the middle east is NOT possible. Never has been. But I DO propose: More balanced international relations, would help not to INSTIGATE future attacks, on our country. REGARDLESS of what we do, we will piss people off. BUT to go OUT OF OUR WAY, to abuse, and harm the insignificant.....IS WHAT CREATED THIS PROBLEM.... REFUSAL to admit what we do, and the AUDACITY to ignore the consequence, is what escalated it to 9/11 type status. NOW.. We CANNOT continue to fuel a raging fire, through arrogant bully type behavior(as is with the BUSH methodology), but MUST put the fire out((through force...YES..UNTIL they are willing to surrender or come to SOME terms)) We MUST attack the FIRE itself...(i.e.ALQUEDA) but to deny any HOPE for TERMS, creates a vacume for negotiating ANY resolve, other than total anialation. THIS cannot be done, unless you KILL every man woman and child, even REMOTELY connected to every individual involved in the organization. NOT POSSIBLE. quote: I would like to make it clear, once again, that I'm not taking sides in this, I'm just probing for information to get a more well rounded view of this whole issue. No Problem, I do not make my statements, to be argumentive( as do some), but ONLY to offer a more balance view toward a workable METHODOLOGY.