Pres Debate Townhall- Syle

[Charles Lindsey]

Ughhhh, It's my fault more than anyone's but we need to get back to the debate.

[Guest]

hehe no chavik. that he had them before and could have them again is just one of the many different factors involved in going after saddam's iraq.

besides iraq, consider:

north korea, iran,syria, al-queda (& all terrorist fruitcakes),other arab nations, pakistan, ex-ussr sattellite nations.

all the above are examples of places or entities that are trying to get WMD's or already have them or have materiel to make them already. And all of them are nations who have very volatile societies which are recruiting heavens for terrorrists (aka, easy to recruit people who are willing to blow up the world or themselves).

after 9/11 the biggest threat possible was a WMD attack. Where did WMD's come from? See previous list. Its those who need to be taken out as priority #1.

Most of those in the 'list' are in the middle east. ex-ussr may very well be a hotbed for nuclear wmd materiel, but you got the USSR and considerable euro efforts there to contain them, so that is covered for the most part. N. Korea is isolated and contained thanks to russia and china and japan and s. korea.

The arab nations in the list were the only ones on said list which were outside anyone's control, who had other types of WMD's (bio/chem) already and HAD used them, and who were hotbeds for terrorrist recruiting, training and who'se societies pretty much blamed the west/usa for their troubles and had an intense hatred of israel and those who support israel (again, USA/west).

of those, which one to start with? Iraq had been a pain in the arse since the 90's and is located in the middle of the 'list'. Lots of circumstantial allies around it (egypt,pakistan,saudi arabia).. seemed a dang good choice to start for me.

The results of this and of the afghanistan invasion (imo afghanistan was done more for the benefit of the public and to 'save face'..plus nobody would (and didnt) object to the us invading al-queda capital after 9/11) are clear today:

consider:

Iraq is out of the picture.

Syria is isolated and has stopped its wmd programme.

Iran and N.Korea know they are next.

Saudi Arabia is under intense internal pressure.

The sociological issues which breed terrorrism via hatred in the middle east are also being tackled in the same time. Afghanistan and Iraq will in the long run, become democracies. And that will spill out over the long run in the region, especially hard hit will be saudi arabia (im talking 2020+ long run deal).

Then theres also the Euro nations and UN to consider in the equation.... and to not make this post longer lets just say the UN is being proven to be as inneffective as the Allied Nations were when facing global threats.

All of this cannot be explained or justified on t.v. to an audience which for the most part doesn't have the education to know whats been going on it and who relies on the media to do the thinking for them.

plus it would tip the nations on the list as to what's up. cant do that either.

[Kalshion]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

Lots will

---

Saddly yes

Caue most people will ignore what Kerry said saying "He's right" and such, and live in even more denial

[Charles Lindsey]

That's opinion. If you like I can list all my opinions on why I "hate" Bush.

[Kalshion]

That's fine Nomad

If they don't care about us, then we don't care about supporting them.. we'll cut the flow of money and let them fend for themselves

but wait

They can't can they?

Most of the european states RELIE on the US for financial support. Country's like China, Korea, Japan, and other's are also the same

If we cut our money to them, then they'll die a slow and very painful death

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Sorry, but there's a limit to what a nation can do militarly to counter "possible future" threats in the 21th century. Do you think the US has the monopoly of the preventive doctrine ? We probably are still alive because this doctrine wasn't the one used during the cold war.

Continue to bully like that in the world, and I'm afraid that the US will get back way more than what it expects, because the technical expertise and the ressources have ALREADY SPREAD AROUND THE GLOBE, not to speak about anti-american feelings that were never so exacerbated. I spent quite some time in eastern countries before the wall fell, and I may assure you that except the official rethoric, eastern poeple were not hating the US. Now you just have almost a billion people on this planet that would not let drop a single tear should a major event affect the US. Think about it...

---

First off, we are NOT using the military preemptive doctrine on EVERY future threat, we used it on the 2 most probable dangerous ones.

Taliban, for their continued support of Al Quaeda, and Saddam, who had the knowhow, and the wherewithal to use WMD's against us through the terrorists that he supported, DIRECTLY.

And the ONLY reason that the cold war did NOT kill us all was because the US was willing to outspend the Soviet Union during the cold war,and we won, via the pocketbook and President Ronald Reagan.

We have bullied and conquered 2 countries, we have saved or conquered every other country in the world at one point or another. While other countries fiddle as Rome burns, the US tries to put out the fire. If this is gonna backfire, it's not gonna backfire on us, it will backfire on those that are trying to play possum with Terrorists, because playing possum will NOT work, because they will make sure that you are dead, even if you are trying to PLAY dead.

The US does not play dead, and we won't. We were attacked, and have been numerous times, but we have NOT been attacked on US soil since 911, which tells me something, and those that played possum, Spain, and others, have been attacked, and will be attacked again. Poor France is freaking out right now, and so is Germany, they were trying to be helpful to the terrorists by NOT supporting the US, but now they are being inundated with terrorist demands.

I wonder why? Once you are blackmailed, the blackmail is going to go up, but, if you kick the heck out of the people trying to blackmail you, they will A: either try to kill you, or B: go find someone a bit better of a target to blackmail instead.

They are incapable of A: so they are going for B:, problem is, that we are still killing them, therefore there is not as much blackmailers to blackmail the whimps, because we are taking care of them.

And as far as tears are concerned, as far as I am concerned, once we destroy and lay waste to these terrorists, we ought to let the rest of the world go to hell in their own way.

Only those that supported us on the war on terror will be helped, and those that opposed it, can stew in the juices of their own making.

I do not think we should help those that will not shed a tear, so they can just scream for help as they are drowning, and we'll sit back and watch.

And shed NO tears for them at all, but we won't. The US is too good a nation to sit back and allow people to suffer from their own stupidity and short sightedness.

The Europeans are hard hearted and unappreciative of what we have done for them, they can just sit back and groan and get angry with us, but when the next Hitler rises to power in Europe, maybe we ought to let you deal with it yourselves, but that won't work either, we remember the last time that happened, it took us 4 years and millions of lives to finally get it straightened out.

The Europeans have a history of NOT doing something about a threat, until it is too big to do anything about, without killing millions, the US does NOT do that, we have learned our lessons thank goodness.

I really wish they would though, because then we wouldn't have to come in and save them from themselves.

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Why didnt saddam use wmd's if he had them?

---

My take...

Remember when people were asking the same question of Saddam's air force?

During the first days of the attack, people were asking why his air force wasn't attacking the advancing troops. Some thought that they didn't attack because they were smart enough to realize that they'd be blown out of the sky by the American air force. Others speculated that the air force refused, thinking that they'd need to save the planes for the future government.

We found out later that the fighter jets were buried in the sand.

It may be that Saddam had buried some of his WMDs in the sand to avoid detection by inspectors and overhead satellites. It may be that the American incursion went so fast that he couldn't deploy the buried weapons fast enough.

Heck, Saddam himself was buried in the sand and look how long it took us to find him!!! (and we were lucky to do that)

Of course, I believe that most of them were convoyed into Syria and Lebanon, and others were dumped into the Euphrates.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tac:

Snip Tac's long but good post

---

All that does not matter Tac. It's called a hidden agenda.

Perhaps the administration learned a lesson from Iran Contra and has changed tactics. Instead of doing it secretly do it openly but give a false reason.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cmdr Chavik:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tac:

Snip Tac's long but good post

---

All that does not matter Tac. It's called a hidden agenda.

Perhaps the administration learned a lesson from Iran Contra and has changed tactics. Instead of doing it secretly do it openly but give a false reason.

---

False reason?

What, that Saddam cold have reconstituted his WMD programs, had chemical weapons in less then 6 months, biological in less then a year, and Nuclear in less then 2?

That he was a clear and present danger?

That he has WMD's, some of which have been found?

What false reason are you talking about?

I always find it fascinating when someone says they hate Bush, it makes absolutely NO sense to me.

I disliked Clinton greatly, but I didn't hate him, he was a criminal and a liar, he was a treasonous president, not good enough to be the garbage man, let alone the president.

But hate him, NO, just mad as hell that he got away with so much and still isn't in prison, along with his criminal wife.

Hate Bush? For what? For protecting you? For making sure that there hasn't been another 911? For invading a country that directly supported the Taliban, for invading a country whose leader DIRECTLY supported terrorism, and would have given those terrorists WMD's if given the chance?

I really would like to know why you hate Bush, because it makes NO logical sense whatsoever.

Hidden agenda, the agenda looks pretty clear to me, to fight terrorism in all it's forms, and make the world a safer place to live.

Reagan had an agenda too, to end the cold war, and he actually accomplished it, at the chagrin of many leftist in this country. Made me happy, I hold President Reagan in the highest esteem, just as I do President Bush, he's not perfect by any means, but he is getting the job done.

[Charles Lindsey]

Ok you've convinced me. I'll vote Bush.

[Guest Shingen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Reagan had an agenda too, to end the cold war, and he actually accomplished it, at the chagrin of many leftist in this country. Made me happy, I hold President Reagan in the highest esteem, just as I do President Bush, he's not perfect by any means, but he is getting the job done.

---

I remember back when Reagan was President. ALOT people gave him shit about everything from his economics to his foreign policy. They ALL broke their necks to go to his funeral though.

Reagan was indeed one of the last, greatest US presidents of the 20th century.

[street228]

quote:

---

As conclusion, I respect anybody's opinion, but I am not obliged to loose my time by reading arguments not supported even by elementary school books

---

If you had any concept, as to how inadequate, our educational system is, within the U.S. , you would expect such confrontational responses, which negate the ability for rational discussion.

If the blatant CHANGES made, within that which is is taught, from one generation(approx 10 years) to the next, is not enough. Consider this: Out-right lies within the childrens text, has become prevelant within the whole sociological, historical and political areas, taught today.

Of course, there is no way to argue, the changes are not due to surfacing of NEWLY discovered FACTS, within any specific area...but common sense is something which would dictate: Time is something which eradicates the TRUE nature of facts...and would NOT indicate more accurate definition of any given event recorded.

The United States, is in dire need of common sense, and deserves(as a whole) Whatever it receives, due to its Actions or Inactions.

Our country has been actively promoting and protecting the Ignorant from themselves, for quite some time. Even to the point, that those of worthless or substandard ability, are living a higher living standard, than MANY who demonstrate exceptional academic abilities.

And as much as I have enjoyed reading your logically deduced, and educated responses......

I believe, you are so far over their heads, very few..truly understand your perspective, as accurate and balanced, as it very well may be.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Sorry, but this time I had enough.

1) Actually, the only country under dictatorial regime who considers the US as an enemy and posess the operative missile capacity to strike your country, eventually with nuclear warheads, is NK. If they did effectively continue to experiment under Clinton, breaking agreements, do not forget that's under Bush that they reprocessed uranium and adquired operational offensive capacity.

2) Iraq did not even use WMD's against US troops in 1991, when they had plenty of them.

3) Not even the iraqui army had control over WMD, because Saddam did not trust it.

4) If most americans support an administration that takes mere theorical possibilities as real facts, we are headed for BS for a long time.

5) Concerning the former help you never forget to mention to europeans, the US accounts for less than 3% of all Allied soldiers casualties, and the total death toll (civilians + soldiers all sides included) was 54,9 million. but I can't exless than 0,6 % of total casualties.

6) The Marshall plan was effectively a great help for european nations, but also extendeneric TV newthe US economy by creating a whole new market suited for US entept a few So it was bilaterally beneficial.

7) The Marshall plan allocated a total of US$ 13 billions from 1948 to 1951 (roughly US$ 100 billions actual value) to 16 countries. It is interesting to note that the Republican party who controlled the Congress at that time worked to limit the aid. Actually, Iraq already costed you twice the Marshall plan, with the results we all (should...) know.

8) Concerning the fact that many americans overvalue the importance of the US in current EU transactions, some of you even believing that the EU is completely dependent of the US, this are the official numbers of 2002:

First 4 main US export partners

Canada 23.2%, Mexico 14.1%, Japan 7.4%, UK 4.8%.

First 5 main US import partners

Canada 17.8%, Mexico 11.3%, China 11.1%, Japan 10.4%, Germany 5.3%.

So whoever believes that US implication is vital for the EU is just plain ignorant.

9) Effectively, Western Europe took advantage of the US military ombrella during the cold war. On the other side, the only foreign fronts where the US could flex its muscles against WAPA where Europe & Japan.

10) Effectively, EU nations are reluctant to use force since WW2 and "per causa", their populations knowing a great deal better than US citizens what is war and its effects. Among the actual EU population of 450 million, most of the individuals older than 65 years remember war and/or occupation. Among the actual US population of 293 million, except a few civilians of Pearl Harbour, only war veterans know about war & its effects, and on top only on a foreign basis.

11) If, at a time where the only immediate danger to the US is represented by a rogue state who posesses probably at most 8 nuclear warheads and by a network of terrorists, the US still feels the need to maintain troops in 120 countries (yes, you read correctly: 120), it's either paranoia or expansionism.

12) The current US overreaction to 9/11 is directly hampering its economy. Security doesen't work well with broad, unregulated & liberal commercial exchanges and flux of personnel.

13) The current administration is pursuing many different & parallel objectives who have little to do with the fight against terrorism, but are nonethless presented as part of it. Now, if I can understand that politicians push their agenda, I am much less sympathetic towards a population who accomodates such a degree of manipulation despite being one of the most developped nations in the world. I can understand the ignorance of nk or burmese people, but I can't excuse american ignorance, because it's either due to ideology or intellectual lazyness. In this aspect, it's very interesting to compare generic TV news on european channels and their US counterpart. In the US, except a few channels, the news are encapsulated in an "entertainment shell". In Europe, news are news.

14) In terms of disarmament, the US fail to apply to itself the same standards it postulate to weaker nations, and does not confront countries who already have nuclear capacity like Israel, India or Pakistan. This attitude is directly responsible for the current rush towards nuclear WMD capacity adquisition by some nations who fear US intervention (Iran for ex.).

14) The gap between europeans & americans is much wider than what governments recognize for obvious dimplomatic reasons. It worries me, and actually, at least in foreign relations, the biggest enemy of the US is represented by the US itself.

15) Bush said that it's not because the Kyoto protocol is popular in european capitals that it is a reason for the US to sign it. Fine. The Kyoto protocol was ratified in 2004 by 122 countries. So almost 90% of the nations supporting it aren't european. That's just an example how your "leader" is burying his audience under BS.

As conclusion, I respect anybody's opinion, but I am not obliged to loose my time by reading arguments not supported even by elementary school books. The only think I ask you is to be polite enough to document yourselves before making your mind and expressing your opinion.

---

I am NOT going to go over these one at a time, because I have to catch a plane, but I will comment on a few while I have chance.

1: Yes, the NK now has Uranium etc, and enriched it while Bush was in office, but if it weren't for CLinton giving it to them because of blackmail in the first place, we wouldn't be havin this problem.

2: No, he didn't, because if he had he would have lost ALL the support that he had gained in the Arab world, and Baghdad would have glowed in the dark.

3: Iraqi intelligence did though, and they claimed that ANY WMD would be ready to launch in less then 45 minutes.

4: This is NOT theoretical, and Hitler was theoretical as well, CHurchill said he was dangerous, Chamberlain claimed Peace in our time, who does history prove correct?

5: Yes,Nomad, but without the US and our industrial Might, you would be speaking Italian right now.

6:Yes indeed, but it rebuilt Europe, and if it hadn't been for us, you'd just now be making it out of that disaster. We gave the jumpstart needed to get Europe back together. THey sure as heck couldn't do it themselves.

7: Iraq has cost us about the same actually, 120 billion, although at some point it could reach 200 billion, but it's not there yet. When the oil starts to flow, the bills will be payed. Of that I have no doubt.

8: The fact of the matter is, the EU overstates it's importance to the US, NOT vice versa. I would be more then happy to pull our military out of there and let you defend yourselves, but it seems that the Germans etc do NOT want to lose thier financial windfall from our military bases.

9: That's also the only real place that there was a danger, and we were needed.

10: NO, they are afraid of war, not trying to avert it. If they had learned their lesson from WWII, they would use military power where necassary whenever there is an active percieved danger. Not reluctancy, COWARDICE...

11: It's called treaties, where we agreed to have our presence in most of those countries, others are in countries to train their military, others are fighting the war on drugs. Most of our troops are there because we were Asked to be there. and we would be violating treaties by NOT being there. We are also the world police now, because we are the ONLY country that has a military strong enough and capable enough to do it.

12: Over reaction? over reaction, yeah those terrorists are just a little nuisance, aren't they?

13: Sorry, but I totally disagree with this whole premise.

14: The Europeans do not have the backbone or the military might to defend themselves, and the Muslims are slowly taking over those countries. You just keep thinking that...

15: THe Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States BILLIONS of dollars annually, it was also a socialist scheme to take money from the rich countries, via pollution credits, and give that money to 3rd world countries. It NEVER would have passed the Senate, so Kyoto was a dead issue before Bush ever got around to telling the rest of the world it was dead in the US.

THe Kyoto treaty lost a test vote 99 against, 0 for.

THank you so much for respecting my opinion, it is so nice to know a European self proclaimed intellectual knows so much more then any of us.

Sometimes you just blow me away, you really do, I do learn from you though, so please forgive any smart aleck style remarks that I have made, but I disagree, totally, completely, and absolutely.

My history studies and military studies show that what we are doing is nipping in the bud a must vaster and darker problem that we would have had to deal with in the future. something MUCH greater then WWII, and had the capacity to kill FAR more people, not just in the US, but ALL over the world.

Not only do I believe that we are NOT over reacting, I believe that we are under reacting, allowing PC nonsense to get in the way, and allowing terrorists to name their terms,such as in Fallujah, when in fact we should have just gone in and killed them.

It seems I actually went over all of them, how bizarre.

Anyway, off to catch a plane, and as Takvah says...

PEACE!!

[street228]

See?...NO decernable distinction between presented facts, and percieved opinions, based on publicly tainted presentation of those facts.

Amazing, but perfectly understandable, from those who stopped learning after leaving high school.(which is what happens to OVER 90% of americans.)

And though, this is not the fault of the individual, It is the fault of EVERY individual, who does not CHOOSE to recognize, the falacies held within propaghandanized use of the facts, and how they are portrayed.."AFTER THE FACT"

This is BLINDNESS, "BY CHOICE"..and such people CANNOT be reasoned with, but only confronted within their choice of discussion. This usually means: "Argument, based on false premises"

Good luck, in establishing a common premise, which will be accepted; though it be 100%, objective, and correct.

[Wolferz]

A townhall debate is just more propaganda. Perpetrated by those who wish to seal their affluent lifestyle in stone.

Nomad, I

salute your intellect and your courage in using it. Please continue.

For me,logical observation dictates that; 90% of the population on this planet is blinded by ignorance and 100% of the population is blinded by carefully orchestrated propaganda.

Governments have come and gone throughout history and seldom did the populous have any say in the matter. It has always been nothing more than a group of greedy people who wished to exert power over other people through coercion.

If coercion didn't achieve their goals, they turned to brute force. Our so called modern society is no different than previous societies.

Everyone wants their little piece of this big spinning pie we ride on. Sadly there are those who want much more than their fair share and they wil do anything to tip the scale in their favor. Like many Americans, it is my wish to see this nation prosper, but not at the expense of everyone else on the planet. It shames me to say that our current political structure is doing just that. It is not the work of the American citizens. This country is the epitomy of blended cultures and peoples. But, it has been hijacked by a wealthy few who will stop at nothing to fill their pot with chicken. They consider themselves the Elite of the people of the world and they are of a twisted ideology that in order to protect their progeny they must systematically exterminate everyone else. Hmmm, sounds like Nazis doesn't it?

From the very first war,Every war that has ever been prosecuted throughout history has been a war for resources. It continues to this day and it will not end tomorrow. Even after the wealthy few elitists have control of every resource the war will continue because they are fighting a war againnst humanity. As the years pass it will all have new threats named for their cause and even more propaganda to legitimize their actions.

After everything is finished with the wash and rinse, one can only conclude that human beings are a pestilence on planet Earth. We are like roaches. We breed far beyond what our environment can support and when the resources are all gone, we will feed upon each other.

All I can say is The exterminators are working diligently. Got Ammo?

If you do not, can you say: "Soylent Green"? Rich people will want to eat.

Chicken Little has spoken, so just shutup Jaguar

[Charles Lindsey]

I was gonna reply but two spontaneous reboots indicate I should not.

[Kalshion]

Was going to question Wolferz intelligence (for his shut up comment) but I think I'll wait..

[Guest Shingen]

Did anyone watch the Frontline special on PBS last night, about Bush and Kerry?

[ 10-13-2004, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Shingen ]

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shingen:

Did anyone watch the

Frontline special

on PBS last night, about Bush and Kerry?

---

Nope missed that one but I did catch Dennis Miller on the tonight show last night while I was laying down thumbing thru the channels on the TV. Don't think this one was a repeat but you know something he sounded like me and people were cheering eating it up.

He pretty much said forget the U.N. look at the debacle in the sudan it's the U.N. at it's best and he also made a comment "what we are suppose to wait for (mentions some obscure 4th world country) for their approval and get them on board too. It's time to get tough.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

Street: Indeed, this seems to be the case...

Jaguar:

1) Of course, of course. If you are so interested in deflecting any responsability of the current administration, why don't you also indict Cliton's granpa ? After all, I guess that in your mind he's also guilty by having participated in the physical creation of a Democrat...

2) Of course, US troops, attacking a foreign country, bombarded with chem WMD's in the desert, would have responded by nuking the 5,5 million civilians living in Baghdad... You see all this like a Nintendo Game don't you ? Would the US have acted in that way, you could probably have closed the State Department due to the number of countries who would have expelled your diplomats and brooke relations.

3) This reference to 45 minutes was presented by the MI6 and was later on detailled to refer to field mortars shells. Tony Blair explicitely said to the House of Common that when the intel was presented, no one told him that this was referring to mortar shells. You do know what is the range of a mortar shell, I suppose...

4) The amount of nuclear WAPA ICBM's who were aimed at the US, Japan & the EU was all but theorical. It's a good thing that during the 40 years that the cold war lasted we didn't get neocons running the US. What's sad is that you have the privilege to excrete your BS thx to people who wisely acted in the inverse way you advocate.

5) Pure theorical supposition. Additionally, I hear spanish, english, russian, french, german, scandinavian, arab & italian on almost a daily basis when I put a foot out of my house. Does it matter ? I am happy it's that way. It's refreshing. Do you know what is cultural interaction ?

6) It would have taken much longer of course. But the earth was spinning long before the US was discovered, and will probably continue to spin long after our civilisations become extinct. Your stance is typical: 100'000 years have elapsed since Homo Sapiens, and there are still guys who are unable to get the golbal pic and believe that history is limited to the little temporal frame corresponding to their personal life...

7) In the US, fiscal years end in september. For the fiscal year 2003, the U.S. passed the $79 billion Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. For 2004 $87 billion where requested and obtained (total= 166$ billion, spent mostly on Iraq). Since 12 days, we are already under fiscal year 2005. Now what is interesting is that Bush, at the beginning, did not include any provision for Aghanistan and Iraq operations in the FY2005 budget, then later on, included a 25$ billion for this purpose in favor of the DoD (all experts agree that this sum is largely insufficient) = 191$ billion already. However, Bush plans to confront the real costs of the wars AFTER THE ELECTIONS, by submitting to the Congress another emergency supplemental appropriation, probably around January 2005...

8) Well, it's always americans that say that they help financially the EU, Inever heard the inverse, would be nice if you submit some documented references. Concerning the germans, don't worry for them. Funny how you seem to be such an authority in US military matters and ignore at the same time that most of the logistic support for your operations in the middle-east come from the Ramstein base. Finally, even if Ramstein closes, it will only affect 6000 german jobs, in a country with a population of almost 80 million...

9) Of course, of course...

10) 292'000 versus 54,6 million. It's just maths. Now what are maths ?

11) Yeah, many of these treaties condition economic help to a whole range of issues who just by coincidence require "military advisers". Genuinely interested by US presence are SK, Georgia, Philippines, Afghanistan & Irak. Economically interested are the governments of all the other ones, of course.

12) No, it's bad. But they have already won at least psychologically because the US society is traumatised. Here the cowards have confronted terrorism since decades and did not change their way of life...

13) OK, that's fair. Different perceptions.

14) Europeans interact with middle-east since Alexander the Great.

15) You think Kyoto costs less to EU nations ? The reduction quota they accepted is even percentually bigger than the one defined for the US...

You are the one calling me elitist and intellectual through your posts. Personally, I count in my friends for example, from former convicts up to an antiterrorist agent passing by astrophysicians and one religion teacher (despite being myself atheist). It takes everybody to make a world.

---

1: North Korea said Give us nuclear fuel, food, energy etc, and we promise that we won't go after nuclear weapons and we will make you look good Mr. Cinton. So HE DID. NK would NOT have been able to do ANYTHING that they did, if Clinton has not allowed us to be blackmailed.

THAT IS THE DEAD D TRUTH, no matter how you wish to spin it Nomad, or Street...

2: The use of WMD's has a very quick and efficient and GUARANTEED response from the US Nomad. It is overwhelming response, if field artillery has launched WMD's, tactical nukes, (you do know what those are? Correct?) would have been the response, not ALL of Baghdad would have glowed, but a good portion of it would have. It is called proportionate response. You know what that is too I assume? I thought you would have understood, but i guess I need to spell it out for you.

3: And no, not JUST mortar shells but Artillery shells, you know artillery shells? Do you not? Kind of like the sarin gas ones that were attempted to be used as a roadside bomb? Please Nomad, don't talk to me about the difference between mortar and artillery, I have been involved in both.

4: All those missiles were theoretical? Are you saying that the USSR did NOT have the missiles that we thought they did? That would be News to me. Theoretical, you need to go to Russian and tale a look at a few of those theoretical missiles you talk about.

I will respond to the rest later, I have an arbitration I have to work on right now.

[street228]

quote:

---

It is called proportionate response. You know what that is too I assume? I thought you would have understood, but i guess I need to spell it out for you.

---

Bush has demonstrated HIS concept of PROPORTIONATE response.

Not, a very good interpretation of such, but to each their own.

Bush "you got WMD"

Iraq " no we dont"

bush " you got 30 hours to prove you dont"

iraq " Ive told you everything, we dont have them"

Bush bombs the livin shit out of iraqi positions, killing the MAJORITY of the soldiers positioned in defence of their home town, and country.USING WMD.. BY TRUE DEFINITION OF SUCH, i might add!!

bush "Doesnt matter, if he didnt have WMD, he is gone and the world is better for it"

NOT a proportional response, but I can see how some may think the man a hero...; However, to do so, is to deny all moral and principle, by which this country is founded.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by street:

quote:

---

It is called proportionate response. You know what that is too I assume? I thought you would have understood, but i guess I need to spell it out for you.

---

Bush has demonstrated HIS concept of PROPORTIONATE response.

Not, a very good interpretation of such, but to each their own.

Bush "you got WMD"

Iraq " no we dont"

bush " you got 30 hours to prove you dont"

iraq " Ive told you everything, we dont have them"

Bush bombs the livin shit out of iraqi positions, killing the MAJORITY of the soldiers positioned in defence of their home town, and country.USING WMD.. BY TRUE DEFINITION OF SUCH, i might add!!

bush "Doesnt matter, if he didnt have WMD, he is gone and the world is better for it"

NOT a proportional response, but I can see how some may think the man a hero...; However, to do so, is to deny all moral and principle, by which this country is founded.

---

17 resolutions, stating that he must DISARM and PROVE it, he states that he has NOT disarmed, and then tries to backtrack and cannot prove that he destroyed them.

I was talking about a proportional response in regards to a WMD strike.

BUt you knew that, that was what I was talking about, you just wanted to twist it to try to make some emotional comment based on rhetoric.

Bush is a WMD, our military is a WMD, wah, wah, wah... we are killing civilians, WAH, yes, there has been some collateral damage, but the terrorists are now killing more Iraqi civilians then ON PURPOSE, then we have accidentally, but you already knew that too.

Bush is the bad guy, and NOTHING he does is right, it's all a conspiracy.

Here, let me get out my tinfoil beanie before you post again please.

[street228]

quote:

---

Bush is a WMD, our military is a WMD, wah, wah, wah... we are killing civilians, WAH, yes, there has been some collateral damage,

---

grow up and I may have an actual discussion with you..........but highly unlikely

quote:

---

Here, let me get out my tinfoil beanie before you post again please.

---

... ..and you wonder why I will not discuss your twisted presentation of issues.....jeesh!! just another example of why ....

WE HAVE NOTHING TO DISCUSS

[ 10-13-2004, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[Guest]

Time to finish up that post.

Saddam claimed that ANY WMD could be used within 45 minutes of giving the order.

That is just plain fact.

I don't care what any intelligence agency said.

Saddam had Sarin and other chemical artillery warheads, some had been shown to be destroyed, but a majority of it was still MISSING... or not been found by the inspectors.

Everyone still forgets that Iraq GAVE US a list at the end of the gulf war stating "ALL" the WMD's they had, and promising to destroy them.

THe list was not A: Complete and B: not all of the weapons on the list were ever shown to be destroyed.

SO if Saddam claimed it, and your intelligence agencies say that he might indeed be able to do it, you take it SERIOUSLY.

You cannot chance that he doesn't have them.

20/20 hindsight is WONDERFUL, but you do not chance the lives of your soldiers. PERIOD!!!

We'll start at 4: again

4:The missiles in the USSR were NOT theoritical, we agree on that, they were aimed at us, and our allies. for 40 YEARS we basically were at a standstill. That is what came of your socalled "thinking". Then, President Ronald Reagan came to power and said "Enough is enough".

We fought the cold war in a TOTALLY new and offensive way, and we destroyed the Soviet Union without firing a shot. We spent them and dared them into oblivion.

Your way went on for 40 YEARS!!! Our way took 10.

History shows that your way works only to appease and strengthen an aggressor. Our way DESTROYS the aggressor while they are still weak enough to destroy. The ONLY reason that Reagans way took 10 years, was because appeasers and peaceniks had taken 40 years and allowed the aggressor to get stronger.

I wish Patton had gotten the go ahead to invade Russia, then we wouldn't have had the cold war at all.

Now, onto 5:

NOTHING Theoretical about it, without the United States, EVERY country aligned with the allieds would have lost, that is a FACT!! Spain would have been given to Italy, China to Japan, and then when they had finally gotten around to the United state, Japan and Germany would have split us at the mississippi.

Japan made the mistake of attacking us, Germany made the mistake of declaring war on us after we declared it on Japan.

Hitler then made the HUGE mistake of turning on his ally the USSR, and turning them to our side.

NOTHING theoretical about it, if the US had NOT joined the allies, YOU would be speaking Italian right now, and been living under Italian rule. Mussolini would have won, Hitler would have won, and the Japanese would have won.

If it were NOT for the US getting involved in the war, it would have been lost by the allies. THAT IS A FACT......

6: As I said, if we had won the war, and then had walked away, you would still be trying to put it together, 60 years later. We have and had the financial might to give it a tremendous jump start.

7: As I said, when the oil starts to flow, it won't matter how much it cost. BUT, it is NOT at 200 billion yet, and won't for a while. You cannot say spent, when the money has NOT been spent.

8: We do help them financially Nomad, and there is NO way to get around that fact.

THe Ramstein air force base is our base, WE control it, etc, yes, it is used for logistics, just as other bases in the region are. We have told the Germans that we are bringing down our forces in the region, and so far they have BEGGED us NOT to do that. Why would that be? BECAUSE WE help finance the ENTIRE region around the base. and yes, there may be 6000 civilians DIRECTLY employed by the base, but you still forget everything around it, hostels, restaurants, bars, apartment complexes, etc, etc, when you put it all together, you are talking close to 250,000 people get their living either directly or indirectly from that ONE base alone!!

It's that little picture again, you see only the little things, yet you ignore the bigger picture.

9: Of course, of course? Ok, good enough.

10: Maths, well, 19 were willing to commit suicide in order to kill 3000. If they are willing to die to take thousands of innocents with them, then they can make a WHOLE lot of difference, especially when they are willing to explode a WMD and take themselves with it.

It all comes back to WMD's again, if it were not for the fact that they could take thousands and thousands with them, they would be a nuisance.

A crazy guy with a baseball bat is a nuisance, give him a tank, and he becomes a WHOLE lot more dangerous.

11: YOU NEVER give something for nothing, we are not philanthropists here. We need something for our security, we will pay you for it, but it ain't gonna be free.

12: Yep, and the terrorists still existed, they were able to get thier financial networks together, train, get a base of operations, build and buy weapons, plan massive strikes. Yeah, that worked.....

13: good enough

14: Yes, you have, but the Muslims are coming to you now, and they are NOT coming into your country and acclimating and changing to fit your culture, they are coming in and changing your culture to fit theirs. If you are blind to that, well, then it's too late for you anyway.

15: Indeed, and your socialist lite countries are willing to take the hit. We aren't and won't.

Just because you decide to jump off a bridge does not make the US morally obligated to jump off after you.

Are we going to start dropping occupations of people that we know now.

You really don't want to play that with me.

And if you feel that you are somehow not an intellectual elitist, then I apologize for the label.

But people that spout stuff like this are the ones that sit on some college campus somewhere, look at their great theories, but fail to look at the history of those theories in the REAL world.

I look at the real world first, then look at the theories that caused the problems and toss them out the nearest windows as nonsense.

You like your theories, but they are failures, and have been failures throughout history.

We are trying the tried and true formula, if someone attacks you, YOU KILL THEM, WHEREVER they are. you do not help them, you do not feel sorry for them, you do not get them on their feet because they are poor, you do not get them counseling because they are angry.

YOU KILL THEM, it is the tried and true method that has ALWAYS worked throughout history.

You terrorize them to a point where they are more afraid of what you might do, then plan on doing something to you.

Osama thought that we were weak, a little missile here for an attack, run away when some soldier died, he attacks us in a large enough way, we would fold up our tents and go home.

Sorry Osama, didn't happen, and it won't as long as we have Bush in power. so that is where I will do my best to make sure he stays.