when is the TRUTH gonna be known....

Message boards : Politics : when is the TRUTH gonna be known....
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 736326 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 3:00:10 UTC - in response to Message 736132.  

I wouldn't stay where you are, I would move as fast as I could to Australia or Canada.

Odd that you didn't mention America... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 736326 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 736346 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 5:04:00 UTC - in response to Message 736143.  

Perhaps instead of praying for my soul, you should be praying for a little common sense.

For a 'working man', you sure do seem to have a lot of time on your hands... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 736346 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736355 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 6:20:16 UTC - in response to Message 732468.  

[quotewe have all seen the UFO's and we all know that they are being kept from the publics view (for whatever reason)[/quote]

We do? We all know that? I feel left out.


but yet, here we sit still "searching" for extra terrestrial intelligence. Ummmmmm what gives?


If you can prove it to the world that'd be just jim dandy lovely. Can't wait for your next paranoid bit.


I mean, I am happy to help with this project (whatever you guys are doing with the actual info) but, society is not as dumb and "out of the loop" as the government thinks. I just think it's well past time that the truth be known.


You know what the government 'thinks' ? Which parts are keeping it secret from all of us? The super secret double ultra hyper alien infiltrated unknown intelligence agencies? The bases underneath the oceans staffed by American scientists perhaps?




Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 736355 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 944
Credit: 52,956,491
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 736441 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 12:37:26 UTC - in response to Message 736246.  

That would be because your opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to my or my family's day-to-day activities. Common sense would have clued you in to that fact.


Do YOU have common sense? You surprise me if the answer is "yes." If you have a little somewhere in your small arms cabinet, them stop responding so easily to being wound up by sane people.

I'm glad, though, that you have some activities other than trying to shock the outside world with your bilious views on life.

Have you tried setting up a religious cult? All you need is your overweening belief in yourself. You might get some followers that would value what you have to say. Me, I'm just dazzled by the brilliance of your mediaeval opinions.

I do begin to wonder if, in fact, you are actually a left wing politician just trying to shock and awe people into revulsion at what you claim to stand for.

ID: 736441 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 736451 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 13:41:57 UTC - in response to Message 736255.  
Last modified: 9 Apr 2008, 13:51:21 UTC

I actually fully well know the concept of duty, Mr. BrainSmashR.

But - given my conviction that any INVASION (which actually is the case in Iraq) is always wrong no matter what excuse is been told - I do not think that it can be counted as being the DUTY of any soldier in any army of the world to take part in invasions, to take part in wars started by his own country, to "defend" stolen property (and military camps outside the own country borders are on stolen property as long as the land they're built on is not been bought or leased, and even then these camps are supposed to be under the law of that country and not under the military law of the invading army, since they are no Embassies), to shoot at people who are obviously civilians, to obey any orders making himself a war criminal, to obey any order except actually to DEFEND his own country inside and closely around its own borders IF it is attacked by another country.

And we all know that the USA have never been attacked by Iraq, as they have never been attacked by Afghanistan, by Kuwait, by Grenada, Cuba (see Bay of Pigs), Vietnam, Korea or any other country they invaded more or less successful since after WW2.


BTW: in my opinion, "ENEMY" is a product of propaganda. A country once been your ally can suddenly be your enemy just because your government sez so. Your neighbor can become your enemy because your media sez so. Sheer propaganda.
Did you know that there are still peoples (though in the so-called "un-civilized" areas of the world) who don't even have an idea of the concept of an "enemy", so much so that they don't even have a word for that in their vocabulary?
Account frozen...
ID: 736451 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 736459 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 13:57:27 UTC - in response to Message 736441.  
Last modified: 9 Apr 2008, 13:58:38 UTC

That would be because your opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to my or my family's day-to-day activities. Common sense would have clued you in to that fact.


Do YOU have common sense? You surprise me if the answer is "yes." If you have a little somewhere in your small arms cabinet, them stop responding so easily to being wound up by sane people.

I'm glad, though, that you have some activities other than trying to shock the outside world with your bilious views on life.

Have you tried setting up a religious cult? All you need is your overweening belief in yourself. You might get some followers that would value what you have to say. Me, I'm just dazzled by the brilliance of your mediaeval opinions.

I do begin to wonder if, in fact, you are actually a left wing politician just trying to shock and awe people into revulsion at what you claim to stand for.

As far as I can tell, after having crossed horns with him and others here for quite a while, BrainSmashR seems to be quite the opposite of left-wing But I'm curious to see what he will say to your assumption).
Account frozen...
ID: 736459 · Report as offensive
Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7404
Credit: 97,085
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736586 - Posted: 9 Apr 2008, 21:59:16 UTC

Thorin doesn't understand the moral just war argument of philosophy. How could he? He doesn't regard liberation from tyranny as a just aim for conflict. After all he advocates tyranny AS A POLICY readily and systematically day in and day out.


Of course he can't honestly advocate something that's against himself.

I'll give him credit that I give to most fascists and their advocates; He's got integrity. He believes in his dictatorships through thick and thin.

Is this the point where I'm supposed to put in a winky thing orrr.....awwww...I forget.
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

ID: 736586 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 736690 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 2:27:51 UTC - in response to Message 736586.  

He doesn't regard liberation from tyranny as a just aim for conflict.

Hitler thought of himself as a 'liberator' too... ;)

(Why can't people ever see themselves for what they truly are?)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 736690 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736700 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 2:49:01 UTC - in response to Message 736441.  

That would be because your opinions are quite irrelevant when it comes to my or my family's day-to-day activities. Common sense would have clued you in to that fact.


Do YOU have common sense? You surprise me if the answer is "yes." If you have a little somewhere in your small arms cabinet, them stop responding so easily to being wound up by sane people.

I'm glad, though, that you have some activities other than trying to shock the outside world with your bilious views on life.

Have you tried setting up a religious cult? All you need is your overweening belief in yourself. You might get some followers that would value what you have to say. Me, I'm just dazzled by the brilliance of your mediaeval opinions.

I do begin to wonder if, in fact, you are actually a left wing politician just trying to shock and awe people into revulsion at what you claim to stand for.


lol


ID: 736700 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736705 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 2:58:54 UTC - in response to Message 736451.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 3:35:24 UTC

I actually fully well know the concept of duty, Mr. BrainSmashR.

But - given my conviction that any INVASION (which actually is the case in Iraq) is always wrong no matter what excuse is been told - I do not think that it can be counted as being the DUTY of any soldier in any army of the world to take part in invasions, to take part in wars started by his own country, to "defend" stolen property (and military camps outside the own country borders are on stolen property as long as the land they're built on is not been bought or leased, and even then these camps are supposed to be under the law of that country and not under the military law of the invading army, since they are no Embassies), to shoot at people who are obviously civilians, to obey any orders making himself a war criminal, to obey any order except actually to DEFEND his own country inside and closely around its own borders IF it is attacked by another country.

Well the funny thing about that is your military opinions, as a civilian, are quite irrelevant. Likewise, in the military, your opinion only matters according to your rank.

While you may think you understand the concept of duty, it is clear that you do not...


And we all know that the USA have never been attacked by Iraq, as they have never been attacked by Afghanistan, by Kuwait, by Grenada, Cuba (see Bay of Pigs), Vietnam, Korea or any other country they invaded more or less successful since after WW2.

You're correct. Those were/are attempts at stemming the tides of Communism, drugs, and terrorism....you'll get no apologies from me.

You see, while you THINK your ramblings above show you to be a sympathetic individual. It really shows you to be a selfish individual, only concerned with your own thoughts and opinions regardless of the greater good.

You say we are war mongers. I say more airplanes have been hijacked by middle easterners than Americans. You worry about the number of civilian deaths in The War on Terror, I say there are middle easter suicide bombers intentionally targeting civilian locations than American. You say you can't see what makes us better...I don't really care.


BTW: in my opinion, "ENEMY" is a product of propaganda. A country once been your ally can suddenly be your enemy just because your government sez so. Your neighbor can become your enemy because your media sez so. Sheer propaganda.


That's really funny coming from a German...

Did you know that there are still peoples (though in the so-called "un-civilized" areas of the world) who don't even have an idea of the concept of an "enemy", so much so that they don't even have a word for that in their vocabulary?


The reason those areas are so poor and "uncivilized" is because they lack resources desired by the outside world. Let them get something worth having, then, someone else will try to take it from them.


ID: 736705 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 736739 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 5:33:26 UTC
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 6:01:03 UTC

If the US was invaded by a foreign power (and there is always a "just" excuse for invasion), I presume that every American would take up arms to defend their country or resist in some way, even to the extent of strapping on a C4 jacket or loading up their car with explosives and nails and parking it outside a base of the invading force. Some Americans might even try to attack embassies and installations of the invading country in other parts of the world. The invading country would of course brand these as "terrorist" attacks and use them as a further excuse for the invasion and maintaining their presence in the US in order to "fight terrorism".

Now imagine what would happen if due to the breakdown of law and order caused by the invasion, the Confederacy decided to "rise again" and settle some old scores with the North and Texas decided it once again wanted to be an independant republic. Wouldn't you finish up with a multi-cornered war where alliances between the different interest groups are formed and broken on a daily basis and nobody really knew who they were fighting at any particular time.

I have a pretty good idea of how the media in the invading country would paint the scenario to their population and the rest of the world.

A major part of the problem is that while the US knows how to invade, they don't know how to conquer or occupy. If the US had declared martial law with a dusk to dawn curfew and a shoot on sight policy for curfew breakers when they marched into Bagdhad it would have saved them a lot of casualties and grief down the track. A picture that stands out in my mind is one of a US soldier, rifle in hand, standing in the street looking the other way while an appliance store is being looted behind him. It was this kind of neglect that turned a lot of Iraqis who initially welcomed the invasion against the US. You can't tear something down without putting an alternative in place

Why was there no attempt made to keep law and order there instead of letting the whole country drop into chaos ? It's the chaos that allowed the tin pot "warlords" to form their own militias and create empires of two city blocks. Who is supplying these militias with arms ? I would bet that half the rounds fired at US troops are either made in America or a close "ally". Buts that's capitalism and that's what we're there to support.

I have no beef against the troops on the ground in Iraq, they're only trying to do their jobs and stay alive. I also believe what happens on the battlefield should stay on the battlefield, nobody can be rational in the heat of a firefight or after seeing one of their comrades killed. It's all too easy for someone safely sitting in their loungeroom thousands of miles away to tut tut about "atrocities".

The problem is with the half-assed way the leaders and strategists of "The Coalition of the Willing" planned and carried out the entire operation. There was absolutely no planning as to what would happen once things had got past the invasion stage and were moving on to *occupation*. That is the main cause of the current situation there. Someone should have read up on how General Macarthur ran Japan after VP day. Didn't he have the nous to keep sevices and infrastructure operating and maintain order ?

Brodo
ID: 736739 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 736765 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 8:12:42 UTC - in response to Message 736705.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 8:13:44 UTC

BrainSmashR wrote:

BTW: in my opinion, "ENEMY" is a product of propaganda. A country once been your ally can suddenly be your enemy just because your government sez so. Your neighbor can become your enemy because your media sez so. Sheer propaganda.


That's really funny coming from a German...

You may doubt it, but even Germans can change their minds during time :P

Brodo in Message 736739 wrote:
I have no beef against the troops on the ground in Iraq, they're only trying to do their jobs and stay alive

Well, my beef against the troops is only that they are and have been misled enough to voluntarily obey the order to go there. The real beef I do have is against the warmongers in the Pentagon who sent them there in the first place.

BrainSmashR wrote:
And we all know that the USA have never been attacked by Iraq, as they have never been attacked by Afghanistan, by Kuwait, by Grenada, Cuba (see Bay of Pigs), Vietnam, Korea or any other country they invaded more or less successful since after WW2.

You're correct. Those were/are attempts at stemming the tides of Communism, [...]
Oh, the bad Communism, the destroyer of the world! LOL
Did the big business fear for their ever-growing profits and returns which would be nationalized in a communist country? There you see again that wars are and have been started just for the the sake of profit.

[...], only concerned with your own thoughts and opinions regardless of the greater good.

The greater good would be what is good for the majority of the people instead of the bank accounts of a rich and mighty minority.
All the billions spent for the war could better have been spent for education and health-care, or for other social things: That would have been "for the greater good" - but those things don't produce any profit, they bring no immediate financial return, so they are considered less important by the people of Big Business.
Account frozen...
ID: 736765 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736805 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 11:06:54 UTC - in response to Message 736739.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 11:29:34 UTC

If the US was invaded by a foreign power (and there is always a "just" excuse for invasion), I presume that every American would take up arms to defend their country or resist in some way, even to the extent of strapping on a C4 jacket or loading up their car with explosives and nails and parking it outside a base of the invading force. Some Americans might even try to attack embassies and installations of the invading country in other parts of the world. The invading country would of course brand these as "terrorist" attacks and use them as a further excuse for the invasion and maintaining their presence in the US in order to "fight terrorism".

Perhaps you should pick up a history book rather than basing your opinions on idle speculation.

Now imagine what would happen if due to the breakdown of law and order caused by the invasion, the Confederacy decided to "rise again" and settle some old scores with the North and Texas decided it once again wanted to be an independant republic. Wouldn't you finish up with a multi-cornered war where alliances between the different interest groups are formed and broken on a daily basis and nobody really knew who they were fighting at any particular time.

I have a pretty good idea of how the media in the invading country would paint the scenario to their population and the rest of the world.

Of course you have a good idea...this is pure fantasy created by your own imagination and not based on one shred of evidence.

A major part of the problem is that while the US knows how to invade, they don't know how to conquer or occupy. If the US had declared martial law with a dusk to dawn curfew and a shoot on sight policy for curfew breakers when they marched into Bagdhad it would have saved them a lot of casualties and grief down the track. A picture that stands out in my mind is one of a US soldier, rifle in hand, standing in the street looking the other way while an appliance store is being looted behind him. It was this kind of neglect that turned a lot of Iraqis who initially welcomed the invasion against the US. You can't tear something down without putting an alternative in place

You seemed to have missed the part where our intention was never to "conquer" Iraq.

Why was there no attempt made to keep law and order there instead of letting the whole country drop into chaos ? It's the chaos that allowed the tin pot "warlords" to form their own militias and create empires of two city blocks. Who is supplying these militias with arms ? I would bet that half the rounds fired at US troops are either made in America or a close "ally". Buts that's capitalism and that's what we're there to support.

Actually their preferred weapon, after IED's which can be made from basically anything, is the AK-47 and it was originally created by the Russians. While there is no doubt that we have supplied arms to our former allies, you seem to be forgetting a rather key element. The reliability of the AK-47 in extreme environments...like the desert for instance.

I have no beef against the troops on the ground in Iraq, they're only trying to do their jobs and stay alive. I also believe what happens on the battlefield should stay on the battlefield, nobody can be rational in the heat of a firefight or after seeing one of their comrades killed. It's all too easy for someone safely sitting in their loungeroom thousands of miles away to tut tut about "atrocities".

Agreed

The problem is with the half-assed way the leaders and strategists of "The Coalition of the Willing" planned and carried out the entire operation. There was absolutely no planning as to what would happen once things had got past the invasion stage and were moving on to *occupation*. That is the main cause of the current situation there. Someone should have read up on how General Macarthur ran Japan after VP day. Didn't he have the nous to keep sevices and infrastructure operating and maintain order ?

Brodo

Again I agree to an extent, the "flaw" here is that we didn't overwhelm the middle east and destroy their will to fight...but lot's of people don't see the silver linings hidden in mushroom clouds.


ID: 736805 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736810 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 11:23:32 UTC - in response to Message 736765.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 11:52:58 UTC

BrainSmashR wrote:

BTW: in my opinion, "ENEMY" is a product of propaganda. A country once been your ally can suddenly be your enemy just because your government sez so. Your neighbor can become your enemy because your media sez so. Sheer propaganda.


That's really funny coming from a German...

You may doubt it, but even Germans can change their minds during time :P

Still does not negate the fact that your ally can become your enemy of their own freewill. I hate to continue using the history of your own country against you, but what exactly did Poland do to prompt an invasion by Germany...other than simply existing.

Brodo in Message 736739 wrote:
I have no beef against the troops on the ground in Iraq, they're only trying to do their jobs and stay alive

Well, my beef against the troops is only that they are and have been misled enough to voluntarily obey the order to go there. The real beef I do have is against the warmongers in the Pentagon who sent them there in the first place.


So your implication here is that YOU are smarter than EVERY member of the American armed forces, because they can't see through the "veil of deception".

Get a clue, buddy

BrainSmashR wrote:
And we all know that the USA have never been attacked by Iraq, as they have never been attacked by Afghanistan, by Kuwait, by Grenada, Cuba (see Bay of Pigs), Vietnam, Korea or any other country they invaded more or less successful since after WW2.

You're correct. Those were/are attempts at stemming the tides of Communism, [...]
Oh, the bad Communism, the destroyer of the world! LOL

Well let's see. I believe China is the only Communist country left that could be considered a superpower....basically making Communisum a 99% failure on a global scale. But economics aside, have you heard anything in the news lately about how they treat their population?

Did the big business fear for their ever-growing profits and returns which would be nationalized in a communist country? There you see again that wars are and have been started just for the the sake of profit.

Oh, I see, the citizens of Tibet want more money, not political freedom.....LOL

[...], only concerned with your own thoughts and opinions regardless of the greater good.

The greater good would be what is good for the majority of the people instead of the bank accounts of a rich and mighty minority.

Well, I suspect there are more Americans on the planet than radical muslims...were you actually going somewhere with this or demonstrating that once again, you are quite clueless?

All the billions spent for the war could better have been spent for education and health-care, or for other social things: That would have been "for the greater good" - but those things don't produce any profit, they bring no immediate financial return, so they are considered less important by the people of Big Business.

We already have to many social programs on the books.


As this illustration clearly shows, 60% of our budget is spent on various forms of welfare while only 20% of our budget is spent on the military...but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.


ID: 736810 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 736845 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 12:56:22 UTC - in response to Message 736805.  

G'Day Smasher

Perhaps you should pick up a history book rather than basing your opinions on idle speculation.


Idle speculation ? I don't think so, IIRC it's nearly 250years since the US last had foreign troops on it's soil in any significant numbers and at that time a large percentage of the American population were supporting the invaders weren't they ? But that was a long time ago and in these modern times I would say that the citizens of the US are no different to the citizens of any other country

Of course you have a good idea...this is pure fantasy created by your own imagination and not based on one shred of evidence.


It's not quite a fantasy, it's an educated guess based on seeing how citizens of other countries react in the same circumstances and when it comes to the crunch, as I said above, Americans are no different to the citizens of any other country

You seemed to have missed the part where our intention was never to "conquer" Iraq.


OK, Lets just say the US just wanted to bring Iraq into their "sphere of influence"


Again I agree to an extent, the "flaw" here is that we didn't overwhelm the middle east and destroy their will to fight...but lot's of people don't see the silver linings hidden in mushroom clouds.


Arrr but that would have negated one of the major aims of the whole shebang. If you nuke the middle east you take a large percentage of the world's oil off the market for whatever period the half life of radioactive sand is. Even George Dubya isn't silly enough to crap in his own nest that badly. Besides it would aggravate the Saudis and upset the Israelis.

You are also forgetting that nuking the middle east would not neccessarily destroy their will to fight, the only reason it worked with Japan was because their resources were just about exhausted anyway. Even GWB realises it would make the rest of the world very, very nervous. Nervous enough perhaps for some other country to launch a pre-emptive against the US. They wouldn't win in the end of course but neither would America, it brings to mind Einstein's comment about WWIV being fought with sticks and rocks.

Regards
Brodo
ID: 736845 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 736887 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 14:36:31 UTC
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 14:37:28 UTC

BrainSmashR wrote:
As this illustration clearly shows, 60% of our budget is spent on various forms of welfare while only 20% of our budget is spent on the military...but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.


Hm... though it reads like some republican excuse, let me quote one sentence, which seems to contradict to BS's statement
In 2006, military spending (including the war in Iraq) totaled $520 billion, slightly less than Social Security
(link provided by me)
Only ONE year in that totally unnecessary war did cost "slightly less than" the already quite low financial support for all needy people in the States altogether? Imagine what could have done with this money if it were poured out into social welfare instead of raising the profits of the weapon producing industries which earn their billions by producing more costs for funerals, for medical treatments, for disability payments which then also have to be paid by Social Security!
Account frozen...
ID: 736887 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 May 99
Posts: 944
Credit: 52,956,491
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 736913 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 16:04:38 UTC - in response to Message 736810.  

Oh, I see, the citizens of Tibet want more money, not political freedom.....LOL


Wow, you actually care about the people of Tibet? That is a country rather a long way from you and a people I should not have suspected you of knowing anything at all about and caring less. You have a heart somewhere for someone other than yourself after all?

ID: 736913 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 736997 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 19:57:36 UTC - in response to Message 736845.  

G'Day Smasher

Perhaps you should pick up a history book rather than basing your opinions on idle speculation.


Idle speculation ? I don't think so, IIRC it's nearly 250years since the US last had foreign troops on it's soil in any significant numbers and at that time a large percentage of the American population were supporting the invaders weren't they ? But that was a long time ago and in these modern times I would say that the citizens of the US are no different to the citizens of any other country

Actually Santa Anna attacked the Alamo with more than 6000 troops in 1836. According to my math, that's considerably less than 200 years ago. As I stated before, you should pick up a history book.

Of course you have a good idea...this is pure fantasy created by your own imagination and not based on one shred of evidence.


It's not quite a fantasy, it's an educated guess based on seeing how citizens of other countries react in the same circumstances and when it comes to the crunch, as I said above, Americans are no different to the citizens of any other country

An educated guess based on a fictional situation


You seemed to have missed the part where our intention was never to "conquer" Iraq.


OK, Lets just say the US just wanted to bring Iraq into their "sphere of influence"

How about we say our intention was to dispose a tyrannical leader and keep forces on the ground until the fledgling democracy could defend itself.
[quote]
[quote]Again I agree to an extent, the "flaw" here is that we didn't overwhelm the middle east and destroy their will to fight...but lot's of people don't see the silver linings hidden in mushroom clouds.


Arrr but that would have negated one of the major aims of the whole shebang. If you nuke the middle east you take a large percentage of the world's oil off the market for whatever period the half life of radioactive sand is. Even George Dubya isn't silly enough to crap in his own nest that badly. Besides it would aggravate the Saudis and upset the Israelis.


Very few plans are perfect and without flaw. Your contention was that absolutely no planning as to what would happen once things had got past the invasion was the flaw. I merely pointed out that you were incorrect in that assumption

You are also forgetting that nuking the middle east would not neccessarily destroy their will to fight, the only reason it worked with Japan was because their resources were just about exhausted anyway. Even GWB realises it would make the rest of the world very, very nervous. Nervous enough perhaps for some other country to launch a pre-emptive against the US. They wouldn't win in the end of course but neither would America, it brings to mind Einstein's comment about WWIV being fought with sticks and rocks.

Regards
Brodo


Well I've spent the last 30+ years witnessing the consequences of not utilizing our full military strength against the terrorist tactics of the middle east. You'll just have to forgive me as seeing the intentional targeting of our civilian population as a pre-emptive strike against us.



ID: 736997 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 737001 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 20:04:00 UTC - in response to Message 736887.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 20:10:51 UTC

BrainSmashR wrote:
As this illustration clearly shows, 60% of our budget is spent on various forms of welfare while only 20% of our budget is spent on the military...but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.


Hm... though it reads like some republican excuse, let me quote one sentence, which seems to contradict to BS's statement
In 2006, military spending (including the war in Iraq) totaled $520 billion, slightly less than Social Security
(link provided by me)
Only ONE year in that totally unnecessary war did cost "slightly less than" the already quite low financial support for all needy people in the States altogether? Imagine what could have done with this money if it were poured out into social welfare instead of raising the profits of the weapon producing industries which earn their billions by producing more costs for funerals, for medical treatments, for disability payments which then also have to be paid by Social Security!


Social Security is but one tiny aspect of the problem known collectively as "welfare" (a one way exchange of goods and services).

As I indicated earlier, due to your bias, you seek out ONLY the information which supports your opinion, thus you "apparently" missed the end of the second paragraph. Let me take this opportunity to rectify the situation:

In fiscal 2006, the federal government spent almost $2.7 trillion. Social Security ($544 billion), Medicare ($374 billion) and Medicaid ($181 billion) dominated. There was $199 billion more for payments to the poor, including the earned-income tax credit and food stamps, among others.


ID: 737001 · Report as offensive
Profile BrainSmashR
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Apr 02
Posts: 1772
Credit: 384,573
RAC: 0
United States
Message 737004 - Posted: 10 Apr 2008, 20:07:47 UTC - in response to Message 736913.  
Last modified: 10 Apr 2008, 20:14:01 UTC

Oh, I see, the citizens of Tibet want more money, not political freedom.....LOL


Wow, you actually care about the people of Tibet? That is a country rather a long way from you and a people I should not have suspected you of knowing anything at all about and caring less. You have a heart somewhere for someone other than yourself after all?


Neither laughing in the face of zealots like you, nor placing the interests of my country above all others, by no stretch of the imagination, means I am unaware of the plights faced by others.

I do find it interesting, that as a non-christian population, that you don't deem their situation to be their own fault caused by their worship of "false idols"....or do you?


ID: 737004 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

Message boards : Politics : when is the TRUTH gonna be known....


 
©2025 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.