General Hawley's speech

[Saint]

Continually repeating the same actions hoping for a different result [is] insanity

That is not always true, sometimes if you repeat the same action looking for a different result you are looking for chaos patterns. No matter how solid a physics law seems there is always that one instant of chaos that can throw off the whole thing.

[SilentCacophony]

Originally posted by Saint
I am a BOHICA follower and everyone in BOHICA 0wnz j00.

Awww, that's so cute. You're like a little kid following his older brother around, who doesn't really want you anywhere near him. I had guys like you following my clan around. I just blocked them. Course I guess if you like it when they grab you by the shoulders and whisper BOHICA in your ear....

[Saint]

Ummm I just have a lot of respect for everyone in the clan and I would be honored if I were nominated to be in BOHICA. :D

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
Lol, well if they all left, and they haven't attacked as of yet, then I've won right?
On top of that, the UN hasn't given them the go ahead, France anf Germany are sleeping together, Canada is opposed (so no, you can't have our three warships), people are protesting all over, and if anything is going to happen, we're just going to get more inspectors in there.Let me grab this since I feel left out. :tear: Uh.. no. Last man standing rules only count when you're the last man standing. And you know that you are the last man standing when the thread disappears off the first page with your post being the last one. :)
I believe that the US is only waiting for the UN to give them the go ahead for two reasons. One is that it simply makes the US look better in the world's view if they have it. Two is because Blair told his country's citizen's that he would not send troops to war without either a UN resolution or an irresponsible veto of one.

People keep pointing out the 100,000 protesters. There are over 260 million people in the US. The protesters are less that 0.5% of the population. I'm very glad the leaders of the country are not allowing themselves to be persuaded by that small of a percentage.

From a military point of view, I've always felt the U.S. should just go ahead and attack, since they've claimed they were going to with the support of the UN or not, right? What is the point of talking about a pre-emptive strike for a year? That's not very "pre-emptive" is it? Actually, anytime one side strikes before the other does, it is pre-emptive. So the US could wait until an hour before Saddam finally got the weapons and opportunity to attack and their attack would still be pre-emptive.

[SilentCacophony]

Originally posted by Saint
That is not always true, sometimes if you repeat the same action looking for a different result you are looking for chaos patterns. No matter how solid a physics law seems there is always that one instant of chaos that can throw off the whole thing.

Damn, you're talking back to one of your BOHICA idols and taking my side? That's like an act of treason, is it not? Hmmm, maybe you're coming to the dark side.....

[Saint]

I wasn't talking back to him, I was kinda bored so I thought I would throw in a comment about chaos. You can continually repeat the same actions hoping for a different result and not be crazy. We are trying to beat it into your head that you are an idiot, and we are hoping for a different result, so maybe we are all insane.

[mistled]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
I think he was implying a gay joke. Yeah, I know. But since he repeatedly claimed to be above insults unless insulted first, I chose to stay with the idea of it being merely a joke and play along.

[SilentCacophony]

Technically yes, but I only see it as a first strike. pre-emptive I see as them completely blindsiding them from left field, like if Canada were to attack Turkey and rename it Chicken.

As for there being so many people in the states that didn't protest, as you can tell I'm against it, and I thought it was too cold to go outside, lol. I don't think walking on the street with a sign would accomplish that much anyways.

What I'd LIKE to see, is reverse protesting for once. WTF is that called, otesting? detesting? amatuertesting? Well whatever, I think everyone who supports the war, and supports Bush, should go out and march with signs of approval.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
Damn, you're talking back to one of your BOHICA idols and taking my side? That's like an act of treason, is it not? Hmmm, maybe you're coming to the dark side..... We like when people speak their minds. As long as people are intelligent about it, we don't care if you agree with us on everything. Besides, if you agreed with all the members on everything, you would have to believe everything, since we have conservatives, liberals, and one who is "apparently socialist" among us.

[Saint]

I wouldn't mess with Turkey.... Gravy and Mashed Potatoes have thier back, and you do not want to mess with those two.

[SilentCacophony]

Yes you are all insane, but your the kind of guy I'd want on my side Saint (pity you've already allied with the NC). I don't want people who'll whine that there's no way they can get into a base and just give up, I want brain dead morons like you who'll keep hitting their head on that wall until you get in there.

The 6th Commandment of SpecWar is:

Thou hast not to like it - thou hast just to do it

[Saint]

That was a quick humor to see if I could settle this thread. Can we just call it a draw?? Please I just want this war to stop :tear:

[Saint]

I am actually not a brain dead moron, I am a self-proclaimed genious. :D :rofl:

[SilentCacophony]

Who's the socialist? This guy looks pretty social :party:

[SilentCacophony]

Damn, my first attempt at one of the other smiley faces and it backfired. Now I know why the colon wasn't there party:

Please tell me you misspelled genius on purpose, cause that makes it funny. Otherwise it makes you look dumb. Example:

"I am so smart, S-M-R-T, I mean S-M-A-R-T"
-Homer

That's funny :D

[Lexington_Steele]

Well I see that there is onyl one side in this argument and that is the flaming side. I am bowing out of this one:
http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/threadeject-Phinius.jpg

[Saint]

Yes you jackass I spelled genius wrong on purpose. Now please can we just end this now? I hate wars.

[SilentCacophony]

As for ending this, if you ask me it's already ended. These kinds of arguments don't end. It's an argument of opinions, and your opinion isn't going to change mine, and vice versa. Sure some facts were involved, (and NO, I still don't feel Japan was given a chance to surrender, nor do I even feel the first A-Bomb was even necessary), but other than that, it's always been about our opinions.

Me = against war, them = for war. Me+them = Forum war, in which case I guess I lost :( But U.S. still hasn't gone at Iraq, so in the meantime, I'm winning.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
Technically yes, but I only see it as a first strike. pre-emptive I see as them completely blindsiding them from left field, like if Canada were to attack Turkey and rename it Chicken.
Pre-emptive merely means "marked by the seizing of the initiative." Anything that is done that dictates where and how the war is fought is pre-emptive. If the US attacks first, it will determine how and where the war is fought, not Saddam. This in itself makes any strike by the US pre-emptive.

As for there being so many people in the states that didn't protest, as you can tell I'm against it, and I thought it was too cold to go outside, lol. I don't think walking on the street with a sign would accomplish that much anyways.

What I'd LIKE to see, is reverse protesting for once. WTF is that called, otesting? detesting? amatuertesting? Well whatever, I think everyone who supports the war, and supports Bush, should go out and march with signs of approval. Didn't you state that you are Canadian?? Why should the US officials care if you protested or not since you're not a citizen?? I'm sure there were people that stated home because it was cold or whatever, but even if the numbers were tem times higher, the percentage of the population would still be less than 0.5%. (My numbers were incorrect earlier. 100,000 is closer to 0.05%, not 0.5%.)

I don't, in all honesty, see the point in reverse protesting. If you agree with the way a politician operates, you reelect them. It's a simple process. You can send them letters if you like, which is what I think you should do when you don't like things also. Nothing persuades people more than standing around yelling bad slogans, let me tell you.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
Who's the socialist? This guy looks pretty social :party: The "apparent socialist" isn't posting to this thread. :)

[SilentCacophony]

A) pre-emptive strikes are banned by the UN, as I stated earlier. You can only attack when attacked, but the US doesn't care about that. No one else seems to care either (I don't much either, though it's a point I like to argue when people argue that Saddam goes against UN sanctions)

B) there was a LOT more than 100, 000. That was just in NY alone, and I think it turned out to be considerably more than that. That was just the initial guessed amount that was going to show. I missed the counts of everywhere the next day, but got some of them.

You said the US wants the backing of the UN, so that they keep a better image in the world. In that case, don't you think they'd care about the millions protesting in Canada, the million that protested in Rome and Britain and one other (I think it was in spain). And the hundreds of thousands in many more eastern countries?

[Confectrix]

Silent:

Winning, but not for long.

We are poised to strike. We will only allow so many U.N. inspections to occur. The time will come when the order will be given. The order will be given by Saddam himself. To cooperate or not to cooperate; that is the question.

This nation, our nation; is intently focused, unwaveringly ready, and earnest in efforts to strike the heel of the Iraqi regime.

If they do not comply; they will fall.

[SilentCacophony]

They might, they might not. I still haven't seen no proof that Saddam even has these weapons (not saying that he doesn't), and if he had, then I think the U.N. would have given the go ahead.

You say that the US will go even if the UN doesn't give them the word, as is the impression I've always had. This always leads me to wonder, how long are they going to give him? It's been what, 8 years since the gulf war ended? Are they going to give him another 8 years? All Saddam has to do is bide his time until the next election, and wait for a new party to get in.

Bush shouldn't even be president right now though. Gore got over 50% of the votes, and yet he didn't become president. I thought America was a democracy.

[SilentCacophony]

Lmao, this thread alone has put me up to a Veteran. I turned to a soldier this morning, and arguing on this tonight I guess I made another 50 posts. At least I got to find out about some more info on stuff. That site on the US/UN embargo on Iraq was pretty horrifying, and I'm even more adamant on my position about how wrong the A-Bomb was now.

[Confectrix]

Silent

If twenty million protested; it would matter little.

War is inevitable. Protestation is too little, too late. We must uphold U.N. sanctions and security council resoultions.

If we do not then the United Nations is irrelevant. Consequently, the U.S. would withdraw from membership. The insititution would rot to nothing.

This is bigger than Iraq. You have no idea.

[Confectrix]

Silent:

It matter not if Saddam has weapons. He is in material breach of U.N. security resoultion 1441. We must ensure resolutions are upheld. The insitiution will become nothing more than a paper tiger otherwise.

He is in violation of Gulf Treaty. We have the right to end cease-fire with Iraq and demand he confine within the limits of that treaty.

He is in violation. We have been patient. It is time to confront the enmey we have put off for so long. It is up to him for compliance.

[SilentCacophony]

If you must uphold UN sanctions, and wish to maintain the UN's relevancy, then wouldn't attacking without their consent, as you've said the US will do if they don't receive it, won't that make the UN irrelevant like that? If the US ignores the decision of the UN, who's to stop the next country? If that happens, the UN will become as defuct as the old League of Nations. Already there are problems in the NATO alliance as well. I see bad times coming, and it's going to be over Saddam, not because of him.

[SilentCacophony]

um......wha? You're saying if Saddam doesn't even have weapons you should go attack him? Care to fill me in on this?

[Confectrix]

Silent:

We are upholding UN sanctions. We contribute the most to that body. We must enforce resolution 1441 as well as Gulf Treaty. He must comply; or fall.

The US will attack to protect US interests. Our interest is the relevancy of the UN amoung other things.

If we do not act; the UN is more useless. We must enforce its agenda.

[Confectrix]

Read resoultion 1441 as well as the entire Gulf Treaty. By the very fact he has weapons development programs and weapons unaccounted for brings him in material breach of both documents.

He has weapons. He's developing. Remeber, the US gave only some evidence at the UN. We have lots more.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
A) pre-emptive strikes are banned by the UN, as I stated earlier. You can only attack when attacked, but the US doesn't care about that. No one else seems to care either (I don't much either, though it's a point I like to argue when people argue that Saddam goes against UN sanctions) How technical do you want to get about this?? This began with the resolutions Saddam signed to end the gulf war. Saddam has been breaking those resolutions for years now. The US attacking would not be a pre-emptive strike as specified illegal by the UN. It would merely be a continuation of the previous conflict, which was begun anew by Saddam's breaking the resolutions that he signed. The way I meant it is pre-emptive is as it directly affects the current situation militarily, but as far as the rules go, it's not pre-emptive.

B) there was a LOT more than 100, 000. That was just in NY alone, and I think it turned out to be considerably more than that. That was just the initial guessed amount that was going to show. I missed the counts of everywhere the next day, but got some of them.
You said the US wants the backing of the UN, so that they keep a better image in the world. In that case, don't you think they'd care about the millions protesting in Canada, the million that protested in Rome and Britain and one other (I think it was in spain). And the hundreds of thousands in many more eastern countries? I do not. I don't think that the US needs the opinion of the world's citizens on its side. I used the 100,000 because they were in the US. I even multiplied the number by ten for your argument to account for other areas in the US. But I couldn't care less about the protest in Rome or Britain. If Americans protest Swedish policy, I doubt that they would care, so why should the US care when foreigners protest??
Even so, if you expand the protests to a world view, we are then talking about a few million protesters in a planet of six billion people. The percentages don't change much.

[SilentCacophony]

A) I think it's wrong to tell a country they can't develop weapons. Especially the US who always preaches the right to bear arms. Telling him to disarm such weapons as VX and Anthrax I agree with, but I don't agree witht he fact that the U.S. IS allowed to have these weapons themselves.

B) If the US wants to attack, and they have evidence the UN doesn't have, and they want the permission of the UN, then why haven't they shared this info with the UN? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The movie "Wag the Dog" comes to mind way too often.

[Confectrix]

Our weapons are not in the hands of insane people whom use them on our own people. Saddam will use his weapons to overtake the middle east. The entire area will be laid to waste while he strangles the world economy for oil. This is a big issue. Appeasement does not work. Remember Hitler.

The UN has leakage problems. We will release info prior to any major military action.

Again, it's up to Saddam.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
You say that the US will go even if the UN doesn't give them the word, as is the impression I've always had. This always leads me to wonder, how long are they going to give him? It's been what, 8 years since the gulf war ended? Are they going to give him another 8 years? All Saddam has to do is bide his time until the next election, and wait for a new party to get in. We're not going to discuss this since its all opinion, but I think Saddam will be removed from Baghdad with the next eight weeks.

-- btw, don't bring up the US elections. They were perfectly legal under the system the US has in place. I just addressed this earlier today, and I could have sworn it was in response to you, or have you forgotten so quickly??

[Confectrix]

Sooner Mist.

If we do go, we have to ensure General Franks is installed Viceroy before a certain date. Why? Don't know. Has something to do with weather.

EDIT: lol, nm, saw you said within...read it too fast to catch it the first time.

[SilentCacophony]

A few million that were willing to leave their homes and take to the streets, although it's not like they actually took a head count. There's more against the war than just those that walked around outside. Entire governments have opposed the actions too, such as Canada, France, and Germany. In that same aspect, there are also those who support it. No one LIKES war, and so there'll always be someone to oppose it.

Like I've said before, the UN said there wasn't enough evidence, and some countries have said they should send in more inspectors. America doesn't want this, they want to act. If they're just going to go in no matter what, then I say they do it. I'm just opposed to it because I still see Korea as a bigger threat, and I don't see why they've stopped the hunt for Osama.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
A) I think it's wrong to tell a country they can't develop weapons. Especially the US who always preaches the right to bear arms. Telling him to disarm such weapons as VX and Anthrax I agree with, but I don't agree witht he fact that the U.S. IS allowed to have these weapons themselves. Have you noticed that we've only told him that he can't have weapons of mass destruction after he began using chemical weapons on Iraqi citizens?? The US doesn't test it's weapons on random citizens. That's the difference. Another difference is that in the US, one man is not in complete power over the entire country and the military and all of the weapons programs. The US has a system of checks and balances which Iraq does not have.

[Confectrix]

Korea will be next. However, we must convince China that it [Korea] is a threat to their national security. After all, all China needs is a nuclear equiped Taiwan or Japan.

[Confectrix]

Mist, we keep saying the same thing.

Hop to it now.

;)

[SilentCacophony]

meh, might have been me. If so I posted it this morning and forgot about it. Sorry, but I feel if you get more than 50% of the votes, that should mean you become president. Bush won more areas, Gore won more people. The government is run by the people not the states, is it not?

[Confectrix]

And the states are run by?

Towns and Cities??!!!:eek:

[SilentCacophony]

Yes, and I agree that he should have his weapons disabled, but I still don't think it's right for the U.S. to have them either. I don't think VX, anthrax, or the A-Bomb should even have been invented, but unfortunately they have.

As for their government regime, although we don't agree with it, that's how they chose to run it. If the monarchy was still in charge in England, would we attack them? Cuba is communist, so we don't trust them (sure there's more to it than that, but that's a big reason). We seem to give people the right to live their life the way they choose, as long as they do it our way.

[SilentCacophony]

Originally posted by Confectrix
And the states are run by?

Towns and Cities??!!!:eek:

And the towns and cities are run by? People??? :eek:

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
A few million that were willing to leave their homes and take to the streets, although it's not like they actually took a head count. There's more against the war than just those that walked around outside. Entire governments have opposed the actions too, such as Canada, France, and Germany. In that same aspect, there are also those who support it. No one LIKES war, and so there'll always be someone to oppose it.

Like I've said before, the UN said there wasn't enough evidence, and some countries have said they should send in more inspectors. America doesn't want this, they want to act. If they're just going to go in no matter what, then I say they do it. I'm just opposed to it because I still see Korea as a bigger threat, and I don't see why they've stopped the hunt for Osama. I think you underestimate the reach of the US if you think that they can only do one thing at a time. I see no evidence that the hunt for Bin Laden has ceased.

Japan, China, and Russian have all promised pre-emptive strikes on North Korea if they get out of hand. I certainly believe that three countries can hold them at bay without the US just fine. Why is it that the US has to be the world's policeman all the time??

"some countries have said they should send in more inspectors" This is true, but pointless. The inspectors' job is not to find the weapons. They are inspectors, not a search and destroy team. The UN resolution requires that Saddam produce evidence to the inspectors that he is destroying all of his weapons. The inspectors should not have to go find the weapons, nor are they trained to do so. I believe it was even Hans Blitz who said that the number of inspectors is not the problem, but that the problem is the lack of cooperation that they are receiving from Iraq. He said that he could do the job with half the number of inspectors if he could get Saddam's cooperation in the matter.

[Confectrix]

THEY choose to run it. Who? Saddam. His people do not choice. The elction choices are Saddam or this guy. If you vote for him, you and your family is dead. He's totured his own family.

The USA is dismantling WMD steadily. We just signed a pact with the Russian Federation which will decrease both our stockpiles considerably. I think as of current we have 7200 nuclear warheads. Russia has more.

Regarding Anthrax and VX gas. They are extremly secure and will never be used. They are there for intimidation; as most weapons of mass destruction are.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Confectrix
Mist, we keep saying the same thing.

Hop to it now.

;) I just want to make sure I don't miss any point that someone can bring up to try and trip me up later. :)

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
And the towns and cities are run by? People??? :eek: I think you just inadvertently made his point. ;)

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
meh, might have been me. If so I posted it this morning and forgot about it. Sorry, but I feel if you get more than 50% of the votes, that should mean you become president. Bush won more areas, Gore won more people. The government is run by the people not the states, is it not? That's nice. Go back to your other thread and reply to this topic there. I'm not addressing it here. Just know that the popular vote has nothing to do with the way people are elected to Presidential office in the United States. Go read up on their election laws.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
As for their government regime, although we don't agree with it, that's how they chose to run it. If the monarchy was still in charge in England, would we attack them? Cuba is communist, so we don't trust them (sure there's more to it than that, but that's a big reason). We seem to give people the right to live their life the way they choose, as long as they do it our way. I think if the UK was a Monarchy and started testing chemical weapons on its citizens and the US believed that the UK would someday attack them with those weapons, then yes, the US would attack the UK.

[SilentCacophony]

I agree, more inspectors is not the answer, they're inspectors, not detectives. As I've said, the US plans to attack regardless, and they have all this classified info (or they're doctoring it in some hollywood lab and can't reveal it till it's perfected, and no it's not inconceivable), so I think they should just go if they're going to.

Weapons of intimidation, I hate the term. Why have something if you're not going to use it? Hell, why aren't I allowed to walk around with a shotgun then? if it's just for intimidation.

As for the US not searching for Osama anymore, I'm sure they are, but they don't seem to be as focused on it anymore, and he has ACTUALLY attacked the USA already. I know that Canada has sent over 2000 troops repeatedly, although I wouldn't help the states there after that FF incident (I think your pilots should fry for that).

As for US being the police of the world, I don't think they should be, nor do I think anyone elected them to stick their noses in everywhere. I think 'Nam was a big mistake too (which is another place where the States have used biological weapons).

[SilentCacophony]

I made his point? Nah, he made mine then. States are run by towns and cities. Towns and cities are run by people. The majority of the people voted for gore, and in a democracy, I think that's who should have won. Like you said though, that's not what we're arguing.

[Sputty]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
A few million that were willing to leave their homes and take to the streets, although it's not like they actually took a head count. There's more against the war than just those that walked around outside. Entire governments have opposed the actions too, such as Canada, France, and Germany. In that same aspect, there are also those who support it. No one LIKES war, and so there'll always be someone to oppose it.


Canada supports war in Iraq if there's proof and the US has given that proof. Heh...So, that statement about Canada is generally wrong. We even had a thread on Canada's support not too long ago. BTW, the electoral college decides the outcome. So, Bush won. But anyway..

[SilentCacophony]

hmmmm, I actually turned on CNN for once (I don't trust their biasness), and I just caught something bout if Bush makes a decision, they could go to war within 2 weeks.

Well whatever, as we've stated, this is a matter of opinion. What's the best part? I live in Canada, and we're not going to war. You live in the States, and you MAY go to war. I guess it's win/win. As I've always said, if someone supports this war so much as to support it as much as they do, they should go enlist. Hell, if you're not of age, just lie like so many did in every other war.

Regardless, I'm on the East coast, and it's quarter to midnight here. I was too tired to go out tonight, and I'll feel silly if I stay up arguing here as late as I would have stayed up if I'd gone out. I'm off to bed. Nice that you guys could argue without trying to just score points like the other fools did.

For more info on "scoring points" in a debate, look up "socrates scoring points debate" on google, I'm sure you'll find info on what I keep refferring too. I'm too tired. Hell, I'm typing with my forehad right now....

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
I agree, more inspectors is not the answer, they're inspectors, not detectives. As I've said, the US plans to attack regardless, and they have all this classified info (or they're doctoring it in some hollywood lab and can't reveal it till it's perfected, and no it's not inconceivable), so I think they should just go if they're going to. Are you a conspiracy theorist??

Weapons of intimidation, I hate the term. Why have something if you're not going to use it? Hell, why aren't I allowed to walk around with a shotgun then? if it's just for intimidation.Well... go to the US and get the proper permits and you can. :) I realize that these are hard to get as you are wording it here, and the permit wouldn't extend to inside of a private establishment, but you could.
As for the US not searching for Osama anymore, I'm sure they are, but they don't seem to be as focused on it anymore, and he has ACTUALLY attacked the USA already. I know that Canada has sent over 2000 troops repeatedly, although I wouldn't help the states there after that FF incident (I think your pilots should fry for that).Is this why you hate the US??
As for US being the police of the world, I don't think they should be, nor do I think anyone elected them to stick their noses in everywhere. I think 'Nam was a big mistake too (which is another place where the States have used biological weapons). Then why did you ask about North Korea?? If you don't want the US involved in NKorea, don't bring it up.
We're not talking about VietNam either, stick to Iraq please.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
I made his point? Nah, he made mine then. States are run by towns and cities. Towns and cities are run by people. The majority of the people voted for gore, and in a democracy, I think that's who should have won. Like you said though, that's not what we're arguing. If that's how you read it, fine. :) Again, go read US election law before you tell us how a republic works, since that's what the US is.

[mistled]

Yeah, CNN sucks.

Nite Silent. Feel free to back and play another day.

[SilentCacophony]

Key word being "IF", just like France and Germany support the US "IF"......

If the US just goes ahead with the war like they're planning to do, then Canada does not support it. I've read Chrietien's speech on the subject.

Whether I'd support it at that point or not, I don't know. What I will say, which I've never admitted to in any of these "WAR" debates I've had on multiple forums, is that if they tell me I can fly a jet, then just show me where to sign (especially if they let me in the new F35 (pretty sure it's 35) Lockheed's VTOL/Stealth/supersonic jet). My fave is the F14 TomCat (Top Gun, streamlined wings), but Canada is all stocked up with F18's (we have 98 at last count that I heard, but that was bout 2 years ago at least).

Like I said, I'm off to bed though.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
What I will say, which I've never admitted to in any of these "WAR" debates I've had on multiple forums, is that if they tell me I can fly a jet, then just show me where to sign (especially if they let me in the new F35 (pretty sure it's 35) Lockheed's VTOL/Stealth/supersonic jet). My fave is the F14 TomCat (Top Gun, streamlined wings), but Canada is all stocked up with F18's (we have 98 at last count that I heard, but that was bout 2 years ago at least).

Like I said, I'm off to bed though. lol.. I hear that. Put me in a fighter jet and I'm there. :)

[SilentCacophony]

Damn it, quit making points I feel I need to argue before I go.

N. Korea I think is a bigger threat because they've said they'd attack the US, and they, unlike Iraq, actually have the capability.

The US pilots pissed me off at the US military (they've always bugged me from 'Nam and Agent Orange to WW2 and the A-Bombs, which despite what enregistered would like to believe, they were not given the chance to surrender), and I feel they should be strapped to the wings of a jet while it flies around at supersonic speeds.

Yeah, the states is a Republic now, but it was a democracy at the last election, right?

Jets? I've got my heart set on a buggy and a sniper rifle, but if they do the skeeter and the reaver right, ooooh baby..... (as always, I gotta keep bringing it back to PS in the spirit of the forums)

[archaic1128]

Wow, that's all i can say is WOW. I missed a really good one, lol.

*moved to original.

[mistled]

Originally posted by SilentCacophony
N. Korea I think is a bigger threat because they've said they'd attack the US, and they, unlike Iraq, actually have the capability.

The US pilots pissed me off at the US military (they've always bugged me from 'Nam and Agent Orange to WW2 and the A-Bombs, which despite what enregistered would like to believe, they were not given the chance to surrender), and I feel they should be strapped to the wings of a jet while it flies around at supersonic speeds.

Yeah, the states is a Republic now, but it was a democracy at the last election, right?

Jets? I've got my heart set on a buggy and a sniper rifle, but if they do the skeeter and the reaver right, ooooh baby..... (as always, I gotta keep bringing it back to PS in the spirit of the forums) I think the US can handle both threats if it needs to. N Korea is all talk at the moment. They want aid, so they are talking big. I think that is all that is at the moment. Like I said, Japan, China, and Russia can handle them if they get rowdy until the US gets over there to deal with them.

Even though I think you're wrong about the WW2 thing, we're going to drop it since I've got to get up on the morning. I don't remember what happened to the pilot, but he should have been discharged at the very least.

Nope, the US has always been a republic, such are the joys of representative democracy. It's not true democracy.

I'm kind of leaning towards some base defense and some swat type attacks myself. :)

[mistled]

Originally posted by archaic1128
BTW, Cofectrix and Hijinx, I have those IRS documents now if you care to see them. Taken directly out of the IRS Strategic Handbook As well as a US Supreme court ruling Document. This kinda stuff is hard to find. I must have about 700 bookmarks to look thru :D say huh?

[archaic1128]

Mistled,

I am reffering to another post. They doubted what i said, and i have verifiable facts. It took me a bit to relocate undeniable evidence. Also, i had 2 threads open and i meant to post in the original thread.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I think if the UK was a Monarchy and started testing chemical weapons on its citizens and the US believed that the UK would someday attack them with those weapons, then yes, the US would attack the UK.
Good point mistled, but ;) the US has tested chemical weapons on its own soldiers in the past, and other countries might worry about using those weapons against them.

Should other countries be attacking us by that line of logic?

I am just here to make you smile. :)

[Lexington_Steele]

BTW I am still not exactly sure what is being argued over on this thread.

Is it the electoral college? Is it US WW2 policy? Is it policy towards Iraq? Is it US foreign policy in general? Is it IRS policies? Or is it arguing for the sake of argument?

[Zatrais]

It started as a post made bout General Hawley's speech, then it turned into a debate once silent started to argue against removing saddam by force. Then silent started to drag in ww2 and the nukes to prove some point, after that its just been silent walking around in a circle not really answering annything and contradicting himself...

In one post he says he for one listens to the CNN, in the next he says he don't trust them...

I'm still waiting for an answer on why he thinks Saddam should be allowed to rule the iraqi people, a people he has commited genocide on. And yes, he has weapons, he can't even show the inspctors the weapons hes said he has so the weapons can be destroyed. And no, Saddam was not elected he took the power by force.

[Confectrix]

Damn it, I should have stayed up to have some fun. Ah well, Mist, you did a great job.

I just want to comment on the US policing the world. The US trades with every country in the world. The US was a founding and current member of the UN. The US has peacekeeping forces everywhere. The US sends aide to tens of countries. The US is the superpower. If you don't like it; I'm sorry. It's fact. China will assume that role in the years to come however. That's another story.

Anything that occurs in the world affects us in some way. Our relations do not stop at one country. The world is not too big for our influence. We do not stick our nose in other's business; we assist for our interests.

I just wonder what Germany will do when we move our armies east, out of Germany. Mr. Shroeder is locked into his anti-american stance after he won the election by running it as his policy.

Besides, in Poland and other eastern european countries, training restrictions are just not as...well...strict as in Germany.

[SilentCacophony]

Lol, I've NEVER said I listen to CNN. I said I turned it on while channel surfing, and they said if Bush made his decision, you could be at war within 2 weeks. Hmmm, so I watch. I don't watch CNN cause I find it too biased. That's the first time I've watched it in a couple months. Last tiem I watched it was when "Crossfire" was talking about our PM's public speaker calling Bush a "moron" (as always I stand behind my country).

As for bringing up WW2, don't you think that's something that should be brought up? Many arguments go around Iraq having chemical and biological weapons. Well the U.S. has them too. Wasn't it them who used Agent Orange in Vietnam? N. Korea is developing nukes. Was it not the U.S. that dropped two on Japan (which having read even more on it while doing this argument, I now don't even feel one was necessary). Unregistered said they were given ample time to surrender, which is a dogfaced lie. Hell, Sadam has had 8 years to surrender, Japan got 3 days. Japan was nuked merely as a display of the U.S. new weapon to scare russia (which lead tot he cold war and the arms race).

Mistled, as for you not agreeing with me on the nukes, did you read the site I posted way back? Well in case you didn't, I book marked it.

http://www.webster.sk.ca/GREENWICH/HIRO2BMB.HTM