jerry81 10 #26 March 6, 2003 If you ask me, you should be leary of every damn religion in the world, but that's just my agnostic opinion. Most religions probably have a potential for going bad, it's just a matter of right (or wrong) circumstances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #27 March 6, 2003 I've got to agree with that one. Just look at the honorable Rev. Falwel (sp?) and you know that any religion can go bad. The thing is, how many of them become so infested with people advocating the death of anyone not in league with their version of god? Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #28 March 6, 2003 Okay, that is semi retracted now that I thought for a second more and remembered little niceties like the Inquisition and the Crusades. It's still not totally retracted, though, because we all look down on those moments in history, right? Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #29 March 6, 2003 It's when people get caught up in the details that the problems with religion start. Denying science for religion is in my view a bit messed up. That's not to say that faith can't exist. Clinging to rules and disproven ideas instead of an underlying lifestyle is what I believe is the probelm. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #30 March 6, 2003 Maybe we should say to hell with the UN.. Pull out of the Middle East.. Pull out of Asia.. Sit back and wait for the first mad man that we let be come after us because he wants to be a big dawwwwwg... Or maybe the bombs should already be falling on Saddham.. The longer we wait the more time he has to dig in. We are telegraphing our moves. The longer we wait IF WE ARE going in the more of our boys are going to die.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #31 March 6, 2003 QuoteThose who hate us hate us because of their own WARPED perceptions of religeon and our actions. Hmmm ... could it have anything to do with US foreign policy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #32 March 6, 2003 QuoteThe longer we wait IF WE ARE going in the more of our boys are going to die.. thats really not entirely true..there are SO MANY factors that affect the success of this type of action you simply cant support those that statements..timing and distance are the two MOST important factors in any attack. Technique a close third but still third. If we are smart we will not attack at all until the time is right for it. sooner is not always better in such endevours. the key issue is gaining complete control of the box (we're getting close but we're not there yet) once you have that you can open it whenever is best for you..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blewaway5 0 #33 March 6, 2003 Quotethe key issue is gaining complete control of the box (we're getting close but we're not there yet) once you have that you can open it whenever is best for you. Very well put! Truman Sparks for President Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #34 March 6, 2003 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt looks more to me that the US will declare war on a sovereign nation. In which case, it is silly to expect that they won't strike back at the US. When they do, will they be "terrorists", or "enemy combatants"? Many predict the recent arrests of Al Qaeda Leaders will accelerate any plans for terrorist acts they already have planned. Do you think we should stop arresting Al Qaeda Leaders because of this fear? No. But arresting criminals is not the same as going to war. Same premise. The reason we are going into Iraq is in essence to "arrest" Saddam Hussein. Hussein is in violation of U.N. resolutions and has broken the Cease Fire agreement he signed in 1991. They will be considered "enemy combatants" as long as the war is in progress and "terrorists" after Iraq's defeat. Once they become terrorists, they will be considered criminals. Hopefully a strong enough pre-emptive strike will reduce the number of potential terrorists. I suspect, based on what we know from past experience about the Iraqi Militarys' resolve to fight a war, it will be over very quickly. I have no doubt there will be attacks in the U.S. but that isn't a reason not to go to war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #35 March 7, 2003 I'm a bit confused with your post. I was talking about religion as a whole not extremists acting in an indefensible manner. I grew up in Glasgow with a catholic mother and a protestant father watching the problems in N.Ireland. People do very wrong acts in the name of religion that have absolutely nothing to do with the beliefs of that religion. Basically it comes down to tribalism /sectarianism. I believe the problem with the UN is that it lacks a means to impose it's will. By that I mean a force or method to exercise force when resolutions fail. That way the will of the UN would be upheld. I believe the current movements by Iraq are the result of the build up by the US and UK. That does not mean the UN is not importent but that the UN may have to think how it imposes its will on those nations that have a resolution passed against it. Sitting back and waiting to be pushed by the next madman is a bad idea (I think you were kidding here). The first responsibility of any administration is to protect its citizens. Can't comment on pulling out US troops from any region as I'm not American. As for the guys in the desert. I was a reservist in the British Army and my brother is still a serving soldier so I have a strong sense of loyalty to the guys and girls out there. Not Blair, not Bush but to the poor bloody soldiers that are being asked to earn their pay. What truly angers me is that they are being asked to do what they are going to do by people that have made a piss poor job of telling the rest of the world why it has to happen and (with the exception of Sec. Powell) have never heard a shot fired in anger. The guys will go. They will go soon and too many won't be coming back. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #36 March 7, 2003 Damn Dave, we agree again. Not that I want this war, but you are right. The terrorist will attack...and we will have to live with it. The wear in Ireland started in 1916 and the UK has survived. So will we!jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #37 March 7, 2003 Ireland has a history of rebellion prior to 1916 (just a note for the history buffs). There will be more attempts, how successful they will be is dependant upon intelligence and luck. The assaults have already been plotted but an attack on Iraq will strengthen sympathies and improve recruiting. Just saw President Bush' speech and would like to add my own thoughts to the puzzle. The chemical weapons are known. Ask any disgruntled chemistry student how to make them and you'd be surprised what you'll hear. Similarly with the biological weapons. Weapons grade nuclear material isn't so easy to come by but the idealogy behind terrorism should be the main focus. Terrorists are resourceful people but if you remove the idealogy you don't have to worry about the weapons. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #38 March 7, 2003 >The longer we wait IF WE ARE going in the more of our boys are going to die.. Saw a report recently that claimed the opposite was true. The extra time has allowed more intelligence, more opportunities to take out surface to surface missiles, more logistics preparation, more training time in actual terrain etc such that we are now better prepared, and will likely suffer fewer losses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #39 March 7, 2003 >You do realize though, the organizations that would strke at us in a > terrorist fashion already hate us and have probably been plotting more > attacks for quite some time. Yes, unfortunately. The good news is that we will at least create fewer new terrorists if we get some consensus before we go in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #40 March 7, 2003 Quote Duct tape: the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Love your signature! Loved the book, too. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #41 March 7, 2003 hey that wasn't my argument, it was a quote from a previous post. I said fuckem if they can't take a joke! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #42 March 7, 2003 QuoteSaw a report recently that claimed the opposite was true. The extra time has allowed more intelligence, That works as a double edged sword.. While we are exercising strategy and intelligence so is the other side.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #43 March 7, 2003 >That works as a double edged sword.. While we are exercising >strategy and intelligence so is the other side.. Of course, but our intelligence is a lot better than theirs. Also, keep in mind that the longer we wait, the more locations are ruled out for WMD depots (due to inspections) and the more missiles are destroyed. They get weaker as we get stronger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #44 March 7, 2003 I have NO DOUBT at all that we already know where the WMD's are at. That is where the first, biggest, and baddest bombs will fall. If we let everyone know that we know he will move them and we won't be able to destroy them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)