Trent

And... we have the funniest thing I've read here in weeks! Nice one! And now back to disagreeing with you... Oh, hello again!

You guys are killin' me! Dunno what's gonna happen yet, but I WANT to go. Don't want to leave my boys behind though. One for all and all for one and stuff! Thanks for being nice so far though!! Edit: Except for Yoshi, you can bite me, KY. Oh, hello again!

I've been to the West Coast of Costa Rica and done some scuba there. What I remember is that it isn't so much great diving as far as corals and reefs, but there are tons of great spots to go for turtles, giant mantas, and even whales. I wouldn't plan on doing more than a day or day and a half of diving. Most of the resort areas have a dive shop that is reasonably priced, as is everything over there. Check out the surfing and horseback riding. Also don't miss the rainforest hikes and Arenal volcano. Awesome. Enjoy your trip! Trent Oh, hello again!

Nope, it's still wrong. BUT (you smelled that coming, right?) turning a blind eye isn't as bad as directly profiting directly or being bribed. If it comes out that that has happened with people in our gov't, then they should be in line with the UN people when they're prosectuted. Oh, hello again!

I got 67% Dixie, which is fine with me, born and rose up in Texas. Couple of things though... I didn't know us Houstonians were some of the only people to call the freeway access roads "feeders", strange. And those little bugs that curl up are DOODLE BUGS, ant lions are the ones that dig the little dirt funnels and sit at the bottom waiting for you to either throw ants in or poke them with a stick. Oh, hello again!

You make some valid arguments, as have I, IMO. For you to say: seems a bit arrogant to me, considering I just went down your last post, point by point, it would seem that you are the one not reading here. Right or wrong at the time, we did not break any international law by supplying the mujahideen in Afghanistan either. Many people seem to feel that it was a bad idea, in retrospect. So, does the fact that Russia is selling to Syria and Iran seem like the right thing to do, regardless of its legality? Not by any stretch, IMO. Disagree with that all you want. From the start of this thread, I've said that it was not a good idea, and that I did not agree with Russia doing what it is doing. Is your disagreement that you think they SHOULD be doing it, or did you just want to argue down the twisted path that would take you to the usual conclusion that you're right and that's that? Oh, hello again!

That is a stupid comparison and yet you cling to it. I should have said "I don't think it'd happen again" so you could let it rest or move on to discuss why you think we are more likely to launch nukes than an armed Iran. And you still conveniently avoid responding to my question of why, if we'd nuke just to get out of a war earlier, did we not do it in Korea or Vietnam? Think about that. Sorry, I thought you were saying that everyone WILL have them so we have to learn how to appease the volatile regimes every time they start acting up because they have nukes. Oh wait, that's what you are saying. I disagree with your assumption that everyone WILL have nukes, because I think you can keep them out of the wrong hands with coordinated help from our less scrupulous friends in Russia and China. Not that it'll happen, but it doesn't make them right to speed up the process of proliferation. You're right, I was born yesterday. You're making the fundamental mistake of comparing the Cold War between 2 countries that were SUPERPOWERS at the time, to Iran and North Korea having nukes. A nuclear war between the US and the USSR would have pretty much ended the world as we know it. That's a difference. With the little wacko countries, they've got (maybe) something they can threaten 1 or 2 cities with to get what they want. See a difference yet? You sure about that? Saddam Hussein had his armies commit suicide against our forces TWICE just to show people he had balls. You think Iran would think twice about sacrificing some of us infidels in a nuclear launch? You think they wouldn't take a shot at us, at their own peril, just to show the world they meant business? This is a cultural concept in the middle east, and has been demonstrated over and over again. You need specifics? Read the news. I don't know any pro-gun people that support selling guns to criminals and people who have proven themselves mentally unstable. People like Tim McVeigh, in your example, would be like France losing its mind and launching nukes. Not really likely, but it could happen. Surely YOU have better strawmen than THAT. We've actually never "launched" nuclear weapons on another country. They were dropped. While they caused horrible damage and loss of life, compare it to what could have been. Millions more on both sides could've lost their lives in the land invasion of Japan. Then you'd be sitting here probably using THAT as an example of how the US is guilty of genocide since Japan was planning to use civilians to repel an immenent invasion. Remember, since you're such a fan of big deplomacy... it means nothing if you cannot back it up. Only 2 things work here... military, and economy. Apparently, economy doesn't work real well as long as you have leaders that will starve their people to keep up the impression that they have a strong military. The only way international diplomacy will work in the future, is if a great number of countries gang up to get a rogue state to talk nice. So far, that looks pretty hard to do with Europe trying to sell military shit to China (hence NK), and Russia selling to whoever, and Europe wanting to keep volatile regimes in place as long as they can get some backdoor oil deals. But you insist that we are the most likely country to start a nuclear war? That's some faith for ya. You make an argument that, while it's bad, proliferation will happen, and it'll be okay because we can trust Iran and NK and Pakistan and India and China to not use nukes before we would? Come on. This is your "I love my country by dissenting" argument. It has nothing to do with the fact that you just seem to see things completely differently than I do. I think it is more dangerous to have these weapons in the hands of every wackjob regime, you think that it'll be okay as long as we know how to talk nice to them for the sole reason that they have a nuke. To the point of the thread, Russia SHOULD NOT be selling weapons to regimes like Syria. They should not be giving Iran reactors. While proliferation MAY happen anyway, why let some greedy countries speed it up? Oh, hello again!

I don't think it'd happen. There will always be people in the government and fully 50% or more of the population who wouldn't support that action, and no politician has the balls to let it happen on their watch. Even if it was the only way to end a war, it still probably wouldn't go down. Why didn't we nuke Hanoi, or Pyongyang? Kinda throws that logic out the door doesn't it? Maybe we should just give everyone nukes and just patiently wait for someone to push the button. Even though Russia was the "Evil Empire", we knew that they played by a set of rules. With Gorbachev, we also learned that they did not want to destroy the entire world any more than we did. Better the enemy you know... And do you really want to be involved in a game of MAD with Iran and N.Korea? Really? Is it? Let's say a wacko like, mmmmm say, Kim Jong Il decides that the rest of the world has made too much fun of his hair.... nuke. Or how about the radical ayatollah regime in Iran decides that, yeah, Allah does want all infidels destroyed. Not that far fetched really. How much proof do you need that places like this WILL kill themselves to get at their enemies? How much MORE proof do you want that they will do whatever they can to destroy their enemies, even if they know they will lose and kill many innocents in the process? By all means, start sending nuke secrets and supplies to Iran (like Russia's doing). It's funny that people who are anti-gun on one hand, are pro-proliferation on the other, since it'd make everyone "act" nice. Guess what? Making sure EVERYONE has the bomb, ensures that the criminals do. What do YOU think the world will be like when everyone is armed to the teeth? I guarantee you it'd mean a nuclear launch at some point. Why is it that you have such a low opinion of your own country, but put so much faith in those countries that have demonstrated themselves to be, well, nuts? Oh, hello again!

Nice one, Bill! Wow, that's great. Tell me, Bill... how likely do you think it is that the one country that has used nukes, WILL use them again as anything other than a last resort? You're either deliberately trying to be inflammatory, or you're really can't see past your focus on pointing fingers at the US. Since you like past performance as an indicator of future events... DID THEY DO IT? No. Did the USSR launch a nuclear attack on us? NO. Okay, now here's where it'll get tricky for you.... ...we've seen the extreme governments in the ME demonstrate that they do not care about sacrificing themselves or their people to "win". Sometimes it's because they're sure Allah will let them enter paradise, other times... just because they don't care. NOW, put nukes in their hands, Bill. What the fuck do you think would happen? And for the record, I had many debates in college about why Pakistan and India most absolutely should not have the bomb. Ah screw it. You're always right, Bill. Give everyone a nuke and see those doves start flying and rainbows spanning the globe. Oh, hello again!

Just what are you trying to point out here, D? I know that, I've travelled all over. I bet there are fantastic people in Syria, Iran, and NK... but their governments are the problem. Unfortunately, people who don't do enough on their own to watch what their government is doing, get steamrolled by it later. Same thing happened in Venezuela. Come on... if they had a chance to do it, they would. Remember, they already think that we've fucked them, and they BELIEVE to the core that Israel has. If they really don't want to get fucked with, then they should stop doing things that get them fucked with... like occupying Lebanon, funding Iraqi terrorism, trying to get their hands on Nukes, talking as much shit as Saddam did before the first Gulf War... stuff like that. But that's to logical and reasonable, so they'll never see it. Amen. Oh, hello again!

Unless a cracked out criminal gets his hands on a weapon, and everyone is playing by the same rules, that might be true. Because, you see, we have the crackheads of world regimes DYING to get their hands on nukes. These fucks are MUCH more likely to use them offensively than we are. Yeah, the US and Russia were playing by rules and it was pretty clear from both sides that neither wanted a nuclear war. With the geniuses in NK, Syria, Iran, wherever... it seems they simply don't care. No one has any business letting these volatile regimes have nukes. Can't you see the headlines? "NK Demands 100 Billion $'s in Food Aid, Threatens to Nuke Japan" "Syria Demands Israelis Kiss Own Asses, Threatens to Launch" Just look at their ridiculous government and think that any of that is not possible. I agree with that, bad idea. They basically have slave labor there and are bootstrapping their whole economy with labor. We can't compete with that since we have to pay our workers minimum wage, or union wages, plus insurance, plus make sure we have good working conditions that meet OSHA standards. Imagine the handcuffs that Kyoto would've put on us in addition to the handcuffs we made for ourselves. Ask Canada, it's hurting them already. Although Russia and China trade weapons, I don't think that we'll see a longstanding, solid alliance between them. For one, they've never really trusted each other. Two, they're not that ideallogically close anymore. Three, the Chinese (govt) feels that China is superior to the world, almost a master race type thing. Before you get mad, go there and see. Ask their neighbors. They would use Russia for tactics and resources, then take them over. I know you probably don't like Tom Clancy, but go read The Dragon & The Bear, it is actually pretty insightful as to what we may see happening over there. Oh, hello again!

No, my point was that there is going to be a chase at some point. After the bad guys know they're being pursued, there's no telling what they'll do, cops in cars behind them or in helicopters above them. There is always going to be a chase when someone is caught and is behind the wheel and wants to get away. And, I'd bet that none of them expect to get away, really, since we see them all the time getting stopped on RealTV. Like the previous poster said, what if the town doesn't have police helicopters? Look, someone running from the cops is going to be putting people at risk in general. Someone who is deliberately going after cops or civilians, in cars or on foot, is now using that car as a weapon. Oh, hello again!

Except for the fact that the police have to chase them long enough to get the helicopter overhead, right? How many people ever escape from a helicopter pursuit? How many from a vehicular pursuit? Probably about the same. Close to zero. The only thing eliminating the persuing police would do is partially eliminate the "joyride" aspect of the chase. In the end, anyone getting into a pursuit scenario, knows they're going to get caught... unless, like you said, they're cracked out on drugs or drunk, in which case they need to be stopped ASAP. As for the situation in LA... I don't think cops knew they were shooting a 13yo kid. They were trying to stop someone who was putting their lives, and the lives of other civilians at risk. In my opinion, when your bad judgement puts others in immediate danger via criminal activities, you should assume your life is forfeit. Give up or be stopped with extreme prejudice. Maybe Johnny Cock-Ring will make me feel like a racist scum for feeling that way though. We'll see. Oh, hello again!

You know what they should do? Get rid of all the police persuits, period. They should never chase any criminals. We could just have helicopters follow them until they crashed or got home. Since cars are no longer deadly weapons, you should be fine with some cracked out kid hauling ass in a stolen car through your neighborhood. Think of the money we could save by firing a lot of the traffic cops!! Oh, hello again!

Or you could look at that particular policy another way, the non-activist (meaning governmentst who are opposed to the DP), take-responsibility-for-yourself way. If someone does something that could get them the death penalty in country A, they should either do whatever they were going to do somewhere else that won't execute them, or face the consequences when they get caught. Of course, that wouldn't apply to REAL refugees, who are innocent. But WTF, kill someone here, then run to GB and they won't extradite if the death penalty is possible? These guys who DO face trial in the countries where they were picked up, should be returned to those countries with all the evidence we have on them. Let Afghanistan decide if they want to use them to clear minefields or not. Oh, hello again!

And you're every bit as guilty... but since you can't stay on topic, I've gone back to edit the 1 sentence that distracted you. Now can you contribute? Oh, hello again!

Want me to edit that so you can make a valuable argument, or do you want to just snipe from the bushes? Losing sight of the forest here, pal. Oh, hello again!

I'm not 100% sure if there are any EU/UN embargoes agains Syria, but I did find some interesting stuff while looking for it.... http://www.ladlass.com/intel/archives/cat_syria.html The guy has his references on each article Why would anyone sell arms to a country that has avoided any non-proliferation treaties and has evidence against it for supplying Saddam with more than just pea-shooters? Who else are these fuckbags going to sell things to? It appears through some of the returns on google, (search: arms embargo syria) that the EU, China, and Russia seem to like Syria since it is a nice black hole for their weapons. They sell them to Syria, and don't give a rat's ass where they go from there... but they're pretty sure they don't stay in Syria. As far as the "Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic" front... might be giving too much credit on the organizational scale... but from recent news and past actions... it would seem that each element has a hard on for fucking over the US for one reason or the other. The Russians would never work with the Chinese, most likely. And for the "Jimmy Carter Certified" president of Venezuela... stopping our oil purchases from him would probably bankrupt the entire country... and with the situation as it is now, it'd probably go into a civil war. I guess if we can start drilling Alaska, we might be able to. All the Venezuelans I know are great, and they HATE Chavez. I'd be glad to have them come over here while their civil war goes on. Oh, hello again!

Hmmm, yeah... we definitely sold them all of the M4's, M16's, and Abrams tanks they've been using against us in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh wait, no... they've been using RUSSIAN arms for the last 2 decades. Wonder how we sold them those? I also wonder how many of our aircraft they've shot down in Afghanistan with the Stingers we sold them while they were occupied by Russia? How many of the terrorists in Iraq are using the chemical weapons that the former government OBTAINED [edit: so SkyDekker can focus on the issue of the thread] from the US? Come on. It only takes having one eye open to see where most of these countries really get equipped. But hey, if you're okay with that... cool. Your perceived irony in the situation does not make it okay TODAY for Russia to do it again, does it? Oh, hello again!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_re_eu/russia_syria Well, looks like we've got ourselves another few decades of conflict ahead. Regardless of how you see the US, selling weapons to countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... is a stupid move. Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm volatile regimes like this? ESPECIALLY with the current situation between Syria, Iran and Lebanon. As much as people say our support for Afghanistan against the Russians and Iraq against the Iranians has bit us in the ass... do you think that this kind of arms deal will eventually bite Russia and China in the ass? Or will it be just the first few steps in the Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic war agains the US and Israel? EDIT: Add the brilliant Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to that list: http://www.latinamericanpost.com/index.php?mod=seccion&secc=38&conn=3805 Oh, hello again!

Caught her statement this morning. She was crying about how lawyers should be left alone. Here's a woman who thought her profession and her political agenda put her above the law. Now it comes crashing in around her and all she can do is cry, "No Fair!" From the gist of her statements, she knew what she did was unacceptable, but didn't think it was wrong and went above the law. I think a lot of criminals think that way, right up until they get locked up. She's done, lock her up until she rots. Oh, hello again!

How's this? We sent out a package to a customer for Christmas... she used her own UPS number to pay for the shipping. That's all fine and good. Today, we get an invoice from UPS saying that we owe them $10 because the customer called and changed the delivery address. Not that it's that bad, but how does that make sense, she paid directly to UPS, she changed the shipping address, but we get the bill? I called and explained how stupid that was and they ate the charge. Didn't have too long of a wait on the phone either, maybe it's Canadian UPS! Oh, hello again!

Long overdue... good to hear it is on the agenda. One side effect of this would possibly be that it will get our troops the basic safety equipment they'll need and better medical care, since it will be much cheaper to keep them alive than to pay the benefits. Not that it's the right reason for getting them better care and equipment, but at least it's a start. Oh, hello again!

This is great... it just keeps getting better. In response to be stating that GQ is over there and probably is more "educated" than you on how our troops might be thinking, you reply.... WTF does that have to do with my statement? What kind of academic education do you want on what troops currently overseas are thinking? Oh, you're waiting for a 1st hand account from someone who supports your viewpoint. You'd take their word for it, but not GQ's. In reply to me saying your opinion of soldiers and cops is repugnant... So because you knew of a bad cop and went to school with some guys who became cops, ALL COPS AND SOLDIERS are overzealous bullies and only want rich people protected? Find me some "rich" cops and soldiers. Do you actually re-read what you write before you post this stuff? And since I said that attacking grammar and punctuation is the lamest kind of argument... He was speaking about education of a particular situation, not your degree, diploma, or test scores. At least that's how it read to me. And someone overseas with the men and women in the armed forces is absolutely more educated than you in what it is like to be there. Well, either way, it's been fun... but your arguments are just not making sense. Enjoy the rest of the thread! Oh, hello again!

No, it came from the BBC. It was the Iraqis who straightened out the BBC's misinterpretation of their stats. Hyperbole, but don't be too surprised. Stick around or go back and read some of the discussions about casualties. You'll see it. Oh, hello again!