Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

BoomStick · Jun 14, 2005, 02:20 PM

So fact = hate now?

Your logic is flawed to the point of insanity.

von Wrangell · Jun 14, 2005, 02:29 PM

uhhhhh, what fact did you state. Is it a fact that you won't withdraw from the convention your government has signed until the other bad guys start behaving? And you complain about my logic

menglish · Jun 14, 2005, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by BoomStick

If the so called middle easterners can stop sawing people's heads off and exploding in public first.

I thought moral equivalency was supposed to be this huge failing of people who don't support the war? It's not a bad thing though if we're equating _our_ actions to bad people? Only if we're equating other people's actions to our bad actions?

No one accepts the excuse "but he was doing it too" in the real world.

BoomStick · Jun 14, 2005, 02:40 PM

I already placed a wager that the "better side" would not stop the needless killing first as 365 days from yesterday and received no response.

It's a sucker bet.

lil'babykitten · Jun 14, 2005, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Randman

But to say the US is losing face with these countries is WRONG, WRONG WRONG.

You made some good points, except the above quoted one.

Interestingly, Rumsfeld himself has just said the US has an image problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4092572.stm

OreoCookie · Jun 14, 2005, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

The USA does not need to improve it's image, inorder to make a bunch of hateful fools like us.

The USA does not need to cater or to suck up to anybody. If anybody's views need to change it is the views held by those on the "other" side. Their views are primitive, wrong and disgusting, and their views will have to change inorder to meet the requirements for living in the 21 century.

No, but if you want something from others, you shouldn't expect cooperation after alienating even allies. If you think, you (as in Americans) can do everything by yourselves (as you seem to do now in many fields of politics), try. I don't think you'll succeed.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, but if you want something from others, you shouldn't expect cooperation after alienating even allies. If you think, you (as in Americans) can do everything by yourselves (as you seem to do now in many fields of politics), try. I don't think you'll succeed.

The term "allies" is relative, and some of those who are listed as our "allies" are not really true allies, so losing them would be beneficial to us in the long term, as they are part of the problem, not the solution.

menglish · Jun 14, 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, but if you want something from others, you shouldn't expect cooperation after alienating even allies. If you think, you (as in Americans) can do everything by yourselves (as you seem to do now in many fields of politics), try. I don't think you'll succeed.

yes, I think all the people who originally said that we didnt' need to bow to world opinion have now realized that we can't do _everything_ by ourselves with force, we just don't have the military power. Turns out you really do need friends.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by menglish

we just don't have the military power.

Actually, we do have the military power, we just haven't fully used it yet. We have the military power to destroy the whole entire world, if we felt like it.

Cody Dawg · Jun 14, 2005, 03:18 PM

The point is that we supposedly went into a country to "liberate" people and give them peace.

Instead, we've come to represent torture and oppression to the rest of the world.

We've become what we held up as despicable behavior.

Shame on the United States for what is happening in the prisons we control. There really is no excuse for it. And Rumsfeld is as corrupt as they come.

menglish · Jun 14, 2005, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Actually, we do have the military power, we just haven't fully used it yet. We have the military power to destroy the whole entire world, if we felt like it.

True, but it turns out we don't want to destroy the world. Maybe I should have been more explicit...We can't do what we _want_ to do with only our force.

von Wrangell · Jun 14, 2005, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by menglish

True, but it turns out we don't want to destroy the world. Maybe I should have been more explicit...We can't do what we _want_ to do with only our force.

I'm not so sure Pachead wants to restrict the force US uses to non-nuclear weapons.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I'm not so sure Pachead wants to restrict the force US uses to non-nuclear weapons.

That would depend upon the enemy. It's not my call, but you can bet that there are multiple plans on the table, "just in case", to quote Steve Jobs.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by menglish

True, but it turns out we don't want to destroy the world.

We probably don't want to destroy the entire world, as that would be foolish and pointless.

Perhaps just parts of the world may be neccesary.

Chuckit · Jun 14, 2005, 04:08 PM

Does the term "mutually assured destruction" mean anything to you? No country can use nukes without dooming itself to end the same way.

von Wrangell · Jun 14, 2005, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

We probably don't want to destroy the entire world, as that would be foolish and pointless.

Perhaps just parts of the world may be neccesary.

What part and when?

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

What part and when?

As I already previously stated, that scenario would depend upon the actions of the enemy of course.

[1] Dirty nuke goes off in US city, with heavy casualties
[2] Nuke is traced back to the government of [INSERT EVIL COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOOSING]
[3] US retaliates in a rapid, swift, no-nonsense fashion
[4] Goodbye [INSERT EVIL COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOOSING]

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Does the term "mutually assured destruction" mean anything to you? No country can use nukes without dooming itself to end the same way.

That was true in the cold war, between the USA and Russia of course.

Our current enemy will not be able to retaliate in such a way.

menglish · Jun 14, 2005, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

As I already previously stated, that scenario would depend upon the actions of the enemy of course.

[1] Dirty nuke goes off in US city, with heavy casualties
[2] Nuke is traced back to the government of [INSERT EVIL COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOOSING]
[3] US retaliates in a rapid, swift, no-nonsense fashion
[4] Goodbye [INSERT EVIL COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOOSING]

sure, but we're not living in an episode of 24

The things we need to do now with our military, that we can't do, are things like restabalize Afghanistan, again.

von Wrangell · Jun 14, 2005, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

As I already previously stated, that scenario would depend upon the actions of the enemy of course.

[1] Dirty nuke goes off in US city, with heavy casualties
[2] Nuke is traced back to the government of [INSERT EVIL COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOOSING]
[3] US retaliates in a rapid, swift, no-nonsense fashion
[4] Goodbye [INSERT EVIL COUNTRY OF YOUR CHOOSING]

1. What is a dirty nuke?
2. How do you trace it back to the government(will it be as good intelligence as it was about the WMD's?)?
3. How many civilian casualties are you ready to sacrifice to soothe your bloodlust?
4. What will that accomplish and how will that solve the problem?

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by menglish

sure, but we're not living in an episode of 24

Sure we are. Real life is much more TV like than 24.

9-11 anybody ?

If there's another 9-11 like event, the US response would be so overwhelming, that no TV show could even come up with that plotline or story, not even 24.

Chuckit · Jun 14, 2005, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

That was true in the cold war, between the USA and Russia of course.

Our current enemy will not be able to retaliate in such a way.

If we begin nuking countries out of existence as you suggest, our current enemy doesn't matter. The entire world will be our enemy.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

1. What is a dirty nuke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_nuke

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

2. How do you trace it back to the government(will it be as good intelligence as it was about the WMD's?)?

http://www.llnl.gov/str/March05/Hutcheon.html

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

3. How many civilian casualties are you ready to sacrifice to soothe your bloodlust?

Irrelevant question.

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

4. What will that accomplish and how will that solve the problem?

The bad guys will be dead.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If we begin nuking countries out of existence as you suggest, our current enemy doesn't matter. The entire world will be our enemy.

We won't use any such weapons, unless they're used against us, in which case, nobody should protest.

Cody Dawg · Jun 14, 2005, 04:38 PM

If there's another 9-11 like event, the US response would be so overwhelming, that no TV show could even come up with that plotline or story, not even 24.

Sorry, but I don't see how that would be possible. Recruiting goals haven't been met in nearly one year. No one wants to join. Soon we won't have a military unless we start drafting people. I honestly think that is why we won't be more aggressive with Iran.

Chuckit · Jun 14, 2005, 04:41 PM

PacHead seems to be suggesting we'll nuke them off the face of the earth, in which case it doesn't matter how many troops we have.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Sorry, but I don't see how that would be possible. Recruiting goals haven't been met in nearly one year. No one wants to join. Soon we won't have a military unless we start drafting people. I honestly think that is why we won't be more aggressive with Iran.

Well, hopefully we won't find out which of us is correct.

PacHead · Jun 14, 2005, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

PacHead seems to be suggesting we'll nuke them off the face of the earth, in which case it doesn't matter how many troops we have.

Yes, I'm not talking about any democracy baloney, or winning some hateful hearts and minds. I'm talking about blunt force.

von Wrangell · Jun 14, 2005, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_nuke

So for something that causes this:

It's the chaos, not the chemicals, that likely would cause the most harm should a "dirty bomb" explode, experts say. Heart attacks, not radiation poisoning, might claim more victims.

People within a half-mile radius of even a particularly potent dirty bomb would be exposed to less than the average dose of radiation a person receives naturally within a year, according to the American Institute of Physics' Web site. Most people who work in radiation environments annually receive 10 times the exposure of a person within a half-mile of a dirty bomb, the site states.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/...y.bomb.health/

You'd slaughter hundred of thousands of innocent people. You're a really sick person.

http://www.llnl.gov/str/March05/Hutcheon.html

So if it comes from one of the former republics of Soviet, what then? Will you bomb Russia, the state it came from or will you just choose the nearest Muslim country?

Irrelevant question.

It's not irrelevant because you are talking about slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, among them women and children, because of something that that would result in more heart attacks than deaths from the actual device.

The bad guys will be dead.

How are you sure that they will be in the area you bomb. And how many innocent children and women and elderly are you ready to sacrifice to get the few Bad Guys™ that set of the bomb in the US?

budster101 · Jun 14, 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Sorry, but I don't see how that would be possible. Recruiting goals haven't been met in nearly one year. No one wants to join. Soon we won't have a military unless we start drafting people. I honestly think that is why we won't be more aggressive with Iran.

I'd go in a NY Minute.

Recruiting goals are only down 24% for Army, 12% for the Navy, Airforce is over 100%, and Marines are at 100%.

They are offering incentives for the two branches that are under par for recruiting. This may have to do with activists on campuses who disrupt any recruiting going on.

The Air Force and Marines have historically been more particular for whom they recruit so there are no problems there. People actively seek them out, hence no Campus issues effecting them.

menglish · Jun 14, 2005, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

I'd go in a NY Minute.

Out of curiosity, why don't you?

budster101 · Jun 14, 2005, 07:11 PM

Too old. (40) In decent shape though. I don't think I'd do to well getting ordered around by someone half or less my age. With my life experience anyway.

menglish · Jun 14, 2005, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by budster101

Too old. (40) In decent shape though. I don't think I'd do to well getting ordered around by someone half or less my age. With my life experience anyway.

Oop, just missed the cut-off, which is, I believe, 38 these days?

OreoCookie · Jun 15, 2005, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by PacHead

The term "allies" is relative, and some of those who are listed as our "allies" are not really true allies, so losing them would be beneficial to us in the long term, as they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Then deal with the problems yourself. Pay for them yourself. Which you can't/don't want.

Originally Posted by PacHead

Actually, we do have the military power, we just haven't fully used it yet. We have the military power to destroy the whole entire world, if we felt like it.

Stop dreaming. The US couldn't afford that.

budster101 · Jun 15, 2005, 10:13 AM

38 with an Age Waiver and a specialty... I'm not medical, or any other specialty, so SOL.

Supposedly the Army and Navy are taking on up to 42, but that is with Prior Service and a Secialty.
I looked into it by contacting a couple of recruiters. I'm not a war monger mind you, but I do believe that I'd like to serve my country, no matter where they are, and am a bit late to the gate so-to-speak.

Heart is in the right place, so I support them (Troops) in my heart. They are all (99.9 percent) very good
people.

PacHead · Jun 15, 2005, 01:05 PM

Why do some people want to shut down gitmo ? Why are some people against gitmo ? They wish for the prisoners to be free of course, so that they may continue to terrorize and kill.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - A dozen prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to "the battlefield" to fight against the United States, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Wednesday.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...GUANTANAMO.xml

So, 12 have been recaptured or killed so far.

Yep, it's a great idea to release any of those lowlifes.

NOBODY should be released from gitmo, not one single person, until the war is over.

BoomStick · Jun 15, 2005, 01:15 PM

They should only be released into a plastic bag.

Chuckit · Jun 15, 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

Why do some people want to shut down gitmo ? Why are some people against gitmo ? They wish for the prisoners to be free of course, so that they may continue to terrorize and kill.

Or maybe it's so all the innocent people locked up there can go home to their lives of not terrorizing or killing anybody.

Cody Dawg · Jun 15, 2005, 01:45 PM

Hear, hear. Let them have their lives back.

The only reason the U.S. won't let them out is because they're afraid they'll talk about what happened in there.

Rumsfeld surely doesn't want them let out.

Randman · Jun 15, 2005, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Hear, hear. Let them have their lives back... so they can return and kill more American soldiers.

Right? That is what you are advocating.

Zimphire · Jun 15, 2005, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

WTF are you talking about?

Care to, just for once, write a coherent post that uses more than three sentences?

Stop being a troll von. If you don't understand what I have to say, which is pretty clear. It's is not my fault.

Originally Posted by tie

Our support of torturing prisoners is undermining our efforts.

Exaggeration.

Zimphire · Jun 15, 2005, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Hear, hear. Let them have their lives back.

The only reason the U.S. won't let them out is because they're afraid they'll talk about what happened in there.

Rumsfeld surely doesn't want them let out.

Or we could step back into reality and say the REAL reason is because we'd end up just having to shoot them because they would go back to joining the resistance or put them back in jail, and time after time has shown to be true in these events.

But hey, didn't mean to spoil it for the tin hat crowd.

PacHead · Jun 15, 2005, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Zimphire

But hey, didn't mean to spoil it for the tin hat crowd.

But those prisoners is teh innocent !

Chuckit · Jun 15, 2005, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by PacHead

But those prisoners is teh innocent !

Are you seriously gullible enough to believe every single one of them is a terrorist? Even our normal justice system (which has a much higher degree of accountability) doesn't manage that kind of hit rate.

bubblewrap · Jun 15, 2005, 02:31 PM

Didn't a few of these Gitmo boys turn back up shooting at American soilders?
Apparently they let the wrong ones go.

placebo1969 · Jun 15, 2005, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Or maybe it's so all the innocent people locked up there can go home to their lives of not terrorizing or killing anybody.

While there may be innocent people there, how will closing it solve anything. The US will still need to place suspected terrorists, no?

Troll · Jun 15, 2005, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Or we could step back into reality and say the REAL reason is because we'd end up just having to shoot them because they would go back to joining the resistance or put them back in jail, and time after time has shown to be true in these events.

But hey, didn't mean to spoil it for the tin hat crowd.

You won WWII against a far stronger enemy than Al Qaeda without having to resort to this kind of behaviour.

bubblewrap · Jun 15, 2005, 02:55 PM

We won WWII by defeating government forces, not radical fundamentalist religious nutbags. Islam itself would have to be eradicated.

PacHead · Jun 15, 2005, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Even our normal justice system (which has a much higher degree of accountability) doesn't manage that kind of hit rate.

That's my point exactly. No prison or justice system in the world is perfect, and nobody should expect Gitmo to be, that's the breaks.

Y3a · Jun 15, 2005, 03:22 PM

What BRAND of underwear were they "tortured" with by wearing on their heads? LOL