Three misconceptions 'bout the myriad of truths propogated around here that need to be done away with:
1. America has been watching the terror and horror of the Middle East and other loser countries from abroad.
2. That the behaviour behind these terrorists following maniacs like OBL is some how incomprehensable -- and that OBL is some kind of maniac. I mean, he is but he isn't -- I'll save this for below.
3. That the American Government is interested in liberating any and all oppressed peoples and disposing any and all oppressive governments.
To elaborate on #1:
1. America's cock is sucked on regularly by all those "allied", "stable", "partnerships" or "legitimate governments" of the Mid E. which, word has gotten out, are oppressive. In exchange for patroleum/oil/strategic military bases, America makes sure these Mid E. governments stay right where they are so someone, say chosen by the people *cough* OBL *cough*, doesn't come around and kick 'em out for supporting the bad guy (Observe #2). How does America do this? By ANY means necessary.
#2: It gets better. Case in point: OBL was born in Saudi Arabia and hated the oppressive Saudi regime (like all good 'n' decent folk of other nations would... if they lived there/cared) but was kicked out. He/the people COULD HAVE toppled it but U.S. military elements, including CIA, made that next to impossible. No. Impossible. That coupled with U.S. support towards Israel, a state (also notorius for it's international terrorism) treating Palestinians like hot and crusty dog crap stuck to their shoe is enough to convince many Saudi's/OBL followers/ and the rest -- that the U.S. is bad medicine (which isn't too far from the truth). Not all of them blame the American people -- directly, as seen by their sympathy for the 911 incident. But they acknowledge that Americans still pay taxes and have an obligation to know WTF their government is doing in foreign lands. To quote Fallout 2: "Ignorance is no excuse. A dumbass will get his ass kicked just as fast as a smartass". OBL/asskicker, big planes/big boots, what's the difference? On this, even the people of the Mid E. who mourn America's loss of the twin towers can agree.
On to #3: Like I stated above with the cocksucking, the American administration likes it. And wouldn't you? I mean they can take advantage of those [i]stable allied partnerships[/i] like the whores they are and toss 'em away when they're done. Ha! There's just one catch though. When America leaves and said supported regime gets toppled, the native dune monkies get to inherit their own slice of the moon right here on Earth. Sort of a home away from home away from home. Double Ha!
To add: I laugh hysterically whenever Bush says "they strike at us because we are the beacon of freedom in every land around the world". What land in what world? Lalaland? Is it the world yer in when you smoke crack flying for the National Guard, protecting U.S. soil from the might of Ho'Chi Min? Triple Ha!
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
EarthGov.... what the UN should become.... perhaps start with UN passports, make them a cast iron bitch to get but offer some seriously good benefits....
get every nation to tithe 5% of thier GNP to the UN/EA
get every nation to immediately surrender 5% of thier armed forces ( and not just the clapped out m-60's in the back shed...)
get every nation to surrender 5% of thier land mass as well, ( and not just the miserable bits of Alaska, Siberia and the driest bits of the Sahara and the Gibber dessert...
basically cough up five percent of everything.
we as a race need a unifyed global government... as sad as that sounds... another tier of politicians.
with any luck, the importance and obvious duplication of services in national governments would erode and compress the layers underneath.
it is inevitable that the size of the nations that join will have a direct relation to the size of its power.... I guess we need a senate and a house of reps.... to try and address some of the inequity....
but
in the end... we do need a globo-gov.
so many of these problems become much easier to solve overnight
Well, all I have to say regarding nukes is this: I guess I think that it's far more likely that you'll see a nuke used in the Middle-East first. After all, behind all the Anti-American Rhetoric and Anti-Israeli activism is a base desire: lust for power. Whether they mask it in religious righteousness or maligned patriotic rhetoric, it's still at the center of it.
Add to that the fact that if the US, UK, Russia, or any other nuclear-capable was attacked in such a way, it would give that nation the moral authority to hit back with a disproportionate force. Given that, I doubt anyone is in a rush to test THAT resolve.
As contemptible as most of us feel nuclear weapons are in the States, were they used against us, the patriotism and unity behind our President exhibited over the last few weeks would seem like a high-school pep-rally.
On to other Comments:
Faylorn-- I'd like to address your issues, but I must first say that I think you took your comments a bit over the top. I found more than a bit how you said things to be fairly offensive. One thing none of us in the world can afford to do right now is be overly judgmental. I've tried to look at things from a Middle-Eastern perspective. I understand that there might be a perception of conflicting agendas when looking at US policy in the Israeli and Arab states. And, as I'm sure you've seen above, I'm an advocate for making "adjustments" to that policy that would bring peace to that region. But even with drastic changes to foreign policy, there is no way that there will be "peace" and "security" unless or until the Palestinians and Israelis stop the cycle of hate. You want to know what Americans see when we watch TV? A bunch of uncivilized hooligans that train their kids to kill each other over a small city in the middle of a desert. I find it sad. Sad because these people are doomed to continue this mad cycle for generations, condemning their future to terror, death, and hate.
I'll get this out of the way right now. I love my country. I may not always agree with a particular administration, or the conduct of our representatives, but, given a choice, I'd live and die for this nation. The people who founded this country had the wisdom and the foresight to separate Church and State, and, while it was by no means perfect and universal at the time, they declared that all men were created equal. We've fought hard bloody fights with our own brothers to make sure that "all men" was indeed all men (in a non-gender specific way). And we continue to do our best to do the right thing. No nation is perfect (lord knows we're not), but one thing we always try to do is make sure we take the right path, and that every person in the country has a say in it.
Now, on to your comments:
[quote]Three misconceptions 'bout the myriad of truths propogated around here that need to be done away with:
1. America has been watching the terror and horror of the Middle East and other loser countries from abroad.
...
America's cock is sucked on regularly by all those "allied", "stable", "partnerships" or "legitimate governments" of the Mid E. which, word has gotten out, are oppressive. In exchange for patroleum/oil/strategic military bases, America makes sure these Mid E. governments stay right where they are so someone, say chosen by the people *cough* OBL *cough*, doesn't come around and kick 'em out for supporting the bad guy (Observe #2). How does America do this? By ANY means necessary.[/quote]
And you would have us do what? Ignore treaties and requests by our allies for support and protection? You forget the reasoning behind the deployment of the base in Saudi Arabia. It was placed there because the Saudis were afraid that Saddam Hussein was going to mount a campaign of aggression towards them. And they had every reason to believe that they would (lest we forget, Iran and Iraq were at war for several years preceeding Desert Storm). We are there, at the request of the legitimate, reigning government, to assist them in matters of international security. We're not a internal police force.
[quote]2. That the behaviour behind these terrorists following maniacs like OBL is some how incomprehensable -- and that OBL is some kind of maniac. I mean, he is but he isn't -- I'll save this for below.
...
It gets better. Case in point: OBL was born in Saudi Arabia and hated the oppressive Saudi regime (like all good 'n' decent folk of other nations would... if they lived there/cared) but was kicked out. He/the people COULD HAVE toppled it but U.S. military elements, including CIA, made that next to impossible. No. Impossible. That coupled with U.S. support towards Israel, a state (also notorius for it's international terrorism) treating Palestinians like hot and crusty dog crap stuck to their shoe is enough to convince many Saudi's/OBL followers/ and the rest -- that the U.S. is bad medicine (which isn't too far from the truth). Not all of them blame the American people -- directly, as seen by their sympathy for the 911 incident. But they acknowledge that Americans still pay taxes and have an obligation to know WTF their government is doing in foreign lands. To quote Fallout 2: "Ignorance is no excuse. A dumbass will get his ass kicked just as fast as a smartass". OBL/asskicker, big planes/big boots, what's the difference? On this, even the people of the Mid E. who mourn America's loss of the twin towers can agree.[/quote]
Go back a little further. OK, ALOT further. Osama bin Laden was the 13th child of a very wealthy and successful oil family. According to his brother, he wasn't exactly his father's favorite, though. He became involved in the Afghani struggle in the 80's against the Russians, a leader in the Afghan Resistance who left his own country seeking glory in a "holy war" against the "godless Soviet Republic." He gladly took the support that the CIA offered him, learned their ways, and, when the fight was over, he saw that his government had requested the US build and *jointly* staff an Airbase in his homeland. He thought that the Saudis would be able to accomplish the same feat without American assistance, and made his case to the government. But the government disagreed. Not content with their answer, he pressed the issue--to an extreme level. The Saudi Government banished him. Now he claims that the airbase is an abomination, and instruments of war should not be placed near the holy ground (Mecca).
So, his airbase is ok, but a joint base is an abomination of Islam? Give me a break.
Are we forcing our ideals on the Saudis? No. Airwomen still must wear veils in public, and Americans there cannot display crosses, or openly celebrate any of the Christian Holy Days. In short, the American forces there abide by Saudi law.
So let me ask this question: What right does Osama have to force his views upon people outside his country? What right does he have to involve himself in Bosnia? (Oh, yes, I remember those videos from Bosnia where his "elite fighting force" got their kicks out of hacking up the dead bodies of US Rangers). What right does he have to initiate a reign of terror on innocent children, turning planes into cruise missiles and blowing up buildings that are clearly centers for civilian populations? The answer is simple; he's a leader searching for followers. Case-in-point, until Sunday, he never [b]once[/b] mentioned the Palestinian or Iraqi issues. He's using this as a rallying cry because he knows that his brand of extremism alienates him from the mass majority of Islamic followers. By "aligning" himself with these causes, he feigns legitimacy, and believes that he will be able to gain more allies with those words (empty as they may be).
And don't even start on Iraq with me. We airlift relief supplies to Iraq regularly. In the meanwhile, Saddam is sending out his troops to gather them up, hoarding all the food and medicine drops just so he can tell his people how miserable the Americans are making their lives.
Osama trains men to cut up flight crews, commandeer civilian airliners, and blow up civilians, and forces starving 13-year old boys to fight wars at gunpoint, and they call him a hero. We hit military targets of a pro-terror government, and drop food for their starving population, and we're rat bastards. I say to you, sir, that being the case, I'd rather be a rat bastard.
[quote]3. That the American Government is interested in liberating any and all oppressed peoples and disposing any and all oppressive governments.
...
Like I stated above with the cocksucking, the American administration likes it. And wouldn't you? I mean they can take advantage of those stable allied partnerships like the whores they are and toss 'em away when they're done. Ha! There's just one catch though. When America leaves and said supported regime gets toppled, the native dune monkies get to inherit their own slice of the moon right here on Earth. Sort of a home away from home away from home. Double Ha![/quote]
We left Vietnam. Why? Well, simply put, we got our asses kicked. Getting involved in a civil war probably was not the best foreign policy decision on our part, but we did. And we stayed until we HAD to go. We didn't "toss 'em away."
As for our willingness to help oppressed people, well, gee...what did we have to gain in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Croatia? Nothing. Why did we send our men over there? Principle.
[quote]To add: I laugh hysterically whenever Bush says "they strike at us because we are the beacon of freedom in every land around the world". What land in what world? Lalaland? Is it the world yer in when you smoke crack flying for the National Guard, protecting U.S. soil from the might of Ho'Chi Min? Triple Ha![/quote]
Tell me something, Faylorn. In the land you're in right now, what do you think would happen to you if you walked up to your nation's leader and said, "You know, I think you're a putz."
I know that where I am I could do that, and walk away.
That's Freedom.
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 10-09-2001).]
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
Faylorn-- I'd like to address your issues, but I must first say that I think you took your comments a bit over the top. I found more than a bit how you said things to be fairly offensive. One thing none of us in the world can afford to do right now is be overly judgmental. I've tried to look at things from a Middle-Eastern perspective. I understand that there might be a perception of conflicting agendas when looking at US policy in the Israeli and Arab states. And, as I'm sure you've seen above, I'm an advocate for making "adjustments" to that policy that would bring peace to that region. But even with drastic changes to foreign policy, there is no way that there will be "peace" and "security" unless or until the Palestinians and Israelis stop the cycle of hate. You want to know what Americans see when we watch TV? A bunch of uncivilized hooligans that train their kids to kill each other over a small city in the middle of a desert. I find it sad. Sad because these people are doomed to continue this mad cycle for generations, condemning their future to terror, death, and hate.[/quote]
I agree that America isn't directly supporting Israel's harsh actions against the Palestinians but it's just my own opinion that their economic/military support doesn't ring a whole of confidence in Gaza's Arab population that the U.S. cares, nevermind will give them the fairest of shakes in any peace processes.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
I'll get this out of the way right now. I love my country. I may not always agree with a particular administration, or the conduct of our representatives, but, given a choice, I'd live and die for this nation. The people who founded this country had the wisdom and the foresight to separate Church and State, and, while it was by no means perfect and universal at the time, they declared that all men were created equal. We've fought hard bloody fights with our own brothers to make sure that "all men" was indeed all men (in a non-gender specific way). And we continue to do our best to do the right thing. No nation is perfect (lord knows we're not), but one thing we always try to do is make sure we take the right path, and that every person in the country has a say in it.[/quote]
Okay, there's something at this point that reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally needs to be distinguished. My beef is not with the American people, it's with THE GOVERNMENT. Over the years/decades/centuries those two things have become separate. Americans continue to try to do the right thing... under the impression that CNN is giving them the objective POV... that their government doesn't lie to them... that they're living in God's country so everything'll be alright. Where the American people represent honesty, compassion, and innocense, however, the American government represents lies, merciless imperialism, and evil. This is the general stereotype of America that I've seen.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
And you would have us do what? Ignore treaties and requests by our allies for support and protection? You forget the reasoning behind the deployment of the base in Saudi Arabia. It was placed there because the Saudis were afraid that Saddam Hussein was going to mount a campaign of aggression towards them. And they had every reason to believe that they would (lest we forget, Iran and Iraq were at war for several years preceeding Desert Storm). We are there, at the request of the legitimate, reigning government, to assist them in matters of international security. We're not a internal police force.[/quote]
But as we all know "legitimate, reigning government" can be anything from UFP council to elders of remote South American jungle tribe as long as it's in control. There's also questions that must be asked: why is the American nation allied with a nation whose "legitimate, reigning government" is the Saudi Royal Family? Why in God's good name would America ever help them, even for access to oil? Who stands to gain more from U.S. protection? The Saudi people, the Saudi Royal Family, the U.S., or a combination thereof?
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
Go back a little further. OK, ALOT further. Osama bin Laden was the 13th child of a very wealthy and successful oil family. According to his brother, he wasn't exactly his father's favorite, though. He became involved in the Afghani struggle in the 80's against the Russians, a leader in the Afghan Resistance who left his own country seeking glory in a "holy war" against the "godless Soviet Republic." He gladly took the support that the CIA offered him, learned their ways, and, when the fight was over, he saw that his government had requested the US build and *jointly* staff an Airbase in his homeland. He thought that the Saudis would be able to accomplish the same feat without American assistance, and made his case to the government. But the government disagreed. Not content with their answer, he pressed the issue--to an extreme level. The Saudi Government banished him. Now he claims that the airbase is an abomination, and instruments of war should not be placed near the holy ground (Mecca).
So, his airbase is ok, but a joint base is an abomination of Islam? Give me a break.
Are we forcing our ideals on the Saudis? No. Airwomen still must wear veils in public, and Americans there cannot display crosses, or openly celebrate any of the Christian Holy Days. In short, the American forces there abide by Saudi law.
So let me ask this question: What right does Osama have to force his views upon people outside his country? What right does he have to involve himself in Bosnia? (Oh, yes, I remember those videos from Bosnia where his "elite fighting force" got their kicks out of hacking up the dead bodies of US Rangers). What right does he have to initiate a reign of terror on innocent children, turning planes into cruise missiles and blowing up buildings that are clearly centers for civilian populations? The answer is simple; he's a leader searching for followers. Case-in-point, until Sunday, he never [b]once[/b] mentioned the Palestinian or Iraqi issues. He's using this as a rallying cry because he knows that his brand of extremism alienates him from the mass majority of Islamic followers. By "aligning" himself with these causes, he feigns legitimacy, and believes that he will be able to gain more allies with those words (empty as they may be).
And don't even start on Iraq with me. We airlift relief supplies to Iraq regularly. In the meanwhile, Saddam is sending out his troops to gather them up, hoarding all the food and medicine drops just so he can tell his people how miserable the Americans are making their lives.
Osama trains men to cut up flight crews, commandeer civilian airliners, and blow up civilians, and forces starving 13-year old boys to fight wars at gunpoint, and they call him a hero. We hit military targets of a pro-terror government, and drop food for their starving population, and we're rat bastards. I say to you, sir, that being the case, I'd rather be a rat bastard.[/quote]
Okay the "he is" in my previous statement so overrides the "he isn't" in the case of OBL. I thank you for the added info on the airbase and his activities in Europe. I wasn't sure if he was a twisted, messed-up individual with some intentions of humanity and freedom or just a twisted, messed-up individual. I think I know now. However, the fact remains: the statement (made under pretenses) that oppressive governments kept in power by the U.S., indirectly keeping the average Mid E. civvy out, is true. And food drops are a nice effort in their own context but a slap in the face given the full scope of American (government) involvement in these countries.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
We left Vietnam. Why? Well, simply put, we got our asses kicked. Getting involved in a civil war probably was not the best foreign policy decision on our part, but we did. And we stayed until we HAD to go. We didn't "toss 'em away."[/quote]
When it comes to using regimes like the Saudi Royal Family, Saddam and others like whores, that is where "toss 'em away" comes in. You would be correct that America could not toss away Nam. It didn't have it in the first place.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:As for our willingness to help oppressed people, well, gee...what did we have to gain in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Croatia? Nothing. Why did we send our men over there? Principle.[/quote]
I kinda got the idea that thousands of Muslims died in those conflicts and the U.N. didn't do much when they were there. Why did you guys send yer men? I don't know.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
Tell me something, Faylorn. In the land you're in right now, what do you think would happen to you if you walked up to your nation's leader and said, "You know, I think you're a putz."
I know that where I am I could do that, and walk away.
That's Freedom.
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 10-09-2001).][/quote]
I don't doubt your freedom, I doubt the freedom of Mid E. American allies. I wonder why a nation who's based on such ideals as "all men are created equal" can ally themselves with heaps like the Saudi Royal Family. I know that if the American people actually knew what was going on they wouldn't stand for it but they don't know. THAT'S what drives me to type what I type here with such severity.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[quote]Originally posted by Faylorn:
[b]No, he means pounding two pieces of uranium together and "lighting up" the city, eh? Cause pounding uranium together makes a nuclear explosion.[/b][/quote]
I assumed he didn't mean that, since it doesn't work that way. You don't get a nuclear bomb by banging two pieces of weapons grade uranium together with your hands or a hammer and nail.
I’ll clip out allot of the rehash for space [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]I agree that America isn't directly supporting Israel's harsh actions against the Palestinians but it's just my own opinion that their economic/military support doesn't ring a whole of confidence in the Arab population there either.[/quote]
No, we aren’t. We are giving them weapons to defend their sovereignty, though. I * do * think that it is time for the US to play a little hardball with BOTH sides, though. This is just out of hand, and they, clearly, would be just as content to fight each other until hell freezes over when it comes to Jerusalem.
[quote]Okay, there's something at this point that reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally needs to be distinguished. My beef is not with the American people, it's with THE GOVERNMENT. Over the years/decades/centuries those two things have become separate. Americans continue to try to do the right thing... under the impression that CNN is giving them the objective POV... that their government wouldn't lie to them... that they're living in God's country so everything'll be alright. Where the American people represent honesty, compassion, and innocense, however, the American government represents lies, merciless imperialism, and evil. This is the general stereotype of America that I've seen.[/quote]
American’s aren’t the dummies that they (apparently) are made out to be on the international front. We understand what is going on; we have access to not only our own news, but news sources from around the world. And with people writing articles to the extreme left and right and all shades in-between, it’s not to hard to find counterpoints to anything one might believe to be a truism. One of the things I take pride in is reading articles at both extremes, and finding the truth in-between them (three-edged sword).
As for the government, it is a government “for the people, by the people” making rules and laws “with the consent of the governed.” When we disagree with a policy, we make it known by our vote. If we think a politician is less than honest, we vote him out (look at Rep. Gary Condit).
Imperialism involves taking over countries and establishing your own form of law. Like Britain was with Hong Kong and Australia, or Spain with the Central American countries. That is NOT what the US does. What we do is offer military and economic support to our Allies.
[quote]But as we all know "legitimate government" can be the Ancient Inka's order of government and still be considered such. There's also a question you have to ask yourself: why is my nation allied with these royal Saudi dips (and I'm talkin' the Saudi royal family -- not the people)? You also got ask who stands to gain most from preventing the Iraqi incursion, the Saudi people or America.[/quote]
You don’t really think that the people of Saudi Arabia WANTED Saddam Hussein to invade their country do you? We reach out our hand in friendship and hope to teach by example, not by pressing our form of government on a nation. If we did that to Saudi Arabia, I’d vote the bastard out that started it, and I’d sure as hell raise protest. It’s not our position to go around and overthrow governments we don’t agree with. Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs showed just how stupefying moronic a policy like that can be.
Let me tell you something, if freedom and independence are given, they will never be appreciated; if it is fought for and earned with the blood of patriots, no force on Earth will ever take it away from you. It’s like the saying that your signature is based on. Teach the man to fish, don’t just give the fish to him.
My heart goes out to the Cuban refugees, but I firmly believe that they must start their own revolution; the US has no place to start a revolution for them.
[quote] (on bin Laden) Okay the "he is" in my previous statement so overrides the "he isn't" in the case of OBL. I thank you for the added info on the airbase and his activities in Europe. However, the fact remains: the statement (made under pretenses) oppressive governments, kept in power by the U.S., indirectly keeping the average Mid E. civvy out is true. And food drops are a nice effort in their own context but a slap in the face given American (government) involvement in these countries.[/quote]
Please see my previous response. Freedom, Liberty, and Independence must be gained through the efforts of those who want it, or it will mean nothing to them.
[quote]I don't doubt your freedom, I doubt the freedom of Mid E. American allies. I wonder why a nation who's based on such ideals as " all men are created equal" can ally themselves with heaps like the Saudi Royal Family. I know that if the American people actually knew what was going on they wouldn't stand for it but they don't know.[/quote]
Once again, it’s not American policy to go around being the “Ideology Police” and force governments from power that don’t necessarily subscribe to our model. That WOULD be Imperialistic. And, like I said, Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs showed that was not the best policy to take.
So, getting down to it, on the one hand, you’re blaming us for coping out of Vietnam (despite the fact that the majority was going with a communist government), and, on the other hand, you smack us for backing Israeli’s (despite the fact that they are drastically outnumbered and surrounded by hostile nations)? That doesn’t make sense. All it means is that you don’t necessarily agree with the sides we choose to take. That doesn’t mean that the selection was irrational or without thought.
I certainly wouldn’t back a canidate that said, “well, you know, we need that oil in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi’s really need to be gotten rid of because noone over there likes them. We’re going to oust the king, and make the people form a new democratic government.”
Oh, yeah. That sounds REAL good.
Here’s another “what if?”: What do you think would have done if the planes didn’t hit America, but instead struck another one of the nuclear-capable nations? I’d lay money that a few “select areas” would have been glowing green right now, with no chance of rehabitation for the next 5000 years.
In a way, it was probably better for the world that things happened here in the States, where people are a little more…reserved…about extreme military options, and favor justice over vengeance.
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 10-09-2001).]
[i]I don't doubt your freedom, I doubt the freedom of Mid E. American allies. I wonder why a nation who's based on such ideals as " all men are created equal" can ally themselves with heaps like the Saudi Royal Family. I know that if the American people actually knew what was going on they wouldn't stand for it but they don't know. THAT'S what drives me to type what I type here with such severity.[/i]
Our ideals are described in a constitution, a bill of rights, and in laws. But it takes people to bring those ideals to fruition in the real world. Running a complex modern society is a difficult, ever-changing process. It's an experiment for which there are guidelines, but no instructions.
In the process of running this grand experiment, guided by our ideals, we run up against the failings of human beings - competing ideologies, a fascination with wealth and power, as sometimes opposed to the health and well-being of the planet and other people of the world, and so mistakes are made and misguided plans are hatched. This is why it is important for the people to stay informed and engaged – as a political check-valve, if you will. This is why we must stay vigilant to make sure that we maintain a representative government, which can erode if given free reign.
One clear Catch 22 problem we have at the moment is a seeming dependence on Saudi oil, while the Saudi government/ culture creates a petri dish for the growth of intolerance and terrorism (because the Wahhabi sect is apparently the official religion - see Stephen Schwartz's article posted elsewhere). I say seeming dependence on Saudi oil because I personally believe that with enough focused effort, alternative energy could immediately end our reliance on oil altogether. This, in my view, is opposed by the oil industry, and automotive industry, and the power industry, who would suffer great financial upheaval if that were to happen, and these industries have powerful political lobbies.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-10-2001).]
JohnD, I thought that's how the earlier Uranium A-Bombs worked.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
Randy, that was pure Novocain. If only Joe and Jane America would say that just before conquering Earth I would be in happyland (literally)*. Noam Chomsky also says/would like what you said. Find his insightful stuff here: [url="http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm"]http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm[/url]
*for once this is not sarcasm, I'm serious.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[quote]Originally posted by Faylorn:
[b]JohnD, I thought that's how the earlier Uranium A-Bombs worked.[/b][/quote]
They didn't work by holding a pile of weapons grade uranium in one hand, another pile in your other hand and banging them together. It also didn't work by using a hammer and nails on them. From the best I remember (which may be inaccurate and is certainly missing details), shaped charges direct explosions in a very specific and complex way into the material that starts a reaction. Other weapons do that and use the nuclear explosion to trigger the nuclear explosion of other material (is that a hydrogen bomb)?
Banging piles together or hammering nails into the piles won't do the job, though. You will end up being exposed to radioactivity merely by holding the material, but you won't start a nuclear bomb explosion.
I think one of the hurdles is properly forming the explosives to correctly direct their complex explosions into the nuclear material in just the right way, in addition to procuring or developing the weapons grade material in the first place.
But we should start the story that pounding on piles of weapons grade uranium with a hammer and a nail will indeed work, so that at least the unsophisticated terrorists will get what's coming to them sooner, instead of later.
[quote]Originally posted by Faylorn:
[b]Randy, that was pure Novocain. If only Joe and Jane America would say that just before conquering Earth I would be in happyland (literally)*. Noam Chomsky also says/would like what you said. Find his insightful stuff here: [url="http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm"]http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm[/url]
*for once this is not sarcasm, I'm serious.
[/b][/quote]
I respect Mr. Chmosky's mind, but he sometimes seems to reside in an idealistic bubble apart from reality - to me, anyway. Nevertheless, I do appreciate his vision.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-09-2001).]
[quote][b]
oh well, tis History now.
IMO, forget about the past of what the so called "Religions" have done. Never base your opinions of an individual by what faith they are.
[/b][/quote]
Thats why I said Christian church, and not christianity...
Lets drop thid imo you can never talk faith to anyone without running into a flamewar.
I'm no political anylist here, but let's go hypothetical based on what Randy and Faylorn have been arguing.
Say Congress and Bush suddenly take on Faylorn's point of view and decide to stop supporting our Isralei allies. Eventually, the Palestinians will invade and kill the Isralies. The Isralies will regroup and take it back. The Palestinians will regroup and kill them again. Until there's noone left in the region, we can sweep up the mess, and we can get the frelling oil out of the ground ourselves.
Or, on the other hand, the conflict may end up with a few eventual winners. The result could be easily the equivalent of closing our doors and letting Hitler take over Europe instead of getting involved in WWII. Believe me, the head of ONE of these nations would find a reason to pick a fight with us-and anyone that can win a war down there would have better equipment than hijacked planes.
With that said, US support of one side or the other makes sense. It saves lives. Instead of millions dead in endless wars, you get hundreds dead in the occasional suicide bombing and riot. True, by supporting Israel, we're ticking off the palestinians 'cause they can't kill the Israelis. Did they ever stop to think they'd take losses in any military action too? In a way, we are saving them from themselves. The longer we keep them in their corners, the more chance there is we might work it out peacefully.
Like I said, I'm no brain box, but I thought I'd drop in my pennies, flawed as they may be.
Edit: About the "oppressive" Isralei gov't. The US is pretty much keeping its enemies from overtly crushing it, right? So people like OBL turn to terrorism. With that many enemies right next door, you have to be a little more restrictive to give security to your people. Like any human institution, the Isralei government may make mistakes trying to defend itself. I'm pretty sure, though, if they were filing suspicious-looling persons into gas chambers and death camps, we wouldn't be so friendly with them.
[This message has been edited by Vertigo_1 (edited 10-10-2001).]
Most of this is taken out of my High School Chem book.
Alpha Radiation=He with mass of 4 and an atomic # of 2. Stopped by the skin.
Beta Radiation=loose electron(-), fast moving, stopped by thin wood.
Gamma=Very powerfull Electromagnetic Radiation, fast moving, lots of damage, stopped by several cm of lead or several meters of concrete (but not totally)
To create fission you need a chunk of a radioactive material (most likely Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239) and something that releases nuetrons (which cause the U and Pu to become unstable, breaking them down, creating radiation).
From my understanding, you would therfor need an explosive (such as TNT) to start a fission reaction. So you cant pound Uranium rocks together to create a nuclear reaction. I think I am right, but please correct me if I am wrong.
[quote]Originally posted by Randy:
[b]But we should start the story that pounding on piles of weapons grade uranium with a hammer and a nail will indeed work, so that at least the unsophisticated terrorists will get what's coming to them sooner, instead of later. [/b][/quote]
You need to get the material to critical mass, which basically involves compressing it to a certain point where the chain reaction kicks off. It's harder than it sounds, you need to compress the material uniformly and simulatinously from all sides. At least, that's what I remember...
I appologize for attributing the Crusade to Christrians, rather than the Christian Church at the time. The true intent of Christianity, as with most religions, is one of love, which was evidentally lost of those who carried out the killings. This biased view spawns from my rather low opinion of most religions, but of their general positive side. (Yes, I endoge in Idolatry. And yes, as I have been told on several occasions whether directly or indirectly, I am going to Hell.)
------------------
"God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
[quote]Originally posted by Vertigo_1:
[b]I'm no political anylist here, but let's go hypothetical based on what Randy and Faylorn have been arguing.
[This message has been edited by Vertigo_1 (edited 10-10-2001).][/b][/quote]
Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time understanding how you got from anything I said to your above statements about the Israeli and Palestinian problem.
For the record, I think that the Israeli and Palestinian problem is a complex socio-political-religious-historical mess complicated by bigotry, paranoia, strategic alliances, hidden agendas, and fueled by young, under-informed citizens, desperation, blind zealots, and the egos of old military men. How it can ever end is far beyond me.
I am unsure of the intent of U.S. policy, or even if it ever stays the same. I do suspect that if these elements go critical the explosion could involve most of the world, and I’m sure that this is part of the reason the U.S. is involved. And I’m relatively sure there are hidden American agendas too. There is probably so much hidden from the public eye that it’s really senseless to try and be an armchair annalist.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-10-2001).]
There is one reason Israel won't go and conquer the Middle East or go slaughter the Palestinians all at once. The international community wouldn't allow it. Hell, neither would the majority of the Israeli people. I have said this before, U.S. oil supply in the Mid E. require that their be stability in the region lest someone come into power and screw up that supply. The only reason/way anyone would try something like that when U.S. interest is around would be if Israel pushed too hard into neighboring lands/against the Palestinians and the Muslim community formed a Ji-Haad against them and their allies. At that point the U.S. would be caught between a rock and a hard place: stay with Israel and suffer economic backlash or go with the Mid E. and get razzed by the international community. Those are not the choices politicians typically like to make.
Now what I figure the U.S. foreign policy should be for nations like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq is one of either ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all or having nothing to do with their administrations. And by "ensuring" I mean troop deployment to troubled locales if necessary. Some of you might argue that would make the U.S. an international policing force and just be more self-righteous mumbo jumbo BLAH BLAH BLAH. I say why not have good cop instead of bad cop?
Just my two cents.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-10-2001).]
I'm going to come back here and post some stuff in relation to nuclear yeilds without fancy explosives and electronics.
I'll probably get the FBI, DOD and everybody else on my butt for it, but you guys need to get past the high-tech hump that you all think is required for a nuclear yeild.
I understand your thinking, but I hardly want my nation to become ideologigal imperialists. That's a vain and treacherous road that leads to horrific outcomes like Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs. Even Korea was a draw. That policy just does not work.
As I said before, Liberty, Freedom, and Independance must be fought for and earned with blood of patriots, or when a crisis arises, the path of least resistance will be to revert to "the old ways" before democracy.
Remember that a democracy is horribly inefficient compared to, say, a patriarchy, because rule is by consensus. There is no "one person that can override the system." And that can frustrate people in power that aren't willing to be patient. So much of the arguements you see on "the hill" are pure windage, some of which serves no other purpose than to delay ratification of a bill and allow people to adequately understand what the bill contains.
What I'm saying, in effect, is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" (and if you try and force it, you'll be picking hoofmarks out of your ass. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] )
There's been alot of talk as well about Establishing a Marshal Plan for the area over military action. While this may be noble, you must have to have a infrastructure that supports the currency you'll be inserting (in this case, dollars), and a government that will take and distribute supplies appropriately to it's people (which isn't happening either-- the Taliban are burning the foodstuffs and supplies we are dropping, apparently). Similar issues exist in Iraq.
It's a tough call. Really.
But sometimes you just have to take up arms and fight the tough fight...because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
*Rick looks at John Walker, "my redneck heritage is showing, isn't it?" [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
BTW: I love you guys, and I'm actually enjoying this debate. I see it as very constructive [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
The uranium bomb was relatively easy to detonate, using two pieces of uranium. One piece of uranium was a large cup-shaped piece that was just under the amount needed to achieve critical mass. The second piece of uranium was a small cylindrical slug that would fit inside the cup-shaped piece to bring the amount of uranium up to critical mass, which is the amount necessary to create a chain reaction.
Little Boy used a standard explosion trigger, called the "gun" method. [b][i]One piece of uranium was fired into a second piece at the end of a gun barrel[/i][/b].
The firing mechanism was so simple that the scientists calculated the chances of failure were only one in ten thousand. The instant they came together, an explosion with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT would occur.
Little boy was considerably less complicated in design than the plutonium Fat Man implosion weapon. So confident were the scientists in Little Boy, that it was not tested prior to its actual use on Hiroshima.
[/quote]
Fat Man used the implosion method on Plutonium and therefor had to be tested to see if it would work.
Keep in mind that these were designed to be deliverable weapons from aircraft, not in the hands of some individual who knows they will die, and can carry the material. Yes they will become terminally ill, but again in the case of this kind of individual, it doesn't matter anyway.
Another example of the gun method of detonation was the "Grable (Atomic Annie)" shot.
In the case of this test, an atomic artillery shell (280mm) using the same method of detonation as the "Little Boy" was precisely detonated roughly 500 feet above the ground target.
I don't think I have to go into an explanation of how much easier it would be for someone who isn't restrained by design needs, and simply has enough Uranium fuel, to get the results that they want.
Take special note of the confidence that the scientists had with this method.
Can you say, high powered rifle with a uranium 235 slug, and a just sub-critical Uranium 235 cup shaped target?
Damn, Jack, I gotta get me one of those...you seen all the Squirrels down here? Daaaaaaamn [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
Seriously, though, I think you'll find they ruled out the practicality of nuclear artillary due to fallout & radiation affecting the gunner...while some zealots may embrace instantaneous death, death by radiation sickness is far less....appealing. And as "strilization" isn't exactly a good thing to the extremists, it's even LESS likely they'll try thast route.
Re: fat man/little boy. Yes, it was that "simple" but they still require shaped charges, and precicely machined plutonium/uranium, and the technology/foundery capable of molding and machining them safely. Remember that we have satellites that can tell us the location of just about every nuclear reactor and radiation source on the planet, so it won't be something so easily hidden. Especially if some lunatic has a guy in front of a Do-All in a wood shack making them [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img].
JD- Yes, you're right...Neutron Bombs require a thermonuclear trigger (heat+pressure).
Re: size of the "Davy Crockett" shell: point taken. But...while the package for the artillary was small, it still required the "high quality" shaped charges to detonate. I doubt that capability to produce that is readily available in Afghanastan. Especially after, oh, Sunday.
-R.
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
As to what Rick was saying about fighting for freedom. I think that in the future, eventually, we will have to fight for our freedoms again. This is sadly because with each generation we take more and more for granted. However, I do believe that whatever happens America (or some form of it) is here for the long run no matter what happens (with the exception of the end of the world).
oh yeah... I forgot the sting in the tail for my previous post...
To become a member of the UN/EA community, a person who is a terran... and get a UNEA passport... you pledge to Earth and renounce your nationality. Respect it yes, remember it and cherish you culture and where you came from but you must rise above it and join the global community. Live in a UNEA zone of your country, or another country if you prefer. Work and live as an Terran and not an Australian, American, Ugandan, New Zealander, German or Finn....
I think I could count the people willing to do that on one hand....
Well, one reason on that is plain old practicality. I sure wouldn't get special documents just so I could lose my citizenship and be relocated to a special area of my own country, which may or may not be as much as about 4000 miles away from where I live. Home is home. It always has been, and it always will be, and I wonder how it is some people don't realize it.
And why renounce it at all? I have a Florida State driver's licence, not a U.S. one, for example.
[This message has been edited by David of Mac (edited 10-11-2001).]
thats right.. its a sacrifice to let go of your past.. move on
you can call me righteous or holier than thou... but if you become a terran... then you should... if you really embrace the whole concept and the whole world... not give a rats arse where you live if your basic needs are met.
If you were on board an Omega, and you were confined to quarters for the term of your natural life... you would piss and moan like a drain....
The earth is just a big naturally occuring spaceship...
Everything is relative my friend.
Look outside the boundaries of your house, your neighbourhood, your city, your county, your state, your nation... to your planet...
A nationality is as much a binding as it is a seat belt...
And who said anything about being practical. This is an ideal.. and like all true ideals... you can never quite reach them, thats why they are ideals... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
But I think it is the right way to go.... just what exactly is the first step ?
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
I do belive eventually we will move twards a Global Alliance of some sort, but it must be done from the bottom up. You can't create a world force, and try to make people join it. It must occur as a transformation of humanity, globaly we must realize our common destiny.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
[quote]Originally posted by shadow boxer:
[b]thats right.. its a sacrifice to let go of your past.. move on
[/b][/quote]
Of course. Leave behind friends, family, the house I grew up in, the place I saw my first sunrise, the entire history of myself. Just drop it all so I can go through customs a bit easier. Get rid of the forced relocation, then we'll talk.
[quote][b]you can call me righteous or holier than thou... but if you become a terran... then you should... if you really embrace the whole concept and the whole world... not give a rats arse where you live if your basic needs are met.
[/b][/quote]
So you wouldn't mind if I picked you up, moved you to a strange place, and gave you a piece of paper saying "Welcome to the world communtity! The entire planet is yours, execpt for where you came from.", you wouldn't care as long as you had a bed and some food. I think I'd rather compare you to a sheep then call you holier then thou.
[quote][b]If you were on board an Omega, and you were confined to quarters for the term of your natural life... you would piss and moan like a drain....
[/quote][/b]
Of course. But I have no emotional attachment to those quarters (bet pretty soon they'd seem like sixteenths.... Never mind), and I did not chose to stay there. That cabin is not home. That cabin is not where my neighbors, friends and family are. That cabin is where I would go if I wanted to stop voting in presedental elections and to get a spiffy looking passport.
[quote][b]The earth is just a big naturally occuring spaceship...
[/quote][/b]
I sure as hell won't be moved away from my little section of it to get a bloody piece of paper.
[quote][b]Everything is relative my friend. [/quote][/b]
Uh huh. Speaking of relatives, being technicaly out of the country would mean I'd have a hard time visiting those wonderful stay at homers who still can get a drivers licence valid in the USA, such as my sisters.
[quote][b]Look outside the boundaries of your house, your neighbourhood, your city, your county, your state, your nation... to your planet...[/quote][/b]
Yep. Big ol' place, ain't it. And I hope to visit some of it. And I hope to stay close to the people who are important to me. I will always choose home and loved ones above scenery.
[quote][b]A nationality is as much a binding as it is a seat belt...
[/quote][/b]
Beg pardon? I don't follow your metaphore.
[quote][b]And who said anything about being practical. This is an ideal.. and like all true ideals... you can never quite reach them, thats why they are ideals... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img][/quote][/b]
Damned inconveiant for an ideal. 230 years ago, some people up north a ways of me fought so they could live the way they want, without having to send a big chunk of their money 3,000 miles away so jolly old England could balance their war expences. That was an ideal. Forcing others to go away from their homes because they want red-tape free travel is not.
[quote][b]But I think it is the right way to go.... just what exactly is the first step ?
Who the hell knows...[/b][/quote]
I don't think it's right to cut out local govenment. To recap, I can go to a special area and have a govenment where I'm one of six billion, making my opionions worth nil, or I could be in a population of a few million, which in turn is a single in a population of about two hundred, which is in turn is part of a population of fifty, plus the terotories, which in turn is a member of a population of a hundred and fifty.
Local government on various levels in nessesary, and has the added benifit of it not being an evil.
[This message has been edited by David of Mac (edited 10-11-2001).]
Comments
1. America has been watching the terror and horror of the Middle East and other loser countries from abroad.
2. That the behaviour behind these terrorists following maniacs like OBL is some how incomprehensable -- and that OBL is some kind of maniac. I mean, he is but he isn't -- I'll save this for below.
3. That the American Government is interested in liberating any and all oppressed peoples and disposing any and all oppressive governments.
To elaborate on #1:
1. America's cock is sucked on regularly by all those "allied", "stable", "partnerships" or "legitimate governments" of the Mid E. which, word has gotten out, are oppressive. In exchange for patroleum/oil/strategic military bases, America makes sure these Mid E. governments stay right where they are so someone, say chosen by the people *cough* OBL *cough*, doesn't come around and kick 'em out for supporting the bad guy (Observe #2). How does America do this? By ANY means necessary.
#2: It gets better. Case in point: OBL was born in Saudi Arabia and hated the oppressive Saudi regime (like all good 'n' decent folk of other nations would... if they lived there/cared) but was kicked out. He/the people COULD HAVE toppled it but U.S. military elements, including CIA, made that next to impossible. No. Impossible. That coupled with U.S. support towards Israel, a state (also notorius for it's international terrorism) treating Palestinians like hot and crusty dog crap stuck to their shoe is enough to convince many Saudi's/OBL followers/ and the rest -- that the U.S. is bad medicine (which isn't too far from the truth). Not all of them blame the American people -- directly, as seen by their sympathy for the 911 incident. But they acknowledge that Americans still pay taxes and have an obligation to know WTF their government is doing in foreign lands. To quote Fallout 2: "Ignorance is no excuse. A dumbass will get his ass kicked just as fast as a smartass". OBL/asskicker, big planes/big boots, what's the difference? On this, even the people of the Mid E. who mourn America's loss of the twin towers can agree.
On to #3: Like I stated above with the cocksucking, the American administration likes it. And wouldn't you? I mean they can take advantage of those [i]stable allied partnerships[/i] like the whores they are and toss 'em away when they're done. Ha! There's just one catch though. When America leaves and said supported regime gets toppled, the native dune monkies get to inherit their own slice of the moon right here on Earth. Sort of a home away from home away from home. Double Ha!
To add: I laugh hysterically whenever Bush says "they strike at us because we are the beacon of freedom in every land around the world". What land in what world? Lalaland? Is it the world yer in when you smoke crack flying for the National Guard, protecting U.S. soil from the might of Ho'Chi Min? Triple Ha!
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
Yeah.... Jerusalem becomes Terran property...
EarthGov.... what the UN should become.... perhaps start with UN passports, make them a cast iron bitch to get but offer some seriously good benefits....
get every nation to tithe 5% of thier GNP to the UN/EA
get every nation to immediately surrender 5% of thier armed forces ( and not just the clapped out m-60's in the back shed...)
get every nation to surrender 5% of thier land mass as well, ( and not just the miserable bits of Alaska, Siberia and the driest bits of the Sahara and the Gibber dessert...
basically cough up five percent of everything.
we as a race need a unifyed global government... as sad as that sounds... another tier of politicians.
with any luck, the importance and obvious duplication of services in national governments would erode and compress the layers underneath.
it is inevitable that the size of the nations that join will have a direct relation to the size of its power.... I guess we need a senate and a house of reps.... to try and address some of the inequity....
but
in the end... we do need a globo-gov.
so many of these problems become much easier to solve overnight
Add to that the fact that if the US, UK, Russia, or any other nuclear-capable was attacked in such a way, it would give that nation the moral authority to hit back with a disproportionate force. Given that, I doubt anyone is in a rush to test THAT resolve.
As contemptible as most of us feel nuclear weapons are in the States, were they used against us, the patriotism and unity behind our President exhibited over the last few weeks would seem like a high-school pep-rally.
On to other Comments:
Faylorn-- I'd like to address your issues, but I must first say that I think you took your comments a bit over the top. I found more than a bit how you said things to be fairly offensive. One thing none of us in the world can afford to do right now is be overly judgmental. I've tried to look at things from a Middle-Eastern perspective. I understand that there might be a perception of conflicting agendas when looking at US policy in the Israeli and Arab states. And, as I'm sure you've seen above, I'm an advocate for making "adjustments" to that policy that would bring peace to that region. But even with drastic changes to foreign policy, there is no way that there will be "peace" and "security" unless or until the Palestinians and Israelis stop the cycle of hate. You want to know what Americans see when we watch TV? A bunch of uncivilized hooligans that train their kids to kill each other over a small city in the middle of a desert. I find it sad. Sad because these people are doomed to continue this mad cycle for generations, condemning their future to terror, death, and hate.
I'll get this out of the way right now. I love my country. I may not always agree with a particular administration, or the conduct of our representatives, but, given a choice, I'd live and die for this nation. The people who founded this country had the wisdom and the foresight to separate Church and State, and, while it was by no means perfect and universal at the time, they declared that all men were created equal. We've fought hard bloody fights with our own brothers to make sure that "all men" was indeed all men (in a non-gender specific way). And we continue to do our best to do the right thing. No nation is perfect (lord knows we're not), but one thing we always try to do is make sure we take the right path, and that every person in the country has a say in it.
Now, on to your comments:
[quote]Three misconceptions 'bout the myriad of truths propogated around here that need to be done away with:
1. America has been watching the terror and horror of the Middle East and other loser countries from abroad.
...
America's cock is sucked on regularly by all those "allied", "stable", "partnerships" or "legitimate governments" of the Mid E. which, word has gotten out, are oppressive. In exchange for patroleum/oil/strategic military bases, America makes sure these Mid E. governments stay right where they are so someone, say chosen by the people *cough* OBL *cough*, doesn't come around and kick 'em out for supporting the bad guy (Observe #2). How does America do this? By ANY means necessary.[/quote]
And you would have us do what? Ignore treaties and requests by our allies for support and protection? You forget the reasoning behind the deployment of the base in Saudi Arabia. It was placed there because the Saudis were afraid that Saddam Hussein was going to mount a campaign of aggression towards them. And they had every reason to believe that they would (lest we forget, Iran and Iraq were at war for several years preceeding Desert Storm). We are there, at the request of the legitimate, reigning government, to assist them in matters of international security. We're not a internal police force.
[quote]2. That the behaviour behind these terrorists following maniacs like OBL is some how incomprehensable -- and that OBL is some kind of maniac. I mean, he is but he isn't -- I'll save this for below.
...
It gets better. Case in point: OBL was born in Saudi Arabia and hated the oppressive Saudi regime (like all good 'n' decent folk of other nations would... if they lived there/cared) but was kicked out. He/the people COULD HAVE toppled it but U.S. military elements, including CIA, made that next to impossible. No. Impossible. That coupled with U.S. support towards Israel, a state (also notorius for it's international terrorism) treating Palestinians like hot and crusty dog crap stuck to their shoe is enough to convince many Saudi's/OBL followers/ and the rest -- that the U.S. is bad medicine (which isn't too far from the truth). Not all of them blame the American people -- directly, as seen by their sympathy for the 911 incident. But they acknowledge that Americans still pay taxes and have an obligation to know WTF their government is doing in foreign lands. To quote Fallout 2: "Ignorance is no excuse. A dumbass will get his ass kicked just as fast as a smartass". OBL/asskicker, big planes/big boots, what's the difference? On this, even the people of the Mid E. who mourn America's loss of the twin towers can agree.[/quote]
Go back a little further. OK, ALOT further. Osama bin Laden was the 13th child of a very wealthy and successful oil family. According to his brother, he wasn't exactly his father's favorite, though. He became involved in the Afghani struggle in the 80's against the Russians, a leader in the Afghan Resistance who left his own country seeking glory in a "holy war" against the "godless Soviet Republic." He gladly took the support that the CIA offered him, learned their ways, and, when the fight was over, he saw that his government had requested the US build and *jointly* staff an Airbase in his homeland. He thought that the Saudis would be able to accomplish the same feat without American assistance, and made his case to the government. But the government disagreed. Not content with their answer, he pressed the issue--to an extreme level. The Saudi Government banished him. Now he claims that the airbase is an abomination, and instruments of war should not be placed near the holy ground (Mecca).
So, his airbase is ok, but a joint base is an abomination of Islam? Give me a break.
Are we forcing our ideals on the Saudis? No. Airwomen still must wear veils in public, and Americans there cannot display crosses, or openly celebrate any of the Christian Holy Days. In short, the American forces there abide by Saudi law.
So let me ask this question: What right does Osama have to force his views upon people outside his country? What right does he have to involve himself in Bosnia? (Oh, yes, I remember those videos from Bosnia where his "elite fighting force" got their kicks out of hacking up the dead bodies of US Rangers). What right does he have to initiate a reign of terror on innocent children, turning planes into cruise missiles and blowing up buildings that are clearly centers for civilian populations? The answer is simple; he's a leader searching for followers. Case-in-point, until Sunday, he never [b]once[/b] mentioned the Palestinian or Iraqi issues. He's using this as a rallying cry because he knows that his brand of extremism alienates him from the mass majority of Islamic followers. By "aligning" himself with these causes, he feigns legitimacy, and believes that he will be able to gain more allies with those words (empty as they may be).
And don't even start on Iraq with me. We airlift relief supplies to Iraq regularly. In the meanwhile, Saddam is sending out his troops to gather them up, hoarding all the food and medicine drops just so he can tell his people how miserable the Americans are making their lives.
Osama trains men to cut up flight crews, commandeer civilian airliners, and blow up civilians, and forces starving 13-year old boys to fight wars at gunpoint, and they call him a hero. We hit military targets of a pro-terror government, and drop food for their starving population, and we're rat bastards. I say to you, sir, that being the case, I'd rather be a rat bastard.
[quote]3. That the American Government is interested in liberating any and all oppressed peoples and disposing any and all oppressive governments.
...
Like I stated above with the cocksucking, the American administration likes it. And wouldn't you? I mean they can take advantage of those stable allied partnerships like the whores they are and toss 'em away when they're done. Ha! There's just one catch though. When America leaves and said supported regime gets toppled, the native dune monkies get to inherit their own slice of the moon right here on Earth. Sort of a home away from home away from home. Double Ha![/quote]
We left Vietnam. Why? Well, simply put, we got our asses kicked. Getting involved in a civil war probably was not the best foreign policy decision on our part, but we did. And we stayed until we HAD to go. We didn't "toss 'em away."
As for our willingness to help oppressed people, well, gee...what did we have to gain in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Croatia? Nothing. Why did we send our men over there? Principle.
[quote]To add: I laugh hysterically whenever Bush says "they strike at us because we are the beacon of freedom in every land around the world". What land in what world? Lalaland? Is it the world yer in when you smoke crack flying for the National Guard, protecting U.S. soil from the might of Ho'Chi Min? Triple Ha![/quote]
Tell me something, Faylorn. In the land you're in right now, what do you think would happen to you if you walked up to your nation's leader and said, "You know, I think you're a putz."
I know that where I am I could do that, and walk away.
That's Freedom.
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 10-09-2001).]
Faylorn-- I'd like to address your issues, but I must first say that I think you took your comments a bit over the top. I found more than a bit how you said things to be fairly offensive. One thing none of us in the world can afford to do right now is be overly judgmental. I've tried to look at things from a Middle-Eastern perspective. I understand that there might be a perception of conflicting agendas when looking at US policy in the Israeli and Arab states. And, as I'm sure you've seen above, I'm an advocate for making "adjustments" to that policy that would bring peace to that region. But even with drastic changes to foreign policy, there is no way that there will be "peace" and "security" unless or until the Palestinians and Israelis stop the cycle of hate. You want to know what Americans see when we watch TV? A bunch of uncivilized hooligans that train their kids to kill each other over a small city in the middle of a desert. I find it sad. Sad because these people are doomed to continue this mad cycle for generations, condemning their future to terror, death, and hate.[/quote]
I agree that America isn't directly supporting Israel's harsh actions against the Palestinians but it's just my own opinion that their economic/military support doesn't ring a whole of confidence in Gaza's Arab population that the U.S. cares, nevermind will give them the fairest of shakes in any peace processes.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
I'll get this out of the way right now. I love my country. I may not always agree with a particular administration, or the conduct of our representatives, but, given a choice, I'd live and die for this nation. The people who founded this country had the wisdom and the foresight to separate Church and State, and, while it was by no means perfect and universal at the time, they declared that all men were created equal. We've fought hard bloody fights with our own brothers to make sure that "all men" was indeed all men (in a non-gender specific way). And we continue to do our best to do the right thing. No nation is perfect (lord knows we're not), but one thing we always try to do is make sure we take the right path, and that every person in the country has a say in it.[/quote]
Okay, there's something at this point that reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally needs to be distinguished. My beef is not with the American people, it's with THE GOVERNMENT. Over the years/decades/centuries those two things have become separate. Americans continue to try to do the right thing... under the impression that CNN is giving them the objective POV... that their government doesn't lie to them... that they're living in God's country so everything'll be alright. Where the American people represent honesty, compassion, and innocense, however, the American government represents lies, merciless imperialism, and evil. This is the general stereotype of America that I've seen.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
And you would have us do what? Ignore treaties and requests by our allies for support and protection? You forget the reasoning behind the deployment of the base in Saudi Arabia. It was placed there because the Saudis were afraid that Saddam Hussein was going to mount a campaign of aggression towards them. And they had every reason to believe that they would (lest we forget, Iran and Iraq were at war for several years preceeding Desert Storm). We are there, at the request of the legitimate, reigning government, to assist them in matters of international security. We're not a internal police force.[/quote]
But as we all know "legitimate, reigning government" can be anything from UFP council to elders of remote South American jungle tribe as long as it's in control. There's also questions that must be asked: why is the American nation allied with a nation whose "legitimate, reigning government" is the Saudi Royal Family? Why in God's good name would America ever help them, even for access to oil? Who stands to gain more from U.S. protection? The Saudi people, the Saudi Royal Family, the U.S., or a combination thereof?
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
Go back a little further. OK, ALOT further. Osama bin Laden was the 13th child of a very wealthy and successful oil family. According to his brother, he wasn't exactly his father's favorite, though. He became involved in the Afghani struggle in the 80's against the Russians, a leader in the Afghan Resistance who left his own country seeking glory in a "holy war" against the "godless Soviet Republic." He gladly took the support that the CIA offered him, learned their ways, and, when the fight was over, he saw that his government had requested the US build and *jointly* staff an Airbase in his homeland. He thought that the Saudis would be able to accomplish the same feat without American assistance, and made his case to the government. But the government disagreed. Not content with their answer, he pressed the issue--to an extreme level. The Saudi Government banished him. Now he claims that the airbase is an abomination, and instruments of war should not be placed near the holy ground (Mecca).
So, his airbase is ok, but a joint base is an abomination of Islam? Give me a break.
Are we forcing our ideals on the Saudis? No. Airwomen still must wear veils in public, and Americans there cannot display crosses, or openly celebrate any of the Christian Holy Days. In short, the American forces there abide by Saudi law.
So let me ask this question: What right does Osama have to force his views upon people outside his country? What right does he have to involve himself in Bosnia? (Oh, yes, I remember those videos from Bosnia where his "elite fighting force" got their kicks out of hacking up the dead bodies of US Rangers). What right does he have to initiate a reign of terror on innocent children, turning planes into cruise missiles and blowing up buildings that are clearly centers for civilian populations? The answer is simple; he's a leader searching for followers. Case-in-point, until Sunday, he never [b]once[/b] mentioned the Palestinian or Iraqi issues. He's using this as a rallying cry because he knows that his brand of extremism alienates him from the mass majority of Islamic followers. By "aligning" himself with these causes, he feigns legitimacy, and believes that he will be able to gain more allies with those words (empty as they may be).
And don't even start on Iraq with me. We airlift relief supplies to Iraq regularly. In the meanwhile, Saddam is sending out his troops to gather them up, hoarding all the food and medicine drops just so he can tell his people how miserable the Americans are making their lives.
Osama trains men to cut up flight crews, commandeer civilian airliners, and blow up civilians, and forces starving 13-year old boys to fight wars at gunpoint, and they call him a hero. We hit military targets of a pro-terror government, and drop food for their starving population, and we're rat bastards. I say to you, sir, that being the case, I'd rather be a rat bastard.[/quote]
Okay the "he is" in my previous statement so overrides the "he isn't" in the case of OBL. I thank you for the added info on the airbase and his activities in Europe. I wasn't sure if he was a twisted, messed-up individual with some intentions of humanity and freedom or just a twisted, messed-up individual. I think I know now. However, the fact remains: the statement (made under pretenses) that oppressive governments kept in power by the U.S., indirectly keeping the average Mid E. civvy out, is true. And food drops are a nice effort in their own context but a slap in the face given the full scope of American (government) involvement in these countries.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
We left Vietnam. Why? Well, simply put, we got our asses kicked. Getting involved in a civil war probably was not the best foreign policy decision on our part, but we did. And we stayed until we HAD to go. We didn't "toss 'em away."[/quote]
When it comes to using regimes like the Saudi Royal Family, Saddam and others like whores, that is where "toss 'em away" comes in. You would be correct that America could not toss away Nam. It didn't have it in the first place.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:As for our willingness to help oppressed people, well, gee...what did we have to gain in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Croatia? Nothing. Why did we send our men over there? Principle.[/quote]
I kinda got the idea that thousands of Muslims died in those conflicts and the U.N. didn't do much when they were there. Why did you guys send yer men? I don't know.
[quote]Originally posted by Rick:
Tell me something, Faylorn. In the land you're in right now, what do you think would happen to you if you walked up to your nation's leader and said, "You know, I think you're a putz."
I know that where I am I could do that, and walk away.
That's Freedom.
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 10-09-2001).][/quote]
I don't doubt your freedom, I doubt the freedom of Mid E. American allies. I wonder why a nation who's based on such ideals as "all men are created equal" can ally themselves with heaps like the Saudi Royal Family. I know that if the American people actually knew what was going on they wouldn't stand for it but they don't know. THAT'S what drives me to type what I type here with such severity.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
[b]No, he means pounding two pieces of uranium together and "lighting up" the city, eh? Cause pounding uranium together makes a nuclear explosion.[/b][/quote]
I assumed he didn't mean that, since it doesn't work that way. You don't get a nuclear bomb by banging two pieces of weapons grade uranium together with your hands or a hammer and nail.
[quote]I agree that America isn't directly supporting Israel's harsh actions against the Palestinians but it's just my own opinion that their economic/military support doesn't ring a whole of confidence in the Arab population there either.[/quote]
No, we aren’t. We are giving them weapons to defend their sovereignty, though. I * do * think that it is time for the US to play a little hardball with BOTH sides, though. This is just out of hand, and they, clearly, would be just as content to fight each other until hell freezes over when it comes to Jerusalem.
[quote]Okay, there's something at this point that reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally needs to be distinguished. My beef is not with the American people, it's with THE GOVERNMENT. Over the years/decades/centuries those two things have become separate. Americans continue to try to do the right thing... under the impression that CNN is giving them the objective POV... that their government wouldn't lie to them... that they're living in God's country so everything'll be alright. Where the American people represent honesty, compassion, and innocense, however, the American government represents lies, merciless imperialism, and evil. This is the general stereotype of America that I've seen.[/quote]
American’s aren’t the dummies that they (apparently) are made out to be on the international front. We understand what is going on; we have access to not only our own news, but news sources from around the world. And with people writing articles to the extreme left and right and all shades in-between, it’s not to hard to find counterpoints to anything one might believe to be a truism. One of the things I take pride in is reading articles at both extremes, and finding the truth in-between them (three-edged sword).
As for the government, it is a government “for the people, by the people” making rules and laws “with the consent of the governed.” When we disagree with a policy, we make it known by our vote. If we think a politician is less than honest, we vote him out (look at Rep. Gary Condit).
Imperialism involves taking over countries and establishing your own form of law. Like Britain was with Hong Kong and Australia, or Spain with the Central American countries. That is NOT what the US does. What we do is offer military and economic support to our Allies.
[quote]But as we all know "legitimate government" can be the Ancient Inka's order of government and still be considered such. There's also a question you have to ask yourself: why is my nation allied with these royal Saudi dips (and I'm talkin' the Saudi royal family -- not the people)? You also got ask who stands to gain most from preventing the Iraqi incursion, the Saudi people or America.[/quote]
You don’t really think that the people of Saudi Arabia WANTED Saddam Hussein to invade their country do you? We reach out our hand in friendship and hope to teach by example, not by pressing our form of government on a nation. If we did that to Saudi Arabia, I’d vote the bastard out that started it, and I’d sure as hell raise protest. It’s not our position to go around and overthrow governments we don’t agree with. Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs showed just how stupefying moronic a policy like that can be.
Let me tell you something, if freedom and independence are given, they will never be appreciated; if it is fought for and earned with the blood of patriots, no force on Earth will ever take it away from you. It’s like the saying that your signature is based on. Teach the man to fish, don’t just give the fish to him.
My heart goes out to the Cuban refugees, but I firmly believe that they must start their own revolution; the US has no place to start a revolution for them.
[quote] (on bin Laden) Okay the "he is" in my previous statement so overrides the "he isn't" in the case of OBL. I thank you for the added info on the airbase and his activities in Europe. However, the fact remains: the statement (made under pretenses) oppressive governments, kept in power by the U.S., indirectly keeping the average Mid E. civvy out is true. And food drops are a nice effort in their own context but a slap in the face given American (government) involvement in these countries.[/quote]
Please see my previous response. Freedom, Liberty, and Independence must be gained through the efforts of those who want it, or it will mean nothing to them.
[quote]I don't doubt your freedom, I doubt the freedom of Mid E. American allies. I wonder why a nation who's based on such ideals as " all men are created equal" can ally themselves with heaps like the Saudi Royal Family. I know that if the American people actually knew what was going on they wouldn't stand for it but they don't know.[/quote]
Once again, it’s not American policy to go around being the “Ideology Police” and force governments from power that don’t necessarily subscribe to our model. That WOULD be Imperialistic. And, like I said, Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs showed that was not the best policy to take.
So, getting down to it, on the one hand, you’re blaming us for coping out of Vietnam (despite the fact that the majority was going with a communist government), and, on the other hand, you smack us for backing Israeli’s (despite the fact that they are drastically outnumbered and surrounded by hostile nations)? That doesn’t make sense. All it means is that you don’t necessarily agree with the sides we choose to take. That doesn’t mean that the selection was irrational or without thought.
I certainly wouldn’t back a canidate that said, “well, you know, we need that oil in Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi’s really need to be gotten rid of because noone over there likes them. We’re going to oust the king, and make the people form a new democratic government.”
Oh, yeah. That sounds REAL good.
Here’s another “what if?”: What do you think would have done if the planes didn’t hit America, but instead struck another one of the nuclear-capable nations? I’d lay money that a few “select areas” would have been glowing green right now, with no chance of rehabitation for the next 5000 years.
In a way, it was probably better for the world that things happened here in the States, where people are a little more…reserved…about extreme military options, and favor justice over vengeance.
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 10-09-2001).]
Our ideals are described in a constitution, a bill of rights, and in laws. But it takes people to bring those ideals to fruition in the real world. Running a complex modern society is a difficult, ever-changing process. It's an experiment for which there are guidelines, but no instructions.
In the process of running this grand experiment, guided by our ideals, we run up against the failings of human beings - competing ideologies, a fascination with wealth and power, as sometimes opposed to the health and well-being of the planet and other people of the world, and so mistakes are made and misguided plans are hatched. This is why it is important for the people to stay informed and engaged – as a political check-valve, if you will. This is why we must stay vigilant to make sure that we maintain a representative government, which can erode if given free reign.
One clear Catch 22 problem we have at the moment is a seeming dependence on Saudi oil, while the Saudi government/ culture creates a petri dish for the growth of intolerance and terrorism (because the Wahhabi sect is apparently the official religion - see Stephen Schwartz's article posted elsewhere). I say seeming dependence on Saudi oil because I personally believe that with enough focused effort, alternative energy could immediately end our reliance on oil altogether. This, in my view, is opposed by the oil industry, and automotive industry, and the power industry, who would suffer great financial upheaval if that were to happen, and these industries have powerful political lobbies.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-10-2001).]
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-09-2001).]
*for once this is not sarcasm, I'm serious.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[b]JohnD, I thought that's how the earlier Uranium A-Bombs worked.[/b][/quote]
They didn't work by holding a pile of weapons grade uranium in one hand, another pile in your other hand and banging them together. It also didn't work by using a hammer and nails on them. From the best I remember (which may be inaccurate and is certainly missing details), shaped charges direct explosions in a very specific and complex way into the material that starts a reaction. Other weapons do that and use the nuclear explosion to trigger the nuclear explosion of other material (is that a hydrogen bomb)?
Banging piles together or hammering nails into the piles won't do the job, though. You will end up being exposed to radioactivity merely by holding the material, but you won't start a nuclear bomb explosion.
I think one of the hurdles is properly forming the explosives to correctly direct their complex explosions into the nuclear material in just the right way, in addition to procuring or developing the weapons grade material in the first place.
[b]Randy, that was pure Novocain. If only Joe and Jane America would say that just before conquering Earth I would be in happyland (literally)*. Noam Chomsky also says/would like what you said. Find his insightful stuff here: [url="http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm"]http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm[/url]
*for once this is not sarcasm, I'm serious.
[/b][/quote]
I respect Mr. Chmosky's mind, but he sometimes seems to reside in an idealistic bubble apart from reality - to me, anyway. Nevertheless, I do appreciate his vision.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-09-2001).]
oh well, tis History now.
IMO, forget about the past of what the so called "Religions" have done. Never base your opinions of an individual by what faith they are.
[/b][/quote]
Thats why I said Christian church, and not christianity...
Lets drop thid imo you can never talk faith to anyone without running into a flamewar.
------------------
[i][b][url="http://www.dd.chalmers.se/~gu00mama/"]http://www.dd.chalmers.se/~gu00mama/[/url]
Vir - Are you saying you don't trust me anymore? I made your favourite, Spoo.
Londo - I'll order in.[/b][/i]
Say Congress and Bush suddenly take on Faylorn's point of view and decide to stop supporting our Isralei allies. Eventually, the Palestinians will invade and kill the Isralies. The Isralies will regroup and take it back. The Palestinians will regroup and kill them again. Until there's noone left in the region, we can sweep up the mess, and we can get the frelling oil out of the ground ourselves.
Or, on the other hand, the conflict may end up with a few eventual winners. The result could be easily the equivalent of closing our doors and letting Hitler take over Europe instead of getting involved in WWII. Believe me, the head of ONE of these nations would find a reason to pick a fight with us-and anyone that can win a war down there would have better equipment than hijacked planes.
With that said, US support of one side or the other makes sense. It saves lives. Instead of millions dead in endless wars, you get hundreds dead in the occasional suicide bombing and riot. True, by supporting Israel, we're ticking off the palestinians 'cause they can't kill the Israelis. Did they ever stop to think they'd take losses in any military action too? In a way, we are saving them from themselves. The longer we keep them in their corners, the more chance there is we might work it out peacefully.
Like I said, I'm no brain box, but I thought I'd drop in my pennies, flawed as they may be.
Edit: About the "oppressive" Isralei gov't. The US is pretty much keeping its enemies from overtly crushing it, right? So people like OBL turn to terrorism. With that many enemies right next door, you have to be a little more restrictive to give security to your people. Like any human institution, the Isralei government may make mistakes trying to defend itself. I'm pretty sure, though, if they were filing suspicious-looling persons into gas chambers and death camps, we wouldn't be so friendly with them.
[This message has been edited by Vertigo_1 (edited 10-10-2001).]
Alpha Radiation=He with mass of 4 and an atomic # of 2. Stopped by the skin.
Beta Radiation=loose electron(-), fast moving, stopped by thin wood.
Gamma=Very powerfull Electromagnetic Radiation, fast moving, lots of damage, stopped by several cm of lead or several meters of concrete (but not totally)
To create fission you need a chunk of a radioactive material (most likely Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239) and something that releases nuetrons (which cause the U and Pu to become unstable, breaking them down, creating radiation).
From my understanding, you would therfor need an explosive (such as TNT) to start a fission reaction. So you cant pound Uranium rocks together to create a nuclear reaction. I think I am right, but please correct me if I am wrong.
[b]But we should start the story that pounding on piles of weapons grade uranium with a hammer and a nail will indeed work, so that at least the unsophisticated terrorists will get what's coming to them sooner, instead of later. [/b][/quote]
You need to get the material to critical mass, which basically involves compressing it to a certain point where the chain reaction kicks off. It's harder than it sounds, you need to compress the material uniformly and simulatinously from all sides. At least, that's what I remember...
I appologize for attributing the Crusade to Christrians, rather than the Christian Church at the time. The true intent of Christianity, as with most religions, is one of love, which was evidentally lost of those who carried out the killings. This biased view spawns from my rather low opinion of most religions, but of their general positive side. (Yes, I endoge in Idolatry. And yes, as I have been told on several occasions whether directly or indirectly, I am going to Hell.)
------------------
"God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
[b]I'm no political anylist here, but let's go hypothetical based on what Randy and Faylorn have been arguing.
[This message has been edited by Vertigo_1 (edited 10-10-2001).][/b][/quote]
Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time understanding how you got from anything I said to your above statements about the Israeli and Palestinian problem.
For the record, I think that the Israeli and Palestinian problem is a complex socio-political-religious-historical mess complicated by bigotry, paranoia, strategic alliances, hidden agendas, and fueled by young, under-informed citizens, desperation, blind zealots, and the egos of old military men. How it can ever end is far beyond me.
I am unsure of the intent of U.S. policy, or even if it ever stays the same. I do suspect that if these elements go critical the explosion could involve most of the world, and I’m sure that this is part of the reason the U.S. is involved. And I’m relatively sure there are hidden American agendas too. There is probably so much hidden from the public eye that it’s really senseless to try and be an armchair annalist.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 10-10-2001).]
Now what I figure the U.S. foreign policy should be for nations like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq is one of either ensuring fair and equitable treatment for all or having nothing to do with their administrations. And by "ensuring" I mean troop deployment to troubled locales if necessary. Some of you might argue that would make the U.S. an international policing force and just be more self-righteous mumbo jumbo BLAH BLAH BLAH. I say why not have good cop instead of bad cop?
Just my two cents.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 10-10-2001).]
I'll probably get the FBI, DOD and everybody else on my butt for it, but you guys need to get past the high-tech hump that you all think is required for a nuclear yeild.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
I understand your thinking, but I hardly want my nation to become ideologigal imperialists. That's a vain and treacherous road that leads to horrific outcomes like Vietnam and the Bay of Pigs. Even Korea was a draw. That policy just does not work.
As I said before, Liberty, Freedom, and Independance must be fought for and earned with blood of patriots, or when a crisis arises, the path of least resistance will be to revert to "the old ways" before democracy.
Remember that a democracy is horribly inefficient compared to, say, a patriarchy, because rule is by consensus. There is no "one person that can override the system." And that can frustrate people in power that aren't willing to be patient. So much of the arguements you see on "the hill" are pure windage, some of which serves no other purpose than to delay ratification of a bill and allow people to adequately understand what the bill contains.
What I'm saying, in effect, is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" (and if you try and force it, you'll be picking hoofmarks out of your ass. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img] )
There's been alot of talk as well about Establishing a Marshal Plan for the area over military action. While this may be noble, you must have to have a infrastructure that supports the currency you'll be inserting (in this case, dollars), and a government that will take and distribute supplies appropriately to it's people (which isn't happening either-- the Taliban are burning the foodstuffs and supplies we are dropping, apparently). Similar issues exist in Iraq.
It's a tough call. Really.
But sometimes you just have to take up arms and fight the tough fight...because it is the RIGHT thing to do.
*Rick looks at John Walker, "my redneck heritage is showing, isn't it?" [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
BTW: I love you guys, and I'm actually enjoying this debate. I see it as very constructive [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
-Rick
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
But! It's not far from the truth...
Do you remember "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" or at least know the history?
Little Boy is the technology I am refering too.
A snapshot from:
[url="http://www.airpowermuseum.org/trspcbmb.html"]http://www.airpowermuseum.org/trspcbmb.html[/url]
[quote]
[b]Uranium Bomb: Little Boy[/b]
[b][i]Explosion Trigger[/i][/b]
The uranium bomb was relatively easy to detonate, using two pieces of uranium. One piece of uranium was a large cup-shaped piece that was just under the amount needed to achieve critical mass. The second piece of uranium was a small cylindrical slug that would fit inside the cup-shaped piece to bring the amount of uranium up to critical mass, which is the amount necessary to create a chain reaction.
Little Boy used a standard explosion trigger, called the "gun" method. [b][i]One piece of uranium was fired into a second piece at the end of a gun barrel[/i][/b].
The firing mechanism was so simple that the scientists calculated the chances of failure were only one in ten thousand. The instant they came together, an explosion with the force of 20,000 tons of TNT would occur.
Little boy was considerably less complicated in design than the plutonium Fat Man implosion weapon. So confident were the scientists in Little Boy, that it was not tested prior to its actual use on Hiroshima.
[/quote]
Fat Man used the implosion method on Plutonium and therefor had to be tested to see if it would work.
Keep in mind that these were designed to be deliverable weapons from aircraft, not in the hands of some individual who knows they will die, and can carry the material. Yes they will become terminally ill, but again in the case of this kind of individual, it doesn't matter anyway.
Another example of the gun method of detonation was the "Grable (Atomic Annie)" shot.
[img]http://www.vce.com/cannon2.jpg[/img]
I refer you to these urls:
[url="http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html"]http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html[/url]
[url="http://www.vce.com/grable.html"]http://www.vce.com/grable.html[/url]
In the case of this test, an atomic artillery shell (280mm) using the same method of detonation as the "Little Boy" was precisely detonated roughly 500 feet above the ground target.
I don't think I have to go into an explanation of how much easier it would be for someone who isn't restrained by design needs, and simply has enough Uranium fuel, to get the results that they want.
Take special note of the confidence that the scientists had with this method.
Can you say, high powered rifle with a uranium 235 slug, and a just sub-critical Uranium 235 cup shaped target?
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by JackN (edited 10-10-2001).]
------------------
"God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Seriously, though, I think you'll find they ruled out the practicality of nuclear artillary due to fallout & radiation affecting the gunner...while some zealots may embrace instantaneous death, death by radiation sickness is far less....appealing. And as "strilization" isn't exactly a good thing to the extremists, it's even LESS likely they'll try thast route.
Re: fat man/little boy. Yes, it was that "simple" but they still require shaped charges, and precicely machined plutonium/uranium, and the technology/foundery capable of molding and machining them safely. Remember that we have satellites that can tell us the location of just about every nuclear reactor and radiation source on the planet, so it won't be something so easily hidden. Especially if some lunatic has a guy in front of a Do-All in a wood shack making them [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img].
JD- Yes, you're right...Neutron Bombs require a thermonuclear trigger (heat+pressure).
Re: size of the "Davy Crockett" shell: point taken. But...while the package for the artillary was small, it still required the "high quality" shaped charges to detonate. I doubt that capability to produce that is readily available in Afghanastan. Especially after, oh, Sunday.
-R.
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
To become a member of the UN/EA community, a person who is a terran... and get a UNEA passport... you pledge to Earth and renounce your nationality. Respect it yes, remember it and cherish you culture and where you came from but you must rise above it and join the global community. Live in a UNEA zone of your country, or another country if you prefer. Work and live as an Terran and not an Australian, American, Ugandan, New Zealander, German or Finn....
I think I could count the people willing to do that on one hand....
and that is the saddest thing.
And why renounce it at all? I have a Florida State driver's licence, not a U.S. one, for example.
[This message has been edited by David of Mac (edited 10-11-2001).]
thats right.. its a sacrifice to let go of your past.. move on
you can call me righteous or holier than thou... but if you become a terran... then you should... if you really embrace the whole concept and the whole world... not give a rats arse where you live if your basic needs are met.
If you were on board an Omega, and you were confined to quarters for the term of your natural life... you would piss and moan like a drain....
The earth is just a big naturally occuring spaceship...
Everything is relative my friend.
Look outside the boundaries of your house, your neighbourhood, your city, your county, your state, your nation... to your planet...
A nationality is as much a binding as it is a seat belt...
And who said anything about being practical. This is an ideal.. and like all true ideals... you can never quite reach them, thats why they are ideals... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
But I think it is the right way to go.... just what exactly is the first step ?
Who the hell knows...
HELP ! HELP ! HELP ! HELP ! PLEASE HELP !....
I'm going all zen and enigmatic and.. and..
VORLON....
ARRRRRGGGGGH !
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
[b]thats right.. its a sacrifice to let go of your past.. move on
[/b][/quote]
Of course. Leave behind friends, family, the house I grew up in, the place I saw my first sunrise, the entire history of myself. Just drop it all so I can go through customs a bit easier. Get rid of the forced relocation, then we'll talk.
[quote][b]you can call me righteous or holier than thou... but if you become a terran... then you should... if you really embrace the whole concept and the whole world... not give a rats arse where you live if your basic needs are met.
[/b][/quote]
So you wouldn't mind if I picked you up, moved you to a strange place, and gave you a piece of paper saying "Welcome to the world communtity! The entire planet is yours, execpt for where you came from.", you wouldn't care as long as you had a bed and some food. I think I'd rather compare you to a sheep then call you holier then thou.
[quote][b]If you were on board an Omega, and you were confined to quarters for the term of your natural life... you would piss and moan like a drain....
[/quote][/b]
Of course. But I have no emotional attachment to those quarters (bet pretty soon they'd seem like sixteenths.... Never mind), and I did not chose to stay there. That cabin is not home. That cabin is not where my neighbors, friends and family are. That cabin is where I would go if I wanted to stop voting in presedental elections and to get a spiffy looking passport.
[quote][b]The earth is just a big naturally occuring spaceship...
[/quote][/b]
I sure as hell won't be moved away from my little section of it to get a bloody piece of paper.
[quote][b]Everything is relative my friend. [/quote][/b]
Uh huh. Speaking of relatives, being technicaly out of the country would mean I'd have a hard time visiting those wonderful stay at homers who still can get a drivers licence valid in the USA, such as my sisters.
[quote][b]Look outside the boundaries of your house, your neighbourhood, your city, your county, your state, your nation... to your planet...[/quote][/b]
Yep. Big ol' place, ain't it. And I hope to visit some of it. And I hope to stay close to the people who are important to me. I will always choose home and loved ones above scenery.
[quote][b]A nationality is as much a binding as it is a seat belt...
[/quote][/b]
Beg pardon? I don't follow your metaphore.
[quote][b]And who said anything about being practical. This is an ideal.. and like all true ideals... you can never quite reach them, thats why they are ideals... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img][/quote][/b]
Damned inconveiant for an ideal. 230 years ago, some people up north a ways of me fought so they could live the way they want, without having to send a big chunk of their money 3,000 miles away so jolly old England could balance their war expences. That was an ideal. Forcing others to go away from their homes because they want red-tape free travel is not.
[quote][b]But I think it is the right way to go.... just what exactly is the first step ?
Who the hell knows...[/b][/quote]
I don't think it's right to cut out local govenment. To recap, I can go to a special area and have a govenment where I'm one of six billion, making my opionions worth nil, or I could be in a population of a few million, which in turn is a single in a population of about two hundred, which is in turn is part of a population of fifty, plus the terotories, which in turn is a member of a population of a hundred and fifty.
Local government on various levels in nessesary, and has the added benifit of it not being an evil.
[This message has been edited by David of Mac (edited 10-11-2001).]