Oppositions to Arabs

[roalan]

Calc 11

I notice that you do not read very well. I said there are SOME not all people in parts of the world that are willing to die for their couse. The Palestine bombers come to mind. WW2 Jap soldiers on Pacific Islands come to mind.

Nukes in ships you think that is a far out idea -got news for you when I was in the Navy in the 60's we planned for just that now they are talking nukes in suitecases.
I do not know how old you are or if you have been around a bit but you seem to need an education of what is going on in the world and what as happened in our recent history. Do you remember only a few years ago in Japan the gas attack in the subway? Unfortunately these thing can happen .So do not assume Iraq will sit by and lose a war and do nothing.I pray you are correct and nothing happens and there is no war but it does not look good.

[Cidifer]

I notice that you do not read very well. I said there are SOME not all people in parts of the world that are willing to die for their couse. The Palestine bombers come to mind. WW2 Jap soldiers on Pacific Islands come to mind.

Not to gang up on the guy or anything but I've noticed this too and then he blasts other people because he says they don't read what he's saying.

[Zero]

Re: Calc11

Originally posted by roalan
Hate to bust your ballon pal but I was in the US Navy just after the Korean War and I know that we knew all except the Divine Wind. Just because a society has suicide as part of there life does not mean they will use it at any given time. If you think we new that the Jap planes would crash into our ships we would have been more prepared and the loss not so high.

Ill prepared yes, but it isnt a total surprise. Even if lets say country X was to fight US and US adopted a suicide bombing, it doesnt mean theres any excuse for not expecting it. Beleiving it to be higly unlikey yes, but ignoring possibility? no.

I never said Sadamm attacked the coalition. I said he should have attacked them before they had the chance to build up and destroy him.Fortunately for him Bush quite before the deed was done.Otherwise if we had wanted to we would have /should have finished the job. Sadamm was lucky to get away with it. No one here is panicking just srtating that if Sadamm is about to lose he may or may not let loose with what he has.I would bet the odds are good he lets loose at Israel before the USA. By rthe way Israel already knows this and has threatened to retaliate if attacked. If you also recall Hitler wanted the entire Germany destroyed because he felt his people were not worth saving but Speer did not carry out his orders. So do not assume Sadamm would be crazy to launch nukes only Sadamm knows what he will do ornot do.

I didnt accuse u of having said anything like that. I said if you think Saddam is not bright because he made a mistake, then by definition everyone is not bright since everyone makes mistake, miscalculations.

I also am NOT assuming anything. I mentioned that Those people who assume to know what a countries leader will or will not do are the ones assuming and through my life almost 70 years I find that most (not all) people that assume something usually end up WRONG. Just like most experts you see on TV are WRONG. That is why they have EX in front of the title.

I was gonna write this in before, While I was driving my sister I was thinking maybe I was overanalyzing things abit and that perhaps somethings I said sounded bit accusing. You may not have meant it the way I took it (for example devaluing etc) and if that is the case then I apologize.

[Zero]

True I dont edit much, I gotta give you that. and when I do its usually to fill in my sentences not to revise.

Originally posted by Cidifer
2ndly when your trying to make an argument you don't do a good job by explaining yourself point by point then saying "but I was kind of kidding" this tells me that you don't really firmly believe in your statement, and you can't back it up so you try to act as though you don't want to.

I dont beleive in rarely any of my post that I post. I am not interested in my opinion. If you get that. should what is right be influenced by what my preference is? If you beleive that someone is white supremacist and therefore his belief affects the sense of what is right and wrong then you are saying sense of right and wrong matters depending on people therefore there is no need to even argue about anything!

Also you started with an insult "you don't read do you" then you brought it up again in #3 (which you were shouldn't have, since if you read carfully you'd see he brought a 2nd group the Shi'a Muslims). You then brought up not reading again which doesn't at all support your possition and instead just tries to discredit the other person by insulting him. Sorry to say, but your arguement stunk, nothing personal.

Wrong. That was not my basis of the arguement you didnt even read my post carefully then! Lets go back to the beginning.
I posted that as long as I am not a kurd and I am supporting Saddam I should be safe (something to that point)
the guy replies by saying well no if ur not a kurd u are still in danger.

If I said, "well if I am not a jew and I am a nazi then Hitler will not kill me"
and if someone says, "wel just because ur not a jew doesnt make u immune. You better not be Jew, gypsy etc etc."

Correct, but wehy are u correcting me? i didnt say I was a gypsy.


Is that ur only reason? To call me stupid?

This is why I think it's funny that the people now who are saying "no we shouldn't attack Iraq" will be saying "Bush should have gone after Iraq when he had the chance" 10 years from now if we find out he's got nukes or if he attacks another country. BTW I'm not saying I'm pro war or anything (not yet anyway) but I just think it's pathetic that these people who were opposed to staying last time (not you, I don't know what you thought) are now blaming it all on Bush.

True looking back anyone can say anything.

[roalan]

calc11

No problem just talking not taking anything to heart. You are correct in saying one should be prepared for any contingency but don't forget in the 1940"s the world was much more innocent then it is today and suicide planes just never entered the brain as a thought. Also remenber aircraft vs ships just came into being and most admirals still thought the big gun BB's were the way to go and aircraft against ships wasn't going to work. Toranto proved them wrong but until Okinawa some still did not believe in air power vs ships.Just like todays airforce believe all future wars will be won with air power alone. Never happen in a real protracted war. Air power will do far more damage now a days then in the past but the infantry will be needed to conquer the country. Also remember up till now all wars were fought at the beginning with the last wars technology and ideas. I believe the next war will be fought with up to date tech and ideas,but that will be a first and I believe the reason is that we have not had a major war for many years over the normal span between wars so tech and ideas have had to advance beyond the past wars. Just keep in mind humans are not prepared to be on alert for something that has not been tried or invented yet.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cidifer


Not to gang up on the guy or anything but I've noticed this too and then he blasts other people because he says they don't read what he's saying.

Do you just like badgering me? I get that feeling. I hope thats not the case!

oh and I did apologize to Rolan for possibly misunderstanding.
What about you?

[Zero]

Re: Calc 11

Originally posted by roalan
I notice that you do not read very well. I said there are SOME not all people in parts of the world that are willing to die for their couse. The Palestine bombers come to mind. WW2 Jap soldiers on Pacific Islands come to mind.

Yea I already apologized for misunderstanding before but well again. apologies.

Nukes in ships you think that is a far out idea -got news for you when I was in the Navy in the 60's we planned for just that now they are talking nukes in suitecases.
I do not know how old you are or if you have been around a bit but you seem to need an education of what is going on in the world and what as happened in our recent history. Do you remember only a few years ago in Japan the gas attack in the subway? Unfortunately these thing can happen .So do not assume Iraq will sit by and lose a war and do nothing.I pray you are correct and nothing happens and there is no war but it does not look good.

Oh I dont think its a far out idea but certainly less dangerous than an ICBM which can be easily reach us.

[Cidifer]

Ok again you tell others to read what you say carefully then you go and quote me where I directly say that I'm not trying to insult you and you then again play the victim. Sorry but I really don't know what more you want, obviously you don't read posts as carefully as you ask others to.


EDIT:

oh yeah, about the Shi'a Muslims, if your going along voting for for a guy who has killed people like you wouldn't you fear him? even if you publically acted as though you supported him? maybe you just have never been put in that situation

[roalan]

calc11

I do not think nukes in a suitcase may be less dangerous the ICBM if I remember my tranning correctly a nuke explosion on the surface could have more radioactiveity then an air burst. It sucks up more crap.An airburst covers more ground in damage then a ground burst.(if I remember correctly) I do agree at this date in time an ICBM is more likely then a suitcase but I believe a ship would be mre likely then an ICBM only because that tech would be easier then ICBM. Low tech delivery in a ship rather then high tech ICBM. Of course our Coast Guard has a very good chance of intercepting such a ship.(I hope)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cidifer
Ok again you tell others to read what you say carefully then you go and quote me where I directly say that I'm not trying to insult you and you then again play the victim. Sorry but I really don't know what more you want, obviously you don't read posts as carefully as you ask others to.

Hey was I wrong in the end? I dont think so

oh yeah, about the Shi'a Muslims, if your going along voting for for a guy who has killed people like you wouldn't you fear him? even if you publically acted as though you supported him? maybe you just have never been put in that situation

Well hmmm first of all, this is not relevant to the current arguement, rather you are arguing that i have underestimated such factor that you are presenting instead. Just in case ur trying to throw somehting to prove me wrong. The list wasnt really seriously thought out though, so dont tak it seriously. U have a valid point there though.

[Cidifer]

It would depend on where the ship was coming and going I assume. The coast guard is bery active around florida with lots of helicopters and such on constent survailence but who knows what's going on off the coast of seattle or some place like that. I suppose it would depend what kind of ship you'd be using and how close you'd need to be from your target.

[Cidifer]

Well hmmm first of all, this is not relevant to the current arguement, rather you are arguing that i have underestimated such factor that you are presenting instead. Just in case ur trying to throw somehting to prove me wrong. The list wasnt really seriously thought out though, so dont tak it seriously. U have a valid point there though.

maybe you forgot my point it was that I don't think you backed up your arguement very well. On this one in particualr you didn't at all give any good reason for me to believe that someone from this group woulndn't fear Saddam, or that they have any kind of safety.

Hey was I wrong in the end? I dont think so

what? ofcourse you were! I said I'm not trying to gang up on you, you then act like I'm simply saying to to "badger you". It's not as though I wouldn't say this to someone else. Basically if you expect something from someone else then you should do it yourself. However maybe you don't realise that your not the only one posting in the thread and everyone can't go through your posts with a fine toothed comb. Incase you didn't notice this is the 15th page! you aren't the only one who's posts matter.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cidifer
maybe you forgot my point it was that I don't think you backed up your arguement very well. On this one in particualr you didn't at all give any good reason for me to believe that someone from this group woulndn't fear Saddam, or that they have any kind of safety.

ok well I told u the list wasnt well thoguth out. yes that is true my arguement of the list is not well backed. However you didnt accuse me of not that post but the post that was in reply to another guy who replied to my list.

got it?

what? ofcourse you were! I said I'm not trying to gang up on you, you then act like I'm simply saying to to "badger you".

I asked u if u were, I did not accuse you. Read carefully!

However I believed you accused me of talking stupid. And you didnt explain yourself. How would you feel if you posted something and I replied. Oh that was so stupid. thus I asked you to explain urself!

It's not as though I wouldn't say this to someone else. Basically if you expect something from someone else then you should do it yourself. However maybe you don't realise that your not the only one posting in the thread and everyone can't go through your posts with a fine toothed comb. Incase you didn't notice this is the 15th page! you aren't the only one who's posts matter.

I dont expect everyone to go thru my post since my post is aimed to talk to you. Why would the message I am replying to you have to do with others?

Do you expect others to read your post that is aimed toward me ith a "fined toothed comb"? Why are u accusing me of expecting others to read carefully when i never said that and it is only people who are replying to my post that I want them to read.

[Zero]

exact words

no offense but your last 2 posts were kind of stupid. Are you trying to be sarcastic because you haven't really made a very good arguement to support what you said. 1st you basically backed up each point individually (though not too well) then said it was a joke. I really hope this is more joking.

Last 2 post refers to the post that are on top of ur posts.
Which is one that states that I really didnt consider the list with great thought (I said i was being sarcastic actually) and the other post is in reply to Iron chancellor who replied to my post.

[Cidifer]

wow your gasping at straws now buddy, I mean please, like you weren't implying that I was badering you. I said you acted like I was, the implication of an act is all it takes for you to try to get sypathy by acting like I'm some big mean bully and your a helpless little kid or something. Also lol, you've been saying read carefully long before you ever directed anything at me READ CAREFULLY

Also you completely supported my areguement

ok well I told u the list wasnt well thoguth out. yes that is true my arguement of the list is not well backed. However you didnt accuse me of not that post but the post that was in reply to another guy who replied to my list.

booya, I said you didn't support it well in the following 2 posts, discussion over, thank you for admitting it, I'm glad we both agree that I was right. I don't undestand why you didn't just say "your right I didn't support it well, that's because it wasn't worth it." Also I think you were being too sensitive. That's it for me now good night, you can get that last word in, I'm done, I just hope it's not another essay reply for your own sake.