Oppositions to Arabs

[Zero]

Originally posted by 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


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.

Are you kidding me? You must be bullsh!tting me!

you told me last two posts were stupid. All you did was prove that my post about the list was stupid. (the 2 post is not post about list!) Which I admittedly did say was stupid since I didnt even consider it seriously. Do you not get that? So why did you call my other 2 post stupid? You didnt even accuse me of my list of feared leader post in the beginning!

So you just claim victory because you are right about a totally seperate issue that I have been acknowledging was wrong. But read your own word again. Thats not the post you have been accusing as being stupid. You havent yet even talked about the 2 post!!

[Zero]

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

Am I accusing you!? (or acting like) No I beleive I clearly stated that I get the feeling that you are!

[sabrewolf]

ok guys, let's keep the personal attacks down. we've reached the 300 posts mark and this thread is off topic ever since the first page. so i can bet you, the admins have an eye on this thread... so it's for everyone's best to keep down the tone

otherwise: one of the most interesting threads around, thanks to all participants

[Traelin]

Re: Nukes

Originally posted by roalan
A nuke in a ship will do just as nice as on a rocket.I agree most likely Saddam will not use nukes etc. because of retaliation but one can not pretend to know the mind of a nut case. Don't forget there are a lot of people in that region that think nothing of blowing themselves up for their cause and becoming a marter. Sadamm doesn't give a hoot about his country or its people only himself.

That's really ironic that you mentioned the "nuke on a ship" theory. Did you see that recent special on Discovery channel about Hussein? Apparently it was discovered that Hussein had been attempting to develop a bomb that could be delivered via ship to Israel. They said that the size of the planned bomb would cause a crater approximately the size of Israel and would take out most of the Palestinians too. Coming from a station that is politically aligned in the center-left, it's pretty believable. I guess it goes to show us hoe much Hussein really cares about the Palestinians too.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Sonic
Also, I did no said Sadam is good, I just said he is not that bad to order people be at home at US attacks.

Anyway, he doesn't considers Kurds his own people just as Israel doesn't consider Palestinians it's own people. We ussually don't say "Israel kills it's own citizens" when Israeli army kills innocent Palestinians, but "Israel killed Palestinian" instead.

Well Israel isn't using chemical weapons against the Palestinians, either.

Originally posted by Sonic
Also, UN sanctions are more or less responsible for bad living standart in Iraq.

I would agree with that. IMHO the U.N. has all but outlived its usefulness. Economic sanctions do nothing but hurt the general populace. It was proven in Haiti since the '80s, it's been proven in Africa, it's been proven in many situations. That's why I have zero tolerance toward foolish dictators. Note: my opinion on the U.N. is unwavering, so there's no need to argue about it.

Originally posted by Sonic
Also goodness/badness of leaders is very personal. For example, if I'd have to choose someone from great leaders to rule Lithuania, I'd choose Saddam over Lenin, however some people might do vice-versa.

If I had to do either I'd probably find the nearest pharmacy to buy some cyanide.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i don't agree. a truly good person will not do bad things. but doing something bad doesn't make him bad either.
that's the trouble some people in this world have: it's either black or white, no greys (like some things your beloved 'W' said)... i believe that there is grey, actually i think that way over 95% of the people are neither really good, nor really bad.

Please understand that what I'm about to write consists of my personal opinions.

Like I said before, I'm of the belief that 99.9% of people in this world are "good". I believe this mainly because I'm Catholic and adhere to the Catholic faith (albeit a bit loosely in certain situations).

For instance, I believe both St. Paul and St. Francis of Assisi lived decadent, abominable lives before discovering Christianity in their lives. Saul was a persecutor of Christians until God basically threw him off his horse and blinded him one day. Then he saw the light (if you'll forgive the pun). He became a great evangelist, St. Paul.

St. Francis was a wealthy, spoiled nobleman who treated those "beneath" him with disdain. Then he came across a leper and was visibly moved. He tossed aside his name and his belongings for the betterment of man.

These people were good people who did bad things. So my argument is that ALL of us do bad things, likely on a daily basis. But -- if you are Christian -- you must strive for divinity as best you can. God gave us the free will to choose between good and evil.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i don't know if i'm able to explain what i mean. english is a foreign language to me, so it's difficult to express myself a i might want to. but do you understand my point?
i just want to say, that "good", "bad", "innocent" and other words cannot be defined, because everyone sees it different...

Don't worry about it. You're expressing yourself just fine. I just don't agree with you on some of your beliefs.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
saddam has been doing evil things ever since he came to power. he's used ABC-weapons before. but now suddenly bush is making warmongering pressure. isn't that a bit questionable? imho he f#cked up the US (and with it the world) economy and now needs a distraction to raise his polls.

The economy was taking a downturn long before Bush entered office. The stock market was showing subtle signs of collapse. I'm still surprised the housing market is holding its own. The bubble is eventually going to burst on it, too.

Plus, remember this. The Congress of the U.S. legislates. The President only has the ability to VETO the legislation, or sign it into law. So, if you're of the belief that the economy took a turn for the worse during the Bush Admin., you can only fault Congress for legislating bad bills. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Greenspan played a part in the situation, but I believe that the economy is cyclic and would have eventually slid anyways.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
first, i'm not even so sure if 9/11 would have happened under gore. his politics might have been just a that bit more acceptable that the hate wouldn't be so big. and his administration would have consisted of brighter people which maybe wouldn't have ignored the warnings which where admitted a half a year later.

It most assuredly would have. Just trust me on this. They had been planning assaults like this for years against us. To perform such an attack takes time and money.

Actually the Bush Admin. is considered one of the brightest administrations in our nation's history. Rice is brilliant, Powell is brilliant, and Rumsfeld has proven his intelligence in more than one administration.

EDIT: Corrected some grammatical errors.

[sabrewolf]

Re: Re: Nukes

Originally posted by Traelin


That's really ironic that you mentioned the "nuke on a ship" theory. Did you see that recent special on Discovery channel about Hussein? Apparently it was discovered that Hussein had been attempting to develop a bomb that could be delivered via ship to Israel. They said that the size of the planned bomb would cause a crater approximately the size of Israel and would take out most of the Palestinians too. Coming from a station that is politically aligned in the center-left, it's pretty believable. I guess it goes to show us hoe much Hussein really cares about the Palestinians too.

sorry, but that's pure BS! a crater the size of israel?

if you consider that the diameters of the largest meteors that hit the earth since life exists (e.g. the end of the dinosaurs) created cratres of "only" a few miles diameter, how should a dirty bomb (saddam will never be able to get purified uranium or plutonium) take out israel and palestine?

and something else: why should saddam anyway want to send a nuke to israel. that would be his definate end... and allthough he's fairly wacked, he'd never want to harm some innocent people outside of his realm. it's clear he doesn't like israel, like all other arab states, but he doesn't profit at all by nuking it (except the sympathy of a few radicals).

and a boat to israel. well... that means going past
- kuwait (not the best friends of hussein)
- the US and the royal navy
- saudi arabia
- many smaller arab states (jemen, bahrain, UAE, etc.)
- the red sear (egypt and again saudi arabia)
- the suez channel (which is probably very well guarded... a destruction of this channel (even with a smaller bomb) would be a desaster for world economy...)
- and then finally past the israeli navy...

--> all very very unlikely! and not worth the risk (if he's caught he's got a nuke less)


once again it's the media bringing up a rumour and people actually believing it.

[Traelin]

Re: Calc11

roalan,

that's cool that you were in the Navy. My grandfather got the Purple Heart in WWII when his ship was torpedoed in the North Sea. He was temporarily paralyzed and laid in a London hospital for over a year. The guy that rescued him also rescued someone else, and granddad watched him die on the beach next to him. Then, my granddad watched the person who saved him swim back to the ship to help others, but he went down with the ship.

[Traelin]

Re: Re: Re: Nukes

sabrwolf,

I'm sorry, I actually meant Jerusalem. My mistake.

[Traelin]

Re: Re: Re: Nukes

sabrewolf,

Actually it was a very interesting episode, and very believable. I'm very wary of accepting what the media says as Gospel, but this was a pretty objective commentary.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
ok guys, let's keep the personal attacks down. we've reached the 300 posts mark and this thread is off topic ever since the first page. so i can bet you, the admins have an eye on this thread... so it's for everyone's best to keep down the tone

otherwise: one of the most interesting threads around, thanks to all participants

Agreed. I have enjoyed this thread more than any other, because I like hearing what other people think about, well, everything. So let's not attack each other. I don't want the Mods moving this thread to OT, cuz noone will read it there and I probably won't check it.

[sabrewolf]

ok, that makes more sence...

but still, bringing a nuke to jerusalem is just a strange, because it is about 50miles away from the coast. and there are (at least there were) iirc more palestinians than israelis in jerusalem.

you (or that program) probably meant tel aviv or haifa...

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
ok, that makes more sence...

but still, bringing a nuke to jerusalem is just a strange, because it is about 50miles away from the coast. and there are (at least there were) iirc more palestinians than israelis in jerusalem.

you (or that program) probably meant tel aviv or haifa...

You may be right. I admit I was a bit drunk watching it. It'll air again soon, so I'll report back to you with more sober details.

[roalan]

Traelin

That is why they call the WW2 soldiers the Greatest Generation. and I agree. I aslo mentioned a nuke in a suitecase and in yesterdays Boston Herald there was a full page devoted to just such a happening in Boston and what areas would be completely destroyed in an explosion. These things are comming as tech gets better .

[Traelin]

Re: Traelin

Originally posted by roalan
That is why they call the WW2 soldiers the Greatest Generation. and I agree. I aslo mentioned a nuke in a suitecase and in yesterdays Boston Herald there was a full page devoted to just such a happening in Boston and what areas would be completely destroyed in an explosion. These things are comming as tech gets better .

I do too, definitely. That's not to say that the men and women that served before and after that generation aren't heroes too. But I agree with the "Greatest Generation" naming. I feel blessed to have had such a man in my ancestry. I just wish I had the same bravery as he did. I think my generation is a bit spoiled and that's why many people take freedom for granted.