Is War Worth it!?

[huckster]

well, 'shitty' little countries may have been a little harsh, but the people who live there would all rather be here, or transport our lifestyle to there. And i think THAT is the great irony. Many people of electos ilk want to defend the right of the fill in the blank people to stay in their shit existence, while the fill in the blank people just want out of their shithole.

And in case you didnt know it electo, flushing Saddam is a great first step for us, the world, and the Iraqui people.

 

[Sig]

Electro-

Are you going to answer the proposed questions from Spencer and Jimbo? The questions are straight-forward and are relavant as opposed to some of the the exchanges in the thread. I thin kyou wanted this thread to be a real discussion relevant to the topic. I have seen many people reach out to discuss the nuts and bolts of the Iraq situation, but is seems that these requests go ignored.

 

[tabasco]

GOD Bless America, and...

GOD Bless our military men and women both active and veterans. Without them we probably could not have such a discussion.

I am thankful that I came back alive, but very grateful that I could serve my country.

Despite the babbling of the pacifist, Saddam is a dead man walking. And, once he and his cronies are dead, the people of Iraq will be very grateful to the U.S. military for giving them freedom.



------------------

• '00 Candy Apple Blue / Black, #264
• My Card
• My NSX
• My Legend

 

[Jimbo]

Electro,

It's pretty clear you're not serious about a reasonable debate of the facts and you're just playing games.

You've admitted that you've been just throwing out half-baked ideas and have tried to be confusing.

Neo,

I disagree. This hasn't been an unproductive thread at all. This issue is important and it helps to have an intelligent discourse. Of course, for the most part that hasn't helped, but the questions posed by myself and other are, I believe valid responses to the inane knee-jerk anti-war nonsense.

Oh, and by the way...Hollywood...You should learn to get your facts straight. Carlin didn't write that.

-Jim

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 12 February 2003).]

 

[David]

Originally posted by Electro:
"shitty countries" ? Hahahah

Ok I'm going to respond with something that would normally come from you.

"Are you saying these countries are shitty because you think you are superior to them? Do you feel that the people of those countries are less than equal to this country? You must feel that way or you wouldn't have said it. You are obviously more intelligent than those "shitty countries" because you said that. You are Anti-(insert cleverly chosen noun here)."

-E

Since it is apparantly my job to teach you US history, I was tempted to go through the list country by country and explain the cause of each conflict. However, I now understand that it is not worth the efffort becasue you will not actually learn anything from our efforts, no matter how hard we try. So, I will lump them together with the general explaination that at the time of conflict they were (for the most part) either dictatorships that killed or imprisoned their own people to secure power or they attacked one of our allies.

And, yes, I believe that our country, as an open democracy, is 'better' than any dictatorship. You have expressed opinions to the contrary, and that is your right (one that I used to wear a uniform to protect), but I suspect the people in the dictatorships would also disagree with you.

Now, if we really want to play the "I'll speak for you" game, I suppose I could rant and whine that you don't know anything about me so you can't speak for me or cry about you are twisitng my words, but why bother when I actually have a legitimate response?

 

[David]

Originally posted by Electro:

My ranting and raving is done...

-E

Why do I suspect this has exactly the same accuracy as any of your other posts?


; )

 

[AKUDOU]

David, You remind me of the Game warden in this joke:

A hillbilly went hunting one day in Oklahoma and bagged three ducks. He put them in the bed of his pickup truck and was about to drive home when he was confronted by an ornery game warden who didn't like hillbillies.
The game warden ordered to the hillbilly to show his hunting license, and the hillbilly pulled out a valid Oklahoma hunting license.
The game warden looked at the license, then reached over and picked up one of the ducks, sniffed its butt, and said "This duck ain't from Oklahoma. This is a Kansas duck. You got a Kansas huntin' license, boy?"
The hillbilly reached into his wallet and produced a Kansas hunting license.
The game warden looked at it, then reached over and grabbed the second duck, sniffed its butt, and said
"This ain't no Kansas duck. This duck's from Arkansas. You got a Arkansas license?"
The hillbilly reached into his wallet and produced an Arkansas hunting license.
The warden then reached over and picked up the third duck, sniffed its butt, and said This ain't no Arkansas duck. This here duck's from South Carolina. You got a South Carolina huntin' license?"
Again the hillbilly reached into his wallet and brought out a South Carolina hunting license.
The game warden was extremely frustrated at this point, and he yelled at the hillbilly "Just where the hell are you from?"
The hillbilly turned around, bent over, dropped his pants, and said "You tell me, expert."

[This message has been edited by AKUDOU (edited 12 February 2003).]

 

[David]

Originally posted by AKUDOU:
David, You remind me of the Game warden in this joke]

Okay. You remind me of what the warden was so closely inspecting.

BTW, according to Electro, I'm the hillbilly.

 

[David]

Today's marginally relevant random quote:

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

: )

 

[Electro]

*ROTFL @ AKUDOU* that was pretty funny... heh

As far as answering everyone's questions - I have a text file that I have written on my PC at home... And as soon as it's finished I'll post it... I haven't posted it yet because its very annoying to have to break up my posts into one paragraph each posts (and u have to wait more than 60 seconds before you can post again b/c of the flood control)

So yes I do have replies to the questions... that I will gladly answer.

Give me a few hours to get thru traffic here in LA today... remember the "STORM WATCH 2003" that's plastered all over every TV news channel in town... pretty funny how RAIN can make headlines... guess these southern californians dont know what its like to have rain 4 of the 7 days in a week like we do in Atlanta.

-Electro

 

[Electro]

Originally posted by David:
Today's marginally relevant random quote:

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

: )

At last you say something humorous!

David, I hope we can still be friends and none of this has been taken too seriously... as you can tell I certainly haven't taken this seriously at all... so of course I cant expect anyone to take me seriously.

But I do think that I have raised some very valid points (re-read my first post)... And think about it compared to what you all have seen in the rest of this thread.... I'm open to any debate... and yes I am responsible for making it a little less understandable... sorry for confusing anyone... its all in good fun

-E

 

[Spencer]

While we all wait for Electo's realistic, alternative idea to permanently remove the threat of Saddam's illegal arsenal, let's take him up on that offer to re-read his very first post, the one where he "…raised some very valid points…"

In this original message, you "think something should be done to work out the issues that are going on now in the international community." This sounds fine. But what EXACTLY would you do to "work out" those issues in Iraq? We've been trying for 12 years to "work out" issues like their WOMD. We've been trying to "work" them out via: sanctions, overflights, inspections, pressure from neighboring countries, signed truces, covert means, CIA hits, special ops, a war, proposing exile, etc. What EXACTLY is left?

In your original posting, you lament that "a massive amount of people (celebrities and the general public alike)…are against war and the US gov't <will> not listen?!" Well, now that a majority of Americans and much of the Congress are behind military action, has your position changed any? I am serious. And what does the judgment of celebrities have to do with this? Unless the "celebrities" are ex-CIA directors, U.S. Senators, generals, or noted policy wonks, I don't know that "celebrity status" gives any extra credence to their opinion. (Hey, I think that Madonna's hot, but I don't think her opinion on Iraq is any more valid than her opinion on an NSX that I might be considering to buy. Please also note: I do NOT think that Barbara Streisand is hot.)

You also said "Do we still live in a democracy? Or have we ever had one?" Well, since you ask, it's actually not ever been a democracy. Since it's founding the U.S. has been a republic. (As in "I pledge allegiance to the republic for which it stands…") Republics are a form of government wherein elected officials make decisions on behalf of the citizens who elect them. Democracies are, strictly speaking, governments where power flows directly from the people…like a town meeting in New England or what the form of government that those zany guys in ancient Greece had.

You also said that "the US is already deemed the bully-state by millions of people that don't even know what its like to come here…" Agreed. And also agreed that it's a sad situation. But what is the solution to this? The sad fact is that we cannot stand by and let some tinhorn terrorists get WOMD and then attack the U.S. in an effort to be "nice" and curry rapprochement with these "millions of people" who, out of ignorance, happen to hate us.

You also say "He (Bush) vows to take control of one of the biggest producers of oil in the entire world." Not true. Firstly, to all of the people who think that we're out to steal the Iraqi oil…just how would we do it? Does the government take it and sell it clandestinely to Exxon? Do they secretly move it out of the country? This is among the most naive commonly heard statement on this whole topic. What is true, though, is that Iraq does, with the proper support, have the capacity to pump enough oil to get themselves on their feet again – unlike many other countries that we've (sometimes unfortunately) messed with (Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.). No, the sad truth is that the oil fields of Iraq are in shambles. And Saddam will likely destroy most of the infrastructure in a confrontation, anyway. The fact is that the United States will likely be stuck spending millions (or billions) rebuilding their entire industry for them (unless France has an epiphany at the last minute and volunteers for a cut of the profit).

And finally, in your initial post you concluded with "Feel free to disagree with me…" Now THAT'S one that truly needs no response...

 

[NeoNSX]

See this picture? Let's talk about this...

 

[Sig]

Neo-

That conversation would belong in the NSX related sections. This being off-topic is the appropriate place for this thread.


Electro-

Why is it that you have to break up your posts? Obviously you are not the only one this happens too, as I have seen it from a number of members.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

David says BTW, according to Electro, I'm the hillbilly here,you know like these guys.

&

[This message has been edited by HOLLYWOOD (edited 12 February 2003).]

 

[Electro]

Instead of breaking up my posts, I'll just link you all to an HTML file that I wrote instead so I can have it all in one shot:

http://www.hyperphase.net/electro/post.html

-Electro

 

[Jimbo]

Electro,

OK, let me try to respond to your answers.

Q: Do you believe Saddam Hussein possesses WMDs?

A: Sure I'm sure he does. So do we...

R: OK, so you would then agree that inspections are a moot point. We know he has them and that's really not at issue, right?


Q: Do you think our gov't is lying when they claim that he does?

A: No - I'm sure they have plenty of evidence against him.

R: Good! I'm glad we can agree on that.


Q: If you don't think Saddam has WMDs, do you think that if he did get a hold of them, that he would hesitate to use them against us? Likewise, if you think he does have them. Would he hesitate to use them?

A: I'm sure lots of countries are dying to use WOMD against us.  Once again, my SECOND point (is everyone paying attention to me?) We are NOT taking any steps to prevent us from looking like we're bullying everyone...no one likes a bully...

R: You didn't really answer the question, but I think you're saying that you don't doubt Saddam would use WOMDs against us if he had the chance. But you seem stuck on this world opinion thing. Here's a situation where thousands of real lives are at stake and you seem more worried about world opinion. The radical Islamic movement hate us. They would continue to hate us regardless of our actions against Iraq. It's not that we're considered a bully, it's because we support our friends in Israel and because the radical Islamic fundamentalists posess a hatred of modernity.

On your question of "WHO IS GOING TO POLICE THE UNITED STATES?"

Uh, that would be no one. It might not sound "fair" but that's the way it is. I'm not saying that the US has never been at fault, but there's no one else that seems to be able to do it any better. Also, you make it sound like the whole world hates us.

Keep in mind that most of the bitching you hear about the US come from a small minority. France, Germany and Russia all have a vested financial interest in Iraq.


Q: D) Did you object to the USA's involvement in Somalia, Yugoslavia or Bosnia? If yes or no, why?

A: I don?t know enough about any of those events to comment.

R: Fair enough. But consider this. Why didn't you hear about these events? We bombed and went into these countries but because they were done under the auspices of Clinton the liberal media and left-minded protesters didn't seem to mind. There seems to be convenient double standard at work. The US is only a bully when a Republican President is at the helm.


Q: Do you think we should act militarily if there's any chance of civilian casualties?

A: Sure why not. Kill'em all..

R: Well, you're being sarcastic here. My point was simple. Should we avoid action because of the potential of civilian losses? You cited this as a reason for why we shouldn't act, and I'm trying to understand. We fought against Hitler and Germany and there were civilian casualties. Shouldn't the goal be to minimize the total loss of life?


Q: What do you think about Saddam's attempt to assassinate former Pres Bush?

A: See Answer for D

R: Perhaps you should do a Google search and read up on it. Saddam tried to assassinate our former President - and while I don't necessarily think that in and of itself is reason to go to war, it certainly adds to the long list of reasons of why Saddam must be stopped.


Q: G) When you mentioned the rights of the Iraqi people, do you think they have any rights under the present regime?

A: How would u feel if you had nothing to do with politics and saw planes flying over dropping bombs on your home for no apparent reason?...Another point of mine: If we continue on this path, we are just asking for more 9/11 type attacks...

R: You didn't really answer the question. My point was that Saddam has brutalized the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people by all reasonable accounts have suffered immensely under Saddam. There is also every indication that once Saddam is gone the Iraqi people will be cheering in the streets. Don't trust my words, do a search on Google using the words, "Saddam","torture","rape", etc.


Also, I understand that if we respond against Saddam that more 9/11 attacks might occur. But, I also believe that if we do nothing those attacks might occur anyway. And if they occur with WMDs supplied by Saddam, the toll will be tremendous. It seems like you really don't take the WMD threat all that seriously.

Q: Assuming that our government knows Saddam has WMDs, and assuming they know that he will use them against the USA when he gets the chance, do you think our gov't should take action? And should we take action regardless if a few countries object?

A: The US gov?t is going to do whatever they want regardless of international support.  Of course they're going to go thru the 'proper' processes to please NATO...but not forever.

R: That's probably true and thankfully so. But it's not without international support. The majority of the world community supports us. The political leaders of a few countries don't support us, that's true, but those countries, France, Germany and Russia have signed big OIL deals with Iraq. It's about the oil for them.


Q: Why do you think France, Germany and Russia object to any military action against Iraq? Do you think it's because they're more patient, reasonable or civilized than the US?

A: I'm not going to comment on that one... I can?t speculate on how the rulers of those countries are feeling on that particular day.

R: I've already given the reason why these countries object. It's common knowledge, however.


Q: If you believe that more inspectors and more prolonged inspections are a good idea, please explain why?

A: I think we shouldn't have waited so long to send them in.  We gave Iraq WAY TOO MUCH notice that we were sending inspectors...

R: Iraq kicked out the inspectors years ago. It wasn't a case of us (or the UN) waiting so long. Of course, now we already know that Saddam's hiding WMDs. Inspection is a moot point.


Q: Do you think the continued appeasment of Saddam, particularly if it continues, will be a problem for the world community when it comes time to deal with North Korea?

A: As far as N. Korea goes, it doesn?t seem like we have that much info about what North Korea's feelings are about us...(of course I could be wrong here) I?m sure they don?t like us...

R: Oh, I'm sure they don't like us too. That's not the point. We're going to have to try to negotiate with NK and my point was that if we're not tough with Iraq and if appears that the UN is lax with Iraq (giving them 12 years and dozens of "last chances") then NK will see that weakness and try to exploit it. And I think that the stakes could be much higher with NK. Isn't that a reason for us to be firm with Iraq and to follow through with the UN resolution?

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 13 February 2003).]

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Originally posted by Electro:
Instead of breaking up my posts, I'll just link you all to an HTML file that I wrote instead so I can have it all in one shot:

http://www.hyperphase.net/electro/post.html "Here ya go Electro"

-Electro

Spencer, Finally a reply that's not laden with personal remarks... and that actually hears what I'm trying to say for once...

But what is the solution to this? (Re: the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in)

Well that's my whole question... I don’t claim to have the answers... I'm not trying to make it sound like I know all the answers. (The whole reason I posted these questions... that’s indeed what they are: questions for which I have no answers. I believe that going to war is only going to perpetuate problems for everyone.

"He (Bush) vows to take control of one of the biggest producers of oil in the entire world." Ok that was a poorly worded comment on my part... Think about this though for a moment... If we do change the administration (or whatever u want to call it) in Iraq, then what happens to all the oil fields? I mean really who takes ownership? I think even if there was a temporary gov’t installed, we'd have some seriously good connections with this new gov’t in Iraq thereby giving us a huge upper hand in getting us a great deal on a huge oil supply... don’t you think that is a great incentive to "change" the gov’t in Iraq? (In addition to all the other issues)... I'm being serious - no sarcasm here.

"The fact is that the United States will likely be stuck spending millions (or billions) rebuilding their entire industry for them” that too is a great possibility thereby making the "new gov’t" in Iraq kind of owe the US for a favor... which payment would easily be done w/ oil... not such a bad deal eh? =)

"Why do I suspect this has exactly the same accuracy as any of your other posts?" -David

Ok ok ... I fess up... a lot of the time I'm just antagonizing you only to perpetuate the arguments... so I apologize for that... Now can we have a real debate about this stuff? I promise not to resort to personal stuff... I just hope you wont think I'm calling YOU a redneck... cause if you were a redneck, you wouldn't be offended by that comment... REAL rednecks are PROUD to be rednecks... (Like myself - I cannot deny my own southern-fried heritage)

"You already pointed out near the beginning of the thread that if people disagree with you it is because they are from an ignorant culture." -David

I'd like to see where exactly I said that... word for word, copy & paste it... I know you want to...

And if it’s anywhere near the sum of what you've apparently discovered about me, I'd be very surprised. Cause that's not what I said or even meant in any way. How many times should I have to explain myself for you to understand me? If you'd stop trying to insult me, you might get a reply from me that makes sense to you.

"Why bother when I actually have a legitimate response?" -David

When you have a legitimate response?? How the hell can you expect me to respond "legitimately" when your posts are laden with personal insults like:

"You will not actually learn anything from our efforts, no matter how hard we try." -David

And

“Washington. D.C. I know you're not into politics, but you may have heard of it. Its our nation's capital.” –David

“…choosing instead to repeat: "I am not totally against war" four times...and a few other comments equally mature. I thought it was a simple question; but what do I know? (If only I were a systems engineer. I guess I'd exhibit more logic.)” -Spencer

Spencer, Now that’s just childish. Going on that comment, you are one to talk about maturity. Have I used your profession as fuel to insult you? (regardless of whether or not I know or care to know your profession) No I have not used anything from your personal life as fuel to backup my point like you have resorted to time and time again (as well as many others here) so I’d like you and everyone else to kindly stop with the insults.

David, How could you possibly know how well I learn? (Or not at all going on what you've said) I'm actually one of the fastest learners I know... (Yea I know- go ahead and use that phrase for whatever purpose you want for your next insult) I never wanted any personality traits to be discussed here; this is a discussion about POLITICS.

Sig, I have no fuggen idea why I have to break up my posts .....its really frustrating... when I click "SUBMIT REPLY" it will just sit there... unless I make each post about one paragraph long... geez how annoying.

“one of the acceptable reasons for war is population control?”

Well I said that partly in jest… I’ll admit… but honestly… think about how populated this planet is… unless some sort of natural disaster comes and wipes out at least half the world’s population, we’re in deep trouble with the environment, economy (due

"You've admitted that you've been just throwing out half-baked ideas and have tried to be confusing." -Jimbo

Yes that's partially true... half-baked I don't think so. But yes I do admit to antagonizing someone when they approach me in a way that I feel is not constructive. That's all anyone will get until someone actually approaches me in a mature way (flame away at that one cause I know everyone will) ...they'll get back exactly how they approach me... hasn't anyone figured this out yet? You guys are pretty intelligent people - how could you all have missed this for THIS long? As far as I can tell, everyone (minus a few people) have utterly failed my psychological evaluation on how people can handle a "radical" or someone who just will not agree with them...this is such great material for hundreds of term papers for college hehehh)

"It must be really horrible for these guys to live in a country that they hate so much." -Jimbo

I have NEVER said I hated this country. Now for you to put those words in my mouth is outrageous. To classify me into the category of people to whom you have put in the box in your head labeled "people and things I do not understand" is what I call close-minded. Perfect example. That is not an insult... That is just pure prejudice. You may feel insulted, and you may retaliate with similarly phrased insults to try and cut me down... and go right ahead... but until you really listen to what I'm saying, for what it's worth then you will continue to get these types of replies from me.

“the only non-military targets in Baghdad will be water and power plants.”

So you’re telling me that 800+ cruise missiles dropped in 48 hours are only going to hit water and power plants? Geezus how many power plants do you think they have? I mean really man be realistic.

Ok now for my replies to the questions posted earlier:

Coincidentally, I am a pacifist... I think fighting is much too primitive for it to solve anything.

But if nations insist, then what the hell else do we have? We sit back and watch...

"Hawaii isn't really part of the USA" Now this one really gets to me. Quote me on what I actually said. What did I actually say? Did you actually read it?

I said "HAWAII DOESNT SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM LIKE IT'S A PART OF THE United States" Operative word SEEM ... read what I say for what I mean not for what you want it to mean.

A) Do you believe Saddam Hussein possesses WMDs?

Sure I'm sure he does. So do we. So do countless countries on this God forsaken planet. Now am I saying that I feel the U.S. is just like Iraq? NO! And screw you if you were thinking that.

B) Do you think our gov't is lying when they claim that he does?

No - I'm sure they have plenty of evidence against him. And I'm sure there are occasions where the info is stretched to suit our needs... It's also a matter of not coming off as the bully on campus ... thereby creating MORE enemies.. do you see my point? You don't have to be an organized nation to attack the US... All u have to have is the will to do it. (9/11??)

C) I'm sure lots of countries are dying to use WOMD against us. Once again, my SECOND point (is everyone paying attention to me?) We are NOT taking any steps to prevent us from looking like we're bullying everyone... WE have nukes... we're saying we don’t like what another country is doing... REGARDLESS of his war crimes or whatever... I'm not talking about any of that... Yes something has to be done... but nothing's being done to do 'damage control'... no one likes a bully...

Side note: Another BIG point that I have (and yes I'd like to hear what everyone has to say about this one):

WHO IS GOING TO POLICE THE UNITED STATES?

NO ONE in here can tell me they honestly believe that they feel the U.S. gov't is 100% without fault in many political situations. Greed and power can be a very evil thing in the wrong hands. The views of many countries around the world are thinking the same thing: "Who is the U.S. to say what's right and what’s wrong?" That’s 95% of the reason why we don’t have international support TODAY.

D) I don’t know enough about any of those events to comment. I'd hate to say something and cause more problems.

E) Sure why not. Kill'em all.. After all, members of the Iraqi military do have homes ... so they are civilians too at the end of the day. Does that mean we should treat them as such? Not really... I'm not saying I have all the answers here... so everyone stop thinking that I am saying I do.

F) See Answer for D

G) How would u feel if you had nothing to do with politics and saw planes flying over dropping bombs on your home for no apparent reason? Wouldn't that make you a little ornery against BIG BOY on campus? Little Tommy on the playground WILL ball up his fist and strike big boy Billy and punch him in the nose... regardless of little Tommy’s size. (9/11?!?!?!?) Another point of mine: If we continue on this path, we are just asking for more 9/11 type attacks...

H) The US gov’t is going to do whatever they want regardless of international support. Of course they're going to go thru the 'proper' processes to please NATO...but not forever.

I) I'm not going to comment on that one... I can’t speculate on how the rulers of those countries are feeling on that particular day.

J) I think we shouldn't have waited so long to send them in. We gave Iraq WAY TOO MUCH notice that we were sending inspectors... where's the element of surprise??? When your parents tell you they're going to take a look at your room when you get home from school and if you haven't cleaned it you won't be able to go out and play won't you make sure your room is "Clean" by the time your parents look?? Think about it people. I know I'm not talking gibberish here.

K) As far as N. Korea goes, it doesn’t seem like we have that much info about what North Korea's feelings are about us...(of course I could be wrong here) I’m sure they don’t like us... And I read today that we know they have long range missiles that could deliver nukes to U.S. soil from across the pacific ocean... now that's very comforting. Of course there are plenty of reasons to be completely terrified of what you might read on the news everyday.

Ok I feel a little better now... Hopefully everyone can understand where I'm coming from a little better now... Time to go relax....




[This message has been edited by HOLLYWOOD (edited 13 February 2003).]

 

[Jimbo]

Uhhh...

Speaking of Hollywood...

I just read the following...
http://au.news.yahoo.com/030213/11/qbno.html

I'm really disgusted.

I always expected Barbra Striesand and Jane Fonda to play partisan politics, but I never expected to see so many of the Hollywood crowd play this game.

It's so clear that they're only acting this way because it's Bush who is in the White House. They still can't get over the Gore thing that they take every opportunity to slam this administration.

And to do it over such a critical issue where lives are at stake. Shame on them.

Hey Dustin!

There is a direct threat! Don't you get it?

And like I said before with Electro, where were these losers when we invaded Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Somalia?

Oh, that's right...they were sleeping overnight at the White House.

 

[milz50]

Electro,

I proposed a potential solution to potentially resolve your need to break long replys into many posts. I have yet to have anyone try it and am curious if it will work. Check out my post in this thread and let us know the result if you try it. Thanks.

<a href="http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000166.html#matt">click here</a>

 

[Electro]

Matt, I have IE set to empty temp cache files every time I close IE... u can find that setting in the advanced tab in internet options.....

i've tried just about everything.

it doesnt even seem to be my browswer, b/c it happens w/ netscape on this PC too....

very strange.

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 13 February 2003).]

 

[MephistonIV]

Long and interesting read...
Talking about bullying, this topic has taken bullying to a whole new level.

Allow me to remind you as a group, that this is not the sandbox in the kindergarden, nor is it the loud and noisy class room in high school.

This is supposedly a board where mature people share their individual, respectful opinions. And surely, that enviroment can't be too hard to maintain at a board like this, with intelligent people sharing a remarkable interest like the superior NSX's ... right ?

Who the "#¤&% am I to tell you anything ? Just an interested outsider readin through this dicussion, a fellow human being

Regards...

- Meph

 

[Jimbo]

Meph,

Hey it's no big deal...just people getting testy exchanging ideas.

On another note...

It seems the inspectors finally found a "violation." So all those people who didn't want to believe the mean USA should now have their independent verification that Saddam has utterly failed to comply and is a proven liar that can't be trusted.

Of course, this bit of new news won't mean jacks**t because those who object to military action (i.e. Germany, France and Russia) have strong financial ties to Saddam OR they (Spike Lee, Dustin, Sean Penn, BS and the rest of the Hwood crowd) have political reasons (i.e. they hate Bush) to object. Proof is irrelevant.

-J

 

[Electro]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/nkorea/

To me, North Korea poses more of a threat to the US than Iraq does...

Firstly, Iraq can not deliver nukes to US soil.

North Korea CAN.

Secondly, North Korea has admitted to an on-going nuclear program.

Iraq has not.

This is regardless of who says what about who has what evidence on who.

These are the hard facts - no opinions are even mixed in this information.

[This message has been edited by Electro (edited 15 February 2003).]

 

[Electro]

I believe that the US govt's plan on imposing more sanctions on North Korea (and labeling them as "the axis of evil") only perpetuates the problem. The bush administration seemingly has a knack for making things worse.

Not to mention the massive GLOBAL protests that are going on...

Do you feel secure that N. Korea can deliver a nuke to the US?

I think there is going to be a steady escalation until its too late... and someone's going to strike against US. And HARD. Then there will be twice as many questions as there were after 9/11 about "Why us? - but we are such good people!" Well yes the people of this country isnt the problem... its the leaders that continue to throw us into harms way.

-E