PDA

View Full Version : U.S. weighs shootdown of N. Korea missile.....


DIESELMAN
06-20-2006, 09:37 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_go_pr_wh/missile_defense_korea

BlackNGold203
06-20-2006, 09:46 PM
Iraq...is bad.....THIS...is worse......

You think the middle east is bad?...these guys...Im tellin ya....are way worse

SteelShooter
06-20-2006, 10:07 PM
Iraq...is bad.....THIS...is worse......

You think the middle east is bad?...these guys...Im tellin ya....are way worse


I agree............

But the article is faulted. We had a successful shootdown off Hawaii earlier this year with one of our Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruisers (Aegis Phased Array RADAR).

Now, using the word "successful" is very subjective. We knew exactly what time it would be within range, exactly what altitude, exactly what speed, exactly what bearing (direction), etc....

The true test would be packaged with a certain amount of surprise.

I do not feel we are there yet..........but we are working on it.

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-21-2006, 01:19 AM
I agree............

But the article is faulted. We had a successful shootdown off Hawaii earlier this year with one of our Ticonderoga Class Guided Missile Cruisers (Aegis Phased Array RADAR).

Now, using the word "successful" is very subjective. We knew exactly what time it would be within range, exactly what altitude, exactly what speed, exactly what bearing (direction), etc....

The true test would be packaged with a certain amount of surprise.

I do not feel we are there yet..........but we are working on it.

I'm not an expert but .... I would think that a missle shot from there would take a while to get to the mainland.. and that would be a reasonable amount of time to shoot it down worst case scenario crash a plane or something into it...

ARKIESTEEL
06-21-2006, 06:14 AM
I'm not an expert but .... I would think that a missle shot from there would take a while to get to the mainland.. and that would be a reasonable amount of time to shoot it down worst case scenario crash a plane or something into it...


Not to bust your chops but our fastest jets couldnt catch one

3 to be 4
06-21-2006, 06:28 AM
good thing weve concentrated so much on Iraq, the real enemy.

those bastards have rocks and stuff!

CAH
06-21-2006, 11:19 AM
good thing weve concentrated so much on Iraq, the real enemy.

those bastards have rocks and stuff!
Tell that to the victims of 9/11.

Korea is a country of starving people and an insane dictator who is trying to get his name in the limelight. Russia and China should be doing something soon but can they be counted on?

If and when we shoot down a missile heading our way, our next move should be to take out their missile sites.

Livinginthe past
06-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Tell that to the victims of 9/11.

Korea is a country of starving people and an insane dictator who is trying to get his name in the limelight. Russia and China should be doing something soon but can they be counted on?

If and when we shoot down a missile heading our way, our next move should be to take out their missile sites.

There was no proven link between Iraq and 9/11.

They can't even tie al-Qaeda in with the Hussein regime - im pretty sure that 9/11 was the reason the US went into Afghanistan and not Iraq.

NM

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-21-2006, 11:59 AM
There was no proven link between Iraq and 9/11.

They can't even tie al-Qaeda in with the Hussein regime - im pretty sure that 9/11 was the reason the US went into Afghanistan and not Iraq.

NM


You are partially correct...there is no Direct link between Iraq and 9/11...However...there were direct links and actual meetings verified between key officers in Sadaam's regime and Al-Queda.

I found following two posts to be informative and does in fact back your claim that ther is no DIRECT link to 9/11...make your own assumption as to the validity of the investigation.


In one of the documents checked during the investigation into the justification behind Iraq war...what was found was
an Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.


also in a memo reported by the Weekly Standard:
OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:


4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes

Livinginthe past
06-21-2006, 12:03 PM
You are partially correct...there is no Direct link between Iraq and 9/11...However...there were direct links and actual meetings verified between key officers in Sadaam's regime and Al-Queda.

Really?

I couldn't find any evidence of that.

I did a quick search on google and it seems there are as many articles dismissing the link as there are confirming that there is one.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

If you have some info, i'd be interested to see it.

Thanks

NM

Steel12
06-21-2006, 12:11 PM
I'm glad I left Korea when I did. I still have friends there and they say that there are protests everyday for us to leave South Korea. North Korea is a serious issue and I hope my boss is taking them as such.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-21-2006, 02:15 PM
Really?

I couldn't find any evidence of that.

I did a quick search on google and it seems there are as many articles dismissing the link as there are confirming that there is one.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

If you have some info, i'd be interested to see it.

Thanks

NM

Heres your link...I especially like the part where they conclude as evidence the denial of agents of Bin Laden.




The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."


Nothing personal but until I decide to be a moonie..I'll pass on the Washington Post subscription.

CAH
06-21-2006, 02:27 PM
Really?

I couldn't find any evidence of that.

I did a quick search on google and it seems there are as many articles dismissing the link as there are confirming that there is one.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

If you have some info, i'd be interested to see it.

Thanks

NM

Do you think the Al-Queda is in a country called Al Queda? Do you believe the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are all Iraqis?

This is a jihad which includes Islamics from many countries and Iraq was voted for by Congress b/c they considered Iraq with Saddam, was the most dangerous.

Why do people on the left repeat and repeat the same questions after all this time? Is it b/c they listen to the Democrats and watch leftist news?

As one general told a reporter in answer to his repetitive question, "You stuck on stupid."

Livinginthe past
06-21-2006, 04:59 PM
Do you think the Al-Queda is in a country called Al Queda? Do you believe the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq are all Iraqis?

This is a jihad which includes Islamics from many countries and Iraq was voted for by Congress b/c they considered Iraq with Saddam, was the most dangerous.

Why do people on the left repeat and repeat the same questions after all this time? Is it b/c they listen to the Democrats and watch leftist news?

As one general told a reporter in answer to his repetitive question, "You stuck on stupid."

Thats a pretty mature attitude.

I ask for facts and proof not more anti-left nonsense.

This really isn't about Democrats and Republicans - and its you guys who sound repetitive.

NM

Livinginthe past
06-21-2006, 05:03 PM
Heres your link...I especially like the part where they conclude as evidence the denial of agents of Bin Laden.




The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."


Nothing personal but until I decide to be a moonie..I'll pass on the Washington Post subscription.

I was looking more at the source being the Sept 11 Commision rather than the paper this this article appeared in.

I take your point that you can spin most things in the direction you like, and I am not that familiar with the reputation of the Washington Post.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts its nice that people can discuss this without abuse resulting.

NM

CAH
06-21-2006, 07:42 PM
Thats a pretty mature attitude.

I ask for facts and proof not more anti-left nonsense.

This really isn't about Democrats and Republicans - and its you guys who sound repetitive.

NM
Please don't take me wrong. I belong to several Steeler boards and no matter how many articles are copied to prove the point, they still ask the same questions.

Al Queda is our enemy b/c they are the enemy of all infidels. If they aren't killed first, we will die. Bush could have gone after them or waited here after 9/11 for the next attack and the next and the next. Remember, 9/11 was far from the first attack. Clinton left about a half dozen go by the wayside and Kerry wants to talk to them. Have you ever heard of anyone talking to them? It is a Jihad.

DIESELMAN
06-21-2006, 07:53 PM
Please don't take me wrong. I belong to several Steeler boards and no matter how many articles are copied to prove the point, they still ask the same questions.

Al Queda is our enemy b/c they are the enemy of all infidels. If they aren't killed first, we will die. Bush could have gone after them or waited here after 9/11 for the next attack and the next and the next. Remember, 9/11 was far from the first attack. Clinton left about a half dozen go by the wayside and Kerry wants to talk to them. Have you ever heard of anyone talking to them? It is a Jihad.
Good Point...Excellent!!!! If people would quit pointing fingers as to who's fault everything is and put all that effort into solving the problem at hand who knows.....Some people "in charge" in America talk the talk but fall flat on their ass when it comes time to doing something. They sit at home all safe and sound spouting off at the mouth on what they would have done meanwhile in a land far, far away our troops are busting their asses and dyin tryin to make this a peaceful world.....:helmet:

GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS!!!!!

tony hipchest
06-21-2006, 08:49 PM
Please don't take me wrong. I belong to several Steeler boards and no matter how many articles are copied to prove the point, they still ask the same questions.

Al Queda is our enemy b/c they are the enemy of all infidels. If they aren't killed first, we will die. Bush could have gone after them or waited here after 9/11 for the next attack and the next and the next. Remember, 9/11 was far from the first attack. Clinton left about a half dozen go by the wayside and Kerry wants to talk to them. Have you ever heard of anyone talking to them? It is a Jihad.muslim radicals didnt start hating jews and christians till clinton right? :rolleyes: and all the targets you mention were put in place by clinton right? :rolleyes: and it was clinton who didnt get the job done correctly in iraq in the 1st place right? :rolleyes:

i think you hate clinton and the left more than the terrorists.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-21-2006, 09:34 PM
shooting it down is a bad idea, unless it traves further than what north Korea says it will.
Then it will be considered an act ot war. and we go there and blow north korea away to nothing.

CowherLover
06-21-2006, 09:52 PM
muslim radicals didnt start hating jews and christians till clinton right? :rolleyes: and all the targets you mention were put in place by clinton right? :rolleyes: and it was clinton who didnt get the job done correctly in iraq in the 1st place right? :rolleyes:

i think you hate clinton and the left more than the terrorists.
Well lookie there, a post I actually agree with, lol.

Hawk Believer
06-21-2006, 10:51 PM
from there would take a while to get to the mainland.. and that would be a reasonable amount of time to shoot it down worst case scenario crash a plane or something into it...[/QUOTE]
Living in the closest mainland city to Korea, it does make us a little nervous. I suppose Kim might consider a new Pearl Harbor attack to be a worthy achievment in his screwed up little mind.

On a side note... Remember during the Cold War how there used to be civic pride in where your city ranked on the Soviet target list? I lived in two towns groing up: San Diego and on the Puget Sound. In both places, people seemed to brag that, after DC and NYC, my town is next on the list. San Diego said it because they had most of the Pacific Fleet there. The Puget Sound claimed 3rd place because we had the Trident Sub base with a large nuke arsenal.

The claims were of course absurd. Its not like a full on nuculear war would have been done one city at a time. But it did strike me as funny how people got pretty excited about percieving themselves as placing high in the race to be obliterated by Soviet nukes.

Hawk Believer
06-21-2006, 11:00 PM
Please don't take me wrong. I belong to several Steeler boards and no matter how many articles are copied to prove the point, they still ask the same questions.

Al Queda is our enemy b/c they are the enemy of all infidels. If they aren't killed first, we will die. Bush could have gone after them or waited here after 9/11 for the next attack and the next and the next. Remember, 9/11 was far from the first attack. Clinton left about a half dozen go by the wayside and Kerry wants to talk to them. Have you ever heard of anyone talking to them? It is a Jihad.

From what I have read Bin Laden was pretty outspoken about Saddam, saying he was a Sunni infidel. Iraq was a terribly brutal to its people, but not in the Sharia (sp?) fashion that Bin Laden and his buddies prefer. So how is this rectified? Did Bin Laden supposedly cozy up to secular Saddam because the US became the bigger enemy? I am truly curious to hear peoples thoughts.

Great discussion going on about an important topic on which I've never been able to get a clear answer.

tony hipchest
06-21-2006, 11:19 PM
From what I have read Bin Laden was pretty outspoken about Saddam, saying he was a Sunni infidel. Iraq was a terribly brutal to its people, but not in the Sharia (sp?) fashion that Bin Laden and his buddies prefer. So how is this rectified? Did Bin Laden supposedly cozy up to secular Saddam because the US became the bigger enemy? I am truly curious to hear peoples thoughts.

Great discussion going on about an important topic on which I've never been able to get a clear answer. dont expect a "discussion".

with this post alone, and the seattle helmet in your avitar, you will immediately be pigion holed as a "leftist" and a "clinton lover"

those who love Rush would have you believe sadaam and bin laden were husband and wife. cause if they werent married, they REALLY have nothing to stand on other than their limb that is sticking out of the hornets nest.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-22-2006, 09:06 AM
From what I have read Bin Laden was pretty outspoken about Saddam, saying he was a Sunni infidel. Iraq was a terribly brutal to its people, but not in the Sharia (sp?) fashion that Bin Laden and his buddies prefer. So how is this rectified? Did Bin Laden supposedly cozy up to secular Saddam because the US became the bigger enemy? I am truly curious to hear peoples thoughts.
Great discussion going on about an important topic on which I've never been able to get a clear answer.

Excellent question...

Again ..I dont claim to be an expert ....but lived in Iraq for 18 months...I can only tell you what the prevelant mood...feelings...ethics were, and what I could pick up from the locals.

There ARE in fact currently Sunni's and Shiite's serving in Al Queda. They are made up from radicals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, and any other country that spawns radicals.

These people are willing to put aside their hatred for each other because of a loose network of radical Clerics. The thing that so many people are not aware of is that they all Muslims ultimately follow the Koran ...but the teaching/leadership comes from Clerics with almost total autonomy who interpret what their Holy Book says to the followers. The more radical of these Clerics have told their "flock" that all things Western are evil (not just the United States), and that for the "greater good" they can put aside their differences.

Some Clerics have a harder time with what they percieve as a "distortion" of the Koran by other Muslims...hence the division between the Sunni's and the Shiite's. SOOO we have some working together and some divided..but all following the leadership of the Cleric of their choice.

Sunni/Shiite fighting together....Sunni/Shiite fighting together....Iranians/Iraqis hating each other....Iranians/Iraqis fighting together....and we begin to see why this situation is beyond a simple solution.

OR...I may be just standing on a branch sticking out of a hornets nest.

floodcitygirl
06-22-2006, 09:52 AM
dont expect a "discussion".

with this post alone, and the seattle helmet in your avitar, you will immediately be pigion holed as a "leftist" and a "clinton lover"

those who love Rush would have you believe sadaam and bin laden were husband and wife. cause if they werent married, they REALLY have nothing to stand on other than their limb that is sticking out of the hornets nest.Just wondering Tony if you are speaking for yourself here, or somebody else?????

floodcitygirl
06-22-2006, 10:01 AM
Excellent question...

Again ..I dont claim to be an expert ....but lived in Iraq for 18 months...I can only tell you what the prevelant mood...feelings...ethics were, and what I could pick up from the locals.

There ARE in fact currently Sunni's and Shiite's serving in Al Queda. They are made up from radicals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, and any other country that spawns radicals.

These people are willing to put aside their hatred for each other because of a loose network of radical Clerics. The thing that so many people are not aware of is that they all Muslims ultimately follow the Koran ...but the teaching/leadership comes from Clerics with almost total autonomy who interpret what their Holy Book says to the followers. The more radical of these Clerics have told their "flock" that all things Western are evil (not just the United States), and that for the "greater good" they can put aside their differences.

Some Clerics have a harder time with what they percieve as a "distortion" of the Koran by other Muslims...hence the division between the Sunni's and the Shiite's. SOOO we have some working together and some divided..but all following the leadership of the Cleric of their choice.

Sunni/Shiite fighting together....Sunni/Shiite fighting together....Iranians/Iraqis hating each other....Iranians/Iraqis fighting together....and we begin to see why this situation is beyond a simple solution.Thanks for your take on this Lamberts. I TRY to hear people's perspectives on this, especially when you've been there. :smile: BTW, are you in the military? Sorry if you've already said so, I missed it.

tony hipchest
06-22-2006, 10:11 AM
Just wondering Tony if you are speaking for yourself here, or somebody else?????
myself

floodcitygirl
06-22-2006, 10:43 AM
myselfWow Tony, I'm suprised! I thought you were alot more open-minded than that!!!! :smile:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-22-2006, 10:47 AM
Thanks for your take on this Lamberts. I TRY to hear people's perspectives on this, especially when you've been there. :smile: BTW, are you in the military? Sorry if you've already said so, I missed it.
Eight years M.P..... Six years cop....now supervisor for dispatch and control.

floodcitygirl
06-22-2006, 10:50 AM
Eight years M.P..... Six years cop....now supervisor for dispatch and control.Very impressive!

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-22-2006, 11:01 AM
Very impressive!

On paper ..impressive...reality is that its feast or famine...bored to tears or the end of the world...you can only do this if your an adrenaline junkie

tony hipchest
06-22-2006, 11:16 AM
Wow Tony, I'm suprised! I thought you were alot more open-minded than that!!!! :smile:whatever gave you that idea? noone should question the war effort, or bin ladens alleged ties with saddam. especially a tree huggin, late sipping, lefty, seattle fan like HB! they should stick with questionning refs calls.

(just messin with ya HB)

Livinginthe past
06-22-2006, 11:39 AM
Excellent question...

Again ..I dont claim to be an expert ....but lived in Iraq for 18 months...I can only tell you what the prevelant mood...feelings...ethics were, and what I could pick up from the locals.

There ARE in fact currently Sunni's and Shiite's serving in Al Queda. They are made up from radicals from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, and any other country that spawns radicals.

These people are willing to put aside their hatred for each other because of a loose network of radical Clerics. The thing that so many people are not aware of is that they all Muslims ultimately follow the Koran ...but the teaching/leadership comes from Clerics with almost total autonomy who interpret what their Holy Book says to the followers. The more radical of these Clerics have told their "flock" that all things Western are evil (not just the United States), and that for the "greater good" they can put aside their differences.

Some Clerics have a harder time with what they percieve as a "distortion" of the Koran by other Muslims...hence the division between the Sunni's and the Shiite's. SOOO we have some working together and some divided..but all following the leadership of the Cleric of their choice.

Sunni/Shiite fighting together....Sunni/Shiite fighting together....Iranians/Iraqis hating each other....Iranians/Iraqis fighting together....and we begin to see why this situation is beyond a simple solution.

OR...I may be just standing on a branch sticking out of a hornets nest.

An excellent take I think.

Im just wondering what sort of conclusions we should be trying draw from the fact that parties that hated each other vehemently in the past are now willing to join forces in order to try and vanquish a greater evil.

I hear alot of phrases banded about how the Muslim world has declared a Jihad on the Western World as a whole and intends to turn the whole world into the state of Islam.

I take this to be the radicals point of view, and we have more than a few of these in western religions.

If we are talking about conquering the world, then you would have to say that America's insistence on forcing democracy on countries that dont currently have it as a type of crusade - this is something that Bush quite openly admits.

Personally,I cannot imagine living in a society that doesnt revolve around Democracy- but then thats my opinion and I wouldn't want to force that upon people from much different background to myself (Iraqi's for example)

The problem with extremists of any creed is that they are unwilling to offer any sort of compromise - its their way or the highway, and this is going to lead to what amounts to a blood drenched stalemate.

NM

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-22-2006, 11:52 AM
An excellent take I think.

Im just wondering what sort of conclusions we should be trying draw from the fact that parties that hated each other vehemently in the past are now willing to join forces in order to try and vanquish a greater evil.

I hear alot of phrases banded about how the Muslim world has declared a Jihad on the Western World as a whole and intends to turn the whole world into the state of Islam.

I take this to be the radicals point of view, and we have more than a few of these in western religions.

If we are talking about conquering the world, then you would have to say that America's insistence on forcing democracy on countries that dont currently have it as a type of crusade - this is something that Bush quite openly admits.

Personally,I cannot imagine living in a society that doesnt revolve around Democracy- but then thats my opinion and I wouldn't want to force that upon people from much different background to myself (Iraqi's for example)

The problem with extremists of any creed is that they are unwilling to offer any sort of compromise - its their way or the highway, and this is going to lead to what amounts to a blood drenched stalemate.

NM

I think that I neglected to fill in the blanks...THE MAJORITY of people in Iraq want democracy...this is evident by the last election. What I was describing was the dynamics and reasoning behind the minority extremists...whether they hate each other or "western culture".

Livinginthe past
06-22-2006, 12:20 PM
I think that I neglected to fill in the blanks...THE MAJORITY of people in Iraq want democracy...this is evident by the last election. What I was describing was the dynamics and reasoning behind the minority extremists...whether they hate each other or "western culture".

Im sure you can see the difficulty in proving a statement such as "the majority of people in Iraq want a Democracy" - lets face it - in those type of scenarios where one countries forces are occupying another country then you have to doubt the validity of votes and polls.

Im sure in a perfect world, the majority of Iraqi's would prefer a democracy - but would they want to achieve it the way currently being attempted?

The way things are going, there is certainly no guarantee of a working democratic process in the near future, and the bodies from both sides continue to mount at a rate that isn't decreasing.

Whether you like it or not, the actions of the US in Iraq has only served to polarise people - drawing people to one side or the other - there is very little middle ground and very few people in it.

The longer this situation continues to deteriorate, the more people who were moderates in the past will fast become extremist in their viewpoint.

NM

floodcitygirl
06-22-2006, 01:27 PM
On paper ..impressive...reality is that its feast or famine...bored to tears or the end of the world...you can only do this if your an adrenaline junkieWell now look who's shamelessly fishing for compliments! (lol) OK....come on Lamberts, you know you rock!!!!! :rolleyes:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-22-2006, 01:45 PM
Well now look who's shamelessly fishing for compliments! (lol) OK....come on Lamberts, you know you rock!!!!! :rolleyes:

..and ya wonder why I love ya!!!:smile: :bouncy: :smile:

CAH
06-22-2006, 03:14 PM
muslim radicals didnt start hating jews and christians till clinton right? :rolleyes: and all the targets you mention were put in place by clinton right? :rolleyes: and it was clinton who didnt get the job done correctly in iraq in the 1st place right? :rolleyes:

i think you hate clinton and the left more than the terrorists.
WHOA LOL

Basicly, I was trying to defend Bush for all the crap he has to hear from the left. If you want to take that as Clinton bashing, fine. When Clinton didn't fight back, I figured he had his reasons and didn't question it.

Why did we go to war? Congress voted for it, including Kennedy, H. Clinton, John Kerry and most of the other Democrats. When we went to Iraq, all of them bitched and raised holy hell because we did. Go figure.

We didn't have to go over there to fight. We could just fight them here. After all, there were many attacks by them and it was going to grow by leaps and bounds. Bush did the right thing and you know it.

Hawk Believer
06-23-2006, 03:48 AM
Many Americans in Missile Range Just Shrug
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MISSILE_MOOD?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-22-20-54-12

My favorite line from the article:"If we were thinking about all this stuff and everything that's out there, and of course the situation with the missiles in North Korea, I think we would all be on Prozac."

Steel Pit
06-23-2006, 04:48 AM
Iraq...is bad.....THIS...is worse......

You think the middle east is bad?...these guys...Im tellin ya....are way worse

They are far worse and I think that we can all agree on the fact that North Korea is doing nothing more than fishing around for a ground war against the United States in North Korea's own back yard. That would be a nasty war and a very,very difficult war to win.

CAH
06-23-2006, 01:26 PM
This is just a weird way of explaining the relationships or non-relationships of the Al Queda, Osama, Saddam, etc. BTW I am Italian.

Let's take the Mafia, who is made up of many leaders (Dons), is located in many parts of our country and other countries. Let's say they expanded by becoming terrorists.

Now if you had to go after these "families", does it matter which family speaks and plans with other families? You go after the place where a lot of them are harbored and in that country, they are building up WMD. It doesn't matter if Mario planned anything with Guido. The object is to get them and hit them hard.

I don't give a flying fig if Osama and Saddam planned together, which I think they did. The object is to get 'em.

The FBI picked up that group of terrorists in Florida, who were planning on hitting Chicago. Do you think the FBI sat and wondered if they were members of Osama's group? I don't think so. They were nailed and they must continue to be stopped anywhere in the world.

Hawk Believer
06-23-2006, 01:44 PM
This is just a weird way of explaining the relationships or non-relationships of the Al Queda, Osama, Saddam, etc. BTW I am Italian.

Let's take the Mafia, who is made up of many leaders (Dons), is located in many parts of our country and other countries. Let's say they expanded by becoming terrorists.

Now if you had to go after these "families", does it matter which family speaks and plans with other families? You go after the place where a lot of them are harbored and in that country, they are building up WMD. It doesn't matter if Mario planned anything with Guido. The object is to get them and hit them hard.

I don't give a flying fig if Osama and Saddam planned together, which I think they did. The object is to get 'em.

The FBI picked up that group of terrorists in Florida, who were planning on hitting Chicago. Do you think the FBI sat and wondered if they were members of Osama's group? I don't think so. They were nailed and they must continue to be stopped anywhere in the world.
So do you think we should occupy Saudi Arabia since they produced 9/11 terrorists?

I guess I question the priority of Iraq. It definately gets much harder to fight wars against
groups whose primary allegiance isn't nationalistic. I wonder if we chose Iraq because that was the only Middle East nation that we had no functional diplomatic relationship. As far as I can surmise, any possible terrorist threat in Iraq was minimal prior to our invasion. Now it seems like a hotbed. I guess its better for us to have terrorists flock to Iraq so we can try to draw themout in a concentrated manner there. But I do worry that we are manufacturing a few more enemies than we would have had otherwise by the way we are prosecuting the war ( I know this reasoning drives a lot of conservatives bonkers, but I do hope the people running the show consider this).

tony hipchest
06-23-2006, 01:59 PM
This is just a weird way of explaining the relationships or non-relationships of the Al Queda, Osama, Saddam, etc. BTW I am Italian.

Let's take the Mafia, who is made up of many leaders (Dons), is located in many parts of our country and other countries. Let's say they expanded by becoming terrorists.

Now if you had to go after these "families", does it matter which family speaks and plans with other families? You go after the place where a lot of them are harbored and in that country, they are building up WMD. It doesn't matter if Mario planned anything with Guido. The object is to get them and hit them hard.

I don't give a flying fig if Osama and Saddam planned together, which I think they did. The object is to get 'em.

The FBI picked up that group of terrorists in Florida, who were planning on hitting Chicago. Do you think the FBI sat and wondered if they were members of Osama's group? I don't think so. They were nailed and they must continue to be stopped anywhere in the world.ok. heres one for you. i love to hunt oryx (an antelope creature naitive of africa) but now say the oryx population in africa is depleted and it is no longer legal to hunt them. however 50 years a go they imported a herd and put them in my own back yard, and now they breed like rabbits and run wild all over white sands missle range and the tularosa basin. do me and all my buddys go through all the efforts to book a trip to africa and sneak a shot and hope we get away with it. or do we just hunt them in our own neck of the woods? sure my buddies may have to come from arizona or texas or colorado but it sure beats the expense and the effort and the risk of getting one in africa.

point is before 9-11 iraq didnt have the highest concentration of terrorists. there are plenty of other countries harboring alot of terrorists and the reason we havent gone after them as hard is were not quite ready to start the inevitable wwIII just yet. iran will have to wait, as will saudi and "palestine". as tom ridge recently said the war on terror will last for decades.

i do agree with alot of what you have to say its just the premise behind the defense of your arguments, and the constant anti leftist spin i have trouble agreeing with. we are not in the situation we are in because of the left or the right. we are in the situation because of our enemy. a politicians job is to (and job security depends on) convincing the public the other side or running mate is wrong.

Black@Gold Forever32
06-23-2006, 02:55 PM
ok. heres one for you. i love to hunt oryx (an antelope creature naitive of africa) but now say the oryx population in africa is depleted and it is no longer legal to hunt them. however 50 years a go they imported a herd and put them in my own back yard, and now they breed like rabbits and run wild all over white sands missle range and the tularosa basin. do me and all my buddys go through all the efforts to book a trip to africa and sneak a shot and hope we get away with it. or do we just hunt them in our own neck of the woods? sure my buddies may have to come from arizona or texas or colorado but it sure beats the expense and the effort and the risk of getting one in africa.

point is before 9-11 iraq didnt have the highest concentration of terrorists. there are plenty of other countries harboring alot of terrorists and the reason we havent gone after them as hard is were not quite ready to start the inevitable wwIII just yet. iran will have to wait, as will saudi and "palestine". as tom ridge recently said the war on terror will last for decades.

i do agree with alot of what you have to say its just the premise behind the defense of your arguments, and the constant anti leftist spin i have trouble agreeing with. we are not in the situation we are in because of the left or the right. we are in the situation because of our enemy. a politicians job is to (and job security depends on) convincing the public the other side or running mate is wrong.

Tony, not only will the war on terror will last for decades. But I don't care if we kill Bin Laden and 1,000 terrorists tommorrow. You will never get rid of terrorism. There will always be some other crazy nut job to come along that hates us.

augustashark
06-23-2006, 04:35 PM
LITP, on the $$ as always!

CAH
06-23-2006, 07:30 PM
ok. heres one for you. i love to hunt oryx (an antelope creature naitive of africa) but now say the oryx population in africa is depleted and it is no longer legal to hunt them. however 50 years a go they imported a herd and put them in my own back yard, and now they breed like rabbits and run wild all over white sands missle range and the tularosa basin. do me and all my buddys go through all the efforts to book a trip to africa and sneak a shot and hope we get away with it. or do we just hunt them in our own neck of the woods? sure my buddies may have to come from arizona or texas or colorado but it sure beats the expense and the effort and the risk of getting one in africa.

point is before 9-11 iraq didnt have the highest concentration of terrorists. there are plenty of other countries harboring alot of terrorists and the reason we havent gone after them as hard is were not quite ready to start the inevitable wwIII just yet. iran will have to wait, as will saudi and "palestine". as tom ridge recently said the war on terror will last for decades.

i do agree with alot of what you have to say its just the premise behind the defense of your arguments, and the constant anti leftist spin i have trouble agreeing with. we are not in the situation we are in because of the left or the right. we are in the situation because of our enemy. a politicians job is to (and job security depends on) convincing the public the other side or running mate is wrong.

*sigh* Info was taken from our Intelligence and that of other countries then was presented to Congress. Congress voted on it and deduced Saddam being the most immediate threat. I don't underdtand why that is so hard to understand. :doh:

Livinginthe past
06-24-2006, 02:02 AM
Tony, not only will the war on terror will last for decades. But I don't care if we kill Bin Laden and 1,000 terrorists tommorrow. You will never get rid of terrorism. There will always be some other crazy nut job to come along that hates us.

I think the main debating point is why 'terrorists' exist.

I think there needs to be more effort in trying to understand where these people are coming from, all we ever seem to told is that they are all crazy people who have no logic to their actions, which seems lazy.

This viewpoint and rhetoric may well win you votes with a nationalistic majority but is it going to help us lower the amount of groups whose sole aim appears to be killing Westerners like you and me?

Because its exactly true what you say about killing 1,000 terrorists and killing Osama - you cut off the head or the arms of this beast - and it will grow a new one to replace almost straight away.

Until you remove the reason for terrorism ie the American/ Western meddling in affairs on the other side of the globe - then it doesnt matter how many 'ragheads' you kill, or how many brave American soldiers are left as sitting ducks - they will always be replaced.

NM

tony hipchest
06-24-2006, 02:23 AM
I think the main debating point is why 'terrorists' exist.
NM

its too simple to even debate. its a religious dispute and for all the believers the answer is easilly found. but as long as america keeps waging war against the 10 commandments in the court room, and the bible in schools, we as a culture will never understand. especially 50 years from now when the problem is exaspirated and all of our children learn in schools that it was caused by a man named clinton, bush, sadaam, or, God forbid, limbaugh.

Livinginthe past
06-24-2006, 02:37 AM
its too simple to even debate. its a religious dispute and for all the believers the answer is easilly found. but as long as america keeps waging war against the 10 commandments in the court room, and the bible in schools, we as a culture will never understand. especially 50 years from now when the problem is exaspirated and all of our children learn in schools that it was caused by a man named clinton, bush, sadaam, or, God forbid, limbaugh.

Sure, Religion definitely plays a massive part in the current hostile climate.

I think you have to look at ways of preventing more fuel being thrown on this particular fire - its human nature to group together, just as it is to exclude others - but it doesn't always have to end in bloodshed.

Maybe its too much to hope for, but I would like our leaders to actually take the lead when it comes to respecting the beliefs of others - for the Muslim conspiracist there seems to alot of evidence pointing towards a Christian/Jewish pact - the Israel/ Palestine land dispute being a good example.

Unfortunately the guys at the top are more concerned with making their mark, Blair has been heard more than once to lecture on his need to leave a 'legacy' before he leaves the post.

I think his ego was a huge part of the reason he brought the UK into this war.

NM

tony hipchest
06-24-2006, 03:17 AM
Sure, Religion definitely plays a massive part in the current hostile climate.

I think you have to look at ways of preventing more fuel being thrown on this particular fire - its human nature to group together, just as it is to exclude others - but it doesn't always have to end in bloodshed.

Maybe its too much to hope for, but I would like our leaders to actually take the lead when it comes to respecting the beliefs of others - for the Muslim conspiracist there seems to alot of evidence pointing towards a Christian/Jewish pact - the Israel/ Palestine land dispute being a good example.

Unfortunately the guys at the top are more concerned with making their mark, Blair has been heard more than once to lecture on his need to leave a 'legacy' before he leaves the post.

I think his ego was a huge part of the reason he brought the UK into this war.

NM religion is the backbone of the current hostile climate. theres no real "fuel" being thrown on the fire. its more like the fire of a candle. the wax will burn out in time. people today just fan the flames.

the jewish/ christian pact is more than just that. it is the same people. separation of race and ethnicity was brought together through Christ. Jesus was a jew who was brought to earth to save not only fellow jews but all other people on earth. whether one believes that or not, his teachings were the right ones if your looking at it from a biological, survival of the human species, point of view.

as far as blair and the english/ american alliance goes, i feel it is a good one and a very unique one being that the americans fought a war with the english less than 250 years ago for independence. yet we still remain joined at the hip, like mother and daughter. this goes beyond blair or bush. the most popular bible read in america is still the king james version. it goes more on principal, rather than one mans ego. it is the general battle between what is right and what is wrong. sure it is easy for western civilization to say what they believe is right. but its not that one sided. when the germans did what they did in wwII it was england and america who stepped to the plate whether it was a hitler led nation as the enemy or a muslim nation.

the war we are fighting with the muslims right now is one that is gonna have to be fought. the wax is there and the candle has been lit for ages. no one is gonna come and blow it out (hence you saying "maybe its too much to hope for") have blair and bush handled and fought it perfectly? definitely not. i would find it much easier to stand behind a leader who called it what it was though rather than false premises. unfortunately with religion being abolished from politics, the days of fdr leading the nation in a prayer before we go to war with the germans are gone. unfortunately i cant remember the extent of winston churchills faith but i know he sided with the americans.

Hawk Believer
06-24-2006, 03:47 AM
religion is the backbone of the current hostile climate. theres no real "fuel" being thrown on the fire. its more like the fire of a candle. the wax will burn out in time. people today just fan the flames.

the jewish/ christian pact is more than just that. it is the same people. separation of race and ethnicity was brought together through Christ. Jesus was a jew who was brought to earth to save not only fellow jews but all other people on earth. whether one believes that or not, his teachings were the right ones if your looking at it from a biological, survival of the human species, point of view.

as far as blair and the english/ american alliance goes, i feel it is a good one and a very unique one being that the americans fought a war with the english less than 250 years ago for independence. yet we still remain joined at the hip, like mother and daughter. this goes beyond blair or bush. the most popular bible read in america is still the king james version. it goes more on principal, rather than one mans ego. it is the general battle between what is right and what is wrong. sure it is easy for western civilization to say what they believe is right. but its not that one sided. when the germans did what they did in wwII it was england and america who stepped to the plate whether it was a hitler led nation as the enemy or a muslim nation.

the war we are fighting with the muslims right now is one that is gonna have to be fought. the wax is there and the candle has been lit for ages. no one is gonna come and blow it out (hence you saying "maybe its too much to hope for") have blair and bush handled and fought it perfectly? definitely not. i would find it much easier to stand behind a leader who called it what it was though rather than false premises. unfortunately with religion being abolished from politics, the days of fdr leading the nation in a prayer before we go to war with the germans are gone. unfortunately i cant remember the extent of winston churchills faith but i know he sided with the americans.

From Churchill's most famous speech...What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour."


Seems like Churchill fell pretty firmly on the side of Christian culture.

I downloaded that speech years ago. It's amazing. I can't help but imagine the people of Great Britain huddled around their radios, listening to this speech, and knowing they jsut got their butt kicked in France and are about to be invaded by a seemingly unstopable Nazi war machine. It must have been way more intense than the fear we all shared on 9/11. Its one of the few pieces of media that actually gives me chills when I listen to it.

Livinginthe past
06-24-2006, 03:51 AM
religion is the backbone of the current hostile climate. theres no real "fuel" being thrown on the fire. its more like the fire of a candle. the wax will burn out in time. people today just fan the flames.

the jewish/ christian pact is more than just that. it is the same people. separation of race and ethnicity was brought together through Christ. Jesus was a jew who was brought to earth to save not only fellow jews but all other people on earth. whether one believes that or not, his teachings were the right ones if your looking at it from a biological, survival of the human species, point of view.

as far as blair and the english/ american alliance goes, i feel it is a good one and a very unique one being that the americans fought a war with the english less than 250 years ago for independence. yet we still remain joined at the hip, like mother and daughter. this goes beyond blair or bush. the most popular bible read in america is still the king james version. it goes more on principal, rather than one mans ego. it is the general battle between what is right and what is wrong. sure it is easy for western civilization to say what they believe is right. but its not that one sided. when the germans did what they did in wwII it was england and america who stepped to the plate whether it was a hitler led nation as the enemy or a muslim nation.

the war we are fighting with the muslims right now is one that is gonna have to be fought. the wax is there and the candle has been lit for ages. no one is gonna come and blow it out (hence you saying "maybe its too much to hope for") have blair and bush handled and fought it perfectly? definitely not. i would find it much easier to stand behind a leader who called it what it was though rather than false premises. unfortunately with religion being abolished from politics, the days of fdr leading the nation in a prayer before we go to war with the germans are gone. unfortunately i cant remember the extent of winston churchills faith but i know he sided with the americans.

I would say the occupation of Iraq and the siding with Israel to be reasonable fuel.

I dont happen to think the UK/USA relationship is a healthy one at all, its way too one-sided - Blair has a strong reputation for being Bush's lap-dog and its a deserved one.

Of course, there is the relative size and populations of the country to be taken into account.

Personally speaking, I feel closely related to the American people - we have alot in common, possibly alot more in common than the Britsh have with their European neighbours, in terms of culture.

Im sure Churchill was a great man, but his predecessor Neville Chamberlain was a man who thought Adolf Hitler, and Germany had genuine greivances regarding WW1 - Great Britain basically didn't get involved in WW2 until they judged that Germany was becoming too powerful and a threat to their own national security.

I believe it was a similar reasoning that was behind the US joining forces with the Allies - they feared an overly powerful Germany dominating Europe.

Countries never go to war for the 'greater good' - they are simply looking out for their own interests.

You say that the Christian/ Muslim was is one that must be fought - I think it is one that cannot be won - by either side.

NM

tony hipchest
06-24-2006, 04:27 AM
I would say the occupation of Iraq and the siding with Israel to be reasonable fuel.

I dont happen to think the UK/USA relationship is a healthy one at all, its way too one-sided - Blair has a strong reputation for being Bush's lap-dog and its a deserved one.

Of course, there is the relative size and populations of the country to be taken into account.

Personally speaking, I feel closely related to the American people - we have alot in common, possibly alot more in common than the Britsh have with their European neighbours, in terms of culture.

Im sure Churchill was a great man, but his predecessor Neville Chamberlain was a man who thought Adolf Hitler, and Germany had genuine greivances regarding WW1 - Great Britain basically didn't get involved in WW2 until they judged that Germany was becoming too powerful and a threat to their own national security.

I believe it was a similar reasoning that was behind the US joining forces with the Allies - they feared an overly powerful Germany dominating Europe.

Countries never go to war for the 'greater good' - they are simply looking out for their own interests.

You say that the Christian/ Muslim was is one that must be fought - I think it is one that cannot be won - by either side.

NM

of course not. thats why wwIII is known as the war that will end the world as we know it. armageddon or whatever you believe. i know alot of people dont buy the religious point of view. but the scientific, biological point of view says the same thing. 50 years from now, 12 billion people without enough food, water, or oxygen doesnt work. especially if theres an abundance of weapons and nukes willing to be used by people who have declared a jihad and anticipare their deaths and that of all others.

every relation with the u.s. is pretty much one sided. we are one of the most powerful countries in the world. we have alot more to offer, which you already know. the relation between canada and america probably isnt looked at as too healthy either, nor mexico, but they are in a damn good situation as far as someone having their back no matter what else may happen in the world.

i dont know if you are suggesting neville chamberlain was a better leader than winston churchill because he decided to look the other way and felt hitler and germany had greivances. im sure that school of thought died as soon as london was flattened with german bombs.

i dont think america was as fearful of germany as you would suggest. i think america was a little pissed to see a city like london get flattened and an ally like england and france on the heels of defeat. it wasnt about fear. it was about knowing what was right and wrong. of course the Christian faith gave guidance to the difference between the 2. sure hitler thought the holocaust was right. but he wasnt a christian leader of a christian nation.

Livinginthe past
06-24-2006, 09:03 AM
of course not. thats why wwIII is known as the war that will end the world as we know it. armageddon or whatever you believe. i know alot of people dont buy the religious point of view. but the scientific, biological point of view says the same thing. 50 years from now, 12 billion people without enough food, water, or oxygen doesnt work. especially if theres an abundance of weapons and nukes willing to be used by people who have declared a jihad and anticipare their deaths and that of all others.

every relation with the u.s. is pretty much one sided. we are one of the most powerful countries in the world. we have alot more to offer, which you already know. the relation between canada and america probably isnt looked at as too healthy either, nor mexico, but they are in a damn good situation as far as someone having their back no matter what else may happen in the world.

i dont know if you are suggesting neville chamberlain was a better leader than winston churchill because he decided to look the other way and felt hitler and germany had greivances. im sure that school of thought died as soon as london was flattened with german bombs.

i dont think america was as fearful of germany as you would suggest. i think america was a little pissed to see a city like london get flattened and an ally like england and france on the heels of defeat. it wasnt about fear. it was about knowing what was right and wrong. of course the Christian faith gave guidance to the difference between the 2. sure hitler thought the holocaust was right. but he wasnt a christian leader of a christian nation.

No, I wasn't suggesting that Neville Chamberlain was a better leader, though I realised that the statement could be read both ways.

Im just saying that he didn't declare war on Germany until it became clear that they had no intention of stopping at taking over small parts of german speaking Europe - that basically he was just looking out for the UK'.

In terms of the world population, I read something recently that suggested that the birthrate to death rate ratio is decreasing - and that we will peak sometime in the next 50 years.

On that note ( I found it interesting)

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

I understand what you are saying about WW3 - and its potential effect, I just haven't given hope that it can't be headed off.

NM

tony hipchest
06-24-2006, 01:14 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

I understand what you are saying about WW3 - and its potential effect, I just haven't given hope that it can't be headed off.

NMthe historic population growth chart is a scary one. the sudden exponential growth is a far cry from the way our specias have developed fot the past thousands of years. we all should have hope impending doom can be headed off for our childrens and grandchildrens sake. like they say if your not part of the solution then youre part of the problem

CAH
06-24-2006, 02:46 PM
No, I wasn't suggesting that Neville Chamberlain was a better leader, though I realised that the statement could be read both ways.

Im just saying that he didn't declare war on Germany until it became clear that they had no intention of stopping at taking over small parts of german speaking Europe - that basically he was just looking out for the UK'.
I have a different take on Chamberland. He listened to Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland scream for help and he bargained talked to Hitler. One thing is very clear. You cannot appease people of Hitler's ilk. They'll talk to you and then stab you in the back.

While Chamberland allowed Hitler to take over countries and build his strength, the writing was on the wall for England, who paid a terrible price. People were separated from their children, they had nightmares of the missiles flying over them and listening to its whine, knowing when the whine stopped, it was coming down while Nazi planes bombed them constantly. That was the price of appeasement, thanks to Chamberland.

Livinginthe past
06-24-2006, 02:58 PM
I have a different take on Chamberland. He listened to Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland scream for help and he bargained talked to Hitler. One thing is very clear. You cannot appease people of Hitler's ilk. They'll talk to you and then stab you in the back.

While Chamberland allowed Hitler to take over countries and build his strength, the writing was on the wall for England, who paid a terrible price. People were separated from their children, they had nightmares of the missiles flying over them and listening to its whine, knowing when the whine stopped, it was coming down while Nazi planes bombed them constantly. That was the price of appeasement, thanks to Chamberland.

I think maybe we are on the same page on this one.

Chamberlain was an appeaser, and you are correct Hitler was allowed to build his strength unchecked - invading and conquering Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia - this is when we should have stepped in.

The again im sure things are alot easier to view in hindsight.

Having said all this, I dont see any correlation at all between Hitlers rampage across Eastern europe and the Iraq situation.

NM

CAH
06-24-2006, 11:08 PM
I think maybe we are on the same page on this one.

Chamberlain was an appeaser, and you are correct Hitler was allowed to build his strength unchecked - invading and conquering Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia - this is when we should have stepped in.

The again im sure things are alot easier to view in hindsight.

Having said all this, I dont see any correlation at all between Hitlers rampage across Eastern europe and the Iraq situation.

NM
They are alike in the way some want to treat them. Kerry insisted we should talk to them. You cannot appease someone, especially if they are on another page.

How much talk would it take for them to change their hatred of Israel and Christians? Never happened.

Anyone who can talk their people into flying planes into buildings and killing themselves also, are not going to think that is wrong.

Likewise with putting bombs on children just to take out a dozen or so infidels. Just how would you talk to them?