whole globe is now Israel/Palestine

[jsoceanlord]

except for maybe france and some others

 

[MetroSheriff]

Thank you for your insight.

 

[WrightAvia]

I thought the whole world was either...

UZI or HK-MP5? did something change overnight?

 

[T-Gates]

I wanna live in your head for one day.................

Thank you for consistantly baffling me.

--03M

 

[AWACoff]

Blame it all on religion. If we didn't have people believing in this myth, most of the major wars and atrocities in modern history (read after we moved out of caves) would not have happened. Wake up, pull the wool away from your eyes!!!

 

[TWA Dude]

Blame it all on religion.

I would refine your statement to read, "Blame it all on religious fanaticism."

Keep in mind that the laws of modern secular society are rooted on religious laws outlined in the Bible. To eliminate all religion wouldn't solve a darned thing anyway. People will always find a reason to kill each other.

 

[Draginass]

It seems that a small group of Arab muslims are intent on self-destructing the entire race. When you have people that have absolutely zero morals and are will to commit the most heinous atrocities, they can make a huge impact and control large groups of people.

The real unfortunate part is that the majority are either too scared to oppose them or tacitly support them. In any case, the end result will be continued backwardness and poverty. If Arabs want freedom, they are going to have to fight for it against their brothers who want to keep them enslaved. They are doing to themselves. The popular current support for a vicious sadist like Sadaam is clear evidence of this. When the onion starts getting pealed on the Iraqi attrocities within their own country, the reaction will probably be complete denial by Arabs . . . at least that what they usually do.

I wouldn't believe it myself unless I'd been seeing it with my own eyes.

Don't kid yourself. While we deny it's a religious war, Arabs sure don't.

 

[jsoceanlord]

in the 1960's the usa went to vietnam. with all our high tech weapons, we lost.

we just started a 300 plus year war.

you can't liberate the people over there - they have to escape on their own, like the Cuban boat people.

 

[100LL... Again!]

jcs-

You unwittingly stumbled over a truth, except that this conflict has boiled under the surface for a few thousand years. To attribute it to modern events is to be thoroughly unaware of the historical issues involved.

If you really believe that all this could have been avoided, you do not understand the enemy's methods. They have been baiting this battle for a long time, then when the righteous people of this world defend themselves, they scream racism and religious oppression. Only a total fool cannot see this.

Don't worry though, the US will win the war against terror as long as its citizens are a moral people. When and if we turn away from our founding principles, we will fall as a nation.

If a person has made pacifism their religion, they are doomed to
be confused by the current situation.


Let's just go ahead and quit beating around the bush and put the issue in the starkest terms possible. The world is rapidly dividing into two groups- those who really believe in the God of the Bible and those who do not. That is the ultimate line. I can tell which side wins.

 

[AWACoff]

I love this religion crap. Here's my take on it. You were raised and conditioned to believe in this myth. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, odds are you would be a Muslim right now. If you grew up in a Buddhist family...guess what...you might be a Buddhist. You need to throw off these ropes that are holding you down and realize you have been taught a farce by people who were taught the same. Once people begin to realize that religion is a primary basis for hate in the world, we can begin working on the problem. Live a moral and ethical life because you want to, not because you are afraid you will be punished by some omnipotent being if you don't.

 

[transienttorque]

As long as there is a food chain there will be war.

 

[WrightAvia]

Lost a battle, but won the war-WE'RE #1

in the 1960's the usa went to vietnam. with all our high tech weapons, we lost.

Jsoceanlord...I can agree with some of your post, but the part about us LOSING the Vietnam conflict, is wrong. If we lost the Vietnam conflict, we'd be speaking Vietnamese. We pulled out because it became an unpopular conflict. We didn't lose...the South Vietnamese lost. We were just trying to help them...right, wrong or indifferent. (I'm not arguing whether or not we should have been over there in the first place...just that WE didn't lose)

As far as HIGH TECH...I wouldn't call the Korean conflict era equipment that was used in Vietnam, HIGH TECH. Skyraiders were actually on the drawing board towards the end of WWII. Superconnies were being used for AWACS, Electronic evesdropping and psywar ops. DC-3's for gunships. M-14 rifles...High tech? Thompsons, M-1 and M-2 carbines, Grease Guns? B-52 flights, flying a formation in a straight line with about a mile separation, to drob ungided bombs...with out even a GPS to guide them. High Tech? Guided gravity type bombs droped from aircraft, were sciece fiction at that time. Targets were marked by single engine cessnas, by using smoke. Fire was then adjusted by radio. I don't think that was high tech either. Maybe compared to WWI, it was.

We lost 50,000+ American servicemen and women aiding the South Vietnamese. The communists lost a million plus. I'd say that we just suffered from poorly made, foreign policy decisions...the South Vietnamese people lost their own conflict.

Back to the present time...It doesn't matter whether the Iraqi's take the initiative to join in their own liberation. I don't really care what they do. You either want to live in a democracy or you don't! We cant will them to fight. The main thing that I see that needs to be accomplished and will be accomplished, is that we remove Sadam from power. We remove his family from power. We remove the regime from power. Destroy their war making assets and wepons of mass destruction. Set their ability to make terrorism back, 10 to 20 years and get the worlds economy stable again. If during all this, the Iraqi people smell freedom and take it upon themselves to fight for their right to self govern...Ka-ching! Big bonus!

I personally feel those people that lack the will or desire to fight for their freedom, deserve NONE. The meek shall inherit the DEARTH!

 

[A Squared]

Wrightavia,

It is interesting indeed that you think we didn't lose the Vietnam Conflict. By your rationale the British didn't really lose the revolutionary war either. Uhhh, as much as it burns us to admit it, we got our tails kicked.

Take a look at what each side's goals were:

The North Vietnamese goal was to "re-unite" North Vietnam with South Vietnam in peace brotherhood and Communism.....using force if necessary.

Our Goal was to prevent South Vietnam from being "re-united" with North Vietnam.

Some (but not all) of South Vietnam shared our goal.

Now, I don't think anyone is going to deny that North Vietnam "re-united" South Vietnam, so who won? Us and the South Vietnamese?, or North Vietnam?

We can argue all we want about how they achieved it, or whether we *could* have crushed then if the politicians would have allowed it, or who killed more people (clearly we did) but all of those arguments are coulda, woulda, shoulda type rationalizations.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: Who had what goal, and which side achieved thier goal?



Now, regarding your comments about our weaponry:

>>>>Skyraiders were actually on the drawing board towards the end of WWII

Umm yeah, and in the middle of the Vietnam conflict "the end of WWII" was about 25 years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that the F-15, A-10, and F-14 were *operational* somewhere around 25 years ago, that means that they were "on the drawing boards" over 30 years ago. For that matter the B-52 *was* on the drawing boards at the end of WWII. It's true, the B-52 evolved from a design started waaaayyy back then.

>>>>Superconnies were being used for AWACS,

Yeah, at the time the superconnie was a 25-30 year old (depending how you count) airframe design. The current AWACS Airframe is what? 40-45 years old? Didn’t the Dash-80 (precursor to the C-135, 707 line) fly in the late 1950’s?

>>>>Guided gravity type bombs droped (sic) from aircraft, were sciece (sic) fiction at that time

Ummn no they weren’t. (surprise, surprise) We were using the first generation of laser guided munitions in the Vietnam War.


Looking back from today’s perspective a lot of the weaponry seems antiquated, but at the time, mini guns, turbine helicopters, CBU’s, M 16’s, Chemical Sniffers were pretty high tech.

regards

 

[Ralph]

Vietnam was a tie!

 

[WrightAvia]

Ummn no they weren’t. (surprise, surprise) We were using the first generation of laser guided munitions in the Vietnam War.

Yes, we were. At the end...not the begining. All new technology used in Vietnam was FIRST GENERATION. Vietnam was the test bed for the technology we have today, from night vision to the further development of the M-16. Here is a link to a historic look at the laser guided bombs used at the end of the Vietnam Conflict. They don't go into much detail...but laser guided bombs were not the highlight of Vietnam conflict. Probably more likened to the test done at Alamagordo, NM prior to droping the first A-bomb.

http://www.mn.afrl.af.mil/public/vietnam.html

here is another article concerning the current state of guided bombs. Guided bombs were under development during WWII and even Germans had CRUISE missiles back then. My argument is that Vietnam was not HIGH TECH. It was proving ground. Everything was first generation. Like the begining delio on the original star trek...new frontier.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/31/iraq/main547048.shtml

As far as our goals in Vietnam...the reuiniting thing? Ha. We were not going to let the Communist, Ho Chi Minh, be the democratically elected leader of Vietnam. He won a free election, fair and square, but he was a communist and we weren't going to allow it. Even though he was our ally during WWII and was preparing a written constitution for vietnam, that was modeled on our US constitution. REMEMBER...all they wanted to do, was be free from being a FRENCH COLONY. But anyway...our will was not to be served in Vietnam. We didn't lose. The Vietnamese flag is not flying on our capitol. Hell, if the the South Vietnamese would have put as much effort into the Vietnam conflict as the Confederate States of America did during the American Civil War...the South Vietnamese would have won. Which brings up my valid point. We didn't lose THEIR CIVIL WAR, they did. They weren't our COLONY, not even a trust territory. We cut our losses and pulled out, bringing with us lessons learned. Later on, lessons learned while watching the Russians lose their game in Afghanistan, made it so that we could become the world reigning champions that we are now. (obviously there's more to it than that...but afghanistan was the second generation of warfare, where vertical envolpement with helicopters, was a primary focus for troop movement during a war or conflict...and we had front row seats)

Yes A-Squared, we used some stuff in Vietnam that was pretty high tech compared to WWI, WWII and the Korean Conflict, but looking back on it...most of Vietnam really was fought by the blood, sweat and tears of the guys that fought it out in the rice paddys and city streets. THEM dudes truely HUMPED the bush and that was not HIGH TECH, at all.

Thanks for the intelligent debate, A-squraed.

 

[100LL... Again!]

AWACoff-

Was I supposed to be upset by your post? Maybe if I pouted and looked hurt...


First of all, organized 'religion' has little to do with moral correctness, as has been seen in such cases as the Crusades, Inquisition, pedophile scandals, etc. However, good and evil are universal truths, and the US has and will continue to be strong as long it remains a moral nation. Morality is most accurately defined by the Bible. (The Bible was the basis for much of our founding law and personal freedoms.)

You have it backward, however. Religion is not the basis for hate.
Hate existed before any religions did. Hate did become a basis for some religions, though. Your quote makes a tidy sound bite, but will in no way hold up to analysis. You know this.

If you think you can offend me by referring to my faith as a myth, you are mistaken. Faith is not blind. You are not afraid to fly, right? Even though some other people are. Why? You have faith in the method of flight. It is not based on blind assumptions that airplanes fly. It is based on knowledge and experience. So is mine. You can get a million people to mock my faith to my face and I will not be shaken by it, because their sincere need to change my view is significant proof that there is a deeper reason for their anger. I know that I am right. How do I know? I could tell you if you wanted me to, but you don't. You would only want a position from which to attack further, so why bother? I do not care much that you hold that view.

We will all find out some day. I'm very confident that I will not be disappointed. If my confidence irritates you, that cannot be helped, I guess.

Peace.

 

[AWACoff]

100LL,
I in no way intended my remarks to be directed at you and only at you. I also was not trying to upset you. I am simply trying to open people's eyes to the conditioning most of us have recieved. It isn't quite "Brave New World"...but it isn't too far away. I wish you luck in your journey in life and to do what makes you happy.
See Yoooooooooo!

 

[jsoceanlord]

i go back and forth

sometimes i think the pentagon is completely out of control (with bottomless spending), sometimes i don't

 

[A Squared]

Wrightavi,

I used the term re-unite as a somewhat ambiguous term for what was going on there as I didn't want the discussion to turn into one about why we were there. You and I could probably find some common ground on the matter, but that is off the subject. Regardless of who was right, what the motives were, or whether anyone was justified, I think that we all understand what North Vietnam wanted, and we understand what we and some of south vietnam wanted. The end result is that the north prevailed, and we didn't. It is true that the Vietnamese flag is not flying in out capital, but that doesn't mean that we didn't lose. Our Stars and Stripes aren't flying over Britian, but I think that we can agree that britian lost against the US in both the revolutionary war and the War of 1812.

>>>>My argument is that Vietnam was not HIGH TECH. It was proving ground.

Well, High Tech is relative and it all has to be taken in the context of the state of technology at the time:

In the American Civil War, Breech loading rifles and Gatling guns were High Tech. In WWI, airplanes, Tanks, and Lewis Guns were High Tech. In WWII, RADAR, Jet airplanes, Intercontinental Balistic Missiles, Atomic Bombs and the Garand were High Tech.

>>>>..most of Vietnam really was fought by the blood, sweat and tears of the guys that fought it out in the rice paddys and city streets. THEM dudes truely HUMPED the bush and that was notHIGH TECH, at all.

Yeah, that's what it all gets down to, no matter what the war.




regards

 

[Purple Haze]

we just started a 300 plus year war.

No, actually, a group of fanatic terrorists started a war on September 11, 2001. We are now taking the actions most likely to prevent further terrorist acts on our soil. President Bush made his plans crystal clear in his address to the nation shortly after the Sept 11 terrorist attack on innocent, unsuspecting civilians and a peacetime military in the pentagon. This war will not be over quickly. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

This war will not be over when we finish with Iraq. I suppose rather than actively defending our nation from future attacks you would have us join hands and sing "We are the world?" --Nonsense. The forces of evil made a decision... they chose poorly.