VisorCentral.com - Inane ramblings

Pages (73): « First ... « 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Inane ramblings (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=16736)

Posted by septimus on 01-30-2002 05:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Damn! Why do I have to pay for others destroying my works of beauty?

Eminent Domain.

(...now there's an issue that ticks me off. Richfield, MN, just used ED to kick a car dealer and a few homeowners out so that Best Buy could relocate their corp. Headquarters there. 1st off, it's bad, 2nd off, it will be the final piece in what must be an evil genius's plot to destroy the transportation infrastructure in this metro area.)

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by volcanopele on 01-30-2002 05:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
All right, time for some good old dubya bashing. What'dya think of the State of the Union. the guy goes into it with the highest approval ratings ever, capitalizes on it by getting a barb or two on the Dems ("But when those checks arrived in the mail most
Americans thought tax relief was just about right."), calling for more volunteerism, and the guy got a standing ovation for saying the word defecit!.

Any, so things are fine, right... but what possessed him to say this?

Well goddamn right, but maybe it doesn't go in the SoTU. We've just managed to get these two countries' propaganda machines to start winding down on anti-US rhetoric and gotten their citizens to start feeling some sympathy for us (especially in Iran, where even the gov't had been relaxing a bit from it's Theocratic craziness). Doesn't using the phrase "axis of evil" threaten this?

No, really, I want to know. I don't care if you like the elf-looking-non-Enron-mentioning-oil-guzzling-tax-cutting-defecit-spending guy , I want to know if you think that the pumping up we get from such phrases is worth their diplomatic toll, or if it's short-sighted jingoism.

...and I have a guess as to what everybody's answer is already, so I guess what I'm really looking for is to be surprised.

I say Bush's speech was right on. He said every thing that needed to be said. As far as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, I 100% agree with him. These three countries, particularly North Korea, have been working on programs for weapons of mass destruction. I question whether they are meant to attack the US but they are working on them. Currently, North Korea is developing missiles capable of reaching nearly the entire Pacific Rim except S.A. (and why would North Korea want to attack Peru anyway). All three are threatening their neighbors which happen to be our allys with these weapons. North Korea even tested a missile where they even had the galls to fly it over Japan. Iran and Iraq threaten each other as well as their neighbors Saudi Arabia and Israel.

As far as diplomacy goes, they are a farce. I do admit that relations between Iran and us has been cooling, they should require us to ease off on them and make their requirements to root out terrorist activities in their country any less. Same goes with North Korea. If they want to join the rest of the international communit, they better start serving the needs of their people and the requirements of their neighbors for friendship, rather than allowing reunions with one hand, and missile tests over their neighbors with the other. Iraq has an abdominable government who shows no distinction between the countries they are at war at and their own people (who were not in rebellion at the time of their gas attacks). Iraq supports terrorist organizations as well as maintaining a clandestine nuclear and biological weapons program.

As far as being an axis of evil, I would go that far. Certainly they threaten the peace of the world with weapons programs, but they are not an organized effort like Germany/Italy/Japan in WWII. They each are independent, non-allied, and have their own motives.

Everything else in the speech was right on.

Jason

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by septimus on 01-30-2002 06:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele
As far as diplomacy goes, they are a farce. I do admit that relations between Iran and us has been cooling, they should require us to ease off on them and make their requirements to root out terrorist activities in their country any less. Same goes with North Korea.

...so... what was the benefit of including this (obviously effective) rhetoric? Sure, as a policy you agree, but I can't connect the above to my question regarding SoTU

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by volcanopele on 01-30-2002 06:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

...so... what was the benefit of including this (obviously effective) rhetoric? Sure, as a policy you agree, but I can't connect the above to my question regarding SoTU

SoTU?

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by septimus on 01-30-2002 07:06 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele

SoTU?

State of The Union

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by volcanopele on 01-30-2002 07:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

...so... what was the benefit of including this (obviously effective) rhetoric? Sure, as a policy you agree, but I can't connect the above to my question regarding SoTU

Well goddamn right, but maybe it doesn't go in the SoTU. We've just managed to get these two countries' propaganda machines to start winding down on anti-US rhetoric and gotten their citizens to start feeling some sympathy for us (especially in Iran, where even the gov't had been relaxing a bit from it's Theocratic craziness). Doesn't using the phrase "axis of evil" threaten this?

I believe I answered that. North Korea, Iran, and Iraq need to get there heads out of their butts, realize that support for terrorism, particularly the supplying of arm, will not be tolerated. If North Korea wants to join the rest of the international community, they need to "kick it up a notch." They need to do more than just lovey-dovey reunions and words and back them up with action. Stop threatening your neighbors and stop supplying arms.

Does calling them an "axis of evil" threaten our relationships with these countries? No. We are not declaring war on them. We are putting them on notice that they need to work harder if they want peace with the world. They need to stop supporting terrorists.

Jason

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-31-2002 06:18 AM:

Allow me a moment to step on toes. I am not impressed with a significant portion of my fellow countrymen. I have seen nothing since 9-11 that has convinced me that the current ambiance of patriotism will last, nor do I think it should. Bigots are still bigots, they just have a new favorite minority. Freedoms are potentially getting stripped right and left (the ones the govco has been so gracious to leave us), and this "War on Terrorism" is a load of crap. Bring those responsible to justice, yes. Start a war with another country for developing weapons of mass destruction w/o our permission? So, I shouldn't own a pistol because someone might abuse it, and Iran should be nuked because...? Are the freedoms we enjoy provided because we are man, or because we are American? I don't recall Iran committing an act of terrorism to the U.S., am I missing something? Where the **** is the provocation? Quite a few of our "allies" are telling us we're going to far, but still we continue.

I'm glad enlightenment and reason have replaced childish tantrums in the socialist regime we call home, 'cause God knows what we might do with our military. Maybe it should be legislated before (or while) we abuse it.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-31-2002 06:26 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele

...particularly the supplying of arms,

Gee, I wonder where Israel gets their weaopns. I wonder if "terrorist" depends more on what side of a line you happen to be standing on, rather than a God-given edict.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 01-31-2002 06:33 AM:

Sorry, my moment of heresy has passed.

LET'S GET THE BROWN MEN!!!!

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by BobbyMike on 01-31-2002 01:42 PM:

"Are the freedoms we enjoy provided because we are man, or because we are American? I don't recall Iran committing an act of terrorism to the U.S., am I missing something?"

Probably, the sled dogs probably lose about half the paper before they get up to the Dakotas.

"Gee, I wonder where Israel gets their weaopns. I wonder if "terrorist" depends more on what side of a line you happen to be standing on, rather than a God-given edict"

Interesting analogy. Why not ask why there are several libraries of Palestinian and Islamic papers and documents to be found in Israel (and the US, Europe), but no such collection of Jewish related documents to be found in any of the other middle eastern countries. Come to think of it, they (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, etc.) don't have any collections (that are known of) of any other cultures other than their own. Is this non-interest in ways of thinking other than their own possibly at the root of this instead of something else. Islam (as practiced in the Mideast)doesn't want to "fit" in with the rest of the world, they want us to become like them or go away, permanently.
This is not new, it goes back at least 150 years.

"Bigots are still bigots, they just have a new favorite minority. Freedoms are potentially getting stripped right and left (the ones the govco has been so gracious to leave us), and this "War on Terrorism" is a load of crap. Bring those responsible to justice, yes. Start a war with another country for developing weapons of mass destruction w/o our permission? So, I shouldn't own a pistol because someone might abuse it, and Iran should be nuked because...? Are the freedoms we enjoy provided because we are man, or because we are American?"

Authoritative 'Govco's of any kind suck. The difference between you owning a gun and North Korea owning a nuke is one of scale. If you get a kooky and go after someone with it, you can be subdued without threatening the lives of millions. (I believe any country that will let millions of it's own people starve so that it can pursue weapons development, can't be trusted with a nuke- India and Pakistan fit in there too)

Non sequiter: what about that darn spellcheck button that doesn't work now... can we nuke them?

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by septimus on 01-31-2002 01:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
Come to think of it, they (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, etc.) don't have any collections (that are known of) of any other cultures other than their own.

Really...?? In that case, I have to wonder what happened. It's because of Islam that we even have a clue about the Greeks. They (and the Irish) were pretty much the only keepers of the western-world (and I include them in that term) flame for a long time.

quote:
Islam (as practiced in the Mideast)doesn't want to "fit" in with the rest of the world, they want us to become like them or go away, permanently.
This is not new, it goes back at least 150 years.

...IIRC, even the Ottoman Empire was pretty liberal, at least by modern Islamic standards... Islam is certainly capable of being open-minded, generous, free, and so on.. There has been a shift, I wonder where it happened? Is the "150 years" a reference to something specific, my Islamic history is basically nothing more than a spare-time attempt to get beyond the standard FUD.

quote:
(I believe any country that will let millions of it's own people starve so that it can pursue weapons development, can't be trusted with a nuke- India and Pakistan fit in there too)

I think D-R's point is whether or not we have the right to intervene in another country's affairs. The line between cultural imperialism (hell, imperialism proper) and the maintence of human safety & dignity on a planetary scale is, for now anyway, pretty much nonexistant. We've just decided that the latter is more important than the former. Or that's the idea, anyway. Truth is I think dubya is just worried that a nuke-capable Korea could really do some damage to the US, if only by hurting his stock portfolio.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Yorick on 01-31-2002 05:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I don't recall Iran committing an act of terrorism to the U.S., am I missing something?

I think the hostage crisis c. 1980 counts, though I believe there was a different government at that time.

The trouble with assigning "good" or "bad" to these smaller nations that we have or don't have relations with, is that who's in charge can change quickly, and by extension whether they're friendly to the U.S. or not. That's not to say that North Korea or Iran or India isn't a threat, but that one nation's hostility or friendliness to us does not diminish that threat.

I want to back up a little to Bush's SOTU address, which I did not see (I hate listening to the rhetoric in political speeches). First of all, since I can't find one for some reason, does anyone know where I can find a transcript? Secondly, did he address the deficit he created with his crap-ass "tax benefit"?
Clinton spent years getting rid of that Republican mess (the one thing I think he did a good job at) ... only to have the next Republican do it again.

drat, I forgot to address volcanopele's Goldwynisms.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by volcanopele on 01-31-2002 05:49 PM:

Nice to see cynicism isn't dead Then again, if Bill Clinton or Al Bore were in office, I would likely be doing the same thing you guys are doing, being dangerously cynic.

Anyways, on the Israel comment, I actually agree with you dickrichardson. They are both doing the exact same thing to each other, the only difference being Israel is an actual country and they are using helicopter gunships. But this tit for tat attacks is no way to being peace but it is my opinion that Israel will not be the one to hold out the olive branch, it will have to be the Palestinians. Israel is a democracy and its leadership has to worry about elections and it tey don't look tough on terrorism, they will get voted out. The Palestinians don't have to worry about that so they can afford to be a bit more bold in dealing with Israel. So I believe the ball is in the Palestinians court.

Rmember, this war is not just against Afghanistan. People on this board seem to have very short patience. WWII didn't end in 3 months. WWI didn't end in 3 months. The Spanish-American War didn't, okay bad example. Wars are not quick things. We have all been spoiled by wars like in Serbia and in Iraq which were very short. This will not be. I think there is less provication from Iran. North Korea may give us more than we can chew. Iraq has commited serious violations of the 1991 treaty particularly the part about allowing weapons inspectors. They have repeatedly violated that and are violating that right now. Perhaps if they allowed in weapons inspectors and stopped having the movable weapons factory, the sanctions will be dropped. And maybe they wouldn't be the next target.

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by septimus on 01-31-2002 05:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I want to back up a little to Bush's SOTU address, which I did not see (I hate listening to the rhetoric in political speeches). First of all, since I can't find one for some reason, does anyone know where I can find a transcript?

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/...ript020129.html

quote:
Secondly, did he address the deficit he created with his crap-ass "tax benefit"?

Admit to Regan-Era budget craziness? Are you kidding?

quote:
drat, I forgot to address volcanopele's Goldwynisms.

Zot! Another Left-Wing Nut! WooHoo!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by septimus on 01-31-2002 06:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele
But this tit for tat attacks is no way to being peace but it is my opinion that Israel will not be the one to hold out the olive branch, it will have to be the Palestinians. Israel is a democracy and its leadership has to worry about elections and it tey don't look tough on terrorism, they will get voted out. The Palestinians don't have to worry about that so they can afford to be a bit more bold in dealing with Israel. So I believe the ball is in the Palestinians court.

ZOT. No way. Israel is methodically destroying whatever infrastructure Palestine had to form governments or even to act as a unified whole when dealing with Israel. They've taken over cities, continued to aggressively settle their people, screw around with "green areas", bomb Palestinian buildings--Heck, they destroyed the Palestinian public records building that housed census data. "Israel is a democracy and therefore beholden to voters" is not an excuse. Israel is consciously and intentionally on a campaign to destroy whatever chances Palestine had of becoming an independent state.

Look, I'm not for terrorism, and neither should our gov't be. OTOH, does Palestine lose all of their rights as humans and as a nation because of the acts of the few? Maybe we should stop supporting terrorism ourselves--or rather, we should stop supporting an aggressive invasion of a country just because they haven't been able to form a state since it was taken away from them after WWII.

quote:
Wars are not quick things.

That's right. Unfortunately, they tend to be oversimplified, jingoistic things--which is why putting those lines in the SOTU was a little creepy. ...But it was obviously a ploy to exert diplomatic pressure on these countries. I hope it works, because it could backfire and we could go back to being "the great satan," only this time the terrorists have examples of people attacking the great satan directly.

yuck. what a mess. At least we've started to look at it and clean it up instead of sweeping it under the rug.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Yorick on 01-31-2002 06:28 PM:

Originally posted by volcanopele
Nice to see cynicism isn't dead Then again, if Bill Clinton or Al Bore were in office, I would likely be doing the same thing you guys are doing, being dangerously cynic.
cynic? li'l ol' me?

it is my opinion that Israel will not be the one to hold out the olive branch, it will have to be the Palestinians. Israel is a democracy and its leadership has to worry about elections and it tey don't look tough on terrorism, they will get voted out. The Palestinians don't have to worry about that so they can afford to be a bit more bold in dealing with Israel. So I believe the ball is in the Palestinians court.
[quiet voice]um ... Israel stole the land from the Palestinians ... they've been commiting crimes against them for over 30 years ...[/quiet voice]

Rmember, this war is not just against Afghanistan. People on this board seem to have very short patience.
that's the internet for ya. Instant gratification or else.

We have all been spoiled by wars like in Serbia and in Iraq which were very short.
Actually, Serbia was more of a peace-keeping mission than a war, as far as the US is concerned. Tensions have been hot and cold in that region for more than a century. The most recent flare up is over, to be sure, but I expect there will continue to be wars there. It's the same area that generated WWI, after all, due to the scratch-my-back alliances of the various nations.

North Korea may give us more than we can chew.
Really don't think that means we can call them names and associate them with "terror groups" and other evil-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.

Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Zot! Another Left-Wing Nut! WooHoo!
hey wait! I'm a nut just 'cuz VP doesn't always type accuractly?
That's abdominable!
(ps, thanks for the link, off to read it.)

and yes, I typed what I meant to.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by volcanopele on 01-31-2002 07:21 PM:

The Plaenstinians and the Israelis are both acting like a bunch of idiots right now. True, the Palestinians have a right to be angry at the Israelis, you have a good point, but that doesn't give them the right to blow up wedding halls. The Israelis act out of fear and to placate an electorate. The current administration is in office because the people voting them there, falsly believing that tough action will bring peace, not peace talks They live right next to each other, killing each other after each act. If Israel doesn't decide as a country to knock it off, they may end up suffering the fate of Outremer.

As far as Serbia not being a war, you need to pay more attention to recent history. We don't declare war anymore. Under your definition, the Gulf War wasn't a war, the Vietnam war was't a war, the Korean War wasn't a war, and this war isn't a war. And true under the full definition thats correct. But in the most basic sense, it was a short war. According to the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary available for MiD, a war is a contest between nations or states, carried on by force, whether for defense, for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce, for the acqusition of territory, for obtaining and establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other, or for any other purpose; armed conflict of sovereign powers. I think the above listed conflicts fit that definition even if a declaration of war was never declared. Welcome to the world after the War Powers Act.

If we go after North Korea in an armed conflict (war), then we may have to deal with China, which may not be a good idea. Go after North Korea diplomatically, and I think the same results without getting China involved militarily can be achieved.

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by septimus on 01-31-2002 07:39 PM:

http://www.reuters.com/news_article...;StoryID=560733

quote:
"In Lebanon it was agreed that Arafat would not be eliminated. To tell the truth, I'm sorry we didn't eliminate him," Sharon told the Israeli newspaper Maariv.

...and we wonder what the problem is over there...

The problem is that there is no way for Palestine to recover and stop terrorism immediately, because their apparati have been destroyed. The US needs to give up the idea that Israel has the moral high ground and strong arm them into accepting a whole heapin' helpin' of UN peace keepers in there. At this point, I see no other way.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by volcanopele on 01-31-2002 07:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
http://www.reuters.com/news_article...;StoryID=560733

...and we wonder what the problem is over there...

The problem is that there is no way for Palestine to recover and stop terrorism immediately, because their apparati have been destroyed. The US needs to give up the idea that Israel has the moral high ground and strong arm them into accepting a whole heapin' helpin' of UN peace keepers in there. At this point, I see no other way.

Well we admit that we want Bin Laden dead. Also remember that at the time Arafat was a terrorist, plain and simple. However, to bring this up now is entirely inappropriate. Arafat is no longer the head of terrorist group, but the head of a emerging government. He should be treated as such. These comments will likely bring about another suicide strike.

Jason

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by septimus on 01-31-2002 07:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele
Well we admit that we want Bin Laden dead. Also remember that at the time Arafat was a terrorist, plain and simple. However, to bring this up now is entirely inappropriate.

Agreed.

quote:
Arafat is no longer the head of terrorist group, but the head of a emerging government.

I think that Arafat is on the way out. He has lost his authority over the Palestinian people. He gave away too much only to have everything blow up in his face. Problem is, he didn't groom anybody to succeed him... there isn't anybody around to lead them...

quote:
These comments will likely bring about another suicide strike.

perhaps... more likely is the suicide bombers and their groups think Arafat is washed up anyway. They'll retaliate insofar as this comment is an attack on Palestine, not insofar as it is a threat on Arafat.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:46 AM.

Pages (73): « First ... « 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page