26-05-2003 08:27									#241
	Tired of ads?

quote: We should try to treat them because if not, many millions will die early, needless deaths, and people will be afraid of procreation!!!

That's a good thing. The AIDS problem will never be solved by "curing" people. It will just get worse and worse. In fact, it isn't even a cure. It just represses AIDS, and you have to keep taking it FOREVER.

	26-05-2003 09:52									#242
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Iran should face greater international scutiny. They're right up there with North Korea for being the most ****ed up bastards on Earth.

	26-05-2003 11:25									#243
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

GP:

"Me saying that you want 9-11 makes as much sense as you asking wether Bush wants another one. We know that your question is sarcastic and rhetorical."

I was wondering why you put 9-11 there as a motive in the first place. For the Iraq war, it doesn't make any sense.

"In 1986, we bombed Khadaffi for his support of terrorists"

And this was so effective, assuming that Lockerbie was down to a lybian connection. I have no problem of principle with the 1986 bombing run though - just don't portray it as the miracle solution.

"Under-response has dangers as well as over-response, Roland."

You are on track to make sure that the ME stays a terrorism breeding cesshole for many, many decades to come. The only glimpse at the moment is that they put some pressure on Sharon, but I doubt they're serious about it.

	26-05-2003 12:03									#244
	Remove this text

quote: It's simply the lack of anything posted here that deserves a more elaborate discussion.

ok, Roland I see your point.

countless accuses, none of them founded, let away proven:

"the Iran is evil, the Iran is guilty, we must do something. maybe not attacking yet, but yes, maybe later.
we want rataliation for 9/11. what? there´s no link between Iran and al queda found yet? impossible. we will find one. you lefties starting to sound like Bin Ladin would be a CIA guy.

the Iran is evil. see, they even try to get nuclear weapons. even you lefties can´t deny that. you know what we´re talking about? Nuclear Weapons!!! a country that tries to get these weapons must be evil. they try to destroy us. oh, and we don´t need to deliver an evidence. we´re always right. we were right about Iraq on this one, too. they had WMDs. ok we didn´t find them yet, but this doesn´t mean they didn´t have them.
they have no right to get nuklear weapons. they´re a ROGUE STATE!

Iran is an evil regime. you know what they did to us 23 years ago? they took Americans as HOSTAGES!!!!! and the Mullahs are still in power! man this is one of the most evil bullshit-countries in the world. for the sake of the peaceloving Iranian people, we need to intervene.

(...)"

really, this is all very sickening.
they is no doubt, that the human-right situation in Iran is still problematic. but before you set the whole into fire present something, that is comprehensive for average intellegent people. more than these wishy-washy accuses. an embargo, or even a war wouldn´t change the situation. it would even make everything worse.

where will this all lead to?

	26-05-2003 12:05									#245
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Pretty good summary.

It is amazing how up to date Tocqueville is (see sig).

	26-05-2003 12:58									#246
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The Euros still don't understand that the destruction of Islamic fundamentalism is what we want. It doesn't matter whether a particular faction has direct connection to 911 or not. It doesn't matter whether a fundamentalist country has democratic elements or not. It doesn't matter whether they develop nukes or not. What matters is that we want to destroy all of them.

	26-05-2003 12:59									#247
	Support Apolyton

Oh we understand that.

It's just that it won't work that way.

	26-05-2003 13:03									#248
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Oh we understand that. It's just that it won't work that way.

Given the difficulty we faced after the Iraq war, I doubt Bush is willing to trash another country, only to spend billions rebuilding it.

	26-05-2003 13:15									#249
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: " 1. We didn't go into Afghanistan because of the people there. It was to punish a regime that hosted Al Queda. Also, the Northern Alliance was a pretty tenuous force before we went in. And remember there was a northern Kurdish force that backed us in Iraq" News to me.

You are very uninformed, then.

	26-05-2003 13:25									#250
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

A little lower:

quote: taking them out will only p!ss them off more

"Don't kill him you'll only make him mad"?

	26-05-2003 13:37									#251
	Inflate your Upload Space

That seems to be the counterpart to "Threatening to kill them suicide bombers will surely deter them".

	26-05-2003 13:48									#252
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless The Euros still don't understand that the destruction of Islamic fundamentalism is what we want. It doesn't matter whether a particular faction has direct connection to 911 or not. It doesn't matter whether a fundamentalist country has democratic elements or not. It doesn't matter whether they develop nukes or not. What matters is that we want to destroy all of them.

Yes, yes - that way our Christian fundamentalists will command the debate and prosper. Any chance we can convince all of the religious fanatics on the planet that a giant space goat is coming?

	26-05-2003 13:53									#253
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

A giant space goat?

(If it's a typo, it's an absolutely brilliant one)

	26-05-2003 13:54									#254
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

"What matters is that we want to destroy all of them."

Then you have a lot of work on your hands. A genocide of 1 billion people is pretty hard work, if you don't use nukes.

	26-05-2003 18:03									#255
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler GP: "Me saying that you want 9-11 makes as much sense as you asking wether Bush wants another one. We know that your question is sarcastic and rhetorical." I was wondering why you put 9-11 there as a motive in the first place. For the Iraq war, it doesn't make any sense. "In 1986, we bombed Khadaffi for his support of terrorists" And this was so effective, assuming that Lockerbie was down to a lybian connection. I have no problem of principle with the 1986 bombing run though - just don't portray it as the miracle solution. "Under-response has dangers as well as over-response, Roland." You are on track to make sure that the ME stays a terrorism breeding cesshole for many, many decades to come. The only glimpse at the moment is that they put some pressure on Sharon, but I doubt they're serious about it.

1. Oh...I was responding to the empire of oil. Saying that it is an empire of 9-11 instead. Plus, I figured I would be Rolandish by just dropping a comment without explaining it.

Wrt, Iraq, it DOES make sense. I've already said that we've changed the tripwire. Read back. You might not agree with it. But it is the argument.

2. Many people say that it changed Khadaffi's behavior. And it is really interesting that we got no overflight allowance. May have contributed to one of the crews dying. Next time, I guess we will use Navy air. That may be here or there. Regardless, this is the type of response we've decided on. If anything harsher responses. We tried the lower responses after Cole and Embassy. I don't agree with your "you'll make them hate you more" argument. If they attack us, they are going down. If I really agreed with your point (of "avoiding making things worse", than I would argue against Afghanstan.)*

*Since Afghanistan is a muslim country, etc. Surely it will make people more mad at us, yadayada.

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

Isreal is there to stay. The Arabs have attacked it multiple times and have continued terrorist attacks. If they think that 9-11 will change our support for Israel, they are wrong. They better amp up the pressure or learn to beat Isreal in a conventional war or get nukes or something. Cause we are not going to sell them down the river...

	26-05-2003 18:08									#256
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

We do not need to kill all of the Arab fundementalist if we are able to stop them from recruiting,instead of helping them recruit by bombing first and proving or failing to prove our cause later.
We need to influence them economically for the better or for the worse if need be.
I find it impossible to see a economic model of the Persian States where in one province is afffected and it doesnt efffect the Others.IMO they cannot be worked with peicemeal having Iraq and Afgan and Kazahk surrounding it.I mentioned it since the potential for other(Blackmarket) scources of income besides oil exist which fund hostile cadres.

The Arab ruling class is non-representative(Of some) of the Arab peoples’ will in cases.for organizations such as these to be able to recruit and fund cadres.{Shaw of Iran,King Faysul-II,}
Thus Anti-Western Theocrats and Tribal Sultanates rule paralell to the official government providing covert trade with undeclared nations or organized crime while recruiting members and reaping financial rescources from Black market trade in fuel ,narcotics and weaponry.
If the Leadership is authentic then it represents the will of the people,and it should not be attacked.If it is not then let us supply the means for the people to themselves attack it.

	26-05-2003 18:09									#257
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

GP:

"I was responding to the empire of oil."

It was a question to I think MM for clarification what he meant.

"Wrt, Iraq, it DOES make sense. I've already said that we've changed the tripwire."

And what has Iraq done wrt islamist terror? Or is it just some kind of zero tolerance against any regime that was once your boy and pissed you off?

"Regardless, this is the type of response we've decided on. If anything harsher responses."

You're falling for the escalation trap.

"I don't agree with your "you'll make them hate you more" argument. If they attack us, they are going down."

That's a gross simplification. You are extending the sympathizer field that way. And the sympathizers don't "go down". That's the large swamp that you can't target bomb.

"Isreal is there to stay...."

And this rant is supposed to mean what?

	26-05-2003 18:55									#258
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler GP: "I was responding to the empire of oil." It was a question to I think MM for clarification what he meant. "Wrt, Iraq, it DOES make sense. I've already said that we've changed the tripwire." And what has Iraq done wrt islamist terror? Or is it just some kind of zero tolerance against any regime that was once your boy and pissed you off? "Regardless, this is the type of response we've decided on. If anything harsher responses." You're falling for the escalation trap. "I don't agree with your "you'll make them hate you more" argument. If they attack us, they are going down." That's a gross simplification. You are extending the sympathizer field that way. And the sympathizers don't "go down". That's the large swamp that you can't target bomb. "Isreal is there to stay...." And this rant is supposed to mean what?

I'm falling for the escalation trap and you are falling for the appeasement trap. We shall see. Remember the predictions that the Arab "street" would rise because of the US Iraq invasion? Didn't happen.

It means that we support Isreal. It means that the Arabs want to eliminate it as a state. It means we won't sell them down the river.

	26-05-2003 19:15									#259
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"I'm falling for the escalation trap and you are falling for the appeasement trap. We shall see."

If I'm falling for a trap, it would be the containment trap.

"Remember the predictions that the Arab "street" would rise because of the US Iraq invasion? Didn't happen."

It was always a possibility, but the regimes seem to have a firmer grip on dissent. But you can never know whether the next drop makes the barrel overflow.

"It means that we support Isreal. It means that the Arabs want to eliminate it as a state. It means we won't sell them down the river."

And in this context, it is relevant how?

	26-05-2003 20:17									#260
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: It was always a possibility, but the regimes seem to have a firmer grip on dissent. But you can never know whether the next drop makes the barrel overflow.

Read: you were wrong.

	26-05-2003 20:27									#261
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Read: you were wrong.

Check your reading comprehension.

GP said predictions, nothing about _my_ predictions. If he meant the latter, he's wrong. I never predicted uprisings, and I said I consider a regime actually falling as unlikely for now. But that does not change that there is a risk of that.

	26-05-2003 20:28									#262
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ok. Let's see, in 7th grade I scored a 700 in verbal on the SAT's...

	26-05-2003 20:29									#263
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Does that mean you can barely read, or that you are illiterate?

	26-05-2003 20:42									#264
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

No, it means that I am exceedingly talented at reading, interpretation, and analysis of text.

	26-05-2003 20:44									#265
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler "I'm falling for the escalation trap and you are falling for the appeasement trap. We shall see." If I'm falling for a trap, it would be the containment trap. "Remember the predictions that the Arab "street" would rise because of the US Iraq invasion? Didn't happen." It was always a possibility, but the regimes seem to have a firmer grip on dissent. But you can never know whether the next drop makes the barrel overflow. "It means that we support Isreal. It means that the Arabs want to eliminate it as a state. It means we won't sell them down the river." And in this context, it is relevant how?

Response to your Sharon comment.

	26-05-2003 20:45									#266
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"Exceedingly" as compared to... ?

Scary thought.

	26-05-2003 20:46									#267
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If you really don't want to play the escalation game, wouldn't that argue for not taking over Afghanistan? I mean heck that is probably as big of a bramble-bush to walk into as Iraq. And it lacks sea access.

	26-05-2003 20:47									#268
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler "Exceedingly" as compared to... ? Scary thought.

As opposed to *you*

yes, scary thought (how could I be that dumb?!)

	26-05-2003 20:48									#269
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GP Response to your Sharon comment.

Which was about pushing Sharon to make some lame ass concessions, not about the dissolution of Israel.

	26-05-2003 20:48									#270
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler "Exceedingly" as compared to... ? Scary thought.

Others, I assume. (Own goal protector on.)