| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/09/2006 11:47:39 AM · #26 |
First off, has this been confirmed regarding the N. Korea nuke test? As last I read we had not picked up any seismic evidence. (Which we would have if they did indeed test a real nuclear bomb.)
****
"First of all, how can the US invade Iraq because it believes they might have nuclear weapons or (weapons of mass destruction), and ignore the fact that North Korea not only has these weapons, but admits they have them and tests them. We would definately look like hypocrites with an ulterior motive as far as invading Iraq was concerened. We would look like we were afraid to invade, or otherwise engage in war with, another, larger and more-powerful country."
a) North Korea is a different ball game, there are still opportunities for dialog. China has immense influence of North Korea.
b) North Korea has claimed some level of possession off and on for a while. It's a bit different simply attacking them.
c) There is hope that Kim Jong will die of illnesses in the near future and an opportunity for a revolution will occur.
d) North Korea is much less likely to actually use such a weapon. The real issue, is that they are much more likely to sell such a weapon. And that is frightful.
"On the other hand, we don't have much business telling people what they are or are not allowed to do in their own countries."
That is long been debatable.
"We are already dropping billions of dollars in Iraq while we have things here, at home, that need fixing."
You mean like the World Trade Center? Right now, most of the terrorism is focused in Iraq against our soldiers - as it's easily accessible. Every terrorism attack in Iraq that kills Iraqis also creates backlash against Al-Quaeda and similar groups. Where as, if it was not directed against Iraq: a) it'd be against our citizens and not our soldiers b) create no backlash within the moderates against the terrorist groups c) leave us with a helluva lot more things to fix back at home.
"Before we go to war with a country, our livelihood and our citizens' lives and futures better be in jeopardy."
You should really visit New York City sometime...
"Before we go to war, we need to be certain that no matter what, without a shadow of a doubt, we need to completely annihilate our enemy or die."
There is no way to convince "civilization" of a need without a shadow of a doubt to annihilate an enemy. At best, you can convince a majority into taking some action which is hoped will subdue and perhaps lead the enemy on a different path. But rest assured, the enemy is dedicated to our annihilation.
"When, and only when, that is the case, we need to destroy that said country to a degree that the world has never seen before."
You are stuck in the 60's. This is NOT a nation-state issue. The issue is our enemy is interspered throughout the globe. Much like cancer in a body and unlike a tumor. If it were a tumor we'd simply remove it. But this cancer is throughout. It's rampant in the middle-east, it's prevalent in Great Britain, Phillipines, Africa, Asia, oceana, and more. The problem is that islamofascism is much akin to AIDS/HIV. It involves the system of the world being unable to recognize the enemy thus ineffective at combating it. From mere appearances it is extremely difficult to differentiate a peace-loving muslim and a sick islamofascist. We shy away from chemo-therapy which kills both the good and the bad cells. But choose it in localized regions in hopes of putting the plague into remission.
"These brave soldiers who are going to fight these battles that our government picks are someone's sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands...and it's just not right to send these young people to die for a cause that is not only unnecessary, but has nothing to do with our livelihood in the first place"
It is a soldier's duty to die before a civilian. That said, we are in danger. And only a fool can deny being such. I'm sorry, you are the one who must prove to me that we are not. I stand beside the WTC and say that we clearly are. And those were husband, wives, and children....none of which were soldiers sworn to lay down their lives in defense.
That said, action is clearly needed. But in truth, civilization is lacking just quite how to deal with the issue with a desire to avoid all out genocide or grotesque behaviors.
"Today we have no excuse for not understanding our brothers and sisters around the globe other than pure, unadulterated ego and dogmatic culture." - Hokie
Quite right...my only question is what to do in dealing with an extremely dogmatic group of people who's only concept of acceptibility requires all others be assimilated or eradicated?
And for that...I have no good answer. And I am not sure anyone does....
*sighs*
We can understand them all we want, the problem is they are unwilling to understand us. So what is to be done?
I don't know...
Message edited by author 2006-10-09 12:15:15. |
|
|
|
10/09/2006 09:34:27 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ddpNikon:
Otherwise, I'm just going to assume that you are posting for no reason other than to add in your little two cents and really don't care about the issue at hand. |
Free Clue: You're in the rant forum. You may assume anything you want. :)
|
|
|
|
10/09/2006 09:39:55 PM · #28 |
i think it is this simple. we can tell them that they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons... after we get rid of ours, and israel's. we should not be prancing around telling these countries to do as we say, not as we do. it is stupid.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2006 09:49:01 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by ddpNikon:
Otherwise, I'm just going to assume that you are posting for no reason other than to add in your little two cents and really don't care about the issue at hand. |
Free Clue: You're in the rant forum. You may assume anything you want. :) |
Your Clue: This didn't start out in the rant forum. So while your post applies to the situation now, it didn't necesarilly apply when I typed what I typed. Thanks anyway though.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2006 09:49:27 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Mo:
we should not be prancing around telling these countries to do as we say, not as we do. |
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
!!
Message edited by author 2006-10-09 21:50:35. |
|
|
|
10/09/2006 10:00:08 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Mo:
we should not be prancing around telling these countries to do as we say, not as we do. |
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
!! |
i know, strange concept, huh? lol
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 06:30:41 PM · #32 |
| Two Words... Population Control... See look at the bright side of things.. |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 06:48:16 PM · #33 |
I just heard Glenn Beck mention something I've long held too but never heard anyone else mention.
I usually describe freakish regime's from us by a singular act. Those regimes that always have parades with big giant missiles going down the street as their people wave their flags. Those, to me, have ALWAYS been the bad guys.
- Saj |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 09:04:24 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"We are already dropping billions of dollars in Iraq while we have things here, at home, that need fixing."
You mean like the World Trade Center? Right now, most of the terrorism is focused in Iraq against our soldiers - as it's easily accessible. Every terrorism attack in Iraq that kills Iraqis also creates backlash against Al-Quaeda and similar groups. Where as, if it was not directed against Iraq: a) it'd be against our citizens and not our soldiers b) create no backlash within the moderates against the terrorist groups c) leave us with a helluva lot more things to fix back at home. |
Amazing: still arguing that establishing civil war and killing hundreds of thousands elsewhere is effective at reducing the threat of terrorism in the US... despite the various reports that highlight the consequent growth of the threat and the risk that the war will be lost at the expense of many more lives.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Before we go to war with a country, our livelihood and our citizens' lives and futures better be in jeopardy."
You should really visit New York City sometime... |
Maybe you should visit the middle east sometime: you might appreciate how destroying and ruining millions of lives in another nation for political gain might lead to resentment, and therefore a bigger problem than you started with.
Originally posted by theSaj:
There is no way to convince "civilization" of a need without a shadow of a doubt to annihilate an enemy. At best, you can convince a majority into taking some action which is hoped will subdue and perhaps lead the enemy on a different path. But rest assured, the enemy is dedicated to our annihilation. |
Which "enemies" are you referring to? Back to "with us or against us", all or nothing analysis? There are a lot of countries that are US-allies. There are a lot of those countries that oppose US policies in one form or another. There are a very few or no countries that are politically opposed to the US in all respects, or that call for the US to be annihilated. What is the dedicated "enemy" that you seek to oppose?
Originally posted by theSaj:
The problem is that islamofascism is much akin to AIDS/HIV. It involves the system of the world being unable to recognize the enemy thus ineffective at combating it. From mere appearances it is extremely difficult to differentiate a peace-loving muslim and a sick islamofascist. We shy away from chemo-therapy which kills both the good and the bad cells. But choose it in localized regions in hopes of putting the plague into remission. |
Which part of N Korea is "islamofascist"?
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Quite right...my only question is what to do in dealing with an extremely dogmatic group of people who's only concept of acceptibility requires all others be assimilated or eradicated? |
Does this apply to N Korea? Is the answer to "change their minds" or "eradicate them"?
Originally posted by theSaj:
"We can understand them all we want, the problem is they are unwilling to understand us. So what is to be done? |
Do you really pretend to understand the reasoning of the "islamafascist"? Or the North Korean? Is your analysis that we have done everything that we could do, and now it is all down to "their" failure to understand us?
A change in the style of dialogue might be the first step. GWB declaring N Korea to be part of the "Axis of Evil" is widely believed to be one of the reasons why N Korea felt sufficiently threatened to carry out the nuclear test. Similarly, it is one of the reasons why the US is having such difficulty negotiating with Iran. Labelling entire nations or groups of people, and taking a confrontational stance, do not aid international relations.
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured).
You will probably call me an appeaser, for wishing for better dialogue, rather than a military solution. However, given that N Korea has nuclear force, a large army, and probable Chinese defence, there is no viable US-led military alternative.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 12:25:37 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by theSaj:
"We are already dropping billions of dollars in Iraq while we have things here, at home, that need fixing."
You mean like the World Trade Center? Right now, most of the terrorism is focused in Iraq against our soldiers - as it's easily accessible. Every terrorism attack in Iraq that kills Iraqis also creates backlash against Al-Quaeda and similar groups. Where as, if it was not directed against Iraq: a) it'd be against our citizens and not our soldiers b) create no backlash within the moderates against the terrorist groups c) leave us with a helluva lot more things to fix back at home. |
Amazing: still arguing that establishing civil war and killing hundreds of thousands elsewhere is effective at reducing the threat of terrorism in the US... despite the various reports that highlight the consequent growth of the threat and the risk that the war will be lost at the expense of many more lives.
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Before we go to war with a country, our livelihood and our citizens' lives and futures better be in jeopardy."
You should really visit New York City sometime... |
Maybe you should visit the middle east sometime: you might appreciate how destroying and ruining millions of lives in another nation for political gain might lead to resentment, and therefore a bigger problem than you started with.
Originally posted by theSaj:
There is no way to convince "civilization" of a need without a shadow of a doubt to annihilate an enemy. At best, you can convince a majority into taking some action which is hoped will subdue and perhaps lead the enemy on a different path. But rest assured, the enemy is dedicated to our annihilation. |
Which "enemies" are you referring to? Back to "with us or against us", all or nothing analysis? There are a lot of countries that are US-allies. There are a lot of those countries that oppose US policies in one form or another. There are a very few or no countries that are politically opposed to the US in all respects, or that call for the US to be annihilated. What is the dedicated "enemy" that you seek to oppose?
Originally posted by theSaj:
The problem is that islamofascism is much akin to AIDS/HIV. It involves the system of the world being unable to recognize the enemy thus ineffective at combating it. From mere appearances it is extremely difficult to differentiate a peace-loving muslim and a sick islamofascist. We shy away from chemo-therapy which kills both the good and the bad cells. But choose it in localized regions in hopes of putting the plague into remission. |
Which part of N Korea is "islamofascist"?
Originally posted by theSaj:
"Quite right...my only question is what to do in dealing with an extremely dogmatic group of people who's only concept of acceptibility requires all others be assimilated or eradicated? |
Does this apply to N Korea? Is the answer to "change their minds" or "eradicate them"?
Originally posted by theSaj:
"We can understand them all we want, the problem is they are unwilling to understand us. So what is to be done? |
Do you really pretend to understand the reasoning of the "islamafascist"? Or the North Korean? Is your analysis that we have done everything that we could do, and now it is all down to "their" failure to understand us?
A change in the style of dialogue might be the first step. GWB declaring N Korea to be part of the "Axis of Evil" is widely believed to be one of the reasons why N Korea felt sufficiently threatened to carry out the nuclear test. Similarly, it is one of the reasons why the US is having such difficulty negotiating with Iran. Labelling entire nations or groups of people, and taking a confrontational stance, do not aid international relations.
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured).
You will probably call me an appeaser, for wishing for better dialogue, rather than a military solution. However, given that N Korea has nuclear force, a large army, and probable Chinese defence, there is no viable US-led military alternative. |
When you refer to grouping a nation into a catagory you are refering to the Government of that nation.. Correct? And please show me where GWB labeled any group of people separate from government. and please show me don't just state it. Yes I want proof. And since you say it prove it. thanks |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 02:19:13 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Labelling entire nations or groups of people, and taking a confrontational stance, do not aid international relations. |
When you refer to grouping a nation into a catagory you are refering to the Government of that nation.. Correct? And please show me where GWB labeled any group of people separate from government. and please show me don't just state it. Yes I want proof. And since you say it prove it. thanks |
I think that the quote I isolated is the one you have a problem with. I am not exactly sure what you are driving at, but I'll try and respond.
I was making a broader point than just GWB quotes (the Saj is good at labelling groups), but by way of example:
Non-governmental: GWB certainly uses the term "islamofascists" to refer to a broad spectrum of muslim, non-governmental groups.
Governmental: GWB has grouped together disparate nations into the "axis of evil".
General: GWB is confrontational by demanding that people either be "with us or against us". This is unnecessarily divisive and a blunt tool in international diplomacy.
I hope that one of these answers your demand (I don't think that any examples are particularly contentious so as to require authority).
Message edited by author 2006-10-11 14:19:47.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 03:34:34 PM · #37 |
| Not really a demand, but just would like some form of proof other than an opinion. Still waiting. Hard evedence not circumstantial please. thanks |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 03:57:09 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured). |
Considering N Korea has been under sanctions for years and has been conducting missile tests and, the world assumes, has lit off a nuclear bomb underground - what strong message do you anticipate more sanctions will deliver to the N Korean regime?
I'm guessing it will go something like this:
Us: Here are more sanctions
Them: |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 05:00:45 PM · #39 |
| Oh so true. You see my mother is japanese and she will tell you that the best thing that happend to japan in the 20th century was hiroshima and nagasaki. Yes many people died. Yes it is horrible. Yes it was nessaccery. Just like kadolfi and reagon drop bombs on the mans palace kill his family and let them know your gunning for them and they will run scared. You may not agree with these tactics but they work. Its when you give in to terror that you lose. And yes North Korea as seen by most of the world is a terror creating nation. So is Iran and Iraq and Afganastan and many other nations that support the upheivile of peace on this planet. Yes try talking first, but when all else fails...in the imortal words of the penquin from madagascar "KABLOOEE!" |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 06:14:16 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured). |
Considering N Korea has been under sanctions for years and has been conducting missile tests and, the world assumes, has lit off a nuclear bomb underground - what strong message do you anticipate more sanctions will deliver to the N Korean regime?
I'm guessing it will go something like this:
Us: Here are more sanctions
Them: |
China provides 70 percent (not sure if that's exactly right, but something close) of North Korea's food and fuel aid. So if China gets serious about sanctions and, presumably, withholding a good deal of that aid, it could potentially cause the collapse of the regime.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 06:24:23 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured). |
Considering N Korea has been under sanctions for years and has been conducting missile tests and, the world assumes, has lit off a nuclear bomb underground - what strong message do you anticipate more sanctions will deliver to the N Korean regime?
I'm guessing it will go something like this:
Us: Here are more sanctions
Them: |
China provides 70 percent (not sure if that's exactly right, but something close) of North Korea's food and fuel aid. So if China gets serious about sanctions and, presumably, withholding a good deal of that aid, it could potentially cause the collapse of the regime. |
I doubt that would happen. If anything we'd see a repeat of Iraq, sanctions followed by "compassion" like another oil for food type of program and the regime will just exploit it like every other totalitarian government.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 06:31:28 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Oh so true. You see my mother is japanese and she will tell you that the best thing that happend to japan in the 20th century was hiroshima and nagasaki. Yes many people died. Yes it is horrible. Yes it was nessaccery. |
Sadly, it would seem you are confusing Necessary with Convenient and/or Expeditious... Sadly they are not the same. One sad aspect you neglect to mention, or perhaps even consider, rests in the fact that there may be other nations you might not wish to antagonize as they have nice big toys too.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Just like kadolfi and reagon drop bombs on the mans palace kill his family and let them know your gunning for them and they will run scared. You may not agree with these tactics but they work.. |
Yes indeed... We are currently witnessing just how scared the these countries are. In essence, what we are currently witnessing are a few rogue nations marching to their own drums, and collectively thumbing of noses at the USA and the international community.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Its when you give in to terror that you lose. |
When one considers that the vast majority of terrorists type activities which recently unfolded in the USA have been generated by its own citizen, perhaps you should consider looking inwardly first.
Originally posted by coronamv:
And yes North Korea as seen by most of the world is a terror creating nation. |
Perhap, since you were so quick to ask Legalbeagle to provide tangible proof of his assertions, you might consider proferring some supporting data in this regard.
Originally posted by coronamv:
Yes try talking first, but when all else fails...in the imortal words of the penquin from madagascar "KABLOOEE!" |
This latter pronouncement of yours does indeed speak volumes... and I do take solace in the fact that the powers that be are not as foolhardy in their approach to conflict resolution... or else we are all doomed.
Just another perspective.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 08:26:58 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured). |
Considering N Korea has been under sanctions for years and has been conducting missile tests and, the world assumes, has lit off a nuclear bomb underground - what strong message do you anticipate more sanctions will deliver to the N Korean regime?
I'm guessing it will go something like this:
Us: Here are more sanctions
Them: |
China provides 70 percent (not sure if that's exactly right, but something close) of North Korea's food and fuel aid. So if China gets serious about sanctions and, presumably, withholding a good deal of that aid, it could potentially cause the collapse of the regime. |
I doubt that would happen. If anything we'd see a repeat of Iraq, sanctions followed by "compassion" like another oil for food type of program and the regime will just exploit it like every other totalitarian government. |
According to the news sources I've been reading and listening to recently, neither China, South Korea or Japan want the regime in North Korea to collapse -- or at least to this point they haven't wanted that to happen -- so most likely it will not happen. But China does seem more willing now than it has been in the past to put meaningful pressure on the North Korean government. Don't you think it prudent to let this process play out and see where it leads?
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 09:06:31 PM · #44 |
Ok proof. what sanctions there have been were weak.
Here are the most recent in our history please provide more if you find some. thanks1695
1540
825
So what we find is sanctions dont work. Reason? If the pain does not out-weigh the pleasure then those who commit it will continue. So when you slap a person on the wrist and they laugh, and do nothing more then they will come back to do worse. I agree with Yanko, sanctions will not work. So here's the flip side, ok we give them money, food, lift santions, just give in to their desires. So when they want more next time, well they already know the threat worked before so why not up the anty and ask for more then your trapped in a give me or else. Either be the threatend or be the feared. Pasafism does not work...thanks |
|
|
|
10/11/2006 11:04:20 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The UN-led sanctions will send a very strong message (especially if full Chinese support can be secured). |
Considering N Korea has been under sanctions for years and has been conducting missile tests and, the world assumes, has lit off a nuclear bomb underground - what strong message do you anticipate more sanctions will deliver to the N Korean regime?
I'm guessing it will go something like this:
Us: Here are more sanctions
Them: |
China provides 70 percent (not sure if that's exactly right, but something close) of North Korea's food and fuel aid. So if China gets serious about sanctions and, presumably, withholding a good deal of that aid, it could potentially cause the collapse of the regime. |
I doubt that would happen. If anything we'd see a repeat of Iraq, sanctions followed by "compassion" like another oil for food type of program and the regime will just exploit it like every other totalitarian government. |
According to the news sources I've been reading and listening to recently, neither China, South Korea or Japan want the regime in North Korea to collapse -- or at least to this point they haven't wanted that to happen -- so most likely it will not happen. But China does seem more willing now than it has been in the past to put meaningful pressure on the North Korean government. Don't you think it prudent to let this process play out and see where it leads? |
Do I think it's prudent as in wise? No. Sanctions will hurt the people of North Korea not the regime. But you're right the regime needs to collapse. I just don't think this will do it. Far from it. To weaken an already weak population with sanctions isn't going expedite a revolution, IMO.
Message edited by author 2006-10-11 23:05:22.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2006 11:07:38 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Sanctions will hurt the people of North Korea not the regime. But you're right the regime needs to collapse. I just don't think this will do it. Far from it. To weaken an already weak population with sanctions isn't going expedite a revolution, IMO. |
I have to disagree. The only sanctions that would accomplish regime change are the ones that would send the people of N Korea from a dire situation into a fatal one. At that point they would either revolt or Dear Leader would be leading a nation of corpses. No one will implement these sanctions. Not even the (constantly bashed, heartless empire of capitalism) US is proposing such. |
|
|
|
10/12/2006 12:05:37 AM · #47 |
By now we must have learned that it is not the toppling of the regime that is the problem - it is finding a suitable replacement that is tough.
No, replacing one system with another, even if it is the most pure utopistic form of democracy ever seen or envisioned, won't work. It only works in rare, specially created circumstances, such as assimilation of dem. germany under rep. of germany in 1990. Peaceful circumstances, with all sides cooperating.
Even if there was a magic wand to wave at the peninsula and Kim Jong Il suddenly dissapeared, it would take a superhuman effort (where China would have to play a major role, not south Korea and definitively not the US) to establish a continuum of life support for the population. I just hope that the Chinese have the plan on the shelf somewhere for handling that situation. And yes, the system of gov't would have to be some 'totalitarian' system because the country would fall apart otherwise.
So, what I would recommend is: hands off; get back to the diplomacy; keep talking to them, do not avoid conversation. What is the deal with refusing to talk to them? What kind of diplomacy is that? Sure, if president can't pronounce nucular, there is hopefully someone eloquent enough in the administration that could be sent to talk to them. What kind of situation do we hope to produce by refusing to talk? Ido not understand... |
|
|
|
10/12/2006 12:46:41 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by yanko:
Sanctions will hurt the people of North Korea not the regime. But you're right the regime needs to collapse. I just don't think this will do it. Far from it. To weaken an already weak population with sanctions isn't going expedite a revolution, IMO. |
I have to disagree. The only sanctions that would accomplish regime change are the ones that would send the people of N Korea from a dire situation into a fatal one. At that point they would either revolt or Dear Leader would be leading a nation of corpses. No one will implement these sanctions. Not even the (constantly bashed, heartless empire of capitalism) US is proposing such. |
Sounds like you agree with me.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2006 05:18:49 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
Not really a demand, but just would like some form of proof other than an opinion. Still waiting. Hard evedence not circumstantial please. thanks |
I thought that you might have heard these widely reported statements.
Originally posted by GWB:
"Islamic terrorist attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom."[6] George W Bush, President of the United States speaking before the National Endowment for Democracy, October 6, 2005 |
Originally posted by GWB:
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
—George W. Bush, 2002 State of the Union Address
|
Originally posted by GWB:
In a November 6, 2001 news conference, less than 2 months after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President George W. Bush said, "You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror." |
Message edited by author 2006-10-12 05:20:54.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2006 06:24:24 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by talal:
Let us make pictures! in peace and war! Because to my knowledge, radiation won't ruin digital photography unlike the old film strip. |
I think that the electromagnetic pulse that precedes a nuclear blast destroys all electronic equipment and information stored magnetically. The only thing that might survive is film!
|
|
