How far will the US go? - DPChallenge Forums

06/07/2004 10:36:55 PM · #1

Since you want to bring this discussion to a new level Ron, the personal, why don't you tell about your experiences in Viet Nam. I would like to hear where you served, and with who and if you were on the front lines and exactly what you did. Also, do you condone the torture that is going on in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and if you were a soldier in Abu Ghraib if you would have partaken in those events, and if not, just how you would have handled it.

Though I did not serve in the military, I have nothing to be ashamed about in my life or career, but since you brought it up, tell us about yours.

Originally posted by RonB:

And NO I do NOT want war in my backyard - I want it in THEIR backyard. And just so you know, I am a Vietnam era veteran ( 1963-1968 ). I joined the military voluntarily, even though I was exempt from the draft - and so gave the military the power to deploy me at their pleasure. I even extended my service time so as to be eligible for an additional rotation.
What action have YOU taken?

Ron

06/06/2004 11:10:25 PM · #2

Maybe instead of asking me what I've done to serve my country, you should ask those in power what they have done to serve their country and what kind of military commitments they have served. Very easy for these people to send off our men and women to wars that are very far from their backyards. They certainly don't put themselves in any danger, nor their families.

Furthermore, it seems like the Bush administration is not doing their utmost to support our men and women of the military. Veterans for Common Sense.org have put out this article.

Originally posted by RonB:

And just so you know, I am a Vietnam era veteran ( 1963-1968 ). I joined the military voluntarily, even though I was exempt from the draft - and so gave the military the power to deploy me at their pleasure. I even extended my service time so as to be eligible for an additional rotation.
What action have YOU taken?

Ron

06/06/2004 10:15:54 PM · #3

Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.

Until and unless the current U.S. Administration provides evidence which clearly demonstrates that Iraq or any other nation poses a clear, direct and immediate danger to our country, we oppose all of this Administration's pre-emptive and unilateral military activities in Iraq. Furthermore, we cannot support any war that is initiated without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, as our Constitution requires.

Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation.

Finally, we believe that a doctrine of pre-emptive and unilateral U.S. military attack on Iraq or any other nation is illegal, unnecessary, counter-productive and presents a truly dire and distressing threat to our vital international interests and basic national security. As military veterans, we have a unique understanding of war and know the many hidden truths that lie behind war's easy theories and promises, as well as behind the tragic consequences that even, "victory" brings. We therefore call on all like-minded veterans and family members to endorse this statement and support us in our efforts to help avert, mitigate or stop a national tragedy and an international calamity.

We ask that you support our troops, by demanding that they be brought home from Iraq immediately. We ask that you support our nation's vital interests, by demanding that our troops should never be placed in harm's way except to meet and defeat any direct and immediate threat to our people.

An excerpt from the front page of
Veterans Against the Iraq War.

Russell2566

06/06/2004 09:59:07 PM · #4

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

...as a matter of fact, they had already been disarmed/disabled by the Clinton administration and the UN without a war.

Really? Why are you the only person on earth with proof of this? This was certainly not in my Right Wing Attack Machine weekly newsletter...

Edit: By the way, Clinton him self disagrees with you!

Message edited by author 2004-06-06 21:59:33.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

06/06/2004 08:50:37 PM · #5

Well, Ron, as I've said before, you certainly are exceptional and I will add a patriot as well. There are different types of patriots and you are of the miltary kind, I am not. I did not serve in Viet Nam as the war was coming to an end when I was turning of age, but I'm glad I missed it. I did not support that war as I do not now support the war in Iraq either. I do not follow blindly when it comes to killing or supporting those who advocate killing unless it's in self defense. A patriot can also be someone who questions his governments' aims and actions as this helps to keep a working and healthy democracy.

When you say war is not only ok it is sometimes necessary, you sound like you enjoy it. I guess you are another who does not see war as an atrocity. I do. Regardless of the circumstances. The problem with this war in Iraq is that it's confused as to it's moral reason (if there truly is one) and it's purpose. There still has not been any evidence found that supports the WH claim that Iraq was a threat to the US. As a matter of fact, they had already been disarmed/disabled by the Clinton administration and the UN without a war.

Originally posted by RonB:

To me war is not only OK, it is sometimes necessary. There are, unfortunately, powers in this world that will not give up their desire to destroy those who do not agree with them, no matter how much, or how long, the objects of their wrath try to negotiate a peaceful coexistence. The only way to deal with those powers is to try to disable/disarm them before they succeed in killing those they hate. If they resist being disarmed, then it may become necessary to escalate the force used to disable them - even up to the point of killing them.

And NO I do NOT want war in my backyard - I want it in THEIR backyard. And just so you know, I am a Vietnam era veteran ( 1963-1968 ). I joined the military voluntarily, even though I was exempt from the draft - and so gave the military the power to deploy me at their pleasure. I even extended my service time so as to be eligible for an additional rotation.
What action have YOU taken?

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-06-06 20:52:00.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/06/2004 02:52:47 PM · #6

Interesting commentary:

Baltimore IMC

Chiqui

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

06/04/2004 04:06:52 PM · #7

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

And now, viewers, back to the video!

There are some very suspicious discrepancies apparent with the video which suggest that it is , indeed, a sham.

1) the main accused perpetrator - can't remember his name - sorry its late -

*has been reported dead several times previously by OUR people

* is known to have lost his leg, and wore a prosthesis - he limped big time, had no mobility - and this was NOT the case in the video, I'm told

* identified himself as himself on the video - yet he wore a mask????? Guess why??

2) Medical experts say that without a doubt, a real beheading would have covered everyone with blood copiously. This was NOT the case. Mr Berg HAD to have been dead beforehand. At the very least, that part of the video was staged.

3) The wall, baseboard, and floor paint all match that seen in the U.S. miltary prison, as does Mr Berg's outfit, and the chair he sits in.

4) All the alleged terrorists are heavy set males - NONE of them are thin. They all appear to have untanned hands. This is totally out of character with typical Middle eastern men.

Of interest - I have read a single blog report which claims that videos have digital watermarks, which can identify INDIVIDUAL cameras. Could it be possible that the camera might turn up as one used to take videos of prisoner abuse?

I'm betting.........

So, are you suggesting that the perpetrators were American soldiers? If so, I take offense to that. I have no words to describe how ashamed I am, being in the armed forces myself, about the supposed detainee abuse. It is totally degrading to those on the receiving end and it gives the rest of us a bad name all over the world. I know there are some sick people who somehow managed to slip through the cracks, but I refuse to believe there could be someone, much less a goup of people, so sick and totally fuc3d up, for lack of a better term, to kill someone like that, specially a fellow countryman. If indeed what you say proves to be true, I will have lost all faith in what we stand for, in what I have been a part of for the better part of early adulthood, and much worse, in humanity.

June

Chiqui

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

06/04/2004 03:56:43 PM · #8

Originally posted by louddog:

Yep, and GW has Bin Laden in a closet in the white house. He's going to pull him out right before the election to get some votes.

and that guy in Clinton's scandal didn't really shoot himself (I forgot his name).

and Elvis and JFK are gay lovers living on the mars.

and the aliens are hiding the mother ship behind the moon.

and don't forget that the pope just suggested (off the record of course) that all card carrying democrats are now eligable for sainthood.

It's all true!!! Just don't ask me to prove it.

HAHAHAhAHA I can't stop laughing! this is hillarious!!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. You are awesome!
June

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/04/2004 02:48:16 PM · #9

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Still, a war is toxic in many ways from all of the munitions used, as well as other substances. You miss the point entirely when you argue about such matters. Would you want a war fought in your own backyard? YOu sound to be one of those people for whom war is ok with as long as you don't have to fight it or it's not in your backyard. I would say you can't see the forest for the trees.

That war is toxic in many ways is a given.
What IS the point entirely? If you would say what your point IS, I could, perhaps, respond to it.
Would I want a war fought in my backyard? Not the kind of war YOU are talking about, but there IS a war being fought in my backyard every day. It's ME and my family versus the fire ants and termites. They won't negotiate with me, and are intent on inflicting harm to me, my family, and my house. So I kill them. FWIW, I use the least toxic products that will accomplish that goal.
To me war is not only OK, it is sometimes necessary. There are, unfortunately, powers in this world that will not give up their desire to destroy those who do not agree with them, no matter how much, or how long, the objects of their wrath try to negotiate a peaceful coexistence. The only way to deal with those powers is to try to disable/disarm them before they succeed in killing those they hate. If they resist being disarmed, then it may become necessary to escalate the force used to disable them - even up to the point of killing them.

And NO I do NOT want war in my backyard - I want it in THEIR backyard. And just so you know, I am a Vietnam era veteran ( 1963-1968 ). I joined the military voluntarily, even though I was exempt from the draft - and so gave the military the power to deploy me at their pleasure. I even extended my service time so as to be eligible for an additional rotation.
What action have YOU taken?

Ron

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

06/04/2004 12:49:32 PM · #10

There are a number of prominent scientists who believe that DU is carcinogenic and that in general, it's a very toxic substance that is causing lots of ill health effects in the areas it's been used militarily, such as the Balkans and gulf region. Among them are Dr. Asaf Durakovic and Dr. Helen Caldicott. Just a quick and brief article by Caldicott here.

While this issue has not been finally determined medically and scientifically, the govt has been refusing further investigations into the issue. Maybe they are trying to stop the truth from coming out about it? The article you cited below may not have looked at the issue with regard to military use and in DU's aerosolized state, as well as, it's heavy use so that the environment in those regions may be very saturated and people there, whether soldiers or civilians, are exposed to many thousand times the dosages exposed to by Ronald Kathren in the article you cited.

I think it's much more prudent here to be very cautious with this substance because it has a very long half life and in effect, poisons the environment for 4.5 billion years before it's out of the environment. So essentially, those areas mentioned above are toxic for the life of our planet. Not a very good strategy by the Bush and Clinton Administrations for its use. Also, cancers may not show up for up to 60 years following exposure and so there will probably be many more cancer cases yet to come if it is carcinogenic.

In any case, it is highly toxic in other ways, such as to the kidneys.
So why doesn't the govt want testing of DU?

edit: Still, a war is toxic in many ways from all of the munitions used, as well as other substances. You miss the point entirely when you argue about such matters. Would you want a war fought in your own backyard? YOu sound to be one of those people for whom war is ok with as long as you don't have to fight it or it's not in your backyard. I would say you can't see the forest for the trees.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Can't say I agree with you here, Chris...I don't believe the US is "bending over backwards" to not harm innocents. For example, the US is using, and has used in other wars, as well, depleted uranium bullets and shells. This is a nuclear material that is causing many innocents in and out of Iraq to become extremely sick and eventually die. The DU remains in the environment to be inhaled and incorporated into the body causing horrible cancers, especially in the young. Recently a number of GIs came home from Iraq sick from depleted uranium.

Good grief, Olyuzi. I gotta give you credit for being persistent, if nothing else. You pitched this same piece of BS propaganda in another thread and I refuted it there. Now, you're hoping some other gullible folks will not have read that thread, so will swallow this swill when they read it here. What to do? Well, since you repeated the propaganda, I'll repeat the response:

Ah, yes. A double helping of innuendo and twisted truth. The truth is
Twisted truth #1: While it IS true that the US is using depleted uranium tipped mortars, it is NOT true that they are using DU tipped BULLETS. DU is used only in larger ( 25, 105, and 120 mm ) cartridges primarily used as anti-tank munitions. DU cartridges are NOT intended for use against soft targets.
Twisted truth #2: While DU cartridges ARE weakly radioactive, they are NOT a "nuclear weapon" any more than a dental or medical x-ray is a "nuclear weapon". In fact, because DU is a heavy metal, it is more dangerous because of its chemical toxicity than its radioactivity.
Twisted truth #3: DU cartridges are "poisoning the environment...blah, blah, blah". For those willing to be exposed to the truth about DU munitions, there is an excellent article written by Ronald L. Kathren, Certified Health Physicist, for the Health Physics Society, an organization that specializes in radiation safety, about the dangers posed by DU. The article can be found HERE
Here are a couple of exerpts from that article:

"DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern."

"That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely."

"...something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions."

"With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth."

Should I expect a THIRD try in another forum???

Ron

Message edited by author 2004-06-04 12:54:20.

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/04/2004 09:11:44 AM · #11

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Can't say I agree with you here, Chris...I don't believe the US is "bending over backwards" to not harm innocents. For example, the US is using, and has used in other wars, as well, depleted uranium bullets and shells. This is a nuclear material that is causing many innocents in and out of Iraq to become extremely sick and eventually die. The DU remains in the environment to be inhaled and incorporated into the body causing horrible cancers, especially in the young. Recently a number of GIs came home from Iraq sick from depleted uranium.

Good grief, Olyuzi. I gotta give you credit for being persistent, if nothing else. You pitched this same piece of BS propaganda in another thread and I refuted it there. Now, you're hoping some other gullible folks will not have read that thread, so will swallow this swill when they read it here. What to do? Well, since you repeated the propaganda, I'll repeat the response:

Ah, yes. A double helping of innuendo and twisted truth. The truth is
Twisted truth #1: While it IS true that the US is using depleted uranium tipped mortars, it is NOT true that they are using DU tipped BULLETS. DU is used only in larger ( 25, 105, and 120 mm ) cartridges primarily used as anti-tank munitions. DU cartridges are NOT intended for use against soft targets.
Twisted truth #2: While DU cartridges ARE weakly radioactive, they are NOT a "nuclear weapon" any more than a dental or medical x-ray is a "nuclear weapon". In fact, because DU is a heavy metal, it is more dangerous because of its chemical toxicity than its radioactivity.
Twisted truth #3: DU cartridges are "poisoning the environment...blah, blah, blah". For those willing to be exposed to the truth about DU munitions, there is an excellent article written by Ronald L. Kathren, Certified Health Physicist, for the Health Physics Society, an organization that specializes in radiation safety, about the dangers posed by DU. The article can be found HERE
Here are a couple of exerpts from that article:

"DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern."

"That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely."

"...something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions."

"With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth."

Should I expect a THIRD try in another forum???

Ron

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

06/04/2004 07:52:53 AM · #12

With the new improved Stop Loss Program (applies only to the army?) you are automatically drafted into continued service if 1. your unit is actively deployed 2. you are are either 90 days from your units next deployment or with 90 days from your units previous deployment (note the catch 22 - their is usually a six months state side retraining cycle between deployment). 3, there is another unit that is below 100% deployable strength.

The "new policy applies to everyone, the "old but identical" policy required a separate action to request the initiation of Stop Loss after the unit received official deployment notification.

Ths Stop Loss Program applies only to active duty servicemen and not to reserves.

How is this not a draft, compulsory enrollment in the armed forces? Because it mandates the involuntary service of a limited pool of people ie active duty army?

I see this as an enormous step - a move from an all volunteer military towards conscription.

06/04/2004 02:41:39 AM · #13

Ok Chris, nice talking with you as well and have a good night. And yes, I am from the US...born and bred.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
yeah, right.

Oly, read my reply above, I think you may have missed it. I gotta log soon. But nice talking with you. Do you live in the USA? I don't think you do by looking at your profile. I'm just asking you to consider things from an objective viewpoint and disregard "noise" you hear from others. It's just like the noise in our photography sometimes. :D

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Congress has recently ok'd tactical nuclear weapons for use anywhere in the world, and have committed to the star wars missle defense program. This is escalating the arms race and makes for a very unstable situation in the world.

Don't worry Oly, we are here to protect you, not hurt you. We always have been but your liberal/socialist friends won't tell you that because they are too busy hating what they can never be. :) I know that may sound arrogant, BUT, it's not meant to be. It's simply the honest truth. Think about it.

[/quote]

06/04/2004 02:37:02 AM · #14

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

yeah, right.

Oly, read my reply above, I think you may have missed it. I gotta log soon. But nice talking with you. Do you live in the USA? I don't think you do by looking at your profile. I'm just asking you to consider things from an objective viewpoint and disregard "noise" you hear from others. It's just like the noise in our photography sometimes. :D

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Congress has recently ok'd tactical nuclear weapons for use anywhere in the world, and have committed to the star wars missle defense program. This is escalating the arms race and makes for a very unstable situation in the world.

Don't worry Oly, we are here to protect you, not hurt you. We always have been but your liberal/socialist friends won't tell you that because they are too busy hating what they can never be. :) I know that may sound arrogant, BUT, it's not meant to be. It's simply the honest truth. Think about it.

[/quote]

06/04/2004 02:32:56 AM · #15

yeah, right.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

06/04/2004 02:32:01 AM · #16

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Then if that's the reason then Bush should have come out and been honest with the American public as to the real reason behind our invasion instead of couching it in security matters and let the American people decide if that's what they want their country to do.

You're right, that would have been the right thing to do. However, the country (USA) has been so brain-washed by liberals (no offence to anyone) that he can't do that without a million leftist (and World communist orgainizations) crying "foul" to stop it. You see, World communist orgainizations use liberals in this country as "usefull idiots" to promote/support their own agenda. And the liberals don't even know it. They say "yeah, the USA sucks..." blah blah blah, and don't even realize they are helping to seal their own eventual fate as free people.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Sadaam Hussein was the friend of the US until we decided that we want to control Iraqi oil.

Common you don't even know your facts and are spouting a lib arguement... We supported Sadamn ("damn" intended) because we preceived Iran as a bigger threat at that time. So I don't even know what the point of this statement is. That we make mistakes? OK yeah we do, so what? Do you make mistakes? :p

EDIT: Ack my "tags" were bad.

Message edited by author 2004-06-04 02:33:15.

06/04/2004 02:29:48 AM · #17

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Should the US be the only country allowed to own nuclear weapons...many countries already see our imperialistic goals and now intended use of many kinds of weapons, including nuclear, and are scared of the US.

I think you would have many in this country, and in other countries dispute your claim that we protect and not destroy. The real question is whom do we protect, and what is it we destroy...the answer to that question is that we protect the interests of big business and multinationals and destroy democracies and invade countries for their natural resources.

LOL, I KNEW you were going to ask this question. :) Well Oly, what do YOU think? Assuming you live in the United States and care about this country like I do, would you rather have the US (or your country) have nuclear weapons or, say, North Korea have nuclear weapons? Or say the US or Russia? Who would YOU really trust, and be honest with me. And don't give that BS about other countries who are scared of the USA, it's pure horse crap because we protect, not destroy.

06/04/2004 02:22:03 AM · #18

You've got to be kidding me, Chris. The Bush administration is telling everybody how another terrorist attack is likely that will be even bigger than 9/11 and I"M the one who has a grim attitude towards life????

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You're right, Chris, not all life on the planet would be destroyed with nuclear war. Mosses, lichens and protazoan would be left...and probably cochroaches like Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld who have plans of hiding in underground bunkers with stored rations for a very long time and running a shadow govt.

LOL. No offense but you have a grim attitude towards things. I know World events can be depressing but you are focusing on the wrong things. Focus on what you can do to make things better if possible.

06/04/2004 02:10:52 AM · #19

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

LOL. No offense but you have a grim attitude towards things. I know World events can be depressing but you are focusing on the wrong things. Focus on what you can do to make things better if possible.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

This is mere conjecture, at best, that the US would be able to anihilate another country first...and it's stupid conjecture. You really want the US to test this theory of yours??? And even if it were true, there would such an impact in the health of the planet and it's peoples and on the climate and environemnt that it would most likely effect life on this planet in the negative in ways we can't forsee yet.

I never said I wanted the US to "test this theory". You are the one who suggested that the World would come to an end, and I'm said that's not likely and would not be "the US who tests this theory" per my previous statement.

Agreed there would be effects on the World's life, climate, habitate, all kinds of other things. However it's nothing that the World will not recover from if (God forbid) that ever happens.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Should the US be the only country allowed to own nuclear weapons...many countries already see our imperialistic goals and now intended use of many kinds of weapons, including nuclear, and are scared of the US.

LOL, I KNEW you were going to ask this question. :) Well Oly, what do YOU think? Assuming you live in the United States and care about this country like I do, would you rather have the US (or your country) have nuclear weapons or, say, North Korea have nuclear weapons? Or say the US or Russia? Who would YOU really trust, and be honest with me. And don't give that BS about other countries who are scared of the USA, it's pure horse crap because we protect, not destroy.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Congress has recently ok'd tactical nuclear weapons for use anywhere in the world, and have committed to the star wars missle defense program. This is escalating the arms race and makes for a very unstable situation in the world.

Don't worry Oly, we are here to protect you, not hurt you. We always have been but your liberal/socialist friends won't tell you that because they are too busy hating what they can never be. :) I know that may sound arrogant, BUT, it's not meant to be. It's simply the honest truth. Think about it.

Message edited by author 2004-06-04 02:14:03.

06/04/2004 02:08:13 AM · #20

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Seems like many things weren't given their due consideration because the Bush administration have their own agenda of oil aquisition and imperialism.

Yeah yeah, the imperialist pigs that we are. We are simply protecting the World's oil supply from falling into the hands of terrorists and so that the people of Iraq will actually BENEFIT from a natural resource in THEIR country. Or do you think that Saddam Insane keeping all of the oil profit for HIMSELF was OK?

06/04/2004 02:03:53 AM · #21

In a democracy we don't have to trust that our gov't is making the right choices. It's our right as citizens, and our duty to question them...and so far, they have been totally distrustful. There is no reason to trust them since their motives have come into question. There are many things that are secretive about this govt and above all else, they are dismantling The Constitution. That would be the end of our republic as we have known it for the past 200 years.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
....especially in war since soldiers are pawns of other's "games." My enemy would be taking orders to kill me as I him but in no way would I have something innately against my enemy. I"m not talking about right or wrong here, it's about the act itself, which is disgusting beyond belief. And in war, the weapons of killing are horrible.

Yeah, I know what you are saying. Well we just have to trust that what our government is telling us we have to do to protect our country is really the right thing to do. It's hard to do sometimes when there are so many "games" being playing all the time, but what else can you do but question the motives/reasons? I don't think we have any problem with doing that, do you?

06/04/2004 01:57:17 AM · #22

The point is not about the movies, chris. Let's keep the movies and stop GW and his band from destroying life on this planet as we know it. There's nothing morally rightous about this administration. It's funny how we've had good relations with many of these foreign dictators. Donald Rumsfeld met and shook hands with Hussein in 1988 and we sold him WMD's. We knew what he was going to do with these weapons but didn't care. Many of the same people that were involved back then are in power today. We armed Bin Laden and were dealing with the Taliban up till about one month prior to 9/11.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I think you have been watching too many Arnold Schwarznegger films and have become totally insensitive to what killing is all about.

I'd agree with this. No matter what anyone says these types of movies (although I love Arnold movies) absolutely do desensitize people to killing in general. But what do you about it? Stop allowing these movies and censor them? Or do you teach your children the difference between RIGHT and WRONG, what is good or bad to watch/idolize?

06/04/2004 01:49:31 AM · #23

You're right, Chris, not all life on the planet would be destroyed with nuclear war. Mosses, lichens and protazoan would be left...and probably cochroaches like Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld who have plans of hiding in underground bunkers with stored rations for a very long time and running a shadow govt.

This is mere conjecture, at best, that the US would be able to anihilate another country first...and it's stupid conjecture. You really want the US to test this theory of yours??? And even if it were true, there would such an impact in the health of the planet and it's peoples and on the climate and environemnt that it would most likely effect life on this planet in the negative in ways we can't forsee yet.

Should the US be the only country allowed to own nuclear weapons...many countries already see our imperialistic goals and now intended use of many kinds of weapons, including nuclear, and are scared of the US. Congress has recently ok'd tactical nuclear weapons for use anywhere in the world, and have committed to the star wars missle defense program. This is escalating the arms race and makes for a very unstable situation in the world.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There is also the ever present threat that it will expand to nuclear war which could be the end of civilization as we know it, or even the end of life on this planet.

It's not likely that a nuclear war would end all life since our adversaries would be inialated quickly, and before enough damage could be done to the planet to cause that. And if that ever happens it won't be the US that strikes first. Why do you think we are trying to disarm rouge nations? THEY are causing this risk. If you are concerned, you should support World effort to help stop these nations from producing nuclear weapons, because if this effort fails, there WILL be a horrible nuclear war some day. It's critical to control rouge nations.

06/04/2004 01:36:53 AM · #24

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Seems like many things weren't given their due consideration because the Bush administration have their own agenda of oil aquisition and imperialism.

Yeah yeah, the imperialist pigs that we are. We are simply protecting the World's oil supply from falling into the hands of terrorists and so that the people of Iraq will actually BENEFIT from a natural resource in THEIR country. Or do you think that Saddam Insane keeping all of the oil profit for HIMSELF was OK?