State of the Union Address TONIGHT

[imported_Terran Starek]

I would encourage all to watch Dubbya (as his buddies in Texas prefer to call him) give his address tonight which ABC, NBS, and CBS plan to air from 8-10pm CT (Taylor, correct me on this if it is wrong). I strongly urge my fellow Americans to watch it. Of course, I don't discourage others from different nation-states. :)

I was reading the Kansas City Star today and they printed a small blurb of what Bush is going to speak about:

"Iraq: An argument that time will not bring disarmament, and an explanation on why an attack on Saddam Hussein's regime should happen soon.

The Economy: Another round of tax cuts, plus a quicker phase-in of tax reductions that have already been approved.

Health Care: A Medicare proposal would offer prescription-drug coverage to senior citizens if they joing some kind of managed-care program."

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, or even a Conservative-Libertarian (you know who ;) ) it's definitely worthwhile to see what our fearless leader has to say. I'm anxious. :D

[Aejin Rahn]

I probably will, with parents and all.

[imported_Terran Starek]

Hey--politics in action is a family event, too! :D

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Terran Starek
Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party, Libertarian, or even a Conservative-Libertarian (you know who ;) ) :D

:lol yes yes...I know who the Conservative-Libertarian is.

btw...it's NBC :p

ANd the cable networks (CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News) will probably have extended coverage afterwards.

[imported_Terran Starek]

Thanks for the correction, Mr. Millard. :)

The extensive post-analysis should be pretty good, as well.

[ReaperFett]

would encourage all to watch Dubbya (as his buddies in Texas prefer to call him)
Most of the UK call him that too, but with one b :)

[Jackie Dennegin]

it's definitely worthwhile to see what our fearless leader has to say.

:mischief

[ReaperFett]

Fearless Leader? Is he going to attack a Squirrel and a Moose? ;)

[imported_Jackson Mcgraves]

I'll more then Likely watch it but i might miss the first 30 minutes which could be the whole speach. Dam web design class.

[imported_Terran Starek]

I hold a great ammount of respect for my President.

BUT...

Fearless is up to interpretation!!

:lol

[Jackie Dennegin]

Fearless Leader? Is he going to attack a Squirrel and a Moose?

Now that takes a real man!

[Leeloo Mina]

Fearless Leader? Is he going to attack a Squirrel and a Moose?

If they show THAT on TV, I'll be watching :)

Otherwise, I'll probaly just see whatever they put on FOX news about it.

[imported_Grev Drasen]

I know it sounds bad, as I'm an American, but I just can't get interested in all of these politics that are currently going on. We were discussing the possible war with Iraq in history class the other day and when asked what I thought all I could say was that I didn't really care what happened.

Makes me sound kind of helpless, and without opinion, but that's just how I feel. I bought into the whole war against terrorism bit and was real positive about cleaning up the world, then I just kind of went into a state of FTW. Ah well, I won't catch it tonight most likely, but I will definately hear about it as CNN runs it into the ground for weeks to come.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

The prospect of war is pretty scary because this is not going to be '91. Analysts say it's going fought in populous cities and in different environs such as marshes, etc. Whole different world, whole different circumstances. The reality of biological weapons use is also very high. If Saddam does not step down and war is necessary, I am going to pray for every american fighting Hussein's dictatorship and defending democracy. I really desire this war to be fought on a less personal level... like '91!

[Figrin D'an]

I almost always watch the State of the Union addresses, regardless of the sitting President. I'm interested to see if Bush will pull any surprises in his speech... as you might know, there were actually some "pre-speech rebutals" by members of the Democratic party, which is quite... strange (making assumptions on what was going to be discussed and giving opposition). Although I doubt anything will occur in that regard, it would be a golden opportunity for Bush make a few of his opponents look foolish if he chose to exploit the opportunity.

[ReaperFett]

Someone got a start time?

[Admiral Lebron]

Hmm... I'll read the paragraph or so speach he gives online when I am done watchin' my American Idol.

[imported_Terran Starek]

Well, it's over now. If you missed it and you care, you can find it and analyzations plastered all over the major news channels.

I don't know what I think yet--I haven't let it all process int my brain yet. It will soon enough, though, and I will have my opinions to share. Don't worry. :D hahaha

Taylor got to watch it in DC at a State of the Union Address party at some Capitol Hill Club (I believe he said) which is pretty friggin cool.

If you don't care about this kind of stuff--it doesn't make you less of a person or anything. I mean, honestly, it makes you less aware of the nation/world and affairs in it. But politics is not for everyone--which is why we have a representative democracy. So that Amercians can choose their participation. :D

[imported_Grev Drasen]

I should care, as it could and might possibly affect my future in the years ahead. Warring Iraq, in what I've gathered and my personal opinion, can only lead to more unstable relationships with other opposing countries. Not to mention making some of our more friendly countries of the United Nations look lesser upon us for it.

I'm really unsure of what Bush's motives are, so I don't really have room to speak on it. But he's suspecting Iraq as a future threat to the United States because they own, or could possibly own weapons of mass destruction. Well, seeing as to how we own weapons of mass destruction couldn't other countries look upon us as a possible threat?

I don't expect China or Russia to raid our country, so I don't expect us to raid Iraq. I don't know, I need to watch more news.

[Hart]

Well, it looks like we'll be ousting Saddam soon. All in all, it was a decent speech. Not a great one, in pretty much followed the domestic and war rhetoric, but very good.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm really unsure of what Bush's motives are, so I don't really have room to speak on it.

Oil.

[Sanis Prent]

I'm sure eliminating evil psychopaths isn't on that list :rolleyes

Honestly, I don't care what pretense is used, so long as the deed is done.

[Hart]

I wouldn't say it's the oil though. There are much easier ways for us to get cheap oil, the only problem is that those methods would only fatten Hussein's wallet and his nuclear program. Really, I see oil being almost a total non-factor, other than the fact that it is what gives Iraq its influence over China and Russia.

[Admiral Lebron]

He idiot banned cloning. :mad So much for all my plans. :cry

[ReaperFett]

Do any of you drive Diesel cars? Vegetable oil will run them, if you make a few slight adjustments.



There, oil problems sorted, let's make the reason ousting a psychopath who gasses people to test weapons, eh? :)

[Hart]

Ah, I see the fine British wit :)

Yeah, there are many reasons why Hussein needs to be ousted, and oil is definitely not high on that list. I think his having official, paid gang-rapists in his armies as well as spreading cancer by biological weapons to the areas in Iraq that oppose him are bad enough.

[ReaperFett]

Actually Hart, the vegetable oil thing is true :)

[Sene Unty]

I made a concious decision to not watch the State of the Union Address because I find the man's voice to be intensly annoying. I would rather shove hot metal knifes into my eyes than watch my "president" speak for any length of time.

[ReaperFett]

I just imagine someone who does an impersonation of him :)

[Sanis Prent]

I'm actually waiting for ethanol-powered automobiles. If we could only somehow club the religious right over the head with a stick, so they'd understand that you can't drink denatured alcohol...so society would be safe.

Hmm...

...maybe after we clubbed them with a stick, we wouldn't have to denature the ethanol :D

Can you imagine how much fun siphoning would be then?

[Sene Unty]

:lol @ Reaper

:lol @ Sanis

Okay I'm all laughed out for the day......

[Admiral Lebron]

What about Methane powered vehicals?!? They'd be much more fun to siphon! :rolleyes

[Sejah Haversh]

Well, Marcus would never run out of gas, at least...

[Sanis Prent]

Well, booze always gives me the farts, so maybe a main tank of ethanol, and a reserve tank of methane would work >D

[imported_Terran Starek]

What about Bush's stance on Iraq? I have many thoughts, but I want to hear the thoughts of others about it.

[Sanis Prent]

I had meetings to attend, and couldn't watch.

[imported_Terran Starek]

Lemme update ya, then. :D

He basically said that on February 5th, Colin Powell will make a presentation to the UN providing all of the evidence and findings of Saddam having the capabilities of: nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, and biological weapons. If the UN does not agree that action must be taken, the United States will then mobilize and take action.

He cited something along the lines of the fact that the US is a country that does not need other countries to assist it in making its decisions.

I hope that's clear and I am almost positive it is accurate. (this is me recalling from watching the speech)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Ethanol isnt really a good fuel for cars - it attacks most plastics and other fittings that are commonly used. Ethanol also doesnt have the same energy release when lit. Methane would be okay for a turbine, not a piston car. Both also destory catalytic converters and are dirty fuels when burnt.

Vegetable oil is indeed a viable alternative in a diesl. You can get the two quite similar, altho vegetable oil cant really be produced in the quantities needed.

The real problem is that petrol is actually one of the best fuel types you can get. It's got a better efficency and is resonably safe to carry. Alternatives either dont supply the same power or are dangerous to carry.

The best alternative is probably going to be fuel cell (read hydrogen). Present motor technology will work (especially rotary) and hydrogen gives good power. HOWEVER, the safe carrying of hydrogen is a real problem. The fuel cell is the answer, but so far it doesnt quite work. It's close tho. Now the next problem is the infrastructure needed to deliver hydrogen to customers safely. The problem will take billions to solve and years.

[Hart]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
Actually Hart, the vegetable oil thing is true :)

Yuppers, I know. Grape juice is also good.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
Ethanol isnt really a good fuel for cars - it attacks most plastics and other fittings that are commonly used. Ethanol also doesnt have the same energy release when lit. Methane would be okay for a turbine, not a piston car. Both also destory catalytic converters and are dirty fuels when burnt.

Vegetable oil is indeed a viable alternative in a diesl. You can get the two quite similar, altho vegetable oil cant really be produced in the quantities needed.

The real problem is that petrol is actually one of the best fuel types you can get. It's got a better efficency and is resonably safe to carry. Alternatives either dont supply the same power or are dangerous to carry.

The best alternative is probably going to be fuel cell (read hydrogen). Present motor technology will work (especially rotary) and hydrogen gives good power. HOWEVER, the safe carrying of hydrogen is a real problem. The fuel cell is the answer, but so far it doesnt quite work. It's close tho. Now the next problem is the infrastructure needed to deliver hydrogen to customers safely. The problem will take billions to solve and years.

I am sure the oil industry mongels and foreign nations whose leading resources is petroleum are going to love this.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Hart
Well, it looks like we'll be ousting Saddam soon. All in all, it was a decent speech. Not a great one, in pretty much followed the domestic and war rhetoric, but very good.

Well Bush blew alot of smoke about domestic issues and plans to help resolve them. To soften up the senate and congress. But you know how that goes. It seems one the largest goals of Bush's term is the Iraq/weapons controversy. I did like the portions of his address spoke on the North Korea and Iraq issue however.

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
The best alternative is probably going to be fuel cell (read hydrogen). Present motor technology will work (especially rotary) and hydrogen gives good power. HOWEVER, the safe carrying of hydrogen is a real problem. The fuel cell is the answer, but so far it doesnt quite work. It's close tho. Now the next problem is the infrastructure needed to deliver hydrogen to customers safely. The problem will take billions to solve and years.


Originally by George W. Bush in last night's State of the Union Address

Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step, and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined. In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about, not through endless lawsuits or command and control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car — producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom — so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation — to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Looks like George W. agrees with you Mark.

The ONLY problem with this proposal is that where's the demand? I mean it's great he's going to have people study this (beats the mating habits of potatos), but who wants a hydrogen powered car? Seriously?

Until there is a demand for these kinda cars (and not from the fringes of the population) we're not going to see them on the showroom floor.

It's great they're gonna do this but where the heck is the demand for 'em? :huh

[Sanis Prent]

Wait for the gas price to increase. Then you'll see demand.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Taylor, the reason people will want hydrogen is two fold

1) Once production ramps up, they will be only a bit more expensive

2) Cant use petrol when there's none left

The point is, you have to do something Now. Hydrogen has several advantages -

a) Is availible in huge quantities
b) Light
c) Transportable (Now we have the technology
d) Isnt a pipedream, such cars exist NOW
e) Runs using internal combustion, meaning hydrogen cars can be made desireable on a modified existing platform. So you can have your SUV and not pollute.
f) Costs are projected to drop to the point where hydrogen cars are as cheap as existing technology.
g) Is being pushed by car makers and petrol distributors like Shell (who senses an opportunity)

Hydrogen has a few problems however, that are being worked on

a) Takes energy to crack water to Oxygen and hydrogen. Electricity. Better hope you have clean energy source for that, else you cancel out hydrogen's clean burning
b) Hydrogen is highly explosive, much moreso than petrol. Petrol burns mainly in accidents if it catches alight, a catasrophic explosion is very rare. Hydrogen however.... it just explodes.
c) Transport and delivery - no infrastructure is set up. However, note whom I said is interested in hydrogen technology. c) is not goign to be a real problem in the end I think. Just will take time.

Fuel cells / hydrogen to me is an idea whose time is coming. The technology exists to allow it, the need is there and the uses are a plethora. I would not be surprised to see fuel cell cars in showrooms by the end of the decade.

[Darren Caerdeth]

I found it interesting, in regards to Bush's standing about Iraq, the way people think about the war. This isnt just on this forum, or even limited to the internet, but people I know in real life. Alot of people seem to think that Iraq stands half a chance against the American military. First off, most of Iraq's military are composed of people who have been forced in. His soldiers are treated poorly, and the punishment for failure is death. Back in '91, it was extremely common for Iraqi soldiers to surrender to America on site. Opting for the life of a prisoner, where no one is trying to kill you, and you have three guaranteed meals a day, over the life of an Iraqi Soldier, where food isnt guaranteed, your life is constantly in danger, and your boss will shoot you if you survive a losing battle.

The differences in terrain and such shouldnt be a factor in this war. When America was set to attack afganistan, comments were made about the terrain. Something about the rocky mountianous terrain would be very difficult for our soldiers to navigate, giving Al Queda the upper hand. At the same time these comments were being made, it was somewhere in Kentucky I think, a special army unit was running through drills. The special unit? A mountain unit, trained specifically for fighting in mountainous regions. This unit had been in training before the war on terror was even a prospect.

The only real difference in this war from '91 is the fact that in 91, America's focus wasnt on taking Hussein out of power. We were just there to cripple his military, if I recall correctly. I may not be Bush's biggest fan, but I firmly believe that he wont make the mistake his pops made in 91. And the fact that hes more trigger happy helps this theory along even more...

Now that that's over with....

Im gonna be really wary about this whole hydrogen fuel cell deal, as Hydrogen is an extremely combustible gas. The prospect of more power is a plus, but that stuff blows up alot quicker than gasoline. :)

[imported_Eve]

You don't watch the state of the union because you don't like the prez's voice? Oh man... because THAT'S a good reason to not care.

The speech was excellent. I think he adaquately explained his cause for concern over Iraq. You have tons of missing chemical weapons, and you don't think that's enough evidence that Iraq hasn't or isn't disarming?!?! Lord.

We don't need to rally troops for a war. We just need a good looking arabic woman. She can seduce Sadaam and stick him with a poison needle. Quick, easy, quiet, and worse case senario, you lose one woman (if she is caught). Find a citizen Iraqi. Offer to support her family for a century. Cheaper than gathering troops, ships, planes, etc. Less Iraqis AND Americans die as well. It's an all around good and efficient plan, and I'm sure many women would happily volunteer to ice Sadaam.

[Taylor Millard]

I'm not saying it's a bad idea at all, Marcus. Let's see if we can get something that works.

I'm only asking where is the demand for it. In the US...where is the demand? Can automakers create cars that people want to own?

If they can't, then this investment means nothing and it's not going to work.

[imported_Terran Starek]

(sits back and enjoys the political discussion immensely)

:D

[ReaperFett]

What was the point of colour TVs? Black and WHite did it's job. Same situation with petrol :)

[Marcus Telcontar]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
What was the point of colour TVs? Black and WHite did it's job. Same situation with petrol :)

Colour TV offered tangible improvements over B/W. A Feul cell car does not offer tangible improvements except in two areas -

a) Non polluting

b) (and this answers Taylor I might add) you need oil to run a normal car. Instead of thousands of litres, youn now only need a few (lubrication). Plus, you cany run a petrol car if oil is run out. Not likely we are goign to run out of water to make hydrogen!

[imported_Terran Starek]

I think it will be crazy if it all becomes a very marketable reality. I mean--what of the massive water wars that could come? People literally killing each other for control of seas/water deposits for FUEL??

[Dirjj Mordrai]

The difference between '91 and the potential war on Iraq is because it will be fought on Iraqi territory with a large contigent of US ground forces commitment necessary to push Saddam and his army out. The schematics and rules are now much more different with more intricacies involved such as street to street fighting. It involves surrending some of our military might in order to largely prevent civilian casualties. This is not solely going to be fought in abandoned cities or in the mountains (like Desert Storm or Aghanistan). Saddam Hussein is going to take advantage of this by commiting his forces amongst or near populated cities and towns. Saddam should know better than to confront the US might in the dunes and scrublands. I would think he learned his lesson in '91 and military analyst also seem to think so.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

In other words, this isn't going to be a turkey shoot like '91 or Afghanistan. The Iraqi's are going to force us work harder with compromised decisiveness.

[Sanis Prent]

The majority of the Gulf War was fought in Iraqi territory as well.

As for urban combat...we're just as good as out in the open.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Yes, I am not questioning our abilities at urban warfare but we will have large populations of civilians to consider this time around Prent. It is suspected he is going to utilize whole cities and town as human shields. Meaning alot more house to house mop-up action, risking more US troop lives.

[Silus Xilarian]

I saw a demonstration on TV once, where a satellite guided missile was shot into the front seat of a car.

Unless Saddam is literally using human shields (IE Strapping orphans to his back) I dont think we'll have that much problem getting around the whole populated city thing :)

[Sene Unty]

Originally posted by Eve
You don't watch the state of the union because you don't like the prez's voice? Oh man... because THAT'S a good reason to not care.


Yes, but it is not that I don't care. Beyond simply hating the man's voice, I despise the very look of him. I still do not consider him to be my president, so when he speaks, I make it a point not to listen.

[imported_Terran Starek]

And it is the consitution and provisions of this country that give you the freedom to say that. :D

But, whether you consider him the president or not doesn't change the fact that he is. And though I am not a huge Bush fan, I found his speech to be fairly enlightening. He has an administration backing him that is pretty solid for a group of Republicans (heh), and that shows in the fact that while he may not be the most eloquent speaker, he has some strong agenda items and a few views I can agree with that make up for some mispronunciation.

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by Silus Xilarian
I saw a demonstration on TV once, where a satellite guided missile was shot into the front seat of a car.

Unless Saddam is literally using human shields (IE Strapping orphans to his back) I dont think we'll have that much problem getting around the whole populated city thing :)

Yeah, our satellite technology and smart missiles are incredible. But we still have to account for the sheer destructiveness of explosive and incendiary devices initiated amongst a populated area. A cruise missile is not a itty-bitty handgrenade. Saddam wants to slam the American image before the whole viewing world. The only country supporting Bush's call for action is Britian namely Prime Minister Tony Blair. Saddam wants us to be portrayed as the war-mongering monsters. High civilian casualties would be too detrimental to the world's opinion of America.

[ReaperFett]

I saw a demonstration on TV once, where a satellite guided missile was shot into the front seat of a car.
Yeah, but they were aiming for the building 100m away ;)

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Sene Unty
Yes, but it is not that I don't care. Beyond simply hating the man's voice, I despise the very look of him. I still do not consider him to be my president, so when he speaks, I make it a point not to listen.

Oh for God's sake get over it! THat election was 3 years ago. Come on, have more of a mature response please. If you don't like the man then fine, atleast give him the respect he deserves as the President of the United States.

And here's a simple solution for you. Next election, in '04, vote for the candidate you agree with. It's not that hard.

[Silus Xilarian]

The missiles are just one tool in our aresenal. Another thing you have to consider is this....We all agree that the American Military has some really powerful stuff. This is just the stuff they are willing to make public. If im not mistaken, nobody had ever heard of a patriot missile until 91, when we needed it to blow Saddam's SCUDs out of the air. Whos to say we'll even need new technology for this. Eve was also on the right rack, with having a woman kill him. Granted, I think Saddam is far too paranoid for this, but the idea is good. A small, precision assassination. A few men go in quietly, Kill Saddam, kill Saddam's son, and leave. Hell. they could even plant some explosives while they were there if they wanted. The possibilities are endless.....

[ReaperFett]

And then the US has clearly performed an Assassination, losing them face all over.

[Silus Xilarian]

But we've assassinated Saddam....

Who would miss him, really :)

[Taylor Millard]

Well, while I would say, 'Screw face' 'cause c'mon...what government hasn't had someone killed...the US has an agreement with the world that we won't do any assassinations.

I think it came after the entire Bay of Pigs Fiasco.

[Admiral Lebron]

In '91 we didn't know if the Stealths would work till we blew the hell out of Bagdad losing nothing but bombs. The American government has this funny way of keeping technology generally on the down-low until we use them in war.

[Silus Xilarian]

Ok....then we blow up his palace.....is that better? :)

[imported_Terran Starek]

Taylor--you aren't kiddin bout Bay of Pigs being a fiasco!

Everyone involved in that (and most of JFK's admin) went:

DOH! >_<

:lol

[Sanis Prent]

Well...we put a cruise missile in Ghadaffi's little estate back in the 80's, and wiped out his entire family. That shut him up real good. I don't have any qualms about doing the deed again.

[ReaperFett]

YOU dont have any qualms, yes. But everyone else would distrust the US. "Oh look, they cant get full support for a war, so they go all sneaky". Yeah, that's the sort of reputation that will get you..............nowhere.

[Silus Xilarian]

And when we sit on our hands and let Saddam build more and more weapons...we'll be his first target....that will get us killed.

Id rather be nowhere than dead

[ReaperFett]

So you go about it the proper way. You get proof, you then get help :)

[Taylor Millard]

No we wont' be his first target. Probably his second target. Israel is his first target. And Israel's our staunchest ally in the Middle East.

The US said it would defend its allies. And I'd hate to see Tel Aviv or Jerusalem go up in a mushroom cloud because we didn't do anything.

[Silus Xilarian]

How much more proof do we need.....The man has been caught red handed too many times already. What kinda proof do you want? Would you like to wait until he blows up a few major cities? Then should we attack? Or should we stick around for more proof...

It seems we got all the proof we need, and what help do we have? Isreal and Tony Blair.....

Honestly, against Iraq, that support is overkill

So we have proof, and appartantly, this is all the help we are gonna get...

So whats next in the master plan, let him nuke us?

It took the WTC Towers getting destroyed for us to go after Bin Laden....I think we should have learned our lesson there.

[Sanis Prent]

The UN is on a dangerous trend of 21st century appeasement, which got its predecessor in a LOT of trouble. Japan invades Manchuria...well...lets give them a slap on the wrist. Italy invades Ethiopia. We'll listen to their king plead for help, and send him on his way as we sit on our thumbs. Germany militarizes the Rhineland...oh...well its "technically" illegal under the Versailles treaty, I guess we can let them have that. Germany stages the Anschluss, well...Austrians speak German, so why not let Germany annex them. Hitler wants the Sudetenland. Czechs beg for help. As long as Hitler promises that's all he wants...sure. We'll sell the Czechs out, so long as Germany is happy.

Peace in our time.

Sound familiar?

[Admiral Lebron]

Thats why I hope Bush attacks Iraq. So what if he gets kicked out of the UN.. big deal.

[ReaperFett]

Yeah, who cares about the millions he makes unemployed, eh? And of course, then the attack is unsanctioned, and sanctions can be imposed. The US trade industry takes a major dive. Great idea there.

[Sanis Prent]

Sanctions cut two ways. I doubt many would be keen on closing off an artery like that.

[Taylor Millard]

Unsanctioned?

Now hold on a second.

How many times has Saddam broken UN sanctions huh? In 99 we had proof that he broke sanctions and did NOTHING ABOUT IT! Save for like one attack.

This can't be a one attack thing.

If anyone has broken sanctions it's Saddam.

And there is a coalition remember.

[ReaperFett]

Im talking to Lebron, not in actuallity.

[imported_Terran Starek]

I'm not attacking you personally, Fett, but if you aren't talking 'in actuality,' then what rules are you basing your comment on?

[Dirjj Mordrai]

One thing I would thoroughly enjoy if Saddam was assassinated is the vacuum his absence would leave. Causing the Iraq to internally combust into civil war as military leaders vie for political leadership over Iraq. The whole country would become so self absorbed it would not have time for international quarrels or shady biological/weapons armament programs. That is maybe... considering such circumstances historically have conceived an unpredictable mixed sort of results.

[ReaperFett]

Like I said Terran, I was responding to Lebron.


Thats why I hope Bush attacks Iraq. So what if he gets kicked out of the UN.. big deal.

[imported_Terran Starek]

As in IF Bush were to get the boot from the UN?

I gotchya--my apologies for the misunderstanding. I don't agree, but I see your point. :)

[ReaperFett]

Yes, IF :)

[imported_Terran Starek]

Well, let us not forget the lesson learned from the League of Nations after WWI. :)

[ReaperFett]

You're right. A bad name doesnt work. League of nations sounds like some dumb DC comic with Superman. They should call it the Avengers, or the Ultimates!





...or UN I suppose ;)

[imported_Terran Starek]

Heh Heh... :lol

Or maybe they just need a good motto in the form of a poem?? Eh?? Something about stars and pirates, methinks. :p

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
You're right. A bad name doesnt work. League of nations sounds like some dumb DC comic with Superman. They should call it the Avengers, or the Ultimates!





...or UN I suppose ;)

:lol Crap, Reaper and his love of comics!

[Sanis Prent]

Of course I make a mention to the League of Nations previously and no one says a word :rolleyes.

[ReaperFett]

Or maybe they just need a good motto in the form of a poem?? Eh?? Something about stars and pirates, methinks.
You could be on to something! :D


Crap, Reaper and his love of comics!
Well, it would make it sound better.

"Today in the News, THE AVENGERS sounded a warning to Iraq..."

:D

[Dirjj Mordrai]

Originally posted by ReaperFett
You could be on to something! :D


Well, it would make it sound better.

"Today in the News, THE AVENGERS sounded a warning to Iraq..."

:D


:lol personally I was fond of the Defenders! Hellstorm, Hulk, Surfer, GR, Strange, and all those others.

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Of course I make a mention to the League of Nations previously and no one says a word :rolleyes.

At the rate that the United Nations IS going it's not going to work at all.

Especially if they give out sanctions that no one listens to.

"We have sanctions on COUntry A, B, C, and D."

Then Countries E-H (All members of the UN) trade with A-D anyway and A-D developes nucleur weapons.

Great job of enforcement guys. :rolleyes

[imported_Terran Starek]

Originally posted by Sanis Prent
Of course I make a mention to the League of Nations previously and no one says a word. :rolleyes

I would like to take this moment to mention that the very wise and esteemed Sanis Prent did indeed bring the League of Nations into question before I.

:D

[Sanis Prent]

You may remove your lips from my butt. :)

[Taylor Millard]

:lol :lol

[imported_Terran Starek]

:lol

[Lady Vader]

You may remove your lips from my butt. :)

:lol

I gotta remember that one!

[imported_Eve]

Okay so...

You have one person quiety kill the psycho bastard, and spare others caught in an otherwise massive bomb-blast (I'm talking about Iraqis), or you bomb entire cities... because it's better politically (for Americans) to do so?

And as far as trusting Americans. You don't trust us now, so what then? You still trade with us. You criticize us left and right and still do business with us. It's not a question or matter of opinion, it's fact that tons of chemical weapons are MIA. Where is the love?

There have been many other times when people waited too long, and denied the evidence to see grave results, like Pearl Harbor, the Challenger explosion, etc.

Being cautious and skeptical isn't always the way. There is enough evidence here, but history has shown what Sadaam is capable of.

[ReaperFett]

You have one person quiety kill the psycho bastard, and spare others caught in an otherwise massive bomb-blast (I'm talking about Iraqis), or you bomb entire cities... because it's better politically (for Americans) to do so?
Basically, yes. One is a more official way of doing things.

Now, sending people in and KIDNAPPING Hussain to deal with his War Crimes? Whole new ball park.


And as far as trusting Americans. You don't trust us now, so what then?
That's right, we dont trust you. THat's why Blair is darting round the globe for Bush, right? :rolleyes

[Sene Unty]

Originally posted by Taylor Millard
Oh for God's sake get over it! THat election was 3 years ago. Come on, have more of a mature response please. If you don't like the man then fine, atleast give him the respect he deserves as the President of the United States.

And here's a simple solution for you. Next election, in '04, vote for the candidate you agree with. It's not that hard.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. :lol

Oh so I understand. I am supposed to give respect to someone simply because he is my president....

No.

I sure as hell do not.

And who are you to tell me to be more mature? What about my response was infintile and childish. Simply because I do not agree? So is everyone who has an opinion other than yours immature? How sad it must be to go through life deeming others and their particular views beneath you.

But please do not worry. I will not be commenting on this subject any longer as it is apparent what I think is unappreciated. Thank you for so eloquently notifying me of my inadequacy.

[Hadrian Invicta]

Assaninate or kill Hussein without innocents dying. It would be better for them to be caught in the bomb blast then to live in the civil war that would erupt in Iraq should Hussein be covertly assasinated.

Plus unless we've somehow developed such hi-tech technology that we could slip into his bunker or past his thousands of loyal republican guards I don't think we are going to be able to take Hussein out in a one shot one kill situation. There is simply no way. He's too well guarded, I mean the man has 50 look alikes for heaven's sakes, he could pull off a whole Kashemunga scenario and we wouldn't even know it. But that's just as insane as believing that we could take him out with a surgical strike in which he was the only one killed. This isn't Metal Gear Solid, there are no James Bond super spies or Comic book hitman. This is the real world and in the real world innocent people die sometimes because of the actions of others.

Sorry for ripping you all back to the real world for a second, carry on with your hypothetical theories on international politics and war.

[Admiral Lebron]

Lots of partiot missiles.

[ReaperFett]

Hadrian, if thats the real world, you didnt bother to continue with consequence, hence making your argument void.

[Hadrian Invicta]

Consquences of what Fett? I didn't propose we do anything I just stated that a covert assassination is not a valid option, hence making your comment pointless.

[Taylor Millard]

Originally posted by Sene Unty
HAHAHAHAHAHA. :lol

Oh so I understand. I am supposed to give respect to someone simply because he is my president....

Yes...basic respect. You don't have to like the man- I never said you had to. But, he is the leader of this country- and thus he does deserve the respect of its people.


And who are you to tell me to be more mature?

I'm no one. I just grew tired of hearing (and seeing) that kind of response from some people for the last 3 years.


What about my response was infintile and childish. Simply because I do not agree?


I would rather shove hot metal knifes into my eyes than watch my "president" speak for any length of time.


Yes, but it is not that I don't care. Beyond simply hating the man's voice, I despise the very look of him. I still do not consider him to be my president, so when he speaks, I make it a point not to listen.

Hmm...okay...I don't mind you not watching the State of the Union. It's not for everyone.

But the "president" comment is childish. Again, that election was a long time ago. I'm tired of hearing people still harp on that entire situation. Let's get over it and move on.


So is everyone who has an opinion other than yours immature?
Oh absolutely not. Those who can defend their opinion with clarity and personal conviction, instead of spewing rhetoric always have my respect. I might disagree with them, but I'll always give them my respect.



How sad it must be to go through life deeming others and their particular views beneath you. But please do not worry. I will not be commenting on this subject any longer as it is apparent what I think is unappreciated. Thank you for so eloquently notifying me of my inadequacy.

I never said you were inadequate...I'm just tired of seeing people not give someone the respect they deserve. If you don't agree with him that's fine, I never said you had to, I never said you had to agree with me either.

And if you don't read this thread again that's fine. But if you do I will have a response.

[Admiral Lebron]

I agree with Taylor, he's in office for three years, grow up. I respect him and all, but hes a pawn. Its all Colin Powell running the government.

[imported_Terran Starek]

Sene, I think you are missing the big picture here.

To say that you would not respect a man because of the way he looks or talks is juvenile in principle. I'm sorry--but it's the truth. Do all educated men have to meet some type of appearance or vocalization standard to be accepted?

It doesn't mean I or Taylor or anyone think that you, as a person, are juvenile. I mean, you have your opinions. Your opinions are worth something, like anyone who forms an opinion. How would you like it if someone said that they didn't want to listen to you or have anything to do with you or that they didn't consider you a person just because of the way you looked or sounded? It wouldn't be fair--it's not fair to judge someone like that.

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Anarchist, whatever--I think that people can come to a common ground on one fact: the President is the President for a reason. He may not have the most ideal views to fit what you believe, he may not be the best speaker, he may not look the sharpest--but he has earned his position.

To earn such an honor deserves at least an acknowledgement.

(this all comes from a Democrat, mind you :))

[imported_Eve]

Sene - if you're contributing to a civilized conversation about politics, the pitch of someone's voice, or the way one looks (which are matters of prejudice) have no matter.

[Admiral Lebron]

Do you disrespect Stephen Hawkin too because he rolls around in his chair and lets a computer talk for him?

[mis feasance]

I will assume for the sake of conversation that we are all intelligent adults, or semi adults, in this thread. Operating under this assumption I will attempt to explain why it is so ridiculous that we are making comments about where and to whom respect is owed.
My respect is not something that can be handed out simply under a title or banner. My respect for the leader of any country, including the country where I reside, is not conveyed every four years without looking at who it is being given to. My respect is earned through deeds and promises that I admire and believe in. I do not admire or believe in George W. Bush. He represents everything that is wrong with this country. We own big guns and we believe that we are the only ones that should own them, we bully the kids on the playground and then we pretend not to understand when they dont like us, and we are always quick to point out how wonderful we are.
This country is the biggest kid on the block who knows where his strengths are and is quick to use them. Do not confuse that with being the best, brightest, or most admired kid on the block. This country is not based on an ideal that is untarnished, it is built on a sediment of hardship, lies, and deception as most countries are. The greatest fault this country has is that we are not willing to conceded the crap that we are built on and the crap that we continue to advocate in large part today.
I love SOME of the ideals of this country, I simply wish we would stick by the ideals that make us wonderful and not sell out in the name of proving whose guns are bigger.
The problem with being the biggest KID on the block is that life works in stages and someday, someone will be bigger than us we should treat those out there as we would like to have them treat us when they title themselves "the police men of the world"

Aside from all of this, I watched what I was able to of the State of the Union because it is important to me to keep an eye on the man that holds this countries future in his hands. He is making huge decisions that affect me and those around the world but the scariest part for me in all of this is that those that he is thinking about are his cronies. The man is in all the wrong pockets, does not serve the interest of the working class people in this country (who make up the largest part of the population), and when his "presidency" is over he will leave the country much worse of than he found it.

I think it is also important to note that I agree completely with Sene Unty, this man is not president of this country. Not because he did not win an election but because he is not a leader nor can he pretend to know what is best for this country. I owe him no respect, since he has earned none and I am eager for someone to run against him so that there once again a ray of hope for a brighter future in this country.

[TheHolo.Net]

Typically we do not allow political discussions on these forums.

At first this thread had a light hearted nature that prompted me to allow it to continue, but now it is taking a severe turn for the worse with people not giving others the freedom of their own opinion.

Everyone has a right to think however they choose to and nothing can be said by anyone to deny them that privilege.

With the current direction this thread is heading, its becoming pretty obvious why we do not normally allow political discussions here.

And with that this thread can now sink down to the depths of this forum with no further responses.

Thread closed.

[TheHolo.Net]

Addendum for clarity: No single individual has prompted my decision to close this thread, merely long established board policy based on content and tone.

If those involved wish to continue this discussion you may do so at a less restricted place. I think you know where I mean. I won’t link there directly so as not to directly advertise in this thread and appear to be spamming.