Aileron

Well, what about the Canadian laspe in concentration. Suppose two sergents and two privates, the privates holding sniping rifles, from both sides encounter one another. The American sergent would say to the private. "Shoot that sniper." At the same time, the Canadian sergent would say: "Shoot that sniper, eh?" The American private would get the shot of first, because the Canadian has to listen to one more sylable before he responds. Add this up multiple times, and you see what would happen.

Well, what if we do it in the summer and only in urban areas (no bears.)?

The only REAL problem would be oil. As for electricity, hey, we have too many people trained in Nuclear Power as it is. As for water, plz, with exception of perhaps Libya and Morocco, no country needs water that bad. The only real problem would be for oil, and heck, maybe if that happened we could finally get alchohol-based forms of transportation on the road. As I said, though, we would be hurt. A lot of business would be lost that way. However, the world would be hurt a lot more. Hey, the US exports food, steel, plastics, machinery, and a lot of other staple goods. Some parts of the world are being complimented by being compaired to ghettos. Not all parts deserve that !@#$%^&*le, but I didn't say all parts deserved that !@#$%^&*le. Besides, for being so caught up on a technicality, you seem to have conveniently ignored the main point of the world feeling they have a right to dictate US policy.

Maybe so, but apathy towards politics is something that everyone needs to eliminate. Many a great nation has collapsed from apathy about politics. I care too much, but too many people care too little.

(captial letters - you use these at the beginning of sentences.) (periods - you use these to signify the end of sentences.) (commas - use commas to signify a pause between two seperate ideas in a sentence.) Good post, but the point here was not about Saddam. It was about our "allies" who think they have a right to controll the US policy. All it has been was "US, Kosovo is in trouble, go in there." "US, Bosnia is in trouble, go in there." "US, Somalia is in trouble, go in there." And what have we got out of it? A world that knows that we are the only western power that really matters. For example, we have a North Korea who refuses to speak with Japan, China, South Korea, and Russia, but would only speak with us. We are hated for this as well. We are considered the global policeman, and residents of ghettos hate cops more than anything. It was following our "allies" wishes that brought us 9/11. You would think then, that maybe the US doesn't want to listen to them all the time. Maybe we should be en!@#$%^&*led to carry out our own policy once in a while. It is after all, our military and our lives. But no, our allies have to control, and if we do one thing that isn't the exact time and the exact way our allies want it, well we are terrible. Heck, check out the topic en!@#$%^&*led "world wants Kerry for president". So entrenched is the idea of them controlling US policy that they want to elect a president for us. Don't you guys have your own countries to run? I have my opinions of various world leaders, but I know that my opinion has no weight on that subject, and simply keep my opinion to myself.

Well, if the US was a different place back then, then we shouldn't have a presedent with a Clinton-like policy. To some extent, Kerry and the Democrats need to wake up and realise the 90s are over. (Actually, they need to wake up and realise the 60s are over first, then realise the 90s are over.)

See, that's the thing, you'd think the US needs the world, but we really don't need all that much. Most of the goods we import are also made domestically. That isn't to say our economy wouldn't be hurt by such an action - it would. However, many nations of the world would be absolutely devastated. And, no one gives a flying frig about Hussein or Iraq. Hussein deserves whatever we can dish him and more, and Iraq is better off merely because they got rid of Hussein in the process. The only reason the rest of the world did not like us going into Iraq is because Bush broke the Clinton mold of doing exactly what the rest of the world wanted. Three years ago, you guys did a very good job of giving us lip-service, and you did help in Afghanistan. However, you felt you had a right to controll US policy, and when the US did not act as you thought she should have, it became a ridiculously overblown issue. Its not that WE WENT INTO IRAQ without UN approval, its that we went into Iraq WITHOUT UN APPROVAL. We shouldn't require approval for Hussein's Iraq. I think we have all heard the expression "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Well, the last two times someone declared war on the US was September 11th and Pearl Harbor. We can come to the conclusion by now that the next time will also be a sneak attack. Thus, if we continued to wait around for a politically nice reason to go into Iraq, someone would have gotten hurt over it. That justification is not good enough to attack a nation on a path of peace, but Iraq? Maybe its good and maybe it isn't. If it is good, it probably isn't the most heroic action ever, and if it isn't, it probably isn't anyware close to a crime against humanity.

actually no, Bacchus. A Soldier was kinda closer to what I was getting at. Foreigners want to believe the that US was wrong in going into Iraq. It would help their cause if Iraq got turned into a bloodbath. Thus, they buy papers that say that Iraq is turning into a bloodbath. Thus, the papers look for stories that indicate the same, so they jump all over any story about terrorist acts. Thus, the terrorists have a big drive here. Because of this demand for terroristic acts to prove the US wrong, they know that any bombing, shooting, or beheading will make the front page of every newspaper around the world. Yes, I'm slowly beginning to come to the conclusion that you guys do want to see the entrails of American soldiers, civilians, and probably even children plastered accrossed your TV set. Look at how hostile you guys are on this relatively friendly forum! You hold no simpathy for us when terrorists attack our country. Rather, you side with Islamic Fundimentalists, trying to figure out some obscure way the COULD be partially justified. When the US replaces Hussein, you point out repeatedly every civilian causualty the US caused, and turn a blind eye to Hussein's actions - some of you have even come under belief that Hussein was BETTER than US occupation. There is a clear "US is wrong" at!@#$%^&*ude. There is no feeling of that our efforts would be better if the terrorists weren't being a problem in the first place. Why? Because you hate the US for economic reasons. You know that Bush could crush the world's economy with one word - embargo. Our businesses are driving your businesses out of business. For that you hate the US. You think the US is evil. Then, you want to PROVE the US is evil, and if in the path of proving the US is evil, a few people die, so be it.

The US simply cannot be worse than Hussein and you can't deny that. Therefore any change that occurred in Iraq was a step up. Terrorists blow themselves up there because they know that there are tons of journalists who would love to report such stories to appease their anti-American audience. Foreigners buy anti-Americanism from journalists who destribute it from the terrorists, who manufacture anti-Americanism out of blood and death. They blow themselves up because it sells, though not necessarilly in terms of money.

ugh...foreign populations don't vote in US elections for a reason. Suppose I was starting a small zone (which may actually happen, but...). Then, SSC said that everyone can vote who the zone-owner is for Trench Wars. Simply put, I would find the stupidest n00b I could find to run Trench Wars, so that they would collapse and I could get a chunk of that playerbase. Same thing here. Foreign nations want Kerry as president because Kerry is weak and stupid and our nation would be weakened by his leadership.

No, its complete and udder logic. Either all Muslims are terrorists and should be treated as terrorists, or terrorists are a radical fringe group that has nothing in common with the mainstream Muslim line of thought. I personally subscribe to the second. If they aren't mainstream, they don't need to be rational. Small groups of crazy people such as the modern KKK pop up in all societies. Their thought processes should not be respected, nor should their line of thinking be mistaken for that of a respectable line of reasoning. If the KKK lynches a black man, is it considered the partial responsability of the black community as a whole? Not in the slightest. The KKK are clearly wrong and irrational. The black community may not be perfect, but even if they were, it would not stop the KKK. The US has her faults and caused problems to the rest of the world compairable to all other nations. However, even if the US was indeed perfect, it would still not prevent irrational fringe groups from justifying their violence in their own irrational heads. Now, there is a gap in my logic here. Small groups have the potential to be irrational, though that is not always the case. Many small groups have very good lines of thought that need to be cultivated. How can you distinguish between the rational and irrational kinds of small groups? The only good way is by the group's actions. If, say, the group in question participates in the slaughter of children, one can deduce that the group belongs in the irrational catagory.

Well, the Soviet Union artificially controlled religion in Russia, so their Catholic population is going to rebound rather quickly. No one cares about Latin American countries, obviously. Those figures do ruin the theory though. (I thought Spain was higher than that, but still more Spaniards are Catholic than speak Spanish.) However, remember that fundimentalists think out of date. Current statistics mean nothing to them. The real point of this topic is that we don't know what terrorists are motivated by, and it is faulty to assume that their motivation is a good one. They could be suicide bombing us because they don't like the look of a grey suit for all we know. If anything, if we are to assume that they are a radical minority of the Islamic Religion, then that implies that whatever their motive is, it is stupid. I can prove this by contradiction. Suppose then that terrorists are not a radical minority of the population. It that case, they think the same as all their population thinks, and are just a little more active about it. If they think the same way their whole culture thinks, then the entire culture is potentially hostile. Therefore, the only way that the a nation can secure peace from terrorism is by annihilating all populations that produce atleast one terrorist. This is obviously false - it has been proven in the past that at least one set of cultures have been able to live together in peace even if one of them at one time produced a single terrorist that attacked the other. Therefore, the premise that terrorists accurately represent their populations views is false. Therefore, we have deduced that terrorists do not represent the rational thinking portion of their population. Therefore, whatever their motive is, it is irrational. The motive I described at the beginning of this post could very well be their motive, for the very reason that it doesn't make sense. That was the initial point of this topic.

Well, not entirely. More like the crusades and every action from the west since then. And, no, the "experts" won't say anything of this sort because they all have their own agendas. Seriously though, its not out of the question. The events that caused the west to abandon the concept of religiously motivated wars did not happen in the middle east. In their culture, religious wars are still fair game.

Sorry, I don't see anything funny about this situation. I don't like the conclusion, but it is the only thing that makes a -*BAD WORD*- bit of sense. If you fight back against an imperialist power, you call it a revolution or war for independance, but Al Queda clearly refers to their war as a Jihad. They care about the minorty of Muslims in the places they attack. Why should that matter unless you are fighting a religious battle?

Insightfull as always, Suse.

In one of these topics around here rose the question as to why the US, Spain, and Russia was attacked by Al Queda, and UK, Australia, France, and Germany was offered a truce and are exclusively attacked of foreign ground. So, what do the US, Spain, and Russia have in common that the UK, Australia, France and Germany do not have? The secret here is to think like Bin Laden. Ok, I'm a Islamic fundimentalist. I'm fundimentalist, so my political views are a few centuries out of date, and I'm religious, so I don't want to die for state sponsored or secular politics. So, what in history happend a few centuries ago and wasn't state sponsored? The Crusades fit both descriptions, and was an event of large enough scale to warrant Al Queda's reaction. That brings us back to the first question. What do the US, Spain, and Russia have that the rest of the world do not? Catholics. The US and Russia are almost 50% Catholic, and Spain is a whopping 99.9% Catholic. They hate Catholics for the Crusades we did against Muslims so many centuries ago. Why, then, the occasional attacks on other western powers? Well, I personally view the other forms of Christianity as watered-down versions of Catholicism. Agnositicism and Atheism are watered-down versions of Christianity. The moral code held by Athiests is identical to that of a Christian, and when Athiests attack Christians, it is always under a catagory that would be wrong under Christianity. Keep in mind, its not important whether this view is correct. What is important is whether or not Al Queda holds this view. Would a group of Islamic Fundimentalists mar the distiction between Athiest and Catholic? The answer is a definite yes. What can be taken from this? First off, that US policy is not to blame for Sept 11. The events that ticked Al Queda off occured long before our nation was even formed. On the other hand, the US should not be spearheading the War on Islamic Fundimentalism. That is the role of the Catholic Church if anyone. If in their mind, they are fighting a Crusade of Jihad, we should retaliate with a Crusade or Jihad.

Those who are unable to work are not considered welfare abusers.

He's right, the primary purpose of government is to protect their citizens from death to foreign groups. This comes before any duty to the world community. And, cultures are considered if and only if they survive over time, according to most anthropological trains of thought. A culture that cannot survive over the time it exists in is a failure. The "culture destroying another culture" model you use so often is impossible. Suppose by some event culture A is impossed on culture B. If culture B is more efficient than culture A in the time and place the event occurs, culture A will not be able to "stick." Culture A would quickly die out there and culture B would resume. If culture A is in fact able to "stick", it is because it is more efficient than culture B in that time and place. If culture B cannot survive on its own home turf, it has no business existing. There are a few more possibilities. Culture B could be infact weaker than culture A, but instead modifies itself into B', and Culture B' expells A. Also, there is the possibilty that Culture be takes elements of A, forming culture Ba. Either way though, people decide which culture they want to follow. Whether it is A, B, B', or Ba, it is the natives themselves. An occupying force can place a facade up to cover a native culture, but that facade will never be real without native approval. All these are natural processes, though not all view them as natural processes. Al Queda does not view it as a natural process, because to do so would be to admit their own culture's weakness. The US counterattack on the Middle East is a clear attept to set up a B' or Ba. We want a group of Muslim Democracies.

What I don't get is the logic then that we need illegal immigrants to do the jobs "no American wants to do." Look, send the immigrants back to whereever they came from until the come in by LEGAL means, and give whatever job they were doing to those who are on welfare.

It was a joke, Vile. I don't really hold Gallup polls in such high regards either. But seriously, is this the man you want as you president. We all know that presidents age faster than normal while in office. That means Kerry's shrinking would accelerate if he was elected. If by some miracle he was elected for eight terms, he would probably be around 3 inches tall by the end of it. That leads to risk of him accidentally being stepped on, and than Edwards would be running the country.

Hey truthout.org was made for a purpose. The purpose was to get Kerry to outcry against it, so Bush can slam back about moveon.org. Seriously, a third of Kerry's funding comes from moveon.org. If Kerry were to try to take organizations like truthout.org out of the election, he would absolutely screw his chances for the election. So, expect to see a lot more truthout.orgs. Simply put Kerry does not support WORKING class Americans, he supports welfare class Americans.

I wouldn't be willing to call the Sadui government stable. They require so many other groups to prop themselves up. If the Saudi government was standing by itself it would rapidly collapse.

Middle Eastern culture has not been stagnant for thousands of years, merely hundreds of years. Regardless, it was that time long ago before that stagnation that I was referring to. Both of us need to sort out our arguements. I think both of us have argued for the other person's side atleast one point in our last two posts. But, that settles it. Al Queda hates the west in general. Most likely they target western nations based on pure strength. This is mostly because of cultural compe!@#$%^&*ion. Their culture cannot compete with our culture. This is not our fault nor can it be helped. Cultures are man-made apparatuses that are built to serve us, just like any tool you can name. Just like all tools, they sometimes become out of date. This is not the fault of the inventor or the implimentor of new technology, but rather is a fact of life that one must get over. The Warlord system is a clearly outdated culture. At one time, it had its purpose, but is now giving way to the stronger and more efficient democratic system. This is not the west's fault - it is a fact of life that would happen no matter what we do. Staying out of the cultural revolution was the best option, until fundimentalists started blaming us for the cultural revolution and acting on those emotions. They dragged us into this fight, and we have two options: drag ourselves out of it or finish it. Since Islamic Fundimentalism's fall is inevitable, inducing its fall is the easier and better option. This doesn't explain Iraq. I never considered Iraq to be a true part of the War on Terror. Still, there are two important things going into Iraq did. The first was to eliminate the notion that switching to a democracy was to become Iraq like. Hussein regime was technically a democracy, and fundimentalists could point to Iraq and say "this is what a democracy looks like." The second is to provide a base of political support in the region. The key here is to think over the long term. In time, Iraq will become a Muslim oriented democracy. Then, they can impliment democracy in the Middle East for us, because they will have the cultural background to know what works there.

I don't go to Extreme Games, but today I felt like checking up to see what it was all about. In there, I found something that they set up quite recently. One of there pub arenas is devoted strictly to non-laggy players. That is one of the best ideas I've seen a zone staff establish. Cudos to whoever's idea it was. I think that you guys should go one step farther. Your packetloss requirements were low, and your zone is on that despicable piece of hardware known as the SSCX server. I found that my ploss was too high to play in EG. You should have another arena devoted to players that lag too much to meet your regular requirements. Instead the arena would have less restricive requirements, or maybe no requirements at all. Maybe, the situation calls for even a MINIMUM lag requirement. That way players who would normally be specced and would eventually leave could play atleast somewhere in your zone. I for one have left a couple of zones for lag-related reasons (back when lag was a real problem and 250 ms ping was considered low.). This message has secondary message to all the staff of other large zones. Any zone that can support multiple pubs should have a broadband and definitetly a crap modem pub arena.

Two weeks ago Kerry held a lead in the Gallup Polls Last week, Bush had a narrow 2% lead. This week, Bush's lead grew to 7%. Not only that, but I swear Kerry is now 3 inches shorter than he was last month, and he is WAY shorter than when he was starring on the Munsters.