What I find funny is that it appears most of the folks here think gaming and inveigling in diplomacy and war started when bush took office. News flash: this stuff's been going on for a few years (try millennia). I recommend a good game of Civ. It'll whet the appetite.
What amazes me most isn't that the U.S. is playing ball, hard ball, with the world, it's that all you folks think it started with Bush, that Clinton didn't do it or that the next one won't either -- be it either party.
You have your way with a country that you can. You make peace with the stronger and devour the weaker. You train for war during peace and you ally with strong allies during conflict. We don't invade N.Korea for one reason and one reason only: China. We did that. Bad mojo. China is too much. Even Nixon knew this. He made it pax cuz he knew they were the big time coming up.
These are rules boys. They're just rules. It's just the rules of love. Oh, sure, you can go against the rules of love and you'll pay for it. Get mushy with her. When she says she needs a break, call her more often. When she goes out with another guy, go and cry to her. Yea, they dig that.
Didn't you guys have dad's with backbones? Suck it up. Look at it for what it is. The big dog can't avoid fights cuz they come at him. The biggest nation on earth can't avoid conflicts and will always have them (all other empires always have -- it's what they do).
I read an article that testosterone levels are 20% lower now than they were 40 or 50 years ago. I believe it.
I wish we would just keep our noses in our own business
Now you're back to pre-ww2/post-ww1 isolationism. The isolationists before ww2 had very good points that were tough to argue with. Still, we had to get involved. WW2 isn't a good comparison though because germany made for a really clear-cut bad guy. Things have been fuzzy ever since.
I went to lunch with a fella not from this country a bit back (yes, I'm an American too). He was taking the line of how rotten we were for being over there, always over somewhere, always sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. I explained we're darned if we do and darned if we don't. We keep getting drug all over. When we do nothing we're hated for doing nothing. When we do something we're hated for doing something. We can't win.
He wanted to know if I agreed with the Iraq war and I was like, "that's what empires do. They always are at war. That's what the Romans did and the French and the Russians and name it. Why is it just now wrong?" And he was like, "how can you justify current policy based on ancient barbarism" and I was like, "I'm not justifying anything. Empires are always at war because they are always being attacked or feeling attacked or needing to bolster an ally or whatever. It's what they do. That's like asking me why I'm ok with that bee stinging you. It's what it does." We went back and forth and he was amazed at my attitude. But my attitude is just that. I'm neither for nor against. I just accept it, but I realize that the U.S. is still the best meat eater amongst all the meat eaters in history and that my fate is tied to it.
I think bush, clinton, gore and donal trump all deserve badmouthing, but of them all, saddam deserves the most. Again, Jimmy the bull and John Goddi. Look it up....
The specific charge Bush used to get our panties in a wad was nuclear weapons.
Sorry to do this, but you're wrong. I distinctly remember Powell holding a vial of something when speaking to the UN, and I don't think it was radioactive....
You know, it just really cracks me up. I mean, you have a guy who went as far as tricking this scientist into building his reeeeeally big gun (The Babylon Gun) in Iraq on the pretense that he would finally get to try and launch satellites into space using artillery, and Saddam was like, "would you mind pointing it a bit more east of here [to hit Israel]." Just think about that, he was using anything... ANYTHING, he could -- even a huge useless gun that would have been destroyed in the first air assault -- anything he could get his hands on, and then all you bozos sit back and talk about what a decent fella he was just so Bush can look bad. Lol!
Good points on "sovereign" and I will relinquish the argument. I'll admit, it was the weakest of everything I originally said.
I was very impressed with your response until the final part. The U.S. is indeed an empire, a global bully, but as far as empires go, it's the best one so far. It has this bad knack for conquering aggressive nations, rebuilding them, turning them back over to the population, and then allowing it to compete, even dominate, in the world economy. That's hardly a comparison to what the likes of Saddam tried to do. Does anyone doubt that he conquered Iran (10 year war) or been left alone with Kuwait that he would have done nothing less than raped, pillaged and devoured?
As of yet, I don't think the U.S. is claiming to have historical plots in the parts of the world wherein it has troops, nor has it long left them there without good reason (Korea).
Or, as my philosophy professor used to always ask, have you ever considered that you could be wrong?
Am I the only one who sees the stupidity of these politics? Saddam is propped up like Bernie from weekend at Bernie's, a rotten corpse, to show how bad a guy bush is.... I honestly, and really, believe that clinton or gore or mccain or whoever would have made the same decisions. I really don't see any of these guys being better than anyone else, and that's what gets me. They are all equivalent to godfathers -- men with power deciding life and death on a whim as it suits them. A tyrant is bad no matter what, and although all of these guys could be described as much, saddam was a real case. It's like describing that really hairy man with the really big beard among the troops of a civil war army (psst, they all had beards). Saddam was heads and shoulders above the rest. Using his corpse to bash bush is stupid. No matter what, if were still here, left alone and in power, the dude WOULD have kept building and WOULD have used whatever he got his hands on -- he always did....
But, folks -- especially here -- really seem to get off on the bush bashing, so, have at it. Just remember, the next dude -- no matter what party he's from (or dudette) will be the same thing man. It's the same thing all over again.
I guess you have to 40 before you stop believing in politicians....
Lol! Of course it was. Saddam did nothing BUT provoke everyone else. Dunno what to tell you. Ask the Iranians. He locked them into 10 years of bloodshed for what? My gosh, what people won't do to for politics. It reminds me of that Churchill quote, "if germany invaded hell in the morning I'd have something good to say about the devil by lunch." Or something to that effect....
Good points, and I was waiting for a reply like yours. I could very well be wrong, but the key word is sovereign, meaning permanent. Civil war negates that, and in each example -- especially Israel -- sovereignty wasn't that long-lasted at all. In most cases, governments were changing hands regularly. I will admit, I just don't know enough about Tibet. Also, in about each case there was some claim or stake to be made by the aggressor -- land lost in history or some other thing -- especially Israel.
Kuwait, I think we all can say, was hardly in question as a sovereign, long-lasting and stable government. It seems I remember some farce of a claim Saddam made about some claim, but still. It is, at least, a stark example of invasion above most, if not all, others....
Good one. Didn't see that coming, but you list "countries" and I said "country." I should have added "unprovoked." History links events of ww2 going back to 1932 in SE Asia with Japanese activities. Some even link WW1 and 2 as one. History will undoubtedly link the Gulf and 2003 wars in Iraq accordingly. The politics of the day (Bush bashing) will most likely be a footnote, just as it is with all other wars....
From a strict military pov, Saddam will go down in history as one of the worst warmongerers. He was extremely active militarily, worked hard to attain any type of munition possible to wage war and, on top of that, used 'em. He never had a weapon he didn't use. He even hired a Canadian scientist who specialized in super guns to build one when all other countries, including the U.S., had turned him away. He had convinced the scientist that it would be used to attain orbit and launch satellites (the dream of Professor Bull). Some call it, "The Babylon Gun." When Bull discovered Saddam instead wanted to lob rounds at Israel with it, he became disenfranchised and told the Israelies. Evidence shows Saddam then had him killed. Like I said, trying to get, and use, every type of weapon available.
Saddam will also go down as the only modern-military and sovereign state to invade another -- barring civil war -- since WW2.
The dude was just bad and was nothing but a throw back to a 1000 years ago where despots did nothing but seek global domination via constant militarism.
Using Saddam to hurt Bush is like using Sammy the Bull to bring down John Goddi, and you only need to know a little about Sammy the Bull to see the meaning of that.
Iraq did 9/11? Who cares. Saddam gone is good for the world dudes. Just ask the Saudis how they feel about it....
A deal was made with Sammy the Bull to bring down John Goddi. That didn't make Sammy the Bull a saint. And you only need learn a little about Sammy the Bull to really get that analogy....
I beg to differ. I have one on my desk right now. It makes a great addition to my stack of stuff that keeps people from seeing what I'm really doing....
Ok, I only read this far (I will read the rest and respond, but wanted to address this right now):
I own and have watched the DVDs. The main mythology writers, Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz, never said anything like what you're claiming.
I honestly do not know what else to say at this point, and so probably will not re-address the subject of what I know I saw the writer/director say on the extra dvd footage. I know it was the same dude that directed the barroom scene in the movie cuz I watched all the extra dvd stuff on the movie too. He kinda has long, brown hair -- half-long that is.
Anyhow, it's sorta like this, I saw George Bush Sr. say, on tv, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And, now, you're telling I didn't see that. Ok, I really do not know what to do now. I have said it, and you deny it. We now have an impasse. It appears we must go our separate ways on this one....
In any event, to repeat, I saw that same dude who directed the barroom scene say that they killed off the syndicate because it had gotten too bloated and complex for even them to keep up with. I think he mentioned how the Internet crowd had been picking it apart and they couldn't keep up. He was referring directly to the scene where the aliens with no eyes carried those mean sticks and when the syndicate was in the hanger waiting to "go home" or whatever, and then they were all torched by those eyeless aliens.
You indeed have much xfiles knowledge. This I admit.
I never said the makers said they were not using the mythos because it was confusing. I only indicated that it was confusing, confusing to me that is....
As far as the black oil, you left out the fact that it could radiate and kill everyone in the room.
The Founding Fathers thought those rights were vital for a functioning democracy... and they had been through an actual war on U.S. soil. I'm inclined to trust their judgement on what we can 'afford'.
Yea, but they were old guys, and lived way back, so what they say doesn't really matter. Plus they never saw star wars or used the internet. You can't really know much without that....
Sorry, but it entirely depends on the party in charge at the time. The decaying of freedoms is always wrong, and it happens without notice it seems. It's been happening for a very long time in this country, and not just with this administration. I distinctly remember justifications over ruby ridge, when that incident was nothing less than the government deciding, without thought for the founding documents, to murder a family -- yes, a bigoted, racist family in the deep wilderness (where bigoted, racist families belong btw) but, still, an injustice none-the-less.
I take some humor from some of the posts I read ranting against the current administration. You could easily take them out of context and apply them to the same ranting that occurred during ruby ridge by the right.
No, I am not a bush supporter. Yes, dying liberty is wrong. No, it didn't just start. Yes, there is such a thing as hypocrisy....
Slashdot Mirror
WoW just follows the rules of mmogs. These rules are:
... no, 3 out of 3 quests will, at some point, make no sense
You always try out-level, and never play with, your friends (no matter what the voiced intentions)
As soon as you finish that quest for that really cool item, a new one comes making it totally worthless
In pvp, if you're in an area where there's a remote possibility you'll get ganked, you will be
In pvp, if you're in an area where there's no way you'll get ganked, you will be
The smallest possible race will always be rolled as a tank, and be better at it than the biggest possible race
1 out of 3, no 2 out of 3
You will always respec wrong
You will hate the game
You will not stop playing the game
You will wonder why you cannot stop playing the game
You will cancel your account
You will re-open your account
You will cancel your account
[ad infinitum]
The maker will always nerf your class
The maker will always buff your friend's class
You will sell your account for $x amount of money and feel you actually are a good business man (when, truth is, you invested 100x that much)
You will create a new account and character
You will tell yourself that it isn't so bad this time because you're so good at it
You will cancel your account
You will play another mmog and tell yourself and your friends how much better/different it is than the last
You will create a character on a role-playing server and never role-play (nor will anyone else; people who do rarely role-play are made fun of)
K, I'm done, someone take over....
That would be with an "e" -- heroine....
FYI
Just admit it. Some people in this world get a hard-on for war
You nailed it.
Go read The Prince and watch 300 then get back to me.
Dude, you so totally admitted to heroin addiction....
Welcome to diplomacy. Watch out for bad guys.
What I find funny is that it appears most of the folks here think gaming and inveigling in diplomacy and war started when bush took office. News flash: this stuff's been going on for a few years (try millennia). I recommend a good game of Civ. It'll whet the appetite.
What amazes me most isn't that the U.S. is playing ball, hard ball, with the world, it's that all you folks think it started with Bush, that Clinton didn't do it or that the next one won't either -- be it either party.
You have your way with a country that you can. You make peace with the stronger and devour the weaker. You train for war during peace and you ally with strong allies during conflict. We don't invade N.Korea for one reason and one reason only: China. We did that. Bad mojo. China is too much. Even Nixon knew this. He made it pax cuz he knew they were the big time coming up.
These are rules boys. They're just rules. It's just the rules of love. Oh, sure, you can go against the rules of love and you'll pay for it. Get mushy with her. When she says she needs a break, call her more often. When she goes out with another guy, go and cry to her. Yea, they dig that.
Didn't you guys have dad's with backbones? Suck it up. Look at it for what it is. The big dog can't avoid fights cuz they come at him. The biggest nation on earth can't avoid conflicts and will always have them (all other empires always have -- it's what they do).
I read an article that testosterone levels are 20% lower now than they were 40 or 50 years ago. I believe it.
I mean sheez. Go watch 300....
"War's hell." -Sherman
I wish we would just keep our noses in our own business
Now you're back to pre-ww2/post-ww1 isolationism. The isolationists before ww2 had very good points that were tough to argue with. Still, we had to get involved. WW2 isn't a good comparison though because germany made for a really clear-cut bad guy. Things have been fuzzy ever since.
I went to lunch with a fella not from this country a bit back (yes, I'm an American too). He was taking the line of how rotten we were for being over there, always over somewhere, always sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. I explained we're darned if we do and darned if we don't. We keep getting drug all over. When we do nothing we're hated for doing nothing. When we do something we're hated for doing something. We can't win.
He wanted to know if I agreed with the Iraq war and I was like, "that's what empires do. They always are at war. That's what the Romans did and the French and the Russians and name it. Why is it just now wrong?" And he was like, "how can you justify current policy based on ancient barbarism" and I was like, "I'm not justifying anything. Empires are always at war because they are always being attacked or feeling attacked or needing to bolster an ally or whatever. It's what they do. That's like asking me why I'm ok with that bee stinging you. It's what it does." We went back and forth and he was amazed at my attitude. But my attitude is just that. I'm neither for nor against. I just accept it, but I realize that the U.S. is still the best meat eater amongst all the meat eaters in history and that my fate is tied to it.
I think bush, clinton, gore and donal trump all deserve badmouthing, but of them all, saddam deserves the most. Again, Jimmy the bull and John Goddi. Look it up....
The specific charge Bush used to get our panties in a wad was nuclear weapons.
Sorry to do this, but you're wrong. I distinctly remember Powell holding a vial of something when speaking to the UN, and I don't think it was radioactive....
You know, it just really cracks me up. I mean, you have a guy who went as far as tricking this scientist into building his reeeeeally big gun (The Babylon Gun) in Iraq on the pretense that he would finally get to try and launch satellites into space using artillery, and Saddam was like, "would you mind pointing it a bit more east of here [to hit Israel]." Just think about that, he was using anything ... ANYTHING, he could -- even a huge useless gun that would have been destroyed in the first air assault -- anything he could get his hands on, and then all you bozos sit back and talk about what a decent fella he was just so Bush can look bad. Lol!
Good points on "sovereign" and I will relinquish the argument. I'll admit, it was the weakest of everything I originally said.
I was very impressed with your response until the final part. The U.S. is indeed an empire, a global bully, but as far as empires go, it's the best one so far. It has this bad knack for conquering aggressive nations, rebuilding them, turning them back over to the population, and then allowing it to compete, even dominate, in the world economy. That's hardly a comparison to what the likes of Saddam tried to do. Does anyone doubt that he conquered Iran (10 year war) or been left alone with Kuwait that he would have done nothing less than raped, pillaged and devoured?
As of yet, I don't think the U.S. is claiming to have historical plots in the parts of the world wherein it has troops, nor has it long left them there without good reason (Korea).
Or, as my philosophy professor used to always ask, have you ever considered that you could be wrong?
Lol. You forgot the Civil and Revolutionary wars. Don't forget how rotten the U.S. was in those!...
Am I the only one who sees the stupidity of these politics? Saddam is propped up like Bernie from weekend at Bernie's, a rotten corpse, to show how bad a guy bush is.... I honestly, and really, believe that clinton or gore or mccain or whoever would have made the same decisions. I really don't see any of these guys being better than anyone else, and that's what gets me. They are all equivalent to godfathers -- men with power deciding life and death on a whim as it suits them. A tyrant is bad no matter what, and although all of these guys could be described as much, saddam was a real case. It's like describing that really hairy man with the really big beard among the troops of a civil war army (psst, they all had beards). Saddam was heads and shoulders above the rest. Using his corpse to bash bush is stupid. No matter what, if were still here, left alone and in power, the dude WOULD have kept building and WOULD have used whatever he got his hands on -- he always did....
But, folks -- especially here -- really seem to get off on the bush bashing, so, have at it. Just remember, the next dude -- no matter what party he's from (or dudette) will be the same thing man. It's the same thing all over again.
I guess you have to 40 before you stop believing in politicians....
Lol! Of course it was. Saddam did nothing BUT provoke everyone else. Dunno what to tell you. Ask the Iranians. He locked them into 10 years of bloodshed for what? My gosh, what people won't do to for politics. It reminds me of that Churchill quote, "if germany invaded hell in the morning I'd have something good to say about the devil by lunch." Or something to that effect....
Good points, and I was waiting for a reply like yours. I could very well be wrong, but the key word is sovereign, meaning permanent. Civil war negates that, and in each example -- especially Israel -- sovereignty wasn't that long-lasted at all. In most cases, governments were changing hands regularly. I will admit, I just don't know enough about Tibet. Also, in about each case there was some claim or stake to be made by the aggressor -- land lost in history or some other thing -- especially Israel.
Kuwait, I think we all can say, was hardly in question as a sovereign, long-lasting and stable government. It seems I remember some farce of a claim Saddam made about some claim, but still. It is, at least, a stark example of invasion above most, if not all, others....
Good one. Didn't see that coming, but you list "countries" and I said "country." I should have added "unprovoked." History links events of ww2 going back to 1932 in SE Asia with Japanese activities. Some even link WW1 and 2 as one. History will undoubtedly link the Gulf and 2003 wars in Iraq accordingly. The politics of the day (Bush bashing) will most likely be a footnote, just as it is with all other wars....
Exactly,
From a strict military pov, Saddam will go down in history as one of the worst warmongerers. He was extremely active militarily, worked hard to attain any type of munition possible to wage war and, on top of that, used 'em. He never had a weapon he didn't use. He even hired a Canadian scientist who specialized in super guns to build one when all other countries, including the U.S., had turned him away. He had convinced the scientist that it would be used to attain orbit and launch satellites (the dream of Professor Bull). Some call it, "The Babylon Gun." When Bull discovered Saddam instead wanted to lob rounds at Israel with it, he became disenfranchised and told the Israelies. Evidence shows Saddam then had him killed. Like I said, trying to get, and use, every type of weapon available.
Saddam will also go down as the only modern-military and sovereign state to invade another -- barring civil war -- since WW2.
The dude was just bad and was nothing but a throw back to a 1000 years ago where despots did nothing but seek global domination via constant militarism.
Using Saddam to hurt Bush is like using Sammy the Bull to bring down John Goddi, and you only need to know a little about Sammy the Bull to see the meaning of that.
Iraq did 9/11? Who cares. Saddam gone is good for the world dudes. Just ask the Saudis how they feel about it....
A deal was made with Sammy the Bull to bring down John Goddi. That didn't make Sammy the Bull a saint. And you only need learn a little about Sammy the Bull to really get that analogy....
Ah ok. Sorry I did not read it all. I was hammered today....
I beg to differ. I have one on my desk right now. It makes a great addition to my stack of stuff that keeps people from seeing what I'm really doing....
I sense a school-girl excitement....
You do realize that you will now, soon, be abducted and horridly probed....
Ok, I only read this far (I will read the rest and respond, but wanted to address this right now):
I own and have watched the DVDs. The main mythology writers, Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz, never said anything like what you're claiming.
I honestly do not know what else to say at this point, and so probably will not re-address the subject of what I know I saw the writer/director say on the extra dvd footage. I know it was the same dude that directed the barroom scene in the movie cuz I watched all the extra dvd stuff on the movie too. He kinda has long, brown hair -- half-long that is.
Anyhow, it's sorta like this, I saw George Bush Sr. say, on tv, "Read my lips, no new taxes." And, now, you're telling I didn't see that. Ok, I really do not know what to do now. I have said it, and you deny it. We now have an impasse. It appears we must go our separate ways on this one....
In any event, to repeat, I saw that same dude who directed the barroom scene say that they killed off the syndicate because it had gotten too bloated and complex for even them to keep up with. I think he mentioned how the Internet crowd had been picking it apart and they couldn't keep up. He was referring directly to the scene where the aliens with no eyes carried those mean sticks and when the syndicate was in the hanger waiting to "go home" or whatever, and then they were all torched by those eyeless aliens.
You indeed have much xfiles knowledge. This I admit.
I never said the makers said they were not using the mythos because it was confusing. I only indicated that it was confusing, confusing to me that is....
As far as the black oil, you left out the fact that it could radiate and kill everyone in the room.
The Founding Fathers thought those rights were vital for a functioning democracy... and they had been through an actual war on U.S. soil. I'm inclined to trust their judgement on what we can 'afford'.
Yea, but they were old guys, and lived way back, so what they say doesn't really matter. Plus they never saw star wars or used the internet. You can't really know much without that....
Sorry, but it entirely depends on the party in charge at the time. The decaying of freedoms is always wrong, and it happens without notice it seems. It's been happening for a very long time in this country, and not just with this administration. I distinctly remember justifications over ruby ridge, when that incident was nothing less than the government deciding, without thought for the founding documents, to murder a family -- yes, a bigoted, racist family in the deep wilderness (where bigoted, racist families belong btw) but, still, an injustice none-the-less.
I take some humor from some of the posts I read ranting against the current administration. You could easily take them out of context and apply them to the same ranting that occurred during ruby ridge by the right.
No, I am not a bush supporter. Yes, dying liberty is wrong. No, it didn't just start. Yes, there is such a thing as hypocrisy....