LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteThat's a signature of the "intellectual" left.Originally Posted by Stan187
i dont think BSG is turning into X-files quite yet
If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery of gunpowder with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science, and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind. - Edward Gibbon
That's a signature of the "intellectual" left.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Vala is getting a bit long in the tooth though.Vala (Claudia Black) is hot in any suit they put her in
Those Kull warriors are nasty, good thing they have short lifespans!
I recognized your avatar the minute I saw it. I just didn't know those things were called Kulls. I thought Kull is the name of the barbarian played by Kevin Sorbo in that really horrible movie called "Kull The Conquerer."
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Hey you leave X-files out of this.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
I will agree that the charactors are getting too gritty, I think the problem is there are not enough of them, they killed quite a few of them off at the end of season2/begining of season 3!
Wow, I think we are onto a new thread title, "greatest Sci-Fi Hotties".Vala is getting a bit long in the tooth though.
I recognized your avatar the minute I saw it. I just didn't know those things were called Kulls. I thought Kull is the name of the barbarian played by Kevin Sorbo in that really horrible movie called "Kull The Conquerer."
Xerxes, Gunnut, Stan187 for your amusement, a site you might like
Wolf's Shipyard
For the longest time the just called them Anubis's drones. Either way, those suits need to come in MARPAT colors or somethingVala is getting a bit long in the tooth though.
I recognized your avatar the minute I saw it. I just didn't know those things were called Kulls. I thought Kull is the name of the barbarian played by Kevin Sorbo in that really horrible movie called "Kull The Conquerer."
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
They can also be mistaken for Ashrak assassins which use some of the technology used to make up the Kull warrior, the Armor and mini-staff weapons. Ashrak assassins also had a personal cloaking device which thankfully the Kull warriors didn't have.For the longest time the just called them Anubis's drones. Either way, those suits need to come in MARPAT colors or something
How exactly was Iraq threatening us?
Were they threatening us with their decrepit force of rusting T-72 tanks?
Were they threatening us with their 1500 mile range SCUDS?
Were they threatening us with donkey bombs?
Were they threatening us with their ill-equipped and ill-trained Republican Guard? Was an Iraqi division going to somehow pop up in central Missouri and besiege St. Louis?
Was the Iraqi pt-boat navy going to blockade the East coast?
What, specifically, was the threat?
Your analogy is completely incorrect. Sure, if a someone shows up in front of your house with a knife and threatens your kids, by all means, blow him away.
A more accurate analogy, however, would be if someone was six miles away and was waving a nerf bat and saying they were going to beat your kids with said nerf bat, would you be justified in blowing that person away?
Look at the Iraq war for what it is. Bush had made plans for having a war with Iraq before he ever became president; before 9-11 even happened. The war is not about providing security for Americans. The war is not about stabilizing the Middle East. The war is about money, plain and simple. The war is making money for many, many people. This war is making money for military contractors like Halliburton (Cheney) and the oil companies (Bush). It's all about the Benjamins. When all is said and done in 2008, this administration will be laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of the American people.
I am not a pacifist, by the way. I just have to say that I would have handled the War on Terror much differently than Bush. I wouldn't have bothered with Iraq. In fact, I probably would have brought Saddam back into the fold (Saddam wasn't exactly a friend of Al Qaeda).
There's two possible paths that I would have taken. One possible path would have been to begin a total war against the homelands of the terrorists. This would have been the most drastic measure. The goal would have been to utterly devastate the countries from which Al Qaeda members are from (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Afghanistan).
The path I would have tried first, however, would have been to go into Afghanistan the way that Bush did originally. Once Bin Ladin fled into Pakistan, however, I would not have stopped chasing him. Afghanistan would have been the base from which an invasion of northern and western Pakistan would have been launched. I would warned Mush that he needs to get his forces out of the way or he might as well consider himself at war with the USA. I would have ordered American forces to keep taking ground until Bin Ladin was caught, even if meant turning all of Pakistan into a war zone. There would have been no nation building, no special rules of engagement to protect civilians, or no hesitation to destroy. At the slightest hint that a city is resisting, I would deploy a squadron of B-52's with a full load of conventional gravity bombs to end any resistance. If it takes demolishing 600 city blocks to get one terrorist, then so be it. The sight of such utter devastation would have been enough to cause the Pakistani's to seriously question whether or not it is worth it to harbor someone like Bin Ladin. In all likelihood, the Pakistanis would probably have found a way to catch Bin Ladin and turn him over to the USA. They would turn Bin Ladin over to prevent the eventuality of their entire country being turned into a war-zone.
My guess is two years, tops. Two years of war in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan before the Pakistani Intelligence service would have decided that protecting Bin Ladin is not worth wrecking their entire country. American forces would never get to Islamabad, because before they could reach the city Mush would deliver Bin Ladin to the US with a decorative bow attached. Once Bin Ladin was in US custody, the American forces would have been ordered to cease their advance and prepare for evacuation back to the states.
The wreckage left behind would have served as a warning to anyone else that would contemplate attacking the US. Attack the US and THIS will happen to the lands that harbor you.
Last edited by durtyburd; 04 Feb 07, at 05:19.
I'm not gonna repeat the stuff I have repeated 17 times already in various threads.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Thwarted assassination attempt on a sitting president from YOUR country.
Fired on co-allition planes patroling UN recognised no-fly zones, itself a justification for renewed hostility's via ceace fire agreement.
Reasonable beleive that they were setting up an infrastructure to manufacture WMD's. Saddam also used this bluff in an attempt to stall the American advance into Baghdad. Many WMD's still unaccounted for.
Harboring terrorists through inaction, secret meetings with Al-Q operatives, and the threat that some WMDs would "disappear" and turn up in terrorist hands. I've heard the Anthrax strain used after 9/11 was strikingly similar to strains developed by Iraq, though I've never seen difinatibe evidence to support this.
Take your pick...
“If you present yourself in arrogant manner, people are likely to overlook your arguments, be they smart or otherwise.”
I will acknowledge the truth in this last statement, and will accept that I have come across as arrogant. Not pretty I admit, and I apologize to anyone and everyone who might have been offended. I do believe that my point has been missed. However, I am responsible for not making myself more clear and for coming across in such a – as you say – pompous manner. I am going to take responsibility for that and make a commitment to do my best not to repeat such behavior.
My point has always and simply been that conclusions based on premises that contain thinking errors (eg. generalization, black and white thinking, assumptions, etc.) are not well founded. By philosophical standards of logical argument this is considered flawed reasoning.
We all use thinking errors every day. The mind naturally looks for “short-cuts” in thinking (more efficient) and the use of generalization and assumption serves this purpose. We all arrive at decisions based on so-called flawed reasoning every day, however, in simple day to day life the use of assumption and generalization does not create any problem.
It is my opinion that the use of generalization to draw a conclusion on an entire group of people based what is known about some of them can create problems. I have suggested that doing this could, and even likely will just lead to more anger, resentment and hate and has the very real potential of creating more enemies. I believe more could be accomplished in opening dialogue with these groups, and that doing this will require some effort at mutual understanding (beyond assumption and generalization). This is just my opinion, but one I would hope is shared by others.
I can appreciate that identifying someone’s line of reasoning as “flawed” would be considered offensive, and I recognize the manner in which I did so only made that more likely. I am going to be much more careful of what I say and how I say it from now on. I really don’t want to offend anyone, and I don’t want to come across as arrogant – although I know I’m still going to from time to time. I’m going to really do my best though.
Make that an ex-President- that happened during Clinton's tenure (the attempt on Bush Sr.).
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
What's so is extraordinary?
Castro is on the US hit list for ages!
Why blame the Clinton Admin?
Does anyone blame Bush for the Iran Ballsup and the Iraq Cluster****?
Let's debate and not bring in weak arguments.
I would go even to state as a third world person that the US does not hold the awe and fear that it had before the Iraq War.
Cut out all the Republican versus Democrat nonsense and get the act together before it is too late!
A very sad and unfortunate commentary.
Last edited by Ray; 04 Feb 07, at 18:18.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: