The Effect of War on Telecom

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 44 / 148 > >>

CogswellCogs 12/5/2012 | 12:26:40 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom On behalf of the US, I apologize. We should have allowed thousands and thousands more of our soldiers to die, and then meekly surrendered to the Japanese, hoping they would forgive us for destroying their bombs with our ships in Pearl Harbor.

Also, we should turn over our tanks, planes and missiles to the Hon. S. Hussein and admit defeat before he completes the re-arming of Iraq. Imagine the time and money we could save him - he could save his poison gas for use on his own people! Iraq Uber Alles!

Humbly yours,

Cogs

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

vwhitta205 12/5/2012 | 12:26:40 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom I'm looking for facts here not double talk.

Also, do you know any " conservatives" at the peace marches? Really, I don't know ANY who have gone and I live in the bastion of liberalism the Bay Area.

So you say I'm unreasonable, give me an alternative to invading Iraq? Do you really believe inspections work?
This is not government propoganda, facts are facts so try sticking to them.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Garam Masala 12/5/2012 | 12:26:39 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom whitta205,
Does dropping MOABs on all of Saddam's palaces count as invading?
Garam

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

crapshooter 12/5/2012 | 12:26:38 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom What could be more hypocritical than for the only country in the world irresponsible and brutal enough to have used nuclear weapons on another country, to attack another country without provocation, sighting that country's as yet unproved nuclear weapons capability as the reason to attack it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think there's a slight difference between the U.S. and Iraq having nuclear weapons capabilities. You can say what you want about the U.S., its policies, its government and its current and past presidents, but they are all infinitely more responsible than Saddam. Does the U.S. go around and massacre its own people, or use chemical weapons on them?

The U.S. has used nuclear weapons in aggression exactly twice and that was nearly 60 years ago. Can anyone honestly say that the U.S. is more likely than Saddam to use WMDs?

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Garam Masala 12/5/2012 | 12:26:38 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom echo2,

The 2 devices made it unnecessary to invade Japan. One can argue that the resulting deaths prevented many more. Again, I am not trying to make a value judgement.

Garam

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

echo2 12/5/2012 | 12:26:38 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom Didn't peace result from the use of that nuclear weapon?

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Garam Masala 12/5/2012 | 12:26:37 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom crapshooter,
Actually the U.S. has used nuclear weapons against its own people on numerous occassions.
Accidentally and otherwise. Lot's of people died horrible deaths but we did get some useful data.
Garam

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

skeptic 12/5/2012 | 12:26:37 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom Also, do you know any " conservatives" at the peace marches? Really, I don't know ANY who have gone and I live in the bastion of liberalism the Bay Area.
--------------
Conservatives don't necessarly go to
demonstrations, but if you think they universally
support the war, you are mistaken. I've heard
more hostile words from traditional republican
voters about Iraq and Bush's actions than I can
remember about anything in a long time.

One of the things I've heard multiple times is
the justification for war isn't made in a way
they can accept. These people get turned off
when Bush tries to tie this to the war on
terrorism. They think they are being treated
like idiots and saying things like that is
just dishonest.

There were other people who took a step back
after the confrontation with north korea started.
There was a difference between fighting a war
on terrorism (which they all support) and fighting
a war with every country we don't like.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

terjeber 12/5/2012 | 12:26:36 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom "I'm looking for facts here not double talk."

Good, facts are always good. In addition questions, if they are the right questions, are also good.

"So you say I'm unreasonable, give me an alternative to invading Iraq?"

I wouldn't say it is unreasonable to hold any opinion, but it is reasonable to ask the correct questions. The question above is not the correct question. You should replace "alternative" with "reason".

Saddam Hussein is a dictator. He is a bad dictator, because he kills people. Most dictators do. Saddam Hussein hasn't killed much more people than your typical dictator.

Most dictators we (that is the US) consider friends. We deal with them, we protect them, we supply them with the weaponry they need to kill the people they kill. We did that for Hussein for a number of years, including the gas he used to kill his people. We did it to a number of countries in Asia and South America. We did it, and do it, because we like dictators that kill people we do not like (such as people asking for implementation of human rights in their country).

The fact that Hussein is a dictator is not a reason to go to war against Irak.

To go to war against Irak (and this was true in 1990/91 as well), Irak would have to be a threat to the US. In 1991 Irak had never shown any hostility towards the US, and there was no threat to the US. The war in 1991 was consequently wrong. A stupid idea. Irak invaded Kuwait, fine, but who cares? Kuwait is not a nice country, it is a fundamentalist muslim country where a small minority of the inhabitants keep the majority as well paid slaves with no rights whatsoever. The stories we heard (remember the babies) were well constructed lies and have been exposed as such since.

So, what about today. Is Irak a thread to the US, probably to a small degree. They are pissed that we bombed them and have enforced a stupid UN blockade for 10 years. Are they a serious threat? compared to other threats in the world today, no they are not. There are no documented, and logic will actually support this as well, ties between Irak and al Quaeda. Irak does support families of terror bombers in Israel, but that is Israels problem. There is no indication that Irak has weapons of any kind they intend to use against the US. There is no indication that they have assisted groups who have attacked the us.

There is no reason to attack Irak.

There are lots of reasons to clean up Pakistan once and for all. Saudi Arabia is the center for funding of all terror activities that has targetted the US, we need to clean that up. North-Korea is a significant aggressor these days. And so on, and so on.

Religious fundamentalists are the main problem right now outside of N-Korea. Fundamentalists like these are also the most dangerous of all enimies, since you can neither reason with them nor threaten them. Killing a fundamentalist will make him happy, since he believes he will go to heaven.

Hussein is a non-religious self-centered dictator. He will do anything to stay in power and avoid being killed. That means we can actually manage him. That makes him "reasonable" and predictable. That is good. Better that then another Taliban.

And why should we sink $100B into this with the economy already in so much trouble?

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Garam Masala 12/5/2012 | 12:26:35 AM

re: The Effect of War on Telecom terjeber,
The U.S. is using the Industrial-Military complex to stimulate ecconomic growth. Have you noticed how many ex-telecom employees are returning to jobs in the military sector?
Garam

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 44 / 148 > >>