Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
--Preferably a shrink. Shrinks before guns. That´s my motto.John Burns wrote:
Saddam has been concentrating mostly, but not entirely on domestic
terrorism the past several years. However let me ask you a
question. Lets say I were to get so outraged by your posts that I
let it be known I would pay $25,000 to anyone who would kill you.
If they died in the attempt I would pay the money to their family.
Would you want someone to stop me?
But sure, I admit that´s a good example of Saddam funding terrorists.
But are you gonna solve the middle east problems by removing
Saddam? And are you saying Israels state terrorism is less
dangerous? And who funds Israel?
Sorry, you got me on a tangent there..
Mathias
--You are paranoid, John, along with a large part of the US
population. How many times has Saddam commited international terror
acts? Ehm..
John
I am happy that I now live in a free country. There are certain differences when comparing Hitler Germany with Iraq though.Hey Heavyweather,
I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to some of these issues. I
tend to visit this site for the photography news, etc. (Though I
have allowed myself to interject here occassionally.) But which
leader were you speaking of in your comments below: "I am Austrian.
So now tell me again it is ok to fight when your leader tells you
to do so?"
What would have happened if that leader had remained in power? He
wasn't a direct threat to me in the US, nor to my father and four
of my uncles who risked their lives to help save lives and the
future in a country where they had never been before. What if the
US had not decided to enter? Why didn't we say: "his rockets won't
be a threat to us, so why should we get involved?" How are things
in Austria since that leader has left? Should we be concerned
because, as you said, "history repeats itself"?
I tried to think like Kim Jong Ill. If the US attacks Iraq that is on the same list as N-Korea. Iraq has done far less than N-Korea which doesn't even bother to continue building nuclear weapons. Do you really think N-Korea will negotiate much more than Iraq?One last comment here, and I promise to try and stay out of this.
You mentioned that you would not "go fight for any country...", but
then you said: "If I was Kim Jong Ill, I wouldn't want to wait
until it is my turn." I guess that you meant that you wouldn't
want to wait until it is your turn to negotiate a peaceful
agreement and abide by your promises?
Oooooookeeeedooookeeee.
--Preferably a shrink. Shrinks before guns. That´s my motto.John Burns wrote:
Saddam has been concentrating mostly, but not entirely on domestic
terrorism the past several years. However let me ask you a
question. Lets say I were to get so outraged by your posts that I
let it be known I would pay $25,000 to anyone who would kill you.
If they died in the attempt I would pay the money to their family.
Would you want someone to stop me?
But sure, I admit that´s a good example of Saddam funding terrorists.
But are you gonna solve the middle east problems by removing
Saddam? And are you saying Israels state terrorism is less
dangerous? And who funds Israel?
Sorry, you got me on a tangent there..
Mathias
--You are paranoid, John, along with a large part of the US
population. How many times has Saddam commited international terror
acts? Ehm..
John
John
[snip}Back then Germany WAS a threat and nobody did anything until Hitler
invaded other countries.
Why not wait until Saddam does move, then nobody would oppose a war
against Iraq.
Because no one acted sooner against Hitler, MILLIONS of people lost their life. Had we / they acted sooner, it would have saved MILLIONS of civilian lives that Hitler snuffed out and it would have saved MANY thousands of soldiers. You really think that if we would have stopped Hitler BEFORE he got to France that it would still have cost all those lives on D-day? If you really are a lover of life, you would understand that you need to stop someone BEFORE they take millions of lives. Wait until he invades and destroys another country and their people and the environment (remeber Kuwait) this time with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons?Wait till he moves is my suggestion, until then keep up controling
and talking.
Yes, N. Korea will. In this case history will repeat itself. They do this everytime they want more charity. Last time they did this they got a few low level Nuclear Reactors out of it. That's their game.I tried to think like Kim Jong Ill. If the US attacks Iraq that is
on the same list as N-Korea. Iraq has done far less than N-Korea
which doesn't even bother to continue building nuclear weapons. Do
you really think N-Korea will negotiate much more than Iraq?
.... 30,000 people that watched and sympathized with the ****'s
while they overran Europe.
John
--Of course the US is not the problem and I agree that Saddam is evil
but I think the price of a war is much higher than any alternatives.
But please don't make the first move.
Ps: This is plain stupid anyway since I could never be Kim Jong Ill
or Saddam Husain.
I don't know who Dr. Laura is.Yes, Heavyweather, both of these guys are sick, egomaniacs, who
have proven to be highly unpredictable. In fact, Saddam has
already shown that he is prepared to invade when he has the
resources.
Tough situation the world is in. If it comes right down to it, who
are you going to trust?
When the WTC was attacked, (and I believe that even in Saddam's
propagada last night, you could see where his heart was in that
situation) I was in meetings in Northern New Jersey. Fortunately I
had a vehicle to drive home. The whole time I was thinking about
my 18 month old (at that time) little girl who saw the F-16s flying
over our house outside Washington DC, and I felt that if someone
had harmed her, even at my "advanced" age, I would want to go after
that person by myself and would not give up until I was either dead
or that person was.
Then I remember hearing a terrorist say: "We will come after your
kindergartens." Yes, anyone who harbors or supports that kind of
thought process or behavior is sick and unpredictable and of no
value to anyone on this planet. But sitting back and thinking that
we can change them through negotiation or sanctions, I just don't
believe will work! At least it hasn't worked up until now with
Saddam. Afterall, if he really wants to settle he could have long
ago. And a guy who will allow children to serve as his "shields"
will do anything to protect his own ass. Not even Dr. Laura could
help this guy.
--Tom
--Of course the US is not the problem and I agree that Saddam is evil
but I think the price of a war is much higher than any alternatives.
But please don't make the first move.
Ps: This is plain stupid anyway since I could never be Kim Jong Ill
or Saddam Husain.
D1X; Coolpix 5700; Sony 707
--I don't know who Dr. Laura is.Yes, Heavyweather, both of these guys are sick, egomaniacs, who
have proven to be highly unpredictable. In fact, Saddam has
already shown that he is prepared to invade when he has the
resources.
Tough situation the world is in. If it comes right down to it, who
are you going to trust?
When the WTC was attacked, (and I believe that even in Saddam's
propagada last night, you could see where his heart was in that
situation) I was in meetings in Northern New Jersey. Fortunately I
had a vehicle to drive home. The whole time I was thinking about
my 18 month old (at that time) little girl who saw the F-16s flying
over our house outside Washington DC, and I felt that if someone
had harmed her, even at my "advanced" age, I would want to go after
that person by myself and would not give up until I was either dead
or that person was.
Then I remember hearing a terrorist say: "We will come after your
kindergartens." Yes, anyone who harbors or supports that kind of
thought process or behavior is sick and unpredictable and of no
value to anyone on this planet. But sitting back and thinking that
we can change them through negotiation or sanctions, I just don't
believe will work! At least it hasn't worked up until now with
Saddam. Afterall, if he really wants to settle he could have long
ago. And a guy who will allow children to serve as his "shields"
will do anything to protect his own ass. Not even Dr. Laura could
help this guy.
Do you really think a war will make the situation better for
anybody? It will stir up terrorism and it will destabilize the
region. It won't help the situation of Israel either.
Bush is offering now to the paletinians a state. do you think this
is not connected to the upcomming war on Iraq.
I don't believe that anybody can stop what is going to happen, I
can only say that it won't do any good.
Besides do you believe that anything than economical concern does
control/influence any government or leadership?
Moneay rules the world.
--Tom
--Of course the US is not the problem and I agree that Saddam is evil
but I think the price of a war is much higher than any alternatives.
But please don't make the first move.
Ps: This is plain stupid anyway since I could never be Kim Jong Ill
or Saddam Husain.
D1X; Coolpix 5700; Sony 707
I am not willed to buy a DSLR for the current price!!
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=530177
There is not much to choose from. Europe has economical and political interests too.You know heavyweather, I believe you are correct to a point. Most
people are doing what they are doing for their own selfish reasons.
That is true in much of life. So who do you want to side with in
the current situation? If asked to make a decision on whom you
believe to be the most honest and truthful. If asked whose values
you feel are probably most aligned with yours. Who would you pick?
Saddam or George W?
I tend to go with the side that has the values that I support. But
the problem we have as Americans is that there are some people who
will take shots at us no matter what we do. We are either doing too
much or being to isolationist. It is pretty much a no win
situation here, so I'm going to put my trust in prayer and in my
country and its leaders. I don't put too much trust in uninformed
people and those who have a track record of terrorism.
Now I must say "good night." And let's all pray for peace.
Tom
--There is not much to choose from. Europe has economical andYou know heavyweather, I believe you are correct to a point. Most
people are doing what they are doing for their own selfish reasons.
That is true in much of life. So who do you want to side with in
the current situation? If asked to make a decision on whom you
believe to be the most honest and truthful. If asked whose values
you feel are probably most aligned with yours. Who would you pick?
Saddam or George W?
I tend to go with the side that has the values that I support. But
the problem we have as Americans is that there are some people who
will take shots at us no matter what we do. We are either doing too
much or being to isolationist. It is pretty much a no win
situation here, so I'm going to put my trust in prayer and in my
country and its leaders. I don't put too much trust in uninformed
people and those who have a track record of terrorism.
Now I must say "good night." And let's all pray for peace.
Tom
political interests too.
I don't believe that I share much values with both of them.
The only one nobody criticices for beeing plain parcifistic ins the
pope as far as I can see.
He too argues against a war and does have no solution other than
telling Saddam to stop beeing evil and telling everybody else to
don't start a war.
I am not much of a catholic but maybe this time I do choose the
popes side. He doesn't seem to have much other interests in this
region than peace.
This is a bad situation and I keep thinking of it a lot.
Ps: Please tell me who the heck Dr. Laura is?
