Alaskan oil drilling interests sink photography exhibit

Thomas Gardner · May 2, 2003

Lisa Horton said:
It's all about WMD. No, wait, they don't have those any more.
Then it's all about terrorists. No, they don't have those either.
It's all about bringing down Saddam. No, wait, we can't find him,
so he's not so important after all. Ah, it's all about freedom,
and a free Iraqi government. No, wait, only an Iraqi government
that meets our approval, not some Shiite government that represents
the majority of Iraqis.

As always, if you want to know what it's REALLY about, just follow
the money. After all, it's not like companies who are or have been
closely tied to the current administration are getting all the
money. No, wait....

No wait, it's all about hating America.

As to WMD, the Iraqi troops had chemical masks because they were going to need them, not because they wanted the practice. It was all about bringing Saddam down and no one has changed that fact. And yes, finding him dead or alive is important and has been represented as such, daily on the news. To the victors go the spoils and so a government of the church isn't going to be installed. You have problems with that, complain to Congress, I'm sure they'll listen to what you have to say.

As to the money, it's not about companies that are connected as Bectel gave monies to Clinton and Bush's campaign. As to who get's the contracts, these companies are qualified to provide these services and are established all around the world, have the plans in their offices and the spare parts in their yards so they can get to work on the problems today, not three years from now when people are done talking about it.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. But you are full of hate, hate, hate and that's what you're all about.

KevinMcC · May 2, 2003

I do not know where you getting your facts. However, I have talked with the biologist who have studied the effects of Prudhoe Bay and surrounding oil fields on the Central Arctic caribou herd. I have also spent a few hundred hours observing caribou around Alaska. The findings are very obvious that caribou herds containing mainly cows and calves avoid roads and really do not like passing under oil pipelines. Smaller herds of male caribou are seen around oil developments. Sure you can find photographs of caribou on the roads and near the pipelines, but these are mostly the males. I have also talked with Bill Bacon who has made a lot of money from the oil companies for these films. He knows that the cow caribou avoid the oil development. The central Arctic caribou is doing OK now because they have shifted their range to the east closer to ANWR.

I have been to the proposed oil development site in ANWR and saw tens of thousands of caribou cows with very young calves. This is a very important location for the Porcupine caribou calving. This is also supported by the annual caribou surveys that are conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

ANWR is one of the three places in Alaska where you can find wild musk ox. I know about the musk ox farm. I visited the farm back when it was in Unalakleet (this was the first time I meet Bill Bacon). They have very nice qiviut. Musk ox are on the endangered species list.

Wiley Denson · May 2, 2003

KevinMcC said:
I do not know where you getting your facts. However, I have talked
with the biologist who have studied the effects of Prudhoe Bay and
surrounding oil fields on the Central Arctic caribou herd. I have
also spent a few hundred hours observing caribou around Alaska.
The findings are very obvious that caribou herds containing mainly
cows and calves avoid roads and really do not like passing under
oil pipelines.

Oh, Horse pucky

You obviously weren't here(Alaska) very long. One of the biggest hazards to driving the roads in Alaska is moose and caribou.

The Alaska dept of fish and game did a study some time back and found the single most detrimental effect on caribou and moose calves was grizzly bears. Did you know that the survival rate for both species is about 15%? Did your biologist tell you that out of the 85% of the calves that don't survive, over 80% is predation by bears and wolves?

Now, we can't be thinning out the wolves or bears can we? The tree huggers simply take the facts they want and make their case with them.

Like ZIDAR said, there are lots of things that need oversight when it comes to development of resources, but it can be done without causing any harm.

--
Wiley D

Pictures can't do the real thing justice, but you gotta' try.

Thomas Gardner · May 2, 2003

KevinMcC said:
I do not know where you getting your facts. However, I have talked
with the biologist who have studied the effects of Prudhoe Bay and
surrounding oil fields on the Central Arctic caribou herd.

Who are wrapped up in their wonderful world of hate humans. The biologists see only a perfect world. They don't see a world where humans and animals interact. Cows, by nature shy from threats. Wow! This is a news flash. But they will cross the road. The populations aren't shrinking, they're thriving. Hey, we all have stress in our lives. The caribou are adapting.

KevinMcC said:
I have
also spent a few hundred hours observing caribou around Alaska.
The findings are very obvious that caribou herds containing mainly
cows and calves avoid roads and really do not like passing under
oil pipelines.

Try watching them for years and you'll see that the females and calves cross when it's time to migrate. Maybe if the humans all shot themselves and no longer were on the Earth, would you be happy then. My question is a serious question.

KevinMcC said:
Smaller herds of male caribou are seen around oil
developments. Sure you can find photographs of caribou on the
roads and near the pipelines, but these are mostly the males. I
have also talked with Bill Bacon who has made a lot of money from
the oil companies for these films. He knows that the cow caribou
avoid the oil development.

I avoid tree huggers because their behavior is upsetting to me, do you talk about the need to eliminate tree huggers? It's normal for caribou, in their environment to shy away from stress but their numbers are thriving. If their numbers weren't thriving I would have a different view.

KevinMcC said:
The central Arctic caribou is doing OK
now because they have shifted their range to the east closer to
ANWR.

Once they adapt, they'll do fine where ever they go otherwise they wouldn't do well in captivity. Do you worry about humans working in high rise buildings? Wearing a tie and working in a glass building is not natural and it's very stressful, where's your concern?

KevinMcC said:
I have been to the proposed oil development site in ANWR and saw
tens of thousands of caribou cows with very young calves. This is
a very important location for the Porcupine caribou calving. This
is also supported by the annual caribou surveys that are conducted
by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

And it's not supported by the people who populate Alaska. The population is for this develpment and bet your last dollar, ANWR is rightfully going to be developed. Fight all you want, you're going to lose and I'm going to be happy the day the legislation is passed.

KevinMcC said:
ANWR is one of the three places in Alaska where you can find wild
musk ox.

And when ANVW is developed, the Musk Ox isn't going to fall off the face of the Earth and stop existing.

KevinMcC said:
I know about the musk ox farm. I visited the farm back
when it was in Unalakleet (this was the first time I meet Bill
Bacon). They have very nice qiviut. Musk ox are on the endangered
species list.

You're imbalanced in your concern for the Caribou. Humans have a right to exist and exploit the environment. It has to be done responsibly and with thought towards the animals which inhabit the environment but this excessive concern, where there isn't a need for concern is pure nutty thinking.

With enviromentalists, it's an all or nothing existance. If they can't shut the whole world down and force humans into narrow, small spheres called cities, they're not happy.

You control disease and natural forms of death and you create a natural imbalance in the human population. Now this imbalance has been created and humans have to suffer because a screaming minority wants to control the world.

It's wearing thin on the majority and it's going to backfire in a negative way. Because of the enviro-****'s, the environmental movement is getting a bad name and is going to lose a lot more then they gain. Keeping a little is good but keeping everything is greedy.

Think about it before you start to lose the good to the backlash.

DavidP #28649 · May 2, 2003

Hey, we can't check for nads on that pic.

And, well, you know, violence against meese by grizzlies is "natural", so that's OK. Don't they teach ya'll nuthin' in school? rofl

Wiley Denson said:
Oh, Horse pucky

You obviously weren't here(Alaska) very long. One of the biggest
hazards to driving the roads in Alaska is moose and caribou.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Wiley Denson · May 2, 2003

By the way, the above picture was taken less than a mile from the pipeline and the whole herd went right under it. I just wish it hadn't been so dark by then or I would have a picture of that too.
--
Wiley D

Pictures can't do the real thing justice, but you gotta' try.

DavidP #28649 · May 2, 2003

So you're saying California is energy sufficient in and of itself? LOL.

Andrew D. Heilman said:
again DavidP, what the Fauk are you talking about? You have no
clue about California and 2/3 of the West Coast! You may think
that all of California loves their SUV's, but you'd be surprised to
find that outside of LA, SF, and the Sacramento Valley California
uses no more gas than a comprable NYC, DC, Boston!

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Wiley Denson · May 2, 2003

Andrew D. Heilman said:
again DavidP, what the Fauk are you talking about? You have no
clue about California and 2/3 of the West Coast! You may think
that all of California loves their SUV's, but you'd be surprised to
find that outside of LA, SF, and the Sacramento Valley California
uses no more gas than a comprable NYC, DC, Boston!

Sheesh, and only the majority of the population lives in the coastal strip from SF to the Mexican border.
--
Wiley D

Pictures can't do the real thing justice, but you gotta' try.

Rune Moberg · May 3, 2003

Thomas Gardner said:
As to WMD, the Iraqi troops had chemical masks because they were
going to need them, not because they wanted the practice. It was

That's an infant's argument.

You could make the same argument about every armed force in the world.

Atleast here in Norway, protection gear (be it masks, syringes with antidote or whatnot) is part of the standard kit every soldier is outfitted with.

That doesn't mean (I hope) that our military have access to chemical and biological weapons designed for being used in an armed conflict.

(before you reply that this is necessary because of Saddam, similar kit has been used for many years and dates back to the first world war -- chemical warfare is not new, and it's usually the defenders - the non-users - who have to stack up on protective gear)

Thomas Gardner said:
all about bringing Saddam down and no one has changed that fact.

It wasn't all about Saddam. The UN resolutions the US was hiding behind was designed to strip Iraq of these kind of weapons leaving them with barely enough to defend themselves.

I realise you americans see things differently and wanted to get rid of the evil dictator with the scary mustache, but out in the real world we tend to want real reasons. (There's just too many evil dictators around to bother with getting rid of them all)

No wonder the French were quoted as saying they would block any resolution authored by the americans. Some of you are blinded by fear after realising that you're not as untouchable as you thought you were and are lashing out against all possible enemies. Good luck with that.

Thomas Gardner said:
represented as such, daily on the news. To the victors go the
spoils and so a government of the church isn't going to be
installed. You have problems with that, complain to Congress, I'm
sure they'll listen to what you have to say.

The propaganda called for implementing democracy in Iraq. However, the majority of voters in Iraq will most likely be asking for installing an Ayatollah as their democratically elected leader.

This should come as no surprise to anyone.

And it's the main reason why so many opposed the war in the first place... Getting rid of a dictator just to install another one serves no purpose.

Not to mention the high costs involved. The UN had prepared a list of important cultural sites that had to be protected. Once the coalition gained control, these sites were among the very first that were looted. Ancient artifacts, some thousand of years old, are now gone. Some destroyed, and some sold to collectors who were a bit better prepared than the US led coalition. :-(

I know it's difficult for americans to understand the value of these artifacts. Your civilization dates back a couple of centuries. Compared to an old civilization that measures its existance in millennias, it's understandable that the necessary respect for these artifacts is non-existing.

Saddam wasn't a young man. He would've died of old age eventually. Most of his crimes in the grand scheme of things will eventually pale, but the loss of three thousand year old artifacts can't be remedied. They're gone, and with them the memories of the birth of our civilization (and effectively our ancestors).

Thomas Gardner said:
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. But you are full
of hate, hate, hate and that's what you're all about.

Someone surely must've said the same thing about you.

--
Rune, http://runesbike.com/

Thomas Gardner · May 3, 2003

Rune Moberg said:
Thomas Gardner said:

As to WMD, the Iraqi troops had chemical masks because they were
going to need them, not because they wanted the practice. It was

Click to expand...

That's an infant's argument.

And that's an attempt to discredit the truth.

Rune Moberg said:
You could make the same argument about every armed force in the world.

You just want to blame the US for all the ills in the world because you don't want to make a stand on the bad guy. You've made your position clear as to your feelings on the government/people of the US. You don't want to see Saddam as a bad buy and you want to see the US as a bad guy.

The evidence is there and has been presented to the world. It's just the world is a bunch of moral wimps and when someone, the US/England et al, comes along with a moral backbone, the weak go nuts.

Rune Moberg said:
Atleast here in Norway, protection gear (be it masks, syringes with
antidote or whatnot) is part of the standard kit every soldier is
outfitted with.

But because of the efforts of the US, Norway is protected. Yes, the US is willing to do the dirty work so little countries like Norway won't have to worry about those that aren't good and can wreak havoc on little, defenseless countries like Norway.

Rune Moberg said:
That doesn't mean (I hope) that our military have access to
chemical and biological weapons designed for being used in an armed
conflict.

What would you care. It's all the US's fault. There is only one bad country in the world, the US. Your hate and fear for the US is wearing thin as an argument.

You can keep your child's response as an answer. Grow up and smell the roses. Keeping the peace through out the world isn't always going to be clean and neat. But stability through out the world is coming of this incursion and that's good for the world, even though the world doesn't want to help. And even with this in mind, the world will still take benefit of the efforts of the US/England, et al. Europe is enjoying stability because of the efforts of the US, not because of the efforts of the European nations.

Rune Moberg said:
(before you reply that this is necessary because of Saddam, similar
kit has been used for many years and dates back to the first world
war -- chemical warfare is not new, and it's usually the defenders

the non-users - who have to stack up on protective gear)

When was the last time the US used chemical weapons?

Rune Moberg said:
Rune Moberg said:

all about bringing Saddam down and no one has changed that fact.

Click to expand...

It wasn't all about Saddam. The UN resolutions the US was hiding
behind was designed to strip Iraq of these kind of weapons leaving
them with barely enough to defend themselves.

Iraq doesn't need to defend themselves. Who do they need to defend themselves agains. Iran? Then you should be complaining about Iran, not the US.

Rune Moberg said:
I realise you americans see things differently and wanted to get
rid of the evil dictator with the scary mustache, but out in the
real world we tend to want real reasons. (There's just too many
evil dictators around to bother with getting rid of them all)

Raindrops fill the pond and one dictator gone is a good thing. If you don't start, you won't go on a journey. Keep the simplistic, head in the sand, nonsense for the nieve. Bad guys need to be hunted down and killed if necessary. That's a fact. And if you don't hunt them down, they'll come get you. You don't have to worry. Why? Because you have the US to throw stones at, all the while taking advantage of the protective umbrella that we provide. It's you spoiled babies that need to wake up that getting rid of all dictators is a good thing and if protecting six billion people means killing a hundred million bad guys, then so be it.

Good is good and bad doesn't keep to itself.

Rune Moberg said:
No wonder the French were quoted as saying they would block any
resolution authored by the americans.

Sure. And uncovered records show that politicos of Russia, Germany and France were knee deep in bed with Saddam.

Thomas Gardner · May 3, 2003

Thomas Gardner said:
Some of you are blinded by
fear after realising that you're not as untouchable as you thought
you were and are lashing out against all possible enemies. Good
luck with that.

That is pure nonsense. Why? What you're seeing is a willingness to not put up with bad guys blowing us up. What, you think we're just suppose to sit here with a target on our chest and not fight back? Talking wimp thinking here. Someone comes gunning for you, you strap it on and go after them. You don't hide. It's called survival and we're not afraid to go after those that come gunning for us. No fear here. Next time someone comes gunning for us, realize that we're going to dispense a good case of whipass on the dolt that thinks we're going to roll over because were a bunch of fat lazy cows for the slaughter.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

represented as such, daily on the news.

Click to expand...

The news likes to print nonsense because it sells papers but Americans are happy to bring the fight to whom ever wants to bring the fight to them.

Thomas Gardner said:
To the victors go the

Thomas Gardner said:

spoils and so a government of the church isn't going to be
installed. You have problems with that, complain to Congress, I'm
sure they'll listen to what you have to say.

Click to expand...

The propaganda called for implementing democracy in Iraq. However,
the majority of voters in Iraq will most likely be asking for
installing an Ayatollah as their democratically elected leader.

Looks like life isn't going to be perfect in paradise then. We'll all act surprised.

Thomas Gardner said:
And it's the main reason why so many opposed the war in the first
place... Getting rid of a dictator just to install another one
serves no purpose.

Nobody has installed a dictator. That's a spurious argument. It's going to take years to get this all sorted out. You have 4,500 years of childish behavior to overcome and yes the warlords and how things have been done in the Middle East is imature and childish. Maybe it's time for an adult to step in, tell the Ayatollah's to sit down, shut up and keep their brand of hate in their churches.

Thomas Gardner said:
Not to mention the high costs involved. The UN had prepared a list
of important cultural sites that had to be protected. Once the
coalition gained control, these sites were among the very first
that were looted. Ancient artifacts, some thousand of years old,
are now gone. Some destroyed, and some sold to collectors who were
a bit better prepared than the US led coalition. :-(

The dear are more important then the living, how quaint. I'd say that taking care of the living is more important then worring about a bunch of dead stuff. Sorry, my priorities are different then yours. The Iraq's looted the museums, not the American military. But do you hear the cry of blame going up for the real culprits? Nope. Why? Because it's all the American's fault. How nice of you to turn a blind eye to the real culprits.

Thomas Gardner said:
I know it's difficult for americans to understand the value of
these artifacts. Your civilization dates back a couple of
centuries. Compared to an old civilization that measures its
existance in millennias, it's understandable that the necessary
respect for these artifacts is non-existing.

And it's understandable how those that have nothing but the past to look back on, as they have no chance at power in the future, would look back on this as sacred. Antiquities are precious but the answer is in the future, not the past.

Thomas Gardner said:
Saddam wasn't a young man. He would've died of old age eventually.

And for the rest of his life, thousands and thousands would have been killed, tortured and imprisoned.

Thomas Gardner said:
Most of his crimes in the grand scheme of things will eventually
pale, but the loss of three thousand year old artifacts can't be
remedied. They're gone, and with them the memories of the birth of
our civilization (and effectively our ancestors).

So a bunch of statues and water barrels are more important then the torturing of prisoners? All the antiquities in the world are not worth the life and health of one human. My priorities are towards people, not dead stuff. You don't need to know about the past to enjoy today and plan for a happy tomorrow. I'm a history buff before you get started and my understanding goes all the way back, not just into yesterday. Again, torturing humans is wrong. Worring about antiquties first and human life second is wrong and bad.

Thomas Gardner said:
Thomas Gardner said:

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. But you are full
of hate, hate, hate and that's what you're all about.

Click to expand...

Someone surely must've said the same thing about you.

Only the blind, selfish and hateful have said this of me. Not one person that cares about human life has said this about me. No one person that cares about humans over dead stuff has said this about me. No one that has spoke to me face to face has said this to me after they've had a chance to flesh out my thinking. I take this into consideration when you post a reverse argument question of this nature.

I stand for peace and humanity and blowing up those that hate and want to torture people as a way of life.

If this thinking bothers people, oh well. At least I know that I'm on the side of life that cares and is willing to get in harms way to protect those, like Norway, that can't.

DavidP #28649 · May 3, 2003

First, you can bet your bottom dollar that we HAVE chemical weapons.

Second, if we were ever in a situation where we felt their use was necessary to win a war, we wouldn't hesitate to use them.

But, we have such a well-equipped "war machine" that we don't have much use for such weapons at this time. They're only really effective if you haven't got much else in your military arsenal.

Thomas Gardner said:
When was the last time the US used chemical weapons?

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

DavidP #28649 · May 3, 2003

The worst thing in the world we could possibly do would be to "force" a certain type of gov't on another nation.

If we can't convince enough people in that region that "our way" is better than theirs, we don't stand much of a chance.

Thomas Gardner said:
Nobody has installed a dictator. That's a spurious argument. It's
going to take years to get this all sorted out. You have 4,500
years of childish behavior to overcome and yes the warlords and how
things have been done in the Middle East is imature and childish.
Maybe it's time for an adult to step in, tell the Ayatollah's to
sit down, shut up and keep their brand of hate in their churches.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Will Robinson · May 3, 2003

Thomas Gardner wrote:
At least I know that I'm

Thomas Gardner said:
on the side of life that cares and is willing to get in harms way
to protect those, like Norway, that can't.

Although I agree the war in Iraq was justified your attempt to belittle Norways bravery or courage is way off base. During WWII they required three times as many **** occupiers to hold them in check compared to any other country the ****'s took. They were, and are, extremely tough people who gave the "bad guys" fits. They also have a society that we americans could learn a few things from so please don't paint with such a large brush, I as a fellow american don't want to be 'painted over' by a reciprocating stroke from norwegians who would have good cause to resent your blanket assertions and stereotypes.

The bottom line is ALL countries act in THEIR own best interest.

Lisa Horton · May 3, 2003

Thomas Gardner said:
Lisa Horton said:

It's all about WMD. No, wait, they don't have those any more.
Then it's all about terrorists. No, they don't have those either.
It's all about bringing down Saddam. No, wait, we can't find him,
so he's not so important after all. Ah, it's all about freedom,
and a free Iraqi government. No, wait, only an Iraqi government
that meets our approval, not some Shiite government that represents
the majority of Iraqis.

As always, if you want to know what it's REALLY about, just follow
the money. After all, it's not like companies who are or have been
closely tied to the current administration are getting all the
money. No, wait....

Click to expand...

No wait, it's all about hating America.

Well, actually it's not at all about hating America. In fact, I said nothing at all about hating America, a fact that seems entirely lost on you. It's about loving America, wanting America to be a force for good in the world, it's about keeping America a beacon of freedom and liberty, it's about honor, a concept probably lost on you as well.

Thomas Gardner said:
As to WMD, the Iraqi troops had chemical masks because they were
going to need them, not because they wanted the practice. It was
all about bringing Saddam down and no one has changed that fact.
And yes, finding him dead or alive is important and has been
represented as such, daily on the news. To the victors go the
spoils and so a government of the church isn't going to be
installed. You have problems with that, complain to Congress, I'm
sure they'll listen to what you have to say.

So you're agreeing that we will allow the Iraqis to have any government they want, as long as we approve of it? Your statement "to the victor go the spoils" is inconsistent with the (most recent) stated goal of liberating Iraq and the Iraqi people. Aren't they supposed to be the victors?

Thomas Gardner said:
As to the money, it's not about companies that are connected as
Bectel gave monies to Clinton and Bush's campaign. As to who get's
the contracts, these companies are qualified to provide these
services and are established all around the world, have the plans
in their offices and the spare parts in their yards so they can get
to work on the problems today, not three years from now when people
are done talking about it.

Sure sure, political contributions had NOTHING to do with it, and the intimate connections between these companies and the current administration had NOTHING to do with it.

Thomas Gardner said:
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. But you are full
of hate, hate, hate and that's what you're all about.

On the contrary, it appears that you have little concept of how American politics work today, little respect for freedom, and consider Iraq to be "spoils of war" that is now ours to do with as we please. So much for "liberating" the Iraqi people, eh?

If Iraq is ours as "spoils of war", then it wasn't a war to liberate the people of Iraq. If the war was to liberate the people of Iraq, then Iraq isn't ours to do with as we please. Your inconsistency illustrates your incomplete comprehension of the actual dynamics of the situation.

Lisa

Thomas Gardner · May 3, 2003

DavidP said:
The worst thing in the world we could possibly do would be to
"force" a certain type of gov't on another nation.

If we can't convince enough people in that region that "our way" is
better than theirs, we don't stand much of a chance.

I don't care to convince so much as I wish to encourage them to leave us alone. I don't know how long it's gonna take those folks to figure out that if they want to keep their way of life, their gonna have to learn to leave us to ours. And if they can't leave us to our lives by dragging their attacks over to us, we'll just have to force our way on them.

It's a really, really simple concept; leave us alone.

DavidP #28649 · May 3, 2003

If we want them to leave use alone, I suggest that we should leave THEM alone.

Let them set up their own gov't, however they see fit.

PS -- why do we insist on setting up a "democracy" anyway, when our own founding fathers HATED democracy.

Thomas Gardner said:
I don't care to convince so much as I wish to encourage them to
leave us alone. I don't know how long it's gonna take those folks
to figure out that if they want to keep their way of life, their
gonna have to learn to leave us to ours. And if they can't leave
us to our lives by dragging their attacks over to us, we'll just
have to force our way on them.

It's a really, really simple concept; leave us alone.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Thomas Gardner · May 3, 2003

Will Robinson said:
Member said:

on the side of life that cares and is willing to get in harms way
to protect those, like Norway, that can't.

Click to expand...

Although I agree the war in Iraq was justified your attempt to
belittle Norways bravery or courage is way off base. During WWII
they required three times as many **** occupiers to hold them in
check compared to any other country the ****'s took. They were, and
are, extremely tough people who gave the "bad guys" fits. They also
have a society that we americans could learn a few things from so
please don't paint with such a large brush, I as a fellow american
don't want to be 'painted over' by a reciprocating stroke from
norwegians who would have good cause to resent your blanket
assertions and stereotypes.

The bottom line is ALL countries act in THEIR own best interest.

And I suggest the Norwegians you're so impressed with, don't give a poo whether or not the US survives. I'm not saying that Norwegians aren't brave but they're a nothing country in world affairs and it's because of the efforts of the US that they don't have to worry. That's a fact they have to deal with. If my saying the truth bothers you, that's on you, not me.

Now if someone from Norway wants to engage me in a dialog that includes reality, they might get a more thoughtful conversation.

Let's assume the US falls off the face of the Earth. Well, I suggest that Germany will start becoming agressive again. The ****'s march in the streets of Hamburg and Nurenburg, in violation of the law. You think if the US wasn't here to keep Germany in check, the Nazis wouldn't emerge again. The USSR collapsed because of the US efforts, not because of Norway's efforts. You think if the US fell off the face of the Earth, the Soviet Union wouldn't be created all over again. Oh and Japan, well this time, because the US pulled Japan's teeth, China would be the naked agressor. So let's put things in perspective and give a bit of credit where credit is due, even if you're ashamed of vocal people like myself.

Silence and polite behavior won't get rid of the likes of Saddam. And Saddam dying of old age won't prevent one of his son's taking the family business over. To think otherwise is childish thinking.

What I find so humorus is the silence towards the bad guys and the willingness to attack the good guys that are willing to go in and take the heat. So I'm personally ashamed of all fellow countrymen that won't loudly condemn all forms of dictatorships and are against helping any nation that is in the clutches of a tyranical dictator.

More needs to be said aloud condemming dictators and less condemnation of those, is in order, that are willing to put their socks on the line to take bad guys out.

I'm the wrong guy to give the I'm embarrased by your behavior speech to because again, I'm embarassed by any American that keeps their mouth shut as to bad guy, dictator behavior.

I'm proud of what we did in Iraq, no matter how you want to write the "excuse" note.

Thomas Gardner · May 3, 2003

DavidP said:
First, you can bet your bottom dollar that we HAVE chemical weapons.

Second, if we were ever in a situation where we felt their use was
necessary to win a war, we wouldn't hesitate to use them.

But, we have such a well-equipped "war machine" that we don't have
much use for such weapons at this time. They're only really
effective if you haven't got much else in your military arsenal.

DavidP #28649 said:
Thomas Gardner said:

When was the last time the US used chemical weapons?

Click to expand...

That was a spin answer.

I never suggested we don't have them, I asked when was the last time we used them?

Thomas Gardner · May 3, 2003

DavidP said:
If we want them to leave use alone, I suggest that we should leave
THEM alone.

You're being argumentative. We are leaving them alone. It's kinda hard to be a world power and not have contact but we're not blowing anybody up without first being invited.

Alaskan oil drilling interests sink photography exhibit

Veteran Member

New member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Will Robinson

Guest

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts