In the past three weeks... - The U.S has bombed...

[Xvall]

Source: US Bombing Watch: http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html



1) 7/5/02, Baghdad says US, British jets bombed northern Iraq, ABC
News: http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html#7/4/02

2) 6/28/02, U.S. Jets Bomb Iraq Military Center, Yahoo-News:
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html#6/28/02

3) 6/26/02, Western Warplanes Hit Iraqi Air Defenses, By Charles
Aldinger, Reuters: http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html#6/26/02

4) 6/20/02, Western Warplanes Launch Raid in Iraq, Reuters:
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html#6/20/02

5) 6/14/02, U.S. Warplanes Attack Iraqi Air Defense Targets,
Reuters:http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html#6/14/02

(During 2002 the US has bombed Iraq at least 15 times.)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Good!
Drake, Do you think Saddam Hussein is a friend of yours? Commie or not,he would love to have every westerner squirming on the groung from sarin gas, dude, you'd better recognize!

[Mazdak]

God bless america.

A land of Peace!!!

[Brian]

I hope they kick Saddem's ass!

[Stormin Norman]

Not only should were attack Iraq, but we should also become aggressors to the nations who deny us the help we need. Much of the reason for our delayed response to Iraqi aggression is due, in large part, to the fact that many of the nations that we helped during the Gulf War have denied us access to their countries. News flash! We don't need their permission if we deem them as enemies and take the ground, which we need as a staging ground for Iraq, by force. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia our in fact our enemies. Look at their position against the U.S. protecting its national interest after we help them secure theirs when Sadam invaded Kuwait.

[Xvall]

I support killing Saddam. But that's not what America is doing. They're bombing the people under his control. This is like getting rid of your bad neighbor by shooting his dogs. It isn't accomplishing much. I don't know why you have this 'no assasination' law in the first place. You can't kill one guy, but you're allowed to nuke cities?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 11:18 am on July 12, 2002
Not only should were attack Iraq, but we should also become aggressors to the nations who deny us the help we need. Much of the reason for our delayed response to Iraqi aggression is due, in large part, to the fact that many of the nations that we helped during the Gulf War have denied us access to their countries. News flash! We don't need their permission if we deem them as enemies and take the ground, which we need as a staging ground for Iraq, by force. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia our in fact our enemies. Look at their position against the U.S. protecting its national interest after we help them secure theirs when Sadam invaded Kuwait.


i cant wait till the suadis stop giving the US oil. we sure dont need their help.

yeah the suadis sure are our enmies

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 4:49 pm on July 12, 2002
I support killing Saddam. But that's not what America is doing. They're bombing the people under his control. This is like getting rid of your bad neighbor by shooting his dogs. It isn't accomplishing much. I don't know why you have this 'no assasination' law in the first place. You can't kill one guy, but you're allowed to nuke cities?


That is a bad analogy, we are attacking legitimate military targets, attacks which will lend themselves to softening the iraqi defenses so a full invasion will be easier. We are eradicating the iraqi air defense array, a means to an end

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 4:54 pm on July 12, 2002
]

i cant wait till the suadis stop giving the US oil. we sure dont need their help.

yeah the suadis sure are our enmies


1) If we need the oil we will take it by any means necessary

2) We have plenty of reserves in texas, alaska, and canada

3)Cold fusion power is closer than you think

[Lardlad95]

one second you justify us bombing people because they don't want to give us oil? How the hell is that right?

Also you really think we should destroy alaska for oil?

heres an idea how about the Us stops being such an asshole to every other nation

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:10 pm on July 12, 2002
one second you justify us bombing people because they don't want to give us oil? How the hell is that right?

Also you really think we should destroy alaska for oil?

heres an idea how about the Us stops being such an asshole to every other nation

I don't know if you knew this, but Alaska is part of the USA.

I was born their, lived their, and my father helped build the trans-alaska pipeline.

Drilling for oil has almost nil effect on the terresrial environment. A land as vast and pristine as alaska would be unscathed by modern petroleum resourcing operations. The current pipeline is a perfect example of this.



(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 5:22 pm on July 12, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

i know what country alaska is part of.

however why should wetear up such a beautiful land for profit? no respect for nature.

also what happens when there are three more exxon valdez spills? that place still aint the same.

Also you never answered me, do you justify killing people because they don't want to give us oil that belongs to them

[Xvall]

Damnit CI You're such an Imperialist! You're playing around with war like it's a game! And you wonder why every country hates you! Other than the fact that you're the ones who put Saddam in power in the first place, you seem to just thing that you can blow half a country up to get what you want.

[Lardlad95]

i know destroy half the oil in the process of getting it

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:29 pm on July 12, 2002
i know what country alaska is part of.

however why should wetear up such a beautiful land for profit? no respect for nature.

also what happens when there are three more exxon valdez spills? that place still aint the same.

Also you never answered me, do you justify killing people because they don't want to give us oil that belongs to them


"however why should we tear up such a beautiful land for profit? no respect for nature."

That was the point of my last post, alaska would not be "tore up" must of the drilling operationd would take place over the tundra, and even then, terrestrial landscapes would remain unscathed

"also what happens when there are three more exxon valdez spills? that place still aint the same."

The valdez was an isolated incident, the result of a drunk, irresponsible ship captain. It could ave happened anywhere. It is not a function of oil drilling, it is a function of petroleum transportatin, which is a worldwide operation

"Also you never answered me, do you justify killing people because they don't want to give us oil that belongs to them"

Kuwait begs or help in 1990 to liberate them, and we do.

We are saudi arabias petroleum cash cow, and their biggest military ally.

And then they will decide whether or not to reciprocate?

It doesn't work that way. I admit I was somewhat faciscious, I don't think we would commendere their oil by force unles we were under extreme circumstances, but if they decided to cut us off, it would be their mistake. The US would just get oil from other sources, including our own, develop fusion with more haste, and then all necessary ties with the middle east would be cut. That would not be to their benefit, as oil is basically their only significant export. Our "sensitivity" to the region would diminish, and basically we would allow israel to do what it wants there.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 5:35 pm on July 12, 2002
Damnit CI You're such an Imperialist! You're playing around with war like it's a game! And you wonder why every country hates you! Other than the fact that you're the ones who put Saddam in power in the first place, you seem to just thing that you can blow half a country up to get what you want.


Comeon drake, we are not blowing up half a country, we are destroying legitimate military targets, cheifly air defenses, of a country ruled by a genocidal tyrant

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:57 pm on July 12, 2002

Quote: from Lardlad95 on 5:29 pm on July 12, 2002
i know what country alaska is part of.

however why should wetear up such a beautiful land for profit? no respect for nature.

also what happens when there are three more exxon valdez spills? that place still aint the same.

Also you never answered me, do you justify killing people because they don't want to give us oil that belongs to them


"however why should we tear up such a beautiful land for profit? no respect for nature."

That was the point of my last post, alaska would not be "tore up" must of the drilling operationd would take place over the tundra, and even then, terrestrial landscapes would remain unscathed

"also what happens when there are three more exxon valdez spills? that place still aint the same."

The valdez was an isolated incident, the result of a drunk, irresponsible ship captain. It could ave happened anywhere. It is not a function of oil drilling, it is a function of petroleum transportatin, which is a worldwide operation

"Also you never answered me, do you justify killing people because they don't want to give us oil that belongs to them"

Kuwait begs or help in 1990 to liberate them, and we do.

We are saudi arabias petroleum cash cow, and their biggest military ally.

And then they will decide whether or not to reciprocate?

It doesn't work that way. I admit I was somewhat faciscious, I don't think we would commendere their oil by force unles we were under extreme circumstances, but if they decided to cut us off, it would be their mistake. The US would just get oil from other sources, including our own, develop fusion with more haste, and then all necessary ties with the middle east would be cut. That would not be to their benefit, as oil is basically their only significant export. Our "sensitivity" to the region would diminish, and basically we would allow israel to do what it wants there.




skip the Alaska thing i really don't give a damn about that.

I'm glad you brought up that whole Saudis eing stupid if they cut off thing.

The basis for a story i'm writing is baed on that, well thats not the plot but it effects the plot.

The story takes place in the not so far future. What happens when other countries stop being so dependant on the US?

BAsicaly when Saudi Arabia doens't need the US money as much as it used to and eventually ties are broken. The US Economy begins to shift, not just because of that but because other nations are also not being scared by US threats anymore.

Basicaly its a scenario, what happens when something like that happens. Not saying it will.

However it will be interesting when other countries don't need us anymore

[Capitalist Imperial]

But lardlad, it is the saudis that are more dependent on us, not vice-versa.

The middle east is reliant on us for income, we can get oil and even energy form other sources (cold fusion will be a reality in 20 years, and we can also go nuclear if we have to). So, if the US stops buying oil, the middle east loses well over 1/2 of their total income! And alienates the worlds biggest power.

Now, the USA has many other irons in the fire, technology, business, land investments. We can get Petroleum for ourselves, That is why we are sitting on alaska and canada. We are saving those for when the middle east is dry or attempts a cut-off.

"Countries stop being so dependent on the US", easier said than done. We have to much investment all over the world, and the dependence of other countries benefit them and their economies.

But again, my main point is that, in the long run, the middle east is more dependent on the US than the US is dependent on the middle east.

[Lardlad95]

I'm aware of this. That is what i'm trying to say in the book what happens when they aren't so dependant on us. I'm very aware that this couldn't happen right now.

Also when other countries stop being so dependant on the US, not just the Saudis.

I'm not saying that Suadi Arabia cutting us off will send us into oblivion

The economy was already falling this was just another thing added to the pile.

Sort of like a final straw.

In the book I make note that the country was already in a downward spiral when this happened.

remember this is just a scenario not a prediction

[Hattori Hanzo]

Ok CI here's your prob- most of what you saay is true, and everyone tries to say it's not, but your US doesn't consider other countries. if the mid-east "dries up," which it will at the current rate of consumption in like, less than twenty years, and we start to make the conversion to fuel cells for our cars and "cold fusion" (it may not happen) for energy, then what will we do with all the old cars and power plants in the world? This progect will consume most if not all of the US's funds to accomplish this in the US alone. you Americans should have started this convesion 10 years ago!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 6:45 pm on July 12, 2002
Ok CI here's your prob- most of what you saay is true, and everyone tries to say it's not, but your US doesn't consider other countries. if the mid-east "dries up," which it will at the current rate of consumption in like, less than twenty years, and we start to make the conversion to fuel cells for our cars and "cold fusion" (it may not happen) for energy, then what will we do with all the old cars and power plants in the world? This progect will consume most if not all of the US's funds to accomplish this in the US alone. you Americans should have started this convesion 10 years ago!

We actually have been working on it for a while, though not in the convesion stage.

As for R/D costs and implementation costs,they will be signifivcant, but we will recover them and much more once we export the technolgy and relize the economic benifit of cold fusion as an unlimited, cheap,clean energy source.

[Hattori Hanzo]

well, probably NOT, but if this does work, (which it probably won't) what about the rest of the world?

[Stormin Norman]

CI,

What makes you think that cold fusion is a reality? The government's hot fusion program has been operating for years without a successful breakthrough that will provide the energy needed for large scale consumption. However, the technology for hot fusion exists. The concensus in the scientific community is that cold fusion was a myth. When the two men from Utah State publish their results, everyone got excited. No one has yet to reproduce what they claimed to do. Reproduction of results is the most crucial criteria for the acceptance of a scientific proposal.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 7:58 pm on July 12, 2002
well, probably NOT, but if this does work, (which it probably won't) what about the rest of the world?

"well, probably NOT, but if this does work, (which it probably won't) what about the rest of the world?"

You see, I can tell you are not american.

That is why we are usually more successful than other countries. We think "It can be done". Look at your statement, "It probably can't be done". No wonder your nation fails!

The USA has given the morld the vast majority of technological advancements in the 20th century, and you still doubt our abilities?

Cold fusion will happen, it is just a matter of when.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 8:47 pm on July 12, 2002
CI,

What makes you think that cold fusion is a reality? The government's hot fusion program has been operating for years without a successful breakthrough that will provide the energy needed for large scale consumption. However, the technology for hot fusion exists. The concensus in the scientific community is that cold fusion was a myth. When the two men from Utah State publish their results, everyone got excited. No one has yet to reproduce what they claimed to do. Reproduction of results is the most crucial criteria for the acceptance of a scientific proposal.


I don't think it is a reality, but it will be. People used to think that human flight was a myth, then they said space travel was a myth. Guess what? It is now reality

Come on, stormin normin, this is the USA. It will be done.

[Lardlad95]

but think we have millions of things that we could figure out to do.

Hell we can figure out a cure for cancer or aids but will people do it?

No, because theres no money in the cure, theres money in the treatment.

Whats gonna be more profitable? Solving the energy crisis or makeing people keep coming back for more?

If theres an energy that can continue on for ever then the cost can't go up..


As the amount of oil lessens the costs goes up. This country wants money it doesn't want to loose it.

See capitalism always keeps us coming back for more, yeah this is a great system...not

yeah I know the not part didn't sound all that funny but oh well

[Moskitto]

That is why we are sitting on alaska and canada. We are saving those for when the middle east is dry or attempts a cut-off.

You said that the US doesn't consider Canada a strategic oil reserve in annother thread.

And yeah, Saddam is a piece of shit. Why not hire a hitman to get him and get him out of the country. If the US has toppled other governments in the past using covert means why can't they do it with this one?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:08 pm on July 12, 2002


You said that the US doesn't consider Canada a strategic oil reserve in annother thread.

And yeah, Saddam is a piece of shit. Why not hire a hitman to get him and get him out of the country. If the US has toppled other governments in the past using covert means why can't they do it with this one?

Because it is not good for the US to get too heavily in the assasination business.

About the canada comment, could you point it out? I don't remember if I said it, and we need context to clarify what I meant if I in fact did say that.

[Commie Canuck 15]

What would happen if us Canadians decided not to let the US have OUR oil? think they'd bomb us too?