Sophion-Black

Aaahhhh... times are a-changin' to think, years ago this forum engine was the basis of many new mod ideas. The crucible of those mods and the advancement of ideas into fully functional user created scripts, missions, and campaigns that laid the foundation of future versions of the game that keeps on playin

Kinda the idea, The EU is a "Confederation" but its not really something the US should join. That's like recruiting an 18 year old on kids baseball team. most of the attention would be on what that 18yo wants But I really do think that people just complain too much about everything and Washington ended up, like i said, being a platform for everyone else to knock at other state's policies.

well mass media helped accelerate the accident (I'll call it that for now) of the majority of the power being put in the national level. What really kicked it off was the US Civil war. Hidden under all the "fight against slavery" is something overlooked completely. One of the major factors was the southern states refusing to be overseen by federal policy they felt was unconstitutional. They looked at the possibility of being "forced" in enforce federal policy imposed on them and the 10th amendment and thought that it simply wasn't their [the Federal Government] place to set such policies. After that Washington became a platform for other states to knock policies or believes of other states (i.e. Senator Benjamin Wade and Representative Henry Winter Davis). After a while, the federal US Policies became challenged in Civil Rights movements. In conjunction with mass media being introduced, the stories of the federal government being challenged led people on to the illusion that policies could only be changed at a federal level. Since then we haven't realized that the 10th amendment still exists or that the states are quite capable of taking responsibility of their own citizens. What I think shouldn't happen is introductions of federal policies regarding all states to comply unless all of the states approve. If its not one voice from the whole nation wanting it, then its not the whole nation that wants it. thus it shouldn't be a federal action, it should be left up to the states. because simply, that's imperialism of our own land.

Uh not really. Socialism within America seems to hinder a lot of politics. Since its based on everyone being the same it totally overlooks that everyone is very different. Im actually hoping the US backs away from socialism federally and move more towards confederalism. I think the US is too big to set policies as a whole for one population. de-cetralize the power and put it in the states and a lot more can be done to satisfy the population. That way the sub-cultures can be contient with the policies made for them.

a squadmate of mine brought up a very good point when i asked him and he seems to think that the risk outwieghs the result. thus it will never happen, at least an actual detonation, which it makes sense. but as a sidenote: nuclear weapons still exsists and pose a merciles peice of warfare. so DO NOT FORGET we still have the risk of seing them detonate in war again

ok, you hit more birds with one stone on using a nuke in an exersise. THE MOST OBVIOUS POINT OVERLOOKED: ITS AN EXERSISE, TRAINING. What would you do if you was in a building in Iraq and you was blown off your ass and noticed a mushroom cloud oustide the window? You dont know do you? Higher wouldnt have any way of reaching you, you wont know where the allied forces are, you wouldnt know where that crazy is that drove you to the building would be at... blackout. a nuclear explosion is exrteemly big you can have more than one exercise run off of it. so you can cover more than on scenario with it. But they arnet "willing to die" they arent suicidal, they want to do something. not join and be killed without ever having a chance. If i was a terrorist, i simply wouldnt care that the US was setting of nukes. but i would be mindful once regular forces started wearing MOPP suits. there are little tricks we can do. on a serious note, it was brought to my attention that launching a nuke to strike into a cave would not be considered an atmosphereic detonation. it would be undergroud... hence a loophole to launching one. but, milary value of doing so... nothing really

oook... long time no see. But this was discussed within a couple other marines in my platoon. Which we each had are own opinion on what would happen. This was the topic: How would the world respond if the US restarted combined arms nuclear test. Meaning, How would other countries- and other organizations (i.e. Al Qaeda) react to the US detonating a nuclear bomb in a training exercise in such a scenario to simulate the usage of the weapon and putting boots on the ground after the detonation. Given the tremendous trust in our MOPP Gear, and restrictions from the PTBT makes this very unlikely. But is a show of such aggression the right remedy to scare terrorists and future enemies away from war with the US? My Answer: Although training exercises to influence international policies abroad. Such an exercise may be taken as overkill. HOWEVER, such a scenario may occur. The possibility of the US using a nuclear weapon is still on the table, sure its .0000000000003%... (dramatization) but something like that needs to be looked at and have at least some training of what may come.

Ninjas on segways!? LOL what next flying tanks? *pauses to think back*

*dusts the cob webs off* yeah I keep hearing the association of 2012 and the "end of the world" a lot. Thats only what, 4 years away? Hey WAIT!!! I think thats when ill have enough money to buy that cool Illudiom "Pew36" Explosive Space Modulator!!!!

OK Buzzard, look... Iraq isn't battling one major faction, its battling several. All of which have various views on what Iraq should be. Including some communist ideas. Since this is varied it is rated as an unrest. Since there is engagements it makes it warfare. But since the engagements are used to exploit the weaknesses of a larger force it becomes asymmetric warfare; an insurgency. For a civil war to be a civil war there has to be at least one strong voice to influence the actions a certain way to achieve a certain goal. so far the prominent goal that is presented is that Iraq should be left alone. That the US and coalition forces should leave. That is a goal of an insurgency to deny a larger force control over an area Yes there is many different sides in Iraq. But are they fighting for the same goal; Baghdad? Really it looks like they are just looking for peace, together. But there is some bad apples in the basket. @Baddo: I am NOT A SOLDIER! I'm a Marine. There is a difference between a Marine and a soldier. For one thing confusing a Marine to be in the army is an insult. Marines go through more training and the training is a much more strenuous. A little secret: In the United States there is an unofficial competition between branches of the military. It's bad between Marines and soldiers. Apparently it's worse between sailors and soldiers. Also, about the reasons for the war: Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction Intelligence and Security Committee, Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction – Intelligence and Assessments Inquiry into Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Take your pick. Not standing up for something someone believes in defines a coward to me. I'm not worried about IEDs I'm worried about the person who is going to be in the same sh!t I'll be in. Worrying if he'll make it home alive. I'm actually doing something instead of sitting and watching whats going on. I feel better off knowing first-hand whats going on there and being able to influence at the same time than getting some chopped up report from someone who goes home and sleeps miles away from what they just talked about. Since I got a few welding certificates, I might be able to help out on constructing something like a bridge. The chances are slim but it isn't as slim as being part of a working party over there.

*sigh* and here i thought four months would be enough time for people to see the light... My God a bizarre event for a country just torn from war  Look, I don't see how displacement shows a correlation to a civil war. Not all the numbered can be labeled as "afraid of a civil war" some could be labeled as "Saddam is gone now we have the chance to live in Europe or America." It just seems irrelevant. Significant, a little; but not enough to convince someone with logical reasoning to deduct that there's a civil war going on. do they list a percentage on who is to blame? Could most of them be killed by soldiers still under Saddam's control? could it also be from Al Qaeda attacks? Again, your using an abstract statistic to squeeze in a theory. Damn, I Google "Iraqi Body Count" and get to their homepage only to see this: Looks like its going up ok... maybe you should tell the graph which way is up. Because from what it looks like the count has been going down for the past year. An insurgency is a direct result of an invasion not a civil war. A faction unhappy with their conditions simply, and logical, cannot attack the other faction of the same social population simply because one or the other is an analog of the invading/occupying force. So therefore, the faction within the country is conducting asymmetric warfare against the occupying force to present their ideas. Do you understand that? Your missing my point. I gave numbers to support me saying that successful IED attacks aren't as common as people presume. Too many to list. this ranges from international news all the way down to local and from all political factions. The majority of the attacks are now concentrated more and more to two provinces. Baghdad and Al Anbar. Why? Baghdad is obvious, but Al Anbar isn't. The Al Anbar province boarders Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Something less known is that since it is open it leaves more room for insurgents to settle and longer strips of highway motor T has to traverse. Common since should put these two together. Actually I've been on an island Ive been off it a few days and now talking to people who just came back from a sandy village... sad little kid. If only you knew. or how about you do what I'm probably going to do within the year and get off that chair your sitting on, grab a rifle and get your ass over there! Shit! Maybe you'll see little kids throwing IEDs everywhere! You all have to stop sucking on some tits and look around. Its quite sad that everyone is overdramatizing the situation in Iraq. I guess its because simply its gotten that way from people that are too afraid to go over there and start making excuses no to go.

Now can someone explain to me what will happen if the US had joint patrols with Turkey and Iraq near the boarder? I want to say the Iraqis and Turks aren't too close. After all, the Turks are used to an Iraqi leader that suppressed the Kurds. But seriously, if you think Iraq is going through a civil war now then you're overdramatizing this way too much. You have a better chance of being in a car wreck in the United States than being injured by an IED in Iraq. Not to mention that the incidents are becoming even more isolated. Does it sound like the United States is cracking down on crazy teen drivers or old farts who cant see over the dash? Why not? in everyone else's eyes they should be banning automobiles all together and start suing the car factories. Shit! just look at the numbers. US Highway Deaths compared to all 4 years of the Iraq War. Well look around. There was more alcohol related crashes that occurred from 6 to noon in the US then there has been Iraqi War Casualties. Damn! we should ban alcohol- wait, DONT DO THAT!!! Anyways, I'm off for chow.

That's entertaining. sure made me laugh... "perfected." She must have wanted to be in the wrong club when she was young. Here in America we have the Mickey Mouse Club... someone shouldve told her that instead of her trying to be in the Hitler youth. Anyways, has anyone heard of this yet? Just great. Yeah its good to look like we're doing something to help the middle east. But in reality we're just trying to officially divide Israel. I don't get it. Palestine? Philistines? whats the difference? This is pulling way back but didn't they originate from Jacob, ruled by Saul who was then killed by David in a civil war then he was succeeded by his son Solomon? If that's true that would put Palestine rightfully under Israel's control. But then again according to the same document Israel is just plain doomed until further notice so it doesn't really matter. But regardless, in my eyes: Palestine is part of Israel. Its been that way since basically the dawn of time. So Leave it alone, it will correct itself in time to come... indefinitely (again using the same document)! oh BTW, I'm back... sure seems weird to be though

yeah i herd that all the way over here (in the US) it stikes me as... well... dickish. why would u show something like that? anyone else think we should bust down the TV creators door and stick the sick b*****ds head in the toilet and see if we can flush him where he belongs? *shakes head*... sad

Well, i guess it cant be too bad for me to put in my two cents in: This is a John Deere Model 40 (made in 1953 i think): http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4210/winter1rszrq0.jpg Nice pic of an ole fashioned bell in the snow: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/3782/winterrszzo2.jpg And funny "charlie" stick figures on some light armored vehicle (cant remember what) at the United States Air Force Museum... dont ask me why it would be there either i'm still scratching my head on that one too. http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/627/airforcemuseum2rszlt9.jpg

you know there's a Paris in Kentucky right? lol j/king 20 miles south-southeast of Cincinnati, OH, USA... out-in-the-middle-of-nowhere, Kentucky lol always quite, and u can see across the river and see the nice opposing hills of Ohio too... relaxing... *falls asleep*

huh, never noticed this topic... oh well i guess this would be the best place to ask a quick question. Since i never knew you can have some WB taken away I'll ask this: Back in Aug. of '05 i got PRed for flaming, but i got two WBs. is there anything wrong with that or is it within the regs? would i be eligible for having my WB removed... at least two. the third one still seems kinda unfair, but that's another story that never has ended.

God blesses every country above all other countries. Which is why we have wars we have wars because a group of people doesn't like another group of people. do you always tie wars to religion? it seems like every time someone says something about why a war was started you pop out of nowhere and yell "Its because of religion!" with an anti-religion mustache pinned to your head. it looks strikingly like hitler's mustache, might i add. he did, in fact, try to exterminate one religion. so you can kinda see why it looks so close. But anyways, did you all hear about this: (Full Article) just goes to show you that Iran hasn't changed and is still power hungry. I've been reading up on the history there it it looks like Iran is pushing to be imperialistic, in nature; and control the mideast.

huh... well by technicality he's right. but there is a whole article on amending the constitution. So, he may be saying "hint: fix it." donno. but what would be the US constitution if it was without generalizations? a blank piece of paper?

Well considering that over 90% of Iraqis outside the Sunni triangle feel very safe in their neighborhood (November 2006 Report to Congress), not much of a civil war is going on now is this? Again, I don't trust the press that much. They make it out to be something that it isn't. In fact in the same report, it states that 54% of attacks are in 2 of the 18 provinces of Iraq. Nice predictions *rolls eyes* the main factor that pisses me off is that US units were engaged by Soviet Units and even PRC units. We were there to combat communism and the hippies drugged up in the states complained and spoke louder than the people who actually knew what is going on. Such as the same scenario now. people don't know what is really going on. But the fact remains, the US had a pledge. it should have honored it. Reality Check: The Soviets were fighting people funded by a superpower when they were hitting rock bottom. This isn't the case. The US is fighting people supplied by nations that spend an amount to terrorists that is significantly less than the amount the US spends on the military. After time, who do you think will run out of money? better question, who do you think will give up? you shoot one, another crosses into Iraq to fight you. But the threat is subsiding. slowly --but unmistakably, dropping. What did I tell you? jihad joe would notice they aren't getting anywhere and leave. but still some more terrorists will come in but they would not be as experienced as old jihad joe. thus, they will be killed faster. then after seeing more and more greener troops come in Iraq, recruiting will stall and no one will go to Iraq to win against the US. a fast moving force cannot be hit hard. Saddam's stockpile was not that big, but in the case you are presuming the US and coalition forces acted in reaction to the NBC attacks in '91. He refused to get rid of them and so we took him out for the greater good of the middle east. You see, it comes down to the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." Saddam had NBC weapons, he knew that if he used them the US, UK, and Israel will be lighting up the sky the moment afterwords. So he figured the US would leave after harsh unconventional warfare. and your wanting it to be true? Would you pick a fight with someone 10 times your size? That would be an opinion. I don't blame them, did it work? No! OBL still lived. And see Iraq lose and Soviet influence spread. If you remember the Islamic Revolutionaries were backed by the Soviets. and who was it against? could it be the terrorists? Besides, ISF forces are conducting Major operations now, not the US. because of the terrorists. I can only account for maybe three areas in which US soldiers don't want to go: 1) Sunni Triangle 2) Al Anbar hotspots 3) Outside the green zone in Baghdad But hey, there are places here in the US where I rather not go. what's your point? Iraq isn't so different than the US back in the segregation days. Now look how we turned out.

ah yes... the minority... what did they say? Just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. That's what we call layziness. Oh man this is a rare event... I'm going to tie in the above point to this one. If the terrorists see that the US will not leave after a long time of fighting. and they see that their friends are dying. and that the US is still in Iraq. Do you think they will keep coming to Iraq to blow up stuff? Common sense will tell you the more experienced fighters would go home seeing that the fight is useless and then there will be newbies leading newbies --always a bad combination, and they get killed faster than the others. now if jihad joe were to look at the rate of men dying in Iraq go up and the success rate still nowhere do you think he will think the US is winning? The only difference is time. and if you give it, violence will go down. My idea is that if Israel sees Iran with a nuke and we all know Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think Israel would let Iran have the chance to launch it? The chance to kill thousands after a warning that they will? letting them do it is just stupid. Its the same way with Iraq and the US. Your scenario is different. you are thinking that just because you see that the guy is about to do it you ban him for it. That's not right. This concept is based on expressed intent/threatening. you are basing it on assumed intent. Saddam used WMD's before, he wasn't afraid to use them again after two incidents. Iran has said it wants Israel wiped off the map. You see the difference? Here you see threats. Which would have happened if Republicans did not tackle at every corner. Is that why the US congress, mostly republican, passed public law 105-235. Here let me show you a quote: . Thinking about changing you mind yet? your going to have to explain this one in greater detail. "Major Combat Operations against the Iraqi Regime" now it's: "Operations against Saddam loyalists and terrorists" So you are calling current operations, minor, right? It was Rumsfeld who said that Iraqis would come greet us with flowers and sing and dance. Do you under stand the phrase in quotation marks? did you space out after against? Concerning the generalized term of "operations" you stand back and see that Operation Enduring Freedom wasn't a minor one. so whats to determine the size of an operation? It sure isn't the word "operation." But on to the Iraqis singing and dancing. some of them did and some of them didn't. but it still comes back to the first part of the later sentence. there was some that sung and danced. in a sense, he was right. Iraqi people did sing and dance. but you all are pessimistic and looked and said "well hey not everyone did."

Hmm... messed up on the link. well here, I'll post now and fix it after I'm done. look here: That sums up the answer there. First you were wrong to point out TBA set up the group. The person talking is actually Douglas J. Feith. Not the white house, But--instead, the Pentagon. Second It was not formed to find intell specifcally on Iraq, this next quote sums up the real answer: Third, the accusation about furnishing intell. It relied on gathered intell from the CIA and other intell agencies. As identified here: Fourth, the OSP was NOT between the white house and the CIA/NSA/other intell services. It was under the Department of Defense and then lower to the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Your CoC put the NSA and CIA below the OSP. in reality it is not. The CIA is NOT part of the pentagon. It is under the Director of National Intelligence, who is under the authority of the President of the United States. Here is how it looks: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">President of the United States of America >Cabinet +>Secretary of Defence ++>Office of Special Plans ++> National Security Agency >Director of National Intelligence +> Central Intelligence Agency At the time there was no Director of National Intelligence, so the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was just under the President. Thus still putting the CIA over the OSP. Another fault is putting the OSP over the DoD, It is not. As Stated above it was from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Thus putting it under the Secretary of Defense, which puts it under the Pentagon. Your graph is totally messed up. But yet in the same article, third paragraph it says: What does that tell you about the conflicting reports? Plus there is this from the DoD brief: Let me bring in a quote from your last post Now, look above. see the part about Tenet testifying before the Armed Services Committee?Why, I'm beginning to think your no more than a doomer and gloomer about federal policy. You three points are all discounted when the OSP connected Iraq with al-Qaeda, the organization that carried out 9/11. Plus, how do you explain the gassing of the Kurds and Iranians? you think he would just destroy all of the gas? an iron-fisted dictator like that? about the other links: as I said a while back, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. its a site that ANYONE CAN EDIT AT ANYTIME. Then the washington post, the press. I don't trust them. After all they still have the Spanish-American War on their record. and for me, it is a very good reason not to trust them.

There is aword going around in the US, it´s called Impeachment. Up to now there should have been enough evidence collected to impeach him. If he did something wrong do you really think the US congress or the US supreme court would let him stay in office? Looking at the 100H of the democratic congress i heard no mention or agenda to impeach pres Bush. He simply did nothing wrong. If you all think he when on his way and declared war on Iraq on his own know that there is a real document called the "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARYFORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002," or otherwise known as "PUBLIC LAW 107–243 (OCT. 16, 2002)." you all should read it, it will enlighten you go on, read. If you need more evedince to pile up against the alleged impeachment, look no further. just ask me.

  You mean to tell me that this huge misinformation about iraq is from less than five people "digesting" information? They only conect the dots between terrorist networks, even you can do that. My God boy lol all this doom and gloom about, what... five people ate the most. And to think, where do they get the intell? THE CIA!!!  you realy need to look up on your claims. here look at This. Maybe this will change you mind about the "office that is a serious danger to the US" Pa-Thetic! Besides, the CIA got a team that did the same so now it's done, finnished, no longer needed. Good night! EDITED THE LINK

If you notice the footnotes you would see these "reports" are not official but actually civilian in nature. the first footnote is from the washington post, the second from the gaurdian. Now i don't know about you but last time i checked "foreign intelligence" wasn't taught for the press. Nor do i trust the press to head the intell ring. The recomendation was to get a second opinion, something that doesn't mean its wrong. it means they want to be sure its accurate. Look further in the report in paragraph 5.7 (under the "Evidence" section. look at the claim. now look at the footnote. US House of Representitves. Did you see the content? Now here lies the problem with your claim, its the presses word against the governments. now with the argument of "who is actually paid to protect us?" who do you think is right? annother big question. Who's false claimes started the Spannish-American War? Answer: the press. But if you honestley looked at only the first link you show you have no dignity. You only comment on the first, what about the other three? Do I need to add more, I remember seing a DoD briefing on Iraq on the same website... but i just haven't gotten around to look for it. Now about your claims of this OSP feeding lies, i'm going to have to look into it. I haven't heard of an office that bypasses the CIA, NSA, and foreign intell offices. let alone the pentagon and its intell. I'll post here in a little bit after i realy look into this OSP.