Texican

I agree with akira on this one.

2 pm here and Im VERY tired

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ June 12 2002,20:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Texican @ June 12 2002,206)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">doesnt matter the reasons we came in, the point is we helped win the war.<span id='postcolor'> Only helped when it suited USA. Sure the lend lease was there, sending weapons and supplies to needing countries but they were still the ones doing the fighting against evil. Ironic how USA stays out of it untill it gets its hand cut and then it goes out stating its out to destroy evil oppression and tyranny, while before all it did was ship weapons. but what I was saying is that USA did not send any troops into the fray untill USA was provoked. If USA didn't get attacked they would have stayed out of it.<span id='postcolor'> WHY OH WHY do you keep telling me US acts out of self interest when I already said they did. Is this selective listening.

one i never said it wasnt about self interest, as a matter of fact i said before you came into the room countries including ours are motivated by self interest, so what is up with telling me things I already said. two doesnt matter the reasons we came in, the point is we helped win the war. read all my statements not just one please.

Im doing a girly thing and shopping for shoes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ June 12 2002,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'> "The US does something out of self gain. So tell me why that is so bad since EVERY country does everything out of self gain." I didnt say it was bad that they did things out of selfgain. I said that the complaint was based on this. Mainly because the bull that surrounds it about how the US is helping people and saving lifes. Just come clean and say it the way it is instead of trying to come across like the saviors of the world. Strange, Longinus, I think i DID say we have self interest, you qouted me saying we have self interest and then tell me to come out and say it. DO you really read my sentences. "It doesnt make any country evil to want to take care of its people and considering all the aid the US gives to other countries who spit in our face Id say we are a pretty good country." So, the ends justifies the means? I don't agree. A nation can indeed be considered evil just for taking care of its people. What do you think the Nazis claimed to be doing if not looking after the people? Hate to tell you this, Longinus, then every country is evil, every country has self interest and is ruled by it. "Strange, hardly ever hear about the netherlands in world news but always the US in them. Dont criticize our helping until you have every country in the world knocking at YOUR door asking you to do stuff and trying to balance all that. Ohg and by the way, looked up this bill that passed and I couldnt find it anywhere nor did your link work. Put a working link up please." The US is not alone in helping others, far from it. There are nations pulling a heavier load, when compared to national wealth. As for that bill, it isnt the bill alone. The statements made by American politics stating the same things is worrying enough. I didnt say the US was alone in helping but I will tell you this we have every country knocking at our door, while some other countries have only a few, the more people you have to please the harder it is.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RedRogue @ June 11 2002,23:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah but only if we could Ralph. It would be intresting to see the world have to deal with its problems all by itself for a change.<span id='postcolor'> Ahhh yes, I agree redrogue. We have seen the world try to deal with its problems in its own way, we like to call it WW1 and WW2. And we know how that ended and who had to come in and help. USA

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ June 11 2002,22:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The complaint isnt that America does something, the complaint is that America only does something out of self gain. The US has never gotten envolved in a conflict just to help people. Never ever. The second gripe is the way the US choses to solve the problem. Go in with bombers, blow up roads, bridges, railways, powerplants, warehouse districts and so on. Where does that leave the civilians when the US walks away? Crawling in the dust most likely...<span id='postcolor'> The US does something out of self gain. So tell me why that is so bad since EVERY country does everything out of self gain. I dont know if you've ever heard this but governments are responsible for the welfare of their own people. It doesnt make any country evil to want to take care of its people and considering all the aid the US gives to other countries who spit in our face Id say we are a pretty good country. We deal with crap all the time from countries who dont have the armies, the economies, or the spines to say things directly to our face but who sure like to talk alot behind our backs to other countries and not act. I dont know any country that gets involved in anything that didn't affect them. Im sorry you dont like our "methods" of helping but we try our best. Strange, hardly ever hear about the netherlands in world news but always the US in them. Dont criticize our helping until you have every country in the world knocking at YOUR door asking you to do stuff and trying to balance all that. Ohg and by the way, looked up this bill that passed and I couldnt find it anywhere nor did your link work. Put a working link up please.

Ok so the US is all of a sudden going to attack the Netherlands because we dont care what anypne else in the world thinks and yet that would never happen because Nato wouldnt allow it. Ok so which is it, people? Either the US cares or it doesnt. Anyway, I cant believe three pages were dedicated to unsubstantiated news. Does anyone really believe this, oh and can the communists please not answer, we already know what you think.

Being a woman myself, I don't agree lol. It was funny and some women are like that but not all. I hope I'm not. I must not be bc the guy I hang with doesnt care for kids and is a govt worker. I hope he reads this.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ May 31 2002,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Cuban Missile Crisis was a good example. A period in history where we have come the closest (or rather the US and USSR came closest) to nukin' ourselves into oblivion. Â Admitedly I don't get anything like this from the current crisis, but then again I think the two are completely different. Yes the US and USSR were enemies at the time. But were they enemies of the likes of India and Pakistan? I don't think we were. I think India and Pakistan are more bitter, fueled by bad blood, a hotly disputed territory, allegations of harboring, funding, and sending, terrorists to attack India (including a government parliment building), and years of built up tension. I think the Indo-Pakistani conflict is much more bitter and volatile than the US-USSR Cold War was, being based on ideological and religious grounds. At the least it is much more in the open. When I say they are more worried about "retention" of power, I mean in such a manner where opponents at home see that they are doing what they think is "right". From what I can understand the majority of each country wants their leaders to stand up to the other, to be tough and not give in. This is the basis of the retention of power right now. It is posturing and not tied to the nuclear threat directly. Now no war will start as a nuclear war. Clearly it will begin as a conventional ground-air war. So no...there "retention" of power is not tied to a First Strike capability, nor their willingness to lob them at the get go. But then, at some point of a standard conventional war, the loser will be forced to open up the question. Accept sound defeat, or open up the genie of nuclear use, whether tactical or strategic. Like I said before. If your country will be over run by your hated enemy anyway....whats to stop you? If your country is over run...you ain't going to get taxes anyway. Only at that point will the sanity and rational mind of the two opponents come in. Or if we are "lucky"....a third party will step in, whether it be the UN...the US...or an "unbiased" third party. But right now, everything is tied to posturing and talking tough...including the press conferences and the "leaked" information that Pakistan hasn't ruled out "first-use".<span id='postcolor'> Well I would dare to say the Cuban Missile crisis not only was on the same level as this crisis but maybe even more dangerous. The US and USSR were enemies like India and Pakistan. We HATED each other with a passion, you remember that whole "Evil Empire" talk. A hotly disputed territory? I seem to remember Germany being split like a hair and all the people who were shot just because they wanted to go to west Germany. We harbored people and Russian harbored people all in the name of political righteousness. And I agree we never sent terrorists to attack Russia we sent spies and assassins. And thats only the ones we know about now. IF the tensions between the US and Russia werent so bad then there would have been no reason to use other countries in our dangerous game of parceling the world. Bay of pigs, Cuban missile crisis and hell thats just one country! What about the other countries all over the world we used bc it was too dangerous to attack each other straight on. And you say opponents at home are doing what they think is "right" and being pushed to be tough and stand up to each other. Well, since we are using the example of the Cuban MIssile crisis. Thats the perfect example. Both sides wanted to look like they came out winning, neither side wanted to lose face in the least. Which is why they came to an under the table deal that made both sides look good without telling the public the specific details. Which is exactly why Pakistan, I think, said nukes can be used. One, because they wanted to look stropng and two its a cry for help. Neither country is going to tell us straight out every little talk every little compromise every little negotiation. I bet they will come to some backroom deal that makes both of them coming off smelling like roses OR at the very least de-escalating the tensions down to a more managable way. And yeah true if your country is overrun what are you going to do? Well, its not just Pakistan India has to worry about if they do that. If its just some local war and no one cares if India takes Pakistan then why is it such big news why are we responding? Why are other countries trying to get into the negotiation process? India isnt dumb either. They know what the score is. I completely agree everything is posturing but I can tell you right now its just as possible in those little darkbackrooms where they arent going to spill leaks to reporters theres a lot of talking going on.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ May 31 2002,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both countries have hardliners pressuring the leaders to not back down. Right now from the looks of it they are more worried about "retaining" power than doing what is sane and rational. So they will continue to push each other. World War One started on an act of terrorism too. Stranger things have happened. Unleashing the bomb? Thats a tough one. I doubt India would be the first, unless they made some HUGE tactical and strategic miscalculations. Their army vastly outnumbers the Pakistani army. So what about Pakistan? Well thats when you have to wonder where you draw the line. If your country is being overrun and about to be crushed....is this when you have nothing to lose, and unleash the bomb? If you're country is about to be destroyed why not? Better to assure partial destruction of them if you are going down anyway. I guess that is one way to look at it. But then I have read reports that this is all posturing. But for posturing they are playing a dangerous game. Two armies, so close, with so much hatred, so much pride, and a highly disputed area in question.....something is going to happen. Dunno....we will have to see. As I said. Nowadays I can believe anything can happen.<span id='postcolor'> Every country has hardliners, but there wouldnt be political Hawks if there weren't Doves also. Our country, the U.S. has both too and we had them in the Cuban missile crises and what prevailed? Reason and real politics. I'm not saying there aren't crazy people out there BUT if i start believing everyone is crazy and willing to kill themselves and everyone else in the world then you know what, I might as well go home dig a hole, pull a blanket over my head and just hope it happens fast. I'm an optimist but I am also a realist. You say, they are worried about retaining power then doing what is sane, the ONLY way to retain power IS to do what is sane. They start a nuke war and there is no power for either country once that is over. Unless, of course the power they want is over the millions of poor dead people on their sidewalks and I can tell you something, you can't tax those people. They aren't dumb, you are very right they want power and it isnt gonna happen by nuking someone who can nuke you back. And you say Pakistan is worried about their country being overrun and rushed and so they might think the option of sending nukes is more viable. If that is so why didnt they push that button. What did they do?? They called a press conference or talked to reporters or leaked it (I dont know how it became known) and they said this is our option. They did that to get help because they are afraid of being overrun. They don't want to nuke they want people to step in. Or why tell the world "Hey, I think I'll tell reporters for no reason" Politicians arent dumb. They know what making statements like that will do whether they mean to do it or not. Sorry for the long vent, Akira, I agree with alot of your points. Maybe Im more optimistic.

Maybe Im naive but do we really believe Pakistan will do that? I don't. Start a nuclear war? Yeah they say it but they say it to news reporters, they want attention and they want someone to step in. Sure they'd like to kick India's ass and vice versa but not at the expense of all your people, your family and your life. A basic rule of negotiation is that you believe your enemy is basically rational and will do what is in their own best interest, and killing yourself and others isnt in your best interest. If both sides can kill each other and both sides know it they prob won't. I'm not saying I am not worried about the situation but I don't think we are dealing with a bunch of zealots. Maybe I'm naive. I'm new to the forum.

I picked who cares. People are worrying about movies and their effect. How about worrying about real terrorists and their effect? It's just a movie if you are offended here's an option, don't go see it. Go see Undercover Brother or some art film or something!

Well, to add to Akira's point, it's Baltimore that gets it, not NY. Hehehe, so it is different.