|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,149 |
A nuclear response? I think Randy Newman had it about right:
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
-- 1999 SVT #220 --
In retrospect, it was all downhill from here. RIP, CEG.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 638
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 638 |
deleted
Last edited by Pope; 07/19/05 02:14 PM.
87 Mustang GT 5.0L TURBO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,521
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,521 |
Originally posted by bigMoneyRacing:
A nuclear response? I think Randy Newman had it about right:
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
How coincidental is that... Hearing the same song, which I've never heard before, twice in the span of a week. The first time was about a week ago at a Glen Phillips concert (he covered it). Weird.
Chris G.
~ 98 Mystique LS ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by BP:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
I would make it our stated policy that if we get hit in such fashion, ANY country associated in any way gets a full spread of nukes "operation death strike"...
first off god forbid they would be able to pull off something like this. it doesn't seem plausible, possible but not likely.
but for discussions sake, which countries would be a target of "operation death strike"? would saudi be on that list?
and since terrorist networks are silent and not linked to any specific countries do you think it would help/hurt?
This article is bogus but may indeed contain a kernel of truth..we know the MS-13 gangs are working with terrorists, we know they have been seeking nukes for some time, would certainly use nukes if available, and it is certainly possible that they actually have acquired some degree of nuclear capability, dirt bombs more likely than a small nuke but the later is not ruled out.
I am "semi-serious" when I say it should be our stated policy that if we are hit with WMD, we reserve the right to retailiate IN KIND, at OUR decression, with countries that have been found to be "associated" with the terrorist plot. I would leave this deliberately vague...(Note: SAYING we may or even would attack under certain circumstances does not ness mean we WOULD, that is another story, you know, kind of like certain UN resolutions that are imposed and then blown off by some)
It means that you better think twice. It could mean that if a Saudi citizen was found to be involved and that the government was even indirectly complicit they could be hit. If Mexico does nothing about its gangs and its policy that PROMOTES border crossing and we show a jihaddist took advantage of a corrupt police system to get a nuke across, it COULD be an act of war. The point is to put the world on notice that governments will potentially share in the blame if its country's people or resources greviously wound the US as a result of negligence. Negligence is key..I have no problem with a government that puts a good faith effort into stopping terrorism but happens to fail at times..the UK comes to mind. It defines a certain responsibilty and consequence for the actions of one's citizens. This is a REQUIRED mindset that all countries must have given the assymetrical nature of conflict in the 21st century.
Like I have said from the beginning...terrorism is by nature nebulous but terrorists require (at least for substantial operations) a certain amount of direct or tacit support from GOVERNMENTS. Governments are NOT so nebulous and are interested first and formost in maintaining there existance. We can use governments "survival instinct" as a bargaining chip if we demonstrate our will and ability to terminate errant governments. In Iraq and Afganistan, we have done this at high cost, restoring our bargaining power lost after decades of failed wars. In the end, this will be crucial to pushing back jihaddism.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,489 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
It could mean that if a Saudi citizen was found to be involved and that the government was even indirectly complicit they could be hit. If Mexico does nothing about its gangs and its policy that PROMOTES border crossing and we show a jihaddist took advantage of a corrupt police system to get a nuke across, it COULD be an act of war.
any high level gov involvement with terrorists at this point would be virtually impossible to prove. i guess it's possible but highly unlikely after what we did to afghanistan.
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Like I have said from the beginning...terrorism is by nature nebulous but terrorists require (at least for substantial operations) a certain amount of direct or tacit support from GOVERNMENTS.
maybe in the past but i don't think they need that kind of cooperation now. these guys have been planning, practicing, and self funding for years without any gov direction or involvement. at this point i don't think they need any gov support to pull off a catastrophic attack.
my point is we have to be very careful about how we respond to threats and/or attacks as to not ostracize the very govs trying to help us. for instance if something happened on US soil should we bomb pakistan and afghansitan (again)? imo this would make things much worse.
i think we should stay our course with our current plans.
'03 Saab 9-5 Aero
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by BP:
maybe in the past but i don't think they need that kind of cooperation now. these guys have been planning, practicing, and self funding for years without any gov direction or involvement. at this point i don't think they need any gov support to pull off a catastrophic attack.
my point is we have to be very careful about how we respond to threats and/or attacks as to not ostracize the very govs trying to help us. for instance if something happened on US soil should we bomb pakistan and afghansitan (again)? imo this would make things much worse.
i think we should stay our course with our current plans.
I do not think they need DIRECT support..
I do not think they need cooporation to pull of some suicide bombings
I DO think they need cooporation for the big jobs...
A few Saudi Royals looking the other way as wealthy Sheiks pump money to jihaddists
A Syrian government that allows jihaddist training in Damascus and free rein to cross borders
Iranian Mullhlas who give safe harbor to known Al Queda
The cooporation is KNOWINGLY granting safe harbor, permitting training camps, allowing funds to be moved. To not take positive action when you know things are happening. Many of these countries are run by tryrants who pretty much know everything going on inside the borders. I am not refering to flegling democracies like Afganistan..Hamid Karzai is doing all he can given the circumstances. Even Musharriff in Pakistan is doing what he can do, I think, as so much is beyond his control. Yes, hard to prove but may be possible...
Agree, stay the course...I think we are making slow progress toward democratization which I believe will bring greater world safty and stability in the long view. But should the unthinkable happen...NYC, LA, Washington hit with nukes all bets are off. Not talking about a policy shift, I am just saying that a little "information leak" that spells this out may not be a bad idea. I do not really know.
But interestingly, I DO know that now more than ever (potent president/military action + unprecidented media coverage + internet spread)..the bad guys (and good guys) ARE listening to everything we say. I guess the real question is what DO we say. I do know we should not use terms like "quagmire" or "we are war criminals" or "prisoner abuse"..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Dan Nixon! I was beginning to worry that the 'vast left-wing conspiracy' had offed you!
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
Originally posted by BP:
these guys have been planning, practicing, and self funding for years without any gov direction or involvement. at this point i don't think they need any gov support to pull off a catastrophic attack.
while it is true there are a bazillion people who can assemble the nuke itself there are only so many countries in this world who are capable of building a nuke or weapons grade nuclear material and even fewer who are willing to even discuss giving/selling it to a terrorist group either directly or through a middle man. russia and the dprc come to mind.
Originally posted by BP:
my point is we have to be very careful about how we respond to threats and/or attacks
very true. instead of standing around holding ourselves and crying about how we deserve it every time some country or group attacks us we should respond with overwhelming terrifing force. example: you stab us(9-11) and take the knife and sever(sp?) both your arms so that you will never do that again.
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
the bad guys (and good guys) ARE listening to everything we say. I guess the real question is what DO we say. I do know we should not use terms like "quagmire" or "we are war criminals" or "prisoner abuse"..
Dan, are you saying that we should not allow open discussion of Bush's decision to invade Iraq? Are you saying we should not allow dissent re: the war in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
the bad guys (and good guys) ARE listening to everything we say. I guess the real question is what DO we say. I do know we should not use terms like "quagmire" or "we are war criminals" or "prisoner abuse"..
Dan, are you saying that we should not allow open discussion of Bush's decision to invade Iraq? Are you saying we should not allow dissent re: the war in Iraq?
He's saying that the time for that is after the troops come home. You can hang GW from the tallest tree in your town & I'll provide the rope if you present a good enough argument, but until the men & women in uniform are out of harms way, you are giving the NMEs of the U.S. the idea that their tactics are succeeding. You're giving them the impression that they can divide the nation & erode support for the effort, & therefore they will continue to perform their evil deeds when they otherwise would quit. And yes, I am saying that if the nation were united in the effort (now that we are in fact there), the terrorists & their potential recruits would quickly see the futility of their methods.
There will be the few hard-core retards, but recruiting would be near impossible without evidence of any effectiveness.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
