Security

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Real patriots don't hack.

0 helpful
117 replies

by thamer

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC)warned Wednesday that growing tensions between the United States and Iraq could lead to an increase in global computer hacking activities on both sides.

"Regardless of the motivation, theNIPC reiterates such activity is illegal and punishable as a felony," the agency warns on its Web site. "The U.S. government does not condone so-called 'patriot hacking' on its behalf."

The agency specifically cited patriot hackers who target Iraq or its sympathizers, hackers opposed to war who target U.S. systems, and those who would use the crisis as a guise to further personal goals.

"As tensions arise, it is prudent to be aware of and prepare for this type of activity," the agency said.

NIPC said computer network administrators and computer users should take precautions to guard against cyber attacks and provided links for additional security checklists in their warning message@
http://www.nipc.gov/warnings/advisories/2003/03-002.htm

117 replies

by hereinoz

I don't usually like being controversial, but from a non US citizen's point of view, it is looking increasingly that the person we need to be most concerned about here is not Mr Hussein of Babylonia, but George Dubya of downhome Texas.

by thamer

Well,... that's excatly what NIPC is worried about ... alerting!

"Further, even A patriotic hackers@ can be fooled into launching attacks against their own interests by exploiting malicious code that purports to attack the other side when in factit is designed to attack the interests of the side sending it."

May be there will be no disruptive hacking attacks from Iraqi hackers ... for their lack of knowledge ... but who can guarnttee that none of the "opposing activism" will target the US Systems?

by theven

You see what I mean, chappie? This is a perfect example of how a leftie can't talk about a subject without relating it to his political views. I'm pretty sure you're a smart person, so it's hard to see how you can compare a mass murderer like Hussein to Bush. Dude, you can dislike or disagree with him, but that's really out there. I wouldn't think any American politician (in office) can be compared to Hussein. This is mbecker, by the way, I changed my alias.

by oldefar

Interesting thought.

In 2 years, President Bush will have to face elections. If he wins, he will have 4 more years as president with no extensions. Saddam Hussein will face elections when? President Bush has no history of using chemical or biological weapons against internal opposition or neighboring states. Saddam Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons against internal communities who did not support him and against Iran. President Bush does not use torture of individuals or families of individuals to force cooperation. Saddam Hussein routinely uses torture of individuals or their families to force cooperation. President Bush has attempted to conquer no nations. Saddam Hussein has attempted to conquer two nations.

Given this pattern of behavior, it is most likely that who will act without regard for others?

I find your perspective interesting. Is this an Australian thing?

by road-dog

An official U.S. Government directive intends to limit attacks by private citizens, and you use that as evidence of how "dangerous" Dubya is?

Get a grip! 9.1.1. was caused by citizens of other countries engaging in war with another country. We put rules in place that our citizens will not even attack computer systems. I believe that this is indicative of restraint.

Keep on spouting about your views though, maybe a "well meaning" hacker will let you know how he feels about your opinions. Maybe a rebuttal will not be posted here, but will be coming soon to a hard drive near you! Make sure that your views are consistent though, and you thank that individual for exercising his opposition to Dubya!

by maxwell edison

It's obvious that what you know about George W. Bush could be shoved into a thimble and it would rattle like a bb in a boxcar.

Trusting "Mr." Hussein or "Dubya"?

Your showing of respect for one and disdain for the other will likely get little agreement in America - except, of course, with those who have their heads planted firmly up their keisters.

by kahunanui

Well, it seems that we are in the minority here, and we suspect that is because most Americans don't really know whats going on around them because they rely far too much on the [controlled] mass media in this country. Also, they are famous for only paying attention to what a politician SAYS and they seem to care little or do nothing about what a politician ACTUALLY DOES (or FAILS TO DO)... What they don't seem to realise is that there are far more intelligent people throughout the world who believe just that. That we must be far more concerned about Bush than Saddam or anyone else for that matter. Heck, Bush Sr, should be tried right alongside Sharon for being a War CRIMINAL. And having said that, I will not even bother to read any responses (if any) to this as I just stated, most Americans don't really know the Truth if it came up from behind and bit them square on their Okole(backside). We have lived in the Israeli state and surrounding areas and know the Truth about who arethe Real Terrorists there.
In spite of having so many resources at their disposal, Americans - without a doubt - are some of the most ignorant and apathetic people in the entire world. It is truly sad.

end of line

by mallardtooxx

WHo'd a thunk this would skew this thread so far huh? Chappie to answer your question as an American Citizen. Honestly there is no comparison between the two men you question. I think it was either Oldefar or Roaddog that made the point of this.In all honsety why should the world fear George Bush? Has he not shown great restraint so far? Could not the great American Aggressor have nuked all of afganistan on 9/12? We could quite honestly turn all of the middle east to a sea of glass if we wanted to, but we won't. Why? Because we as Americans show restraint. Everyone seems to think we are a bunch of bubbas that bave no clue what is going on, even in our own country. They are wrong, and while I would never want to in any way insult someone of another nationality,(sarcasm sorry) I must say why is it that it is always the US that gets the call at the International Help Desk....Oh yeah because we solve problems, guess that is why everyone hates us.
PS...this is in no way an attack upon you

-duck

by john_wills

The real problem is not Dubya but AIPAC, which has tremendous influence on US politics and has had since the horror of the US shaming France and Britain into withdrawing from Suez, and threatening the Israelis with sanctions if they did not get out of the Gaza Strip. AIPAC decided that that must never happen again, and started working on the US political scene so effectively that the Israelis can bomb US ships and get away with it. AIPAC noticed that the "Free Palestine" movement was gathering momentum and arranged for the Iraq business as a diversion for the demonstrating classes - AIPAC doesn't care much about the details of what happens, as long as Iraq doesn't become a democracy (which would be more strongly anti-
Zionist than the despotism is): the point is to be able to continue the dispossession of the Palestinians without the US people turning anti-Zionist. Whichever side I take in the Iraq business I am a Zionist stooge.

by thamer

On Friday 02/14/03, the Bush Administration released the final version of the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, which disappointed many in its variance from several widely circulated drafts. The document attempts to address the growing concernover threats to the nation's computer systems, threats that could result in "debilitating disruption to our nation's critical infrastructures, economy, or national security." Critics complained that the final version of the strategy document backs away from regulations and concrete steps to improve cybersecurity, opting instead for suggestions and softer recommendations. Allan Paller of the SANS Institute said the document is "a wonderful statement of the problem" but leaves out "some of the best ideas that people had." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) also faulted the final document, calling it "a vague set of broad principles that has no money backing it up." Washington Post, 15 February 2003 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10274-2003Feb14.html

by maxwell edison

If Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) ever says (or said) anything nice, good, or otherwise positive about anything President Bush says (or said) you could get your icecubes in hades.

(Except, of course, after 9-11 when President Bush promised billions of federal dollars to New York, Schumer's home state.)

by oldefar

I noticed that the report in the second link cites an example that the article in the first link indicates is an "urban myth". With the supposed experts failing to research the background information, it places all references as suspect.

Regardless, all three give alternative perspectives on the issue of cyber terror.

by oldefar

This is common sense policy.

Blocking illegal activity regardless of motive is the basis of civilized society. Patriot or vigilante hackers are in the same group as self appointed executioners. Without restraints we have anarchy.

Establishing plans to conduct attacks of whatever means is common among governments. This does not mean they are used. None of the war plans I was exposed to in the 70's were executed. Interesting that in the US, we require a law to conduct such planning. One of the aspects of a nation based in law and the rights of individuals.

Care to ponder how many other nations have or are working on cyber attack planning? Care to ponder how many of these other governments feel a need to enact a law to do so?

by road-dog

tactically and strategically. Suppose the DOD and information warfare entities have an access point into enemy assets. They are in the process of brewing up a worm scheduled to activate at a particular time to disrupt enemy infrastructure in synchronization with troop activities IRL.

Meanwhile, a well meaning but clumsy DOS attack by Timmy Delucca in Ft. Worth, Texas might be caught and defensive measures taken. This might close the door the feds are planning to exploit and might result in the deletion of malicious code painstakingly designed and placed as part of a grander strategy.

Suffice it to say, if hacking is what to have to offer the war effort, I'm sure that Christians In Action might have use of your services. You will have to live on G.S.paygrade, though.

by oldefar

You peer listing indicates your home as Saudi Arabia. Are you a Saudi Arabian concerned about US law, or an American serving in Saudi Arabia?

I could not tell reading your other postings.

The world is getting to be a small place. I would like to hear your thoughts regarding the response from our Australian poster as to whether Bush is more of a threat than Hussein, especially if you are a Saudi Arabian.

by maxwell edison

Real patriots won't hack (as phrased by the author of this thread) is, in this context, similar to saying that real patriots won't interfere with their armed forces, or good citizens won't interfere with law enforcement efforts. What's wrong with that?

by hal 9000

Untill you take into account that the Word "PATRIOT" means different things to differnet people. It is the nature of man that he can twist words to justify his own ends. If you don't believe me just go into any court and watch someone trying to tellthe truth being torn apart by the defendants legal conncil.

by thamer

I never thought I would be speaking/contributing on TechRepublic on any other subject but IT ... otherwise, I should've joined other discussion groups or probably create one of my own ... I never thought I would find myself having to answer ?who? amI or base my opinion/thoughts accordingly ... otherwise I would have left all indicative fields ?blank? on my registration form to join TechRepublic

What I believe is that such diversity is not an issue in this community ... until now ... recently.

Remember the story of the blind child speaking with the black man on the stoop of an old building without having any idea that there was anything "wrong" just knowing that this man was kind and thoughtful. Unfortunately the parent with the twisted sense of reality based solely on societal indoctrination came and told the child not to speak with that person that he was bad ... Well, many kisses to my parents!

by thamer

As far as I can tell there are only two instances that we are all truly equal; the first is during a national disaster and the second is while interacting on the Internet. During the disaster we are all people and the rest doesn't matter. On the Internet, our interaction is based purely on information (thoughts) not how much pigment we have in our skin or what gender or race we are ... It is a place where "who" a person is often defined by "what" a person is ... the thing which some fail to see.

I believe prejudice comes with ignorance and weakness and loss of ideals and values.
It's a trait that pervades our history as mankind ... almost everywhere ...

"WHO YOU ARE?", ... he asked (Gnashing his teeth.)

P.S.
The 5th Amendment is an old friend and a good friend ... One of the great landmarks in men's struggle to be free of tyranny, to be decent and civilized ... I believe!

by oldefar

There are only two times when all people are nearly equal - at birth, when we are full of potential uncompromised by experience or station, and in death, when our experience and station are no longer of use.

Between these points, our experience shapes our vision of the world. It is what has allowed mankind to adapt to every natural environment, to deal with multiple life style, and multiple organizational structures.

Americans (US residents) are often accused of having myoptic views of the world. This is the issue behind the question regarding your point of reference.

Apparently your experiences are such that any question regarding your point of reference appears as prejudice in its worse connotation. How sad. My experience isthat any such question regarding a point of reference is an honest attempt at understanding.

by thamer

My experience has tought me to always deal with others as if they are "smarter" than me even if I'm 100% sure that they are ... not.

by zlitocook

This has nothing to do with hacking! You need to review what a hacker is / what his/hers ideas are. We/they are not people who do things to damage or increase our income. We need to see how things work and to make them work better/faster.
The new republicican leadership can only see the hardline, ie things they can see and touch. There are people out there who just want to learn!

by thamer

I guess we finally have someone who is kind enough to tell us what hackersdome is all abouts starting by their ethics and ... the difference between a "Sumarai", a "Dark Hat" and a "Hackter" ... hackers.

Hoping that S/he will also explains why NIPC's warning "has nothing to do with hacking!" as S/He puts it.

SSSHHHHHHHH!

by thamer

You see,... Real Hackers are the ones who built the Internet ... Who made the UNIX operating system what it is today. Real hackers are the ones who run Usenet .... it is them who made the World Wide Web work. So,... If you are part of this culture ... if you have contributed to it and other people in it know who you are and call you a hacker then, you're a hacker ... and if it happens that you are an American ... then you are a Real Patriot Hacker.

However, there is another group of people who loudly call themselves hackers and , but aren't. These are people (mainly adolescent males) who got a kick out of breaking into computers and phreaking the phone system. Real hackers call these people `crackers' and want nothing to do with them and NIPC's warning is aimed to them.

Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer.

Unfortunately, many journalists and writers have been fooled into using the word `hacker' to describe crackers; this irritates real hackers no end.

The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them...Hackerdom's most revered demigods are people who have written large, capable programs that met a widespread need and given them away, so that now everyone uses them.

If you want to be a cracker, go read the alt.2600 newsgroups and get ready to dofive to ten in the slammer after finding out you aren't as smart as you think you are. And that's all I'm going to say about crackers.

"We work in the dark
We do what we can
We give what we have
Our doubt is our passion,
and our passion is our task
The rest is the madness of art."

by hal 9000

Just how the good old US President can justify using weapons of mass destruction simply to remove the potential of one country having weapons of mass destruction. Anyway isn't North Korea more of a problem they already have these weapons as well as a dilevery system and good old Georgy boy started that mess off by cutting aid to them in the first place? By the way when Government do it its not hacking its called intelegence gathering and they pay some people a very lot of money to do it. The rest is just pointless paronia being spread around by selfinterested parties. Really what was achieved in the 40's with the witch hunts in Hollywood against suspected communists? Maybe I'm wrong but dosen't your constition give people the freedom of political allince?

by maxwell edison

Why should America have “weapons of mass destruction”, while other countries cannot?
The answer is quite simple. Because America can be trusted to use them (or refrain from using them) in a responsible way, while other countries, on theother hand, cannot. Other countries would indeed use them to kill their own people and/or to dominate and/or invade others. America has never used these types of weapons on its own people, while Saddam Hussein has used them to kill and control his own people. (He used chemical weapons on the Kurds, an ethnic group in northern Iraq.) Moreover, America, as well as other responsible countries, already has them. There was a UN non-proliferation agreement not too long ago that intended to maintain the status quo concerning who had them, but prevent further development by rogue nations (including Iraq).

by hal 9000

Excatly who and what a rouge state is. Some could Say America is a rouge state as they are the only country to ever use a fission weapon against another country and then they both where aimed at the general population. Don't get me wrong but the only reason there has been no major conflict for the past 60 od years is there was a ballance and that was the USA and the USSR thay could both wipe out the entire world without help from the other side. Now what have we got Russia a nonenity and the USA talking about using nukes on Iraq if they feel the need to. Yes this is good for putting preasure on the Sad Man Who Sucks but it is also really scary and if you don't see that then you really do have a problem. Any the current Nukes are nothing more than a device to produce a very big bang in a very small package. The current implosion devices really should be clean although they will leave a bloody great mess after one has gone off but it should be safe from radio isotopes anyway. And the silly saying that Iraq could produce Nukes well dam me the average high school student who has studdied physics should know the basics of making a nuke there is no real trouble there though is there as making a nuke is far different from actually getting it where you want it to go bang and keep in mind the these are air-burst items to do maxinum damage. you don't put a nuke on the ground and let it go bang this simply does not do enough damage! The real problem with building nukes is this 1 you have to get the bits and this is really hard although not impossible and the International Atomic Energy Commision is less than perfect with what it handles but the real proble comes in making a delivery system. Almost any highschool student has the knolledge to make a bomb like that used over Japan but just try making a ICBM this is really the problem. So at curentl Iraq is a potential threat but not really a serious threat.

by hal 9000

The question of why the US should have weapons of mass destruction and other countrie not? It wasn't me and if you are reading it that way you need to go back to school and learn to read english {but then again that probaly the problem here as the Americian form of English is so distorted from the Australian form}. Personally I simply don't care until some fool that will never be in harms way starts talking about actually using these things. What I find most interesting is that people are only too willing to send their troops into action provided that they are not personally involved in any way that could actually cause them physical harm. I long for the good old days where countries leaders lead their troops into battle. Do any of you think for just one nanosecond any of our current crop of pollies would be prepared to do this?

by hal 9000

Got to do with what I posted? What actually did McCArty actually achieve and wasn't it against your constitution anyway? Max I think you have lost it a bit here and while it is all good and proper to say that the USA can be trusted to use these correctly excatly what is correctly? Also can you put in place a garantiee that this will always be the case? Remember Hitler was an elected person what would happen if someone like him got into power over there? And as far as Sad Man Who Sucks is concerned certianlly he did use these weapons on the Kurds but there was a civil war at the time as I remember they wanted to suceed from Iraq didn't they? A little bit like your Civil War that united the country what would have been the result if it whentthe other way?

Any way I have to be at work in under 2 hours so I'm logging off now but I suspose from this tirade of trash from one sided biggots who can't read that I'll have several thousand hate mails when next I log on!

by maxwell edison

The question of aid to North Korea:

Presidents who supported NO aid to North Korea:
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
John F. Kennedy (D)
Lyndon Johnson (D)
Richard Nixon (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Ronald Reagan (R)
George Bush (41) (R)
George W. Bush (43) (R)

Congresses that supported NO aid to North Korea:

Every one since 1953

The United Nations also cut aid to North Korea.

From its inception, the Clinton Administration policy of hugging North Korea and sending it aid in the form of fuel oil—and even nuclear technology—was bizarre. In 1994, in return for Kim Jong Il’s empty promise that he would stop developing nuclear weapons (by then he already had a suspected two plutonium bombs), Bill Clinton offered foreignaid. Breaking with 40 years of bipartisan U.S. policy, he took Pyongyang from zero American dollars to being the No. 1 recipient of U.S. foreign aid in the Asia-Pacific region. That this could ever have happened in the first place is a study in gullibility. It was eight years ago, in Geneva, Oct. 21, 1994, that the Clinton-Gore Administration agreed to give U.S. nuclear technology and huge amounts of heavy fuel oil to the North Korean government. In return, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea pledged that it would "take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."

Here’s a question for you:

If Kim Jong Il chooses to spend BILLIONS of dollars on weapons programs and BILLIONS more on a lavish personal lifestyle, why would you not criticize that as the cause for his people’s suffering?

by hal 9000

But as far as the named Presidents goes wern't most of them assinated by Americians? At the very least one was forced to resign in discrace. And what excatly makes you think that it takes billions of dollars to produce one of these units sure in theUS it certianlly does but without all the safeguards that the US uses it would be very cheep especially if you wernt concerned about the people who actually worked with these things Blind Freedys Dead Dog could be press ganged into assembling something like this so ther goes your argument out the window! Even the dilevery system which incidently is untested and may not even work but it is impressive having a very big thing that actually could be a ICBM after all would you take the chance. The miletary certinally would not but their leaders are all paronid anyway they only see threats under every stone. And actually Thankyou I was unaware that the USA had supplied NK with reactor technology I thought it all came from the USSR when it was atits height! But since you have addmitted that the USA supplied it excatly why are you complaining? If it was actually the Clinton Adminstration who supplied the reactor equiptment just why was it mothballed in the first place? As I remember wasn't he the last President?

by hal 9000

America built the first A Bomb but can you tell me the names of the Americian Sicentiests who actually designed and built the bloody thing in the first place? Not to mention that they as a group where gambling on the output of that first device. Canyou tell me who wone the prise? But then again I suspose you suscribe to Uncle Albert's idea if you can't trust your government who can you trust. Having worked for them I learnt you simply can not trust your Government as they are all small men only working to increase their perceived power, but do not get me wrong the same hold true for all Governments no matter which side of the fence they stand on.

by hal 9000

I'LL ask you some more about the Trinity Project as you seem to have all the answers!

by road-dog

to solving the problems of despots assembling offensive weapons while their population starves is more foreign aid.

And you have the gall to call American foreign simplistic and self-interested.

I see that you have a .AU domain leading me to believe that you are Australian. What did those dozens of Aussies that were bombed in Bali do to the islamic fundamentalists? What did they sow?

I notice that your postings are not in Japanese. On behalf of the United States, I say "you're welcome". The Manhattan Project and the "self-interest" of the United States saved your country the fate of Nanking.

As for using weapons of mass destruction, The United States has not used them in any of the conflicts since WWII. There is no doubt thatSaddam will use a nuke against Israel as soon as he has a viable means of doing so.

As for N. Korea, they know that they will face immediate and total destruction should they launch against the U.S. Their current threatening stance that sanctions=war is justification for nonproliferation.

Your arguments are nothing more than rants totally devoid of historical understanding. I can understand your opinions on one point though, why should you trust the U.S. with nuclear weapons when your own government does not trust you to own a handgun.

by mallardtooxx

I am still wading through this thread but I must say Road dog that was very well said. As cor collin, I will not bash him in this sense because he doesn't understand America. We as a people are not the unholy spur janggling cowboys everyone makes us out to be. We are scared, afraid we will be attacked, for no real reason, we are determined to stop this. We are the last of the Great Superpowers, we have survived and will continue to do so. There is nothing that is to be said as far as GeorgeW. goes, he is in all honesty doing a good job considering the situation at hand. How many of us would be willing or able to handle the amount of stress that this man is under? The NOK conflict is something he inherited from Bill Clinton, the IraqConflict is not his personal crusade to pick up his fathers torch. And 9/11 well I am sorry that was just plain STUPID, we were out of it, the rest of the world always drags us back in and before you know it we are the bad guys again. As road dog said you are not speaking japanese, nor are you forced to do anything you do not want to do. For that MY grandfathers, great-grandfathers, my father, and every man and woman who has and is and will serve(d) in the US military says your welcome. Thesad part is you never ever say thank you. Instead the world waits until it needs its tail bailed out of some crisis and then the first words out of your leaders mouths is get me the president of the USA. This saddens me deeply because I grew up and was taught about everyother countries history, why wasn't the favor returned to us?
As for the hackers, lets face it it is going to happen no matter what the climate of the world, who sanctions it? The hackers not the president.
-duck

by hal 9000

But who gave him these weapons in the first place as I remember it was the US as they where using him to try to overrunn Iran after tha Shar was overthrown and quite a few Americians taken hostage. There is a very old saying the goes along the linesof "WHAT YOU SOW YOU SHALL REAP" Once you give out these types of weapons do you honestly believe that the reciever wants to lose them? But then again which is the only country to actually use a Fission Weapon against another country?

by maxwell edison

colinluck, your anti-American tone and "blame America" for everything is (to me) quite sickening. (I would guess that you're not an American.) Moreover, your ignorance of history and current events is shining through every word you write. You shouldreally be embarrased by your ignorance.

Would you like to debate these issues?

This isn't an appropriate forum for such a debate, but I would welcome the opportunity to dispel any anti-American claim you care to make. You've already made some quite outrageous statements, none of which have any merit.

by hal 9000

Well thats a good one and its the first time I've ever heard it. Personally I dont give a dam about what happens it just worries me when I start hearing talk of using nukes for any reason. Someone further up claime NK would never use a nuke againt the USA as they would be wipped out but that only goes to my point excatly who would suffer the most damage in reputation the USA or NK. After all they are only a small and little more than a one man band in a total mess the USA on the other hand has far more to lose. Just think on this if I was going to attack your country would I train, finance people to highjack 4 comerical aircraft and fly them into buildings? While it makes some sought of statment really it did very little damage really. What would have happened if they had of been dirrected into Nucelar Power Plants? Are you really nieve enough to think that the containment buildings could actually stop several tons of aircraft travelling at 600 KPH? A far as history goes well your right it was never my specality however Mechaninal/Electronic eng and Applied Physics are so I can speek with a small amount of authority on these subjects. However I will give you one quote "He who forgets his past is bound to relive it!" Just think onthat while you continue to deride me. I am only concerned with the current building of paronia without what appears to be reasonable cause. Sure Sad Man Who Sucks should go but you must be prepared to do the job properly in the first place and this will take a very long time at least several generations to get rid of the stupid hate that lives everywhere in the Middle East. Are the Americians really prepared to put in the time, effort and money. From my observations the US Governments always want a QUICK FIX just look at the Gulf War 10 odd years ago.

by hal 9000

Reading the above I will give you a free lesson in reactor design so then you just might understand just how insecure these installations actually are! After all its what I got my last PHD on. And Max I don't hide behind anything I give my E-Mail address. What have you got to hide from?

by road-dog

"using nukes for any reason"

The US government has put Iraq on notice that should they use weapons of mass destruction agains our forces, the response may very well be nuclear.

I believe that this is a rational point of view and entirely justified.

I notice that you are trying to sidestep the foreign policy debate in favor of Manhattan project trivia and nuclear power plant vulnerability to aircraft impact.

Well, suffice it to say, Dr. Oppenheimer was the primary Physicist on the atomic weapon research. Or so says my grandfather, who was a technician there.

Our nuclear power plants will withstand a direct hit by most commercial airliners, even at speeds where the wings are in danger of flying off.

OK, So even if a nuclear power plant COULD be compromised by impact of an airliner, does this mean that Iraq and N. Korea are not a problem?

Now, for the situation in Afghanistan, and those pesky terrorists outwitting the greatest military power on earth. If my Discovery channel is correct, Australia built a fence most of the way across the continent to contain rabbits of other vermin. The fence is so porous as to be an embarassment. I'm not saying this to ridicule, but to demonstrate a point. Don't underestimatehome court advantage and overwhelming power doesn't guarantee results overnight.

by road-dog

of the United States is not in the hands of folks who cannot even defend an argument. Suffice it to say, the US has been called every name in the book by paople and nations that prove repeatedly that they are for peace at any cost.

Peace is defined by islamic fundamentalists as a global islamic state, just as the communists defined peace as a lack of resistance to communism.

Peace will not exist until those with that mindset no longer exist or haven't the means to wage war.

All you peaceniks out there, can throw themselves on the tender mercies of Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Chong-il, just as your predecessors did with Adolph Hitler and Emperor Hirohito.

I'm glad we have a President that doesn't intend to do so.It must be nice to distance oneself from the dirty business of self defense and leave it to others. It's grating to have to listen to the cacophony of cowardice as we proceed, but that is the least of the cost of leadership.

by hal 9000

Are being performed right here as almost all of this traffic has FLAGED words in it so it will all be being recorded and then some poor fool actually has to look through it all to see if there is any threat. So Road Dog and Max just think about whatyou are typing long and hard before either of you submit any more of this drivil and lets get back to what this group was susposed to be about!!! Anyway lets stop tying up necessary intelegance resources and get back to the real questions that have some importance! Oh buy the way the person who claimed that my Government won't even allow me to have a gun well whoever that actually was has shot themself in the foot because I actually do legally own 2 400 year old French Flintlock Duling Pistols.both of these where made BA {Before America} was even known about. So just think on that for a short while! And the other thing is excatly why do people need firearms of any kind other than collectors items which are never used as they are far too valuable. Personally if I was of the type who wanted to go out and kill or severly injure someone I would do it to their face and not be a guttless coward and hide a distance away and shot them. Firearms are only required by COWARDS!!!!!

by hal 9000

Mr Bush would have far more creadibility in my eyes at least if his prefered canidate to replace Sad Man Who Sucks was not currently charged with crimes against humanity. Do any of you really think just by getting rid of one man it is going to change the that that country thinks about the infiddels? If you do I know a very good shrink that you all need to see. Just think for one minute would the US policy change if Mr Bush was shot dead tomorrow? No his successor would follow the same course and probably blame in on Iraq as well. If you want to change something you have to change the whole Government and then educate these people from the time they are on the breast as that is how they are educated at present only this time they are taughtto hate. If you really want to make changes it will take generations not a few bombs and a couple of weeks. Really how do you think things went so well in Afaganstan the US made a deal with the poppy players who the Talaban where trying to destroy. Now we have 20 times the derivities of oppium available that when the Talaban where running the show.

by dcosgrove

Not that I really approve of the choice, but this man is accused by Syria of embezeling money to support anti-bathist organizations in Iraq. It just so happens that the regim in Syria has strong Bathist links as does Saddam. In fact it is rumored that one of thre existing Bathist "manifestos" will be found in Iraq. They are as anal as the Nazis apparently in keeping records of who they kill and who helps there cause etc. You should also know that Bill Clinton is considered a war criminal bysome countries. Before you spout accusations about people, you should look into the accusers and the charges. Your playing follow the talking points again.

by hal 9000

On the other hand North Korea actually has the capacity to deliver a nuke admittely a crude one on an as yet untested ICBM. But would you like their first test to be a live fire at a USA target? And exactly why is North Korea doing what it is now? Because of a techinical breach of an aggreement they needed power North Korea is a disater arrea and they need everything they can get. The US President on the other hand immediatlly stopped oil shipments to NK and this has caused them to reactivate there exisiting Nuke Power stations which had almost all been mothballed for years. This only happened because NNK was recieving oil to make electricity without the oil excatly what could they do? What they have done was their only alternative. Are you silly enough to actually thing that as Enron has gone broke that the power stations that they owned have stopped producing electricity? If that was to happen the USA would be in a real mess as you are short on generating capacity already and that was long before Enron went down the tubes. Any way show me some evidence that Sad Man Who Sucks is associated with what happened Sept 11. The only so called proff is an alledged tape where he? is susposed to be calling the general population of Iraq to arms against the infidells. Now if I was to call the USA public to arms against someone would that mean that the USA was doing my bidding? I think not! What I am trying to get at is that whatever happens in Iraq will not be a quick fix it is going to take generations to put right as these people are taught to hate from when they are first put on the breast, so you will never cure this overnight. Is the USA prepared to stay the distance? They can't even pay their United Nations Subs so I can't see them staying to totally fix the problem it will just be too expensive.

by hal 9000

Now we have covered the basics and in the second part I was refering to Ben Ladden not Sad Man Who Sucks. Do I want to see that fool stay HELL NO!!!! but also I can't the USA doing the job properly either just look at the mess in Afaganstan and theyreally did support Ben Ladden. What happened there the mighest armed force on this planet could not catch a man on a hores Now you have to admit that one and then think about it! Bombing any country back into the stone age simply is not the answer all you actually achieve is to continue the hatred don't believe me just look at Ireland they still hate the British for the patato fammine of 14 something or other that was only 600 years ago. Are you really silly enough to actually think that bombing a place into nonexistance is the answer? And even worse talk about using Nukes to actually do it? Well I used to work for your miletary but I excaped before they sent me totally paranoid so I think a bit differently. And by the way what was the name of that island the USA invaded to bring peace I think they used 10-15 armed solders for every man-woman and child on the island.

by road-dog

the delivery system. The primary problem is condensing fissionable material into weapons grade plutonium. The basic design of the weapon is readily available. The process of refining the material is a closely guarded secret and the equipment for doing so is strictly regulated by signatories of the non-proliferation treaty.

Delivery of an atomic weapon is simple. A workable nuke can be "delivered" by putting it in the trunk of a car being shipped into the U.S. Your knowledge of these matters is sorely lacking.

The problem with N.Korea is that they accepted energy assistance, food aid, and fuel oil from the U.S. in exchange for abandonment of their weapons programs. The U.S. Supplied the aid and technology, and the Koreans continued the weapons programs in spite of their agreement.

What conclusions can be drawn from the N.Korean precedent:

1) do not exchange aid for abandonment of nuclear weapons research.
2) Countries who engage in nuclear blackmail should be isolated and told that they risk annihilation should they engage in first-strike. Think of it as MAD on a global participation basis.
3) Leaders that develop nuclear weapons and have a record of agression should be branded as outlaw states and be disarmed by force if necessary.

Lest you feebly attempt to apply these to the U.S., consider that this country ended up occupying a large portion of this planet at the end of WWII, yet our borders remain where they were at the beginning of hostilities.

by maxwell edison

Before you or anyone else discusses the merits of the use of nuclear weapons by the United States against Japan at the end of World War II, you have to discuss it in the context of 1945 knowledge and 1945 reality, not 2003 hindsight. To do otherwise, is to live in some sort of la-la land.

In 1945, Japan was given two chances to surrender – under the threat of devastating destruction - before being faced with a homeland invasion – or worse. They refused to do so. (Japan started that war, by the way, by their ruthless expansion into mainland Asia and throughout the Pacific.) It was estimated that allied forces would lose up to 100,000 soldiers undertaking such an invasion. It was estimated that Japan would lose up to 1,000,000 soldiers and civilians by defending such an invasion. The “full time” war was approaching 5 years of longevity for the Americans and 10 years for some Europeans. The world was weary of war and wanted it to end. It ended within 5 days ofthe first blast. Both blasts took a total of 100,000 Japanese lives – much fewer than would have been lost in an invasion. In addition, the targets were military targets being manned by civilians located in civilian population centers. Moreover, this was 1945. Scientists and politicians didn’t know the real power they were about to unleash.

(continued..)

by maxwell edison

Furthermore, it’s ignorant to dismiss that had it not happened the way it did, that sometime, somewhere, someone would have been the first to use it. Perhaps it would have been the Russians against another Eastern European country. Perhaps it would have been in Vietnam. Perhaps it would have been against America. No one knows. But what we do know is that any subsequent use of “the bomb” would have resulted in a retaliatory strike against the nation that used it, and the resultwould have certainly been more devastating than it was in 1945. In addition, one can safely assume that it was “the bomb” that kept the Soviet Union in check, and kept them from spreading their domination and oppression westward across Europe to the Atlantic Ocean.

It’s extremely ignorant and na?ve to claim that America is - or was - a rogue state because of the events of August, 1945.

by maxwell edison

A rogue state has been defined as one "that puts a high priority on subverting other states and sponsoring non-conventional types of violence against them. It does not react predictably to deterrence or other tools of diplomacy and statecraft. In short, such a state requires special treatment and high levels of international pressure in order to prevent it from wrecking public order, setting off wars, and subverting whole areas of the world".

Source:

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journal/1999/issue3/jv3n3a7.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/5z4m

Dictionary specifications of "rogue" include three elements: viciousness, lack of principle, and propensity to engage in unilateral action. This would certainly properly characterize Saddam Hussein's Iraq: viciousness and lack of principle were displayed, for example, in his attacking and using chemical warfare against both Iran and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s; unilateralism in his assaults on Iran and Kuwait.

It has been documented that Iraq has been protecting terrorist organizations, providing training and logistical support for terrorist organizations as well as using terrorist organizations as an extension of state policy. It has been documented as having provided financial assistance, logistic and military help as well as aid and support to those responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

by cactus pete

You are entitled to debate any side of the various opinions you wish, and you can claim whatever you want of yourself to be true, but you are HARDLY one qualified to criticize anyone else's English abilities.

This topic is far off of technology.Please, everyone, keep the personal attacks to yourselves.

by mallardtooxx

It is the job of the UN Security Council to determine which states are "rouge". Unfortunatly for you The US is a founding member of the UN and cannot be displaced from its seat on the council. As for claiming the US is a Rouge state becuase and I quote "Some could Say America is a rouge state as they are the only country to ever use a fission weapon against another country and then they both where aimed at the general population." Tough! If we had not done that the war would have been protracted for an untold number of months as we waited for our ground forces to take them out, which they would have, at god only knows how much loss of life on both sides. Your trivia is weak BTW Oppenheimer won the bet. You must understand one thing here Mr. Luck, The NOK Broke the agreement that we as americans put forth to them, that alone is grounds to cut off aide. Then they threaten our allies, yes Japan is an ALLY ( and we blew the hell out of them just before we rebuilt them) just like Austraila is. See we as Americans see our friends (allies) as countries worth sending our most precious resources to protect, and defend, our sons and daughters. Why? because we said we would and our word, unlike many contries', is our bond.

-duck

by maxwell edison

Colinluck, you’re appearing more and more to be no more than a rambling, incoherent, dithering idiot.

Why should I waste any more time with you?

by road-dog

George H.W.Bush (41) Was a fighter pilot in WWII.

George W. Bush (43) was a fighter pilot before going into business and politics. They have taken their turn in the military. Even when one considers that his tour was with the Air National Guard, anyone who knows, it takes doodads to be a fighter pilot.

Your assertion that leaders need to be personally involved is ridiculous. We take great pains to assure that the control of our military is in civilian hands. That is the difference betweena despot and a president.

If you notice, Saddam Hussein and Kim Chong-Il Are both "military" leaders. Adolph Hitler was also.

Once again your superficial arguments are easily refuted by the folks you consider to be apathetic and uninformed.

by hal 9000

Partly right yes you can construct a fission weapon and do nothing more than simply post it to where you want it to go bang. However he is sadly lacking in any real knolledge of how these things are actually used. If detonated at ground level there is NO LARGE SHOCK WAVE to do massive destruction. However if it is set off at about 4,000 Feet you get a shock wave reflected off the ground that spreads out doing far more damage. So while you are marginally right from a milatery stand point you areway off the mark and simply do not know how these particular devices where designed to work! The ulimate aim of any bomb of what ever kind is to do the most damage possible! So exactly why would you consider using an implosion device at ground level. If it was to be set off on mainland USA it could prove a point I suspose but then again it would prove a better point to make it work the way it was intended to work wouldn't it?

by maxwell edison

colinluck talks of "my (his) PHD's".

If this guy has a PHD, much less more than one, then I'm the King of Siam.

by hal 9000

Patriots has many meanings and depending on who you talk to it often has a different meaning for different people. Well this has certianlly been brought home to me on what at first started out as a fairly incocquencial idea but has grown out of all proportion into something that bears no resemblance to the original question. As far as my typing goes well its just terrible {I've been using voice reconision for far too long} and there is no spell check here either so you lot will just have to putup with my terrible typing as I very rearly use a keyboard in this manner any more. The Question of Balia well that is just one example of some fool telling a big enough lie that some one eventually believes it. Was it bad? Sure but it could and should have been far worse! If only they had looked up on the internet on how to make a bomb instead of using the propangada they where given! The person who put those fools up to that is excatly the other side of the coin that I'm seeing here you only see and read what you want to read. In the case of Bali Australians along with the US wants to destroy all Islamic countries! Thats just plain stupid but similarly here you will not even consent to consider that you just might be in the wrong and MIGHT DOES NOT ALWAYS MAKE RIGHT just go into any school and see how they try to stop Bullies. As Far as Hittler goes well actually he saw no action but he was Comander in Chief of Germany. Excatly what do they call the President in the US? And as for Mr Bush flying National Guard aircraft do they even arm those things? If riding around in a military aircraft makes you an expert then I certianly must be quite an expert as I have logged over 300 hours in various forms of militery aircraft, I certianly don't profess this knolledge!

by oldefar

Reported by Reuters about an hour ago -

European Union (news - web sites) leaders united on Monday to warn Iraq that U.N. arms inspections could not go on indefinitely without Baghdad's cooperation and declared for the first time that war could be the last resort.

A joint statement issued after a four-hour emergency summit said: "War is not inevitable. Force should be used only as a last resort. It is for the Iraqi regime to end this crisis by complying with the demands of the Security Council.

"Iraq has a final opportunity to resolve the crisis peacefully," the leaders said.

They also said the U.S. and British military buildup around Iraq had been vital in obtaining the return of arms inspectors and remained essential to achieve Baghdad's full cooperation in the disarmament effort.
-----
Might does not make right, but the application of might is often the only way to move forward.

My posting does not include entire article.

Article on Yahoo at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20030217/ts_nm/iraq_eu_dc

by hal 9000

Well the good old US has never used Chem or Bio weapons against their own people well the chem bits right to my knolledge but shortly after your war of Independance to be free from the cursed British there was an outbreak of smallpox in one of the cities on the eastern seaboard. Some smart General ordered all the blankets to be gathered up and sent these blankets with their infected flees as gifts to the Indians and guess who got smallpox and died enmass! I have no real problem with a show of might it is only when it comes to actually using it as I said previously somewhere on this group as a threat nukes don't concern me really but when all the senior administration starts talking that way I do become concerned. And the lasets breaking news is that it is believed that a so called dirty bomb has been made with Australia as a possible target this was only on a news update as I was driving so I didnot hear it all but it does go to show that these are people and I mean people not countries who must be stopped but excatly where does Iraq fit into this picture as still I have seen no firm evidence to show their involvment. Liba on the other hand has a dicatitor who nobody seems to care about after all some of his security people bought doun the 747 over Lockeby {perhaps their next} Yes by all means carry a big stick but it does not give you the right to actually use it. And more importantly if the US was to go in without United Nations directive would not then the United Nations be in the same position as the League of Nations prior to WW2? Is this really what the world needs? So I'm outa here and not looking back either!

by hal 9000

Well the rest of the world had been at war for 10 years or so and they where sick and tired of it as well to this I do agree however I was unaware America became involved befroe the strike on Pearl Harbour. Secondly back in 1945 a B25 could not fly that far so the base that it tok off from and returned to after dropping it single bomb must have fairly close after all they did not have midair refueling then qand the B25 wasn't that fast either So at best these two bombs only shortened the war bya few months so was it worth the cost? And finially your right I don't actually have a PHD in actual fact I have 3 PHD so you can shove that up your fundemential orriface and rotate as I simply have nothing to prove to you or far that matter any other person. But what I do object to is getting caughtup is some one else fight without reason but then again you would not know that susposely a radiological despursion device has been made wiht this country as its intended target. But then again thatcould only be a way to continue to feed the panoria. And i I am anti-Americian then everyone who actually want peace with armed conflict as a last resort must be Anti-Americian so I guess I'm in some very good company!

by hal 9000

Exactly if you are the King of Siam why are you living in the US away from you very large harem? Unlike most people I have been to many of these countries have you? You can't judge antoher country by the standards in your home Counrty! You must understand exactly what is happenign and why from your responses you don't seem to be able to do this however my previous offer still stands if you wish and have a few years free I will give you a crash course in Fast Breeder Reactor Design and just whatto look out for. I'll be waiting to see you. And any way if your the King of Siam you would certianly have a slightly different view so I don't believe that statment either! Personally you sound like nothing more that a jumped up little upstart withdelussions of grandure but I don't hold that against you because after all most Americians think that the world revolves around their country.

by hal 9000

Oh buy the way Max I'm impressed at how you simply ignored my last question on that particular listing that you seem to take such an issue with. Yes I know I can look you up but then why would you think for one moment I would be the slighest bit interested?

by hal 9000

And isn't Oppenheimer a good old rock solid Americian name. He could not have possibly come from Germany like most of the leading Sicentists and technications on that project could he? And exactly where did the H3O {heavy water for those nontechnical} come from for the original A bomb? It also was stolen from Germany by a British team so at least get your facts right as none of that would have been possible with out German injunety let alone the original E=MC2 which also was thought up by a German!

by oldefar

In response to my own question, I found the following news item regarding statements made by Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer.
-----
Mr Downer said the UN must soon take tough action against Iraq, which had a proven history of helping terrorists.

"Yes, the security council could give Iraq more time. Yes we could wait until March, we could wait until April, we could wait until Christmas," Mr Downer said.

"But what if, as is likely given Iraq's track record, Iraq stillhas not complied?

"In the government's view the security council should not be waiting forever," Mr Downer said.

"Either Iraq has complied or it hasn't.

"This is what the security council must confront soon."
-----
My apology for tagging an individual poster's comments as representative of a country.

by maxwell edison

I can’t remember when I’ve seen such crass, excessive and sleazy attacks on my country and my countrymen. I would expect as much from the fanatical extremists who justify their hatred, contempt and violence with such misconceptions andmistruths, but from a “supposed” ally, it’s just downright disgusting. And even though most Web sites are considered international in nature, he does this on an American created and American run web site – the equivalent of being on American soil – criticizing one’s hosts. It’s crude and unrefined to say the least, and to insult one’s “supposed” colleagues to such a degree is unforgivable. This person (colinluck@quicknet.com.au) should really be ashamed of himself.

I apologize to those who have been put off by the misdirection this thread has taken, particularly for my involvement in that misdirection. But to be subjected to such garbage spewed by the bloke from a former penalcolony in the land down under is simply too much to ignore. I’ve never resorted to name calling on these threads, but to call this person an uneducated idiot would be too kind, and to see that he touts his “alleged” educational achievements makes his messages all the more ridiculous. (A PhD indeed – I think not. One needs to only to look at his atrocious writing, his horrendous spelling, and his lack of subjective knowledge of history and current events for proof of his lack of education.)

Perhaps I need to take a break from participating in these forums, for I no longer wish to be subjected to such offensive and outrageous nonsense. Moreover, since I realize I probably won’t stand by in silence to such gibberish, it’s not fair to my distinguished peers to distract them from this site’s intended mission.

by cactus pete

I feel your pain.

But please, Max, you have been a valued contributer and your insight would be missed. I urge you to find some way to deal with this situation that allows you to continue your support of this forum.

If I may -
Perhaps you can simply not read threads from and beyond the link where colinluck begins.

I, too, have my issues with this individual. Maybe I'm lucky that he's so hard to read that I glaze over it to some extent. Being that he seemingly rarely stays on topic, I feel I don't miss much.

Those times when I am able to muck my way through the drivel I find that his credibility lacks.

You shouldn't let him get to you. You are that much better than the average.

by mallardtooxx

I have to concur here. I think it is a shame that this had to happen, but it happened. Let it go, you are not standing idly by while someone attacks your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that, I support your statements and I support your right to speak out about them. I know colinluck was being trite, I am pretty sure we all know that. Max, there is nothing wrong with how you handled this. There are going to be attacks on us in many ways in the months and years to come. We will see allies and enemies change sides more often than not. Everyone wants a piece of the American Pie and those who don?t have it hate us because we do. Anyone who would discredit this land or her leaders for our actions in the previous and coming months shows their own ignorance. Furthermore, our friend's supposed credentials do not impress me. Everyone knows that a dirty-bomb only works if you detonate it close to ground level, otherwise the atmosphere absorbs most of the radiation and you get less bang for your buck. Stick around Max you have many more allies than ole Mr. Luck.

-duck

by road-dog

Colin was dealt with precisely as he should have been. His ilk MUST be shown to be the vacuous and shallow as they are. To accept his attacks without refutation is failure to uphold the ideals that make this country the oldest and most prosperous republic on earth.

Silence gives assent. The verbal attacks that were repelled in this thread not only identify our detractors, but us as well. Hopefully the lurkers and casual observers have walked away with a little more understanding of America.
I sincerely hope that our "friend" from down under is not representative of the majority of his countrymen. I was hoping to go there one day, and I'd really like it to be a place worth visiting....

by admin

to say don't give it up, please. :)

i've definately been involved in some similar things here. attention withheld isn't the first thought in the heat of it.

The topic caught me as interesting, but then, well, why walk through the mud when you can build a road with a few keystrokes and a mouseclick around another discussion. let the mudyuns play in their own. :)

you are the best max, hang with us :>

by maxwell edison

On one hand I don’t want to sit idly by and let this kind of outrageous nonsense go without comment. On the contrary, I’m just chomping at the bit to address it - and I think that I can debate with the best of them. (So this colinluck character – obviously a dependent of penal colony inmates – isn’t even a contest.) On the other hand, however, I don’t want to be a major factor in getting these threads off in an unintended direction. A comment here or there is okay, but this thread just went off the deep end.

I will say this, however, I’m getting a little sick and tired of all the anti-American rhetoric and America bashing that goes on. These “blame America first” losers don’trecognize – or won’t admit – the great things that have resulted from this wonderful experiment called America. America, without a doubt, changed the course of the human experience – and things are all the better for it.

by mrafrohead

Maxwell,

This may mean nothing to you, what I'm about to write, but it does to me. So, waste two seconds to read it please.

You and I have had some interesting debates. And in most of them, you have proven me wrong and shown me an agle that I did not previously see. I value that greatly.

If you were to leave the forums, even for a while, you will be taking away from me and the rest of us a very valuable asset to the community.

I can say that it was nice to see someone finally geta bit of a rise out of you. Human behavior shining through every now and then is a good thing.

Personally, due to how you have handled yourself in here, you have helped to keep me at bay. I know you all know how immature I can be. My age has atendency to shine through quite often. But yourself, Duck, Oldefar, RoadDog, Dpetrak have helped greatly to keep me in line.

I've deleted I think I'm up to about ten posts now.. due to their Innapropriateness. It's not that I don't want to voice my opinion. It's that I have nothing positive to contribute other than a FU. You see, when someone crosses the line, I tend to shut up. I just don't know what else to say. I just "react".

What you and the others above I spoke of have posted has been outstanding. You show great restraint and at the same time get your point across.

I applaud you all for that, and Maxwell, PLEASE, do NOT leave!

Mrafrohead

by road-dog

of the discussion became absurd near the end. I can see the conversation in Baghdad:

"Well, we've got this A-bomb that we think will work. Unfortunately, we haven't got a valid credit card number so we can't charter an airplane to get it to its most effective airburst altitude of 10,000 feet. If we detonate on the ground, it will only be 72 percent as effective. and only kill 200,000 Americans instead of 350,000.

Uh, OK shelve it, if we can't do it right, we're not going to do it."

I cannot believe the depths of ignorance presented by peaceniks. I believe that even if there were a nuclear attack on the US, the worst of the peaceniks would still protest a nuclear response.

by thechas

Looking through some of the comments posted to this thread, it seams to me that there is a need to step back and take a 'big picture' look at things.

There is a paradox of perception about the USA.

First, more people than we desire, want to immigrate to the US to take advantage of the opportunities that are available in the US.

Then, there is the perception of those who have been wronged by the US.

I have a lot of empathy for anyone trying to sort out the reality of current world politics.

That said, the US DOES have a large image issue world-wide.

The majority of the US people, and most of our leaders desire a world of peaceful coexistence.

Yet, our government continually makes alliances of convenience to achieve short term goals.
When we support governments that violate our basic code of human rights and ethics, how can we expect the rest of the world to trust us.
I am reminded of the old line "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".

Next, many of our businessmen view foreign countries and people as a cheap resource to exploit where they are free of labor and environmental regulations.

Is it any wonder, that a significant number of people do not trust the US?
Further, it should come as no surprise that a few fanatics are willing to die in attempts to destroy the US.

Chas

by surrealx

This is the first response I have read that has been unbiased enough to be taken seriously. All of you America supporters made even less sense and were just as biased than the rambling Colinluck. If you really believe what colinluck was saying wasso absurd, why have you felt the need to fight back so strongly? You weren?t going to change his mind, were you trying to convince yourself? What it comes down to is that America has done a lot of good for the world, but it as also done a lot of bad. In all the countries that I have lived, and the many more that I have family and friends living in, there is no positive sentiment towards America. Maybe they?re all jealous, but I think it is obvious that there is a little more in it than that.

by mrafrohead

In reply to some of your questions surrealx:

"If you really believe what colinluck was saying was so absurd, why have you felt the need to fight back so strongly?"

It was more how it was said. Imagine, someone coming into YOUR house and then spitting in YOUR face. You'd get pretty freakin mad. That's what Colinluck has done here. Same with the Hawaiian chucklehead above. Colinluck though, was very confronting and attacked us all. When you are attacked usually, people attack back."You weren?t going to change his mind, were you trying to convince yourself?"

Facts were pointed out. Whether or not his mind is changed is not the point. Someone is speaking poorly of us and someone needs to say something. No we aren't tryingto convince ourselves of anything.

"What it comes down to is that America has done a lot of good for the world, but it as also done a lot of bad. In all the countries that I have lived, and the many more that I have family and friends living in, there is no positive sentiment towards America. Maybe they?re all jealous, but I think it is obvious that there is a little more in it than that."

I also have lived in many countries. My father is in the US Army. Seeing the other countries, I have learned that America is one of the best countries in the WORLD to live in.

I also see what you are saying about resentment towards us elsewhere in the world. Personally, I don't understand why that is. I can't deny that our country hasn't done anything bad in the past. But at the same time, who hasn't done something wrong before? I don't recall Germany getting all of the resentment for their past, or how about Japan? I can continue this list, but I don't think that would accomplish anything.

I hope that this helps somewhat.

Mrafrohead

by road-dog

Rational people can and do disagree what is in the best interest of the world. I hear it often bantered abou that we supported Saddam Hussein. The answer is yes. When our actions are taken in the context of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the subsequent rash of terrorism worldwide that accompanied it and Iran's designs on conquering Iraq, the descision to support Hussein was wise. This is not an endorsement by any means, simply a practical choice between two evils.

I cannot help but laughwhen I hear about the "exploitation" of third world workers and "sweatshops". The labor market in the countries supplying such labor do not employ press gangs to man up assembly lines. The point is that if workers are perceived as "exploited" by their own governments, then they are free to send these companies packing. A little revolution every now and then is a healthy thing. The governments of these countries are supposed to be looking out for their own. As for the American consumer, we make the determination at the cash register whether or not we choose to support it.
Companies found to be exploitive do suffer in the market, just ask Kathy Lee Gifford how her clothing lines are selling.

As to Microsoft and the export side of the coin, I haven't seen any other countries develop and market a competing product. We don't run a trade deficit in the trillions by cramming our products down the world's collective throat. (Except the globally popular Big Mac with cheese).

In summation, a big country is a big target as relates to criticism and blame. It seems the thanks always get lost in the mail. For every country that says we intervene too much, there is another complaining that we don't care.

If we're damne if we do and damned if we don't, then don't be suprise if we jump in only when there's something in it for us.

by mallardtooxx

Road-Dog just nailed it! This is not a matter of the US as a nation of people wanting to go to war; it is a matter of the US as a world player protecting its best interest. We do not seek war, as a nation we loath war, but if it will protect us we will fight. Many people have said this is over oil, well it is, I am sorry but that is the truth. If you do not believe me then why was Saddam?s first move to rig all of the oil fields with explosives? The fact of the matter is, right now at least, we are dependant on oil. So is Russia, so is Britain, so are France and Germany and so on and so on. The difference is this, France will not step in because they have something to hide, more than likely oil dealt under the table for some other goods, remember the Iran Contras? This is the same with Germany and Russia has been selling weapons to anyone that will buy them. So where does that leave us?
If the United States stands idly by and watches while the NOK and Iraq continue down theircurrent paths then we risk a MAJOR war on a GLOBAL scale. These are not handguns and frag grenades, these are thermonuclear devices and they will wreck havoc on the world. What happens when the nukes start flying? Will it be a good thing? NO! Butif we just let the despots of the world slide at every turn the will happen and most likely you, and I will not be living the lives we are accustomed to. So not only are we protecting our ?gluttonous and stupid ideals? but MY friends and Family arealso protecting your ideals too, I am not a fanatic, I am an American and I am damned proud to be able to say that.

-duck

by mrafrohead

First off, I need to say thank you to you three off the bat.

I have typed up and deleted two posts in reponse to all of the BS that Colin has typed up. I can just say that none of them were nice and I honestly should have been banned from the forums from their content.

You three have shown great amounts of restrain and maturity in your posts.

I can NOT thank you all enough. You have helped to contribute in keeping me in line.

I have retyped my comments to Colin about ten times nowand I can't get them right without being mean and confronting. I will just leave this post broken.

I just want you three to know, I admire your strength in containing yourselves here. I find this a VERY hard thing to do.

Mrafrohead

by mrafrohead

No, it is not an Australian thing.

I have MANY Aussie friends. They are not like this.

This is just a bad apple in the bunch.

I don't know if you know any other Australians, but they were some of the first to e-mail me during 911 to make sure we were alright over here. Not to piss on us as Colin is doing.

Mrafrohead

by jackofalltech

I normally try not to get involved in these types of discussions because it just raises my blood pressure but I can't let this one slide.

First of all, I don't care what your 'specialty' may be because it's obviously not English or modern technology! Would it kill you to run your posts through a spelling/grammar checker?

Also, flying a plane into a nuclear power-plant would do VERY little damage because they would be aiming for the cooling towers - big whoop! The actual reactor is so far underground that NOTHING would happen except that it would be shut down.

Finally, and I admit I might be wrong on this, where on earth did you get the idea that we were considering using atomic/nuclear weapons against Iraq? Your post was the first time I've heard that.

Ralph

by jackofalltech

The correct quote is "He who refuses to learn from the mistakes of the past is doomed to repeat them"

Healthy debate is good and even fun but sparring with an ignoramus who doesn't make the effort to get his facts straight is a waste of time.

Ralph

by jackofalltech

Before I go against my better judgment and flame you, please clarify your statement "...who are the Real Terrorists there.'

I hope you are not implying what I think you are.

Ralph

by cactus pete

What have YOU done for the betterment of the world, as opposed to anything you think I have not?

by road-dog

and making pinepples and endangered species. It's the typical liberal mindset; blurt out inuendo and then put you fingers in your ears and ignore the rebuttal. This is the approach my daughter grew out of around age 4. Apparently some folks take longer than others.

Apparently the noise of suicide bombers and planes hitting the WTC didn't wake him up to the identity of the true terrorists. Well, maybe one of his Hawaiian neighbors will explain to him about Pearl Harbor and the need to preventattacks.

by mallardtooxx

Well you know road, Hawaii is a lot closer to the NOK and they can pitch nukes, maybe this could be north korea's Bikini Atoll? Huka Laka Nuke and the like. Come on cuz where is the love? I think it is amazing that the non contiguous states seem to think the rest of us are wrong. I bet Alaska is under no such misconception as to think they are untouchable. Oh and I think my kids both grew out of that around the same age...la la la I can't hear you......

-duck

by mark_dutch

All the talk about America the great and Iraq the rogue state is almost making me puke here.
You guys are talking about 1945 and how you guys saved the rest of the world back then.
So what if you saved the world back then?
Does that justify a ignorant stance against the UN council and the "Old Europe"?
I think not!
About Saddam Hussein, i think everyone agrees that he should be taken out. But there are other ways then just bombing the place.
I seem to remember that America and Britain have a excellent commando's core in the army that can do the job way more efficiently then just bombing every possible hideout sadam could be.
Also about quoting statesmen and so, don't forget that a entire goverment is made up of more people then just one man or woman (e.g. moderation is a art).
And before somebody asks i have marched the 15th of februari in amsterdam in the peacedemonstration there.
And as for the word "superpower", these only exist because other entities are to weak to revolt or too dependent on the " superpowering" nation.
But don't talk about old europe, amerika was build on europeans, for christ's sake New York was founded as New Amsterdam, Harlem and Brooklyn are both city names here in holland.
What i'm trying to say is, we all are entwined in each other, we all have our ties,family and friends living all over the world, let's release we should live together and not feast on beating each other in to the ground to score points.

Any questions or comments?

by oldefar

Sorry for your nausea. The postings in this area became a bit heated.

The US was founded in large part by European immigrants, but has evolved to include a much more diverse input of cultures. We are much less a European like nation today than we were 227 years ago. We have gained enormously from the contributions of immigrants from all continents, including those who were here without immigrating.

The use of commandos instead of a general war has great appeal, but is not as easy as the movies would have us believe. Those individuals face a much higher personal risk going in to extract someone like Saddam than is faced by soldiers in a general war. Perhaps the Dutch, French, and German governments could provide the world a solution using their own commandos before any war breaks out?

As for those entities too weak or too dependent on the US, my question is why blame others for their situation? Is this the same as the adolecent rebelling against adults? It sometimes resembles the griping and whining I heard from my own son as he entered puberty, and that I gave adults as I was growing up.

by maxwell edison

I think you meant "civility", not civilization. There is a difference.

And about, “saving the world back then”, and wondering if it “justifies an ignorant stand against the UN”, well, you may say ignorant, but I say practical, committed and focused. And yes, it does justify it. Just as the League of Nations was too tolerant of tyrannical dictators back then, so is the United Nations right now. Moreover, 75% (or more) of the European countries are backing the United States in this endeavor. The United Nations - more accurately the UN Security Council - is the "ignorant" body, not the United States.

Sure, the U.S. is a superpower, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I want the biggest dog on the block. You may choose to cuddle with your French Poodle, but we proved more was needed to contain the likes of a Russian Bear - and contain it we did for the past 60 years. It wasn’t just in or before 1945, but it was in 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985…and all years in-between. If we didn’t, perhaps you’d be speaking Russian right now. You’re welcome.

(continued...)

by maxwell edison

And America wasn’t really “built upon” the old Europe, as you suggested. It was “built away” from the old Europe – and for a reason. It was built by the truly enlightened ones who wanted to get the hell away from the old Europe and its restrictive ways. They revolted against the old Europe and found a better way.

You say "Amerika", and I'm immediately in the “defend myself” mode. We all know the connotation behind that, and I take offense. Call me a yank, and I'll chuckle right along with you. Call me an "Amerikan", and I find nothing positive about it. In fact, it pisses me off.

You’re a peace marcher who views my country as “Amerika”. That tells me all I need to know as to where you sit, so I don’t really care where you stand on anything – because it will be anti-America. I won’t hold it against you, though. You’re just showing signs of stinkin’ thinkin’. (Maybe because you’ve just been indulging too much in your “legal” substances.)

by admin

"And as for the word "superpower", these only exist because other entities are to weak to revolt or too dependent on the " superpowering" nation."

Also I think some countries are more interested in having a good life for their citizens than to put so much effort into being the biggest military.

When I am at the gym I see people who live at the gym and spend most of their resources on being the largest most defined they can. Most of us though, we just want to be healthy and enjoy our lives. :) I like seeing this on a national level.

We could learn from voluntary simplicity. We need a military in the US no doubt, but not one that attempts to equal all other militaries in the world put together.

We are young as a country. This is what early adults do. I can understand these views in process. When we are a bit older we will hopefully mature and then I see us being more in pleasant conversation with our European elders. :)

by road-dog

and the demonstration of peace through strength are made using European history in the last century.

First half of the century:
-Two world wars
-millions dead
-military defeat of Fascism

This period is marked by the failures of European leaders to be ready to prevent agression by maintaining adequate strength. This period is also marked by the absence of the United States being involved until after hostilities bagan.

Second half of the century:

-Massive threat of Soviet agression
-Huge presence of American troops and technology
-The defeat of communism without large scale hostilities

Your points are without historic understanding. I find it repugnant that you see fit to mention history from 200 years ago but ignore more recent events. Your parents and grandparents have failed you by not teaching you the role of the US in liberation of Europe.

Your position is beneath contempt. You have no understanding of why we should depose Saddam and you would deny the Iraqi people the liberation that you enjoy.

I find it ironic that you would send in commandos to to tackle Saddam without benefit of large scale offensive operations. If you are protesting the military action, then you disqualify your opinion on howit should be done.

by dcosgrove

A: what does assaination have to do with anything?

B: One was assasinated one was attempted, and, as conspiratorial as your mind seems to work, you should be on the side of those who believe the Cubans had Kennedy assasinated.

C: The N. Koreannuclear energy had been scraped as it was being used to create weapons. Clinton helped them fire it up again. Rather than energy for the starving people, they got weapons again.

Summary: People like yourself are so concerned about The US government and US reaction, what about the peolp of N. Korea? They are dying, so are the people of Iraq. But you care more about what the US does. Saddam chooses to create an arsenal, letting his people starve, you blame the US. N. Korea's people die at an alarming rate, I have heard as many as 10 million in ten years, but it's our fault right? You claim to be educated, but you make no sense. You need to understand, most people in forums such as this won't buy your trash, we read and learn things on our own. This rubbish your spouting is directly from the list of anti US talking points for the 8 O'clock news. Look into the "truths" you are spouting. They don't hold much water.

by dcosgrove

Max, I'm glad you said it first. I think Collin is more likely an 18 year old college student taking his first course in socialism, oh I mean sociology. Very hard to believr the holder of three PHDs ( one in nuclear reactor design ) would post such disorganized thoughts. Sounds more like a bunch of 16 year olds on AIM. But maybe you can help me Collin, I have often rolled over the difference between the "single target single hit" theory, and Brehmstralung's more complicated theories on scatter radiation. Any thoughts?