The USS Ronald Reagan

[Malenfant]

If Democracy and Freedom must be sacrificed in order to save humanity, how will we know that we'll ever get it back? Would you want to live in a World ruled by Communism? Do you want to be Spied on by secret police, your friends, or your children. Would you like to always be careful of what you say, lest the secret police find out and haul you away for unpatriotic or uncommunistic sentiment, or how would you like to be tried as a counter-revolutionary for a few mis-spoken words in the wrong company? Do you want your house bugged or your phonelines tapped?

Have you looked lately at what the Department of Homeland Security can do and indeed HAS DONE? FBI agents have called in on people who merely discuss anti-Bush sentiments in public places!! Peace groups are suddenly terrorist organisations!
And you go on about defending democracy while all this is going on?!

Suppose someone else rises higher in the communistist party heirarchy than you and he just doesn't like you, he could make up an accusation against you and have you arrested. If you are arrested, you won't get a fair trial, the verdict is predetermined, if the government wants you found guilty, you will be found guilty and you probably wouldn't have been arrested in the first place unless the government wanted to find you guilty...

What, like all those people in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib etc?


I'm not saying this to make another politics flamewar, but come on - there's precious little democracy to save in the US anymore anymore... and all those liberties and privacies that have been taken away from you aren't going to be coming back in a hurry. It's a lot easier to take those rights away than to bring them back.

You can't be defending all these ideals while turning a blind eye to the fact that they're getting trodden on in your own country right now.


But more to the point, I agree with PBI. The US neither has a monopoly on Democracy nor a monopoly on all things "good and virtuous". And frankly, I don't believe that any cause is worth dying for just like that (it's much better to stay alive and fight from within).

Communism was greatly in vogue during the Cold War, but now that's out of style. Today the lastest craze among the fashionable facists elite is Islamic Fundamentalism, but that's another story.

Try looking up "Neoconservatism" - you'll get something much closer to "fascist elite". Islamic Fundamentalism is hardly "the latest craze", it's been going on for millenia. Hell, you could trace it back to the Crusades, probably.

 

[savage]

Enough rude political rot.

So, the Reagan finds itself in the middle of WWIII.
The captain returns to home port... only so much air fuel...what can an aircraft carrier really do when its resources are cut off.... they only have so many jets...so much fuel...and so much firepower.

So, he secures homeport san diego... then what?

Savage

 

[jcrocker]

Originally posted by Savage:


So, the Reagan finds itself in the middle of WWIII.
The captain returns to home port... only so much air fuel...what can an aircraft carrier really do when its resources are cut off.... they only have so many jets...so much fuel...and so much firepower.

So, he secures homeport san diego... then what?

Wouldn't that depend upon the scenario?

Escort and assist the assault to recapture Hawaii or chunks of Alaska?

Transit to the Atlantic [if the canal doesn't have a glowing crater in the middle] and hunt down the last enemy fleet units/commerce raiders?

Launch a surpise assault on Vladivostok, in order to bolster the Chinese ally?

You're pretty much able to let your imagination run a bit - with the Reagan being such a powerful if limited asset, it would probably be used for the 'big' missions that could not be launched [until now] for lack of resources.

Basically you're left to devise whatever you want as the course of the war to date, and the most likely mission for the ship would come from that.

 

[Malenfant]

Enough rude political rot.

It was neither "rude" nor "rot". My point was that you don't need to imagine the situation that Tom was describing - you just need to look around you (if you're in the US). The irony is that the Soviets haven't done it to the US - the US has chosen (with the fear and paranoia as the excuse) to go down that path itself - it did the same thing in the 50s with McArthyism. If you're not willing to see what's going on, then that's not my problem.

I wonder if Tom would even consider fighting the forces within his own government that have taken and are still taking away his freedoms and liberties with as much ferocity as he'd fight invading Soviets or anyone else. Because if he doesn't, he's being incredibly hypocritical. If he isn't prepared to argue about these points that he raises then he shouldn't raise them.

He said "If everytime someone challenges democracy and we submit, democracy won't last very long.". Fact is, someone (al-Qaeda) HAS challenged democracy, and the respose seems to be to restrict democracy, not maintain it. And what's more many people in the US are stupid enough to sacrifice their precious freedoms in order to "feel more secure".

 

[MR TEK]

We all remember what Ben Franklin had to say "A man who would surrender his freedom for security..."


Yes this thread is headed to a political flame war. Unfortunately the whole country is.

Back on topic, The Reagan would certainly, (given a captain that plans carefully) be able to find a target to secure that would help it stay supplied. (Any of the super carrier groups can TODAY, stand toe to Toe with most of the rest of the worlds navies combined, and hold it's own against armies for a couple of hundred miles inland.

Five years after the big on, the Reagan's SECONDARY systems should be more than a match for anything left afloat or in the air, even after the jet fuel is gone. Used judiciously, they should be able to locate and secure a port with enough supplies to keep them fighting indefinably.

Once the Milgov accepts the ship, they should also be a MAJOR rally point to rebuild the rest of the American forces. Odd bits of old formerly worthless spares and support equipment would be located quickly, and with a living, breathing blueprint, and least some manufacturing capability would be located. Surly not enough to rebuild major systems, but likely enough to provide critical spares, and possibly some upgrades and improvements to equipment that the survivors already had, and a renewed willingness of the military to think big.

At least that is the way I expect things to go. They could also take a port with refinery and storage facilities and have a fair shot at becoming an independent power in their own right, if they can convince the local population that they can protect them. (Texas coast, Venezuela, Russian naval base, Aussie import docks, Japanese ports in Kyoto or around Honshu for that matter. )

Basically, any oil storage and refining facility still standing, the fleet can hold until the local pop rebuilds enough to become a major player.

Just my thoughts.

Mr TEk

 

[PBI]

I agree with Tek on what Milgov or Civgov would do with such a ship. Because of the huge difficulty in maintaining operational status, I doubt the air wing would see much action other than as a force of last resort (and WHAT a force), but the other things the carrier could provide in terms or power, functioning, modern operating theatres, light industry, and ease of defence would be just the thing Milgov would need to lock down an absolute claim on who controls the destiny of the US, or, conversely, might just elevate Civgov into a true power that Milgov would have do deal with in something other than at the local level.

Of course, instead of having a _Final Countdown_ type of situation, why not simply tweak the BG and have the Reagan (or any other Nimitz-class ship) survive the war?

 

[TKalbfus]

Malenfant said,

It was neither "rude" nor "rot". My point was that you don't need to imagine the situation that Tom was describing - you just need to look around you (if you're in the US). The irony is that the Soviets haven't done it to the US - the US has chosen (with the fear and paranoia as the excuse) to go down that path itself - it did the same thing in the 50s with McArthyism. If you're not willing to see what's going on, then that's not my problem.

No your confusing the United States with the "United Empire of America". That exists in another timeline parallel to both the T2000 timeline and our own. The United Empire of America timeline diverges from our own in the 19th century. Basically the United States devolves into a Monarchy with the President of the United States becoming a hereditary position and the Congress and the Senate becoming advisory bodies. The Judges of the Supream court are appointed by the President of the United Empire and basically tries to interpret the President's edicts in a consistant fashion. Basically Communism never develops by the 20th century because the Russian Peasants never really believed that overthrowing the Czar was possible having only the failed examples of the United States and France to look back upon. The World is ruled by absolute Monarchs. Is that the America your refering too?

Or perhaps you are referring to the Union of Socialist States of America. In this timeline, the initial American Revolution fails with the Capture of George Washington in New York. Meanwhile the Czar of Russia is overthrown in the 18th century and a group of revolutionaries establishes the United Republics of Eurasia (URE). Exercising its sense of Manifest destiny in the 19th Century, the URE expands Eastward into the Frontier and even takes some land from China and Mongolia. In the 20th century, the Americans try for another revolution against the British King, this time the revolution succeeds and the UK retreats, but the seeds of the British class system have been well planted by this time and the peasants of America are out for blood. They establish a communist system of government that is ruled by the Dictator of the Proletariat. The Dictator proves that he was indeed raised as a peasant in childhood, and therefore the rightful dictator of the Proletariat of the Union of Socialist States of America.

The current United States of America doesn't control the Press, doesn't have the massive spy system the Soviets did, and it doesn't arrest people for running for office or for expressing political viewpoints contrary to the current Administration. Malenfant, you should know better! The USA and the USSR aren't equivalent. The USSR was an empire that ruled surrounding states for Russia, it was cloaked in the inclusive propaganda or brotherhood and equality, but the subject states knew better. One need only look at the ethnic makeup of the Soviet Citizen and compare that to the US citizen. The United States contains ethnic groups that have immigrated from all parts of the world to seek a better life from the one they knew in the old country. The Soviet Union by contrast contained mostly ethnic groups from the surrounding nations they conquered, these countries later broke off at the earliest opportunity that they felt it was safe. Now why do I have to explain the obvious to you?

I don't know why you apparently live in a world that's completely different from the one I live in. The USA is not a police state, if it was we certainly would not be subject to a terrorist attack like we were in 9/11. Most certainly Muslims would have been rounded up and incarcerated without a trial so that they could not cause any more trouble.

 

[PBI]

Tom, all you have to do is dig a bit and you will find that the US (and just about every other Western nation, for that matter) did engage in activities similar to what went on (perhaps still goes on) behin the Iron Curtain. Granted, we did have it a hell of a lot better than those folks did, but it did happen and is still happening. The US is violating the Geneva Conventions (and most Americans are going along with it), people are being "rendered" (sent to nations other than the US to be interrogated more 'robustly' than is legal inside the US), and, though it isn't as bad now (or it wasn't a year ago before I left the US), but the past few years have seen a general chilling atmosphere when it came to dissent, both for individuals and within the media. You might disagree as to how serious these things are, but to deny they happened is dishonest.

 

[Malenfant]

Most certainly Muslims would have been rounded up and incarcerated without a trial so that they could not cause any more trouble.

Did you miss Guantanamo? And Abu Graib? And the horrors of torture and total disregard for human rights, democratic principles, and basic decency going on in both places that the US government keeps trying to weasel out of admitting? Or did you miss the rounding up of Muslims in California in December 2002?

How about the huge list of very dubious activities by the FBI and other government agencies listed on The new McCarthyism website when people criticise the Bush government? How about the fact that Bush didn't even win the election without the help of a lot of his friends in high places and in the supreme courts? How about the extreme reactions when artists like the Dixie Chicks and Linda Ronsdadt criticised the US government? How about how criticism of the government is frowned upon with lame excuses of "you can't say those things, we're at war". What about the Patriot Act which gives the US government carte blanche to tap phone lines and hold people at will for whatever they define as "terrorist activity"? The list goes on and on...

Sure, it's not the USSR, but the US sure isn't a shining beacon of freedom and democracy anymore. Your own liberties are under attack and you're simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalala, I can't hear you". It's your country - stick your head in the sand at your own peril. Hell, you should be downright ashamed that people outside the US know that all this is going on and have to point it out to you, an American.

 

[clementk]

Friendly Suggestion: Take the OT stuff to Random Static where it belongs. And take the lecturing with it as well. I'm not pointing fingers as it seems to be endemic these days.

As for flamebait...try not to post it or respond to it. When in doubt take a break and do something else for a while. Most times I find it's not worth my bother after that to respond.

I suggest again that QLI looks into the possibility of seperating Random Static from either the list of new posts, from CotI in general, or both.

As always HTH and YMMV.

Casey

 

[PBI]

Having a carrier appear might be more than a little de-stabalizing, on reflection, unless the GM was planning to give it a handicap or toss in some really killer balance factors. Might it not be better to have a less-powerful warship make an appearance?

 

[getamungstit]

I think in Twilight 2000 there are plenty of goodies lying around the place like a CVN and its air wing (maybe all not at the same place). The whole problem is that these things are not self-sustaining. In order to keep the air wing and the CVN going you need a huge industrial system behind it. The later is the thing that’s missing. After the second stage turbine gets too many nicks the F-14 is just a good source of aluminium and wire cables.

That’s why I like the “Airlords of the Ozarks” scenario so much because it created a Twilight 2000 equivalent of a CVN that was sustainable by the backyard industry of post-nuclear war middle America. The same could be said for “Going Home” (the steam driven armoured train is the equivalent of a tank division) and “Pirates of the Vistula” (wood powered tug boat is the riverine CBG).

Perhaps rather than bombarding our PCs with a time-warp CVN letting them create “A-Team” style the all powerful Twilight 2000 weapon system is more challenging. Converting that old tractor to steam power and mounting some plate armour to create a sustainable, mobile platform for that 8.2-cm Vasilyek auto-mortar you captured of Division Cuba.

 

[TKalbfus]

Malenfant said,

Did you miss Guantanamo? And Abu Graib? And the horrors of torture and total disregard for human rights, democratic principles, and basic decency going on in both places that the US government keeps trying to weasel out of admitting? Or did you miss the rounding up of Muslims in California in December 2002?

Casey said,

Friendly Suggestion: Take the OT stuff to Random Static where it belongs. And take the lecturing with it as well. I'm not pointing fingers as it seems to be endemic these days.

As for flamebait...try not to post it or respond to it. When in doubt take a break and do something else for a while. Most times I find it's not worth my bother after that to respond.

I find it hard to stay on topic, because people keep on picking on my country all the time and thensomeone else says lets stay OT immediately afterwards, letting the acusation about my country stand. Ask A. Gubler how many times Australia has been picked on? I want to talk about RPG, but all these people have all these anti-Americanisms to say, and I get defensive. How would you like it it you were Jewish for people to call you Jew Boy all the time and everytime you respond someone else says to stay on topic, that's how I feel about anti-Americanism. Being American is part of my identity, if people always attack my country and say bad things about my country, they are in part saying bad things about me. Now admit it, how many times have I bashed Canada, or Austrailia? Do I go around saying Austrailia, or Canada tortures people? I don't make unfounded statements saying Australia is a police state and then forcing A. Gubler to spend some time saying why I'm wrong instead of talking about Twilight 2000. Some people think the US is an evil Empire or that the USSR was less of one, and to me that's just nuts, it bears no relation to reality. If people want to talk about an Imperialist America, then make up one, don't attribute it to my country! The Soviet Union does not exist, as so therefore makes a perfect Bad Guy for Twilight 2000, and no one will be offended. Russians can always sya they were equally oppressed by it.

 

[Malenfant]

You're the one that keeps raising these points, Tom. You're the one that made a big deal out of defending your freedoms. I merely pointed out that you don't have an awful lot to defend. Like i said, if you don't want these things to be discussed, then stop raising the topic and expecting to get away with it.

As for picking on other countries - frankly, they don't have anywhere near as much to pick on as the US does. We've seen ample evidence of flagrant human rights abuses and people being tortured by Americans (and the government trying to worm their way out of it). Not Canadians. Not Australians. America is the one that's blatantly limiting its citizens' freedoms while pretending to be the champion of liberty and democracy. Not Canada. Not Australia. America is being bashed because America is doing things that deserve to be bashed. So stop pretending to be the "innocent victim" in all this and take some responsibility for your country's actions instead of defending them blindly.

Being British is part of my identity. But even I admit that Britain has been plain wrong about things many times. I don't think we should have got involved in the invasion of Iraq and I will agree with anyone who says so. It doesn't make me less of a Brit to say that, and I feel no obligation whatsoever to defend the British government for their actions. You should not feel obliged to defend your own government's actions either. You can if you want, but to whine that people are complaining about your country so you're obliged to defend it - particularly because you decide you want to take it personally - is utter nonsense. Personally, if I was American, I'd be wondering why the hell so many people outside it were complaining about it - maybe they're onto something. There is nothing wrong with admitting that your government is at fault - in fact, there's everything right about it. To stick your head in the sand means you let them get away with doing more damage.

Nobody is comparing the US to the USSR. It can be considered an "evil empire" though, since in the past few years it's invaded two countries and installed puppet regimes there.

 

[vutpakdi]

Guys,

Would you please give it a rest? Let's face the fact that all of you hold strongly held beliefs and that espousing those views to someone who holds equally strongly held opposing views is highly unlikely to change that person's opinions?

Whether or not you believe that other person's views are grounded in fact, misunderstood facts, or complete fantasy is irrelevant because the other person believes that his views are grounded in true facts. Nothing you say will change his mind unless he really is open to change.

So guys, just walk away, okay? Even if the other person gets in the last "word."

Ron

 

[TKalbfus]

Malenfant said,

You're the one that keeps raising these points, Tom. You're the one that made a big deal out of defending your freedoms.

So what's wrong with that? We have alot of freedoms in this country that are worth defending. The Freedom of Speech, the Freedom of Press, the Freedom of Religion. No country is perfect, not even mine, but that doesn't mean that all countries are the same either. The Soviet Union was an expansionistic empire that was threatening our freedoms. There was no freedoms of Speech, Press, or religion in the Old Soviet Union. Saying the wrong thing, writing unflattering articles about the government, and simply going to church could land you in alot of trouble in the old Soviet Union, and don't tell me the United States is just like that, its not. You could probably come up with a specific instance where an American police officer has beaten someone up with a billy club because he was insulted, or perhaps he was just a bigot, but there is a big difference between bad andcorrupt cops and an oppressive police state. Your splitting hairs Malenfant. In General the Soviet Union was an expansionistic Empire seeking to subvert and overthrow Western Powers and replace them with communist dictatorships, perferable under their control, but they settle for an independent communist dictatorship like Yugoslavia failing that. If were going to talk about World War III and the Cold War, we have to talk about the Cold War Nations as they were, not as their government run propaganda ministries said they were. According to the Soviets, they had free and fair elections, the Soviet economy was booming, and eveybody was just itching to join the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, or to become a communist state. People who opposed the Soviet State were sent to insane assylums, because they obviously had to be out of their minds to disagree with the goals of the Soviet state. Now you tell me how free and fair an election can be, when only the approved communist party cadidates can legally run for public office. Now the United States has nothing like that. Perhaps you could find a small town or precint in collusion with the Mobs, but that does not compare with what the Soviets were doing.

Malenfant said,

As for picking on other countries - frankly, they don't have anywhere near as much to pick on as the US does. We've seen ample evidence of flagrant human rights abuses and people being tortured by Americans (and the government trying to worm their way out of it). Not Canadians. Not Australians. America is the one that's blatantly limiting its citizens' freedoms while pretending to be the champion of liberty and democracy. Not Canada. Not Australia. America is being bashed because America is doing things that deserve to be bashed. So stop pretending to be the "innocent victim" in all this and take some responsibility for your country's actions instead of defending them blindly.

Again I can find specific instances of wrong doing in those countries, but I don't use those instances to characterise those countries in general. The Canadians, for instance stole land from the Indians and the Austrailians from the Aboriginal peoples there. Australia also had a racist immigration policy for a very long time, they discriminated against nearby asian people in favor of far away white Europeam types. I do not say those countries are Evil Empires even though some people from those countries say the same thing about my country.

The main difference between the United States and Canada is that the United States has a greater capacity to deal with threats to its citizens freedoms in faw away places like Iraq. The United States helped save Europe from either Nazi or Soviet domination, and the reason we did that is the Americans feel a kinship toward European peoples, even though some Europeans no longer feel a kinship towards us due to their jealosy of our military and economic power. Most Americans are decended from European Immigrants. I myself have German, British, Irish, Polish, and Russian ascestors. If some people for instance suggest that Polish people are a bunch of "boot lickers" who enjoy being dominated by the Soviet Empire I get almost as offended as if people were saying that about the United States. I have relatives in Germany, but apparently some Germans have forgotten that they have relatives in the US, so great is their jealousy, that they forgotten that they share common values and kinship with us. Too bad I think, because the United States has done alot for Germany, it helped Germany fight off Soviet Domination and help that country become reunited despite the opposition of its erstwhile ally France, this is all in spite of the fact that Germans killed and maimed alot of Americans during World War II.

Malenfant said,

Being British is part of my identity. But even I admit that Britain has been plain wrong about things many times. I don't think we should have got involved in the invasion of Iraq and I will agree with anyone who says so.

What about King George III? King George III wanted America to be part of the British Empire, was that wrong? King George III could have had that if he were willing to treat th American Colonists the same as British Citizens rather than trying to exploit them because they were far away. If the USA was part of Great Britian, Great Britian would now be trying to deal with the Problems of Terrorism that the US is now, and all the other countries of the world would be calling the British, Imperialists fo doing so and not standing idly by waiting for the next attack. The British PM would've had massive military might at his disposal. Possible alot of British citizens who were against the US invasion of Iraq would be all for British involvement. Its the otherness and separateness that divides us. Because the US and UK are different countries and the UK is the junior parner, many British citizens find it fashionable to criticize the US and to pick on us or make fun of us whenever we make a mistake, they think they win something big if the US loses. So do you want the undemocrats in Iraq and Afghanistan to win, how will that help you country?

 

[TKalbfus]

Ok Ron, I said my piece I'll leave it at that. your reply came as I was responding. Twilight 2000 is a bit tricky as it involves real countries dealing with a fictional situation. I think the Soviets are the bad guys in this setting, and why not? There is no real country called the Soviet Union, the Soviets now are as real as the Kafers in 2300 AD, they are therefore the perfect villains in this setting as no one would get offended, just as no Germans should be offended at the portayal of the Nazis as Evil in a World War II RPG. Now suppose were were talking about a World War II RPG and someone said that World War II was not really the German Nazis fault and that the United States was equally to blame, does that sound reasonable? The Third Reich like the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, but I see fewer people arguing that the Third Reich was a fair and just country. For some reason people still get defensive when I criticise the old Soviet Union about its past imperialism. I'm pretty sure there are no Soviets here, now how about a show of hands, who here is a Soviet? A Soviet is a made up nationality, it was made up by the Russian Bolsheviks who took power in Russia in 1917, they used inclusive language in addressing the conquered non-russian provinces in the Soviet Union and stopped calling themselves Russian so as to keep their empire together, they remained Russians however as they continued to speak Russian and no one ever spoke Soviet. I think we need to get the nature of the beast right if we are to do a proper Twilight 2000.

 

[savage]

Definately Rot, the EU solution is to look the otherway on terrorism and their precious UN.
Then blame the US for everything...

So is the captain going to turn the ship over to milgov or civgov....I don't think so. Actually,
I figure its the wrong ship to have stranded in
this timeline. An operational Battleship would
have better staying power. Once their out of Jetfuel the carrier becomes weakened. The Final Coundown scenario is really the best.

Reagan pops into the timeline and the commanding officer sees an oncomming Chinese counter offensive against the south pacific and West Coast of the US. He decides to use it for a full strike against the chinese offensive. The players are part of the defense. Two possibilities; 1. the damaged Reagan limps to pearl harbor or another port and becomes a base for future operations and adventures. 2. It destroys the offensive only to be sucked back out of the timeline. Afterall the real Reagan in San Diego bay's nuke assault...

But the players are left behind in the twisted timeline of T2000.

Savage

 

[Malenfant]

There's no point in arguing with you Tom. You clearly don't even bother to look when people point out where your opinions are miguided or mistaken.

You just carry on masturbating over how great the US is while ignoring what's really going on. Fact is, your liberties are being slowly eroded and removed and you're too damn blind and/or stupid to even acknowledge it. I shouldn't expect less from an American though, since your nation's principle character trait is "denial". Whenever you have a problem, you're quick to blame everyone else and not yourselves - that happens in pretty much everything you do.

Because the US and UK are different countries and the UK is the junior parner, many British citizens find it fashionable to criticize the US and to pick on us or make fun of us whenever we make a mistake, they think they win something big if the US loses.

This is such a brainless, ignorant statement... you think we're against the war because we're the junior partner in your "coalition of the emotionally blackmailed"?! Get your head out of your arse, Tom. We're so against it because it was a stupid idea that went against international law, and because Blair is stupid enough to want to preserve a relationship with a dead weight like Bush instead of having the balls to say no (unlike Jean Chretien in Canada, who told him to sod off). A lot of Brits were against the idea of the war even before we got involved in it.

And you keep raising WWII. While the US did help, it did most of the help behind the scenes until the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour. You were hardly eager to dive right in in 1939. You seem to have this unreasonable expectation that all of Europe should be grateful to you for taking two years to decide that yes, Hitler was actually a threat worth throwing your soldiers against, to the point of doing everything that you say today. That's nonsense. Yes, we're grateful that you joined in (eventually). That doesn't mean we should do whatever you say now. We're not simpering sycophants - we have backbones and minds of our own, and when you do something wrong we'll damn well say so.

And you know why Canada and Australia aren't "evil empires"? Because they're not trying to conquer other territories (though Australia is in Iraq, and Canada isn't). The US is, however. Sure, they've done things in the past that they should be ashamed of, but who hasn't?

Definately Rot, the EU solution is to look the otherway on terrorism and their precious UN.
Then blame the US for everything...

Speaking of ignorant... Heaven forbid that international law should actually be important. No, of course, we should let the US trample over everyone in their quest for oil with feeble excuses of weapons that don't exist right, right?

As for "looking the other way on terrorism". Yeah. Clearly. Obviously we let all the extremists get away with doing anything they want and running rampant through the streets bombing who they please . Last I looked, the IRA had quit terrorism and ETA was quitting too. What's the success rate of the US, I wonder? Oh yeah - they've pissed off most of the world and have every Islamic fundamentalist wanting to kill them. Clearly, yours is the example to follow .

The pair of you need to get your heads out of your backsides and start looking at what's really going on in the world instead of blindly believing the story you're being fed by your government. This is why we always argue - you simply don't stop and think about what you say, and you come out with these ridiculous statements that don't even have a basis in reality.

 

[hunter]

This is the only warning folks. Keep it civil and avoid the personal insults or I will close this one down as well.

Folks I don't care which way you lean when it comes to politics. Notice that I let all sides post their thoughts. But I will not tolerate personal attacks against someone because you do not agree with them, no matter what your own views are (even if I do or do not agree with them).

Malenfant, check your private messages please...


Hunter