danielost, you are just making things up. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of reserves. ANWR has between 6 and 16 billion. The U.S. isn't even in the top 10. [link="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html"]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html">Link

danielost wrote:

personal feeling on this but the usa needs to pull out of the un mainly becouse the next major war will be the us vs the un (the un is already trying to tax everyone so it can build its army)

Now that's complete shit. The UN is an organisation to find solutions for world problems in multilateral way. The UN doesn't have an army, all UN soldiers are contributed voluntarily by its member states.

danielost wrote:

it seems that everything that the un does these days has to include some slight toward isreal

It is not forbidden nor is it antisemitistic to critisize Israel. It is two diffierent things if you critisize based on reasoning, or critisize only to let someone down.

danielost wrote:

as far as i have seen isreal has never started any of these attacks they are just defending themselves there is more i just can't think of it at moment

Complete shit #2. That's real baby talk. That's something for kiddy fights crying that the other one started. Both sides, the israeli and the palestinians are claiming they're only reacting to aggression. How do you want to determine who's attacking and who's reacting lol???

I don't think the USA will shoot down the NK missile test. Just think
about it for a few minutes ... What would happen if the missile launched
missed its target. The NKs missile would pass with flying colors.

Also, all the BILLIONS spent for that missile program would cause alot of
problems for those companies that designed it. The USA would have egg on
face and make the USA look weak to the bad guys.

Its interesting, I think this is what NK wants people to think. Obviously testing a missile could result in western aggression against the nation. Doing so North Korea may cause even higher tensions with the U.S and several other nations, perhaps even as far as war. North Korea isn't equiped to fight a full scale war at this point, I doubt China would back them if it got that far. North Korea would get slaughtered by airstrikes, strategic missiles etc. I think North Korea wants to keep the rest of the world guessing, while ultimately they may have stronger long-term goals in the future.

I like the idea of shooting it while it's still on the pad. Takes out the Missle, Takes out the launching mechanism. Makes them realize they never stood a chance.. Of course China could come and say that "That was not very nice of you USA shooting that missle instead of letting us shoot it yadda yadda yadda...

Just too many variables in this equation to consider. We know we can take it out on the pad 100% Take it out in flight 50/50. If you were the president and there was a missle that you know can reach your soil what precentage would you want to go with 100% or 50/50..
Seems to me the answer would be obvious. Now of course Bush has the bonus of being all the way over on the east coast but I think if he was in the west coast that would definately effect his decision on this matter more so.

P.S. if you are getting your information from CNN (Comical News Network), ABC, CBS, NBC, or goddess forbid Fox (Faux) News, just reboot your brain. Look for the truth its out there, but its usually misreported or not reported. Remember the massacre of 3000 afgans by the US Army? guess you never heard of the massacre in new york at about 2500 people

More like 3000 dead (civilians).

I love how the Europeans are trying to act manly now that there is no Soviet threat. All through the cold war they begged and pleaded, "pleeeeeeease put your nuclear missliles here and aim them at the Soviet Union" and "pleeeeeease put tens of thousands of your troops here and point them at the Soviet Union".

The U.S. should have let the Soviets roll through Western Europe and communise them all. After the commies collapsed, as is always the case, the U.S. might have said, "Sorry, we were busy taking care of our own poeple...did you guys need something?"

Now that there is no Soviet threat, they all talk real tough. Not to mention two world wars that the U.S. helped bail them out of.

Maybe Bush is finishng his fathers job...

Jesus Christ! At least he tried to "sound it out"

"Exaggerating" there that should make Skyjack happy.

I love how the Europeans are trying to act manly now that there is no Soviet threat. All through the cold war they begged and pleaded, "pleeeeeeease put your nuclear missliles here and aim them at the Soviet Union" and "pleeeeeease put tens of thousands of your troops here and point them at the Soviet Union". The U.S. should have let the Soviets roll through Western Europe and communise them all. After the commies collapsed, as is always the case, the U.S. might have said, "Sorry, we were busy taking care of our own poeple...did you guys need something?" Now that there is no Soviet threat, they all talk real tough. Not to mention two world wars that the U.S. helped bail them out of.

Or maybe we shouldn't have colonized America at all, we could have left it for the indians and just trade with them back in 1492. LOL

I love how the Europeans are trying to act manly now that there is no Soviet threat. All through the cold war they begged and pleaded, "pleeeeeeease put your nuclear missliles here and aim them at the Soviet Union" and "pleeeeeease put tens of thousands of your troops here and point them at the Soviet Union". The U.S. should have let the Soviets roll through Western Europe and communise them all. After the commies collapsed, as is always the case, the U.S. might have said, "Sorry, we were busy taking care of our own poeple...did you guys need something?" Now that there is no Soviet threat, they all talk real tough. Not to mention two world wars that the U.S. helped bail them out of.

Comments like those make me wish, sometimes, us British had took the american war of independence seriously, instead of not being bothered with it.

Comments like those make me wish, sometimes, us British had took the american war of independence seriously, instead of not being bothered with it.

Too Late! you had two chances 1776, and in 1812 and nither time did the U.S. lose any land to Britain after the Wars.

Too Late! you had two chances 1776, and in 1812 and nither time did the U.S. lose any land to Britain after the Wars.

If only we Americans could go back in time and give our revolutionaries AK-47s.

Alright, alright, let's not go fantasizing about slaughtering our allies with weapons from 150+ years in the future (from revolutionary times). Let's also remember that the British did a nice job of torching the White House and the Capitol during the war of 1812 after kicking our butts outside of Washington.

I thoought the British got their asses handed to them in 1812. They landedand the had WAY mor troops than we did they lost allot of their men, but we oly lost 18 men due to "Lay of the land".

LOL at the war for oil nutcase's.

Megloblob said:

Strange thread, is this missile launch big news in the US? In europe its not making the news at all, not even as small news item at the end. Loads of countries test missiles all the time, why the big deal? Perhaps because North Korea could hit the western US with one? It won't, so long as the US leaves it alone and stops sabre rattling...


The reason this was not big news in Europe is because here in the US the government is trying to keep us in a climate of fear. Everyday on the news is something else about murderers or missile tests or possible terrorist attacks or a raise of the threat level and so on. This is just one way for the government to keep us at least partially agreeing with stupid policy decisions. Like the ILLIGAL spying that Bush did on US citizens, we all just turned a blind eye to the fact that it is against the 4th amendment to our constitution and let it slip, both times.

So this missile launch thing is just the latest attempt for the us government to scare us here in the US. North Korea has no intention of attacking the US. They are just trying to get some attention.

I love how the Europeans are trying to act manly now that there is no Soviet threat. All through the cold war they begged and pleaded, "pleeeeeeease put your nuclear missliles here and aim them at the Soviet Union" and "pleeeeeease put tens of thousands of your troops here and point them at the Soviet Union". The U.S. should have let the Soviets roll through Western Europe and communise them all. After the commies collapsed, as is always the case, the U.S. might have said, "Sorry, we were busy taking care of our own poeple...did you guys need something?"

How about... if you did that the soviets would have slaughtered you? Europe was required. If the US had gone against ALL of Europe and Russia before they had nuclear missiles, it would have been a bloody massacre. The soviets had a good 40 years they could have killed you, had they taken all of Europe. Never forget the cold war kicked off during the WW2 landgrab, that was before Japan had even been finished. Russia lost because they were trying to out-do America funding their own nations, and bankrupted themselves because their version of the Martial Plan wasn't managed as well as needed. Anyone want to think what would happen if they had spent all that money of 40 years funding weapons? At one point they even overtook America in terms of WMB technology (just about got ICBMs first). If you're going to be an idiot, try and hide it better.

As has been said, during 1812 there was the Napoleonic war happening. England didn't think the Americans were a threat, and they had no knowledge of guerilla warfare. Those were the days where the opposing forces lined up facing each other, then waited for battle to commence. The Americans were fighting with intelligence, using the land which they knew as an advantage. Had they not done that, or had England not been distracted, then it would have been delayed a few more years.

LOL at the war for oil nutcase's.

Bush barely bothers to deny it, nor does Blair. LOL at the moron.

I thoought the British got their asses handed to them in 1812. They landedand the had WAY mor troops than we did they lost allot of their men, but we oly lost 18 men due to "Lay of the land".

I did a little fact-checking and came up with this (not that I'm suggesting wikipedia is necessarily the best place to go):
Battle of Bladensburg

I've seen very different numbers for the casualty stats elsewhere, but that gives the general idea, I think.

JubJub is referring to the Battle of New Orleans Link, which was about 800 British casualties to 13 American. That was after the war ended, though, so it doesn't really tell why we survived.

Hmmm, i can see this is devolving into nonsense, but ill respond to 2 things.

/quote guess you never heard of the massacre in new york at about 2500 people /quote

I grew up in New York, I lost friends in 9/11, murdering/massacring people in Afganistan isnt going to bring them back, your flippant revenge based response is what has gotten 2500 MORE americans killed in Iraq (which ALSO didnt have anything to do with 9/11).
I amazed that you didnt deny that this happened as most ppl do, it just seems ok that 3000 'ragheads' get massacred? Sad.

/quote 4 the united states, russia, and the uk would never use theirs (also a politacal statement) /quote

Tell that to the 100,000 people who were incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Im leaving this thread. This thread now is basiclly, ignorance, apathy and people interested in revenge rather than justice.

Good Bye,
Star Dagger

Hmmm, i can see this is devolving into nonsense, but ill respond to 2 things. /quote guess you never heard of the massacre in new york at about 2500 people /quote I grew up in New York, I lost friends in 9/11, murdering/massacring people in Afganistan isnt going to bring them back, your flippant revenge based response is what has gotten 2500 MORE americans killed in Iraq (which ALSO didnt have anything to do with 9/11). I amazed that you didnt deny that this happened as most ppl do, it just seems ok that 3000 'ragheads' get massacred? Sad. /quote 4 the united states, russia, and the uk would never use theirs (also a politacal statement) /quote Tell that to the 100,000 people who were incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Im leaving this thread. This thread now is basiclly, ignorance, apathy and people interested in revenge rather than justice. Good Bye, Star Dagger

**snif** I miss him already.....

The reason this was not big news in Europe is because here in the US the government is trying to keep us in a climate of fear. Everyday on the news is something else about murderers or missile tests or possible terrorist attacks or a raise of the threat level and so on. This is just one way for the government to keep us at least partially agreeing with stupid policy decisions.

There is alot of truth to this, Bush and to be fair many other western leaders have seized on the terrorist threat and blown it out of all proportion. A relatively small, rag tag collection of extremist nutters r no threat at all to the west, now that we r aware of them and taking counter measures. Politicians have used it to further the 'national interest', there own interests or there supporters, backers interests across the world. Also a scared people will agree to measures that would otherwise attract fierce opposition.

As has been said, during 1812 there was the Napoleonic war happening. England didn't think the Americans were a threat, and they had no knowledge of guerilla warfare. Those were the days where the opposing forces lined up facing each other, then waited for battle to commence. The Americans were fighting with intelligence, using the land which they knew as an advantage. Had they not done that, or had England not been distracted, then it would have been delayed a few more years.

Intelligence is what wins against overconfidence...BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

that's it Deeper Knowledge that is my next research goal!

@JubJub15
You say Bush lied to us... this is true.
So did Clinton.
So did every President before them, some more publicly than others.
It wasn't until recent years that anyone cared, so what difference does it make now? We were lied to about whether we'd join WWII... we lost many more people there, and yet very few, if any, people are upset about that.

@Morghenes
There's no such thing as good or bad people? You mean a man who killed his own people with chemical weapons is no different than a man who'll give an arm and a leg for his neighbor? You mean a man who killed thousands of people simply because they live in more freedom than he does is no different than a man who fights for his own freedom? You mean a man who wants to see another country "wiped off the map" is no different than the man who donates time and money to third world countries? You mean that a man who kills millions of people because their Jewish or Black or gay is no different than a man who who gives his life toward the cause of equal rights?
Maybe you thought I meant people as in population of a country, in which case--no. I meant Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Oh, and in case you don't get the references above, all of the men whose "ideaologies contradict" those of the US are, in order, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Adolf Hitler.
As for not seeing the reasons, you apparently didn't read the whole of my post. I wasn't even arguing that the war was justified because we were going after "bad people." I said (or meant, if you didn't read it the way I intended it to be read) that the war was justified simply because he broke the rules set after the first time we whooped him. One specific example: we had imposed a range limit of 100km on his missiles, but on the first day of fighting in the second Gulf War he fired on us from beyond that range.