View Poll Results: Have you heard scary things about China?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yep, there's something in the news every single day

    2 6.25%
  • Hearing more and more, but I'm not scared

    14 43.75%
  • What's Lemon Chicken?

    16 50.00%

War with China

This is a discussion on War with China within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; And the scandal is far from exposed - the unreleased pictures are supposed to be the really bad ones. Okay, ...

  1. #46

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    And the scandal is far from exposed - the unreleased pictures are supposed to be the really bad ones.
    Okay, they handed out sentences and have since cracked down on it because it has been exposed. Do you agree with that, or do you believe it is still going on?


    When will that be?
    I hope soon, I have family/friends serving.

    So you agree that all that stuff is bad, but you'll let it continue because you don't feel someone else will do enough to help out? I dunno, how about electing someone who won't continue that crap?
    We would still be in Iraq with Kerry. I don't believe any realistic solution is without 'that crap.'


    Novacain, enlighten me, what would you do after sept11th to fight a global war on terror? Pearl harbor, 2400 people die and we enter the second world war, resulting in about 250,000 american deaths and the deaths of millions of others. Sept11th, 3,000 civilians die in an attack by radical islamic extremists, I think an appropriate response is putting our troops in the middle east. Just saying 'I would not have gone into Iraq' just doesn't cut it for me, peace wasn't an option, I'm sorry. Radical islamic states need to be viewed as the enemy, I don't see any other way. It's a war, horrible things happen in war, but it's a choice society needs to make, which is why we have a mechanism built into our society designed specifically to kill other people, called our military.
    EDIT:
    I read the article novacain. Interestingly, almost none of the polling information applies to me, and I still voted for Bush. Do you think I'm just stubborn, that I don't have the 'real' information, that I'm blind to certain things? Or, maybe you can't accept that there are extremely intelligent people out there supporting Bush (your queue to make a remark about intelligent people supporting Hitler).


    by the way... the "hidden horror"... it's called a penis... you might look down there and see if you have one... if you do take a gooooood long look and and stop acting like one...
    hahahaha, I think I'm developing an emotional attachment to your posts...so don't attack my ideas or threaten me!!! eeep!!
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 08-15-2005 at 10:13 PM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  2. #47
    Administrator webmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    975
    Novacain, enlighten me, what would you do after sept11th to fight a global war on terror? Pearl harbor, 2400 people die and we enter the second world war, resulting in about 250,000 american deaths and the deaths of millions of others. Sept11th, 3,000 civilians die in an attack by radical islamic extremists, I think an appropriate response is putting our troops in the middle east. Just saying 'I would not have gone into Iraq' just doesn't cut it for me, peace wasn't an option, I'm sorry. Radical islamic states need to be viewed as the enemy, I don't see any other way.
    Your syllogism seems to be:

    Islamic states are the enemy.
    In a time of war, the enemy must be attacked.
    Therefore, we must attack Islamic states.

    What does this have to do with Iraq--are you saying that invading Iraq was a strategic move to attack Iran?

  3. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    250
    I would not worry about China its current defence expenditure is no where near that of the US. something like 500bn compared to only 60-70bn.
    It also could not afford to start a conflict with any western country, there GDP is only 1trillion while its GNP is something like 7trillion meaning without trade China is gone.
    Also it does not have the reasources the west has, it imports everything it needs in the case of a war the US navy would blockade China's ports off.
    The US will remain the sole superpower for at lest another 50 - 100 years.

  4. #49
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    >>The US will remain the sole superpower for at lest another 50 - 100 years.

    Only if the US$ is worth something.....

    >>by radical islamic extremists

    No. By terrorists trained and funded by the CIA when they were 'freedom fighters' against the USSR in Afghanistan.

    Just like US residents Orlando Bosch or Luis Posada Carriles are not (now) terrorists.

    EDIT: What I'm trying to say is that they were many things. I don't think you can point at one and say that was why they commited an act of such barbarity.

    >>what would you do after sept11th to fight a global war on terror?

    The 'global war on terrorism' has only created more terrorists. They see the worlds biggest super power 'bulling' a smaller nation because of a few radicals.

    Just like someone calling all catholics paedophiles because a few priests are.....

    I would have;
    Resisted the urge to take revenge on any handy target.

    Dropped US$64Bil of aid rather than bombs on Afghanistan.

    Invested in the madrasas (Islamic schools) in Afghanistan, China and Pakistan. (as OBL did)

    Let the UN handle it. Then the terrorists would not have had anyone to blame.


    If you want look at my posts from the time.....


    Terrorism can't be stopped with bombs/wars.
    It can only be stopped when the radicals can no longer convince a someone to die for their cause.


    A man who is 'fat', healthy and happy can not be convinced to kill himself and others (especially those who have helped him).



    >>Radical islamic states need to be viewed as the enemy, I don't see any other way.

    So your all for attacking Saudi Arabia and Indonesia?



    Touched a nerve no-one?

    >>that's religious extremism?

    Terrorism, that's religious extremism?
    No?

    If you are going to mention Muslims everytime you mention terrorism then I am going to mention paedophilia and Christians.
    Last edited by novacain; 08-16-2005 at 06:26 AM.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  5. #50
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > i mean the Roman Catholic Church doesnt even LIKE the American "Roman Catholic" church... they dont even recognize it.

    What?

    > Okay, they handed out sentences and have since cracked down on it because it has been exposed. Do you agree with that, or do you believe it is still going on?

    They've cracked down and exposed Lynndie England and her bunch. I'm not talking about her, though.

    > I don't believe any realistic solution is without 'that crap.'

    You don't think there's a realistic solution without lying to support the war and torturing prisoners? Do you think the Abu Ghraib people actually got useful information out of the prisoners because they made naked man-pyramids?

  6. #51

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    Islamic states are the enemy.
    In a time of war, the enemy must be attacked.
    Therefore, we must attack Islamic states.
    You got it, sort of. I would have said radical in front of Islamic, because Islam at its core doesn't promote the violence perpetrated by OBL Zarqawi and the like. I would also say non US-friendly.

    It can only be stopped when the radicals can no longer convince a young person to die for their cause.
    Modernize/Americanize the Middle East by nation building. Fight terrorism by spreading freedom and democracy. If the insurgency ended today, there'd be in its place a completely free, democratic Iraq...and lets not forget, it's radical extremists carrying out the vast majority of the killings against fellow muslims, not US troops, and mostly not Iraqis...rather those trickling through the borders of Iran/Syria. No free society today, including the USA, has come to realization without war/revolution. War is acceptable to me because it's a redundant part of the process of virtually every free society, and putting a free democratic state in place of what was once a corrupt brutal regime, in the middle east, is nothing short of profound to me. Do you believe every taliban member we've killed in Afghanistan had a direct role in planning sept11th, or has even met OBL or any of his top lieutenants? No...we put our troops into Afghanistan because we saw the regime as a threat. And these were just a bunch of people in the mountains with relatively primitive weapons.

    Nations we've built or defended are US-friendly and much less likely to become a breeding pot for radical militant violence on a large scale, and I believe that is what we are doing in Iraq. It's asinine to say things are going well and dandy, I have family and friends serving in Iraq (and not in the branches of the military with sedentary jobs...I have friends and family in the army and marine corps), but I see what Bush is doing, and when I weigh everything together his solution is the most realistic in my opinion.

    If you are going to mention Muslims everytime you mention terrorism then I am going to mention pedophilia and Christians.
    Modify it a little...blame the corruption which leads to pedophilia, then organize a broad strategy which sets up an environment which discourages that corrupt ideology...then, I'll agree with you.



    Dropped US$64Bil of aid rather than bombs on Afghanistan.
    To help the Northern Alliance? How would you have handled the taliban regime? Would you have let it stay in power?

    Invested in the madrasas (Islamic schools) in Afghanistan, China and Pakistan. (as OBL did)
    Explain this one a bit more please. I don't understand the intended implications, and why your solution involves taking action similar to the person responsible for the attack on the US.

    Let the UN handle it. Then the terrorists would not have had anyone to blame.
    I thought it was BS when I watched fahrenhype 911 and they were saying France and Germany wouldn't vote to go into Iraq because they had stake in the oil fields there (conspiracy theory, except this time coming from the right). The person in the video kept insisting 'they had documents' to prove this (that france and germany had stake in Iraq oil, and that they woudln't go in because of it). I thought it was just crap. I also thought it was crap for Bush to want to nominate Bolton as amb. to the U.N. Then, recently in the news I hear about Oil-for-food scandals and an admission of guilt to taking bribes, in the UN, so I can only wonder.


    Granted, I don't believe your solutions would be as effective as nation building in the middle east (or keep you in political office) but maybe I don't entirely see the implications of them yet, and you are at least offering something up...which is a change of pace.

    They've cracked down and exposed Lynndie England and her bunch. I'm not talking about her, though.
    You didn't answer the question, but I will have to assume you believe this abuse is still going on. Subsequently, action by the ACLU will seem attractive to you (which involves releasing all of the prisoner abuse photos). I do not believe the prisoner abuse is still going on, subsequently releasing the photos will only cause more problems.

    You don't think there's a realistic solution without lying to support the war
    No, not really. I think Bush was going to do what he thought needed to be done, but I don't think it's about oil.

    and torturing prisoners
    That was never intended to happen. Do you want to know why it was never intended to happen? Because it makes the USA look bad...really, really bad. What happened to those people was just torture, regular plain bagel sadism, and I think the perpetrators in the US military got what they deserved, because we're supposed to be better than that (and England got off, as I understand, which I disagreed with). I'm being sincere about this. There's a difference between keeping somebody up late to get information and what they did at abu ghraib.
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 08-16-2005 at 07:15 AM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  7. #52
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > You didn't answer the question, but I will have to assume you believe this abuse is still going on.

    Sorry, I guess I didn't. The actual answer is that I'm not sure whether or not it's going on. I haven't heard anything to lead me to believe that it's stopped, though.

    > Subsequently, action by the ACLU will seem attractive to you (which involves releasing all of the prisoner abuse photos).

    I couldn't care less about the ACLU, but I do feel that the pictures should be released.

    > I think Bush was going to do what he thought needed to be done, but I don't think it's about oil.

    Please don't put words into my mouth. I've already told you I don't think it was for oil. If it was, we got our asses kicked, as it's about 2.79 around here.

    > That was never intended to happen.

    It wasn't intended to be made public, but it seems pretty apparent that the administration cared little about what went on there.

    > regular plain bagel sadism,

    I'm sorry, this made me giggle. "Bagel" sadism?

  8. #53

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    >>Please don't put words into my mouth
    Wasn't the intent!

    >>I'm sorry, this made me giggle. "Bagel" sadism?
    Honestly...your guess is as good as mine. For what it's worth, it seemed utterly ........ing brilliant at the time. Because, you know, when someone says bagel, normal people automatically think 'sadism.' What are you some kind of an idiot*?


    *shrug*


    Sorry, I guess I didn't. The actual answer is that I'm not sure whether or not it's going on. I haven't heard anything to lead me to believe that it's stopped, though.
    I don't believe it is going on because it made us look really bad...the administration simply cannot let it happen anymore. To be clear, I believe it has stopped...the pictures to which I keep referring are ones in the past...if new ones surface from new prisoner abuse, that is different, but I think releasing the rest of the pictures in the england case, to the rest of the world, will only cause more problems, in my oh-so-humble opinion.

    *There are many kinds of idiots, idiot is actually a pure virtual abstract data type.
    Last edited by BobMcGee123; 08-16-2005 at 08:25 AM.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  9. #54
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > Honestly...your guess is as good as mine. For what it's worth, it seemed utterly ........ing brilliant at the time.

    Haha, well, that's cool with me. It's been stressful as hell around here this morning (potential new client coming in) and anything that lightens things up is welcome, as far as I'm concerned.

    > I think releasing the rest of the pictures in the england case, to the rest of the world, will only cause more problems, in my oh-so-humble opinion.

    Fair enough. I disagree.

  10. #55

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,041
    >>Fair enough. I disagree.
    Leaving it at that is healthy. Unless my manhood feels threatened.
    I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.

  11. #56
    Administrator webmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    975
    You got it, sort of. I would have said radical in front of Islamic, because Islam at its core doesn't promote the violence perpetrated by OBL Zarqawi and the like. I would also say non US-friendly.
    But I still don't see what this has to do with Iraq unless you meant that we should go to war either with radical Islamic states or states unfriendly to the US. But in that case, I no longer see the anti-terrorism justification.

  12. #57
    train spotter
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    near a computer
    Posts
    3,859
    >>Nations we've built or defended are US-friendly and much less likely to become a breeding pot for radical militant violence on a large scale, and I believe that is what we are doing in Iraq.

    You mean like Afghanistan or Iraq?

    (The US 'defended' Afghanistan against the USSR in the 1990s and Sadam v Iran in the 1980s)

    When the US supported (trained and funded) the Muhajadin against the USSR. Muhajadin being a derivative of jihad....and we all know what that means (now).

    Then, when the USSR was defeated, the people of Afghanistan asked the US for help but the US did nothing. This allowed the Taliban to take control, using US supplied equipment and training.

    The point being that the US spent a few million creating the Islamic radicals because it was cheaper than the traditional methods used in the 'Cold War'.

    >>To help the Northern Alliance?

    To raise the living standard of all Afghaniis.

    >>How would you have handled the taliban regime?

    Same way we handle the Saudis or Georgia or Iran or NK or Syria or ...
    Wait until the people want and can bring about change.

    >>Would you have let it stay in power?

    Yes, but only because the US let the Taliban get to power. Removing it with force just gives the terrorists more 'ammo' to recruit with.

    >>I don't understand the intended implications, and why your solution involves taking action similar to the person responsible for the attack on the US.

    Something the US fails to see....
    The future is children. Future terrorists (or US supporters) are now chidren.
    Win their and their parents hearts and minds and you control the direction of the future. All for the cost of a few books and pencils...

    Or are you happy that these children are told that OBL is the only one who cares enough to spend money educating them?

    >>Granted, I don't believe your solutions would be as effective as nation building in the middle east

    Least a few 100,000 people would not have had to die to find out.

    >>(or keep you in political office)

    This being the problem and a reason to leave it to the UN. (well...)

    >>but maybe I don't entirely see the implications of them yet,

    We can't stop terrorism in our lifetimes. Prahaps we could have in our childrens'....


    >>You didn't answer the question, but I will have to assume you believe this abuse is still going on.

    According to Britons, Canadians and Australians released from Camp X-Ray it is. It is wide spread and outsourced (ie to Egypt in the case of Aussie M Habib)
    Also in other Iraq prisons accouding to ASIO officers who witnessed the 'interviews'.

    Then you have three top military prosecutors refusing to take part in the commissions as they view them as 'rigged'. Hard to see how they can't be given the rules of evidence they use. Notice how John Walker Lindt was not sent through that system. WHY?

    >> I think Bush was going to do what he thought needed to be done, but I don't think it's about oil.

    Its not about oil NOW....
    its about who gets the oil in a decade when its scarce.
    Sadam would have sold it to anyone BUT the US so he had to go.
    "Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    "I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
    George Best

    "If you are going through hell....keep going."
    Winston Churchill

  13. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    250
    Novacain what world do you live in? It seems you are a in a fantasy world.
    You just don't seem to get it when you get people from differnt cultures they have differnt veiws on how the country should be run the Muslims want to create a Islamic state. Islam is NOT a tollernt religion.
    WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER brought in Muslims to the country then there would be LITTLE or NO threat of terrorism. Soon enough we are going to have to fight Islam. I would say the biggest threat to us is Islam. It only takes one Muslim to bring in a nuke into the country and Millions die why should we have to put up with this? it's only after this nuke blows up ( and it will happen ) that the western goverments will finally have to act.
    Muslims don't intergrate with society they create there own communities slowly taking over suberbs/cities as they move in everyone else moves out they act like they are a law onto them selves.
    Novacain wake up to the truth did you watch accurent affair on channel 9 on monday?

  14. #59
    He's trying.
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Missouri, US
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by cgod
    Islam is NOT a tollernt religion.
    [109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
    [109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
    [109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
    [109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
    [109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
    [109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.


    --From the Koran.

  15. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    250
    Well things have changed , ask just about any Muslim leader and he will almost certainly tell you it is not a tollernt religion.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Project Sangheili: The Real World War (Game)
    By -=RM=-Shadow in forum Projects and Job Recruitment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 02:40 AM
  2. Recent Death Syndrome
    By Aran in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-29-2004, 06:51 PM
  3. War with Iraq - Read this article if you're interested
    By Davros in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-26-2003, 12:10 AM
  4. Why do countries go to war?
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2001, 10:32 AM
  5. No More Technology After World War Three
    By Unregistered in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-20-2001, 08:02 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21