Thread: Will you sign up to fight?

What I said wasn't spoken in ignorance. It was spoken in
anger to another person, not you. I don't think I'd say
those things to you, because I know you better, and I'm
sure you wouldn't disrepect my country to me, and I certainly
won't to you. Australia is our friend. We fought side-by-side
in Europe and Asia in WW's 1 & 2, Korea, and Vietnam. We
are blood relations, our two countries, spawn of the British
Empire. Whether or not you accept my apology is up to you,
but I still do apologize to you for my comments. I know they're
wrong, and like I said , they were directed out of anger and frustration to someone else, not you.

rick barclay

Well I don't believe in holding grudges so I accept your apology. I guess I lost my head a little too, but I don't regret a word that I said.

>>Does anyone else see a vicious circle? <<

It's not really a circle, IMO; it's more like a pinwheel or
perhaps a super nova.

Our weapons and the willingness of fanatics to use them is ever-expanding. The attack of 9-11-01 raises the bar bar significantly,
actually removes it entirely as the point where civilized human
beings will stop and go no further. Osama Bin Laden and his
allies have effectively told the world, "There are no more rules."
They are the kamikazes of the 21st century. We now know that
the use of weapons of mass destruction in the future is not
just a possibiliity, but a probability. The question is, if a terrorist
successfully unleashes a biological or nuclear device against
against this country, what would the ramifications be? How
would this country react? You are welcome and free to disagree
with me, but my own feeling is that if this doomsday
situation should ever present itself and it was known or even
suspected, purely for example, that an arab muslim was to blame,
then the United States of America would launch its full nuclear
arsenal upon those it deems responsible, starting with Tehran
and Baghdad and going down its list of likely suspects until
the President and his military commanders consider the threat of
a future attack is eliminated.

Can anybody picture the aftermath?

rick barclay

>Oh so that was the reason?

Yea, and every other country in the pacific. They ........ed off us off so we put them in there place.

>It's spelt Kosovo. FYI many Kosvars were sent here, in fact quite a great deal of them. Never heard of that country? Lol. <


Not relevent -score 0
1. As been discussed 100 hundred million times I can't spell.

2. my geogrophy is is a bit fuzzy I applogize.

1/2 created (next 3 sections)
>WWI = because civilian ships were being targeted by Germans. Otherwise you wouldn't have acted at all. <

I don't know much about World War I so I realy can't repley, but I am guessing we did something.


>WWII = because Perl Harbour was bombed and you realised that America wasn't safe. Europe could have used your help before 41. <

Europe had are help before 41. Well we did not declare war we sent military suppiles to briten.

>Vietnam = because the US Government wanted to stop communism. As if you cared about the South Vietnamese. <

Go invade Afganistan, see what happens. My gusss is you will start seeing U S bombs

Look I don't have anything against the American people, but I do disagree with your government and its actions. I don't support the Taliban or Osama bin Laden at all. I just think that had Clinton of actually done something instead of getting head from overweight in-turns, none of this would have happened. The US new about the risks in Afghanisatan, and you sat back and did nothing. The Clinton Administration really did jack **** to prevent it from happening. Your leaders aren't perfect America - perhaps you should question them instead of just blindly believing everything they say. Futhermore, get off your high horse for a second - you aren't perfect and you aren't always right. The US isn't responsible for the actions taken by the terrorists, but they are in someway accountable for allowing it to happen

Clinton was a ****y miltary leader. He was way to caulsions about hurtting civilians, and didn't push for miltary expenses. We don't belive everything our leaders say, on the 11th for example I heard one of the talk shows them qustioning bill clintons lack of response to the Cole atack. I have never said the U S was perfect (but it is close) and we do have our problems and very rearly (if ever ) do somethig stupid on perpose.

>>>Novacain, are you trying to say that America had been a great factor in producing these madmen and will continue doing so in the future unless it changes its foreign dealings? Also, you support action against terrorists but you dont want innocents getting hurt.

Thank you for putting it so succinctly. <<

America did not produce the madman, the madman produced them selves. If I sent you a knife to cut your steak but after finshing your steak you took the knife and killed me I am to blame? What is there to change in our forgin dealings? Get out of Kuiwat? For what so sadumm can have it.

I have never said the U S was perfect (but it is close) and we do have our problems and very rearly (if ever ) do somethig stupid on perpose.

Close? Get a grip on reality.

>>Is killing the few people responsible more important than killing the rest of the world who is not?

You harbor a great respect for life... especially of the human variety. You must also have a high degree of self-importance for if you were not important, would it matter if you live or if you die?

This is all beliefs and opinions... they go round and round to protect our number two instinct... protect ourselves. Number one being to procreate.

So even with your advanced book learning and education... even with your high intelligence, it still comes down to... "No. Don't kill us all... this life is all I know and I am important to myself as are you."

Some people beat their instincts by faithfully believing that this isn't all there is... and that your soul is yours to keep (suicide bombers, burning monks, etc). They believe that actions in this life determine the next phase...

I think most people believe in some form of this... but the phases differ (heaven, etc). Still others believe that this truly is it (like my dad). In such a case, we are just brain functions and impulses. We are souless selfabsorbed beings with truly one life to live.

So my point... you are wrong. You are also right. You are wrong to those that believe differently (and they are many). You are right to those that believe the same (and they are many).

So get over it. When and if America blows people up (not my call or yours)... justly or not... turn the other cheek as you would have us do. Say... that is too bad. Not America is bad.

Now... what do I believe... quite simply

F*&^ em... kill them all. Let God sift through for the good ones. But, I do not *really* care about the human race. So I am crazy like that... and that probably disgusts you. So be it. It doesn't mean I do not like you. It just means we have different opinions.

I do not think that this life is all there is.................

>I'm sorry. I fail to see the difference between a patriot and a fanatic.<

There is a significant difference in the definitions of these two terms, the contrariness of which should explain to any rational
person why we are at war. Your problem, novacain, is like that
of so many others: your misuse of the word "innocent."

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

patriot (n.)† 1. A fellow-countryman, compatriot. Obs. rare.

1596 Lambarde Peramb. Kent (ed. 2) 246 Tenham..where our honest patriote Richard Harrys..planted..the sweete Cherry.
1611 Cotgr., Patriote, a patriote, ones countrey~man.
1629 H. Burton Truth’s Triumph 285 If hee..finde..kinde vsage of the natiues and patriots of the country.

2. a. One who disinterestedly or self-sacrificingly exerts himself to promote the wellbeing of his country; ‘one whose ruling passion is the love of his country’ (J.); one who maintains and defends his country’s freedom or rights.

In this use, at first, as in French (see Littré), with ‘good’, ‘true’, ‘worthy’, or other commendatory adjective: cf. ‘good citizen’. ‘Patriot’ for ‘good patriot’ is rare before 1680. At that time often applied to one who supported the rights of the country against the King and court.
1605 B. Jonson Volpone iv. i, Such as were known patriots, Sound lovers of their country.
1611 Bible Transl. Pref. 8 Was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good Patriot?
a1641 Bp. R. Montagu Acts & Mon. ii. (1642) 147 Nehemias, a true and faithfull Patriot.
a1643 Ld. Falkland, etc. Infallibility (1646) 176 The Catholiques were knowne good Patriots under our former Kings.
1699 Dryden To J. Driden 171 A patriot both the King and Country serves, Prerogative and privilege preserves.
1706 Phillips, Patriot, a Father of his Country, a great Benefactor to the Publick.
1716 Pope Epit. on Trumbal 5 An honest Courtier, yet a Patriot too, Just to his Prince, and to his Country true.
1738 Glover Leonidas i. 262 So spake the patriot, and his heart o’erflow’d.
1750 Berkeley Patriotism §24 A patriot is one who heartily wisheth the public prosperity, and doth..also study and endeavour to promote it.
1814 Scott Ld. of Isles iii. xxvii, His was the patriot’s burning thought, Of Freedom’s battle bravely fought.
1855 Prescott Philip II, I. ii. x. 255 A band of patriots ready to do battle for the liberties of their country.

b. The name has been at various times borne or assumed by persons or parties whose claim to it has been disputed, denied, or ridiculed by others. Hence the name itself fell into discredit in the earlier half of the 18th c., being used, according to Dr. Johnson, ‘ironically for a factious disturber of the government’. So sometimes, at a later date, ‘Irish Patriot’.

1644 Maxwell Prerog. Chr. Kings 117 The specious and spurious pretences of our glorious Reformers, and zealous Patriots today.
1677 G. Hickes in Ellis Orig. Lett. Ser. ii. IV. 42 Encouraged..by their foresaid patriots, whereof some wish the ruin of the Church, and all of them the ruin of my Lord Duke.
1681 Dryden Abs. & Achit. 965 Gull’d with a Patriots name, whose Modern sense Is one that wou’d by Law supplant his Prince: The Peoples Brave, the Politicians Tool; Never was Patriot yet, but was a Fool.
1771 Earl Malmesbury Lett. (1870) I. 218 [This country] does not wish a war, whatever wicked patriots may endeavour, or lying newspapers print.
1780 Cowper Table-t. 143 A band, called patriots for no cause But that they catch at popular applause.
1798 Canning & Frere New Morality 113 in Anti-Jacobin, A steady patriot of the world alone, The friend of every country–but his own.
1827 Hallam Const. Hist. (1842) II. 405.
1833 Macaulay Ess., H. Walpole (1865) I. 284/1 The name of patriot had become [c 1744] a by-word of derision. Horace Walpole scarcely exaggerated when he said that..the most popular declaration which a candidate could make on the hustings was that he had never been and never would be a patriot.
1888 Times 17 Aug. 7/2 Much to his credit, he refused to interfere in favour of the Irish patriots.

fanatic, (n)B. n.
† 1. A mad person. In later use: A religious maniac. Obs.

c1525 Robin Hood 160 Fool, fanatick, baboon.
1655 M. Casaubon Enthusiasme 7 One Orpheus, a mere fanatick.
1806 Med. Jrnl. XV. 213 Dr. G[all] gave..hints how to treat fanatics, by using topical remedies and poultices.

2. a. A fanatic person; a visionary; an unreasoning enthusiast. Applied in the latter half of the 17th c. to Nonconformists as a hostile epithet.

1644 Abp. Maxwell Sacrosancta Regum Majestas 44 Gratia gratum faciens, Saving Grace, as some fanatickes and fantastickes fondly imagine.
1657 John Gaule Sapient. Justif. 11 Enthusiasts, Anabaptists, Fanaticks, and Familists.
1660 Fuller Mixt. Contempl. (1841) 212 A new word coined, within few months, called fanatics..seemeth well..proportioned to signify..the sectaries of our age.
1660 Pepys Diary 15 Apr., Since Lambert got out of the Tower, the Fanatiques had held up their heads high.
1709 Evans in Hearne Collect. 10 Nov., D. Sacheverel..thunderd..against ye phanaticks.
1780 Harris Philol. Enq. (1841) 430 Henry the Fourth of France..was unexpectedly murdered by a wretched fanatic.
1859 Kingsley Sir W. Raleigh I. 20 The man of one idea, who works at nothing but that..sacrifices everything to that; the fanatic in short.
1883 Froude Short Stud. IV. iii. 269 The Jews..were troublesome fanatics whom it was equally difficult to govern or destroy.

b. A fanatical devotee of.

1790 Burke Fr. Rev. Wks. V. 66 Those exploded fanaticks of slavery.
c. Comb.
1707 E. Ward Hud. Rediv. (1715) II. ix, To show, tho’ conquer’d, they abhor (Fanatick like) all sov’reign Pow’r.
1722 Sewel Hist. Quakers (1795) II. vii. 62 Robinson’s mischievous intent to go a fanatick hunting.

rick barclay

>I cannot see any reason to nuke even if nuked first. Is winning the war more inportant than the world surviving. Is killing the few people responsible more important than killing the rest of the world who is not?<

You're not making any sense. If they, whoever "they" may be
nuke us first, then "they" will most assuredly nuke us again
and again and again until we are dead. This country is not
ever going to compromise its principles or its manner of living
just to please its enemies. We are not ever going to stop supporting
Israel. It's not going to happen. We've made a committment
to something that's rooted in our religious beliefs and governs
the way we live our lives. To compromise those principles at
the point of a gun is not an option. We have a gun, too, a far
bigger gun than our enemy, and if our enemy starts shooting
at us, we are going to shoot back in defence, even if our
wound is mortal. I don't like it. Nobody wants it. But that's
the way it is.

The irony of one of your remarks made me smile and for once
agree with you: if we do reach a doomsday situation here, one
of the safest places to be will be at the bottom of the ocean
in a nuclear submarine. Have you ever read Nevil Shute's,
On the Beach? Those nuclear winds eventually reached Australia
and the rest of the Southern hemisphere. For Hillbillie and others
who are planning to sit out any conflagration, you should take
heed that in an atomic war there is really no safe haven for
you other than your own survival instincts and the survival of
future generations, should that hopefull possibilty even exist.

Novacain, you are suggesting that the U.S. should lay down its
life so that others who are repugnant to us should live. That
makes no sense at all.

rick barclay

> Just to make sure that nothing like that happens agian? <

Wouldn't it be so beautiful.

>Are you for killing innocents along with the terroriists or just want the terrorists? <

There's that word, again. "They" just murdered approximately
7,000 innocent civilians of various nationalities, races and genders. No. We don't want to kill "innocents." We just want
the terrorists. We bomb what we think are military targets. We
don't intentionally bomb commercial establishments full of
civillians, like they do. You're defending the wrong side, bub.
But like you say, it's out of our hands now.

rick barclay

>> By your way of thinking of "let God sift through for the good ones", those people that died on Sept.11 were probably "bad"? And so deserve to die?

Some of them probably were bad... some of them were good. I don't think you are paying attention tho... Once again this comes down to your inherent belief that human beings deserve to live. I would rather we all were dead and the porpuses ruled the world.

How many times have those Afghans heard that from their government? (replacing America with BinLaden) You have to think out of your own context. You have to think like the other side to understand the situation, and then come up with something that would put an end to this way of thinking.
Dont say "turn the other cheek" and "not my call" because it is your responsibility. You say you would take up arms and defend your country. But you also say this. It doesnt make any sense. If it was "just", then you are defending a "just" cause. But you also said "justly or not" which means if it werent, then you are defending something that is not just. So why are you risking your life?

That sentence that I just quoted is pure IDIOCY. (if thats word)

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I think you are not paying attention again. I have read it several times. I am not saying "turn the other cheek". Others are... hence the " as you would have us do". As far as it being my responsibility... it isn't. I don't care about them or you. I don't want to see my country going to war, but I don't care if they decide to. I dont want them helping you... you guys should be speaking german or japanese right now (well maybe not you... do you have blue eyes). Why should my country protect yours or any other? You complain about America policing the world... well so do I. You and others complain that America is war-mongering and in the same breath complain that America doesn't get into wars fast enough.

It sounds like a whole lot of whining to me, you wussy.

>So you guys are saying that if someone hurts someone close to you, then you will find their family and kill them all? Just to make sure that nothing like that happens agian? <

The culprit will get what he deserves. His family may will recive punisment if they help him.


> have no idea where you guys stand. Are you for killing innocents along with the terroriists or just want the terrorists? Why dont you want to cut off the infected finger and not the whole arm? <

We want the terroriist killed, not everyone but unfortunitly we are not the best surgeans and up scaring the arm. Mostly since the pacient puts in the way.

>How many times have those Afghans heard that from their government? (replacing America with BinLaden) You have to think out of your own context. You have to think like the other side to understand the situation, and then come up with something that would put an end to this way of thinking. <

Your talking to the wrong person, I know why the terriost hate us, and there bull. One of the main resons is because we defened kuwiat aganist suddam. He does not like that fact were there, or even when we sent hummanitar releif to a south african country in witch he is responsable for the death of 7 or 8 soiders.