Pearl Harbor Day
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: What is Pearl Harbour? Is it some seaport or something which was attacked? I don't know anything about it, so please excuse my ignorance. From the other posts I have gathered it has something to do with war, but that's all. Pearl Harbor (Hawaii) is the name of the US Navel base attacked on Dec 7, 1941 by the Japanese. Although some disagree, this event is widely seen as the event that finally drew the US directly into WW2. Mike Mullikin :beer:
It is really hard to be a professional and do things right, in a company full of monkeys. - Michael P. Butler, The Soapbox
Mike Mullikin wrote: Although some disagree The thing about the US's reaction after Pearl Harbor that has always confused me is. "Why enter the African Europe war also ?" The US could have kept it's war to just one member of Axis, and didn't need to go to war with Germany and Italy as well. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Christian Graus wrote: I'm not starting the Saddam fan club, I just don't think it's as black and white as they would like us to think. I agree, but I'd not want him to develop or continue to develop WMDs. As for the NK issue - Australia is much closer to NK than the US. Doesn't it bother you even a little that another unstable country in the region has that kind of weapon? Mike Mullikin :beer:
It is really hard to be a professional and do things right, in a company full of monkeys. - Michael P. Butler, The Soapbox
Mike Mullikin wrote: I agree, but I'd not want him to develop or continue to develop WMDs. I'm interested to see if any proof of these is given to us before we give our lives for it. Mike Mullikin wrote: Doesn't it bother you even a little that another unstable country in the region has that kind of weapon? So long as the US has nukes, I can understand countries that feel they have the US as an aggressor wanting them also. The thing is, as soon as we say a country has nukes, people seem to assume this means they have the ability to blow up another country. In truth, these countries have nukes of very limited range and yield. I'd prefer there were no nukes, but that's not going to happen. I don't really care what N. Korea has, I see no reason for them to point them at me, excepting the possibility that GW decides to score more points after he's finished with Saddam by going after NK, and John Howard keeps bending over for him. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
I don't normally reply to my own messages but I found my current message rating quite interesting - 2 votes for a 1.0 score. It certainly appears that 2 people strongly disagree with my comments in this message. Let's analyze it! ;) I wrote: I agree [the situation with Saddam Hussein is not as black and white as some would have us think], but I'd not want him to develop or continue to develop WMDs Do they disagree and believe that Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction is a good thing? I wrote: Australia is much closer to NK than the US. Doesn't it bother you [CG who happens to live in Australia] even a little that another unstable country in the region has that kind of weapon? Do they disagree that North Korea is closer to Australia than it is to the US ;P or do they think North Korea having nukes is a good thing? Come on folks, if your gonna rate me low at least explain yourself. Mike Mullikin :beer:
It is really hard to be a professional and do things right, in a company full of monkeys. - Michael P. Butler, The Soapbox
I agree - I have not done as badly ( 2.7 with four votes ) but I'd appreciate someone telling me why they disagree, assuming you're not the only person to give me a 1 for that post, of course. I don't believe I've voted, I don't think the voting system is for telling people if we like their opinion or not. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
I don't normally reply to my own messages but I found my current message rating quite interesting - 2 votes for a 1.0 score. It certainly appears that 2 people strongly disagree with my comments in this message. Let's analyze it! ;) I wrote: I agree [the situation with Saddam Hussein is not as black and white as some would have us think], but I'd not want him to develop or continue to develop WMDs Do they disagree and believe that Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction is a good thing? I wrote: Australia is much closer to NK than the US. Doesn't it bother you [CG who happens to live in Australia] even a little that another unstable country in the region has that kind of weapon? Do they disagree that North Korea is closer to Australia than it is to the US ;P or do they think North Korea having nukes is a good thing? Come on folks, if your gonna rate me low at least explain yourself. Mike Mullikin :beer:
It is really hard to be a professional and do things right, in a company full of monkeys. - Michael P. Butler, The Soapbox
Mike Mullikin wrote: It certainly appears that 2 people strongly disagree with my comments in this message. Clearly, they are either from Iraq or N Korea. :suss:
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
Christian Graus wrote: Why complain about North Korea and not India/Pakistan ? Because America has already done that and stopped after sometime. How long can you go on complaining about the same thing over and over again? The Clinton government imposed economic and others sanctions* on India and Pakistan. These sanctions were later removed because of the lobby in the US. India used to be America's Most Favoured Nation in the textile industry. And don't forget about the software indistry. A full 8% of all US trade happens with India (I read this somewhere sometime back. If you ask me to back it up, I may or may not be able to do so, but I'll have to look it up). When you stop that, people start complaining. India wasn't much affected because most of that 8% consisted of things exported from the US. So it was mostly the US businessmen who came under the axe. Anyway... And I remember it was so funny about Pakistan. I read in the newspaper that if the sanctions had not been lifted for another six weeks, Pakistan would have started starving. So the sanctions were lifted from the both the countries at about the same time I think. Imagine, these guys didn't have money for food, and they were spending it on nukes and warplanes and such instead. When will they ever learn to set their priorities right? Another question could be, why is the US complaining about India/Pakistan/N Korea/others when they themselves have the nukes? OK, so they have shown restraint over the past 60 or so years, but they still have it, and if someone else says they need to have it, they have no "logical reason" to say no you can't have it to them, especially if that someone is India, and not Iraq. It would be interesting if someone could shed more light on this, since this happened a few years ago, and I have never been interested in things to remember it all very clearly for so long. So I could be wrong in any or all of my statements above, though I don't think I am. ;P *(I am a bit confused here. Don't you sanction a grant when you give money to someone, or don't you sanction an event that you let happen? So how can the "penalty" that was imposed on us also be called a sanction? Anyway English is not my first language, so I'll never understand it completely.)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: Imagine, these guys didn't have money for food, and they were spending it on nukes and warplanes and such instead. When will they ever learn to set their priorities right? Had India not spent a single penny on acquiring advance weapons from Russia and Israel ??? Look at the frustration of India society: 15,000 rapes per year[^]. Instead of spending so much money on getting weapons, if your governments concentrated on making the infrastructure of police better, these social evils would be much lower. And how much money Indian people have for food, clothing and housing?? How many are living on streets can you count them ?? So, you realize yourself that who was getting starved?? BTW: If you raise one finger on other, three fingers still points towards you. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Java is a tool for creating applications that torture users with its awful speed and its ugly interfaces. Daniel Turini commenting on this article
-
zarzor wrote: Let everyone knows that the important objects for us: ( OIL + SHARON) :confused: WTF? Don't get me wrong, Sharon's a great gal, and i'm sure there are many who would love to see her covered with oil... But, it's rather disrespectful (not to mention distressingly confusing) to bring up your personal fetishes when someone is talking about his dead brother... :|
---
Shog9 This is my December These are my snow covered dreams This is me pretending This is all I need...
-
Emcee Lam wrote: India can be placated through negotiations and Pakistan likewise. While India does respond to diplomacy, and we have been doing so for a long time now ("responding" to diplomacy I mean, while Pakistan sponsored terrorists successfully kill at least 5 Indians daily, and manage to explode at least one bomb daily in India), the same cannot be said a bout Pakistan. The Indian tourism industry is in shambles, and people from outside countries are afraid to come here. India has recently presented an 8000 or so page document to all the embassies in India on terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. It lists all the terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and the names and addresses of all the members, among other things. I think it's high time we started doing something against this plague, and stop talking. Enough already! US keeps asking India to show restraint, and not launching an attack on Pakistan, while "urging" Paksitan to stop the cross border terrorism, which Pakistan ignores and carries on merrily. Every single day they kill a few people in India, including policemen. Very recently they have started planting bombs in public places and then alerting the police about it. The bomb is usually a very small one and is defused before it can do any harm, but imagine the terror that spreads in the minds of people. Of course one or two bombs manage to explode too, just so that people are never sure. No where is it safe any more. Temples, mosques, churches, movie theatres, bus stations, railway stations, market places, they can come any where. There could be a bomb in the bank where I am going. Talk about terror. When you live in this situation everyday, you'll know what terrorism is all about. It is not about crashing a plane into a building and killing thousands of people. It is about creating terror. Whether you need to kill thousands of people at once to do it, or kill them one by one, it makes no difference. Terrorism is bad, very bad. Ask the victims. Not those who died, but those who didn't, and know that they may be next. They are the real victims of terrorism. Shooting the one, two or twenty terrorists that came to attack or bomb a place every day is not going to solve the problem. The problem has to be solved at the root. And that means twisting the arms of Pakistan if necessary. Holding talks is no good. We have been talking for a long time now, and nothing good has come out of it. All the anti terrorism countries now need to
Rohit Sinha wrote: I mean, while Pakistan sponsored terrorists successfully kill at least 5 Indians daily, and manage to explode at least one bomb daily in India Why not Sonia Gandhi agreed with this statement you mentioned above?? In her Gujrat campaign, she criticizes BJP for creating Pakistan hysteria in country to win elections... Whatever happening currently inside India (not Kashmir), were the signs of the frustration of the Inidan society. Imagine as i mentioned in reply to your previous post: 15,000, rapes per year. Why not Indian government blame Pakistan for that ?? Rohit Sinha wrote: India has recently presented an 8000 or so page document to all the embassies in India on terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. It lists all the terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and the names and addresses of all the members, among other things. What about the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, where Indian army is killing innocent civilians and marching in mosques with shoes. Pakistan not require to give any so called "document" to foreign embassies. Your frustrated people can do that themselves[^] Rohit Sinha wrote: I think it's high time we started doing something against this plague Yes indeed, all sorts of terrorism including state sponsored terrorism by Army should be ended now, and people should be given their right of self determination. And all those countries violating UN resolutions should be brought to book. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Java is a tool for creating applications that torture users with its awful speed and its ugly interfaces. Daniel Turini commenting on this article
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: Imagine, these guys didn't have money for food, and they were spending it on nukes and warplanes and such instead. When will they ever learn to set their priorities right? Had India not spent a single penny on acquiring advance weapons from Russia and Israel ??? Look at the frustration of India society: 15,000 rapes per year[^]. Instead of spending so much money on getting weapons, if your governments concentrated on making the infrastructure of police better, these social evils would be much lower. And how much money Indian people have for food, clothing and housing?? How many are living on streets can you count them ?? So, you realize yourself that who was getting starved?? BTW: If you raise one finger on other, three fingers still points towards you. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Java is a tool for creating applications that torture users with its awful speed and its ugly interfaces. Daniel Turini commenting on this article
Imran Farooqui wrote: Had India not spent a single penny on acquiring advance weapons from Russia and Israel ??? Imran Farooqui wrote: 15,000 rapes per year[^]. Why does that bother you? We have enough problems of our own, but if I try to find similar data for Pakistan, I'm sure I can find that too. The reason why I made that statement was that I thought food was more important than weapons, money wise at least. By pointing me to the problems in India, you are not doing anything but try to draw attention away from that, because clearly you don't have anything to say in defence. Imran Farooqui wrote: And how much money Indian people have for food, clothing and housing?? How many are living on streets can you count them ?? It's funny when someone from Pakistan says this. See for yourself[^]. I don't know why Pakistanis keep pointing to the number of people "living on the streets" in India, I guess it is a part of the propaganda that is fed to them. You guys won't say how the situation is in your own country, nor will you quote the source of your information. And even if you did, and it was true, it is India's internal problem, and we are taking care of it, and hopefully it will go away soon. Lots of economic reforms are under way.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: We should also be trying to persuade everyone, including US, India, Pakistan, and others to get rid of the existing nukes. Agreed. Rohit Sinha wrote: But I know that is not going to happen. Also true. Mike Mullikin :beer:
It is really hard to be a professional and do things right, in a company full of monkeys. - Michael P. Butler, The Soapbox
Getting rid of nuclear weapons is a pointless niave target. The knowledge how to devleop these pornographic weapons is spreading and in the long term little can be done about it . Once pandoras box is opened ........... As long as there are idiot leaders in the world we , the human race , are going to have to live with the possibility of nuclear weapons . As the knowledge spreads , so will the possibility that some country will use them .
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Although some disagree The thing about the US's reaction after Pearl Harbor that has always confused me is. "Why enter the African Europe war also ?" The US could have kept it's war to just one member of Axis, and didn't need to go to war with Germany and Italy as well. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: The thing about the US's reaction after Pearl Harbor that has always confused me is. "Why enter the African Europe war also ?" The US could have kept it's war to just one member of Axis, and didn't need to go to war with Germany and Italy as well. A) Germany declared war on us immediately after we declared war on Japan, not the other way around. 2) Conspiracy theories aside, had the U.S. not become involved in Europe, Hitler would have invaded England. Then we'd be left with three enemies and no strong allies (except maybe the Soviet Union, for a while anyway). Germany controlling all of Europe and Africa would not have been good for anyone, including the United States. D) Let's say we had just fought Japan in the Pacific and left Europe alone. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have crossed the Atlantic and attacked a nation he declared war on? Looking out for our interests only would have cost us allies and is the reason Dubya is losing allies as we speak. Jeff Sand jsand at interaccess dot com
-
Imran Farooqui wrote: Had India not spent a single penny on acquiring advance weapons from Russia and Israel ??? Imran Farooqui wrote: 15,000 rapes per year[^]. Why does that bother you? We have enough problems of our own, but if I try to find similar data for Pakistan, I'm sure I can find that too. The reason why I made that statement was that I thought food was more important than weapons, money wise at least. By pointing me to the problems in India, you are not doing anything but try to draw attention away from that, because clearly you don't have anything to say in defence. Imran Farooqui wrote: And how much money Indian people have for food, clothing and housing?? How many are living on streets can you count them ?? It's funny when someone from Pakistan says this. See for yourself[^]. I don't know why Pakistanis keep pointing to the number of people "living on the streets" in India, I guess it is a part of the propaganda that is fed to them. You guys won't say how the situation is in your own country, nor will you quote the source of your information. And even if you did, and it was true, it is India's internal problem, and we are taking care of it, and hopefully it will go away soon. Lots of economic reforms are under way.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: Why does that bother you? We have enough problems of our own, but if I try to find similar data for Pakistan, I'm sure I can find that too. The reason why I made that statement was that I thought food was more important than weapons, money wise at least. By pointing me to the problems in India, you are not doing anything but try to draw attention away from that, because clearly you don't have anything to say in defence. You yourself started the debate by saying that Pakistan was getting starved if US had not lifted sanctions. You also said that Pakistan spent money on weapons instead of doing something else. So why that bothered you ??? Rohit Sinha wrote: I guess it is a part of the propaganda that is fed to them. No its not part of propaganda. It is reality that living conditions of India are extremely poor. I challenge you, compare Delhi with Lahore. Both have same population and just compare the people living on the streets of Delhi with that of Lahore. As such Delhi is much ahead in terms of number of people having no homes. And i am not interfering in this Indian matter . I am just telling you that India spent much money on weapons (Budget 15 Billion dollars per annum). Can't this budget be allocated for human welfare. If you say that this is internal matter of India, then you also reserve no right by asking that why Pakistan spent money on defence.. Rohit Sinha wrote: guess it is a part of the propaganda that is fed to them No, our media has not made this sort of propaganda. Thats why I presented you your own websites instead of anything neutral. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Java is a tool for creating applications that torture users with its awful speed and its ugly interfaces. Daniel Turini commenting on this article
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: I mean, while Pakistan sponsored terrorists successfully kill at least 5 Indians daily, and manage to explode at least one bomb daily in India Why not Sonia Gandhi agreed with this statement you mentioned above?? In her Gujrat campaign, she criticizes BJP for creating Pakistan hysteria in country to win elections... Whatever happening currently inside India (not Kashmir), were the signs of the frustration of the Inidan society. Imagine as i mentioned in reply to your previous post: 15,000, rapes per year. Why not Indian government blame Pakistan for that ?? Rohit Sinha wrote: India has recently presented an 8000 or so page document to all the embassies in India on terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. It lists all the terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir, and the names and addresses of all the members, among other things. What about the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, where Indian army is killing innocent civilians and marching in mosques with shoes. Pakistan not require to give any so called "document" to foreign embassies. Your frustrated people can do that themselves[^] Rohit Sinha wrote: I think it's high time we started doing something against this plague Yes indeed, all sorts of terrorism including state sponsored terrorism by Army should be ended now, and people should be given their right of self determination. And all those countries violating UN resolutions should be brought to book. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Java is a tool for creating applications that torture users with its awful speed and its ugly interfaces. Daniel Turini commenting on this article
LOL. I knew this would turn into an India-Pakistan flame war. Imran Farooqui wrote: In her Gujrat campaign, she criticizes BJP for creating Pakistan hysteria in country to win elections... Sonia Gandhi critisized BJP for using Paksitan sponsored terrorism as an issue in the elections. Not because in her opinion BJP was or is wrong in its allegations. Why are you twisting facts? Probably because the current ones are inconvenient for you? Imran Farooqui wrote: Imagine as i mentioned in reply to your previous post: 15,000, rapes per year. Why not Indian government blame Pakistan for that ?? NO point repeating the same thing. And the Indian government does not blame Pakistan for things it does not do. Unlike you. You guys come and kill people in Kashmir and then claim it has been done by us. Bullshit, I say. As I just said in my above post, the terrorism in Kashmir is not sponsored by the Indian government. You are not too bright, are you? You can't be, because you seem to believe, and think others will believe you too, when you say that the Indian government kills our own people. Get this. Kashmir is a state of India. The people there are Indian citizens. The killings going on there and in the rest of India are NOT SPONSORED BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT YOU MORON, BUT BY YOURS. Get real. Imran Farooqui wrote: What about the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, where Indian army is killing innocent civilians and marching in mosques with shoes. Once again, the Indian army is not killing any innocent civillians, but terrorists from Pakistan who had bombs and guns with them and were using them against people or policemen. As far as marching in mosques is concerned, well the army has to do many things, including marching in temples, churches, mosques and gurudwaras. Recently when Pakistani terrorits invaded the Raghunath temple and the Shiv temple next to that, the army still marched in with shoes on. Note that Hinduism does not allow one to march in the temple with shoes on, and Sikhism does not allow one to march in the gurudwara with a shoe on. But the army has no religion. Its only religion is its duty, which is to protect the people, and kill the bloody terrorists. The religion of individual army men does not matter. If they have to walk in a temple, mosque or gurudwara with shoes, so that it is still there tomorrow for others to walk in barefoot, and so that the people who go there are around the next day,
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Although some disagree The thing about the US's reaction after Pearl Harbor that has always confused me is. "Why enter the African Europe war also ?" The US could have kept it's war to just one member of Axis, and didn't need to go to war with Germany and Italy as well. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Germany declared war on America after pearl harbour , ending the internal argument about if the US should get involved . The isolationists wanted to stay out of Europe , much like today when much of US politics is inward looking and successive presidents have been heavily criticised for spending so much time on forigen affairs . Unfortunatly now , as then , events dictate politics just as much as politics dictate events.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I agree, but I'd not want him to develop or continue to develop WMDs. I'm interested to see if any proof of these is given to us before we give our lives for it. Mike Mullikin wrote: Doesn't it bother you even a little that another unstable country in the region has that kind of weapon? So long as the US has nukes, I can understand countries that feel they have the US as an aggressor wanting them also. The thing is, as soon as we say a country has nukes, people seem to assume this means they have the ability to blow up another country. In truth, these countries have nukes of very limited range and yield. I'd prefer there were no nukes, but that's not going to happen. I don't really care what N. Korea has, I see no reason for them to point them at me, excepting the possibility that GW decides to score more points after he's finished with Saddam by going after NK, and John Howard keeps bending over for him. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
Christian Graus wrote: as soon as we say a country has nukes, people seem to assume this means they have the ability to blow up another country. In truth, these countries have nukes of very limited range and yield. Very true. Delivery capabilities are a critical part of assessing a nuclear, chemical, or biological threat. Both Iraq and North Korea possess or are believed to be developing medium to long range delivery systems. This makes them both more immediate threats than other members of the nuclear club, and the psychotic leaders of both nations further elevates them on the danger scale. India and Pakistan have long possessed the weapons, but have shown little in the way of aggressive tendencies, other than in the arena of killing each other off slowly. While they are threats to each other, they have not exhibited any inclinations toward world domination or destruction, and are thus less of an immediate concern. The US does not, in fact, have any desire to be an international bully. We do still retain a nuclear capability, but it's a tiny one compared to the weaponry we had on hand and in development during the Cold War. And despite all the criticism I read here and in other forums of his war-mongering ways, Dick Cheney is the one who sent me the letter instructing me to cancel all of my nuclear missile development contracts. That same letter ordered the dismantling of all but a small number of our already deployed ICBMs, and directed our airborne bomber wings to stand down. I still have the letter, filed along with the rest of my termination papers; I keep it as a momento of a historical day - the end of MAD, and the beginning of a hope for a safer, saner world than the one I grew up in. I'm completely in favor of quashing any government bent of developing these types of systems. We set a standard by voluntarily eliminating much of our capability at a time when there was no one in the world capable of forcing us to do so. What little bit we retain is insurance, a bit of leverage to use if a lunatic decides he has a chance to change history, and we keep that not only to protect ourselves, but the rest of you as well. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
Colin Davies wrote: The thing about the US's reaction after Pearl Harbor that has always confused me is. "Why enter the African Europe war also ?" The US could have kept it's war to just one member of Axis, and didn't need to go to war with Germany and Italy as well. A) Germany declared war on us immediately after we declared war on Japan, not the other way around. 2) Conspiracy theories aside, had the U.S. not become involved in Europe, Hitler would have invaded England. Then we'd be left with three enemies and no strong allies (except maybe the Soviet Union, for a while anyway). Germany controlling all of Europe and Africa would not have been good for anyone, including the United States. D) Let's say we had just fought Japan in the Pacific and left Europe alone. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have crossed the Atlantic and attacked a nation he declared war on? Looking out for our interests only would have cost us allies and is the reason Dubya is losing allies as we speak. Jeff Sand jsand at interaccess dot com
Yes, its easy to forget that Hitler declared war on the US, aparently he didn't bother to even discuss it with his advisers. :confused: Shroom wrote: Conspiracy theories aside, had the U.S. not become involved in Europe, Hitler would have invaded England. Agreed. Shroom wrote: Then we'd be left with three enemies and no strong allies (except maybe the Soviet Union, for a while anyway). Germany controlling all of Europe and Africa would not have been good for anyone, including the United States. America could have offered a peace to Germany by unfreezing the German American assets, instead of joining the Atlantic Charter with great Britain. IMHO: Roosevelts signature to that was the first American shot in the WW2. But then his election promise was "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Shroom wrote: Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have crossed the Atlantic and attacked a nation he declared war on? Germany seemed to have enough problems crossing the English Channel, Let alone the Atlantic. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Yes, its easy to forget that Hitler declared war on the US, aparently he didn't bother to even discuss it with his advisers. :confused: Shroom wrote: Conspiracy theories aside, had the U.S. not become involved in Europe, Hitler would have invaded England. Agreed. Shroom wrote: Then we'd be left with three enemies and no strong allies (except maybe the Soviet Union, for a while anyway). Germany controlling all of Europe and Africa would not have been good for anyone, including the United States. America could have offered a peace to Germany by unfreezing the German American assets, instead of joining the Atlantic Charter with great Britain. IMHO: Roosevelts signature to that was the first American shot in the WW2. But then his election promise was "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Shroom wrote: Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have crossed the Atlantic and attacked a nation he declared war on? Germany seemed to have enough problems crossing the English Channel, Let alone the Atlantic. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin Davies wrote: Colin Davies wrote: America could have offered a peace to Germany by unfreezing the German American assets, instead of joining the Atlantic Charter with great Britain. That would require honesty on the part of Adolph Hitler, which is a fallacy. Name one peace treaty that Hitler ever honored. Colin Davies wrote: IMHO: Roosevelts signature to that was the first American shot in the WW2. But then his election promise was "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." I don't understand, are you saying that a war declared upon the United States by Germany was a "foreign war"? Germany seemed to have enough problems crossing the English Channel, Let alone the Atlantic. Germany was chipping away at their air & sea defenses first. This is basic military strategy, not any deficiency of the German army. Jeff Sand jsand at interaccess dot com
-
Christian Graus wrote: as soon as we say a country has nukes, people seem to assume this means they have the ability to blow up another country. In truth, these countries have nukes of very limited range and yield. Very true. Delivery capabilities are a critical part of assessing a nuclear, chemical, or biological threat. Both Iraq and North Korea possess or are believed to be developing medium to long range delivery systems. This makes them both more immediate threats than other members of the nuclear club, and the psychotic leaders of both nations further elevates them on the danger scale. India and Pakistan have long possessed the weapons, but have shown little in the way of aggressive tendencies, other than in the arena of killing each other off slowly. While they are threats to each other, they have not exhibited any inclinations toward world domination or destruction, and are thus less of an immediate concern. The US does not, in fact, have any desire to be an international bully. We do still retain a nuclear capability, but it's a tiny one compared to the weaponry we had on hand and in development during the Cold War. And despite all the criticism I read here and in other forums of his war-mongering ways, Dick Cheney is the one who sent me the letter instructing me to cancel all of my nuclear missile development contracts. That same letter ordered the dismantling of all but a small number of our already deployed ICBMs, and directed our airborne bomber wings to stand down. I still have the letter, filed along with the rest of my termination papers; I keep it as a momento of a historical day - the end of MAD, and the beginning of a hope for a safer, saner world than the one I grew up in. I'm completely in favor of quashing any government bent of developing these types of systems. We set a standard by voluntarily eliminating much of our capability at a time when there was no one in the world capable of forcing us to do so. What little bit we retain is insurance, a bit of leverage to use if a lunatic decides he has a chance to change history, and we keep that not only to protect ourselves, but the rest of you as well. "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
Roger Wright wrote: We do still retain a nuclear capability, but it's a tiny one compared to the weaponry we had on hand and in development during the Cold War. I don't doubt this, all all you said following it. Nor do I know of any reason to suggest the US is hostile to North Korea in an overt way today ( on this I could be wrong ). But national memories linger, and the fact that the US has nuclear capability would make those who choose to call the US an enemy assume that the disarmament is all for public show. That's the problem, it's not the US, it's that the nuclear cat is out of the bag and some nations will want them, just so they don't feel left out. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
Funny, Google doesn't even have an article on it in their "top news stories". It seems so distant all of a sudden, what with 9/11, Bush, Iraq, Bush, Al Queda, Bush, Israel and Palestine, Bush, Kenya, Bush, Indonesia, Bush, North Korea, Bush, Pakistan and India, Bush, Saudi Arabia, Bush, etc.etc.etc. Oh boy, now I've gone and depressed myself. Doesn't really seem like we've figured out how to live with each other yet, does it? And it certainly seems that George Bush hasn't figured out how to live with anyone, let alone them with him. The 2004 elections can't come fast enough for me. And yet, his popularity poll is so high. Well, as I heard on a talkshow on NPR, the popularity polls are a lot of propaganda--they ask surface level questions and then say Bush is popular because people agree, in very general terms, with his policies. But if you ask deeper questions, you find that people start disagreeing with his policies. This means the polls are basically useless, people are really shallow, or both. I subscribe to both. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
sensitivity and ethnic diversity means celebrating difference, not hiding from it. - Christian GrausA conservative replublican myself, I've wondered about this Bush - the president's son. His hot headedness/cavelier/cowboy attitude both frightens and discusts me(and i'm from Texas). In perilous/precarious times I'm not so much interested in partisan BS as I am the prez's capability to meaningfully assimilate complicated scerarios/data/theories/philosophies without pushing any pretty red buttons. I get the feeling his mom still ties his shoes, tho. But hey, we're still the greatest country/govt ever, so I'm hoping to kick him to the curb real soon ;) Good night, Paul “Peace can never be secured by threats, but only by an honest attempt to create mutual trust.”
-
Roger Wright wrote: We do still retain a nuclear capability, but it's a tiny one compared to the weaponry we had on hand and in development during the Cold War. I don't doubt this, all all you said following it. Nor do I know of any reason to suggest the US is hostile to North Korea in an overt way today ( on this I could be wrong ). But national memories linger, and the fact that the US has nuclear capability would make those who choose to call the US an enemy assume that the disarmament is all for public show. That's the problem, it's not the US, it's that the nuclear cat is out of the bag and some nations will want them, just so they don't feel left out. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
Christian Graus wrote: the fact that the US has nuclear capability would make those who choose to call the US an enemy assume that the disarmament is all for public show. That's the problem, it's not the US, it's that the nuclear cat is out of the bag and some nations will want them, just so they don't feel left out. I think you're right in this. Impressions so often have more reality than fact. It's a problem we're not soon going to be rid of, but I, for one, am not smart enough to find a solution to it. I do hope someone will, though, and soon! "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
LOL. I knew this would turn into an India-Pakistan flame war. Imran Farooqui wrote: In her Gujrat campaign, she criticizes BJP for creating Pakistan hysteria in country to win elections... Sonia Gandhi critisized BJP for using Paksitan sponsored terrorism as an issue in the elections. Not because in her opinion BJP was or is wrong in its allegations. Why are you twisting facts? Probably because the current ones are inconvenient for you? Imran Farooqui wrote: Imagine as i mentioned in reply to your previous post: 15,000, rapes per year. Why not Indian government blame Pakistan for that ?? NO point repeating the same thing. And the Indian government does not blame Pakistan for things it does not do. Unlike you. You guys come and kill people in Kashmir and then claim it has been done by us. Bullshit, I say. As I just said in my above post, the terrorism in Kashmir is not sponsored by the Indian government. You are not too bright, are you? You can't be, because you seem to believe, and think others will believe you too, when you say that the Indian government kills our own people. Get this. Kashmir is a state of India. The people there are Indian citizens. The killings going on there and in the rest of India are NOT SPONSORED BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT YOU MORON, BUT BY YOURS. Get real. Imran Farooqui wrote: What about the state sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, where Indian army is killing innocent civilians and marching in mosques with shoes. Once again, the Indian army is not killing any innocent civillians, but terrorists from Pakistan who had bombs and guns with them and were using them against people or policemen. As far as marching in mosques is concerned, well the army has to do many things, including marching in temples, churches, mosques and gurudwaras. Recently when Pakistani terrorits invaded the Raghunath temple and the Shiv temple next to that, the army still marched in with shoes on. Note that Hinduism does not allow one to march in the temple with shoes on, and Sikhism does not allow one to march in the gurudwara with a shoe on. But the army has no religion. Its only religion is its duty, which is to protect the people, and kill the bloody terrorists. The religion of individual army men does not matter. If they have to walk in a temple, mosque or gurudwara with shoes, so that it is still there tomorrow for others to walk in barefoot, and so that the people who go there are around the next day,
Rohit Sinha wrote: You can go on excreting if you want, but I won't be around to smell the shit. I am also not keen to allow an Indian to smell my stools. Thats the same behaviour as your government adopted, instead of facing real issues, just close eyes and blame everything on Pakistan. No need to mention tehelka dot com incident. Rohit Sinha wrote: Everyone knows that Pakistan is a terrorist nation. If every one knows, than why you need to remind again and again, and why your government expanding millions of dollars lobbying against Pakistan. Afterall according to your claim everyone "knows"....?? Rohit Sinha wrote: Only if Pakistan would leave Kashmir alone. So simple, just go to UN security council and forward your case. Why insisting on bilateral talks??? Rohit Sinha wrote: That site is a Pakistani sponsored one, I suspect No, Pakistani people are not so cheap doing such things. We highly regard India as an Independent nation and are against any sort of terrorism occuring in any part of India. (India means not Kashmir. Kashmir is a disputed territory). Rohit Sinha wrote: Correction. Pakistan CANNOT give any such document to anyone. What will they write in such a document? That India refuses to play cricket with Pakistan, and that the Pakistan Cricket Board lost 78 crores last year? India is afraid of playing cricket against Pakistan. They are playing all the other games but not playing cricket. Yes, as far as "document" is concerned, Pakistan need not to give anything. Only UN resolution document is enough. Rohit Sinha wrote: Terrorists from Pakistan who had bombs and guns with them and were using them against people or policemen. Bur your media portrated Pakistan as a backward country living in dark ages, so how can Pakistan make these bombs and guns. Rohit Sinha wrote: Recently when Pakistani terrorits invaded the Raghunath temple and the Shiv temple next to that, the army still marched in with shoes on. How can you say that they were Pakistani terrorist ?? Were they stupid enough holding Pakistani identity cards. As such I can also say that those were Indian army agents. Rohit Sinha wrote: But the army has no religion. Its only religion is its duty, which is to protect the people, and kill the bloody terrorists.