Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest DeputyHawk

The one & only War On Terror thread

Recommended Posts

Guest PlatypusFool

And how do you know that he would use them if it wasn't the last option? Not that there is EVER a reason to use weapons of that power on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne
And how do you know that he would use them if it wasn't the last option? Not that there is EVER a reason to use weapons of that power on anything.

You're talking about the same man that killed thousands of Kurds with poison gas, burned oil fields during the gulf war causing significant damage to the environment. If you really don't think he wouldn't use a nuclear weapon in a second, than I've got a bridge in brooklyn I wanna sell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DrTom
All Saddam has done (if he's done anything) is create nuclear weapons exactly the same as America have - I didn't hear any complaints about America's nuclear capability.

That's because we're not a country run by an insane, extremist tyrant. We haven't gassed our own people. We haven't invaded out neighbors and dared the world to do something about it. America has nukes, and the responsibility that accompanies such power. Saddam is an irresponsible madman. There isn't any comparison to be made here.

 

The point is that America is on the borderline of doing something much worse - and what did he actually do to America?

He's given money to Usama bin Laden on several occasions, starting in 1995. He funds terrorism in Israel. He is developing nuclear capability to go along with his store of biological and chemical weapons. The man is a threat to the free world, not just America, and we'll be doing those of you in Europe a fucking favor when we take him out. At least the English have come around to our side on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest big Dante Cruz

You know what really gets me about the whole thing is the fact that while Europe looks down its collective nose at us about this Iraq issue, when we know he's developing nukes and already has VX and biological agents. While Europe looks down on us, they don't realize that they're a heckuva lot closer to this maniac, and if he thinks that his capabilities couldn't successfully reach the US, who's he going for?

 

And I'll do you one better. What if Saddam dropped a nuke somewhere in the US? Or VX? Or his bio agents? What exactly are they going to say then? Say Ameria does sit on its hands until we get hit again and we lose countless lives due to this wait and see approach...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeputyHawk
At least the English have come around to our side on this one.

The British, man. C'mon, where's the braveheart love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest danielisthor

President Bush's Remarks at the Pentagon

in Honor of the Men and Women

of September 11

September 11, 2002

 

 

The Pentagon

Watch President Bush's Remarks at the Pentagon in Honor of the Men and Women of September 11.

 

One year ago, men and women and children were killed here because they were Americans, and because this place is a symbol to the world of our country's might and resolve.

 

Today, we remember each life. We rededicate this proud symbol. And we renew our commitment to win the war that began here.

 

The terrorists chose this target hoping to demoralize our country. They failed.

Within minutes, brave men and women were rescuing their comrades. Within hours, in this building, the planning began for a military response. Within weeks, commands went forth from this place that would clear terrorist camps and caves and liberate a nation. And within one year, this great building has been made whole once again.

 

Many civilian and military personnel have now returned to offices they occupied before the attack. The Pentagon is a working building, not a memorial. Yet the memories of a great tragedy linger here. And for all who knew loss here, life is not the same.

 

The 184 whose lives were taken in this place -- veterans and recruits, soldiers and civilians, husbands and wives, parents and children -- left behind family and friends who loss cannot be weighed.

 

The murder of innocents cannot be explained, only endured. And though they died in tragedy, they did not die in vain.

 

Their loss has moved a nation to action in a cause to defend other innocent lives across the world. This war is waged on many fronts. We've captured more than 2,000 terrorists. A larger number of killers have met their end in combat.

 

We've seized millions in terrorist assets. We're reorganizing the federal government to protect the homeland, yet there's a great deal left to do. And the greatest tasks and the greatest dangers will fall to the armed forces of the United States.

 

I came to the presidency with respect for all who wear America's uniform. Every day... Every day, as your commander in chief, my respect, and that of our nation, has deepened. I have great confidence in every man and woman who wears the uniform of the United States of America.

 

I am proud of all who have fought on my orders, and this nation honors all who died in our cause.

 

Wherever our military is sent in the world, you bring hope and justice and promise of a better day. You are worthy of the traditions you represent, the uniform you wear, the ideals you serve. America is counting on you, and our confidence is well placed.

 

What happened to our nation on a September day set in motion the first great struggle of a new century. The enemies who struck us are determined and they are resourceful. They will not be stopped by a sense of decency or a hint of conscience. But they will be stopped.

 

A greater force is amassed against them. They are opposed by freedom-loving people in many lands. They are opposed by our allies who have fought bravely by our side. And as long as terrorists and dictators plot against our lives and our liberty, they will be opposed by the United States Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Marines.

 

We fight as Americans have always fought not just for ourselves, but for the security of our friends and for peace in the world. We fight for the dignity of life against fanatics who feel no shame in murder. We fight to protect the innocent so that the lawless and the merciless will not inherit the Earth.

 

 

At every turn of this war, we will always remember how it began and who fell first -- the thousands who went to work, boarded a plane or reported to their post. Today the nation pays our respects to them. Here and in Pennsylvania and in New York, we honor each name and each life.

 

We ask God to bring comfort to every home where they are loved and missed. And on this day, and on every day, may He watch over the United States of America.

God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KoR Fungus

<<<If that plane had taken off and flown into Big Ben, I don't think you'd be posting what you just did.>>>

 

I don't understand that argument at all. I live in the US, I turned on my TV on September 11th and saw the towers burning, I watched live as they fell, but I'm still against the war on Iraq until there's some real concrete objectives for what we want to accomplish, how we plan to accomplish it and what we plan to do once it's accomplished. You can't let patriotism overrule reason. I don't think most Europeans are totally opposed to war on Iraq, they just want to be careful that we know what we're doing, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Taking out Saddam Hussein sounds great on paper, but until we can figure out a way to do it without huge numbers of casualties to either US soldiers or Iraqi innocents, and until we have determined exactly what will replace his government once he's gone, we shouldn't invade. A well planned, well thought out invasion with a plan for how to clean up the mess that will be left over sounds great. A kneejerk war conveniently just in time for the midterm elections sounds terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KoR Fungus

<<<The sense of what is wrong about this whole thing for me comes with the consideration that America have had nuclear weapons for yonks. All Saddam has done (if he's done anything) is create nuclear weapons exactly the same as America have - I didn't hear any complaints about America's nuclear capability.>>>

 

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but this is pretty silly. Saddam has a record of using weapons that are banned by international conventions, so the idea that he's just stockpiling nukes for his own protection is a little farfetched. I don't think we're in any imminent danger of being nuked by Iraq, but Iraq stockpiling weapons is definitely a cause for concern, especially since Israel is so close to Iraq and would be such an appealing target for Saddam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PlatypusFool

Alright, I admit I don't actually know an awful lot about this, or any of the back story, but I still stick by my opinions.

 

I just wish everyone could keep focussed on the FACT that outright war is a bad thing, not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeputyHawk
I don't think most Europeans are totally opposed to war on Iraq, they just want to be careful that we know what we're doing, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

this is very much the feeling in europe, or at least britain anyway. we know saddam needs to go, we're just very aware of how badly wrong the operation could go if it is poorly executed. rightly or wrongly, president bush does not inspire confidence as a statesman over here, or indeed anywhere in europe - which is a major reason he is encountering so much resistance from america's traditional allies.

 

Taking out Saddam Hussein sounds great on paper, but until we can figure out a way to do it without huge numbers of casualties to either US soldiers or Iraqi innocents, and until we have determined exactly what will replace his government once he's gone, we shouldn't invade.

 

agreed, but the tricky issue here lies within the technicalities. if bush (or from my perspective, blair) laid out the detailed plans for all to see and asked outright military strategy approval from the public, it would somewhat remove the element of surprise from the eventual attack. what we simply have to do now is hope that the powerbrokers and strategists on both sides of the atlantic can pull off a successful deposition and help support and install a meaningful replacement who has the support of his people. they can't afford to fuck this up, they're playing with very volatile matches, and all us mere mortals can do is simply sit back and hope for the best. it scares the shit out of me how much influence a select group of people have over the fate of the world, and how little attention has been payed to the voice of the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeputyHawk
I didn't hear any complaints about America's nuclear capability.

That's because we're not a country run by an insane, extremist tyrant ..... We haven't invaded out neighbors and dared the world to do something about it.

there are some who would find this unfathomably funny. not me, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DeputyHawk
Bush to give U.N. ultimatum on Iraq

By Randall Mikkelsen NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush will challenge the United Nations to a high-stakes choice between taking action to enforce its resolutions on Iraq or risking irrelevance, U.S. officials said. The blunt tone of the speech may leave some of the world leaders in Bush's audience "squirming in some of the seats," a senior administration official said on Wednesday. "The president believes that the case he's going to make is strong, and that there's a clear choice here," another administration official said. The official said the United Nations would "risk irrelevance" if it failed to act. That could leave the door open to the United States acting on its own, but officials said it was unclear whether Bush would make that link explicit. Bush is scheduled to address the U.N. General Assembly, where he will lay out his case for action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to an audience of world leaders who have been largely sceptical or opposed to a potential war against Iraq. The White House said it would release on Thursday a 22-page, point-by-point rundown of what it said were Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions. Officials declined to say whether Bush would issue any sort of deadline or request a specific U.N. resolution, saying he still had options. But they said the speech in part would amount to an indictment of Saddam for violating U.N. resolutions dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, after which Iraq promised to dismantle its weapons programs and submit to regular inspections. "The world is a dangerous place, and the president is going to make clear that ... this regime (Saddam's) and this dictator is the most dangerous, and he'll lay out all the reasons," the official said. A senior official on Wednesday said Bush would cite a "decade of defiance" by Saddam. "The U.N. has been ignored, and that is a problem for the United Nations," the official said. Bush remained willing to consult with other leaders on what action to take against Iraq, officials said. Bush's U.N. speech comes a day after the president commemorated the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and vowed to prevail in the war on terrorism he launched in the wake of the attacks. NO DIRECT LINK TO SEPT. 11 The United States has not uncovered any direct link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks in which 3,025 people died one year ago, but U.S. officials have said they fear Baghdad might give weapons of mass destruction to extremists. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell on Wednesday told a memorial service of the U.N. Security Council that the United States wanted to work with other nations to defeat terrorism. "We are all in this together and so, on behalf of President Bush and the American people, I solemnly recommit the United States to our common fight against terrorism," Powell said. "We join all members of the United Nations in the effort to build a world of peace, prosperity and freedom, where terrorism cannot thrive," he added. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, speaking at the same memorial service, said: "Today ... the importance of global legitimacy in the fight against terrorism has only grown. I call on the council to strive even harder to ensure that the struggle ahead wins the highest possible support." Annan, like many other foreign leaders, has said it would be unwise to attack Iraq because it would raise tensions. But the United States did win cautious support on Iraq from two European countries at the United Nations on Wednesday. "We believe it is a mistake some allies are doing -- blaming the United States. We need to blame Iraq. Iraq is not respecting U.N. resolutions," Portuguese Foreign Minister Antonio Martins da Cruz told reporters. "For Portugal, it is very clear that all the options must be open," he added. Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passy, whose country currently chairs the Security Council, said: "I do believe that we can reach, if not a consensus, at least a big majority in the Security Council on a resolution on Iraq." "I think the United States has already been quite convincing (on Iraq) and they were convincing for many of their European allies," he added.

 

one last thing to add before i head to bed. for some reason, i am marking out like a beehatch for this. i really hope this turns into the kick up the ass the u.n. desperately needs for it to become a legitimate and respected global body. i know a lot of americans couldn't give a rats ass whether the u.n. is onside or not, but in my mind a proactive u.n. would make the world a hell of a better place. bush has made the right decision to go before them, and the right decision to be firm. oh, and welcome aboard portugal and bulgaria. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney
Alright, I admit I don't actually know an awful lot about this, or any of the back story, but I still stick by my opinions. I just wish everyone could keep focussed on the FACT that outright war is a bad thing, not a good thing.
You "don't actually know an awful lot about this," and you don't know "any of the back story," but you still have your opinions. That's very nice for you, I'm sure, but here's a newsflash: by your own admission your opinions are uninformed and therefore worthless. "[sticking] by" your worthless opinions merely makes you mindlessly stubborn, unwilling to learn, and stupid to boot.

It's comical that you're asking everyone else to stick to one simplistic alleged "FACT" while you know none yourself. I must say your nickname is fitting.

 

What I find most amusing is the request that we reconsider war in the light of projected IRAQI MILITARY CASUALTIES. I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, since you're so completely clueless about so many things, but one of the primary objects of any war is to inflict massive and unendurable casualties on enemy soldiers (unless they're surrendering, at which the Iraqis are extremely skilled. They practice).

Really, what the hell kind of objection is that?! "We shouldn't go to war because enemy soldiers might die!" Well excuse the FUCK out of me, because I thought that was the goddamn point!

 

And let's keep one other thing straight: Saddam Hussein does not and will not (in the foreseeable future) have intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability. None of you ranting about Iraq "striking" the US knows what he's talking about. The danger from Iraq is that Hussein will supply terrorists with portable nuclear and/or biological or chemical devices, as well as continuing to fund terrorism and giving terrorists safe haven in his country. That is the case for war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney

Re: all dumbfuck posts contemplating a nuclear exchange between the United States and Iraq

 

Saddam Hussein doesn't have the ability or the desire to drop a nuke on anybody himself. (see above post re: ICBMs)

That makes him more dangerous, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ken
A war with Iraq has nothing to do with terror, but even Bush admits that. It is simply a war for oil, and to boost Bush in the opinion polls.

Wrong. There is a major al Qaeda stronghold in northern Iraq. It has everything to do with the war against radical Islam and the terror it breeds.

 

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program was 98% destroyed in the Gulf war.
I suppose you've been there recently so you'd know.

 

Sanctions just breed more Anti-Americanism. Saddam simply uses it to demonstrate how America oppresses Iraqis, and this breeds more terrorists.
Which is why we need a war. Saddam's personal fortune is valued at $18 billion, most of it oil money which should have gone to feeding children. You want to find the man responsible for destroying Iraq? Look no further than Hitler redux, down to the asinine moustache and the impotence.

 

there is no way you can kill EVERY terrorist.
Fucking watch us.

Wrong. There is a major al Qaeda stronghold in northern Iraq. It has everything to do with the war against radical Islam and the terror it breeds.

 

The fact is the north of Iraq is controlled by the Kurds, and under the no-fly zone. The reality is Saddam has little or no power there.

 

I suppose you've been there recently so you'd know.

Oh, very intelligent and mature.

 

Which is why we need a war. Saddam's personal fortune is valued at $18 billion, most of it oil money which should have gone to feeding children. You want to find the man responsible for destroying Iraq? Look no further than Hitler redux, down to the asinine moustache and the impotence.

 

America doesn't seem to mind accepting oil from other dictatorships, where human rights are oppressed and money goes straight to despotic leaders (coughsaudiarabiacough) And you you're Saddam's bank manager so you'd know.

 

there is no way you can kill EVERY terrorist.
Fucking watch us.

 

We'll just wait and see, won't we.

 

There is no real evidence for going to war with Iraq, Bush is just clutching a straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne
There is no real evidence for going to war with Iraq, Bush is just clutching a straws.

You're right we should just wait until Hussein uses his weapons against another country before we remove him from power.

 

Does it take an attack against the U.S. to warrant a military response for some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike

Didn't our government experiment with Syphillis(sp?) on some african-american communities in the 50's?? The Anthrax was certainly homegrown, and we have militias attacking our own buildings. So we have plenty of fuckheads in america as well.

 

Someone should ask Japan about IRAQ's "nuclear threat" so they can laugh us off the Earth.

 

Anyway all my drivvel-dravvel is useless, because I AGREE we need to take out SADAM HUSSIEN and his regimen(high ranking officials) but it is silly to think that if we kill him, his fortune will just dissapear. Sadam is 68 years old and in bad health, that is my biggest reason I think he needs to be taken out, because just like Bin Laden, if he knows he is gonna die soon, then why should he care about repercussions for anything......However I just don't think we should have a full scale war as it certainly will OPEN THE GATES OF HELL. If we do go to war with Iraq it certainly won't end there, and we don't need 3 more years of war(and probobaly 4 more when Bush is re-elected).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike

Also it is silly to think that if we just keep bombing countries everytime we don't like what they do, that we will never get attacks in return. I am not saying any of it will be justified, but what would to stop an Iraqi citizen who had his family obliterated in a carpet bombing exercize from letting the wrong people whisper in his ear about this and that and the next thing you know he is brainwashed and aboard another flight. Trust me if we keep meddling in middle-east affairs we will have more sept. 11ths, unfortunately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney
Someone should ask Japan about IRAQ's "nuclear threat"
Once more: THEY STARTED THAT WAR, you complete fuckhead. How many times does this have to be said. The Japanese deserve NO sympathy for the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They brought it on themselves. If they had surrendered we would NEVER have bombed them.

 

Trust me if we keep meddling in middle-east affairs we will have more sept. 11ths
Wrong as usual. The only way to prevent future 9/11s is to meddle in the Middle East and obliterate its poisonous ideology and culture once and for all. We did it in Japan and we did it in Germany. How many Fourth Reichs do you see today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney
The fact is the north of Iraq is controlled by the Kurds, and under the no-fly zone. The reality is Saddam has little or no power there.
You'd be more credible if you got your information from somewhere other than a cutesy little Newsweek infographic, jackass. The real reality is that several army divisions are just across the river from the Kurds. Furthermore, even in the regions where Saddam doesn't have power, the Kurds usually don't either. Several groups linked to Al-Qaeda, such as Ansar al-Islam, control large areas near the mountainous Iran border. According to the Kurds, they are being supplied by Baghdad, and there are some preliminary indications to support this allegation. And finally, there are several strongholds occupied by Al-Qaeda itself in northwestern Iraq.

 

I suppose you've been there recently so you'd know.
Oh, very intelligent and mature.
And relevant. Don't forget relevant.

After all, you're making claims we know to be false. I'd like you to name your sources. Details, please, as well as dates, explanations, and documented evidence. 98% of Iraq's (presumably) 1990 WMD capabilities have been destroyed? What does that percentage even mean? Are you talking about production facilities, actual weapons, research labs, or something else? All taken together? If so, what weight did you give each factor? Your statistic is absolutely meaningless.

At the CIA, the technical term for statements like yours is "bullshit."

And since even the limited and ineffectual weapons inspectors haven't been in Iraq for half a decade, what makes you think Saddam Hussein hasn't rebuilt and restocked whatever was destroyed? As the Honorable Mr Rumsfeld stated: "We know they've kept their nuclear scientists together... one has to assume they've not been playing tiddlywinks."

Everything we know indicates that Saddam Hussein most certainly has not been playing tiddlywinks, except to the UN: a senior official of the Uninformed Ninnies, when confronted with aerial photographs of a convoy of trucks fleeing a factory as inspectors approached, seriously offered this explanation: "It's possible that they were going to a truckers' party."

Now why didn't I think of that? Oh that's right, because it's UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLY STUPID.

 

America doesn't seem to mind accepting oil from other dictatorships, where human rights are oppressed and money goes straight to despotic leaders (coughsaudiarabiacough)
I've been saying that we should throw Saudi Arabia to the dogs for a long time. Anyway, that's completely irrelevant to the argument: you had claimed that sanctions were useless and counterproductive, and I agreed with you. They're given only lip service; thousands of tons of illegal goods pour into Iraq every day. Border controls are nonexistent; only materials that are controlled in the first place are prevented (sporadically) from reaching Iraq. Because of the laxity of his neighbours, Saddam Hussein can get pretty much anything else he wants. It's only the ordinary people who suffer.

Which, again, is why we need to end the farce of sanctions, forget about inspections, and go to war. The sooner the better.

 

you're Saddam's bank manager so you'd know.
No. I work for the government, and I can read, so I'd know.

From a State Department memo: "In July 1999, Forbes Magazine estimated Saddam Hussein's personal wealth at $6 billion, acquired primarily from oil and smuggling." That assessment was a bare minimum to begin with, and since then it has been revised upwards significantly. Saddam Hussein has spent over $2 billion on palaces alone in the last ten years.

The memo continues: "In April 1999, Iraqi officials inaugurated Saddamiat al Tharthar. Located 85 miles west of Baghdad, this sprawling lakeside vacation resort contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals, parks, and 625 homes to be used by government officials. This project cost hundreds of millions of dollars." Aerial photographs of this facility exist.

 

There is no real evidence for going to war with Iraq, Bush is just clutching a straws.
I'm inclined to believe that the President of the United States knows a bit more than you do. When was your last strategic intelligence briefing from the JCOS or the DCI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest EricMM
Kens reply to Marney

It's his fourth post! It's his fourth post and he's gonna get reamed!!!

 

remember, attack the points, not the person. Got that Marney? eh. I tried.

 

About Iraq, IMO Hussien should STILL be taken for what he did to the Kurds. As far as I'm concerned we don't have to respect Hussien's State Sovernity (sp) since he didn't respect his own citizen's rights to not be FUCKING GASSED. Please explain this atrocity away. I mean if Bush did this to like Iowa, would you be cool for him being president anymore? How can you blame Bush for something, while you absolve Hussien? If, on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the highest) you rate Bush as a 5 or a 2 or a 1, Hussien's still a (-26623634634^9)^9 on that same scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way to prevent future 9/11s is to meddle in the Middle East and obliterate its poisonous ideology and culture once and for all.

Ideology: Yes

Culture: No

 

The Allies did NOT destroy Germany or Japan culturly at the end of WW2. They paved the way for the removal of Militirism from the national identitiy, and (apart from the removal of the Japanese Emperor) didn't mess with the actual culture.

 

I think what you want is the destruction of Islam and what it stands for, yes?

 

Doing this would be the BIGGEST mistake you could make. Saying to the population of the Middle East "Dress like us, Act like us, Worship like us" will make sure that the terror you seek to destroy never dies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney

"Dress like us"

Absolutely: don't ever force anyone to wear a goddamn tent again. If a woman wears a short skirt or uncovers her face, she shouldn't be stoned to death. (Unless she looks like Roseanne Barr. Then it's fine.)

 

"Act like us"

Absolutely: educate your people and give them their liberty. Establish a legitimate representative democracy with a free press, an independent judiciary, and a bicameral legislature. Oh, and you might want to stop strapping dynamite to your kids, too.

 

"Worship like us"

Absolutely: don't issue death threats because someone questions the date a holy book was written. And don't EVER kill for God. In civilised countries, when people say God told them to kill, we electrocute the bastards.

 

Slightly more seriously, ideology is inseparable from a culture. Once you extract the ideology, the culture changes beyond recognition. I'm not saying we should destroy their mosques or their historical sites like the Taliban destroyed the Afghanistan Buddhas. I'm saying that their culture insofar as it encourages religious violence must be changed, and the only way to do that is to forcibly remove the ideology which forms it, thus utterly destroying its present form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how to you expect them to accept all this? Tell them its for there own good and they should do what you say?

 

I can see that working really well. For Gods sake, you'r dealing with an area that is light years away from yours culturally, thinking you can just walk in and reprogram them is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J*ingus

It's happened before. In a mere forty years, Japan went from being quite literally a medieval society to becoming an empire strong enough to fight Russia back to a standstill. And look at how different Germany is today from, say, the 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cancer Marney
And how to you expect them to accept all this? Tell them its for there own good and they should do what you say?

Now you've got it!

 

Someone give the man a cookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's happened before. In a mere forty years, Japan went from being quite literally a medieval society to becoming an empire strong enough to fight Russia back to a standstill. And look at how different Germany is today from, say, the 30's.

Apart from forcing Japan open to trade with threats of violence, Japan changed itself in the 19th Century, while Germany changed from an immense sense of shame, although America certainly helped the process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×