RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.
>Why are we refueling in a
>base that harbors unfriendlies? What
>the hell are we thinking
>by contracting the locals to
>help refuel the ship? If
>we are confident enough to
>refuel there, there shouldn't be
>any threat of terrorism.
And there shouldn't have. It isn't like Yemen in a known terrorist country. Though many Middle-Eastern countries are slightly disgruntled with the United States, most will not resort to terrorist attacks to get their message across. The fact is that the Yemen port was probably used for years, if not decades with no terrorist threat and those inflatable rafts that help guide the boat were probably quite common.
What you're saying is almost like saying "why did the government build a government office in Oklahoma when there are people who don't like the government there, only to have it bombed?" The cause of the problem isn't the location of the port, it is the people who will go to lengths, even travelling to Yemen, to cause terrorist attacks.
>And
>if there is the threat,
>we shouldn't hire out local
>people, and lax up on
>the security precautions. It IS
>unfortunate that thoise people had
>to die, but it was
>necessary to show the American
>people that anti-American countries will
>not just bend over and
>pull down their pants for
>us.
But most of the hired people don't have ill feelings towards the USA. In fact those people who detonated that bomb were probably not from that country at all.
>Since when do I care about
>the jobs in Yemen? Maybe
>if I was Yemenese (is
>that right?) I would care.
>I only think along the
>lines that would better serve
>our country and our national
>interest. We are still in
>the Gulf because of several
>problems there. I understand that.
>But what I do not
>understand is why we have
>become so lax about our
>methods and security in the
>region.
But that port is a good refueling station. The jobs are an additional benefit to refueling there, not a reason. Yemen is located on the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The country also provides a strategic control point at the port of Aden which can control water-movement through the Red Sea.
>>And would you say the same
>>about Hitler?
>
>The Serbians were not trying to
>take over the world.
That's not the issue I'm speaking of. Should we not have stopped Hitler from killing 20 million Jews? Shouldn't we have interfered earlier?
>That's my point. ALL THEY DO
>IS SANCTION. Over the years
>since 1945 (the creation of
>the UN), how many wars
>has the UN avoided? NONE.
>The sole reason for the
>creation of the UN was
>to prevent war, and help
>countries develop into first-world nations.
>Not one war or other
>skirmish/tension has been avoided by
>the UN, but rather by
>the USA.
The UN was created as a place where nations could meet and settle conflicts, not build nations. Using sanctions provides a peaceful way to settle conflicts, rather than carpet bombing the nation into submission, a little more peaceful don't you think? It serves to shut down a nation, rather than give it a reason to fight back and escalate a war.
>I'm not old enough to vote
>yet, but I follow the
>issues anyways. The biggest issues
>in this country have to
>do with labor and healthcare.
Is it? Or are those just the issues you've been hearing the candidates spewing?
>Personally, I like the Republican
>stance of power to the
>people. The Democratic stance seems
>a bit too socialistic. But
>both parties try to appease
>the people, and not the
>general well-being of the nation.
>Like I said, if they
>truly thought of USA-first, and
>other-countries-second, we would not be
>sticking our butts into every
>sopt of the globe that
>has a minor confrontation.
But if they were thinking only USA first wouldn't that be a form of a dictatorship? Afterall where does the voter come into play when the only goal is the nation?
Also, you like the Republican stance of "power to the people," but you think people in general are stupid. Doesn't this clash? Do you *want* the people to screw themselves only to have the government bail them out?
>>Best to beat down those poor
>>people right?
>
>I have nothing against poor people,
>just stupid people. If a
>person strives and truly wants
>to make something of himself/herself,
>they can accomplish anything they
>set their mind to, including
>wealth.
Yes, the United States is the land of opportunity, but opportunity does not knock at everyone's door. Also, when you're beaten down by the system it is harder to get up and make something of your life.
There are many people with a lot of potential but without the resources to make something of their life, and there are a lot of stupid people who are provided for.
>Where in Fallout does it say
>that? The Sierra Army Depot?
On one of the holodisks.
>Maybe I will move up there...until
>it's annexed by the US
Maybe it will. 90% of the people live within 100 miles of the USA.
>I'm 16. I don't think I
>can drastically change the way
>America thinks right now. Basically
>the only things I am
>able to change are the
>Internet connection that I have,
>and the amount of money
>that I make. Other than
>that, minors have basically no
>influence on those of the
>older generation.
Then don't complain about it until you've experienced the other side.
>I'll get a job at Interplay
>and make a game that
>voices all my frustrations and
>angers at the world. It
>will be a best-seller, because
>all the problems will be
>dealt with a stiff bullet
>to the head. The problems
>will all be solved by
>the force of guns. Bwahahahaha....
Nah, Interplay wouldn't be interested in that, they're too busy gearing up for Online Game shit.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
