Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Capulet, Oct 29, 2004.
Osama alive, on tv and mocking Bush?
Ahem.... time for a classic: "Mission Accomplished".
This might tip the election in Bush's favor...
Edit: I'll explain. If the War on Terror is seen as the main issue, Bush will win. Osama showing up with a message reminds people of the War on Terror and forces them to focus on it.
The Holy Roman Empire existed more recently than Great Britain.
The excerpts I've read actually sound... well, moderate. If it weren't for all that blowing-up-buildings business, this is almost a tape that could come from an activist who disagrees with the US government's policy.
Stratego-- I also like the Sweden line.
it reminds people that Bin ladin is still there, and Bush didnt catch him. Advantage, Kerry
What I think? its going to be a non-issue
The Roman Legion was their Ultimate Weapon.
Between World Wars I and II, the heavy bomber was the Ultimate Weapon, and seen the same way nuclear weapons are today: heavy bombers would single-handedly win wars, wipe cities off the map, lay entire nations to waste.
Today it's the .
You don't need nukes to do one hell of a lot of damage. Past wars were fought with swords, and everybody had them. Everybody had heavy bombers--and the myths surrounding them were wrong.
A lot of nations have nukes today. The myths about Total Destruction may turn out to be wrong. If they're not, those nations that develop SDI will survive.
And in the 22nd century, nations will have something bigger, and the citizens of the future will look back on nuclear weapons the way we look back on the Romans with their swords.
The basic nations-beating-the-crap-out-of-each-other is not going to change. America has the power to obliterate the Arab world. The Arab world never will have that power, because by the time they get nukes, we'll have SDI (assuming we don't already!)
The point I was trying to make is that, since people can do vast damage with just swords, just imagine what kind of damage could be done with nuclear weapons. And, yes, by the 22nd century, there will be something more powerful, and it would do even more damage, and we can just hope that the people in the future have the self-control over the use of those weapons that has so far been exhibited in the area of nuclear weapons.... Simply put, when one or two bombs can obliterate a city or even a country, those bombs are far more dangerous than the Roman Legion's swords. Also, how does SDI guarantee safety when it nukes don't necessarily have to be delivered by missiles (i.e. a nutcase carrying a suitcase bomb could kill a whole lot of people)
I agree, though, that nukes will not be the end of the human species, as many people believe. Humans are more resilient than most people would believe, and, even if a nuclear war would put us in a new Dark Age, humans would still live on.
I was rather surprised at his controlled dialog and focus on the reality of the situation. i was expecting something like " Die America, you dirty capitalist pigs of the pagan world, I will murder more innocent people and this is a global jihad against American imperialistic ambition and to over throw the corrupt Muslim rulers!"
But no he presented himself in a way that was far more controlled! Is Osama bin laden changing his image from a aggressive manner to a more controlled and luring??!
Only from a very twisted mindset. How many millions/billions did Bush spend, how many (American) lives did he lose to catch bin Laden? Time to check for goal achievment and compare it to the used ressources. A change in management would be the obviouse choice in any sane company.
Umm ... no. The Chinese government has had chronic conflicts with Islamic seperatists in that region. If anything, they want Osama and Co. dead too. There is absolutely no logical reason for the Chinese to harbor bin Laden. And no, if the US actually had evidence that China is harboring them, I somehow don't think the pressure they will apply will be described as "weak".
I have no idea why the Kerry campaign isn't doing an ad showing the video of Bush saying that he doesn't care whether bin Laden is alive or not.
Bin Laden isn't like certain CFC posters
Heheheh. That's why I posted the thing about heavy bombers circa the 30's in my previous post: you're thinking about nuclear weapons exactly as people thought about airplanes with bomb racks on the underside two-thirds of a century ago.
No offense meant.
Further, take a look at Japan. A nation that WAS hit by two nuclear weapons, and is now a major economic power in the world.
I don't think you get it. People think more along the lines of no more attacks rather than Osama is still out there. Most believe Bush is better at the security stuff. Believe what you want, I'm just giving you the mindset among many, many people.
Separate names with a comma.