Orson Scott Card on Terror War

From Alvin Maker to Wyrms
AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Orson Scott Card on Terror War

Postby AnthonyByakko » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:44 am

OSC's take on War on Terror

Anyone else finding this a bit... stupid?

"The frustrating thing is that if people would just look, honestly, at the readily available data from the Muslim world, they would realize that we are winning…"

Winning, eh?

User avatar
mr_thebrain
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:22 pm
Title: The same thing we do every night...
First Joined: 0- 7-2000
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby mr_thebrain » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:09 am

long winded bulljive.

look OSC is a great author and all but he has proven time and time again that he lacks as a public figurehead.

even if we vote democratic, and those elected democrats want out of the war... we're still going to have troops there AT LEAST until 2010. most likely 2015.

personally i think the only important thing in today's election is to vote for people with half a brain. 75% of those people here in wisconsin are democrats. i can't help that. but these people are smart and at least say they are for and against the same things i am.

unfortunately the run for wisconsin governor blows. green and doyle are both craptastic. supposedly there's a green party person too, but i hadn't heard of him before last night. the choice goes to doyle. while he sucks, he sucks better than green.

doesn't matter, the so called "war on terror" will continue.
Ubernaustrum

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:00 am

war on terror....


that's like calling the second world war a "war on blitzkrieg".


it's a war on islam, and we're losing.

AnthonyByakko
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 4:28 am

Postby AnthonyByakko » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:06 am

mr_thebrain wrote:unfortunately the run for wisconsin governor blows. green and doyle are both craptastic. supposedly there's a green party person too, but i hadn't heard of him before last night. the choice goes to doyle. while he sucks, he sucks better than green.

doesn't matter, the so called "war on terror" will continue.


I agree. I ended up voting for Doyle as the default choice of "better than Mark Green". Kagen doesn't seem too bad, though.

User avatar
mr_thebrain
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:22 pm
Title: The same thing we do every night...
First Joined: 0- 7-2000
Location: Wisconsin
Contact:

Postby mr_thebrain » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:38 am

well democrats have done well. and the world hasn't ended yet.
Ubernaustrum

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:15 pm

You are failing to see any of his points, and therefore proving yourselves fools. It is just like the majority of the people I talk to. You are "against" the War on Terror, and you hate George Bush, but you haven't got a clue why and the only "evidence" you have is B.S.

The initial poster had absolutely nothing to say except that Card was "stupid". No evidence, just a question ("Winning, eh?") to which the answer is yes. Putting something into the form of a question doesn't make it false, as Card himself might put it.

The second poster brings up the idea that we'll still maintain troops. But the Democratic party favors immediate removal of all troops! How can you know this with such certainty? You have no evidence to back it up.

And the third replier stated that the name "War on Terror" is ridiculous. Even if that were true, which it is not, what the war stands for is NOT ridiculous. Since you OBVIOUSLY didn't read even the first part of the article, I'll spell it out for you.

IT IS NOT A WAR ON ISLAM. It is indeed a war on TERRORISM! We have NOTHING against people who follow one faith or another insofar as they do not produce a threat to society as we know it! This is a war against a list of known terrorist organizations! No, terrorism itself will never be stamped out completely! But that's not the objective! The objective is to protect our freedom! So it is a War on Terror, it is NOT a War on Islam, and for God's sake, it is NOT a War on Iraq.

Orson Scott Card KNOWS what he's talking about here, and he is 100% correct. The war is absolutely vital to our continued freedom! People take one look at it, and they are against it because to them, it doesn't seem necessary. But the danger of terrorism is VERY real.

Many terrorist organizations are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons if they have not already. If New York gets nuked, you'll be mad at Bush for not preventing it, just as the majority of the terror war-haters were angry when 9-11 happened because he should have prevented it.

Think for a minute. Card is a brilliant writer and he knows his politics. That's what makes many of his books so awesome.
Last edited by luminousnerd on Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Knowledge is bliss. Ignorance just doesn't know what bliss means.

User avatar
fawkes
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:53 pm
Title: punk
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Postby fawkes » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:27 pm

Funny, I always thought this was a war for oil.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, luminousnerd. Can't wait to hear you call me a retard, too.
Step one, take off your shirt. Step two ... Step three, PROFIT!

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:49 pm

blueantoidgirl wrote:Funny, I always thought this was a war for oil.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, luminousnerd. Can't wait to hear you call me a retard, too.


Not a retard, I edited that out but apparently the changes didn't stick, and I apologize for that. But you are indeed wrong.

I am against oil completely, I think all things that require oil should be banned from society without exception. Cars can be made to run on something as simple as saltwater, and the technology to do so has been around some time now.

No, it isn't a war for oil at all. We are paying for the oil we receive. It is a trade, we are not stealing oil. Oil can be gotten without a war to cover it up. It does not take all of this to cover up an oil scandal. Oil scandals are easy, and the public never finds out about them.
Knowledge is bliss. Ignorance just doesn't know what bliss means.

User avatar
zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2740
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:52 pm

Is luminous the first OSC fan on this board who actually agrees with OSC's politics? I can't think of any others... my oh my this is going to make a few interesting threads, I can tell already. (Starting off with a near ad hominem... just, wow.)
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw

User avatar
Sibyl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:17 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby Sibyl » Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:02 am

zeroguy wrote:Is luminous the first OSC fan on this board who actually agrees with OSC's politics? I can't think of any others... my oh my this is going to make a few interesting threads, I can tell already. (Starting off with a near ad hominem... just, wow.)


I do, and more so. I've just spent so much time arguing about it in other places I'm sick and tired of having people "look at me" as if I were scum--especially since I said some really dumb and wild things in the first weeks after 911 that people who were reading me then still hold against me. When I saw lumi's post here, I wanted to stand up and cheer.

And I've had that "It's about oil" stupidity so much that I can't keep my responses to it civilized. America has all the oil it needs, especially if we used less running around for fun, and went to the WWII slogan "Is this trip necessary?" when even things like sugar and leather were rationed. Also, we're daily developing more alternative energy sources, besides conserving.
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Sibyl

User avatar
fawkes
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 3:53 pm
Title: punk
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Postby fawkes » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:12 pm

Yeah, we have plenty of oil, but we export all of it. There's nothing left for us to use, so we go to other sources, namely the Middle East. If we stopped exporting our oil, and started working on non-fossil fuel methods for cars, we wouldn't be in such a mess.
Step one, take off your shirt. Step two ... Step three, PROFIT!

User avatar
zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2740
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:43 pm

Sibyl wrote:
zeroguy wrote:Is luminous the first OSC fan on this board who actually agrees with OSC's politics? I can't think of any others... my oh my this is going to make a few interesting threads, I can tell already. (Starting off with a near ad hominem... just, wow.)


I do, and more so. I've just spent so much time arguing about it in other places I'm sick and tired of having people "look at me" as if I were scum--especially since I said some really dumb and wild things in the first weeks after 911 that people who were reading me then still hold against me. When I saw lumi's post here, I wanted to stand up and cheer.

And I've had that "It's about oil" stupidity so much that I can't keep my responses to it civilized. America has all the oil it needs, especially if we used less running around for fun, and went to the WWII slogan "Is this trip necessary?" when even things like sugar and leather were rationed. Also, we're daily developing more alternative energy sources, besides conserving.


This makes a lot of sense. Sorry if I made things a little more unwelcome for you guys. I personally don't really have a view on this (I tend to stay out of the political conversations around here), but most of the board will probably be against you on such "Bush"-y arguments, as you seem to be aware. But yes, it now makes more sense why I haven't really seen more people with similar opinions around here, though they may exist... so thank you for that post.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:58 pm

Lum, you surely support invading Sri Lanka, right?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Thu Dec 28, 2006 4:02 pm

blueantoidgirl wrote:Yeah, we have plenty of oil, but we export all of it. There's nothing left for us to use, so we go to other sources, namely the Middle East. If we stopped exporting our oil, and started working on non-fossil fuel methods for cars, we wouldn't be in such a mess.


We don't need to start working on non-fossil fuel methods. Ones already exist, and there are PLENTY, one of which I've seen with my own eyes, another of which I have seen the designs for and know someone in the government who isn't allowed to tell, but said that he had seen it working. We need to make those mainstream is what we need.

sibyl, thanks for saying that. Good not to feel alone so often.

Hive_king, I can't say I know enough about that issue to have an opinion.
Knowledge is bliss. Ignorance just doesn't know what bliss means.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:29 pm

There's terrorism being used. Isn't that enough?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:32 pm

hive_king wrote:There's terrorism being used. Isn't that enough?


I don't know anything about the issue at all..I didn't even know there was debate on the topic. You can be sure that now you've mentioned it I'll be researching it, but as yet I have no opinion.

User avatar
Sibyl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:17 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby Sibyl » Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:13 pm

blueantoidgirl wrote:Yeah, we have plenty of oil, but we export all of it. There's nothing left for us to use, so we go to other sources, namely the Middle East. If we stopped exporting our oil, and started working on non-fossil fuel methods for cars, we wouldn't be in such a mess.


Well, the first sentence is flat wrong. We don't export any, except a tad to Canada that probably comes back as gasoline. We use all we pump, and import a lot more, especially from Arab countries as well as South America (we do _buy_ all we import: the problem with the Arabs isn't because we want to steal it)--but we _could_ live within our means if we worked on it, not just developing alternatives, but getting rid of our luxurious fat way of life, too--main example, our love affair with the automobile. Live within walking distance of our jobs and schools, quit driving around just for fun, or unnecessarily, choose our cars for high mileage (50 mpg is possible and being made) instead of high power and glamor and fad and status, etc.

Another thing is developing alternative energy, and we are doing that. The electric company that lights my lights (and in which I'm a very minor stockholder) has a wind farm in progress that when finished is projected to supply 10% of our electricity: part of it is online already. Quite a lot of individual homeowners all over the country (windy places, anyway) are producing their own or part of it with a home windmill, and if their electric companies have the proper arrangements, feeding their surplus into the grid. There's a startup plant in Carthage, Missouri, that is making stuff indistinguishable from crude and gasoline-- out of waste from the poultry processing that's such a big industry in this area. A school in Neosho, MO, is heated and cooking with methane gas (the biggest part of Natural Gas) that's being bled off the old city landfill. Most landfills in the country are still polluting the atmosphere with methane seepage. I run my car on gasohol, which is 10% ethanol. Cars are available that will run on 85% ethanol (from corn, and they're working on ways to produce it from corn stalks and cobs and various grasses that grown on land that isn't good enough for corn _or_ pasture: cellulose). I would like my next car, if any, to be one of those, but so far the nearest station that sells the 85% is 40 miles from my home, in a town that I never have any other reason to go to-- once in ten years or so, maybe. That will get better, I'm sure. And on and on-- but all those won't be enough if we don't also develop some good sense about cars and pure waste. The lights are on in my living room right now, and nobody's using them: pure waste. The stuff down in the ground isn't going to last forever, there simply isn't an infinite amount of it.
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.



Sibyl

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:44 pm

Sibyl wrote:Well, the first sentence is flat wrong. We don't export any, except a tad to Canada that probably comes back as gasoline. We use all we pump, and import a lot more, especially from Arab countries as well as South America (we do _buy_ all we import: the problem with the Arabs isn't because we want to steal it)--but we _could_ live within our means if we worked on it, not just developing alternatives, but getting rid of our luxurious fat way of life, too--main example, our love affair with the automobile. Live within walking distance of our jobs and schools, quit driving around just for fun, or unnecessarily, choose our cars for high mileage (50 mpg is possible and being made) instead of high power and glamor and fad and status, etc.


Dude, no way. That's a ridiculous request. If an organism doesn't grow, it isn't alive. Similarly, if humanity doesn't grow and keep developing new technology, it is a dead race. There is absolutely no reason to give up our lifestyle, what you call our 'fat' lifestyle (which is a ridiculous misnomer). We worked hard for that lifestyle and there are plenty of alternatives to giving it up! Makes me so angry when people say that!

Also, it's not really that different from everyone else. It comes with its own challenges and its own issues.

User avatar
zeroguy
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2740
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
Title: 01111010 01100111
First Joined: 0- 8-2001
Location: Where you least expect me.
Contact:

Postby zeroguy » Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:31 pm

Sibyl wrote:Another thing is developing alternative energy, and we are doing that.


This whole paragraph on renewable energy sources, and nothing on the improvements of PV panels (or using algae as a bio-fuel)?! :stoned:
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.

dgf hhw

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:38 pm

I don't know anything about the issue at all..I didn't even know there was debate on the topic. You can be sure that now you've mentioned it I'll be researching it, but as yet I have no opinion.


There is a seperatist group in Sri-Lanka called the Tamil Tigers who have used terrorism, including suicide bombers, to try to get independence. Logically, we should invade Sri Lanka. Right?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:45 pm

hive_king wrote:
I don't know anything about the issue at all..I didn't even know there was debate on the topic. You can be sure that now you've mentioned it I'll be researching it, but as yet I have no opinion.


There is a seperatist group in Sri-Lanka called the Tamil Tigers who have used terrorism, including suicide bombers, to try to get independence. Logically, we should invade Sri Lanka. Right?


They aren't threatening us are they? The war is to maintain freedom, not to police the world.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:24 pm

Many terrorist organizations are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons if they have not already. If New York gets nuked, you'll be mad at Bush for not preventing it, just as the majority of the terror war-haters were angry when 9-11 happened because he should have prevented it.


Out of curiousity, where the hell did you get the idea that "many terrorist organizaions are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons"? I really want to see your sources.

They aren't threatening us are they? The war is to maintain freedom, not to police the world.


So its not a war on terror, then?

Lum, I have a question for you: how are the terrorists going to destroy our freedom as a nation?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:33 pm

hive_king wrote:
Many terrorist organizations are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons if they have not already. If New York gets nuked, you'll be mad at Bush for not preventing it, just as the majority of the terror war-haters were angry when 9-11 happened because he should have prevented it.


Out of curiousity, where the hell did you get the idea that "many terrorist organizaions are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons"? I really want to see your sources.

They aren't threatening us are they? The war is to maintain freedom, not to police the world.


So its not a war on terror, then?

Lum, I have a question for you: how are the terrorists going to destroy our freedom as a nation?


The terrorist organizations sought after had WMDs, and a lot of them. They had plans to kill Americans. It's common sense that they are trying to get worse weapons. I can't cite sources, because obviously this information would be classified. It's what I deduce in my mind. If you disagree with it, that's fine. But I believe they probably have or will soon have nuclear weapons.

And it IS a war on terror. But if you're at war with a country, does it mean you're at war with the whole country? Do you kill all the innocents? Do you destroy the businessmen, the students, the children? No, you don't. The war is not against them.

Now, I realize there's a different degree when we're talking about a terrorist organization. Again, I don't know the details of Sri Lanka, perhaps they were justified in using these tactics to obtain freedom, perhaps not. However, based purely on the information you have provided me with, they provide no threat to us, and so the war is not on them. There would be no strategical advantage, etc, to attack them unprovoked.

And if terrorists rule our nation, we don't have freedom. It really wouldn't be that difficult for an organization with the right resources to wipe out practically our whole government with a few well-placed missiles. As I understand it, we don't really have any missile defense, so the only 'defense' we have is retaliation. And we're talking about people willing to die for their cause, so what would stop them from just nuking the white house and the pentagon? And then, what was left of our military would be without direction. It would be chaos, and our nation would certainly fall. What would happen after that? You can't know, but the nation probably wouldn't be able to pick itself back up from something that devastating.

Our freedom is more fragile than most people realize. So is any nation.

User avatar
Sibyl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:17 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby Sibyl » Sat Dec 30, 2006 8:10 pm

hive_king wrote:
Many terrorist organizations are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons if they have not already. If New York gets nuked, you'll be mad at Bush for not preventing it, just as the majority of the terror war-haters were angry when 9-11 happened because he should have prevented it.


Out of curiousity, where the hell did you get the idea that "many terrorist organizaions are on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons"? I really want to see your sources.
/quote]

try
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/n ... terrorism/
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.



Sibyl

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:46 pm

read above.....

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Sat Dec 30, 2006 9:57 pm

Lum, where do you think they're getting these nuclear bombs from?
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:08 pm

wtf? can't you read?

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:26 pm

The terrorist organizations sought after had WMDs, and a lot of them. They had plans to kill Americans. It's common sense that they are trying to get worse weapons. I can't cite sources, because obviously this information would be classified. It's what I deduce in my mind. If you disagree with it, that's fine. But I believe they probably have or will soon have nuclear weapons.


They've been seeking them, but when it comes down to it, I wouldn't mind having a small tactical nuke myself, in case of emergency. I have no doubt they are trying to, but there are very few realistic places to get them. You never gave any indication on where they may come from, only "what I deduce in my mind." I want to know where you deduce they're going to get them.

And do you really think that after a terrorist attack, America is going to embrace sharia law islam? That just sounds foolish.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
Sibyl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:17 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby Sibyl » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:01 pm

hive_king wrote:
The terrorist organizations sought after had WMDs, and a lot of them. They had plans to kill Americans. It's common sense that they are trying to get worse weapons. I can't cite sources, because obviously this information would be classified. It's what I deduce in my mind. If you disagree with it, that's fine. But I believe they probably have or will soon have nuclear weapons.


I want to know where you deduce they're going to get them.
.


I don't want to dig all over the web for it, but there have been news reports ever since 911 of notes and plans for nuclear weapons and "dirty bombs", that is, conventional explosives to disperse hot nuclear waste "fallout" that were found in the camp in Afghanistan that we took, of the extreme leakage from Russian weapons facilities, sold to anybody who'd pay for them by engineers and guards who weren't getting paid (also Russian biologicals), and of weapons-grade fuel that somehow disappeared from the inventory in our own labs and facilities. These are all things that came in our standard news. I remember one story about the inventory of Russian "suitcase nukes" of which not all were accounted for. Remember how close geographically that Russia is overland to various middle eastern hot spots-- it's as easy as getting here from Mexico or Canada, and back again.
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.



Sibyl

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:51 am

hive_king wrote:
The terrorist organizations sought after had WMDs, and a lot of them. They had plans to kill Americans. It's common sense that they are trying to get worse weapons. I can't cite sources, because obviously this information would be classified. It's what I deduce in my mind. If you disagree with it, that's fine. But I believe they probably have or will soon have nuclear weapons.


They've been seeking them, but when it comes down to it, I wouldn't mind having a small tactical nuke myself, in case of emergency. I have no doubt they are trying to, but there are very few realistic places to get them. You never gave any indication on where they may come from, only "what I deduce in my mind." I want to know where you deduce they're going to get them.

And do you really think that after a terrorist attack, America is going to embrace sharia law islam? That just sounds foolish.


I don't know all of the places they might get them. But the first of them were made sixty some years ago. So why couldn't they make them today? Or steal them? There's enough nuclear weaponry sitting around to turn this planet to dust (and I mean that literally).

HELL no, America won't embrace Islam! For God's sake, the Islamics don't all embrace Islam. They've been feuding with themselves for centuries. It will be chaotic; that's my whole point!

User avatar
Sibyl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:17 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby Sibyl » Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:54 am

Oh, by the way, from what I've read over years, it's not difficult to build a basic atom bomb, for a mechanic or gadgeteer, if you know how. The only hard part is getting and handling the weapons-grade uranium or plutonium.
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.



Sibyl

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3163
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: September 12th, 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:09 am

luminousnerd wrote:
blueantoidgirl wrote:Funny, I always thought this was a war for oil.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, luminousnerd. Can't wait to hear you call me a retard, too.


Not a retard, I edited that out but apparently the changes didn't stick, and I apologize for that. But you are indeed wrong.

I am against oil completely, I think all things that require oil should be banned from society without exception. Cars can be made to run on something as simple as saltwater, and the technology to do so has been around some time now.

No, it isn't a war for oil at all. We are paying for the oil we receive. It is a trade, we are not stealing oil. Oil can be gotten without a war to cover it up. It does not take all of this to cover up an oil scandal. Oil scandals are easy, and the public never finds out about them.



not trying to be belligerent here, because concern for the environment is obviously a great thing. i'm just wondering: if you're so anti-oil, what contributions toward a better environment do you, personally, make? what is your lifestyle?
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
Sibyl
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:17 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby Sibyl » Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:45 pm

zeroguy wrote:
Sibyl wrote:Another thing is developing alternative energy, and we are doing that.


This whole paragraph on renewable energy sources, and nothing on the improvements of PV panels (or using algae as a bio-fuel)?! :stoned:


I left out a whole lot of things, as I believe I mentioned doing, because there are so many of them. One that I intended to put in, and accidentally left out, was Soy Diesel which a farmer I know uses not only for his farm implements proper, but also for fueling irrigation pumps in dry years, to grow more soybeans (which are a wonderful, multi-use crop, from which we can make all kinds of things, including food, the basic staff of life, plastics, animal feed, as well as fuel. And of course, they put oxygen into the air and remove carbon dioxide. But that's textbooks full of stuff, not just a short post or even a web page.)
You could even say that they are applications of solar energy, since the energy of the sun, combined with seed and water and leguminous bacteria, is what makes the soybean plants grow and yield their benefits.

None of these five-and-ten-percenters will solve the problems by themselves, but put enough of them together, add in avoiding needless waste, and we'll eventually get to 150%.

But especially while our own individual autos are burning 100% petroleum fuel, we really, really need to conserve whenever possible. The oil in the ground won't last forever, and it would be nice to have some left for the needs of space travel to get us to other planets.
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.



Sibyl

User avatar
luminousnerd
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:11 am
Contact:

Postby luminousnerd » Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:05 pm

Young Val wrote:
luminousnerd wrote:
blueantoidgirl wrote:Funny, I always thought this was a war for oil.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong, luminousnerd. Can't wait to hear you call me a retard, too.


Not a retard, I edited that out but apparently the changes didn't stick, and I apologize for that. But you are indeed wrong.

I am against oil completely, I think all things that require oil should be banned from society without exception. Cars can be made to run on something as simple as saltwater, and the technology to do so has been around some time now.

No, it isn't a war for oil at all. We are paying for the oil we receive. It is a trade, we are not stealing oil. Oil can be gotten without a war to cover it up. It does not take all of this to cover up an oil scandal. Oil scandals are easy, and the public never finds out about them.



not trying to be belligerent here, because concern for the environment is obviously a great thing. i'm just wondering: if you're so anti-oil, what contributions toward a better environment do you, personally, make? what is your lifestyle?


I am anti-oil because there are alternatives that are cheaper, and we're running out of oil, and I believe it's a negative impact on the economy in the long run. The fact that it's bad for the environment is fine with me, but that's not the thing that drives me. It's mostly the corruption that is behind oil.

I'm glad sibyl said this first, so I don't feel alone. I think that this planet will soon die no matter what we do. The only chance we have of keeping our race alive is coming up with the technology to leave the planet and spread out. The best idea is to keep waste to a minimum so we don't destroy the planet before technology is here, but really we can't completely halt the destruction. We need to focus on finding a way off this rock.

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1369
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:45 pm

I had to sign up just to make a post here because there are a few things that require addressing.

1) It is fine to dislike a president. In any democracy large enough where a leader is elected there will be people who agree and disagree. One side will win by majority, one side will loose by minority. However, this is beginning to grow far out of hand.

The office of the president deserves respect, even if you disagree with it. To bad that what really started to degrade the office of the president was Clinton and his alleged affair. Since then we've seen some pretty nasty mud flinging, and for the future of this country it honestly needs to stop.

Just look at it this way: 90% of the people who voted for Kerry in the last election were not voting for Kerry, but AGAINST Bush. Fair enough, but a lot of the people who even did this disliked Kerry.

A lot of people don't even look into things themselves. Instead of looking into the various news sources, they go with popular media and peer interaction. Very sad when someone blatantly states that they are a hard Liberal Democrat, but upon talking with them they have a very Conservative Republican outlook on MANY things.

2) While we may have gone to war for the wrong reasons and incorrect intelligence, this does not mean the war was not required. The reasons we had were generally because of 9/11, and we invaded Afghanistan. While we may not have gotten Bin Laden, we were able to push him down enough to where he became less of an influence.

The intelligence we had for invading Iraq, while flawed, was not any single presidents fault. Clinton, for example, had the same intelligence that Bush had and we very well may have gone to war if it was not for the Lewenski scandal.

Humans make mistakes, and we regret those mistakes. We put Saddam into power, and that was a mistake. We invaded Iraq with some fairly wrong intelligence, and that was a mistake. Another mistake, now, would be leaving Iraq and given terrorists a chance to integrate themselves into the newly formed Iraq government (see what happened in Lebanon). We MUST stay there to correct our past mistakes, for leaving would just lead to new mistakes.

3) It very much is a war on Islam just because Islam is the primary religion that terrorists operate under. While it isn't all bad, one of the fundamental beliefs in Islam is that anyone who is not Islam must be converted or die. That said, Islam is taught poorly to almost every Middle Eastern countries residence and, by association, their children.

It's fairly hard not to call it a war on Islam when the parents of this next generation are teaching their children to hate America and Israel. Almost daily the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talks about wiping both of our nations off the face of the planet. The children of those countries call us pigs and apes. They are taught that anyone not believing in Islam must die. The men are taught that they will receive 99 virgins in 99 mansions upon death.

This all considering that the creator of Islam, Muhammad, was a decorated war general. Perhaps this man created this religion as a way to develop a great army? I can't say.. but it's possible. What I can say, though, is that the war on terror is a war against the RADICAL Islamics -- that is to say, the Islamics that believe Israel and, because we support Israel, America must be destroyed.

This is not to say that all terrorists are Islamic, it's just saying that of those who want to harm us in some way, 95% of them are indeed Islamic in religion.

4) We have plenty of oil. Utah and Alaska have enough oil to last us a-plenty. Canada as well has enough oil to last us another 75 years with our current population. The primary problem is people who do not want us to use these stores. That and the fact that it's a bit more expensive to refine.

I'm sure this all relates somehow to global warming for those who wish to remove oil usage completely, however I shall address this before it is mentioned.

If any of you have done your homework you would see that, according to ice core samples from over the last 400,000 years, the temperature of the planet always drastically increased BEFORE the Carbon Dioxide began to rise. Even when the temperature began to fall again, Carbon Dioxide would still rise. Every single time it is shown to follow this pattern. Interestingly enough, this may even be due to the fact that as the tempature increased, the animal population may have increased as well. Perhaps the increase in CO2 was due to there being more living, breathing animals, which indirectly leads to increased CO2?

Now, while I acknowledge that Carbon Dioxide is at an astonishingly high level, never before being this high, this does not mean the planet is warming up because of increased CO2 levels. Besides, we've only been keeping records for the last 150 years. 50 years ago we believed we were cooling down. 300 years ago we even had a "Little Ice Age" across the planet, which, again is interesting, lead to the creation of Beer because of all the grape vines dieing off. We know so very little about how this planet works that it's a wonder any of us can make any claims about it at all.



I believe this is long enough and I covered what I wished to cover. Enjoy the read.

Wil


Return to “Other Orson Scott Card Novels, Stories and Adaptations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest