Free Republic

What would America do if a neighboring country continued to kill and terrorize its citizens? On an almost daily basis. There is no way it would just retaliate back in little air strikes or send a couple of tanks out to bomb an empty building. America would give the other country a deadline to put an end to the harboring of terrorists, and if that deadline wasn’t met with satisfactory action, it would go to war and do the job itself. Right?

Or perhaps Israel should just get used to terrorism, accept it, and start building more ambulances, training more medical personnel for more future attacks? I aggree, that something more drastic needs to be done soon.

What would America do if a neighboring country continued to kill and terrorize its citizens? On an almost daily basis. There is no way it would just retaliate back in little air strikes or send a couple of tanks out to bomb an empty building. America would give the other country a deadline to put an end to the harboring of terrorists, and if that deadline wasn’t met with satisfactory action, it would go to war and do the job itself. Right?

Or perhaps Israel should just get used to terrorism, accept it, and start building more ambulances, training more medical personnel for more future attacks? I aggree, that something more drastic needs to be done soon.

But what really bugs me, is how I hear people going on about a man being of Character and honor!! And how a man is nothing of a person if he isn't keeping up to his promise. I know and understand what they mean, but it's a frustration that builds within me, and has nowhere to go.

Sorry for writing this stuff. But I feel like some other guy off another post here that is just taken advantage of. I really don't want some other guys wife, I want my own and one that I feel a part of. I think my wife is more interested in her life style and having a nice home with the kids. Me too, but if we divorse, I lose all that but she keeps it. Or she makes me feel guilty if she and the kids lose the house, etc. But she trapped me, it's not like I wanted it and then later didn't want it. But either way I'm going to be the loser and look like the bad guy if I'm the one that says I want out.

I guess she is content to stay because she has all the power, all the manipulation, all the control, and a very comfortable standard of living.

I here you...

If you decide to stay, you should get a dog if you don't have one. Not a little yippy thing but a big lovable, hairy mut!! She might get b*tchy a lot, but he'll ALWAYS wag his tail and be happy to see you! As long as you don't have allergies, a dog will lift your spirits up.

What is going to happen next is that I'm going to go after someone elses wife. Sorry, but I need to feel that romance and that is the way it just is. I hope I can find someone nice who's husband doesn't treat them very well. Perhaps it is all just.

But what's going to happen next? Well for sure I'm going to look around and try and find out what kind of women might want to be with a guy like me who has two kids. I've met a couple of women that gave me games but no comittment. Bloody hell it was the run around. I loved the romance but I'm not willing to take a chance with my life anymore. Here's one example: Now, moving on to the big stuff. I value what you say. That is how I keep getting back to this (communicating). We met under some strange circumstances (the emails). You have proven to be a good friend, I appreciate that. We are honest with each other, right? I have to say that the way you are handling your marriage bothers me a little. I also have to ask myself what you are doing with this whole 'finding another relationship' thing. Dont you feel that really endangers you, your kids, your wife? It seems unfair, or maybe just not right to do that to your family. (Do I sound like your brother?) On the other hand, is it fair to someone else, like me, maybe, to only get that part of you that you can spare? So that you can protect the life you have built with your family, but still have passion, love, or excitement, whatever it is you really want (I'm not sure what that is....) whenever it's good or easy for you? I'm not trying to cause hurt or cast any judgment on you, just trying to sort it out or come to terms with it, it keeps coming up in my mind. I loved this woman but it was all just words.

Thanks for your e-mail reply, but Ayn Rand was a female, and females get the kids, the house, child support and everything. The father gets nothing. I think if a relationship is completely horrible, a guy will get out, other than that, he will stick it out even if it's bad, if there are kids envolved. That is if he loves his kids. That's me. I really would like to feel a true and loving relationship but it's not going to happen..ever! I tried to talk to my wife into a separation seven years ago. We separated but she talked me into getting back together to try and work things out. I did that and she got pregnant during that time. I hated her for that but at the same time I loved her for the times we had and she was the mother of my child. So I stuck it out. But today I still have a wondering eye. I really want to feel that romantic feeling. I have talked about leaving, but my wife first said she would take the kids away from me. Because her parents live out of town and she would need support. That was then, but now, she talked my great aunts into giving us money to buy a house, which they did. But now she says that if we separate that she wants the house, and how could I throw her and the kids out of the house? I would have a hard time doing that, but at the same time, I cant afford to pay her for the mortgage and live myself. But I love my kids and want the best for them too. I'm a sucker with a good heart.

No! I just wish others would answer me too, instead of attacking me because they cant handle a girl who isnt afraid to say she likes sex.

Mackattack, did you get my reply? I sent you a private message or e-mail. I totally aggree with you and LN2campy.

Divorce is probably the most honest and open option, but many times finances and children make this impractical. You're fighting an uphill battle here -- everyone is either extremely judgmental and rigid or else is of the "Just get a divorce" mentality.

I heard a statistic, (Sorry I don't have a source) that said, 50% of marriages end in divorce. Of the 50% that last, 75% of those are not truely happy in their relationship and are either living in denial, or have become apathetic about it. Only about 10-15% of marriages last with both partners feeling truely happy with each other. I'm not sure what I think of those numbers, but I bet they are close. But why is that? Because people change, expect too much from marriage, or because they weren't suitable for each other in the first place? Or maybe as some people said, they have no honor, character, and integrity, because they feel desire and lust and have cheating eyes and hearts.

Now the question is, why doesn't he do all that prepping and perking up for his wife, why does it have to be for a new chick. Maybe his wife was getting lazy because he was as well. He recognized what he had to do to get new chicks, he should have done it at home first.

Why not for "himself" too. Just feeling attractive and being fit makes one feel good. I think people get lazy and take each other for granted. Maybe this guy wanted to perk up before but didn't have the drive, because he knew his wife would accept him anyway. I think that's the way most of our society is. Once people get married and comfortable, they lose the drive to excersise and look good. Not everone, but a fairly large percentage.

Re: Why do men cheat on their wives?

I read something on another forum. www.getromantic.com This person is a lot older than myself but I can see where he's coming from. My wife and I have been together for over 10 years and things do become routine. It also makes me feel good when an attractive woman notices me or flirts a bit.

That guy wrote this in his post:

Hey dude! Men who are in their late 30s, 40s and 50s sometimes go through what they called the "mid-life crisis". They've been married to the same gal for decades and the sameness becomes boring, predictable and unexciting. Along comes a young, sweet, gorgeous "thang" who smiles at you and pays you attention, something that your wife had stopped eons ago. You begin to feel "alive" again. You really perk up. You're like a high school boy once again. Never mind that you're 45 and she's only 23. She's got your heart's strings. You flirt and she flirts back. You've received a massive ego boost. You start to work out to get rid of the spare tire around your waist that a staid married life has caused. You dye your hair and wear it longer. You start seeing your dentist and have your teeth cleaned and bleached. You're now smiling more and singing in your heart. I've been there and done that. Older men need to be reassured that they're still desirable to women, especially young women.

Boy give those Candadians one gold medal in Pairs Figure Skating and look what happens! Soon there will be ice hockey riots in the streets, Quebec succession -civil war you name it...

One for the Mugwump!!!

Canada Rocks!!! Great game USA and Canada!!! Does anyone know why the Ruskies weren't there to get their bronze medals? What's the scoop with that?

Make the most of it guys because tomorrow Canada will be doing some major butt kick'in! GO CANADA GO!!!

This story still urks me. I bet they had another shoe bomber on board that plane. My condolences to the passengers and flight crew of flight 587.

Arafat was caught red handed. The ship had more than 50 tons of weapons that would give the Palestinians the capability of hitting the large population centers of Israel. The cargo included deadly Katyusha missiles with a 20 plus kilometer range and also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles. The arms came directly from Iran. US satellites, which are keeping track of ships from that area to prevent an escape on one of them by Osama bin Laden, tracked the ship and alerted Israel. Then Israel swung into action when it became obvious that the ship was headed for the coast of Gaza to off load the cargo in special water proof containers. The weapons could then be picked up by fishing boats without raising suspicion. Arafat gave the lame excuse to the US Envoy Anthony Zinni that he knew nothing about this ship or its cargo. But this ship was purchased by the Palestinian Authority recently and was manned by a Captain and crew that were all from the PA Naval Intelligence. The weapons were purchased with funds donated by Western nations to create jobs for the suffering Palestinian people. This latest discovery has the following implications: 1. If these were headed for the Hizbullah terrorist groups in Lebanon, as some Palestinian officials are claiming, then why were they on a PA owned and manned ship? At the least this implicates both Arafat and Iran as terrorist supporters. 2. If these were headed for Gaza, as all the evidence points to, then it shows that Arafat is planning to greatly escalate the terror attacks against Israel. And this while he is talking ‘peace’ with Envoy Zinni. 3. It unveils the calloused attitude of the PA leaders for the suffering of the average Palestinian. The money used to purchase the ship and the weapons could have helped get an industry base going so that Palestinians could support themselves without working in Israel. 4. It reveals what suckers the Western nations are for donating money to the PA that has no intention of using it to financially help the people. The Palestinian workers still have to depend on the Israelis to hire them in order to survive. It’s high time that our President stops being pressured by Muslim nations using the oil leverage to get him to support a peace effort that will reward the Palestinian terrorists with a state. They do not want a state along side of Israel – they could have already had that – they clearly want a state instead of Israel. Their goal is nothing less that the destruction of Israel. Rafsanjani has already declared Iran’s intention – they intend to obliterate Israel with nuclear missiles as soon as there are ready. And that is much closer than anyone in the West dares to think.

I don't think the world will ever see peace until there is a one world order and government. The U.S. and allies would like to see a free, demacractic world, China and the former Soviets would like to see communism rule, and the Middle East would like to see a religious, political, military ruler guided by the Koran. But so long as everyone sticks to their own ideas, beliefs and way of life, their will always be war. Unless one sector can dominate the rest of the world. But even then, there will always be uprisings and terrorism.

So what do we go with?

I am of British decent and have resided in Canada, so I have always lived in a demacratic society. But I have an open mind and would like to share a few thoughts and questions.

Democracy - I think is a good thing. It gives people the power to vote in who they most believe, and gives us the freedom to speak up and express their opinions. On the other hand, it also gives a few power hungry, and wealthy individuals the ability to take advantage of the working people. It's money and greed that makes the world go around and I believe that certain decisions are being made, not on "our" best interest, but in the interest of certain individuals' financials and positions. What I'm saying is that freedom also gives the corrupt and greedy room to opperate.

Communism - I wouldn't want a state telling me what to do, what type of career I am going to have, etc. It's my life and I want to live it however I want, so long as I'm not hurting anyone else. If I have a dream, or my kids or wife has a dream, then I want the oportunity to be able to live that dream.

The Koran - No way! The idea of some man that lived 1,400 years ago, that is going to tell the world to live believing in terrorism and make women wear veils and not to go to school is inconcievable. Religion can be good as far as keeping people to common values, keeping families together etc., but Islam, in my opinion goes far beyond that.

I would like to stick with democracy, but it ticks me how one day, I pay so much for gasoline, the next day some fat cat somewhere decides he's going to cut oil production so I have to pay more. I think the big companies play games and use us for income and to build their wealth. Why not figure out how much the stuff costs to produce, fix a price and stick with it until it costs more, instead of scheming to find out how much money they can get out of our pockets.

Sorry, I don't know the answer. Maybe if we could put the whole world's ideas about how to run a country into a blender, we might come up with a perfect way to run the world.

I meant "begining" to arrest terrorists lol. They will be begging to arrest terrorists in a few more day though.

That was my whole point too. Pakistan just arrested 50+ terrorists but it never happened 3 months ago. Back then 50,000 militants in Pakistan were burning U.S. flags and holding up poster signs of Bin Ladin. But today, Pakistan is beging to arrest terrorists and hopefully take care of the problem. I think the treat of an all out war with India, possibly nuclear, has helped change public opinion in Pakistan about wiping out terrorism.

I may be way off base here, but could all this talk about exchanging nukes be a ploy in part? What I mean is that the Pakistani presedent HAS to get rid of the terrorists in his country, but faces heavy opposition from his own people if he does. But the treat of a full scale nuclear war with India may change mainstream public opinion about siding with the west, and putting and end to to terrorism in Pakistan.

India says it would survive a nuclear war and wipe out Pakistan. Is this what they mean by surviving?

The new map

Interesting photos. Notice how they hate our guts until their backs are to the wall, and now they want to be our friends.

"It's like watching a chimpanzee play with a loaded .357 magnum."

Publication: Yahoo News Date: October 26, 2001 At least 50,000 militants massed in Pakistan's biggest city on Friday, burning the US flag and effigies of President George W. Bush in the biggest anti-US protest since air strikes on Afghanistan began....

I agree 100%

ISLAMABAD, DEC. 30. The Pakistan President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has said that while Pakistan desired peace with India, it was capable of defending its sovereignty in the face of any aggression, even as the Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdul Sattar, asserted that Islamabad has taken ``substantive and expeditious'' measures against Pakistan-based extremist groups and awaited ``actionable evidence'' from India to proceed against the detained militants.

_________________________________________________________

Pakistan has detained a few of these militant groups, but aren't they conducting their own investigation into the background these suspects? Either Pakistan is fighting terrorism or it's not. They should quit playing games before it's too late!!

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (PNS) December 30, 2001 - Indian War Threat on Pakistan's Eastern border continues to grow as Indian army completed its massive troops and aircraft deployment today. According to Pakistan's Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar, tensions can ignite a nuclear conflict any time now.

Pakistan Army is also on the move from Afghan border on the West to Eastern border with India on the frontlines of defense. Diplomatic efforts continued today. American President Bush called Pakistan's President Musharraf, reported state run PTV.LAHORE,

Earlier Media reports from India indicated movement of China's troops along Sino-Indian border. This comes a day after Musharraf, President of Pakistan returned from official tour to China. Indian threats appear to be destabilizing the region.

India has threatened an all out nuclear war on Pakistan and has moved its forces along side border of Pakistan. A large portion of Pakistani army is occupied sealing off western border with Afghanistan and helping United States find members of terrorist organziation Al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden. United States has blamed Al-Qaida for launching deadliest attack on its soil on September 11 this year. Since then Osama bin Ladin has openly accepted responsibility.

India claims two fundamentalist groups based in Kashmir are responsible for a foiled attack on its parliamentary building. Pakistan has assured full cooperation and asked for evidence. So far India has declined to provide evidence or to embark on a joint investigation of the incident. Pakistan claims India engages in state terrorism in part of Kashmir under occupation of 700,000 Indian paramilitary forces citing gross human rights violations documented by Amnesty International.

Pakistan supports the Kashmiri freedom struggle and right of self-determination in Kashmiri which it believes should be part of Pakistan according to 1947 partition plan. Last war between China and India took place in 1965. All three countries China, India and Pakistan have nuclear capability.

Indian war threats are likely to divert Pakistan's resources and impede United States led global war on terrorism. -The End-

LINK

________________________________________________________

I was looking into Pakistan's newspaper. I thought they said a nuclear attack was "unthinkable". Personally I don't think these countries should be able to own nuclear weapons. If I were to buy a gun, I would first have to go through a criminal record check. I think there should be similar international laws that forbids selling nuclear weapons to countries that have religious, military regime type governments, terrorists etc. China sold those weapons to Pakistan. India built their own. Who's going to stop someone from selling nuclear weapons to Iran, Iraq, or Siria? My point is, where should the line be drawn on who can own nuclear weapons and who can't? One country's enemy seems to another's ali.

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan began thinning out troops patrolling its western border with Afghanistan in search of Osama bin Laden, freeing men for possible duty on its eastern frontier as the threat of war with India grew.

President Bush, whose administration has been working to avoid a fourth war between the nuclear neighbors, telephoned his Pakistani counterpart Pervez Musharraf, state television said.

No details of the conversation were immediately available.

Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar urged caution, saying tensions were so high that one wrong move could ignite conflict between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

At the southwestern border town of Chaman, a Reuters reporter saw troops pulling out and packing up anti-aircraft guns installed at some checkpoints with Afghanistan.

``We have received orders to move,'' one soldier said when asked why they were leaving the Afghan frontier where several battalions of additional troops had been deployed to keep out Saudi-born militant bin Laden and his al Qaeda fighters.

``You know what's going on there or what may happen,'' he said, referring to the troop build-up on the border with India and fears of war.

The two enemy states have mounted the biggest troop buildup on the border for 15 years following a December 13 attack on the Indian parliament.

New Delhi blames two Pakistan-based militant groups fighting Indian rule in the disputed Kashmir region for the raid, which left 14 people dead, including the five assailants.

It wants the leaders arrested and is furious that Pakistan has not done more to meet those demands.

``The possibility a... small action could trigger a chain of action and reaction leading to a conflict that neither side desires is unfortunately very high,'' Sattar sad.

``Pakistan does not seek any war,'' he told a news conference.

Musharraf would be happy to meet Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to ease the tensions, he said.

``We have made no specific request. If there is a desire on the part of the Indian prime minister, then surely a meeting will be arranged,'' he said.

But he said Pakistan would not request a meeting, after India scrapped talks scheduled for a regional summit in Kathmandu next week.

``I am sure no responsible person would like Pakistan to make a request that would give India the satisfaction of saying they have rejected it,'' he said.

Musharraf said on Friday he was willing to meet if the Indian prime minister wished. ``I don't mind meeting with him but you can't clap with one hand,'' Musharraf told reporters.

India swiftly dismissed any possibility of talks.

Vajpayee vowed to crush what he called cross-border terrorism and said India would do its best to avoid a war with Pakistan.

___________________________________________________________

I'm keeping a close eye on this one. I've heard all along that Pakistan harbours more radicals than Afghanistan did. Time will tell whether Musharraf can clean up his country on his own or not.