Escape from Elba

National => National Security => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:59:28 PM



Title: National Security
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 08:59:28 PM
Discuss issues of national security


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 23, 2007, 06:21:44 AM
I feel far less safe in this country than I did on 9/10.
Fortunately, 1/20/2009 isn't THAT far away.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 23, 2007, 07:16:09 AM
Cap,

What is the significance of 1/20/09? Oh, that is when a new president will be sworn in. It's pretty obvious that a Democrat will be elected, but which one, and whether it is someone who will make a difference, or be just another flavor of the same old, remains to be seen.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 23, 2007, 01:00:59 PM
Cap,

What is the significance of 1/20/09? Oh, that is when a new president will be sworn in. It's pretty obvious that a Democrat will be elected, but which one, and whether it is someone who will make a difference, or be just another flavor of the same old, remains to be seen.


That's the day the new president will be inaugrated.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 08:30:31 AM
My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.


No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City.

No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims.

Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Ted Nugent


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 08:36:49 AM
While the Muslim Brotherhood’s Western enablers mount an Islamist charm offensive in the US, doing their best to portray the world’s most pervasive Islamic supremacist group as “moderate” and “non-violent,” back home in Egypt the “general guide” of the Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, is calling for attacks against the US and Israel.

And liberals will continue to sit back and patiently wait, like the sheep that they are, for something nasty to happen here---and then blame bush or republicans for whatever happens. Pathetic.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 09:02:53 AM
While the Muslim Brotherhood’s Western enablers mount an Islamist charm offensive in the US, doing their best to portray the world’s most pervasive Islamic supremacist group as “moderate” and “non-violent,” back home in Egypt the “general guide” of the Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, is calling for attacks against the US and Israel.

And liberals will continue to sit back and patiently wait, like the sheep that they are, for something nasty to happen here---and then blame bush or republicans for whatever happens. Pathetic.

So, your proposal would be to attack Egypt with nuclear weapons?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 24, 2007, 09:11:33 AM
While the Muslim Brotherhood’s Western enablers mount an Islamist charm offensive in the US, doing their best to portray the world’s most pervasive Islamic supremacist group as “moderate” and “non-violent,” back home in Egypt the “general guide” of the Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, is calling for attacks against the US and Israel.

And liberals will continue to sit back and patiently wait, like the sheep that they are, for something nasty to happen here---and then blame bush or republicans for whatever happens. Pathetic.

Last I checked it was Bush that was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces -- what is he doing to address this issue exactly?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 10:49:34 AM
While the Muslim Brotherhood’s Western enablers mount an Islamist charm offensive in the US, doing their best to portray the world’s most pervasive Islamic supremacist group as “moderate” and “non-violent,” back home in Egypt the “general guide” of the Brotherhood, Muhammad Mahdi ‘Akef, is calling for attacks against the US and Israel.

And liberals will continue to sit back and patiently wait, like the sheep that they are, for something nasty to happen here---and then blame bush or republicans for whatever happens. Pathetic.

Last I checked it was Bush that was Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces -- what is he doing to address this issue exactly?

Nothing.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 12:54:29 PM
The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned and betrayed by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic -- to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them. This mythological worldview, one that has no use for science or dispassionate, honest intellectual inquiry, one that promises that the loss of jobs and health insurance does not matter, as long as you are right with Jesus, offers a lying world of consistency that addresses the emotional yearnings of desperate followers at the expense of reality. It creates a world where facts become interchangeable with opinions, where lies become true -- the very essence of the totalitarian state. It includes a dark license to kill, to obliterate all those who do not conform to this vision, from Muslims in the Middle East to those at home who refuse to submit to the movement. And it conveniently empowers a rapacious oligarchy whose god is maximum profit at the expense of citizens.

This sounds like the thinking of our resident neocon, NGC.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 03:12:59 PM
The mainstream media, clearly "biased to the left," is relentlessly negative about the United States and all things pro-American.

So, too, are the congressional leaders of America's leftist Democratic Party. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D.-Nev., days ago declared that the current U.S. military enterprise in Iraq had lost, a shockingly partisan act of political opportunism that cannot help but harm the morale of American troops still risking their lives in the field there.

This is yet more evidence to support those critics who say that the Democratic Party, having bet all its chips on an American defeat in Iraq, must now do everything in its power to undermine whatever might lead to even a marginal victory there.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 24, 2007, 03:16:06 PM
Twenty-eight percent of college students in a recent game experiment were strongly predisposed to penalize those who earned considerably more money than they did, even when this gained the 28 percent nothing and cost them dearly.

One possible reason for this, wrote University of California San Diego political scientists Christopher T. Dawes, James H. Fowler and colleagues in the April 12 issue of the British science journal Nature, could be that "inequality itself arouses negative emotions."

"[F]inding that humans have an innate tendency toward enforcing a norm of income equality," wrote science journalist Ronald Bailey about this research in the April 20 issue of the libertarian magazine Reason, "would explain the persistent attraction of communism, progressive tax rates, the demand for universal government-supplied health care, minimum wage laws, and other such destructive modern leveling ideologies and policies."

Liberalism IS simply pathetic---whatta buncha losers!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 03:56:25 PM
The mainstream media, clearly "biased to the left," is relentlessly negative about the United States and all things pro-American.

So, too, are the congressional leaders of America's leftist Democratic Party. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D.-Nev., days ago declared that the current U.S. military enterprise in Iraq had lost, a shockingly partisan act of political opportunism that cannot help but harm the morale of American troops still risking their lives in the field there.

This is yet more evidence to support those critics who say that the Democratic Party, having bet all its chips on an American defeat in Iraq, must now do everything in its power to undermine whatever might lead to even a marginal victory there.


Reid was only telling the truth.  The war in Iraq has been lost.  The president is in a state of denial.  Even the military will tell you this.  Open your eyes, oh blind neocon.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on April 24, 2007, 06:17:10 PM
Iron sneer in place, Max Factored rosy cheeks aglow with outrage, Mister Cheney raced to the nearest microphone to accuse Senator Reid of....of...of everything bad--to include, but not be limited to, wanting America To Lose, wanting to Let Our Troops Down, etc., etc.  Desperate times summon the Veep and like the magic mill of legend, he continues to grind it out.  He's eager to provide talking points for the drive-time AM talk brigadiers, and in about a 24-hour news cycle, Cheney's hasty & ruinous response to Reid will become Received Truthiness...and News.  The manful efforts made by Republican politicians who have "gone to Iraq" [kevlar jammies, guards, choppers waiting to whisk them to safety] and come back with wonders to relate--well, they may discover that loyalty like that may let them down on election day.  For their own good, shouldn't they stay away from microphones?  I mean, talk about pitiful!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 06:23:40 PM
Iron sneer in place, Max Factored rosy cheeks aglow with outrage, Mister Cheney raced to the nearest microphone to accuse Senator Reid of....of...of everything bad--to include, but not be limited to, wanting America To Lose, wanting to Let Our Troops Down, etc., etc.  Desperate times summon the Veep and like the magic mill of legend, he continues to grind it out.  He's eager to provide talking points for the drive-time AM talk brigadiers, and in about a 24-hour news cycle, Cheney's hasty & ruinous response to Reid will become Received Truthiness...and News.  The manful efforts made by Republican politicians who have "gone to Iraq" [kevlar jammies, guards, choppers waiting to whisk them to safety] and come back with wonders to relate--well, they may discover that loyalty like that may let them down on election day.  For their own good, shouldn't they stay away from microphones?  I mean, talk about pitiful!

LOL...yes, pathetic.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 07:09:23 PM
It is the troops over in Iraq, who have been coming back and calling for an end to the war, who know that the war is not "winnable". Why do we have to "win"? Wasn't it enough to pull down Hussein? Why not let the Iraqis set up their OWN government? Why do we have to dictate what form they choose? Who was here after the Revolutionary War, or even the Civil War, to tell US how to set up our next form of government? If we could do it for ourselves, what right do we have to assume that the Iraqis can't do if for themselves?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 24, 2007, 07:36:09 PM
It is the troops over in Iraq, who have been coming back and calling for an end to the war, who know that the war is not "winnable". Why do we have to "win"? Wasn't it enough to pull down Hussein? Why not let the Iraqis set up their OWN government? Why do we have to dictate what form they choose? Who was here after the Revolutionary War, or even the Civil War, to tell US how to set up our next form of government? If we could do it for ourselves, what right do we have to assume that the Iraqis can't do if for themselves?


The war in Iraq is really about OIL.  Once the Iraqis pass the bill granting the western oil companies access to the Iraqi OIL and 75% of the profits thereof, the war will end.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on April 24, 2007, 09:16:42 PM
Every time I hear the word "win" fall from the iron jowls of the gopgoomers, I'm always tempted to holler, "Win WHAT, you poltroons...win WHAT?"  The wars with the Germans and the Japanese and even the North Koreans had uniformed military on both sides representing countries...COUNTRIES.  With leaders [one each/each], with unified countrymen [each/each] backing them.  Now we're asked to support a 'war' against alley-fighters, religious whackos, factions within the religion fighting each other and over it all, a shadowy 6'6" kidney patient in a do-rag probably living in Switzerland and laughing his ass off.  Win WHAT and against WHOM...and most important of all, for WHY.  Not one word from Mister Bush about this mess has clarified any of the WHAT, WHO or WHY...and the mindless babble from his supporters just adds more shame to the mixture.  All those beautiful kids of ours getting killed...and for WHAT.   


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 24, 2007, 10:19:06 PM
Prairiepop,

Excellent post! At first we were there to find WMDs that Hussein was going to terrorize us with. We found out he wasn't making any. Then we were going to topple him. We did, even pulled down his statue in the square. Then we were going to find him. We did. Then we were going to bring him to justice. We did. Then we were going to make sure he received his punishment. We saw him hanged. Now, what are we doing there? waiting for people who hate each other to start loving each other?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 07:17:20 AM
Every time I hear the word "win" fall from the iron jowls of the gopgoomers, I'm always tempted to holler, "Win WHAT, you poltroons...win WHAT?"  The wars with the Germans and the Japanese and even the North Koreans had uniformed military on both sides representing countries...COUNTRIES.  With leaders [one each/each], with unified countrymen [each/each] backing them.  Now we're asked to support a 'war' against alley-fighters, religious whackos, factions within the religion fighting each other and over it all, a shadowy 6'6" kidney patient in a do-rag probably living in Switzerland and laughing his ass off.  Win WHAT and against WHOM...and most important of all, for WHY.  Not one word from Mister Bush about this mess has clarified any of the WHAT, WHO or WHY...and the mindless babble from his supporters just adds more shame to the mixture.  All those beautiful kids of ours getting killed...and for WHAT.   

Though none of the goopers will say it, but IMHO, it is all about the OIL.  And of course, it is also about making money for the war machine manufacturers and Bush buddies.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 08:31:05 AM
Sami,

I tend to agree with you that it is about OIL. But, as I have pointed out, we really do not NEED the foreign oil. We have enough oil reserves of our own to provide our needs until we can convert to better fuels. I tend to think it is about political glory and, or course, the building of wealth from the manufacture of war machine goods. Why we NEED sophisticated weapon to fight a war against home-made bombs totally escapes me. Why we should even intervene in a war between two factions of a religion also eludes me. We have never directly intervened in the long-running dispute between catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland. Of course, Ireland has no OIL reserves. They are just people who want freedom from an oppressive overlord. We yawn.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 10:50:32 AM
Sami,

I tend to agree with you that it is about OIL. But, as I have pointed out, we really do not NEED the foreign oil. We have enough oil reserves of our own to provide our needs until we can convert to better fuels. I tend to think it is about political glory and, or course, the building of wealth from the manufacture of war machine goods. Why we NEED sophisticated weapon to fight a war against home-made bombs totally escapes me. Why we should even intervene in a war between two factions of a religion also eludes me. We have never directly intervened in the long-running dispute between catholics and protestants in Northern Ireland. Of course, Ireland has no OIL reserves. They are just people who want freedom from an oppressive overlord. We yawn.



The OIL isn't for the US; it is for the US CORPORAtTIONS so that they can make more money.  The anti-missle defense system is a republican boondoogle IMHO.  Carlisle et al are getting rich building these systems that will never be used, even if they were to work.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on April 25, 2007, 03:30:58 PM
Parsing about the real motivations behind the war in Eye Rack would have to include the cynical manipulation of a figurehead president who, by his own admission, isn't much of a reader...certainly not of history [current or past].  As front man for what my grandpop [a rugged individualist & cynical old coot] would have called the Vested Interests, no better patsy could ever have been found.  Flattering his cheerleader vanities, invoking the Bush Family Legend...he was encouraged all along the way into believing himself clad in the armor of Deciderness and put into play.  Good evidence abounds that Dubya is given summaries of summaries...all prepared by his spirit guides, and all clincher items to keep him pumped up.  His puzzled chimp expressions at the podium, his petulant insistence on the famous surge, his refusal to pay attention to the gentle remonstrances of the Iraq study group, his continued support of the hapless Al Gonzales and the deeply flawed Wolfowitz...these are all hallmarks of the functional illiterate that he is, and tribute indeed to his ironclad handlers. 

I truly believe that if Cheney's heart should implode, Bush would deflate like an old Macy's Parade float...  It's only the malevolent hot winds of opportunism and greed that are keeping him inflated.  Kucinich may be vertically challenged, but I think he's picked the right defendant.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 03:33:27 PM
I, too, thought it was all about the oil (and, of course, the security and construction contracts), and still do for the most part from the POV of US business/gov't alliance.  However, after  some reading and seeing some of the documentaries about Islam in last week's tv series "America At A Crossroads" I truly do not believe it is all about oil from the POV of those whose countries sit atop said oil. 

Then there's Dubai, which has no oil, but is booming economically (and has a mostly secular society).

As with so much, the older I get, the more complex any given issue is and the more respect I have for those who deal with issues in thoughtful ways, including some of the participants here.   

I would agree with you that OIL is not the issue for those people living in Iraq at this time.  Survival is the issue.  Life is the issue.  Knowing where their next meal will come from is the issue.  Knowing that their children are safe is the issue.  Knowing that they might have a job is the issue.  I was just listening to NPR and a report about life in Iraq.  It is an unimaginable nightmare that fortunately most of us have never known.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 25, 2007, 03:41:24 PM
Every time I hear the word "win" fall from the iron jowls of the gopgoomers, I'm always tempted to holler, "Win WHAT, you poltroons...win WHAT?"  The wars with the Germans and the Japanese and even the North Koreans had uniformed military on both sides representing countries...COUNTRIES.  With leaders [one each/each], with unified countrymen [each/each] backing them.  Now we're asked to support a 'war' against alley-fighters, religious whackos, factions within the religion fighting each other and over it all, a shadowy 6'6" kidney patient in a do-rag probably living in Switzerland and laughing his ass off.  Win WHAT and against WHOM...and most important of all, for WHY.  Not one word from Mister Bush about this mess has clarified any of the WHAT, WHO or WHY...and the mindless babble from his supporters just adds more shame to the mixture.  All those beautiful kids of ours getting killed...and for WHAT.   

I think you are absolutely on the mark.  We should not fight any group that refuses to wera uniforms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 03:50:47 PM
Every time I hear the word "win" fall from the iron jowls of the gopgoomers, I'm always tempted to holler, "Win WHAT, you poltroons...win WHAT?"  The wars with the Germans and the Japanese and even the North Koreans had uniformed military on both sides representing countries...COUNTRIES.  With leaders [one each/each], with unified countrymen [each/each] backing them.  Now we're asked to support a 'war' against alley-fighters, religious whackos, factions within the religion fighting each other and over it all, a shadowy 6'6" kidney patient in a do-rag probably living in Switzerland and laughing his ass off.  Win WHAT and against WHOM...and most important of all, for WHY.  Not one word from Mister Bush about this mess has clarified any of the WHAT, WHO or WHY...and the mindless babble from his supporters just adds more shame to the mixture.  All those beautiful kids of ours getting killed...and for WHAT.   

I think you are absolutely on the mark.  We should not fight any group that refuses to wera uniforms.

Speaking of uniforms, it is also known that the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police wear their uniforms by day, and their insurgent clothes at night. How do you fight a war like that?  The UN said today that the "surge" has done little.  Iraqis are dying at the same rates they were before the f--king surge, and as of yesterday, I believe this month could be a record on American deaths as well.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 25, 2007, 03:52:19 PM
The Iraqis need to be educated to use smear campaigns not guns


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 25, 2007, 04:08:58 PM
Every time I hear the word "win" fall from the iron jowls of the gopgoomers, I'm always tempted to holler, "Win WHAT, you poltroons...win WHAT?"  The wars with the Germans and the Japanese and even the North Koreans had uniformed military on both sides representing countries...COUNTRIES.  With leaders [one each/each], with unified countrymen [each/each] backing them.  Now we're asked to support a 'war' against alley-fighters, religious whackos, factions within the religion fighting each other and over it all, a shadowy 6'6" kidney patient in a do-rag probably living in Switzerland and laughing his ass off.  Win WHAT and against WHOM...and most important of all, for WHY.  Not one word from Mister Bush about this mess has clarified any of the WHAT, WHO or WHY...and the mindless babble from his supporters just adds more shame to the mixture.  All those beautiful kids of ours getting killed...and for WHAT.   

"..the surge has done little..."

depends on how you count
I think you are absolutely on the mark.  We should not fight any group that refuses to wera uniforms.

Speaking of uniforms, it is also known that the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police wear their uniforms by day, and their insurgent clothes at night. How do you fight a war like that?  The UN said today that the "surge" has done little.  Iraqis are dying at the same rates they were before the f--king surge, and as of yesterday, I believe this month could be a record on American deaths as well.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 05:09:38 PM
The Iraqis need to be educated to use smear campaigns not guns

Bush should send Karl to Iraq to teach them these skills.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 05:18:09 PM
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=habeas_petition&s_site=email

If you are concerned about the fact that Habeas Corpus no longer exists in our legal system, please sign the petition linked above.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 25, 2007, 05:25:35 PM
Wal-Mart loves to brag about its health care benefits for its employees – in fact they even created a commercial to convince the public that health care is one of their core values. But did you know that fewer than 50% of employees opt-in to Wal-Mart’s health care program because it is too expensive and inaccessible? As a result, many Wal-Mart employees are forced to enroll in Medicaid.

That’s right. Wal-Mart is driving its employees to use a publicly-funded health care program – placing a huge burden on employees and state tax systems. For some families, it is easier to simply go uninsured rather than deal with either system.

It’s time to hold Wal-Mart accountable. Your representatives in the state legislature have a responsibility to find out just how much Wal-Mart relies on publicly funded health care. Send a message to your representatives urging them to do their homework and find out how much Wal-Mart’s penny-pinching business practices cost your state.

http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/speakout/healthcaredisclo


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 25, 2007, 11:14:46 PM
Sami,

What I hear locally is that only a few Wal-Mart employees are eligible for the health care program because most are only employed part time and do not qualify for any benefits.

Anne in Virginia


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 09:42:42 AM
Sami,

What I hear locally is that only a few Wal-Mart employees are eligible for the health care program because most are only employed part time and do not qualify for any benefits.

Anne in Virginia

I, personally, refuse to shop at Walmart or Sam's Club  for these very reasons.  Walmart mentality is not much different that the slave masters of another era, IMHO.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 09:45:43 AM
I think you are absolutely on the mark.  We should not fight any group that refuses to wera uniforms.

Oh---OK. You wish to sit around like a sheep and wait to be slaughtered? You wish to make zero effort to get rid of bad people that would cut your or my head off with a hacksaw---on camera and screaming our a$$es off? How fortunate that the conflict IS over there and not here. Your attitude IS to quit over there and wait for it to come here---and that IS about as defeatist as you can get. Not to mention quite illogical.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 26, 2007, 09:58:06 AM
I think you are absolutely on the mark.  We should not fight any group that refuses to wera uniforms.

Oh---OK. You wish to sit around like a sheep and wait to be slaughtered? You wish to make zero effort to get rid of bad people that would cut your or my head off with a hacksaw---on camera and screaming our a$$es off? How fortunate that the conflict IS over there and not here. Your attitude IS to quit over there and wait for it to come here---and that IS about as defeatist as you can get. Not to mention quite illogical.
Don't be such a potroon.  That wasn't what the poster was saying and you know it.  You liar.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 09:59:27 AM
I think you are absolutely on the mark.  We should not fight any group that refuses to wera uniforms.

Oh---OK. You wish to sit around like a sheep and wait to be slaughtered? You wish to make zero effort to get rid of bad people that would cut your or my head off with a hacksaw---on camera and screaming our a$$es off? How fortunate that the conflict IS over there and not here. Your attitude IS to quit over there and wait for it to come here---and that IS about as defeatist as you can get. Not to mention quite illogical.

If they wanted to fight here, they would be here now.  Our being in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism not being waged in this country.  The US has very open borders and there are terrorist cells sitting here right now.  They don't wear uniforms either.  We are failing in Iraq.  We have created more terrorism from our the Bush mis-adventure and incompetency there.  It won't matter if we pack up and came home now, or if we spend the next 30 years in Iraq as you neocons want fighting a perpetual war.  We will be attacked when ever the terrorists decide to attack.  It is enevitable.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 10:09:19 AM
If they wanted to fight here, they would be here now.

911 has made zero impression on you, has it not? The first world trade center bombing during the clinton regime made no impression on you either?

Oh well----when it starts happening here, you'll sing a different tune.

I see you couldn't resist the feeling to call me a neocon---when I have done nothing of the sort to you since the 'peace' offering.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 10:14:28 AM
If they wanted to fight here, they would be here now.

911 has made zero impression on you, has it not? The first world trade center bombing during the clinton regime made no impression on you either?

Oh well----when it starts happening here, you'll sing a different tune.

I see you couldn't resist the feeling to call me a neocon---when I have done nothing of the sort to you since the 'peace' offering.

Well, you are a neocon aren't you?  If I am wrong, I apologize.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 10:31:03 AM
Oh well----when it starts happening here, you'll sing a different tune.

Well NGC, at least you didn't actively wish Samiinh ill should something happen here, like you did to me. I guess that's progress of a sort!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 11:19:14 AM
"We will be attacked whenever the terrrorists want to attack"

Sucky times, eh?  Real easy to be Prez at this point - eh - wouldn't you say? (yeah, yeah, I know, just do what the people say - heh).

I will add an exception to your quote .....................

EXCEPT WHEN OUR AND OUR ALLIES' INTELLIGENCE SNUFFS OUT THE THREAT

We're workin, baby.  Pay the f--k attention!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 11:22:59 AM
Well, you are a neocon aren't you?  If I am wrong, I apologize.

Have you not seen my calling for impeachment of bush? Does that sound slike a neocon? I have said we should be out of iraq---just not cutting and running. Does that sound like a neocon? I have said that non-renewable natural resources in the USA should be nationalized. Does that sound like a neocon? I have said that marijuana should be leaglized. Does that sound like a neocon?

Caling me a neocon w/o justification IS what a liberal does when someone does not agree with every socilaist/communist/leftist/liberal position someone personally espouses.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 11:26:44 AM
Well NGC, at least you didn't actively wish Samiinh ill should something happen here, like you did to me. I guess that's progress of a sort!

Anyone that thinks terrorism should not be dealt with in the most forceful of manners EVERYWHERE with all possible resources should need to experience the horror, apparently, to change their sheep-like attitude. Those that would deny me security for petty political expediencies I have zero respect for!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 11:40:33 AM
Anyone that thinks terrorism should not be dealt with in the most forceful of manners EVERYWHERE with all possible resources should need to experience the horror, apparently, to change their sheep-like attitude. Those that would deny me security for petty political expediencies I have zero respect for!

Ok, this is stupid. First, let’s apply the NGC321 doctrine in the real world. You therefore now are tacitly demanding that we attack and occupy Iran and Pakistan, because of their support for terrorists who seek to undermine their interests. Yet there is simply no way we can do this; we simply don’t have the troops to occupy these countries. You would have us stretch our military past the breaking point, simply because of your simplistic view of the world.

Second, the links between Hussein and terrorists were sketchy.

Third, you basically wish ill on those who are opposed to the war in Iraq. This means you wish ill on conservatives like Bill Buckley. Like George Will. Like Pat Buchanan. Like Brent Scowcroft. Like Paul Craig Roberts.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 11:42:33 AM
And NGC, since we're at it....

You never answered this question from the earlier forum:

You call yourself a conservative, and agree with my analysis about being skeptical of government programs. And then suspend that skepticism for what could be the most murderously difficult government program of all – turning Iraq into a democracy. Plus, you blame liberals for wanting to bloat the government, but then conveniently forget about the need to basically bloat the government in order to successfully occupy Iraq. Bigger military, more people doing democratization work, more people in Washington developing policies and procedures who are on the ground in Iraq.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 11:48:26 AM
Additionally, you have yet to put together a grown-up answer about why our policy of containment and deterrence against Hussein was a failure. In the years between the two Gulf wars Hussein never gave WMDs to terrorists, and he never used WMDs against us or our allies. Why was this policy a failure?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 11:53:48 AM
Lastly (for now, NGC), as I mentioned in the other forum, the ARMY did extensive war-gaming in Iraq in 1999, and concluded that even if we had 400,000 troops in Iraq (more than double what we have in there now), Iraq could still become choatic. Here's the link: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

The general who conducted the war games, Anthony Zinni, has a long history of service to our country. He saw it all. He also opposed the war in Iraq. Do you wish him ill should another tragedy occur in the US? And would you want it to be an immediate relation of his who is harmed, like a wife or a child, or would you rather it be somebody more distant, like my experiences with 9/11?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 11:54:20 AM
You call yourself a conservative, and agree with my analysis about being skeptical of government programs. And then suspend that skepticism for what could be the most murderously difficult government program of all – turning Iraq into a democracy. Plus, you blame liberals for wanting to bloat the government, but then conveniently forget about the need to basically bloat the government in order to successfully occupy Iraq. Bigger military, more people doing democratization work, more people in Washington developing policies and procedures who are on the ground in Iraq.

If you are saying that the citizens in iraq should have the right to choose their leaders, you are definitely a liberal/leftist/communist type. It may be difficult, but that does NOT mean that it IS wrong---unless, of course, one IS a liberal seeking a few moments of political expediency. Why don't you leave the USA and go live in some paradise like cuba or n korea? You hate our military and no rational function for it at all, apparently. You close your eyes to the acts of people that will cut YOUR head off with a hacksaw on camera while you scream your a$$ off, and claim that cutting and running IS a good thing, apparently.

Government programs? Some are fine. But there should be more personal responsibility. I have no problem with a hand-up---but disagree with the perpetual hand-out. The US Govt should not be in the business of telling its population which charities, either foreign or domestic, that we will be contributing to thru forced taxation. It should not be saying we ARE going to tax you for charitry numbers 1,2, and 3---but NOT for numbers 4,5, and 6. Can you not see what's wrong with the picture? There are many entities that either (1) Need or (2) Deserve some funding---they should do the same thing that Kelloggs, Pillsbury, Toyota, and Ford do---get some TV time, deliver a message, put up a 1-800 number and they'll see quickly how many people are (1) Capable of or (2) Caring enough to contribute to that cause.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 11:57:20 AM
The general who conducted the war games, Anthony Zinni, has a long history of service to our country. He saw it all. He also opposed the war in Iraq. Do you wish him ill should another tragedy occur in the US? And would you want it to be an immediate relation of his who is harmed, like a wife or a child, or would you rather it be somebody more distant, like my experiences with 9/11?

I do not wish anyone 'ill' as you have stated it. 

I can also list rferences to those that say the exact opposite that also have long histories of service to the USA. You insist on wishing to wait until the grim reaper shows up again---you are free to do so.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 26, 2007, 12:00:45 PM
Quote
If you are saying that the citizens in iraq should have the right to choose their leaders, you are definitely a liberal/leftist/communist type.
Which, of course, is not the actual issue.  But then, you have no scruples when it comes to the actual positions of others.

The people of Myanmar also should have the right to choose their leaders.  When do we invade?

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 12:01:04 PM
You therefore now are tacitly demanding that we attack and occupy Iran and Pakistan, because of their support for terrorists who seek to undermine their interests. Yet there is simply no way we can do this; we simply don’t have the troops to occupy these countries. You would have us stretch our military past the breaking point, simply because of your simplistic view of the world.

I have said ZERO about occupying Iran or Pakistan---only a liberal begins to resort to OUTRIGHT LIES!!!

Had clinton not decimated the militarty with his misguided cuts, the military wouldn't be stretched right now. Here IS what he cut...

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 12:02:23 PM
Which, of course, is not the actual issue.  But then, you have no scruples when it comes to the actual positions of others.

Sure sounds like he was saying that iraq doesn't need democracy---read the post and tell me I am wrong.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 26, 2007, 12:11:38 PM
Which, of course, is not the actual issue.  But then, you have no scruples when it comes to the actual positions of others.

Sure sounds like he was saying that iraq doesn't need democracy---read the post and tell me I am wrong.
You are wrong.  He called it "murderously difficult," not unnecessary or an undesired end.  Love to see a true, functioning, democracy in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea or Myanmar or Pakistan or Russia or Canada or Vietnam, or China.  The issue is whether we should commit troops to achieve that end, and relatedly, how long do we continue to bleed before we realize we can't do it with the effort we are willing to make.

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 12:20:53 PM
".................with the effort we are willing to make"

That analysis still pending


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 01:08:49 PM
If you are saying that the citizens in iraq should have the right to choose their leaders, you are definitely a liberal/leftist/communist type.

Well, that’s funny because you wrote recently: I would tell the iraqis that they now have their country back. And to make real sure of whom they install as leader.

So you are allowing the Iraqis to choose their own leaders, albeit within your parameters. So you are what you deride.

Why don't you leave the USA and go live in some paradise like cuba or n korea?

Ah, you’re this desperate so early into our little debate.

You hate our military and no rational function for it at all, apparently.

Cite ONE instance in which I’ve shown distaste for our military.

You close your eyes to the acts of people that will cut YOUR head off with a hacksaw on camera while you scream your a$$ off, and claim that cutting and running IS a good thing, apparently.

Hmmmm. I told you I supported the war in Afghanistan, didn’t I? And they are the ones who attacked us on 9/11, right?

Government programs? Some are fine. But there should be more personal responsibility. I have no problem with a hand-up---but disagree with the perpetual hand-out. The US Govt should not be in the business of telling its population which charities, either foreign or domestic, that we will be contributing to thru forced taxation. It should not be saying we ARE going to tax you for charitry numbers 1,2, and 3---but NOT for numbers 4,5, and 6. Can you not see what's wrong with the picture? There are many entities that either (1) Need or (2) Deserve some funding---they should do the same thing that Kelloggs, Pillsbury, Toyota, and Ford do---get some TV time, deliver a message, put up a 1-800 number and they'll see quickly how many people are (1) Capable of or (2) Caring enough to contribute to that cause.

This doesn’t seem to be sinking in. Conservatism is distrustful of government programs because they are supposedly inefficient, especially in altering human behavior.  You consider yourself a conservative, and then you turn around and support a breathtakingly difficult program of getting a foreign country that we know very little about to change 1300 years of internal animosity and become a republic.

I do not wish anyone 'ill' as you have stated it.

A lie. Here’s what you wrote in the other forum:

If we are to have something nasty happen in this country in the future, and I sincerely hope we do not, but if we do, I hope it happens to affect YOU

Anyone that thinks terrorism should not be dealt with in the most forceful of manners EVERYWHERE with all possible resources should need to experience the horror

I have said ZERO about occupying Iran or Pakistan---only a liberal begins to resort to OUTRIGHT LIES!!!

I wrote that you TACITLY want us to occupy those countries. Here’s why: You wrote this: Anyone that thinks terrorism should not be dealt with in the most forceful of manners EVERYWHERE with all possible resources should need to experience the horror, apparently, to change their sheep-like attitude

You argued that terrorism needs to be dealt with in the most forceful of manners everywhere. Those are YOUR WORDS. Iran and Pakistan support terrorists, or have in the past. Therefore, according to your logic, the ‘most forceful of manners’ needs to be applied. Invading and occupying Iran and Pakistan are the ‘most forceful of manners’ possible (aside from nuking them – and please tell me you’re not advocating that). And this is in keeping with your philosophy – you advocate the occupation of Iraq for a few possible, debated instances of terrorism, so why would you be against the same medicine for more persistent enablers of terrorism? The NGC Doctrine is quite explicit – the ‘most forceful manner’ must be applied to combating terrorism; this entails occupying Iran and Pakistan.

Sure sounds like he was saying that iraq doesn't need democracy---read the post and tell me I am wrong.

Are you talking about me with this? Because you don’t think Iraq should be a democracy; you wrote so yourself: If you are saying that the citizens in iraq should have the right to choose their leaders, you are definitely a liberal/leftist/communist type.

Of course, you also disputed that, so who knows with you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 01:24:29 PM
 I would tell the iraqis that they now have their country back. And to make real sure of whom they install as leader.


That IS me---however, we must honor the word that has been given.

Cite ONE instance in which I’ve shown distaste for our military.


I admit that I can't.

 I told you I supported the war in Afghanistan, didn’t I?

I don't remember this. If so, I stand corrected.

If we are to have something nasty happen in this country in the future, and I sincerely hope we do not, but if we do, I hope it happens to affect YOU...

Affect does not mean that you should suffer pain. It can affect you in more ways than 'ill'.

I wrote that you TACITLY want us to occupy those countries.

If that IS your interpretation, it IS incorrect.

Anyone that thinks terrorism should not be dealt with in the most forceful of manners EVERYWHERE with all possible resources should need to experience the horror, apparently, to change their sheep-like attitude.

I still believe that IF, "IF", you do not feel that fighting terror everywhere with all means available IS what we should be doing, that APPRENTLY you need to experience horror---that can mean physically SEEING the results of the horror---nowhere have I stated that you should SUFFER ill at all. Period.


If you are saying that the citizens in iraq should have the right to choose their leaders, you are definitely a liberal/leftist/communist type.

Pardon me then---this "IS" a typo---it should read,"If you think that citizens in Iraq should NOT have the right". My apologies. An inadvertent error on my part.

This should clarify.








Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 01:37:14 PM
Damn, NGC; you got all reasonable on me.

Look, I was against this war for a lot of reasons, but most of them are grounded in the interests of the US. It's hard to occupy, much less transform, a country like Iraq; and given that we had been effectively keeping him in check I don't know why we needed to go in there. We had no choice with Afghanistan despite the equally difficult obstacles; they supported people who attacked us. We did have a choice with Iraq.

And toss in other variables - that in the Middle East the winners in elections tend to be Islamic groups (which are often militant), and the fact that states in the process of democratization are actually more externally and internally violent (because of weak institutions and threatened leaders using nationalism to get votes), and the experiment in Iraq becomes even more difficult. I hope it turns out well; I just fear that it won't.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 01:40:29 PM
You therefore now are tacitly demanding that we attack and occupy Iran and Pakistan, because of their support for terrorists who seek to undermine their interests. Yet there is simply no way we can do this; we simply don’t have the troops to occupy these countries. You would have us stretch our military past the breaking point, simply because of your simplistic view of the world.

I have said ZERO about occupying Iran or Pakistan---only a liberal begins to resort to OUTRIGHT LIES!!!

Had clinton not decimated the militarty with his misguided cuts, the military wouldn't be stretched right now. Here IS what he cut...

709,000 REGULAR (ACTIVE DUTY) PERSONNEL.

293,000 RESERVE TROOPS.
EIGHT STANDING ARMY DIVISIONS.
20 AIR FORCE AND NAVY AIR WINGS WITH 2,000 COMBAT AIRCRAFT.

232 STRATEGIC BOMBERS.
19 STRATEGIC BALLISTIC MISSILE SUBMARINES WITH 3,114 NUCLEAR WARHEADS ON 232 MISSILES.

500 ICBMs WITH 1,950 WARHEADS.

FOUR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND 121 SURFACE COMBAT SHIPS AND SUBMARINES PLUS ALL THE SUPPORT BASES, SHIPYARDS, AND LOGISTICAL ASSETS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUCH A NAVAL FORCE.


You seem to forget that it was a neocon republican congress that voted for these reductions.  Clinton didn't do this by himself.  Everyone expected that following the cold-war, there would be a need for reducing the military.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 26, 2007, 01:44:52 PM
Quote
Everyone expected that following the cold-war, there would be a need for reducing the military.
Bingo.  We had troop levels based upon needing a deterent in western Europe, to prevent or repel a Societ invasion.  We needed nuclear subs and strategic bombers - things that aren't going to help us in Iraq, or Iran or Syria - because of the Soviet threat.  The troop levels we have provided a flexible and efficient fighting machine that took care of Iraq pretty quickly.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 01:54:32 PM
As I recall prior to 9/11, the Bush administration never paid much attention to the threat of Al Qaeda or terrorism in general,  instead putting its defensive focus squarely on a national missile defense system to defend the United States against a small-scale missile attack by so-called rogue states like North Korea, Iraq and Iran


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 01:56:45 PM
I will have to check on the validity of repubs voting to make all those reductions--but for the moment accept it. Seems you say that congress "IS" ok authorizing the military cuts, clinton does not bear all blame, but congress authorizing entry to Iraq "IS" something else, where bush "IS" to blame. Meanwhile, do you see a bit of a 'double standard' here below?

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - OK... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - OK... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs for Muslim Albanians - OK... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - OK... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits crimes while in office - OK... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - OK... Entire world says WMD in Iraq - OK...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...Bush lied
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - OK... Recession under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - OK... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - OK... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bush lied...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - OK... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - OK... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 02:02:36 PM
As I recall prior to 9/11, the Bush administration never paid much attention to the threat of Al Qaeda or terrorism in general,  instead putting its defensive focus squarely on a national missile defense system to defend the United States against a small-scale missile attack by so-called rogue states like North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

Iraq was and Iran "IS" a sponsor of al qaeda---harbors and funds. N Korea, Iran are, and Iraq was, a terrorist sponsoring state---so your statement just doesn't hold water. But as far as worrying about a terrorist act, like a suicide bombing happening here, you are probably correct. Not very much can be done about it, tho, when someone blows a gasket, like the Va Tech idiot.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 02:04:06 PM
Quote
congress authorizing entry to Iraq "IS" something else, where bush "IS" to blame

The Bush administration made the case for Iraq using intel that turned out to faulty, inconclusive, and in the case of Niger - fabricated.  Congress authorized action based on that bad intel.  Do you honestly think that if Congress knew what we know now about that "evidence" that they would have authorized that action?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 02:05:16 PM
Oh c'mon NGC - that list is riddled with inaccurcies.

Just a few quick ones:
- it's not $87 billion in Iraq; it's over a third of a trillion.
- Clinton got raked over the coals for bombing the Chinese Embassy.
- who vilified Bush for destroying training camps in Afghanistan?
- Clinton didn't impose regime change in Serbia - at least via invasion and occupation. The election that brought Milosovic down was helped by us, but it was the Serbians who did it. But having USAID fund a few radio stations is radically less troublesome than invading acountry and occupying it.
- no mass graves found in Serbia? How about Bosnia?
- Clinton called for regime change in Iraq? I dunno; maybe he did. But he didn't pull the actual trigger.

And so on.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 02:07:15 PM
Quote
Iraq was and Iran "IS" a sponsor of al qaeda---harbors and funds. N Korea, Iran are, and Iraq was, a terrorist sponsoring state---so your statement just doesn't hold water. But as far as worrying about a terrorist act, like a suicide bombing happening here, you are probably correct. Not very much can be done about it, tho, when someone blows a gasket, like the Va Tech idiot.


The administration wasn't concerned about state sponsored terrorism prior to 9/11.  They were concerned about a missle attack from a sovereign nation.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 26, 2007, 02:14:21 PM
Iraq was and Iran "IS" a sponsor of al qaeda

Regarding Iraq, The 9/11 Commission, the CIA, and the Senate would disagree with you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/middleeast/09intel.html?ex=1315454400&en=ada0c70743eb55c4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Regarding Iran, The 9/11 Commission mentioned this, but the only instance might have been Khobar Towers.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 02:17:11 PM
The Bushies wanted to attack Iraq.  Al Queda just gave them more of an excuse, even though there was no connection.  Containment had worked.  It would still be working now if they hadn't started an illegal and immoral premptive war based on lies.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 02:25:59 PM
Quote
"Frankly," Richard Clarke said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."
Quote
Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."
Quote
The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 02:41:15 PM
Oh c'mon NGC - that list is riddled with inaccurcies.


Yep---you are correct. There are inaccuracies. I had reprinted an article from an email I received, and it was old. I checked and the total IS around 1/3trillion as you stated. I will chide the usually reliable source for the old info I received.

I can admit when I err.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 03:14:59 PM
Harry Reid Should Step Down…But He Won’t
By Pamela Meister

Traitor, n. One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed what many Americans have suspected for some time now: that the Democrat Party is not only weak on defense, but weak on national pride.

Reid stated that, "I believe myself that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the President knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

Reid’s fellow Democrats were curiously silent regarding this proclamation from on high, except for florid Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, who came to Reid’s defense. "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration."

As a result of the backlash by the White House and Republicans, Reid tried to backpedal, saying he meant that we would lose only if we continue to follow the “president’s path.” But it’s not so easy to fool the people in this age of instant communication and new media. Reid cooked his own goose by saying exactly what he meant.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Lieberman, who still officially caucuses with Democrats on many issues, was quick to take Harry Reid to task over his treasonous “the war is lost” comments.

"With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid’s statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there. Al Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to re-ignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq. The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week’s atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

Harry Reid should be called upon to step down as Senate Majority Leader, before he can do more damage – if that’s even possible. But Reid’s rhetoric, like that of his counterpart in the House, shows that he has no honor. Winning in Washington has blinded them both to winning in Iraq.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 03:56:50 PM
Quote
congress authorizing entry to Iraq "IS" something else, where bush "IS" to blame

The Bush administration made the case for Iraq using intel that turned out to faulty, inconclusive, and in the case of Niger - fabricated.  Congress authorized action based on that bad intel.  Do you honestly think that if Congress knew what we know now about that "evidence" that they would have authorized that action?



I don't think YEAH votes on force in Iraq were based wholely on weapons of mass destruction info.

You may wish to check some quotes by the Queen Bee, Ms Clinton on the matter back when the vote occurred.  I don't recall WMDs even mentioned.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 04:00:37 PM
Your contention is that the case for WMDs wasn't the justification for the war?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 04:01:46 PM
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 04:11:02 PM
Thanks

I especially like the aid, comfort and sanctuary note.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 26, 2007, 04:17:25 PM
The problem  is that those intelligence reports have proved to be erroneous.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 04:29:26 PM
Yes

But my statement is still correct. 

Dems like to paint a picture of how they voted for force in  Iraq strictly on teh WMD info.  How convenient.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 04:33:10 PM
The problem  is that those intelligence reports have proved to be erroneous.

Not all---Some just continue to close their eyes to the fact that chemical warheads were found. Period.

And some just refuse to believe that they even existed---but try telling that to the kurds.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:39:02 PM
Harry Reid Should Step Down…But He Won’t
By Pamela Meister

Traitor, n. One who betrays one’s country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed what many Americans have suspected for some time now: that the Democrat Party is not only weak on defense, but weak on national pride.

Reid stated that, "I believe myself that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the President knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

Reid’s fellow Democrats were curiously silent regarding this proclamation from on high, except for florid Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, who came to Reid’s defense. "Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and it has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. ... What is failure is this bankrupt policy, this ineffective no-win policy of the administration."

As a result of the backlash by the White House and Republicans, Reid tried to backpedal, saying he meant that we would lose only if we continue to follow the “president’s path.” But it’s not so easy to fool the people in this age of instant communication and new media. Reid cooked his own goose by saying exactly what he meant.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Lieberman, who still officially caucuses with Democrats on many issues, was quick to take Harry Reid to task over his treasonous “the war is lost” comments.

"With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid’s statement is not based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there. Al Qaeda’s strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to re-ignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq. The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week’s atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

Harry Reid should be called upon to step down as Senate Majority Leader, before he can do more damage – if that’s even possible. But Reid’s rhetoric, like that of his counterpart in the House, shows that he has no honor. Winning in Washington has blinded them both to winning in Iraq.


Reid, and many others, are living in reality and can see that we have lost this war.  Conservatives and Neocons live in a fantasy world if they think there will be any victory in Iraq.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 05:42:32 PM
The problem  is that those intelligence reports have proved to be erroneous.

Not all---Some just continue to close their eyes to the fact that chemical warheads were found. Period.

And some just refuse to believe that they even existed---but try telling that to the kurds.

Can you provide documentation for this statement?  Oh, and who gave Saddam these chemical weapons to begin with?  Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld? 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 06:08:58 PM
Just finished reading a good biography of Teddy Roosevelt. In the past, I knew little about him and his policies.

I found it interesting that he started out as a die-hard capitalist until his early political jobs and his enthusiasm for seeing what is going on for himself, took him into the slums and tenements in his own NYC. He began the progressive movement that was furthered by FDR.

Sadly, on the issue of war, he was an enthusiast. He offered to "lead a volunteer unit" every time there was a small disagreement with another nation. Without military experience, he offered to lead the Rough Riders into Cuba, and, as a result, capitalism was installed there which was later overturned by the revolutionaries resulting in communism on the island ever since. He was also the firebrand who urged us into the first WW, which Wilson would have preferred to let the European monarchies fight out among themselves. His good buddy, the Kaiser in Germany, was successful in pulling us into the conflict, and it cost TR his beloved youngest son. Sadly, he went to his grave, believing that war was "bully dee-lightful".





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 06:34:55 PM
".......and can see that we have lost this war"

Didn't Reid correct himself?

Meanwhile, you sir are not fit to be an American.

Hmmmm..............are you even?  What's your heritage, if you don't mind my asking.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:41:51 PM
".......and can see that we have lost this war"

Didn't Reid correct himself?

Meanwhile, you sir are not fit to be an American.

Hmmmm..............are you even?  What's your heritage, if you don't mind my asking.

Why would you say that?  Because the truth hurts?  or you live in a fantasy world along with the rest of the neocons?  And FWIW, my ancestors have been in American since 1626. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 06:44:16 PM
Nice emblem, coward.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 26, 2007, 06:48:59 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/rice.subpoena.ap/index.html

21 zipperheads and 10 that know how to apply law.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 06:54:57 PM
Kidcarter,

Where do you get off at asking someone's heritage and calling them a coward?

Sami has already given America a son who died in service in the military. How dare you question her authority to speak as an American!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 06:56:22 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/rice.subpoena.ap/index.html

21 zipperheads and 10 that know how to apply law.

What is your f---king problem, asshole.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:38:07 PM
The problem  is that those intelligence reports have proved to be erroneous.

Not all---Some just continue to close their eyes to the fact that chemical warheads were found. Period.

And some just refuse to believe that they even existed---but try telling that to the kurds.


Can you provide documentation for this statement?  Oh, and who gave Saddam these chemical weapons to begin with?  Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld? 


Geeze---How can you sit there and begin to insinuate that chemical artillery shells were not found? Or that saddam didn't gas the kurds? Have you just lost it, or what? We have been talking about this for several days now. It (Chemical warheads) was all over every news channel you can name.

Where they came from IS irrelevant---if they got them from us, it IS certain that they were there and bush's claims are totally factual.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 26, 2007, 07:40:35 PM
Does anyone know how to contact the forum administrators? I do not seem to be able to find a link.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 26, 2007, 07:52:37 PM
Does anyone know how to contact the forum administrators? I do not seem to be able to find a link.

If you look in the bottom right hand corner of a post you'll see "report to moderator."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 10:06:31 PM
The problem  is that those intelligence reports have proved to be erroneous.

Not all---Some just continue to close their eyes to the fact that chemical warheads were found. Period.

And some just refuse to believe that they even existed---but try telling that to the kurds.

I am a kurd. Where was the USA when Saddam was using those weapons on my people?  Only when it is politically convenient does the US act.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 26, 2007, 10:45:40 PM
Kam,

Not only did the US ignore your situation, but our Republican administration supplied the chemicals and the delivery system. Hussein was our friend back then. Suddenly he was our enemy.

And, that explains why some (many? most?) Americans are no longer in favor of Bush's war.

BTW, what is your take on the "improvements" in your country wrought by the "surge" in US troops. Is it helping, or are the American people being fed poop again?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on April 26, 2007, 10:51:49 PM
Kam,

Not only did the US ignore your situation, but our Republican administration supplied the chemicals and the delivery system. Hussein was our friend back then. Suddenly he was our enemy.

And, that explains why some (many? most?) Americans are no longer in favor of Bush's war.

BTW, what is your take on the "improvements" in your country wrought by the "surge" in US troops. Is it helping, or are the American people being fed poop again?


I'm not at all qualified to speak on current day Iraq.  Kurdish people occupy parts of several nations and an independent kurdistan has long been a dream denied and betrayed.   As far as opinions go, I have one.  After the US pulls out, Iraq will descend into civil war.   Iran will step into Iraq (already happening) and things politically will be far less in favor of the US than they were on September 12 2001.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:00:30 AM
Kam,

Not only did the US ignore your situation, but our Republican administration supplied the chemicals and the delivery system. Hussein was our friend back then. Suddenly he was our enemy.

And, that explains why some (many? most?) Americans are no longer in favor of Bush's war.

BTW, what is your take on the "improvements" in your country wrought by the "surge" in US troops. Is it helping, or are the American people being fed poop again?


I'm not at all qualified to speak on current day Iraq.  Kurdish people occupy parts of several nations and an independent kurdistan has long been a dream denied and betrayed.   As far as opinions go, I have one.  After the US pulls out, Iraq will descend into civil war.   Iran will step into Iraq (already happening) and things politically will be far less in favor of the US than they were on September 12 2001.

I think you are absolutely correct, unless the US plans to stay in Iraq for the next 50 years +, and controls the nation as a dictatorship.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:04:10 AM
I am a kurd. Where was the USA when Saddam was using those weapons on my people?  Only when it is politically convenient does the US act.

KAM---

You have a very good point. You are quite correct in referring to being abandoned back then. The US had given its word and they didn't keep it.

The US has given its word again, and they'd better keep it this time, I would say. Or do you think the US should just pull out now? 

You need to tell the liberals around here that chemical weapons WERE, indeed, used on the Kurds. Liberals live in a world of denial, unfortunately, for political reasons.

I, for one, apologize to you that the US did not keep its original word to the Kurds and follow through on that word.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:10:00 AM
Not only did the US ignore your situation,...

Well, weasel---It certainly appears from your comments that WMDs did INDEED exist over there---oops! Couldn't, therefore, have been a lie going to war for WMDs---could it? Just ask Kam if chemical weapons were used.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:12:58 AM
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A former U.S. spy chief accused President Bush's administration of ruining his reputation by misusing a "slam dunk" comment he made during a White House meeting ahead of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Former CIA Director George Tenet told CBS Television's "60 Minutes" that the administration leaked his comment as opposition to the war grew when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"You don't do this. You don't throw somebody overboard just because it's a deflection. Is that honorable? It's not honorable to me," Tenet said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Tenet said his comment did not refer to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but related to what information could be used to make a public case for the war.

The "slam-dunk" comment first surfaced in journalist Bob Woodward's 2004 book, "Plan of Attack," which portrayed Tenet as assuring Bush that finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq would be a virtual certainty.

The expression "slam dunk," used originally to describe a basketball move, has come to mean something that can be done with near certainty.


And tenet's own words of 'virtual certainty' do NOT reflect the same sentiment? Tenet wrecks his own book's credibility with his own words. Pathetic. I will not be purchasing a copy!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:31:52 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/26/rice.subpoena.ap/index.html

21 zipperheads and 10 that know how to apply law.
Snicker.  Come on, kid, the ten who voted against the subpeonas weren't doing so because they thought the subpeonas were somehow contrary to law but because they did not suit their political purposes.

Congress has every right to conduct investigations in areas where it can legislate - a very broad and ill-defined area that in the 90's included lenghty investigations into the firing of executive branch at-will employees and a suicide.  All using subpeonas directed to executive branch members, including cabinet members. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:34:23 AM
The problem  is that those intelligence reports have proved to be erroneous.

Not all---Some just continue to close their eyes to the fact that chemical warheads were found. Period.

And some just refuse to believe that they even existed---but try telling that to the kurds.


Can you provide documentation for this statement?  Oh, and who gave Saddam these chemical weapons to begin with?  Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld? 


Geeze---How can you sit there and begin to insinuate that chemical artillery shells were not found? Or that saddam didn't gas the kurds? Have you just lost it, or what? We have been talking about this for several days now. It (Chemical warheads) was all over every news channel you can name.

Where they came from IS irrelevant---if they got them from us, it IS certain that they were there and bush's claims are totally factual.


Actually, do you have a source for the "chemical warheads" claim you are making?  Preferably not a right wing blog, or NewsMax.  I want to double check my memory of the incident and any attempt to try to locate it leaves me with a huge string of links to Fox News reports of "finds" that turned out to be boxes of Tde.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:37:30 AM
After the US pulls out, Iraq will descend into civil war.   Iran will step into Iraq (already happening) and things politically will be far less in favor of the US than they were on September 12 2001.


This IS so correct. I wonder why liberals can't SEE this?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:40:19 AM
Actually, do you have a source for the "chemical warheads" claim you are making?  Preferably not a right wing blog, or NewsMax.  I want to double check my memory of the incident and any attempt to try to locate it leaves me with a huge string of links to Fox News reports of "finds" that turned out to be boxes of Tde.

My source IS every channel you can name that has a news program. They were videoed and shown all over the place. Do a bit of looking and you'll find them. I will not do your legwork for you. If you fail to keep up with what's going on, that IS your choice! But, in your mind, since I do not automatically post a link, I MUST be a liar, right? DYOH...catch up!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:45:26 AM
I thought it was a simple and straightforward request.   


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:46:19 AM
Quote
After the US pulls out, Iraq will descend into civil war.
After?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:49:48 AM
I thought it was a simple and straightforward request. 


Telling you to be doing a bit of looking (Inquiring minds do this automatically) IS a straight-forward answer.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:54:41 AM
I thought it was a simple and straightforward request. 


Telling you to be doing a bit of looking (Inquiring minds do this automatically) IS a straight-forward answer.
Well, yeah, but I thought that you'd have a link handy and would be polite.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 08:56:51 AM
Cool!  I'm a junior member.

My recollection of those warheads was that the chemical elements were degraded and no longer useable as weapons.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 08:59:08 AM
Well, yeah, but I thought that you'd have a link handy and would be polite.


Well, politely, I don't have a link. Politely, again, it was on every channel that I saw, and that was probably all but CBS, and so without going into google to get a link, all I had was what I saw and remembered. Chemical artillery warheads were found buried and shown on television.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:04:28 AM
My recollection of those warheads was that the chemical elements were degraded and no longer useable as weapons.

Oh---You have a link that describes them as 'not dangerous'?

This seems to confirm that chemical weapons were, indeed, found---regardless of their state of useability (I hope that anymore than are possibly found are in a non-useable state, indeed---we don't need any kids possibly finding a viable one, right?)). Saddam said he got rid of everything, and your own words show saddam to be a liar, right? I wonder if your mind IS open to the possibility/probability that MORE are buried over there somewhere? Are you so trusting that there are no more? I am not.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:07:05 AM
And, politely, since you have a recollection of them, your request to me for a link was totally superfluous, right? Why would you make such a request IF you already knew of them? Just curious.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 09:11:03 AM
Quote
You have a link that describes them as 'not dangerous'?

What does the word "recollection" mean to you?

What I recall is that the military believed that they were munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war that had been forgotten rather than deliberately concealed.  And that this was in part because they could not be used as a weapon, because the chemical compunds had grown too unstable and there was no delivery system that would allow their use.  I was hoping for a link to check my memory of the incident against, since I do not entirely trust my memory and prefer to rely on verifiable information rather than "I recall."  As wisdom loveth correction am open to it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:22:08 AM
What I recall is that the military believed that they were munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war that had been forgotten rather than deliberately concealed.

Does it matter WHEN they were from? It sounds as if you are saying that since they were not purchased after last Friday, that they should not be considered as chemical weapons. This IS like finding a landmine over in the area between Greece and Turkey that will not explode. It IS still a landmine---thankfully that cannot be used!! Yet, usually, where there IS 1 landmine, there are surely more of them. To blindly believe that there are no more chemical weapons buried over there IS a leap that ISn't logical.

FORGOTTEN?? NOT deliberately concealed? Then WHY, pretell, WERE THEY BURIED????? Your deductive reasoning needs some more thought applied to it. IMHO.

Politely.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 09:29:34 AM
Quote
Then WHY, pretell, WERE THEY BURIED?? Your deductive reasoning needs some more thought applied to it. IMHO.
Well - again it is my recollection - we are not talking about my deductive reasoning but our military's.  Their conclusion, if I recall correctly, was that the weapons had been buried after the Iran-Iraq war, in the 80's, before Gulf I when accounting for weapons became, let's say, a priority.  They were buried for the same reason we used to just bury nuclear waste in the desert - it is a handy disposal method for dangerous shit you don't need.

Because, of course, why retain a small batch of unusable weapons, when the whole of your program has been dismantled?  That's where your deductive reasoning needs some more thought applied to it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:38:19 AM
Because, of course, why retain a small batch of unusable weapons, when the whole of your program has been dismantled?  That's where your deductive reasoning needs some more thought applied to it.

Not referring to whether or not the program was dismantled, the reference IS to WHY they were buried? What makes you so quick to believe there are no more buried? Burying them IS not a function of 'dismantling'. It IS a function of lies and deception---or IS that illogical thinking? You do not see that, do you?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 09:54:01 AM
Fine. Here IS a link to chemical weapons PRODUCTION by Iraq. And when they were found buried over there, liberals went nuts---and have remained so to this day.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

Hey weasel---These chemicals were produced IN IRAQ----NOT sent by our "Republican Administration" as you so said. Notice where the sentences are that say IRAQ ADMITTED.

Yet, being the liar and liberal that you are, your blinders are really gonna have to do a job on you!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on April 27, 2007, 09:57:36 AM
After the US pulls out, Iraq will descend into civil war.   Iran will step into Iraq (already happening) and things politically will be far less in favor of the US than they were on September 12 2001.

This IS so correct. I wonder why liberals can't SEE this?

I'll play Devil's Advocate here. For the record, I'm agnostic on what to do in Iraq because I don't think there are any good solutions. But one can make the argument that this war needs a political, not military, solution. These guys are going to keep fighting until a political settlement is reached that satisfies everybody. Yet the Shiite government has done little to bring in the Sunnis. Fareed Zakaria, a sober analyst who supported the war, wrote this column that explained the uselessness of the current government: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17778186/site/newsweek/

And if he's right, and if the government is useless, and the solution is political and not military, then there's little point of us hanging around and continuing to lose American lives waiting for something to not happen.

As I mentioned, I'm agnostic. I think pulling out now would just collapse the country; on the other hand this war just doesn't seem to have a happy ending in store for us. It may be defeatist to call for us to pull out; however, if we had listened to the defeatists in 1968, we might have saved 40,000 American lives. I would probably give the government another year or two and then throw in the towel.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 09:58:11 AM
Did you read the whole post?  If my memory is correct, the military believed they had been disposed of BEFORE the Kuwait war, not after.  They were disposed of before the surrender required Iraq to dismantle its program.

Have we found any other than that batch?  At some point, "there might be more" becomes "there probably aren't," especially since we have been paying people to tell us about anything like that - which, again to my recollection, is how we found out about those.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 10:02:31 AM
Fine. Here IS a link to chemical weapons PRODUCTION by Iraq. And when they were found buried over there, liberals went nuts---and have remained so to this day.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

Hey weasel---These chemicals were produced IN IRAQ----NOT sent by our "Republican Administration" as you so said. Notice where the sentences are that say IRAQ ADMITTED.

Yet, being the liar and liberal that you are, your blinders are really gonna have to do a job on you!
I never said Iraq did not produce chemical weapons, did I?  I said that our own military has said that the few warheads we found were essentially not weapons any longer and were more likely to have been forgotten that intentionally concealed.

Weasel?  I take it that is directed to someone else, as I have not said that.  Although you have, in the past, shown no scuples about misstating the opinions of others.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:06:42 AM
They were disposed of before the surrender required Iraq to dismantle its program.


Burying IS not dismantling or disposing. Period. If some were found under the sand, they certainly were not disposed of, were they? It IS lying and deceiving. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal and has to continually parse, and use the blinders, to keep the liberally correct thought process in place, and continue to 'toe-the-liberal-line'.

Are you a liberal? If you are a liberal, and you certainly appear to sound like one, then I am calling you what you are---a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:09:06 AM
Weasel?  I take it that is directed to someone else, as I have not said that.  Although you have, in the past, shown no scuples about misstating the opinions of others.

Yes, this IS someone else.

Debunking liberal posts IS not mis-stating the opinions of others---it IS exposing the msi-statements of others.


BTW---Since you just said what you did, it IS quite obvious that saddam had and was producing WMDs, right? And there was never a LIE about WMDs to get in iraq, right?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 10:15:17 AM
We used to bury nuclear waste in Nevada - not sure, we might still - under the sand.  Is that disposing of it or concealing it?

What you are ignoring is that the military concluded the weapons were buried BEFORE Iraq was under the obligation to dismantle their chemical weapons programs.  Quite clearly, they could not have been buried to decieve the UN inspectors, now could they?

I have never disavowed being a liberal, although I note from your posts that for you the word "liberal" is like, oh, Zemblan, or  Houyhnhnm, or Islamofascist, or the Krell; a mental construct with only an indirect and reflective connection to the real world or the people in it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:23:25 AM
Iraq is already in a civil war.  Our leaving Iraq will mean that our soldiers won't have to die to satisfy Bush's ego.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 10:30:34 AM
Quote
BTW---Since you just said what you did, it IS quite obvious that saddam had and was producing WMDs, right? And there was never a LIE about WMDs to get in iraq, right?
Those are two different subject, right?  Clearly Iraq had produced and used chemical weapons prior to Gulf I.  That does not mean that using WMD's as an excuse to invade isn't a lie.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:30:41 AM
We used to bury nuclear waste in Nevada - not sure, we might still - under the sand.  Is that disposing of it or concealing it?

What you are ignoring is that the military concluded the weapons were buried BEFORE Iraq was under the obligation to dismantle their chemical weapons programs.

It IS quite clear that you have to parse this. Please, go to the link I provided and SEE for yourself.


Quite clearly, it IS concealing it. They could have said,"We have this and that buried here and there"---but they didn't. How does one bury this stuff and FORGET where it IS? That IS on par with the US burying things in our deserts and forgetting where they are---it ain't plausible!! That IS just plain not logical. Liberals just cannot stand the truth when it shows that bush was very correct in that Iraq had a chcemical weapons program, was manufacturing them, and was concealing them from inspectors and the world. Finding them buried shows that they were not being honest. Period. REGARDLESS of the liberal spin you wish to attach to the subject.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 10:41:12 AM
We used to bury nuclear waste in Nevada - not sure, we might still - under the sand.  Is that disposing of it or concealing it?

What you are ignoring is that the military concluded the weapons were buried BEFORE Iraq was under the obligation to dismantle their chemical weapons programs.

It IS quite clear that you have to parse this. Please, go to the link I provided and SEE for yourself.


Quite clearly, it IS concealing it. They could have said,"We have this and that buried here and there"---but they didn't. How does one bury this stuff and FORGET where it IS? That IS on par with the US burying things in our deserts and forgetting where they are---it ain't plausible!! That IS just plain not logical. Liberals just cannot stand the truth when it shows that bush was very correct in that Iraq had a chcemical weapons program, was manufacturing them, and was concealing them from inspectors and the world. Finding them buried shows that they were not being honest. Period. REGARDLESS of the liberal spin you wish to attach to the subject.

I see you're back on your Kick the Liberals Kick again.  Wash..rinse...repeat.  Yawn.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:43:53 AM
I see you're back on your Kick the Liberals Kick again.

Nope---I was responding to a liberal that said he was a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 10:56:57 AM
We're not talking about sex here, but "the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops." Reid has not only changed his position on the pivotal issue of Iraq, but flagrantly lied about it — and Cheney caught him dead to rights.

Cheney pointed out that Reid falsely stated the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Surrender Group (ISG), which is "plainly false." The ISG report "was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad." This surge, in the opinion of the general in command, is critical to our victory in Iraq, and Reid is lying about the ISG's recommendation on it. So this lie conceivably could affect the very outcome of the war and, thus, our national security.

Cheney said that Reid chided Bush for not participating in a regional conference on Iraq, yet we're scheduled to participate in one next week.

Reid said Democrats aren't given the opportunity for real substantive meetings with the White House. But just last week, said Cheney, Reid emerged from a meeting at the White House and said, "It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq."

Checkmate!

If Reid is going to continue this pattern of prevarication, he's going to have to cover his tracks better.

Call Cheney a counterattack dog if you wish. But at least he's counterattacking on behalf of truth and America's national security. More power to him.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 27, 2007, 10:57:42 AM
Except, ncg, that was the liberal American military's spin, not mine.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 10:59:01 AM
NGC,

There is nothing in our constitution that requires us to police the world. In fact, it was the original intent of our founding fathers to not be militaristic, and to stay home and mind our own business. We have no mandate to preserve a standing army at all. To do so is to subvert our role in the world order. We are supposed to be a nation dedicated to peace, not playing with straws to ferret out reasons to go to war.

It is disingenous of you to ignore the fact that the buried weapons were of no danger to anyone. They were just refuse. No one, not even liberals, have insisted that Hussein did not have or use WMDs. We know he did. What is under debate is whether he was developing the technology to create such weapons and use them against the US. This is the fact, jack! You seem to want to parse it for your own silly reasons. The position of most Americans today is that the war is immoral - we went into based on false information that engendered unfounded fears - and we need to pull out before we waste any more American lives. This is now a MAJORITY opinion, not a "liberal" position.

Why can't you just acknowledge that cooler heads should prevail?





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 11:13:39 AM
No one, not even liberals, have insisted that Hussein did not have or use WMDs.


rrriiiggghhhttt.......................


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 01:48:25 PM
He never used them on the United States.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 03:30:20 PM
Yes, they were given to him to use on Iran, as if that was a good goal! And, he used them on his own people.

Kam, can you shed some light on what Hussein and other groups of Arabs have against the Kurds. I understand it has something to do with religion, but I know no more than that about it.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 03:57:36 PM
Yes, they were given to him to use on Iran, as if that was a good goal! And, he used them on his own people.

Kam, can you shed some light on what Hussein and other groups of Arabs have against the Kurds. I understand it has something to do with religion, but I know no more than that about it.



It's not so much religion. Arabs converted the Kurds to Islam over 1000 years ago. Its about wealth distribution.

Arabs and Kurds are different ethnic groups.  So there is animosity right there.  Add in the fact that Countries like Iraq and Turkey are worried that the 20 million or so Kurds will want autonomy.  Add in the fact there are very rich oil fields in the traditionally Kurdish regions of Nothern Iraq like Kirkuk.  Add in that Iraq (mainly Arabs) trid to wrest control over those oil fields in the 70s by actually moving thousands of Arabs into those Kurdish regions. 

So you have 20+ million people with rich natural resource and no official representative government.  Like taking candy from a ?

And as for Turkey... Kurds make up 20% of the population of Turkey.  Iraq and Turkey and Iran all have much to lose and nothing to gain from another country sprouting up in their backyards.  So there will always be oppression of the Kurds.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 04:14:33 PM
You need to tell the liberals around here that chemical weapons WERE, indeed, used on the Kurds. Liberals live in a world of denial, unfortunately, for political reasons.

I, for one, apologize to you that the US did not keep its original word to the Kurds and follow through on that word.

It wasn't the first time a promise was broken ngc.  In WW1 the west needed help topplng the ottoman empire.  The facts and dates are courtesy of wikipedia:

From 1915 to 1918, Kurds struggled to end Ottoman rule over their region. They were encouraged by Woodrow Wilson's support for non-Turkish nationalities of the empire and submitted their claim for independence to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. The Treaty of Sèvres stipulated creation of an autonomous Kurdish state in 1920, but the subsequent Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 failed to mention Kurds. In 1925 and 1930 Kurdish revolts were forcibly suppressed.

Following these events, the existence of distinct ethnic groups like Kurds in Turkey was officially denied and any expression by the Kurds of their ethnic identity was harshly repressed. Until 1991, the use of the Kurdish language – although widespread – was illegal. As a result of reforms inspired by the EU, music, radio and television broadcasts in Kurdish are now allowed albeit with severe time restrictions (for example, radio broadcasts can be no longer than sixty minutes per day nor constitute more than five hours per week while television broadcasts are subject to even greater restrictions). Additionally, education in Kurdish is now permitted though only in private institutions.


*Note: Turkey is only now beginning to shape up and only because they want inclusion in the EU.  

Finally in 94 a Kurdish person, a woman actually, was elected to Turkish parliament.  At her inauguration she took the oath of loyalty in Turkish, as required by law, then added in Kurdish, 'I shall struggle so that the Kurdish and Turkish peoples may live together in a democratic framework.' Parliament erupted with shouts of 'Separatist!', 'Terrorist!', and 'Arrest her!'


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:36:59 PM
Its about wealth distribution.

This is also true in Northern Ireland and one of the reasons for the problems those people have lived with for many generations.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 05:46:28 PM
It wasn't the first time a promise was broken ngc.

This IS true. It IS a shame when govts give their word and do not keep it. We gave our word to Iraq now to help them out, and I think we should keep it until they can completely take over their country...or the Iraqi govt asks us to leave--- You agree?



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 05:51:15 PM
We have helped them out, billions and billions of dollars out.  That they can't get their act together is a very real problem and as long as we are there they won't do that.  There is no incentive for them to do so.  And unless you plan to spend the next 50 years securing Iraq, the civil war will never be over.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 06:00:45 PM
Hey---For the UMPTEENTH TIME---Do you get it yet?---Over and over and over I have said---I think we should be out of Iraq---just not cutting and running. Or until the Iraqi govt asks us to leave!! We gave our word, again, and we should NOT break it!---unless, of course, one IS a cut and run liberal!!!

I'd love to see what Kam says---but if the answer IS staying, you'll just savage him.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 06:02:11 PM
It wasn't the first time a promise was broken ngc.

This IS true. It IS a shame when govts give their word and do not keep it. We gave our word to Iraq now to help them out, and I think we should keep it until they can completely take over their country...or the Iraqi govt asks us to leave--- You agree?



I am torn.


On one hand, I see myself without nationality.  As a human being, I wish America would actually do through diplomacy and aid, what is necessary to bring stability and peace to the Region.  On the other hand, I see myself as American and I don't want my soldiers in harms way. for an unjust cause.

I say unjust because we (the USA) have no real reason for being there.  At best, the case was made that Iraq was a threat to us because of supposed weapons, when the real threat was not Iraqs nukes but a de-centralized shadow group we have not learned how to defeat (al qaeda). Well i'm here to tell you Iran is a far far greater threat than Iraq.  We chose war with Iraq because we knew we could 'win'.  Except now we have the booby prize.  A country to manage and more enemies made.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on April 27, 2007, 06:06:48 PM
We have to show the world we're not the Iraq Cops.  We have to pull out.  But there needs to be a transitional multi-national peacekeeping force and we need to pour the money that Iraq is producing in oil revenue not into goverment contracts for our corporations, but back in the hands of the iraqi people.  Only by showing the world that we have NO MONETARY interest in Iraq will our image begin to be rehabilitated.

We can't keep the present course.  We can't keep up the appearance of the Big Bully.  We have to appear like the Best Friend.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 06:08:59 PM
I am torn.

I can appreciate that. Do you think the US should keep its word and stay more, or should we just get up and go?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 06:10:07 PM
Only by showing the world that we have NO MONETARY interest in Iraq will our image begin to be rehabilitated.


Were you aware that China IS landing the big oil contracts with Iraq, and not the US?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 27, 2007, 06:11:32 PM
Kam---I enjoy posting to you. Just have to run right now. Back, hopefully, tomorrow around noon. Gone fishin'!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 27, 2007, 06:24:11 PM
The Iraqi goverment hasn't passed the law granting the international oil companies the rights to develop the oil fields and get the profits from their oil. 

Let's see your documentation that China is getting oil from Iraq.

Who's word do you keep referrng to?  Congress voted to give Bush the power to pervent Iraq from using WMD.  That's it.  The rest is the Bush failure.  The mission changes daily yet "stay the course", whatever that is, remains the Bush administrations aim.  They are making money off the war, and that's their goal.  These are evil people.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 27, 2007, 07:29:37 PM
Kam,

Thank you for an excellent explanation on why the Kurds are treated so badly - they held the oil wealth. It is similar to the reasons why Hitler rounded up and murdered so many of the Jews. He wanted their wealth. Even today, in America, there are a lot of people who "hate" Jews because of their wealth and their preference for the highest levels of education.

I can understand why the Kurds would want their own "homeland", just as the Jews have. But, I really believe that all countries would be better if they were not as ethnically unique and were more accepting of other cultures within their borders. America should lead the way, but, as you can see if you take a look at the immigration thread, there are quite a number of Americans who are unwilling to allow another culture/language to exist in this country.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 06:04:49 AM
Kam,

Thank you for an excellent explanation on why the Kurds are treated so badly - they held the oil wealth. It is similar to the reasons why Hitler rounded up and murdered so many of the Jews. He wanted their wealth. Even today, in America, there are a lot of people who "hate" Jews because of their wealth and their preference for the highest levels of education.

I can understand why the Kurds would want their own "homeland", just as the Jews have. But, I really believe that all countries would be better if they were not as ethnically unique and were more accepting of other cultures within their borders. America should lead the way, but, as you can see if you take a look at the immigration thread, there are quite a number of Americans who are unwilling to allow another culture/language to exist in this country.

I am looking forward to reading a book about the history of this area. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 28, 2007, 02:33:30 PM
Let's see your documentation that China is getting oil from Iraq.

As you like to say, DYOH. But it "IS" a fact. China "IS" getting the larger contracts. Period.

They are making money off the war, and that's their goal.  These are evil people.

Well, let's hear you chastise Soros---he has Halliburton stock---or do you close your eyes to this? Of course you do---you purvey the double standard.

"stay the course", whatever that is...

It IS simple---we gave our word. Should we break it to the iraqis---again?? If the iraqi govt wants us to leave, we should go---they have not asked us to leave yet.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:10:09 PM
Let's see your documentation that China is getting oil from Iraq.

As you like to say, DYOH. But it "IS" a fact. China "IS" getting the larger contracts. Period.

China gets its oil from Iran.

They are making money off the war, and that's their goal.  These are evil people.

Well, let's hear you chastise Soros---he has Halliburton stock---or do you close your eyes to this? Of course you do---you purvey the double standard.

Prove it.


"stay the course", whatever that is...

It IS simple---we gave our word. Should we break it to the iraqis---again?? If the iraqi govt wants us to leave, we should go---they have not asked us to leave yet.


Bush gave his word.  Bush is not the King of America. Yet.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:12:45 PM
AlterNet
Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
By Naomi Wolf, Chelsea Green Publishing
Posted on April 28, 2007, Printed on April 28, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51150/

Editor's note: This is adapted from Wolf's forthcoming book "The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot."

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down -- the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy, but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated in the United States by the Bush administration.

Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree, domestically, as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government -- the task of being aware of the Constitution has been outsourced from citizens to professionals such as lawyers and professors -- we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of "homeland" security -- remember who else was keen on the word "homeland"? -- didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.

It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable -- as the author and political journalist Joe Conason has put it -- that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realize.

Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the United States.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.

After we were hit on Sept. 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on Oct. 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilization." There have been other times of crisis in which the United States accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the Civil War, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the Second World War, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: All our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space -- the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

Creating a terrifying threat -- hydralike, secretive, evil -- is an old trick. It can, like Hitler's invocation of a communist threat to the nation's security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the "global conspiracy of world Jewry", on myth.

It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain, which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks, than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilization as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.

2. Create a gulag.

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") -- where torture can take place.

At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, "enemies of the people" or "criminals." Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer, and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders -- opposition members, labor activists, clergy and journalists -- are arrested and sent there as well.

This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.

With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA "black site" prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.

Gulags in history tend to metastasize, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalized. We know from firsthand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the U.S.-run prisons we are aware of and those we can't investigate adequately.

But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don't generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: "First they came for the Jews." Most Americans don't understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.

By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24, 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People's Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: Prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favor of Nazi ideology when making decisions.

3. Develop a thug caste.

When leaders who seek what I call a "fascist shift" want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorize citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: You need citizens to fear thug violence, and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.

The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America's security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the U.S. military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time U.S. administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution.

Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode, but the administration's endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home, in U.S. cities.

Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for "public order" on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station "to restore public order."

4. Set up an internal surveillance system.

In Mussolini's Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China -- in every closed society -- secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbors to spy on neighbors. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.

In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state program to wiretap citizens' phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.

In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about "national security"; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.

5. Harass citizens' groups.

The fifth thing you do is related to step four -- you infiltrate and harass citizens' groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favor of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under U.S. tax law, have been left alone.

Other harassment is more serious: The American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents, and a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 "suspicious incidents." The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organizations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track "potential terrorist threats" as it watches ordinary U.S. citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as "terrorism." So the definition of "terrorist" slowly expands to include the opposition.




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:13:04 PM
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.

This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote "China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power," describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a "list" of dissidents and opposition leaders: You are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.

In 2004, America's Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco, liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, a member of Venezuela's government (after Venezuela's president had criticized Bush), and thousands of ordinary U.S. citizens.

Professor Walter F. Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic "Constitutional Democracy." Murphy is also a decorated former Marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, "because I was on the Terrorist Watch list," he said.

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that," asked the airline employee.

"I explained," said Murphy, "that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution."

"That'll do it," the man said.

Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the Constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of "enemy of the people" tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.

James Yee, a U.S. citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the U.S. military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.

Brandon Mayfield, a U.S. citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.

It is a standard practice of fascist societies that, once you are on the list, you can't get off.

7. Target key individuals.

Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don't toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile's Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.

Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not "coordinate," in Goebbels' term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically "coordinate" early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7, 1933.

Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalize or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.

Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that "waterboarding is torture" was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.

Most recently, the administration purged eight U.S. attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were "coordinated" too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.

8. Control the press.

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the '30s, East Germany in the '50s, Czechoslovakia in the '60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the '70s, China in the '80s and '90s -- all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of U.S. journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C. Wilson accused Bush in a New York Times op-ed of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy, a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the United States is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the U.S. military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organizations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While Westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the U.S. military and taken to violent prisons; the news organizations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America -- it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason.

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage." Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalize certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor." When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful," while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and right-wing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers, smugly, that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and "beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death," according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.

In Stalin's Soviet Union, dissidents were "enemies of the people." National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy "November traitors."

And here is where the circle closes: Most Americans do not realise that since September of last year, when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the president has the power to call any U.S. citizen an "enemy combatant." He has the power to define what "enemy combatant" means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define "enemy combatant" any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.

Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door, ship you or me to a navy brig and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin's gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo's, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)

We U.S. citizens will get a trial eventually -- for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is increasingly and aggressively trying to find ways to get around giving even U.S. citizens fair trials. "Enemy combatant" is a status offence -- it is not even something you have to have done. "We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model -- you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we're going to hold you," says a spokeswoman of the CCR.

Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: It is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests -- usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn't real dissent. There just isn't freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.

10. Suspend the rule of law.

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency -- which the president now has enhanced powers to declare -- he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears's meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole's baby, the New York Times editorialized about this shift: "A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night … Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any 'other condition.'"

Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: Having seen citizens bullied by a monarch's soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militia power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.

Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing down of the system that followed Mussolini's march on Rome or Hitler's roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.

Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.

It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as W.H. Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere -- while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing. "Dogs go on with their doggy life … How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster."

As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to Internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: Our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are "at war" in a "long war," a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president -- without U.S. citizens realizing it yet -- the power over U.S. citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.

That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still free-looking institutions, and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the "what ifs."

What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack -- say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani, because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

What if the publisher of a major U.S. newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a right-wing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing, but they would suddenly be very polite.

Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us -- staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody's help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a United States unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.

We need to look at history and face the "what ifs." For if we keep going down this road, the "end of America" could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: That is how it was before, and this is the way it is now.

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands … is the definition of tyranny," wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.

Naomi Wolf's "The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" will be published by Chelsea Green in September.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/51150/


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 04:13:48 PM
washingtonpost.com
Big Shift in China's Oil Policy
With Iraq Deal Dissolved by War, Beijing Looks Elsewhere

By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, July 13, 2005; D01

SHANGHAI -- Until recently, China's view of the global energy map focused narrowly on the Middle East, which holds roughly two-thirds of the world's oil. Special attention was directed toward one well-supplied country: Iraq.

Through cultivation of Saddam Hussein's government, China sought to develop some of Iraq's more promising reserves. Beijing advocated lifting the United Nations sanctions that prevented investment in Iraq's oil patch and limited sales of its production.

Then the United States went to war in Iraq in 2003, wiping out China's stakes.

I guess this makes you a liar, ngc.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 28, 2007, 06:29:30 PM
Sam,

Thanks for the quote from the upcoming book. I wonder if it will make it into print?




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 08:13:08 PM
Sam,

Thanks for the quote from the upcoming book. I wonder if it will make it into print?




 The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot
   by Naomi Wolf
Publisher: Chelsea Green Publishing
ISBN: 1933392797
# of pages: 144


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 28, 2007, 08:20:07 PM
 Nine more soldiers killed in Iraq
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 4/28/2007 04:54:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (168) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·  · Link

Another brutal day in a brutal month in the brutal war. This war has to end:

    The Americans killed in Iraq included five who died in fighting Friday in Anbar province, three killed when a roadside bomb struck their patrol southeast of Baghdad and one killed in a separate roadside bombing south of the capital.

    The deaths raised to 99 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died this month and at least 3,346 who have died since the Iraq war started in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

Pedarais was right.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:33:24 AM
"The Chinese seem to be willing to go places where other companies can't find workers to go," said Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank.

But none of this suggests Western firms like ExxonMobil (Charts), Chevron (Charts), BP (Charts) and Royal Dutch Shell (Charts) will be completely cut out of the action.

First, their technical prowess is world renowned.

"I have not heard anything from any Iraqi ministers against U.S. oil companies," said Aljibury. "In fact, I have heard the opposite. They are the best in field exploration and development. They want them."

Second, Iraq's oil contract game has just begun.

According to a letter supplied by John S. Herold's Ruppel, memorandums of understanding have been signed with all the oil majors for several years. And Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani has said the country plans to tender for major oil projects in the second half of 2007.

"The Chinese could announce something within the next few months" if all goes well with the oil law, said James Placke, a senior associate at Cambridge Energy Research Associates who specializes in the Middle East.

The Asian firms are at an advantage for several reasons.

First, less constrained by Western sanctions during the Hussein regime, they've been operating in Iraq and know the country's oilfields, said Falah Aljibury, an energy analyst who has advised several Iraqi oil ministers as well as other OPEC nations.

Aljibury said the first contracts likely awarded will be to the Chinese in the south central part of Iraq



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:39:13 AM
And Iraq's big oil contracts go to ...
Companies from China, India and other Asian nations are seen getting the first contracts. But don't write off Big Oil just yet.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
April 5 2007: 1:42 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 11:17:11 AM
The USA has now spent more years in Iraq than we did in WWII.  We have spent untold billions of $$$.  Over 3,000 of the flower of American youth have died miserably in the desert.

Does anyone here feel safer today than they did on 9/10?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 11:19:55 AM
ngc,

Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you or to the author of the article that the reason the Iraqis are signing contracts with those countries is because they are  heartily sick of us?

O the irony, our troops die so that oil can flow freely to China.

You righties must be proud of your leader and his cabal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 11:31:15 AM
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you or to the author of the article that the reason the Iraqis are signing contracts with those countries is because they are  heartily sick of us?

O the irony, our troops die so that oil can flow freely to China.

You righties must be proud of your leader and his cabal.


I make no claim as to the rationale the Iraqis are using for possible distributions of their oil contracts---I said that I had seen an article stating just exactly that---I merely posted this because samiinh called me a liar.

I wonder if an apology IS in the offing? Probably not---he IS a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 11:53:57 AM
So-----several at this and other subject forums, have acknowledged that there WERE chemical weapons (Regardless of condition or origin), saddam WAS manufacturing them (Kinda blows the 'origin' part of liberal arguements out of the water), that iranians are killing americans in iraq, and now we see that since oil contracts just may, indeed, be going to countries OTHER than the US, **LIKE CHINA, SAMI**, that claims made by liberals that bush lied to go to iraq and/or went to war for himself and his 'oil buddies' are just BUNK, IS there anything ELSE that liberals wish to say IS the reason we went to Iraq based on a lie or personal reason?

I FULLY expect liberals to continue their sorry states of denial, parsing, and living the lie. Why??

Because the truth to a liberal IS like a cross to dracula.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 12:00:46 PM
Apology, NGC?

If apologies are called for, you should be the first to step up and do so. How many times have you called me a liberal/social/communist/facist without apologies when I state clearly I am a moderate? And, then, of course, there is your assertion that certain industries should be "nationalized", which is a step down that slippery slope to socialism/communism. But you claim that it is not because you want to limit that "nationalization" to only certain industries. Yet, anyone who studies the history of declines of government into communism/facism, know that the start is made and then it mushrooms.

So, if you want to start a round of apologies, start with yourself. Make your apologies and stop characterizing people as what they are not.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 12:54:22 PM
If apologies are called for, you should be the first to step up and do so. How many times have you called me a liberal/social/communist/facist without apologies when I state clearly I am a moderate?

With what you support and believe (From what I have seen you post)---that capitalism IS responsible for killing people, for example, and that communism IS only a financial system (This may have been from someone else participating in the discussion---but you didn't say it was untrue), that tests are made to 'pigeon-hole' certain students, you are definitely a liberal---and equating someone to a political belief IS not name calling. I was called a liar, and put up the article from CNN to prove it (I assume that a nice liberal organization like CNN IS acceptable to a liberal)---and your claims to be a moderate are simply just not plausible. Also, you are flat out LYING when you say that I have called you fascist---I have said liberal/communist/socialist, yes---but never NOT ONCE a fascist, and you can look at past posts as my proof. Liberals positions ARE communist/socialist.

My statements on nationalizing are not all encompassing, and I will repeat for effect, they were strictly NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES, those only, and never once claimed to espouse or endear any other industry in any way. Your "Well, it will mushroom" comment IS just your opinion, and has zero to do with what I said.


When you cease acting, espousing positions, and posting like a liberal, I will cease calling you what you obviously are---a liberal. OK?

Moderate, huh? Just what IS it that you think has merit from the RIGHT side of the equation? What candidate from the right has any merit for the presidency? Which candidates from the left are NOT liberals?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 02:37:12 PM
When you cease acting, espousing positions, and posting like a liberal, I will cease calling you what you obviously are---a liberal. OK?

Moderate, huh? Just what IS it that you think has merit from the RIGHT side of the equation? What candidate from the right has any merit for the presidency? Which candidates from the left are NOT liberals?



Hmmm...are we all supposed to be closed minded bigoted dumbf__ks like you?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 29, 2007, 03:37:55 PM
ngc -

Quote
I will repeat for effect, they were strictly NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES, those only, and never once claimed to espouse or endear any other industry in any way.

I am reminded about the old joke about the guy who comes up to a woman in a bar and asks, "Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?"  She replies, "Yes."  He then asks, "Will you sleep with me for 20 dollars?"  She says, indignantly, "No!  Just what do you think I am?"  He responds, "We've only established what you are.  Now we're merely haggling over the price."

You are a socialist!  How much of one may be up for debate, but a socialist nonetheless.  And not a "socialist" in the wishy-washy way you and others on the right use it to define anyone who favors social programs and limited government oversight of aspects of the free market, but the actual dyed-in-the-wool ownership of the means of production kind.  Heck, not merely socialist, communist!  Good show, comrade!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 05:47:27 PM
You are a socialist!  How much of one may be up for debate, but a socialist nonetheless.


rrriiiggghhhttt...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 06:24:43 PM
NGC,

Of the Repubs, I favor Rudy Guiliani. I'm not pleased with his position on the war, but I feel he has the experience to go from city politics to national politics gracefully. McCain is a fool in clown dress. For the Dems, I at present favor Obama because he has fewer ties to the capitalists and can more honestly provide leadership without owing, owing, owing. Guilliani probably has a lot of NYC strings on his belt, but I suspect, he's not encumbered with the larger national ones.

On education, I feel that the purpose is to raise the students awareness of the world they will someday inherit. I have observed that excessive testing wastes educational time and resources that could be put to much better use. I feel that teachers know their business as surely as CEOs do, and should be given the reins and the resources to do the job right. You know almost nothing about my skill, my beliefs, my practice, or my experience in teaching - yet you think you can judge me on the basis of my opinion on a single aspect. That is tom cat foolish and you know it!

As to you calling me facist, I may have confused your posts with the Colonel's. He was the one that thought facism and nazism were left-wing philosophies. If so, I apologize. On the other hand, I will remind you that a liberal may ALSO be a socialist and may ALSO be a communist, but the three are not synonymous. Even you, have a communist theory, yet you otherwise present yourself as a conservative. People come in many flavors, as any teacher can tell you. Never jump to quick judgement - you will ALWAYS end up with egg on your face. As you have done in this forum!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 06:24:59 PM
ngc,

How about it:
Do you feel safer today than you did on 9/10?
Are you pleased that so much American treasure, American lives, and American prestige has been squandered so that oil may flow freely from Iraq to China?
How do you fell about the fact that our next major supplier of oil just might be Venezuela?
What a fine situation YOUR President has put the US in!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:11:23 PM
Do you feel safer today than you did on 9/10?

910? How about 911? As a matter of fact, I do feel safer.


Are you pleased that so much American treasure, American lives, and American prestige has been squandered so that oil may flow freely from Iraq to China?

Nope. Though I was called a liar when I said that oil was going to go to china. Sami was the one.



How do you fell about the fact that our next major supplier of oil just might be Venezuela?

I do not think we should purchase from chavez at all.



What a fine situation YOUR President has put the US in!!

I do not know why you say this---I dd not vote for him.


I do feel that the 'hate bush' program that IS occuring IS wrong. Liberals saw the same info that bush saw and voted to initiate the conflict. As we have given our word, it would be a mistake, imho, to cut and run---regardless of the liberals 'hate bush' campaigns. Unless, of course, if the iraqis ask us to leave.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:12:41 PM
Hmmm...are we all supposed to be closed minded bigoted dumbf__ks like you?


Total liberal juvenility like this "IS" why I will no longer respond to you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 29, 2007, 08:16:53 PM
Hmmm...are we all supposed to be closed minded bigoted dumbf__ks like you?


Total liberal juvenility like this "IS" why I will no longer respond to you.
\
Grow up, twerp.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 08:28:32 PM
As to you calling me facist, I may have confused your posts with the Colonel's. He was the one that thought facism and nazism were left-wing philosophies. If so, I apologize.

I accept---but "IS" this not 'egg'? Hmmm? OK---Maybe not. Benefit of doubt.

facism and nazism were left-wing philosophies.

Nazi "IS" a derivative of they way they say, in German, 'Nazionale Socialistika'---or the German words akin to this. National Socilalism "IS" left-wing---period. No benefit of doubt here.

a liberal may ALSO be a socialist and may ALSO be a communist, but the three are not synonymous.

There "IS" more of a close relation to communism and socilaism thru liberalism than conservatism will ever have---communism has, indeed, a VERY ugly history, regardless of your inability to see it. My desire to see non-renewable natural resources nationalized "IS" a mere 'piece' of what socialists/communists would do in total----my proposal stops with those resources, and goes no farther. As you have said, there are parts that make sense. What you have intimated in past posts goes a bit farther from what I have personally said myself.

You said that there were no courses online w/o teachers---that simply "IS" not so. No benefit of doubt.

You have said, or implied, that capitalism has just as bad a history with human death and misery as communism---that simply "IS" not so. No benefit of doubt.

You have said that a test, for example, using the word 'regatta' "IS" pigeon-holing students (Or maybe this was from someone else---but you didn't refute)---that simply "IS" not so. As I have learned THREE foreign languages, the use of a dictionary improves one's ability to be articulate. No benefit of doubt here for a 'regatta'---or any other words from a dictionary.

Just those items are so liberal that it does not merit discussion.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 29, 2007, 10:15:34 PM
ngc,

I do not think we should purchase from chavez at all.

Well, then, let's see.  You don't want the USA to buy oil from Venezuela; the Chinese, Indians, et.al. seem to have Iraqi oil contracted for; Iran is part of the shrub's Axis of Evil; the Saudis sponsor terror; the Nigerians are in chaos.

Seems we're sucking wind, old chap.

Got a solution?

BTW, I take it as a sign of pride to be called a left-wing radical liberal.  It's a label I wear with pride.  After all, my mother's first Presidential vote in 1932 was for William Z. Foster. <;-)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 29, 2007, 10:32:10 PM
NGC,

I NEVER said there were NO classes online with teachers. I do not speak in absolutes, especially regarding the Internet. What I said, and what I mean to say, is that the trend is toward courses WITH specially trained teachers. The courses are created by those expert in the subject. The online teachers may be the same as the creators, or they may be teachers who specialize in human interactions. Even the teacher-less courses had to be made by SOMEONE, and that someone is most likely to be either a teacher or an expert in the field of knowledge with knowledge of how to share their knowledge with other (in other words a teacher).

Your limitations on your brand of communism are totally foolish! You have complained that Chavez did the same thing in Venezuela that you advocate to do here. It makes no logical sense at all.

It is important, when judging a government system, that you look at what happened. The Nazi party may have gotten its start by advocating socialism to appeal to the nation's workers, but what it became was a dictatorship. Dictatorships are not liberal, they are right-wing. They limit the leadership of a government to a certain set of "elites". They may not be the "elites" who were once in power, but they are the "new royalty" nevertheless.

As to the deaths and misery caused by capitalism, I suggest you do some serious reading. Two books that can help you out a bit are the "People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn and "Death in the Haymarket" by James Green. Especially when it comes to "misery", capitalism is at the top of the heap, just under dictatorships, for causing "misery" through slave-level wages, unemployment, whimsical firings, and many other problems. If you read my post on another thread ealier this evening, you will see that I left the business world in the late seventies. I just got tired of hitting my head on the "glass ceiling". The benefits of capitalism are restricted to only a few lucky people, the rest get the shaft!





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 29, 2007, 11:13:47 PM
You have complained that Chavez did the same thing in Venezuela that you advocate to do here.

Not so. The companies that are pumping oil should be paid for that service---the oil should just be the property of the USA---not a group of individuals. That "IS" not what chavez "IS" doing.


Dictatorships are not liberal, they are right-wing.

Tell that to the cubans. Or the N Koreans.


Especially when it comes to "misery", capitalism is at the top of the heap,...

That IS just a sick thought.



The benefits of capitalism are restricted to only a few lucky people, the rest get the shaft!


Insider trading, yes. You would slap the face of all the engineers and surgeons that have worked to get where they are. You would agree to the taxes levied on estates passed on to family members---estates that have already paid mountains of taxes.


I just got tired of hitting my head on the "glass ceiling".

You sound very upset with your past circumstances. I know plenty of women that have hit the top---sniff, sniff---IS that a bit of jealousy I smell?

You say you are moderate---I see nothing moderate about positions you take---just more liberalism.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: incadove0 on April 30, 2007, 02:27:22 AM

After all, my mother's first Presidential vote in 1932 was for William Z. Foster. <;-)


Well then, as far as the John Birchers are concerned, you are listed for life, these things being genetic.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: incadove0 on April 30, 2007, 02:29:41 AM

You say you are moderate---I see nothing moderate about positions you take---just more liberalism.

Who cares?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 05:47:47 AM
Not so. The companies that are pumping oil should be paid for that service---the oil should just be the property of the USA---not a group of individuals. That "IS" not what chavez "IS" doing.


This is communistic thinking, bud.


In the US, the oil companies pay miminimual royalities to the government in order to pump and sell the oil.  They basically steal it from the people with the approval of their people they've bought who serve in the government.  It is corrupt, yes, but it is the American way.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 06:55:44 AM
ngc,
You would agree to the taxes levied on estates passed on to family members---estates that have already paid mountains of taxes.

Yep, at a rate of 100% after an exclusion of, say, $10M for the undeserving heirs to live on.

After all, as you righties constantly remind us, there should be no unearned, unmerited advantages in your Social Darwinist view of America.  So then, why should any American have the unearned, unmerited advantage of inherited money that (s)he did nothing to earn?  Why should any American have the unearned, unmerited advantage of being legacy admit to any university?
Or do you think the ban on these advantages should only only apply to RACE?

Now, why not tell us why you feel safer today than you did on 9/10.  The only thing that makes me feel safer is knowing that the Democrats are back in control of Congress.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 09:14:54 AM
Yep, at a rate of 100% after an exclusion of, say, $10M for the undeserving heirs to live on.


Pathetic---I am sure that people in your family have been unqualified failures in their business endeavours and have zilch to leave YOU anyway. All I see in you "IS" redistribution of wealth that has been honestly earned. If a person has a company that was started making shoes and made over $10 million, more power to him! The jealousy that "IS" eating you alive from your financial and entreprenurial failures "IS" palpable. Cry me a river.


Or do you think the ban on these advantages should only only apply to RACE?


Pathetic statement.



Now, why not tell us why you feel safer today...has there been anything happen since 911 in the USA? Nope. The only thing your brain sees "IS" hatred of anything that "IS"n't liberal. Pitiful.


The only thing that makes me feel safer is knowing that the Democrats are back in control of Congress.

Yet you forget the first trade center bombing under clinton and the dems---did you feel safe after that happened? Did you feel safer when sick-willie didn't take possession of bin laden on how many occasions? You felt safer with that animal on the loose? At least bush has tried to get that animal, and not just sit back in the pit of perversion with interns and cigars like your 'god' sick-willie. But you do not SEE rationale to slam sick-willie for worse actions, right? rrriiiggghhhttt....you're just a liberal being a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on April 30, 2007, 10:00:19 AM

Yet you forget the first trade center bombing under clinton and the dems---did you feel safe after that happened? Did you feel safer when sick-willie didn't take possession of bin laden on how many occasions? You felt safer with that animal on the loose? At least bush has tried to get that animal, and not just sit back in the pit of perversion with interns and cigars like your 'god' sick-willie. But you do not SEE rationale to slam sick-willie for worse actions, right? rrriiiggghhhttt....you're just a liberal being a liberal.


I thought you said libs were obssessed with getting just 1 person? So osama is important now?

And just a little reminder, those responsible for the 1993 WTC attack were caught, convicted and sent to prison.

How's this admin doing????


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 10:20:36 AM
those responsible for the 1993 WTC attack were caught, convicted and sent to prison.


Not all of them---bin laden IS still unaccounted for. Sick-willie had him on a platter and refused him!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 12:37:07 PM
Again,  I think your obsession with the Clintons is Monica Envy.  You should see a doctor.  Soon.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 12:43:18 PM
NGC,

Was not Bin Laden a guest at the Bush Texas Ranch on numerous occasions? Was Bin Laden not supplied with arms and advice on fighting the Russians? Was Bin Laden not a guest in this country under the Bush senior watch? Why wasn't something donw way back then?

I agree with Cap. You probably are jealous of his advantage with attracting women. Poor, ugly man. Go buy your jollies like other ugly men do.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 12:53:39 PM
Invite him to the estate and put a bullet in his head.

Nice presidential maneuver that would have been

And surely noone would have taken up OBL's cause.

OY


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on April 30, 2007, 12:57:01 PM
Quote
Not all of them---bin laden IS still unaccounted for. Sick-willie had him on a platter and refused him!!

The FBI lacked a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time and therefore could not legally hold him.  The administration did try to get Saudi Arabia to accept him with the hopes that they would behead him.  In the end, they felt that by at least having him removed from Sudan, his network there would be severely weakened.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 03:03:09 PM
I thought the cowboy president said he'd get him "dead or alive." 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:11:35 PM
The FBI lacked a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time and therefore could not legally hold him.


This IS the clinton approach. You should eliminate mad dogs when they are seen---period. But, since clinton didn't, well, you will seeing the results for some time to come.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 03:24:58 PM
I think there is a part of BUBBA deep deep down that regrets not assassinating OBL when he had intelligence of the man's whereabouts

But.................

Once again - someone would have picked up the Al Quaeda ball and run with it

Not to mention - had Bill BEEN the president to fulfill this plot, he would not now be known as the man who saved 5 million in NY.  Might be known as the guy who ticked them off, causing whatever eventually occurred.

There's no easiness to being President (are you listening, Joe Beiden?).  The war that must be fought at the current time gets fought.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: bambu on April 30, 2007, 03:35:19 PM
Terrorism...Indonesia...Bali...Indonesia is America's best new buddy it's squiring at the UN.

Fashion week mocks Schapelle Corby.

Who is Schapelle Corby?

http://www.freeschapelle.net/

Schapelle was nailed to the cross of injustice in Indonesia.

Fashion designer slams Corby | The Daily Telegraph


By Jen Melocco
SHE might not have the modelling ambitions of her one-time cellmate Michelle Leslie, but convicted Bali drug smuggler Schapelle Corby has still made it to the fashion catwalk.
In a controversial move that will overshadow today's launch of Australian Fashion Week, Bali-based Australian designer Nicholas Morley has sent models down a catwalk wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Four Kilo Anti Hero".
The barb, highlighted at a show at Sydney's Pioneer Studios on Saturday night, referred to the 4.1kg of marijuana found in Corby's boogie board bag in 2004.
"I decided it was time to speak up about Schapelle," Morley said yesterday.
"She has totally tainted the island's reputation and she has also given Australia a bad name there.
"The whole argument that 4kg of weed is worth nothing in Bali is wrong. It's worth about $40,000 and everyone knows she is guilty as sin."
The design last night drew a sharp response from the Corby family, with Schapelle's sister Mercedes accusing Morley of cashing in on the convicted drug-runner's name.
"Nicholas who? Never heard of him," Mercedes said.
"This man has used Schapelle's name for his own publicity. He wouldn't have made headlines without this ill-informed message.
"People are scared to come to Bali because of terrorism not because of Schapelle."
What do you think? Have you barred - and if so, why? Tell us through the feedback form at the bottom of the story.
The catwalk attack comes as Australian Fashion Week becomes better known for controversy than clothes.
Another former Kerobokan prison inmate, Michelle Leslie, is also set to appear at the event on Wednesday for swimwear label Azzolini.
Morley said he was moved to make his fashion statement after seeing the devastating effect Corby's arrest and subsequent publicity had on Bali.
Also printed on the T-shirt in smaller print are the words: "Schapelle Corby is guilty and has cost Bali millions of dollars in lost revenue."
Morley said 50 per cent of profits made from the $79 T-shirt would go to the Jodie O'Shea orphanage in Bali.
Front-row guests including Ian Thorpe and professional surfer Taj Burrows were also given canvas goodie bags with the controversial slogan printed on them.
Leslie will appear in a short film for Azzolini.
She was also one of the biggest drawcards for Australian Fashion Week last year when she modelled soon after being released from Kerobokan prison, where she served time after being convicted for using ecstasy.
However, Australian Fashion Week organisers have rejected claims that its statements, rather than its clothes, were now the centrepiece of the event.

"I don't think the political commentary is out of hand," said Australian Fashion Week boss Simon Lock.

"To a certain extent (it is) a tradition for designers to comment on life, politics or religion on the catwalk."
Australian Fashion Week, a five-day industry-only event, officially kicks off today at Circular Quay.
Labels such as Nicholas X Morley have also held shows in the past week in Sydney.

______________________________________________

Fashion week kicked off with a jab at Corby.

Support fashion week, all lovely people,  not jerks at all.
Not nasty people at all.
Not amart alec elitists at all.

The dipsticks at fashion week should stick to making dresses!

...and leave nasty Indonesia to bambu and his friends who know what they're talking about.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 30, 2007, 03:41:46 PM
The FBI lacked a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time and therefore could not legally hold him.


This IS the clinton approach. You should eliminate mad dogs when they are seen---period. But, since clinton didn't, well, you will seeing the results for some time to come.
Nice to know you favor extra-judicial executions, comrade!  Perhaps we could have staged a show trial.  First seizing control of the means of production, now this.  You are inching closer to Stalin on a daily basis.

Current administration to the contrary, we remain a nation of laws, not men.  We cannot extradite a man for whom there is no legal basis to hold; we cannot detain anyone, not even an alien, without any legal basis to hold him.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 03:52:41 PM
Current administration to the contrary, we remain a nation of laws, not men.

Oh---OK.

The clintons foreign money received from Chung, Trie, Huang, Lum, Lapseng---so much for those laws.

So much for calling for illegal aliens to go through the established procedures for entering this country.

Paula Jones, Elizabeth Gracen Ward, Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey---these names ring any bells for sexual herassment and rape?

Loral & Hughes, low sulphur coal, indian casinos---this list can go on ad nauseum---and no liberal will call for sick willie to face scrutiny.

Hillary making $1K into $100K almost literally overnight---rose law firm records disappearing for two years merits no investigation, huh?

Jim McDougal dying in custody.

You don't have a lotta ground to stand on talking about laws if you don't call for justice to be served to the clintons.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 04:34:05 PM
You repukes spent some 60 million trying to get the Clintons, but you failed, so you need to let it go, fascist.  Your team lost.  Stopping whining.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 05:21:11 PM
Despite all the money wasted by the Repubs on a "special prosecutor", not a thing was finally proven as illegal, other than lying about smoking a well-scented stogies behind his wife's back. If every man who has lied about his sexual activities under oath were put in jail, we wouldn't have enough jails to hold them all, even by letting all the criminals free and doubling the capacity of the existing buildings. Rape? Who are you kidding, NGC. You are just jealous that Bill gets all those Babes!

PS: Hubby watched Leno the other night and saw a clip of Slick Willie on the Rachel Ray show, and, on camera, his eyes slid down to her cleavage. He is, like many men, incorrigible in that regard.







Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:18:12 PM
Well, Rachel Ray is a looker...and so many of those gals are looking to get looked at.  Jennifer Love-Hewett is a good example of that.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:20:27 PM
AlterNet
Former Intelligence Officials Hold Ex-CIA Chief George Tenet's Feet to the Fire
By Former CIA Officers, AlterNet
Posted on April 29, 2007, Printed on April 30, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51229/

To Mr. George Tenet --

Dear Mr. Tenet:

We write to you on the occasion of the release of your book, At the Center of the Storm. You are on the record complaining about the "damage to your reputation." In our view the damage to your reputation is inconsequential compared to the harm your actions have caused for the U.S. soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and the national security of the United States. We believe you have a moral obligation to return the Medal of Freedom you received from President George Bush. We also call for you to dedicate a significant percentage of the royalties from your book to the U.S. soldiers and their families who have been killed and wounded in Iraq.

We agree with you that Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials took the United States to war for flimsy reasons. We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a process you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership. You were not a victim. You were a willing participant in a poorly considered policy to start an unnecessary war and you share culpability with Dick Cheney and George Bush for the debacle in Iraq.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on April 30, 2007, 06:33:22 PM
Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up by 25 per cent between 2005 and last year, killing 40 per cent more people as extremists used increasingly lethal means to carry out high-casualty hits, the US State Department says.

In its annual global survey of terrorism released on Tuesday, the department says about 14,000 attacks took place last year, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming more than 20,000 lives. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths, it says.

In addition, the number of injuries from terrorist attacks rose by 54 per cent between 2005 and 2006 with a doubling in the number wounded in Iraq over the period, according to the department's Country Reports on Terrorism 2006.

Way to go George Bush...you are responsible for much of this increase in terrorism.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on April 30, 2007, 07:38:51 PM
In a previous post, I made mention of the private contractor Blackwater...whose unscreened, unknown and unreported activities in Iraq are enough to make any discussions about this administration's accountability - either with or without the famous "surge" folded in - a total waste of time.  Here's an excerpt from an article in today's CommonDreams.org that we all need to pay heed to. 
=====================

Consider the case of Blackwater USA.

A decade ago, the company barely existed; and yet, its “diplomatic security” contracts since mid-2004, with the State Department alone, total more than $750 million. Today, Blackwater has become nothing short of the Bush administration’s well-paid Praetorian Guard. It protects the U.S. ambassador and other senior officials in Iraq as well as visiting Congressional delegations; it trains Afghan security forces and was deployed in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region, setting up a “command and control” center just miles from the Iranian border. The company was also hired to protect FEMA operations and facilities in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where it raked in $240,000 a day from the American taxpayer, billing $950 a day per Blackwater contractor.

Since September 11, 2001, the company has invested its lucrative government pay-outs in building an impressive private army. At present, it has forces deployed in nine countries and boasts a database of 21,000 additional troops at the ready, a fleet of more than 20 aircraft, including helicopter gun-ships, and the world’s largest private military facility — a 7,000 acre compound near the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. It recently opened a new facility in Illinois (”Blackwater North”) and is fighting local opposition to a third planned domestic facility near San Diego (”Blackwater West”) by the Mexican border. It is also manufacturing an armored vehicle (nicknamed the “Grizzly”) and surveillance blimps.

The man behind this empire is Erik Prince, a secretive, conservative Christian, ex-Navy SEAL multimillionaire who bankrolls the President and his allies with major campaign contributions. Among Blackwater’s senior executives are Cofer Black, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA; Robert Richer, former Deputy Director of Operations at the CIA; Joseph Schmitz, former Pentagon Inspector General; and an impressive array of other retired military and intelligence officials. Company executives recently announced the creation of a new private intelligence company, “Total Intelligence,” to be headed by Black and Richer.

For years, Blackwater’s operations have been shrouded in secrecy. Emboldened by the culture of impunity enjoyed by the private sector in the Bush administration’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Blackwater’s founder has talked of creating a “contractor brigade” to support US military operations and fancies his forces the “FedEx” of the “national security apparatus.”

As the country debates an Iraq withdrawal, Congress owes it to the public to take down the curtain of secrecy surrounding these shadow forces that undergird the U.S. public deployment in Iraq. The President likes to say that defunding the war would undercut the troops. Here’s the truth of the matter: Continued funding of the Iraq war ensures tremendous profits for politically-connected war contractors. If Congress is serious about ending the occupation, it needs to rein in the unaccountable companies that make it possible and only stand to profit from its escalation."
===================================
Everyone comfy?  Not this pilgrim, pilgrim!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on April 30, 2007, 08:32:25 PM
Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up by 25 per cent between 2005 and last year, killing 40 per cent more people as extremists used increasingly lethal means to carry out high-casualty hits, the US State Department says.

In its annual global survey of terrorism released on Tuesday, the department says about 14,000 attacks took place last year, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming more than 20,000 lives. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths, it says.

In addition, the number of injuries from terrorist attacks rose by 54 per cent between 2005 and 2006 with a doubling in the number wounded in Iraq over the period, according to the department's Country Reports on Terrorism 2006.

Way to go George Bush...you are responsible for much of this increase in terrorism.

Bush also responsible for thecollapse of the Yanks and the market.

Oh, wait - that's right....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 08:34:00 PM
Rape? Who are you kidding, NGC. You are just jealous that Bill gets all those Babes!


Are all those women liars? Being female, it would be logical for you to asume that they should be heard in the proper venue, right? Or should sick-willie just be protected and believed out of hand because he IS not a repub? Logic dictates otherwise.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 08:36:19 PM
Bush also responsible for thecollapse of the Yanks and the market.

That IS the prevailing logic of the 'mainstream' media---bush IS responsible for anything---ANYTHING---that happens that IS bad. The smear machine will continue up to the elections, culminating with his impeachment in the house, IMHO, about 8 weeks before the elections.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on April 30, 2007, 09:29:44 PM
comrade ngc -

Just because the right wing media blogs you swallow as a substitute for real news make allegations does not mean they should be taken seriously.  I'm suprised you didn't add the Ron Brown shot before his plane was crashed nonsense.

The Clintons were investigated nine ways to Sunday on every aspect of their personal and private lives and how many times were any charges ever brought, let alone convictions obtained?

Besides, I noticed that as always when cornered on a point, your response is to drag out the Clintons.  I still have no idea what you expected Clinton to do with bin Laden if Sudan handed him over while we had no pending charges against him.  The right answer - nothing - doesn't fit into your everythingis Clinton's fault mantra.

Which is, of course, what makes your whinging about the media claiming everything is Bush's fault so funny; you blame Clinton for everything bad and the man's been out of office six years.  If we get four more Repo administrations in a row, you'll still be forced to blame him for everything that goes wrong in 2023.

Quote
Hubby watched Leno the other night and saw a clip of Slick Willie on the Rachel Ray show, and, on camera, his eyes slid down to her cleavage.
That is the secret of her charms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on April 30, 2007, 09:35:38 PM
Whiskey,

Gee, I thought she was about cooking til I saw her. That's what I get for  not staying in the ET loop! With both cleavage and cooking skills, she should be able to get any man, even an ex-president, right? Oh, the times we live in!




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 10:14:26 PM
The Clintons were investigated nine ways to Sunday on every aspect of their personal and private lives and how many times were any charges ever brought, let alone convictions obtained?


The clintons were protected by janet reno and sick-willie was wrongly saved by the left side of the senate.


Besides, I noticed that as always when cornered on a point, your response is to drag out the Clintons.

Just necessary to show the double standard in action.


you blame Clinton for everything bad and the man's been out of office six years.

Not everything---just the points I listed, and they are quite numerous.


I still have no idea what you expected Clinton to do with bin Laden if Sudan handed him over while we had no pending charges against him.

Of course not---you are like so many that REFUSE to see why this was so necessary. Even clinton himself admits it was a monumental error.


 I'm suprised you didn't add the Ron Brown shot before his plane was crashed nonsense.


This IS unsubstantiated.


Just because the right wing media blogs you swallow as a substitute for real news make allegations does not mean they should be taken seriously.

I patronize no rw blogs---unless you feel that ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are the only viable sources of news, I do watch Fox. But you will just claim that Fox, Newsmax, Drudge, and Worldnetdaily are are unreliable. In case you haven't noticed, they report bad news on non RWers as well!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on April 30, 2007, 10:28:32 PM
"Besides, I noticed that as always when cornered on a point, your response is to drag out the Clintons."


Oh, don't be so hard on old ngc......He's just going with that ever-popular (at least it's popular lately, anyway) defense of:
"Two wrongs make it right"   or
"Two wrongs make it not so bad"
or something along those lines. It's a good defense for people with no real moral values of their own. Makes life a whole lot easier if you don't have to rack your brains over those kinds of dilemmas  the way that Liberals do (according to Mr. Anti-Communist). Yeah, just shoot 'em all. That's the ticket.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on April 30, 2007, 10:35:34 PM
ngc,
* But you will just claim that Fox, Newsmax, Drudge, and Worldnetdaily are are unreliable.

We don't HAVE to say it; you just said it for us!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on April 30, 2007, 10:46:33 PM
We don't HAVE to say it; you just said it for us!

So only that which IS reported by the likes of CNN IS reliable?

OK---This IS from CNN...

Being an Iraqi charged with protecting Iraq is a difficult job. In combat, without U.S. forces present, Iraqi soldiers have no medical evacuation capacity and no air support. They rely on the U.S.-led coalition for equipment, training and supplies. Polls of Iraqis have consistently shown an overwhelming majority want U.S. forces to leave -- but not just yet.

What part of ' not just yet' do you not understand?



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on April 30, 2007, 10:53:45 PM
"What part of ' not just yet' do you not understand?"


By Robert H. Reid / Associated Press

BAGHDAD - A suicide bomber struck a crowd of funeral mourners Monday north of Baghdad, taking more than 30 lives at the end of one of the deadliest months of the war so far for U.S. forces. At least 104 American troops were reported killed in April.

What part of 'not ever' do you not understand?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 12:45:49 AM
Indeed, for those American men and women who NGC wishes to see dead for "not just yet", there will never be a "yet". They are gone forever. I really don't think NGC understand the concept of death to troops. He thinks there is some never-ending supply. Maybe he thinks dead troops are carried off the battlefield and their batteries recharged and sent back into the fray. He does not understand that sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brother and sisters, will NEVER return from Iraq.

NGC, who and how is "yet" determined?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh2 on May 01, 2007, 06:15:46 AM
I also find the Blackwater program troubling, as well as the christianist dominionism stealth program.  America has enemies within.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 08:43:42 AM
China is also offering an advanced version of the C802 anti-ship missile for export. The C802A has an extended range of over 100 miles and a new turbo-jet propulsion system. The C802A can be adapted for air, land, sea, or submarine launch.

China has previously sold copies of the C802 to Iran and the Iranians are expected to arm their aircraft and new Russian submarines with the deadly missile. During the 1990s, Chinese officials assured President Clinton that no more C802 missiles or technology would be sold to Iran. This assurance turned out to be false.

Again and again, the lies of the Chinese leadership and corruption that prevailed during the 1990s has come back to haunt America. Sen. Hillary Clinton has pledged that her election to the White House is a "two-fer" and that husband Bill will have a prominent role to play.

Alas, do not expect a liberal press to cover scandals from the Clinton era.


And I'll bet that our liberals here, will not care to research the names of Charlie Trie, John Huang, Johnnie Chung, Nora Lum, Irene Kanchanalak, Mark Gimenez and Ng Lapseng to see for themselves the just what kind of corruption and treason the clintons are hip-deep in. There IS no telling what sick-willie set up with the power of the presidency to protect himself after he left office from any kind of meaningful accountability. But liberals will not even care if there were multiple smoking guns to show the clintons guilt---liberals will poo-poo or parse anything that makes a liberal look bad regardless of the type of criminality involved. Eternally pathetic liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 10:02:03 AM
Indeed, for those American men and women who NGC wishes to see dead for "not just yet", there will never be a "yet". They are gone forever. I really don't think NGC understand the concept of death to troops. He thinks there is some never-ending supply. Maybe he thinks dead troops are carried off the battlefield and their batteries recharged and sent back into the fray. He does not understand that sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brother and sisters, will NEVER return from Iraq.

NGC, who and how is "yet" determined?

No soldier ever dying is just not realistic.  If you have a middle ground (on war in general), I'd like to hear it.  To state that NGC "wants soldiers dead" is lunacy.  Back off or see a doc.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:13:06 AM
No soldier ever dying is just not realistic.  If you have a middle ground (on war in general), I'd like to hear it.  To state that NGC "wants soldiers dead" is lunacy.  Back off or see a doc.


Thank you, sir. Trying to get liberals to see truth or logic IS like trying to get a bear to use a toilet. All they can do is project what they think is in others minds to satisfy their political necessities. Pitiful, huh?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 10:13:56 AM
China is also offering an advanced version of the C802 anti-ship missile for export. The C802A has an extended range of over 100 miles and a new turbo-jet propulsion system. The C802A can be adapted for air, land, sea, or submarine launch.

China has previously sold copies of the C802 to Iran and the Iranians are expected to arm their aircraft and new Russian submarines with the deadly missile. During the 1990s, Chinese officials assured President Clinton that no more C802 missiles or technology would be sold to Iran. This assurance turned out to be false.

Again and again, the lies of the Chinese leadership and corruption that prevailed during the 1990s has come back to haunt America. Sen. Hillary Clinton has pledged that her election to the White House is a "two-fer" and that husband Bill will have a prominent role to play.

Alas, do not expect a liberal press to cover scandals from the Clinton era.


And I'll bet that our liberals here, will not care to research the names of Charlie Trie, John Huang, Johnnie Chung, Nora Lum, Irene Kanchanalak, Mark Gimenez and Ng Lapseng to see for themselves the just what kind of corruption and treason the clintons are hip-deep in. There IS no telling what sick-willie set up with the power of the presidency to protect himself after he left office from any kind of meaningful accountability. But liberals will not even care if there were multiple smoking guns to show the clintons guilt---liberals will poo-poo or parse anything that makes a liberal look bad regardless of the type of criminality involved. Eternally pathetic liberals.

We are living in the Bush era.  Clinton's time has come and gone.  Live in the present.  Stop trying to blame Clinton for all of Bush's failures. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 10:17:35 AM
Indeed, for those American men and women who NGC wishes to see dead for "not just yet", there will never be a "yet". They are gone forever. I really don't think NGC understand the concept of death to troops. He thinks there is some never-ending supply. Maybe he thinks dead troops are carried off the battlefield and their batteries recharged and sent back into the fray. He does not understand that sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brother and sisters, will NEVER return from Iraq.

NGC, who and how is "yet" determined?

No soldier ever dying is just not realistic.  If you have a middle ground (on war in general), I'd like to hear it.  To state that NGC "wants soldiers dead" is lunacy.  Back off or see a doc.

But it is this very small group of Bush supporters (29%) that keeps it going in Iraq.

The one that needs a "doc" is the loony in the Whitehouse that keeps thinking he can accompolish something by doing the same thing wrong over, and over, and over...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 10:43:19 AM
Well, using approval  rating is a bit silly.  We have elected officials - yep - elected by the 29% AND the other 71 - that govern the nation.

Within this circle of elected men and women, there is a PROCESS whereby things get done.

Simply stating that 71% disapproval means George has to get all our troops out pronto is nonsensical.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:47:45 AM
Simply stating that 71% disapproval means George has to get all our troops out pronto is nonsensical.

Too true.



Hey liberals...

You just cannot remember that congress voted to authorize the war, right?---why doesn't congress vote to de-authorize the war? Could it be that they don't have the votes? Hmmm, liberals? You can cry rivers, but procedure IS what counts, right?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 10:53:52 AM
Re"  doing the same thing wrong over and over"

Changes have been made, haven't they?

Oh, wait - you want YOUR plan in place.  How could George be so bold as to follow his conviction rather than yours?  Tough to figure.

I guess we want our president to always do what the polled (at random) US states - in every situation. 

Yeah, that's the ticket to a strong nation.  Let the uninformed, uneducated, unqualified (that would be most of the nation) decide each step of the way.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:57:54 AM
Yeah, that's the ticket to a strong nation.  Let the uninformed, uneducated, unqualified (that would be most of the nation) decide each step of the way.



Could this be saying,"The liberally naive"? (g)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 01, 2007, 11:15:39 AM
How long must we commit our forces to peace-keeping in Iraq?  10 years?

excerpted from WashPost: 
The most common theory heard on the streets of Baghdad is that the American military is creating a civil war to create an excuse to keep its forces here.

"Do you really think it's possible that America -- the greatest country in the world -- cannot manage a small country like this?" Mohammad Ali, 42, an unemployed construction worker, said as he sat in his friend's electronics shop on a recent afternoon. "No! They have not made any mistakes. They brought people here to destroy Iraq, not to build Iraq."

As he drew on a cigarette and two other men in the store nodded in agreement, Ali said the U.S. government was purposely depriving the Iraqi people of electricity, water, gasoline and security, to name just some of the things that most people in this country often lack.

"They could fix everything in one hour if they wanted!" he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis.

Mohammed Kadhem al-Dulaimi, 54, a Sunni Arab who used to be a professional soccer player, said he thought the United States was creating chaos in the country as a pretext to stay in Iraq as long as it has stayed in Germany.

"All bad things that are happening in Iraq are just because of the Americans," he said, sipping a tiny cup of sweet tea in a cafe. "When should they leave? As soon as possible. Every Iraqi will tell you this."

Many Iraqi political leaders, on the other hand, have been begging the Americans to stay, especially since the February bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, which touched off the current round of sectarian reprisal killings between Sunnis and Shiites.

The most dramatic about-face came from Sunni leaders, initially some of the staunchest opponents to the U.S. occupation, who said coalition forces were the only buffer preventing Shiite militias from slaughtering Sunnis.

Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the outspoken Sunni speaker of parliament who this summer said that "the U.S. occupation is the work of butchers," now supports the U.S. military staying in Iraq for as long as a decade.

"Don't let them go before they have corrected what they have done," he said in an interview this month. "They should stay for four years. This is the minimum. Maybe 10 years."

Particularly in mixed neighborhoods here in the capital, some Sunnis say the departure of U.S. forces could trigger a genocide. Hameed al-Kassi, 24, a recent college graduate who lives in the Yarmouk district of Baghdad, worried that rampages by Shiite militias could cause "maybe 60 to 70 percent of the Sunnis to be killed, even the women, old and the young."

"There will be lakes of blood," Kassi said. "Of course we want the Americans to leave, but if they do, it will be a great disaster for us."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 11:21:23 AM
Today is the anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 11:50:01 AM
What was the context?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 11:56:22 AM
How long must we commit our forces to peace-keeping in Iraq?

I would imagine until the duly elected iraqi govt asks the US to leave. At CNN, there IS an article today that says polls show that iraqis want the US to leave---but not yet. Go to CNN and see for yourself.

I want us out of there, too. Just not cutting and running, as there would really be a mess much worse than there IS now if that happened. but if that IS what the Iraqi govt wants, hey---it should be their choice.

Liberals are always talking about how they want to help people. Do liberals really think that the US leaving Iraq "WHAM", just like that, would help Iraq's population? They need to wake up out of that dream!! But, liberals are ruled by hatred of bush, and no-one, or no country, will stand in their way of that hatred.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:26:50 PM
There is a blood bath going on in Iraq now.  There will continue to be a blood bath as long as they are living under occupation by a foreign government.  There will be a blood bath when the US finally leaves.  So why wait?  Why should more Americans die for a lie?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 12:33:35 PM
How long must we commit our forces to peace-keeping in Iraq?

I would imagine until the duly elected iraqi govt asks the US to leave. At CNN, there IS an article today that says polls show that iraqis want the US to leave---but not yet. Go to CNN and see for yourself.

I want us out of there, too. Just not cutting and running, as there would really be a mess much worse than there IS now if that happened. but if that IS what the Iraqi govt wants, hey---it should be their choice.

Liberals are always talking about how they want to help people. Do liberals really think that the US leaving Iraq "WHAM", just like that, would help Iraq's population? They need to wake up out of that dream!! But, liberals are ruled by hatred of bush, and no-one, or no country, will stand in their way of that hatred.

No, I think you have it wrong.  Many of what you call "liberals" want the US to keep to itself.  To not mess in the affairs of other nations

To change tracks, on Sunday JOE BEIDEN stated that the US cannot do anthing in Darfur - or go back and finish the job in Afganistan because we are using all our manpower in Iraq.

True?

Would we be leading a charge in Darfur if we were today out of Iraq?  Or is this just political speak on Joe B's part?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:37:59 PM
There is no OIL in Darfor.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 12:45:25 PM
Many of what you call "liberals" want the US to keep to itself.  To not mess in the affairs of other nations

To change tracks, on Sunday JOE BEIDEN stated that the US cannot do anthing in Darfur - or go back and finish the job in Afganistan because we are using all our manpower in Iraq.

True?

Would we be leading a charge in Darfur if we were today out of Iraq?  Or is this just political speak on Joe B's part?


Could be Biden just flapping his gums. It IS really hard to tell. Trying to set up in 'black and white' what liberals or leftists, whatever they are, actually mean when they speak or write, IS most difficult to do---as they seem to splatter their opinions and statements all over the political spectrum (Back and forth...as it were) and trying to tailor them to the particular event in question. So it IS hard to accurately answer that. They seem to want respect even though they have done nothing to earn it. They seem to just spout and sqwawk just for a few mere seconds of political expediency. But trying to see what IS the bottom line of what they are about IS like trying to know what IS 1 foot under the dust of the surface of the planet Pluto.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 12:51:05 PM
Communists and neocons have the same goal.  Personal power at the expense of others.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 12:59:49 PM
What was the context?
A vote seeking photo op?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 01:02:15 PM
There is no OIL in Darfor.

That's not true. Darfur has quite a bit of oil and it is being sold to China. Does the US want to be seen putting pressure on China to slow its purchase of oil from Darfur? NO.

That oil is needed to fund the investment of American companies, like Walmart, in the Chinese economy.

As for Biden's comments, I believe he is clearly on record as saying that  the war in Iraq has been mismanaged and that the goals of the Bush Administration are unrealistic. He endorses a political solution of partitioning that country. He is saying that teh military might used to keep the current course in Iraq is being wasted, and could be used elsewhere.

Whether he is right or not is open to interpretation.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 01:42:23 PM
Many of what you call "liberals" want the US to keep to itself.  To not mess in the affairs of other nations...

Then How would you define the UN? The US paying 22-25% of everything the UN decides to do?

Seems to me that a lotta taxpayer dollars are going to 'affairs' of other nations. Why should we not have a say-so of some sort?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 02:28:28 PM
Question still hasnt been answered

Would we be leading any force in Darfur if we were NEVER IN iRAQ?

Would we be in greater force in Afghanistan - and for what cause?

My contention is Beiden is piling on the "look what we could be accomplishing" in addition to the "poor" result thus far in Iraq.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 02:30:15 PM
I understand (no brainer) why a politician would promote aid (manpower) in Darfur, but why Afghanistan?  Why be there if you are against ever going to Iraq?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 02:34:18 PM
Quote
Seems to me that a lotta taxpayer dollars are going to 'affairs' of other nations. Why should we not have a say-so of some sort?

We have Security Council veto power


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 02:36:32 PM
Beyond which, isn't the U.S. in arrears to the tune of over a billion dollars?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 01, 2007, 02:42:27 PM
Quote
why Afghanistan?  Why be there if you are against ever going to Iraq?
What does one have to do with another?  The opposition to Iraq for the vast majority of the people who oppose the war is not that we should NEVER use force but that we shouldn't be using it in that case, or that we shouldn't be continuing to use it.  Everyone I know, including the most dedicated peacenicks you will ever find, supported what we are doing in Afghanistan.  Osama bin Laden used it as a base and the Taliban provided him with security.   


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 01, 2007, 02:51:56 PM
Re"  doing the same thing wrong over and over"

Changes have been made, haven't they?

Oh, wait - you want YOUR plan in place.  How could George be so bold as to follow his conviction rather than yours?  Tough to figure.

I guess we want our president to always do what the polled (at random) US states - in every situation. 

Yeah, that's the ticket to a strong nation.  Let the uninformed, uneducated, unqualified (that would be most of the nation) decide each step of the way.


BOEHNER: I think it will be rather clear in the next 60 to 90 days as to whether this plan is going to work. And, again, that's why we need to have close oversight, so that we just don't look up 60 or 90 days from now and realize that -- that this plan is not working. We need to know, as we -- as we're -- we move through these benchmarks, that the Iraqis are doing what they have to do.

Your side has HAD it's way.

Ignore the people at your peril republicans....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 02:54:31 PM
Didn't Bush have an 87%a pproval rate when he siad "we make no distinction between terrorists and nations who aid them"?

Where was the outcry then - where was the "you can't show force against a country for simply harboring terrorists, contributing to terroristic activity" then?

Is Afghanistan now back to where it was before we went there?  Is the Taliban back in power?

Or have there been a few skirmishes, some unrest that has the left (politicians) stating that we should have never pulled out any troops from that region at all, where it's really overblown political posturing (as in "look what Iraq has wrought!  Now we've lost Afghanistan again!")?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 03:01:13 PM
Why don't you go to Afganisitan and report back how safe it is.  why not take John Bushlapper McCain with you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 03:09:17 PM
The State Department released a report yesterday that Afghanistan saw a 53 percent increase in terror incidents last year.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 03:15:00 PM
The State Department released a report yesterday that Afghanistan saw a 53 percent increase in terror incidents last year.

I suppose that's the "liberal" state department report, righttttttttttt?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 03:26:47 PM
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last privately run oil fields Tuesday, intensifying a struggle with international firms over the development of the world's largest known petroleum deposit.

Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez declared that the Orinoco fields had reverted to state control just after midnight. Television showed oil workers in hard hats raising the flags of Venezuela and the national oil company over a refinery and four drilling fields in the Orinoco River basin.

This is what NGC has been talking about, righttttttttttt?  For America?????????


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 03:37:54 PM
The State Department released a report yesterday that Afghanistan saw a 53 percent increase in terror incidents last year.

Dude - terror is the new crack.  It is increasing everywhere


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 01, 2007, 03:39:59 PM
Quote
Dude - terror is the new crack.  It is increasing everywhere

Why do you think that is?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 01, 2007, 03:55:32 PM
I understand (no brainer) why a politician would promote aid (manpower) in Darfur, but why Afghanistan?  Why be there if you are against ever going to Iraq?

I think the answer to that comes in a few ways: Bin Laden & Taliban and need to keep Pakistan neutralized. You have to look at a map and think geographically as well as politically here.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 04:20:14 PM
We have Security Council veto power...

My statement still stands.

And---as long as a single politician from any party in this country can stand on the stump and say that more money IS needed for this or that in THIS country, we should not be sending 1 dime overseas for ANY reason. Now---having said that, it sounds like I don't care about people overseas---(I can certainly say that about liberals and people in Iraq!!)---yet I do. I just think that we should take care of ourselves first. There are a lot of groups, causes, organizations, entities that either (1) need or (2) deserve some funding. They should do the same thing that Kelloggs, Pillsbury, Panasonic or Chevrolet does---get some TV time, deliver a message, put up a 1-800 number for donations and they'll quickly see how many people are (1) capable of or (2) caring enough to contribute to their cause. The US Govt should NOT be in the business of telling the population that charities 1,2,3, and 4 you WILL be contributing to thru forced taxations, but numbers 5,6,7, and 8, you will NOT have to contribute to thru forced taxation. NO charity should be the concern of the US Govt. Charity comes from the individual.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 01, 2007, 04:23:16 PM
Quote
Dude - terror is the new crack.  It is increasing everywhere

Why do you think that is?

Clearly because of the Republican party

:)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 04:40:44 PM
Well, I understood George Bush did like a hit of coke now and then.  And dear leader's wife looks like she' stoned most of the time, anyway.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 08:02:30 PM
Speaker of Palestinian Authority Legislature: Kill Every Last Jew & American
 
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz


(IsraelNN.com) In a televised address to a packed mosque, the Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Authority's Legislative Council called for the killing of every last Jew and American. His speech and murderous prayer were delivered in an unidentified packed mosque and broadcast on an official PA-controlled television station.

Liberals will poo-poo this, too? Iran, and now the Palestinian Authority saying we're all 'dead to be'. Doesn't faze you liberals at all---does it?



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 01, 2007, 08:05:26 PM
The increased terror is happening more in Iraq than anywhere else, with close seconds in other war-torn areas. It is clearly the means of choice for modern "warfare".

As the Virginia Tech incident the other week showed, we have enough self-armed crazies in this country to arouse terror on our own shores. We need to put our attention to those who are not getting the mental and physical health services they need. We would be more secure if we would tend to the needs of our own people and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 01, 2007, 08:15:12 PM
The increased terror is happening more in Iraq than anywhere else, with close seconds in other war-torn areas. It is clearly the means of choice for modern "warfare".

As the Virginia Tech incident the other week showed, we have enough self-armed crazies in this country to arouse terror on our own shores. We need to put our attention to those who are not getting the mental and physical health services they need. We would be more secure if we would tend to the needs of our own people and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.


Especially when our imperialistic foreign policy leads to those who would cry "death to America".  Now the Bushie want to drill off the coast of VA.  Unbelievable.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 01, 2007, 08:42:26 PM
kidc,
Dude - terror is the new crack.  It is increasing everywhere
Thank you, Chicken Little.
When you say this you admit to the world that THEY have won.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 01, 2007, 08:59:01 PM
Speaker of Palestinian Authority Legislature: Kill Every Last Jew & American
 
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz


(IsraelNN.com) In a televised address to a packed mosque, the Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Authority's Legislative Council called for the killing of every last Jew and American. His speech and murderous prayer were delivered in an unidentified packed mosque and broadcast on an official PA-controlled television station.

Liberals will poo-poo this, too? Iran, and now the Palestinian Authority saying we're all 'dead to be'. Doesn't faze you liberals at all---does it?


Since 1978 the cry from Iran and other corners of the globe has been "Death to America".  No one is fazed anymore. This is just more fuel on a fire the world leaders started after WW2.  When they carved up the globe, set up puppet governments.  Did you know what the US did to Iran in the 1950s?  If you did, then you would not ask these questions.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:10:21 PM
Since 1978 the cry from Iran and other corners of the globe has been "Death to America".  No one is fazed anymore.


Let us just pray that Iran never acquires the means to even attempt this. I wonder what the outcry would be if the leader of the US called for the destruction of another country? Or death to all Iranians? We are living in a different world now with all the hate that IS being expressed, and we better start paying more attention, since liberals have obviously forgotten 911.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:13:13 PM
We would be more secure if we would tend to the needs of our own people and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries.



So what IS your sober assessment of how to deal with 16,000 to 17,000 innocents killed every year by drunk drivers? A monumental number compared to the idiots that strip a gear and start shooting people. But, liberals will parse this. Especially you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 01, 2007, 10:16:19 PM
 Did you know what the US did to Iran in the 1950s?  If you did, then you would not ask these questions.


Well, Iran IS in charge of its own destiny now, wouldn't you say? That means it IS ok to make the kind of statements they are now? They harbor and fund terrorists and terror, and in my book, that IS going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. But liberals will wish to sit back and wait for something nasty to happen before believing this.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 02, 2007, 12:55:18 AM
Did you know what the US did to Iran in the 1950s?  If you did, then you would not ask these questions.


Well, Iran IS in charge of its own destiny now, wouldn't you say? That means it IS ok to make the kind of statements they are now? They harbor and fund terrorists and terror, and in my book, that IS going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. But liberals will wish to sit back and wait for something nasty to happen before believing this.

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents. [12].


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 06:24:10 AM
A really conservative person would oppose the US imperialist behavior of the last 60 years; they would support isolation and fewer international entanglements.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 02, 2007, 10:00:00 AM
Let us just pray that Iran never acquires the means to even attempt this. I wonder what the outcry would be if the leader of the US called for the destruction of another country? Or death to all Iranians? We are living in a different world now with all the hate that IS being expressed, and we better start paying more attention, since liberals have obviously forgotten 911.

You haven't LEARNED from 9/11.

Iraq and Iran had no ties w/ OBL and the attacks on 9/11.

Most Iranians like the US.

Saddam kept the terrorists out of Iraq.

So why would we want to destroy either country?

Wonder what the outcry would be if the Congress had the brass to impeach Bush and Chainy and remove them as the war criminals they are?



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 06:59:37 PM
Iraq and Iran had no ties w/ OBL and the attacks on 9/11.

HOW do you KNOW this?
 

Most Iranians like the US.

That IS debatable. The videos of crowds chanting "Death to America' seem to blow your statement right out of the water.



Saddam kept the terrorists out of Iraq.

This IS just flat out incorrect.



So why would we want to destroy either country?

Where have I said anything about destroying either country?



Wonder what the outcry would be if the Congress had the brass to impeach Bush and Chainy and remove them as the war criminals they are?

They are not war criminals and to suggest they are IS just plain silly. But bush will be impeached just before the elections in 2008---you heard it first right here. Cheney maybe even earlier---tho it will be a futile action by liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 02, 2007, 08:26:31 PM
Iraq and Iran had no ties w/ OBL and the attacks on 9/11.

HOW do you KNOW this?
 

Most Iranians like the US.

That IS debatable. The videos of crowds chanting "Death to America' seem to blow your statement right out of the water.



Saddam kept the terrorists out of Iraq.

This IS just flat out incorrect.



So why would we want to destroy either country?

Where have I said anything about destroying either country?



Wonder what the outcry would be if the Congress had the brass to impeach Bush and Chainy and remove them as the war criminals they are?

They are not war criminals and to suggest they are IS just plain silly. But bush will be impeached just before the elections in 2008---you heard it first right here. Cheney maybe even earlier---tho it will be a futile action by liberals.


Those bastards are indeed guilty of war crimes and should be hanged at the Hague for their crimes.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 09:28:32 PM
But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."


So mush for whoever it was that said here that most Iranians like the US, right?

As I said, they have their own destiny in their hands now---fact---and threatening to destroy the USA and Israel IS a bit antagonistic at the very least, wouldn't you say? I wonder why so few here do not condemn this instead of parsing for the Iranians? Could it be 'liberal'????? Cause it sure ain't logical!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 02, 2007, 10:06:19 PM
This from the reliable CNN...

Iraq exit could spell disaster, experts warn

With the debate heating up over the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq, CNN analysts and other observers warn of the potential consequences of leaving too soon: an international terror hub for al Qaeda, extreme sectarian violence and the potential for a larger regional conflict that draws in Saudi Arabia, Iran and others.

Well, if CNN IS now saying this, it must be true, right, liberals? This ISn't Fox or Drudge or Newsmax or Worldnetdaily---but liberals will now have to trash one of their own because it doen't 'toe-the-liberal-line'---right, liberals?

Great big belly laff!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 02, 2007, 10:13:49 PM
Out of curiosity, why should Americans condemn Iran without comdemning ourselves for causing the problems?

Why should Americans condemn Iran or Iranians? Have Iranians made an overt move against America? Or are they just blowing smoke? If they have committed some overt act, who did it? When? Was the act committed by all Iranians? Should we condemn all Iranians for the expressed opinions of some? Do we not extend to Iranians the right to express themselves? Are we hypocrites? Where is the logic in your approach? Where is the justice?

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 02, 2007, 10:57:04 PM
"Saddam kept the terrorists out of Iraq.

This IS just flat out incorrect"


No, 321, it is flat out CORRECT. Try to be logical. What was Al Queda trying to promote? Islamic fundamentalism. What motivated Saddam? The dictatorship of Saddam. The absolute power of that dictatorship and the continuation of that dictatorship to the benefit of his family and his tribe. Why in the world would he want a bunch of crazy fundamentalists to come into his country? How could they be any help to the Dictatorship of Saddam? On the contrary, they could only be a pain in his behind with their wild ideas of living by the absolute laws of the Koran. They could only be anathema to a gangster like Saddam and his sons.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 06:02:54 AM
"Saddam kept the terrorists out of Iraq.

This IS just flat out incorrect"


No, 321, it is flat out CORRECT. Try to be logical. What was Al Queda trying to promote? Islamic fundamentalism. What motivated Saddam? The dictatorship of Saddam. The absolute power of that dictatorship and the continuation of that dictatorship to the benefit of his family and his tribe. Why in the world would he want a bunch of crazy fundamentalists to come into his country? How could they be any help to the Dictatorship of Saddam? On the contrary, they could only be a pain in his behind with their wild ideas of living by the absolute laws of the Koran. They could only be anathema to a gangster like Saddam and his sons.

You are absolutely right on.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 09:08:24 AM
Have Iranians made an overt move against America?

Depends on your definition of overt. IS publicly stating they will destroy the US and Israel overt? IS Harboring and funding terrorism and terrorists something that we should just passively dismiss? IS the sending of their own insurgents over the border into Iraq acceptable? BUT---Here we are back to the ol' 'sit back and wait for something nasty to happen' game. It ISn't a question of IF, but WHEN. The harboring and funding IS now---the declaration of death to America IS now--the sending of troops over their border IS now.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 10:14:54 AM
I see Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be forced to resign because he is being held accountable for the grotesque mismanagement of last year's battle with Hezbollah.  Wow - holding the head of state accountable for screwing up a war.  What a farking novel concept.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 10:17:45 AM
Have Iranians made an overt move against America?

Depends on your definition of overt. IS publicly stating they will destroy the US and Israel overt? IS Harboring and funding terrorism and terrorists something that we should just passively dismiss? IS the sending of their own insurgents over the border into Iraq acceptable? BUT---Here we are back to the ol' 'sit back and wait for something nasty to happen' game. It ISn't a question of IF, but WHEN. The harboring and funding IS now---the declaration of death to America IS now--the sending of troops over their border IS now.



So your answer would be to nuke Tehran, I suppose.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 10:18:50 AM
I see Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be forced to resign because he is being held accountable for the grotesque mismanagement of last year's battle with Hezbollah.  Wow - holding the head of state accountable for screwing up a war.  What a farking novel concept.

REALLY!  When are we going to do that with our selected officials?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 10:32:12 AM
I see Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be forced to resign because he is being held accountable for the grotesque mismanagement of last year's battle with Hezbollah.  Wow - holding the head of state accountable for screwing up a war.  What a farking novel concept.

REALLY!  When are we going to do that with our selected officials?
Oh, ngc does that now, as do all the conservative commentators.  Except the elected official they hold accountable for everything that goes wrong, anywhere and at any time, is Bill Clinton.  I look forward to two years from now, when they will start holding Hilary Clinton responsible for George Bush's zark ups.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 10:32:44 AM
IS publicly stating they will destroy the US and Israel overt [action against america]?

No. Not really.  Rhetoric.  Just like Axis of Evil.  Hey Bush started the flame-war up when it had died down.

IS Harboring and funding terrorism and terrorists something that we should just passively dismiss?

No. Not at all.  But isn't diplomacy better than not talking at all and resorting to threats that just escalate the situation?

IS the sending of their own insurgents over the border into Iraq acceptable?

Yes!  If this were the 70s and Russia suddenly occupied Canada do you think its acceptable that the US govt sit there and watch?  Iran has much more right to be in Iraq than we do.  No?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 03, 2007, 10:46:24 AM
Iraq and Iran had no ties w/ OBL and the attacks on 9/11.

HOW do you KNOW this?
 

Most Iranians like the US.

That IS debatable. The videos of crowds chanting "Death to America' seem to blow your statement right out of the water.



Saddam kept the terrorists out of Iraq.

This IS just flat out incorrect.



So why would we want to destroy either country?

Where have I said anything about destroying either country?



Wonder what the outcry would be if the Congress had the brass to impeach Bush and Chainy and remove them as the war criminals they are?

They are not war criminals and to suggest they are IS just plain silly. But bush will be impeached just before the elections in 2008---you heard it first right here. Cheney maybe even earlier---tho it will be a futile action by liberals.


Those bastards are indeed guilty of war crimes and should be hanged at the Hague for their crimes.

NCG - why do you bother with this 80 IQ mamaluke?  Just click him off.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 10:48:13 AM
 But isn't diplomacy better than not talking at all and resorting to threats that just escalate the situation?

You seem to pass off as NOTHING what they are doing RIGHT NOW!! And rationalizing the MURDER that IS directly on their hands.


We have been talking about those that harbor and fund for YEARS!! Yet they are still harboring, funding, and people in a lotta places continue to die. Talk IS cheap to the iranians. We should have taken meaningful action against the bloodthirsty islamic fanatics in Iran long ago.



Iran has much more right to be in Iraq than we do.  No?

Who are you trying to kid here? You sound like you are really making an effort to defend the abominations the iranians commit to!! You seem to close your eyes to the iranian insurgency in Iraq. WHY??? Things over there would be A LOT less deadly were they not sending in fanatics and equipment. You seem to close your eyes to the mounting numbers of MURDERS that iran IS behind---WHY???

You want to hate bush, fine. Have at it---but to defend iran? That IS just plain illogical.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 10:50:36 AM
kidcarter... if you have nothing nice to say, STFU.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 10:51:25 AM
"You seem to close your eyes to the mounting numbers of MURDERS that iran IS behind---WHY??? "

And your eyes are closed to the # of Murders America is behind.

The difference is America started this.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 10:52:58 AM
NCG - why do you bother with this 80 IQ mamaluke?  Just click him off.

You are probably correct here. The hatred of bush by liberals IS so all consuming that truth, logic, and meaningful debate just goes out the window.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 10:53:12 AM
If America would formally negotiate with Iran, the Middle-East would instantly change.

Failure to recognize this willlead to more death on either side.  I care no more for American lives than i do Iraqi or Iranian life.  Murder is Murder.  There is no distinction to make.  Unless you think we're in a jihad against the middle-east.  Which is how the US comes across to many.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 10:58:18 AM
"You seem to close your eyes to the mounting numbers of MURDERS that iran IS behind---WHY??? "

And your eyes are closed to the # of Murders America is behind.

The difference is America started this. (I guess the 444 days the people from the American Embassy in Iran spent in captivity means nothing to you, and was OK for the iranians to have done?)


What murders IS America behind? America made Iran harbor and fund? America makes Iran send insurgents over the border into Iraq to force women and children to strap explosives on themselves? If you are defending this, you are sick indeed!

You are really in left field with this kind of thought.----But more and more you appear to be so consumed, like liberals, with some sort of hatred of bush, AND---AND---support for Iran, which puts you into some "very nasty" company.

Tell me I am wrong? Tell me you are NOT, so to say, rationalizing murder? Rationalizing terrorism?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:04:38 AM
NCG - why do you bother with this 80 IQ mamaluke?  Just click him off.

You are probably correct here. The hatred of bush by liberals IS so all consuming that truth, logic, and meaningful debate just goes out the window.


" (I guess the 444 days the people from the American Embassy in Iran spent in captivity means nothing to you, and was OK for the iranians to have done?)"

The sad thing is yesterday i did your homework for you.  I told you about Mossdegh, the CIA in the 1950s and the US involvement with the British to get them (British Petroleum) control over Iranian Oil interests.  This was devastating to Iran!  Ask yourself why the iranians took American hostages no more.  I've answered that.


Are you familiar with what a crutch is? People who have difficulty walking on their own use them.  Why do you use the word Liberal so much?  Do you have difficulty articulating responses to posts without resorting to the words Liberal and Bush-Hating?  

I ask sincerely because the conversation is no longer enjoyable here when folks get into name-calling rather than true discussion.  Name-calling can go on forever... like the fact that conservatives are all hypocritical pieces of doo-doo.  See... now how would it be if this whole forum turned into a cafeteria food fight?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:04:57 AM
If America would formally negotiate with Iran, the Middle-East would instantly change.


Oh, really? Iran IS going to stop harboring and funding? Iran will stop sending people over the border into Iraq? Iran IS going to reject its' calls for the destruction of the USA "AND" Israel? Iran IS going to permit nuclear inspectors all the access they want?

rrriiiggghhhttt....If you cannot SEE that with Ahmedinejad in charge, one of the goons that was in on the embassy trick back in 79 and 80, IS not going to change his bloody thoughts, I cannot imagine what will convince you!

Hatred of bush appears to rule liberals minds to the exclusion of everything. Including any and all logic.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:05:36 AM
Terrorism is not just arabs with turbans. American soldiers raping and torturning and occupying is also terror.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 11:13:33 AM
Terrorism is an American value.  We've participated in terrorism for generations.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 11:13:48 AM
Quote
The hatred of bush by liberals IS so all consuming that truth, logic, and meaningful debate just goes out the window.
Heh.  Disagreement on policy becomes hatred.  In fact, The hatred of liberals by you IS so all consuming that truth, logic, and meaningful debate on this board just goes out the window.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:14:15 AM
The sad thing is yesterday i did your homework for you.  I told you about Mossdegh, the CIA in the 1950s and the US involvement with the British to get them (British Petroleum) control over Iranian Oil interests.

Well, that was THEN---this IS now. That IS a pitiful arguement for something that happened over 1/2 a century ago!! Are the Iranians literally that child-minded like? It appears so from your explanation. And their continued bloody hands has ZERO defense!!


Why do you use the word Liberal so much?  Do you have difficulty articulating responses to posts without resorting to the words Liberal and Bush-Hating?

Calling liberals what they are, liberals, IS not name calling---it IS acknowledging their political side of the fence---in other words, that which IS illogical and hateful. Notice the LIBERAL harry reid saying that the war IS lost...absolutely unpatriotic as you can get...absolutely LIBERAL!! And gets defended by all the liberals at this site. Liberals defend liberals. And the bush hating IS so very obvious by liberals, notice the continuous fishing expeditions to try to get revenge for sick-willie's impeachment in washington----being performed by LIBERALS, and defended by liberals at this site.

Liberals just cannot stand being called what they are. Liberals.


like the fact that conservatives are all hypocritical pieces of doo-doo.

This just ISn't so. The REPUBLICANS in DC are no more conservative than you are. The republiocans deserve whatever doo-doo that gets heaped on them--bush included....but that doesn't mean that the bush hating, doo-doo throwing that IS going on IS good for this country--- that which IS going on IS NOT doing the population of this country any good.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:16:14 AM
In fact, The hatred of liberals by you IS so all consuming that truth, logic, and meaningful debate on this board just goes out the window.

I WILL cease the day that liberals embrace truth and logic---AND throw the double standard out the window.

They could START, by coming to grips with just exactly what kinds of ANIMALS the clintons are.

I will not hold my breath!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:21:00 AM
American soldiers raping and torturning and occupying is also terror.


American troops are NOT occupying Iraq against the wishes of the duly elected Iraqi govt---period. You wear blinders to NOT see this.

There are, unfortunately cases of troops that get carried away in interrogations and they are punished when caught. There are cases where soldiers have raped women. And they also are punished when caught.

But to throw a blanket on all American troops with this thought, IS just palin old ridiculous, and the words from someone with an extremely WEAK arguement. War and combat IS hell, and some people snap. Agreed. But what the iranians are doing IS just plain bloodthirsty, has no defense, IS not jsut a series of random actions, and those that defend their actions AT ALL, in any way attempting to rationalize their abominations, have some serious reconsidering to do that IS very necessary.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:25:55 AM
"You seem to close your eyes to the mounting numbers of MURDERS that iran IS behind---WHY??? "

And your eyes are closed to the # of Murders America is behind.

The difference is America started this. (I guess the 444 days the people from the American Embassy in Iran spent in captivity means nothing to you, and was OK for the iranians to have done?)




NGC,
Well who was it, i think YOU who said: That was then,this is now.

We can't ignore the reason why there is hatred of the US and pretend that we're righteous.  Nobody in Iran forgets 50 years ago.  Childlike is something we all are.  Should the US shutup about the hostages... that was 30 years ago after all.  NO.... nothing is forgotten.  Thats why they made us take American History in college.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:30:40 AM
We can't ignore the reason why there is hatred of the US and pretend that we're righteous.



And that IS supposed to rationalize strapping explosives onto women and children?

Rationalizing hatred through indiscriminate MURDER? AND WANT TO TALK TO ANIMALS LIKE THIS?

Illogical. Totally. Very, VERY, liberal.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:31:21 AM
Ahha...
then admit there are, unfortunately cases of iranians crossing the border to **** with americans.  this is the state of things. natural chaos.  nothing will ever stop the fighting and revenge-seeking until the condiotions that caused them in the first place are removed.  you can't stop fighting with more fighting.  it doesn't work that way anymore.  

"And that IS supposed to rationalize strapping explosives onto women and children? "

There is nothing new about this. Where was your outrage when Iran and Iraq has a bloody -US backed war for 8 years where mines exploded young children daily?

The US govt is raising a generation of so-called "terrorists" inthe middle east.  The sons and daughters of otherwise moderate working class families are being radicalized and we, the US are fueling this movement with our insensitivity to things like Mossadegh, Israel, etc.

We have to come to the table and talk.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:32:37 AM
We can't ignore the reason why there is hatred of the US and pretend that we're righteous.



And that IS supposed to rationalize strapping explosives onto women and children?

Rationalizing hatred through indiscriminate MURDER? AND WANT TO TALK TO ANIMALS LIKE THIS?

Illogical. Totally. Very, VERY, liberal.



Remember, you can't use the word "Liberal" today.  Do you want everyone to stare at the man with the crutch? Have some pride in your debating skills to NOT go there.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:35:31 AM
That kind of language here IS inexcusable.

Barring apologies, you just lost me as a posting partner. Only liberals resort to filth. You certainly have not seen it from ME!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:36:46 AM
Do you want everyone to stare at the man with the crutch? Have some pride in your debating skills to NOT go there.


YOU SEEM TO HAVE A VERY LARGE CRUTCH, MR. HYPOCRITE!!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 11:38:40 AM
That kind of language here IS inexcusable.

Barring apologies, you just lost me as a posting partner. Only liberals resort to filth. You certainly have not seen it from ME!!!

To whom was this addressed?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:40:59 AM
That kind of language here IS inexcusable. Post #286 from KAM.

Barring apologies, you just lost me as a posting partner. Only liberals resort to filth. You certainly have not seen it from ME!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:46:23 AM
Quote
Barring apologies, you just lost me as a posting partner. Only liberals resort to filth. You certainly have not seen it from ME!!!

Didn't Cheney tell Senator Patrick Leahy to "fuck himself"?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:49:55 AM
That kind of language here IS inexcusable.

Barring apologies, you just lost me as a posting partner. Only liberals resort to filth. You certainly have not seen it from ME!!!

I'm sorry i didn't know that would go though.  Obviously this place doesn't have an auto-language filter like some other places. 

I am not a liberal but I dislike being lumped into a label and hearing it everyday.  I dislike reading "childish" posts where words and names are thrown about.  It has to stop or else i'm done as a posting partner.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:51:28 AM
That kind of language here IS inexcusable. Post #286 from KAM.

Barring apologies, you just lost me as a posting partner. Only liberals resort to filth. You certainly have not seen it from ME!!!

Use the Report to Moderator link next time.  No one likes a tattle-tale.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:51:37 AM
Heck, Bush was caught calling  a New York Times reporter a "major-league asshole" to Cheney


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:53:12 AM
I make no excuses for anyone else's language. Profanity IS the sign of a weak mind, and there are at least two liberals here exposing their weakmindedness---REGARDLESS of the defense you set up for yourself.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:55:26 AM
I make no excuses for anyone else's language. Profanity IS the sign of a weak mind, and there are at least two liberals here exposing their weakmindedness---REGARDLESS of the defense you set up for yourself.

You're failing.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:56:10 AM
You just stated that "Only liberals resort to filth."

Clearly that is not the case.  I just cited two examples.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:56:55 AM
Making excuses for vulgarity, huh? From cheney or bush?

You really want to LOWER yourself to their level? Pitiful. I will not go that route. If you want to refer to something vulgar someone else said, you can always show it as ----"Bush called the guy a major league a**hole". Right? Or will you just continue to be weak minded like they are? It IS your choice.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:58:03 AM
See - we were having a discussion til you resorted to name-calling, and mock indignation.  This is a classic diversion from the issues.  Don't debate something if you can't do it calmly.  

Iran has more right to be in Iraq than we do. Discuss that point.  No more "liberal" stuff.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 11:58:23 AM
You just stated that "Only liberals resort to filth."

Clearly that is not the case.  I just cited two examples.


You got me---I should have clarified.

Only liberals at this site are resorting to filth. I am not weakminded like liberals at this site.

Clarification admitted to.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 11:59:07 AM
Why? We all know what a**hole stands for so what does substituting the * really accomplish?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 11:59:46 AM
"I am not weakminded like liberals at this site."

Mock indignation and name calling are signs of having a weak point or no point to make.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 12:02:20 PM
I am not a liberal but I dislike being lumped into a label and hearing it everyday.


It IS not a label but a political position. It IS not name-calling---if you dislike being called a liberal, then cease being one. You may call me conservative (The opposite of liberal) all day and I promise to be just as properly annoyed as you seem to be.

Only a liberal, by the way, can possibly rationalize iran going into iraq and strapping expolsives onto women and children.

Save the apology, this IS the last post to you. Believe it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 12:03:59 PM
Why? We all know what a**hole stands for so what does substituting the * really accomplish?

Civility, decency---do they work for starters? Or are you now going to rationalize profanity and vulgarity?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 03, 2007, 12:05:48 PM
comrade ngc -

I think you should report liq to the administrator.

It is rather funny that you make a plea for civility and decency when you make no argument but insult.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 12:06:00 PM
I merely quoted the profanity and vulgarity that our public servants uttered.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 12:13:09 PM
I merely quoted the profanity and vulgarity that our public servants uttered.

If you use it, you are just as profane as the one that first stated it. News broadcasters frequently cite profanities and vulgarities by people WITHOUT actually saying it. Have you not heard yourself the bleeps placed over them?

As for me insulting with the word liberal, it ISn't an insult to call someone what he or she IS--- a liberal. Your poor little minds are touchy to hearing 'liberal', but have no qualms to using f*** or a**hole, huh?

Like I keep on saying---you just define yourselves as LIBERALS with this kind of debate!!

You may call me conservative all day and I'll PROMISE to be properly annoyed!!

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liberals objecting to being called what they are---BIG BELLY LAFF!!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 12:14:37 PM
I never claimed to be a news broadcaster


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:21:52 PM
Sounds like it's time for NGC to take his medication again.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 12:22:41 PM
Back in the day, when the US government was out of control and fighting illegal wars, while ignoring the Constitution--not that that would happen now...

Who gave the orders to murder the students at Kent State?

Kent State Coverup???



http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5212/1/32/


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 12:44:13 PM
Back in the day, when the US government was out of control and fighting illegal wars, while ignoring the Constitution--not that that would happen now...

Who gave the orders to murder the students at Kent State?

Kent State Coverup???



http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5212/1/32/


That was an American nightmare.  Talk about terrorism.  Home grown, that is.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 01:41:20 PM
"Liberals objecting to being called what they are---BIG BELLY LAFF!!!!!"

You mis-understand.  I object to saying any word repeatedly as an alternative to discource. It could be any word. Bababooey Bababooey Bababooey is just as childing and annoying.

And you are much less civil than you claim to be.  Nobody types BIG BELLY LAFF!!!! if they're concerned with civility.  Tone yourself down bababooey. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 01:45:48 PM
Kam---I enjoy posting to you. Just have to run right now. Back, hopefully, tomorrow around noon. Gone fishin'!!

What happened to this?  Because one disagrees with you should not cause you to react as a sullen child.  Respect is a two way street and to get it you've got to give it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 01:46:50 PM
Reviving a custom of old, I will be taking tom'w off, spending some of the time talking about the events with my kid.

That sounds like a very nice custom.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 02:01:31 PM
It is a day certainly that remains fresh in my mind, for many reasons.

The Guardsman were in gas masks and may have misheard a command to fire, according to some excuse makers

Bottom line, they knew what they were doing when the shot live ammo into an unarmed group of fellow Americans.

To say otherwise is to parrot the famous defense of
"I was only following orders".

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 02:12:43 PM
Those that can in any way defend strapping explosives onto women and children have serious problems that need attention. I don't care what happened in 1950s---different govts, different people, different time---period. There IS no rationale for indiscriminate murder. And those that defend this are jsut as much an animal as those that would perpetrate it. The sooner the end of the miserable existences of animals like these the better.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 02:25:08 PM
Those that can in any way defend strapping explosives onto women and children have serious problems that need attention. I don't care what happened in 1950s---different govts, different people, different time---period. There IS no rationale for indiscriminate murder. And those that defend this are jsut as much an animal as those that would perpetrate it. The sooner the end of the miserable existences of animals like these the better.

These "animals" are human too so that makes them our brothers.  If our brothers are upset, is the goal slaughter or peace?  Its easier to just say "Kill them all" but how sir does that make you any different than the animals you despise.  I say show these "animals" another set of choices.  Do you not agree that these miserable "animals" are acting like animals because they are backed into a corner?  So lets offer them an alternative to the panic response - fight/flight. choosing neither to flee nor fight them on their terms.  So we must as a leader among nations be better.  Ghandi was flat out a better man than his oppressors. The trouble is, our leaders have not been good men.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 02:34:02 PM
Our conservative poster doesn't seem to understand that there are reasons people behave this way, reasons that are basically the fault to the United States and it's failure in foreign affairs over the last 60 years.  Failures that have led to support of failed governments and failed leaders.  Hyprocrisy, corruption, greed...all part of a miserable foreign policy since the end of WWII.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 02:56:28 PM
Back in the day, when the US government was out of control and fighting illegal wars, while ignoring the Constitution--not that that would happen now...

Who gave the orders to murder the students at Kent State?

Kent State Coverup???



http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5212/1/32/


Thank you for that link. It has personal importance.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 02:59:56 PM
Quote
Hyprocrisy, corruption, greed...all part of a miserable foreign policy since the end of WWII.

I think our poor foriegn policy issues stem at least as far back as the Monroe Doctrine


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 03:09:59 PM
These "animals" are human too so that makes them our brothers.  If our brothers are upset, is the goal slaughter or peace?  Its easier to just say "Kill them all" but how sir does that make you any different than the animals you despise.  I say show these "animals" another set of choices.  Do you not agree that these miserable "animals" are acting like animals because they are backed into a corner?


Your defense of animals that use women and children as bombs IS beyond reprehensible. I am through with you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 03:10:55 PM
Quote
Hyprocrisy, corruption, greed...all part of a miserable foreign policy since the end of WWII.

I think our poor foriegn policy issues stem at least as far back as the Monroe Doctrine

OT.  I wonder why I'm a Senior Member and you are a Full Member????


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 03:15:11 PM
It goes by number of posts. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:30:01 PM

Your defense of animals that use women and children as bombs IS beyond reprehensible. I am through with you.

Oh the simple answers of simple minds...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:31:31 PM
BTW, ngc, what should we do with someone that would blow up an abortion clinic in Austin, TX?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:32:05 PM
What the heck...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 03:35:41 PM
Our conservative poster doesn't seem to understand that there are reasons people behave this way, reasons that are basically the fault to the United States and it's failure in foreign affairs over the last 60 years.  Failures that have led to support of failed governments and failed leaders.  Hyprocrisy, corruption, greed...all part of a miserable foreign policy since the end of WWII.

Well, I think you are making some assumptions that the people who hate America and Israel and other democracies and are willing to blow themselves up to express their dissatisfaction are making informed choices.

I don't think you can say that. And I think you are being overly simplistic in your analysis, if you want to just pin it all on the USA and its foreign policies through the years. Plenty of other countries' foreign policies have contributed to the current situations around the world.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 03:37:57 PM
Thank you for that link. It has personal importance.

You're welcome.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 03, 2007, 03:44:03 PM
I don't think you can say that. And I think you are being overly simplistic in your analysis, if you want to just pin it all on the USA and its foreign policies through the years. Plenty of other countries' foreign policies have contributed to the current situations around the world.

Yes, let us not blame everything on the US.

We had a lot of help.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 04:04:44 PM
Our conservative poster doesn't seem to understand that there are reasons people behave this way, reasons that are basically the fault to the United States and it's failure in foreign affairs over the last 60 years.  Failures that have led to support of failed governments and failed leaders.  Hyprocrisy, corruption, greed...all part of a miserable foreign policy since the end of WWII.

Well, I think you are making some assumptions that the people who hate America and Israel and other democracies and are willing to blow themselves up to express their dissatisfaction are making informed choices.

I don't think you can say that. And I think you are being overly simplistic in your analysis, if you want to just pin it all on the USA and its foreign policies through the years. Plenty of other countries' foreign policies have contributed to the current situations around the world.

I guess I would accept that critisism.  The colonial powers of the 19th and early 20th century certainly didn't help stablize much of the world, going all the way back to the Jamestown Settlement, and their seach for gold. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 04:09:27 PM
"Help", in terms of shaping a people's opinion towards or away from another country comes in many forms. The media, culture, amount of free speech, tradition, religion, all play a part in that circumstance.

As an example, you cannot calculate the degree of influence of the widely distributed anti-Semitic literature and anti-Semitic media that is made available  primarily by the country of Egypt--an alledgedly moderate Arab nation.

You cannot calculate the natural disposition of human beings to seek to blame someone for their own failures and limitations.

You cannot quantify the limits of a society that does not afford its women a role in its own government, let alone a level of equality within the family unit.


The best foreign policy should be pragmatic in its nature, and it is not necessarily one in which we only act when it makes us look good to others around the world, or one in which we only consider actions that always reflect our best values.

The Bush Administration took a risk in thinking that Iraq was going to embrace democracy and welcome the USA with open arms, and closed weapons. It also made several tactical errors in terms of securing the borders, and a whole lot of other mistakes that we can examine with our perfect 20-20 hindsight.

To keep harping on that is counter-productive, and not forward thinking.

What should be the course of action now? What should the USA do to restore it's good faith around the globe in order to benefit the USA---not to make up for past sins---but for the purpose of charting a course of action that leaves us in a far better place than we currently find ourselves.

That's what I want to hear from the left. And that's what I want to hear from the right.

When the beehive has been knocked down, it's silly & immature to argue who knocked it down, who agreed and who disagreed with knocking it down in the first place, who would have knocked it down more effectively, or who would have let it continue to grow so that more beehives could proliferate. the question becomes--"Well, if we're ALL getting stung, what should we do, now and in the future when we encounter similar hives?"


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 03, 2007, 04:09:34 PM
Quote
The colonial powers of the 19th and early 20th century certainly didn't help stablize much of the world, going all the way back to the Jamestown Settlement, and their seach for gold.

European colonialization goes back to the 15th century.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 04:20:11 PM
Quote
The colonial powers of the 19th and early 20th century certainly didn't help stablize much of the world, going all the way back to the Jamestown Settlement, and their seach for gold.

European colonialization goes back to the 15th century.

True.  I was thinking more about Great Britian following WWI and the break up of the Ottoman Empire.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 04:45:11 PM
BTW, ngc, what should we do with someone that would blow up an abortion clinic in Austin, TX?


If he kills someone, well, do you believe in the death penalty? I do. Anyone that indiscriminatly murders IS an animal. If he IS just blowing up a building, what IS the penalty for that? Whatever the max IS, suits me.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 04:48:32 PM
Oh the simple answers of simple minds...


Well, do you condone strapping explosives on women and children? It actually IS simple---people that would do this, or condone this, are animals. And if you condone it, I am through with you, too. There IS no debate with animals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 04:49:55 PM
IS there anyone else here that condones strapping explosives onto women and children?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 03, 2007, 04:54:19 PM
Our conservative poster doesn't seem to understand that there are reasons people behave this way, reasons that are basically the fault to the United States and it's failure in foreign affairs over the last 60 years.  Failures that have led to support of failed governments and failed leaders.  Hyprocrisy, corruption, greed...all part of a miserable foreign policy since the end of WWII.

Well, I think you are making some assumptions that the people who hate America and Israel and other democracies and are willing to blow themselves up to express their dissatisfaction are making informed choices.

I don't think you can say that. And I think you are being overly simplistic in your analysis, if you want to just pin it all on the USA and its foreign policies through the years. Plenty of other countries' foreign policies have contributed to the current situations around the world.

We can't assume they are not informed either.  Some are maybe some aren't.  A lot at this point just don't care when they see death all around them and american bombs or israeli bombs that are us made etc....  You don't need much provocation if your little sister has just been blown to bits and the bomb fragment remains strewn about read "Made in the USA"


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 05:10:47 PM
PARIS (Reuters) - French conservative Nicolas Sarkozy extended his lead after a television debate with Socialist rival Segolene Royal and stayed on course for victory in Sunday's election, opinion polls showed on Thursday.

A poll for the Opinionway institute showed 53 percent of viewers found Sarkozy more convincing during the sometimes fiery debate, against 31 percent who judged Royal better.


This IS great news. I wonder how liberals will savage sarkozy?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 03, 2007, 05:29:04 PM
"This IS great news. I wonder how liberals will savage sarkozy?"

He reminds people of Peter Sellers in the Pink Panther?

Savage enough?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 03, 2007, 06:28:04 PM
PARIS (Reuters) - French conservative Nicolas Sarkozy extended his lead after a television debate with Socialist rival Segolene Royal and stayed on course for victory in Sunday's election, opinion polls showed on Thursday.

A poll for the Opinionway institute showed 53 percent of viewers found Sarkozy more convincing during the sometimes fiery debate, against 31 percent who judged Royal better.


This IS great news. I wonder how liberals will savage sarkozy?

Would he have supported Bush's illegal, immoral war of aggression in Iraq?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 03, 2007, 09:14:54 PM
ngc,

IS there anyone else here that condones strapping explosives onto women and children?

Nope.

Now, do you condone the terroristic crime of Eric Rudolph and his fellow traveler who had the wherewithall to blow up the abortion clinic in Texas?



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 03, 2007, 09:43:14 PM
Now, do you condone the terroristic crime of Eric Rudolph and his fellow traveler who had the wherewithall to blow up the abortion clinic in Texas?


Of course not. Where the heck did this come from?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 03, 2007, 10:10:12 PM
i We can't assume they are not informed either.  Some are maybe some aren't.  A lot at this point just don't care when they see death all around them and american bombs or israeli bombs that are us made etc....  You don't need much provocation if your little sister has just been blown to bits and the bomb fragment remains strewn about read "Made in the USA"

I disagree. We know that many are misinformed, and disinformed. Beyond that...You are missing the point. If the Bush-Cheney crew could successfully make a case for war in a free, open democractic republic such as ours, then how hard is to persuade people to see Americans and Israel as the "enemy" in a closed, severely limiting theocracy?

 Certainly the foreign policy of the USA reaps its own ill rewards, but the actions of suicide bombers, and other "terrorists","insurgents", etc..should first be examined within the context of  their society and culture--not ours.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 03, 2007, 10:20:48 PM
Bush may think that some parts of our country are as "violent" as he wants Iraq to be, but our ally, the Queen of England, apparently does not view even a city with an excessive murder rate as too dangerous for her to visit.

Elizabeth II was in Richmond today, mingled with the crowd, accepted bouquets from school children, spoke to the legislators about how wonderful the three main cultures of America have found ways to live together, received "tribute" from the Native Americans, listened to a display of talent by all races in the city, and then headed to the 400th anniversary of Jamestown tomorrow. She even found time to talk with some of the survivers of the Va Tech slaughter!





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 04, 2007, 02:32:16 AM
Certainly the foreign policy of the USA reaps its own ill rewards, but the actions of suicide bombers, and other "terrorists","insurgents", etc..should first be examined within the context of  their society and culture--not ours.

We're both outsiders conjecturing so no use really debating much more on this point.  Til we've walked a mile in their shoes etc.

I see your point. Certain ruling authorities and governments there certainly condone America-Hate.  And many many in the muslim world just ignore it and go about their lives as decent god-fearing people.  But like any society, the poorer, mal-educated will be pressed into the "movement".  Not unlike how our Army is mostly made up of Blacks and Latino short on money for college.  Both ours and their governments prey on this fresh meat.  Now one tactic of warfare seems civil, our American one albeit with its institutional racist overtones, and albeit we've killed scores, no hundreds or maybe thousands of innocents over there... and the other guys guerrila terror tactics are deemed over the line.

I see your point and ngcs.  But do you understand the POV of the pawns in that other man's army? The men and women who blow themselves up? Why are they doing this? They have no other option. How different are they from the black or latino who wants to better his lot in life and needs the army to pay his tuition?  Aren't they, the suicide-bombers truly victims of their govt?  And if the govt there has a beef with the govt here going back decades, well thats why 50 years ago IS relevant today and it sounds sophomoric to pretend otherwise.  Pollyanna-ish.  "Why should they care... that was then"  LOL 50 years ago is not THAT long go ngc, get a grip!  People then are stil alive now and have taught their kids the lessons they have learned.

They don't have certain advantages our army employs, but then we all saw Desert Storm.  Do you think our enemies in the middle-east thought that they'd have any chance but to resort to guerilla warfare and terror tactics?  To them, the lesson of the Native American is not lost.  They saw what America did to Japan, to say nothing of Mossadegh and a million other infractions.  Why would you think they'd be dumb enough to fight fair? It is life or death over there while we sit in our comfy recliners watching on the nightly news condeming their brutal acts.

See THEIR pov?  If so,  whats the solution?  More antagonism?  Or perhaps a brand new approach is in order? a 180 on everyting int he middle east.  Cuz it aint working.  This world situation that the US is largely responsible for creating -- is not working and will collapse. Its a matter of when, not if.  Unless we change perspectives.  Take the other sides view.  Come to the table and talk.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 06:19:47 AM
Now, do you condone the terroristic crime of Eric Rudolph and his fellow traveler who had the wherewithall to blow up the abortion clinic in Texas?


Of course not. Where the heck did this come from?
Pretty much out of the same rectum you pulled the idea that anyone here condones Arab suicide bombers.

All right, not the same rectum, but you get the point.  As much as right-wing looms want to deny it, the solution to any complex problem involves an understanding of its root causes and requires an attempt to deal with those causes.  But you would rather just distort and misrepresent the views of the people who disagree with you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 06:21:15 AM
Quote
how wonderful the three main cultures of America have found ways to live together

Oh dear, was this said in a press event?  I missed this reference in the newsclip of her speech at the VA legislature (did hear her speaking of diversity--she was for it, btw).  Whatever can she (or her speech writers) think the 3 "main cultures" might be, one wonders.


My guess?  Anglicans, Episcopalians, and the Church of England....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 06:26:27 AM
Now, do you condone the terroristic crime of Eric Rudolph and his fellow traveler who had the wherewithall to blow up the abortion clinic in Texas?


Of course not. Where the heck did this come from?
Pretty much out of the same rectum you pulled the idea that anyone here condones Arab suicide bombers.

All right, not the same rectum, but you get the point.  As much as right-wing looms want to deny it, the solution to any complex problem involves an understanding of its root causes and requires an attempt to deal with those causes.  But you would rather just distort and misrepresent the views of the people who disagree with you.

The root causes are the ones we never seem to reach, whether we talk about war in the middle east, or drug addiction, or poverty.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 04, 2007, 06:29:36 AM
I find it quite interesting that the Queen was within 100 miles of the White House yesterday, yet she disdained to meet with the Clown-in-Chief.

The symbolism speaks volumes!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:38:03 AM
Pretty much out of the same rectum you pulled the idea that anyone here condones Arab suicide bombers.

I never said anything of the sort. Kam IS the one that IS defending them---not me.


But you would rather just distort and misrepresent the views of the people who disagree with you.


I have distorted nothing. Go look at what he said, and you'll SEE.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:43:25 AM
AND, as far Kam saying we have to look at THEIR point of view, how many innocents need to be murdered by islamic animals for you to see that ALL murder IS wrong, and there IS simply no rationale or defense of it? Strapping explosives on children? Only animals force this kind of abomination. Animals that need extermination.

And the question I asked was if there IS anyone that condones strapping explosives on women and children? I did not say that anyone other than Kam had done so.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 08:53:17 AM
I did read what he said.  I have read your posts here since liq started the forums.  You have never accurately represented the views of anyone who you disagree with.  You have constantly lied about them and distorted everything they have said.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:07:01 AM
I did read what he said.  I have read your posts here since liq started the forums.  You have never accurately represented the views of anyone who you disagree with.  You have constantly lied about them and distorted everything they have said.

I do not represent the views of liberals. Period. I have lied about this? Not for a second. I call 'em like I see 'em. Distorted EVERYTING they have said? Hmmm---that would take more time than I have spent here. Liberals are the ones doing the distorting. Just as you are now.

Since I have not seen a response from you, I'll ask---w/o distortions---if you have the courage to be honest and answer...


Do you condone strapping explosives onto women and children by iranians and islamic fanatics? No twisting, no distorting, no lies, just the accurate question.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:20:49 AM
Iran's foreign minister walked out of a dinner of diplomats in Egypt where he was seated directly across from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on the pretext that the female violinist entertaining the gathering was dressed too revealingly.

"I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday, regarding the actions of Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki.

The dinner episode Thursday night amid a major regional conference on Iraq perfectly revealed how hard it was to bring together the top diplomats of the two rival nations.


Well, liberals? You are sqwawking that the US should talk with the Iranians. Does this event sound like we will get rationality from them? Go ahead---I expect the parsing to begin.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 09:44:24 AM
Quote
Do you condone strapping explosives onto women and children by iranians and islamic fanatics? No twisting, no distorting, no lies, just the accurate question.
Of course not.  No one on this forum does, except in your perverse and twisted little mind.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on May 04, 2007, 09:54:37 AM
I find it quite interesting that the Queen was within 100 miles of the White House yesterday, yet she disdained to meet with the Clown-in-Chief.

She will be visiting the White House later in her trip, and will be feted with a state dinner.

I do not represent the views of liberals. Period. I have lied about this? Not for a second. I call 'em like I see 'em. Distorted EVERYTING they have said? Hmmm---that would take more time than I have spent here. Liberals are the ones doing the distorting. Just as you are now.

NGC, when we first locked horns you started calling me a liberal for no apparent reason. None of my arguments were liberal; you arbitrarily made the chasm-like leap in logic to think that being against the war in Iraq necessarily equates with being a liberal. It was a lazy stereotype on your part.

Do you condone strapping explosives onto women and children by iranians and islamic fanatics? No twisting, no distorting, no lies, just the accurate question.

I don’t.

Well, liberals? You are sqwawking that the US should talk with the Iranians. Does this event sound like we will get rationality from them? Go ahead---I expect the parsing to begin.

The Wash Post reported that Iranian officials privately informed the White House that Mottaki was not the guy with whom the US should begin discussions. He is apparently not close to either Khamani or Ahmedinijead (sp). Discussions may start at a later time with a higher-placed official. If that’s so, Mottaki may have used the revealing dress as a face-saving excuse to not start talking with Rice. Who knows.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 09:55:07 AM
Do you condone strapping explosives onto women and children by iranians and islamic fanatics? No twisting, no distorting, no lies, just the accurate question.
 
Of course not.  No one on this forum does, except in your perverse and twisted little mind.


No-one? Kam does. Unless, of course, one IS a liberal and will 'parse' what was posted. According to him, those animals are our 'brothers'. What insanity. And you say I am twisted? I wonder what you say to him.


Great---It IS good to see that some honesty exists here, and I wonder---do you think that cutting-and-running in Iraq will help serve up some accountability for those animals? Or should we just 'forget' that they exist, and wait for them to start doing the sme here? Guess you failed to see the article I put up from the vaunted liberal CNN---even their analysts see that cutting-and-running would produce a bloodbath on a horrific scale (Bush IS making animals strap explosives onto women and children in todays conflict, right?). Yet, you liberals would finally be right if we cut-and-run---it would be bush's fault!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on May 04, 2007, 10:01:04 AM
It IS good to see that some honesty exists here, and I wonder---do you think that cutting-and-running in Iraq will help serve up some accountability for those animals? Or should we just 'forget' that they exist, and wait for them to start doing the sme here? Guess you failed to see the article I put up from the vaunted liberal CNN---even their analysts see that cutting-and-running would produce a bloodbath on a horrific scale (Bush IS making animals strap explosives onto women and children in todays conflict, right?). Yet, you liberals would finally be right if we cut-and-run---it would be bush's fault!!

NGC, I've written before that I'm an agnostic on what we should do in Iraq; all of our choices seem pretty lousy. But you've been tough on pulling out. For argument's sake, how can you say that staying in Iraq is any better? Nothing in the stablity-o-meter has shown any promise over the last four years; in fact things have only gotten worse. Why do you think that staying will serve our interests? Every government that Iraq has had so far has been a mess; they've done nothing to heal the country. If this continues for the forseeable future, how many more dead Americans, coupled with no tangible stabilization on the ground - will make you change your mind? Or do just think we should stay there forever until they ask us to leave?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:02:10 AM
NGC, when we first locked horns you started calling me a liberal for no apparent reason. None of my arguments were liberal; you arbitrarily made the chasm-like leap in logic to think that being against the war in Iraq necessarily equates with being a liberal. It was a lazy stereotype on your part.

I may have had someone else on my mind when that occurred. I have no problem in re-evaluation or asking forgiveness if necessary. I'll give the benefit of doubt to you and apologize.

I am also against the war in Iraq, believe that we should not have gone, and should have instead imposed sanctions not only on Iraq, but every single country in the world that would not support the sanctions (A position that liberals derided). But I do not hold the position of cutting and running. As we are there, we must keep our word.

Are you for cutting and running?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on May 04, 2007, 10:05:29 AM
I may have had someone else on my mind when that occurred. I have no problem in re-evaluation or asking forgiveness if necessary. I'll give the benefit of doubt to you and apologize.

Eh, no need to apologize. I don't consider being a liberal a pejorative comment, but I don't care to be categorized.

Are you for cutting and running?

Don't think this was directed to me, so I'll take a pass. But if you don't mind, could you bold or italicize the comments you're responding to?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 10:06:48 AM
Quote
According to him, those animals are our 'brothers'. What insanity. And you say I am twisted? I wonder what you say to him.
That he's absolutely right.  Those bastards who kill our fellow man are also human beings, and calling them animals does not get us a single step closer to resolving the problem.  And yes, you are twisted.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:09:47 AM
NGC, I've written before that I'm an agnostic on what we should do in Iraq; all of our choices seem pretty lousy. But you've been tough on pulling out. For argument's sake, how can you say that staying in Iraq is any better? Nothing in the stablity-o-meter has shown any promise over the last four years; in fact things have only gotten worse. Why do you think that staying will serve our interests? Every government that Iraq has had so far has been a mess; they've done nothing to heal the country. If this continues for the forseeable future, how many more dead Americans, coupled with no tangible stabilization on the ground - will make you change your mind? Or do just think we should stay there forever until they ask us to leave?


Choices are, indeed, lousy.

Tuff on pulling out, yes. We gave our word and must keep it. Even CNNs analysts have seen the light that leaving pre-maturely would be a mistake.

Every govt that Iraq has had has indeed been a mess. No-one ever said that democracy was easy. It took 11 years, if memory serves, for the USA to iron things out over 200 years ago. Time IS a necessary expediture.

The Americans over there are NOT a conscripted lot---they are all 100% voluntary enlistments. Re-enlistment IS extremely high right now. So the ones that are over there, understand what IS necessary. I hate it that there are deaths, but war IS hell, and cutting and running IS not the answer.

We will not be there forever. It has been continually said that when the iraqis are ready to fend for themselves, and iranians crossing the border causing mayhem ISn't helping, we'll leave. Or if the govt asks us to go. Neither of those two things has come about yet. In the opinion of those in the military that IS.

Fair assessment?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: sgrobin on May 04, 2007, 10:11:47 AM
NGC, yes; a fair assessment. Thanks.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:15:50 AM
That he's absolutely right.  Those bastards who kill our fellow man are also human beings, and calling them animals does not get us a single step closer to resolving the problem.  And yes, you are twisted.


Well, what can be said to someone that thinks, that if his BROTHER will cut off heads with hacksaws and strap explosives onto women and children, that they are anything other than animals---all I can think of IS that you need help. Solving the problem IS getting rid of those animals that will also, in case you fail to see, cut your head off as well---but evidently you need to have it happen to believe it. Oh well, those that wish to sit back and wait........


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 10:21:06 AM
Heh.  Once again taking off on things I never said or implied, comrade ngc.  That's why you are a twisted idiot.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:31:35 AM
Once again taking off on things I never said or implied,...

Well, here are your own words, mr. liberal...

***Those bastards who kill our fellow man are also human beings, and calling them animals does not get us a single step closer to resolving the problem.***

The guys cutting off heads and strapping explosives on children are, indeed, animals. Your wish to call them human beings IS technically correct---they are homo-sapiens, but they are far, far, from what would be acceptable as brothers. Except, of course, to the parsing mind of a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 10:35:01 AM
Or, perhaps, a Catholic.

Recognizing shared humanity only equates with not dealing with the issue in the warped and twisted mind of someone like you, for whom ignorance and hate is as much a integral part of the thought process as it is for a suicide bomber.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 04, 2007, 10:35:33 AM
ncg321 GYFS i never said I condone. I said I understand why they're pushed to this.  That in their little terrorists minds  they truly believe with EVEN STRONGER CONVICTION THAN YOU hold in your beliefs that they are in the right and that YOU sir are the bloodthirsty animal.

Frankly, i can understand why they do what they do without supporting it.  I can understand why you react the way you dol.  Because you're so damn scared of them.  Its all right.  Fear is normal.  They're scared of you.  Thats why they think the only option is suicide-terror.  Its a crazy messed up world.  5 years ago matters, 50 years ago matters.  Everyone is connected.  Considering a fellow man an animal means you've lost your own humanity somewhere.

I feel sorry for you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 10:39:21 AM
That he's absolutely right.  Those bastards who kill our fellow man are also human beings, and calling them animals does not get us a single step closer to resolving the problem.  And yes, you are twisted.


Well, what can be said to someone that thinks, that if his BROTHER will cut off heads with hacksaws and strap explosives onto women and children, that they are anything other than animals---all I can think of IS that you need help. Solving the problem IS getting rid of those animals that will also, in case you fail to see, cut your head off as well---but evidently you need to have it happen to believe it. Oh well, those that wish to sit back and wait........
 

 I was watching "Dances with Wolves" the other night. You sound like the soldier that says to Lt. Dunbar after the army shows up and decides he's a traitor, "You turned Injun, din't ja?"

At the root of all conflict is a certain amount of prejudice, misinformation, and in cases of war, disinformation. The resolution in Iraq will not be found by people who cannot see others as people. And that applies to all sides in the war.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:44:24 AM
Considering a fellow man an animal means you've lost your own humanity somewhere.


Only those that cut off heads with hacksaws and strap explosives onto women and children. I can hold a measure of respect for those that will face their enemy directly, whatever their politic, but those that commit to indiscriminate murder? Not a chance. They are indeed animals that need extermination. The guys that are in the streets or countryside facing their enemy are a different breed.

It was heartening to hear you say that you do not condone them. Yet there IS no valid rationale for their actions. IMHO. With respect to you. OK?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 10:47:10 AM
I can hold a measure of respect for those that will face their enemy directly, whatever their politic, but those that commit to indiscriminate murder? Not a chance. They are indeed animals that need extermination. The guys that are in the streets or countryside facing their enemy are a different breed.


So, by these words we might say that you'd be opposed to the use of long-range missiles in a conflict?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 04, 2007, 10:49:22 AM
To answer the question of the three cultures, the Queen was referring specifically to the African, the English, and the Native cultures. They were the three main cultures that became the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Queen said that the present-day diversity both in England and in Virginia is a good thing, and an improvement over the what she spoke bout here on her visit fifty years ago, in which she celebrated the extension of English culture and language to the "New World". She is now older and wiser!

Just a note in passing. If I seem to post on this thread less often in the coming days, it is because I am involved in setting up a contract to publish my books in hardbound editions. The personalization will be preserved, as the books will be created when ordered. The book binding will be a cottage industry, and I am hoping it will be a success. Interestingly, the binding will be done in South Africa by a single mother there. The Internet is making out world smaller.

On this note, it is unacceptable to consider some human beings as "animals" for the means they are using to have their voices heard. We need to become better listeners. In none of the assertions of the "animal" nature of these people, has there been any suggestions of knowing, let alone responding, to what these people feel is the need to resort to such exteme measures. We must remember that the Revolutionary Army resorted to guerilla tactics, as did the South in the Civil War. It is the typical behavior of the lesser army, the army who perceives it has been "wronged".






Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 04, 2007, 10:52:57 AM
At the root of all conflict is a certain amount of prejudice, misinformation, and in cases of war, disinformation. The resolution in Iraq will not be found by people who cannot see others as people. And that applies to all sides in the war.

Very well said.

With respect back to you ncg, i would have to say  those that commit to indiscriminate murder? are all guilty.  But then what if someone said back to me -- the US is also commiting indiscriminate murder in the region.  Entire families bombarded and burned to crisp because of 'bad intel on the ground'.  I have to say to that fellow -- hey you're right.  So why make the distinction is what i'm saying.  Hacksaws and strapped explosives or high-tech smart bombs dropping from the sky... i try not to make the distinction anymore.

So i guess i took the conversation too far down a path that mislead you to think i condone indiscriminate murder.  I don't.  By either side.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 10:56:18 AM
Quote
I can hold a measure of respect for those that will face their enemy directly, whatever their politic, but those that commit to indiscriminate murder?
So, comrade, your support for our military doesn't extend to the air force?  Bastard.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:57:15 AM
So, by these words we might say that you'd be opposed to the use of long-range missiles in a conflict?


Nope---A long range missile IS little more than a self-propelled artillery shell, for practical intents and purposes. I was referring to those that strap explosives onto women and children as a means of themselves evading direct confrontation with their enemy. Commiting to this act IS terrorism, and performed only by cowardly animals to achieve by terror what they cannot achieve by some conventional means.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 10:59:45 AM
So, comrade, your support for our military doesn't extend to the air force?  Bastard.

Your projections and use of vulgarity positively shows that you are definitely a liberal. Debate with you also IS pointless, youngster. Drink your kool-aid.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 11:00:57 AM
So, comrade, your support for our military doesn't extend to the air force?  Bastard.

Your projections and use of vulgarity positively shows that you are definitely a liberal. Debate with you also IS pointless, youngster. Drink your kool-aid.
Well, why should I engage in debate with someone like you who hates our military, comrade?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 04, 2007, 11:09:08 AM
ncg:  I don't condone what i'm posting here, but wondering if you have a measure of respect for the truck drivers who attacked the compunds in beirut killing american and french troops.   do they meet your criteria for respect?

Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983:
Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:10:36 AM
Well, why should I engage in debate with someone like you who hates our military...

Where does this come from? Are you imbibing at this hour? Are you so starving for some mere moment of political expediency that you have to make stuff up?

I am a vet---where do you get for single second that I hate our military? That sorta seems like your province, from what I have seen.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 11:12:13 AM
comrade ngc -

You yourself indicated that you hated those who would not confront their enemy directly.  Why do you hate the air force?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:17:17 AM
ncg:  I don't condone what i'm posting here, but wondering if you have a measure of respect for the truck drivers who attacked the compunds in beirut killing american and french troops.


Why change the subject? We were discussing those that strap explosives onto women and children, and whether or not they should be called animals? Or our brothers?

I do not condone the acts of those truck drivers, but they are deserving of a combative respect more than those that use children, or cut off heads with hacksaws---which deserve no respect at all. It IS a bit more difficult to perform the acts of driving up close to military installations now for destructive purposes. Now that the military IS aware of the lengths that can be gone to to kill an enemy. The face of warfare IS an ever changing one, but using children IS beneath contempt, and those that do so are, indeed, animals, and not brothers.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:20:56 AM
You yourself indicated that you hated those who would not confront their enemy directly.  Why do you hate the air force?


You are missing the context---the discussion was about those that use children strapped with explosives vs. those that face their enemy directly---and YOU know it. Your parsing at trying to gain 15 seconds of political expediency IS seen, mr. liberal. If you are trying to equate the Air Force to animals using children strapped with explosives as an extension of range of firepower, you are just nuts. Go back to your kool-aid.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 04, 2007, 11:24:16 AM
The face of warfare IS an ever changing one, but using children IS beneath contempt, and those that do so are, indeed, animals, and not brothers.

If i agree. And why wouldn't any sensible person agree with what you just said ... the trouble i have is should we both dis-own our american brothers who drop bombs on innocent women and children? 

Were they just following orders?

Aren't the suicide bombers also following orders?

Distinctions are messy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:34:36 AM
the trouble i have is should we both dis-own our american brothers who drop bombs on innocent women and children? 

Were they just following orders?

Aren't the suicide bombers also following orders?

Distinctions are messy.


This IS true. Distinctions can be messy. But to say that americans are dropping bombs PURPOSELY on women and children IS just flat out wrong, and those that adhere to this are simply weak minded. They should not be dis-owned. I know liberals will parse this all day, but their casualties are what IS called 'collateral damage'. Very unfortunate, very undesirable, very unintentional, and very sad to be happening. War IS hell, and innocents are killed---but not in the intentional way like when people strap explosives onto women and children that are killing other women and children.

As for suicide bombers following orders, just what CHILD IS following an order? Here some DISTINCTION IS needed. If the suicide bomber IS going after soldiers, that IS one thing---detonating himself/herself in a market full of people looking to buy food IS something else---right?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 11:36:43 AM
comrade ngc -

What?  Context?  Since when have you been interested in context?  You deliberately ignore the context of the statements made by others on a constant basis.  Why shouldn't your statements receive the same treatment?

You reserve your respect for those who confront the enemy directly.  Your disrespect to those who nobly serve our country in the air force, or launching cruise missles from battleships - has been noted.  Why do you hate our military, you commie?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:44:56 AM
You reserve your respect for those who confront the enemy directly.  Your disrespect to those who nobly serve our country in the air force, or launching cruise missles from battleships - has been noted.  Why do you hate our military, you commie?


I do not hate our military. You are deliberately posting based off of false premise, and I have told you so. You posting based off of a lie formulated in your own head. If you choose not to see it, that's your choice.

And I am not a commie---but try to get you to see it IS like trying to get you to admit that you're a liberal. Have fun!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 11:53:08 AM
comrade ngc -
I'm a liberal, and never denied it.  It's your "daffy-nition" of liberal that's got no connection with reality.  You lie about what liberals say and think and then use your lie to justify your hatred.  Pretty pathetic, all in all.

You want to nationalize an industry, just like your hero Mao.  You don't want to be called a commie, stop being one.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 11:54:30 AM
Hamas Calls for 'Extermination of Jews'

The Palestinian militant organization Hamas not only wants the elimination of the state of Israel, but also the extermination of the Jews, according to the group’s newspaper.

"The extermination of Jews is Allah’s will and is for the benefit of all humanity, according to an article in the Hamas paper Al-Risalah,” the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reports.


This IS not good, IS it, liberals?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 11:58:36 AM
Hamas Calls for 'Extermination of Jews'

The Palestinian militant organization Hamas not only wants the elimination of the state of Israel, but also the extermination of the Jews, according to the group’s newspaper.

"The extermination of Jews is Allah’s will and is for the benefit of all humanity, according to an article in the Hamas paper Al-Risalah,” the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) reports.


This IS not good, IS it, liberals?

No one thinks it is, outside of your dementia.  The debate is over what we should and should not do about it.  But you are too blinded by your internal hate of anyone who disagrees with you to see that.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 12:04:10 PM
You want to nationalize an industry, just like your hero Mao.  You don't want to be called a commie, stop being one.


Not just one, several. Anything that IS a ***non-renewable natural resource***, and them only. Maybe what I'd like to see ISn't actually a complete 'nationalization'---I must admit that I guess, since I can see some confusion that it may generate---the companies that are presently pumping up oil should be paid for doing so---as well as refining, transporting---but the natural resource itself should be the property of the USA, and not reserved solely for an individual or group of individuals to monopolize. Same thing for coal, natural gas, open pit mining---the elements should be the property of the USA, not a few individuals. They should be paid something for the drilling, mining, refining, transportation, yes. The govt should not be totally taking over the operations, as in what chavez IS doing. He IS even talking about banks now---they are not a natural resource.

Still think I am a commie? Liberals are always sqwawking about the rich getting richer---why do you have a problem with this approach? Am I being civil with you?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 12:07:13 PM
 But you are too blinded by your internal hate of anyone who disagrees with you to see that.


It ISn't hatred, it IS a total desire never to see people that think like that attain power. But you may parse and demean all you choose. All I ever do IS call a liberal what it IS---a liberal. Or, if someone would use children as bombs, call them animals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 12:09:14 PM
comrade ngc -

You forgot this part:

"...or, call people by labels so I can simply condemn the label and don't have to worry about anything else, like the reality of the world or opposing ideas."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 12:19:27 PM
You forgot this part:

"...or, call people by labels so I can simply condemn the label and don't have to worry about anything else, like the reality of the world or opposing ideas."


Calling someone a liberal IS not labeling---it IS calling them what they are. Are you saying you are NOT a liberal? If you are not, your posts certainly do not reflect that.

Your calling me comrade IS an example of a mind that has to call someone something out of a rationale of not liking being called what he IS---a liberal. You can be silly and call me comrade all you want, even though I am not communist as you well know---but you ARE a liberal, are you not?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 04, 2007, 01:14:55 PM
but their casualties are what IS called 'collateral damage'. Very unfortunate, very undesirable, very unintentional, and very sad to be happening. War IS hell, and innocents are killed---but not in the intentional way like when people strap explosives onto women and children that are killing other women and children.

If your brother/sister/child/niece dies from Collateral Damage would you hate the enemy any less?  Hatred makes people do "animal" things.  So if root cause of this re-newed US hatred is Collateral Damage.... isn't it wise to stop causing more?  Right now we're in a re-peating cycle.  We've got to get it off repeat somehow. Collateral Damage is an insult to the mind of the aggrieved father who lost his child, or a son who lost his mother.  An eye for an eye is unfortunately LAW written or not in those parts.  In fact in most of the world.

As for suicide bombers following orders, just what CHILD IS following an order? Here some DISTINCTION IS needed. If the suicide bomber IS going after soldiers, that IS one thing---detonating himself/herself in a market full of people looking to buy food IS something else---right?

See above.  A child knows nothing but revenge and promises of redeption in the hereafter.  They are being mislead of course.  Cartoons tell them its cool to do.  But we wouldn't be at this point if progress was made oh in the last 50 years.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:16:47 PM
I see the rightwing fascist commie troll has been at it again today with more of his "liberal" bs.  Some anti-anxiety medication might best be prescribed for such a loser.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 01:35:35 PM
Hatred makes people do "animal" things.  So if root cause of this re-newed US hatred is Collateral Damage.... isn't it wise to stop causing more?

So you acknowledge that people that do these kinds of things are animals, indeed? That should be removed from the face of the earth--REGARDLESS of why they hate? Murder IS murder, and using 'A bomb from Americans' killed my daughter IS reason to murder non-americans? That just ISn't a very sound arguement.

You know, don't you, that if these animals did NOT set themselves up in civilian neighborhoods, that a LOT of collateral damage would not occur. These cowardly animals HIDE among civilians thinking they can continue their murder with impunity. Wouldn't it be wise for the people suffering collateral damage to tell the animals to get out of their neighborhoods? To tell the animals to take their war to the enemy, instead of waging it from their backyards? Like the cowards they are?

When a suicide bomber walks into a market with strapped explosives on his/her body, and murders someones son or daughter, ISn't this WORSE than an accidental death caused by an american bomb? Shouldn't the father or mother of that dead son or daughter RESENT the animals that are intentionally MURDERING their sons and daughters?? You express a righteous indignation at accidental collateral deaths---but seem to leave out criticism of those are killing more ON PURPOSE---rather than by accident. That IS very curious, indeed.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 01:42:57 PM
Hatred makes people do "animal" things.  So if root cause of this re-newed US hatred is Collateral Damage.... isn't it wise to stop causing more?

So you acknowledge that people that do these kinds of things are animals, indeed? That should be removed from the face of the earth--REGARDLESS of why they hate? Murder IS murder, and using 'A bomb from Americans' killed my daughter IS reason to murder non-americans? That just ISn't a very sound arguement.

You know, don't you, that if these animals did NOT set themselves up in civilian neighborhoods, that a LOT of collateral damage would not occur. These cowardly animals HIDE among civilians thinking they can continue their murder with impunity. Wouldn't it be wise for the people suffering collateral damage to tell the animals to get out of their neighborhoods? To tell the animals to take their war to the enemy, instead of waging it from their backyards? Like the cowards they are?

When a suicide bomber walks into a market with strapped explosives on his/her body, and murders someones son or daughter, ISn't this WORSE than an accidental death caused by an american bomb? Shouldn't the father or mother of that dead son or daughter RESENT the animals that are intentionally MURDERING their sons and daughters?? You express a righteous indignation at accidental collateral deaths---but seem to leave out criticism of those are killing more ON PURPOSE---rather than by accident. That IS very curious, indeed.

When are you going to learn to format your posts so that people can read understand when you are responding to earlier posts?  Please learn to format posts, or I'm just going to stop trying to read them. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 02:59:05 PM
A long range missile IS little more than a self-propelled artillery shell, for practical intents and purposes.

Well, its intent and purpose is to kill people without having to do so in their presence. Doesn’t that qualify as a “cowardly act”.

I was referring to those that strap explosives onto women and children as a means of themselves evading direct confrontation with their enemy. Commiting to this act IS terrorism, and performed only by cowardly animals to achieve by terror what they cannot achieve by some conventional means.

People in some societies think it takes a great deal of courage to do something like that. What I’d like you to consider is the possibility of looking at the situation from a culture/perspective outside your own.

Distinctions are messy.

When Sherman said, “War is hell”, he wasn’t saying so out of regret for the situation, but he was saying so in order to describe the situation. You don’t know for sure what you are capable of doing until you are in the situation itself.

I see the rightwing fascist commie troll has been at it again today with more of his "liberal" bs.

Speaking of “labeling”.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 03:00:39 PM
One thing that would be good on this forum would be if we earned stars for the quality of the posts vs the quantity of the posts.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 03:09:53 PM
Well, its intent and purpose is to kill people without having to do so in their presence. Doesn’t that qualify as a “cowardly act”.

Again, you wish to recharacterize the discussion. If you are trying to compare artillery, or rockets, or missiles with strapping explosives onto children, you're in the wrong debate. For there IS no comparison. It appears that You are saying that a soldier with a rifle shooting someone from 1,000 yards out IS cowardly---he IS not. It IS an extremely useful soldier than can take out the enemy from that range---but you being who you are, this IS probably not acceptable. It IS cowardly, since he cannot see the enemies eyeballs, right?




People in some societies think it takes a great deal of courage to do something like that. What I’d like you to consider is the possibility of looking at the situation from a culture/perspective outside your own.

There IS no consideration for indiscriminate murder. Period. If that can ain any way be part of a culture, that culture sux. Period. People that use children as walking explosives are animals, and my opinion of that will never change. Those that can support, defend , or advocate this type of action IS equally an animal. And it sure IS starting to sound like you are defending the animals. Are you?


And for the umpteeth time, if some one embraces the liberal side of an equation, calling them liberal IS not labelling---it IS calling them what they are---liberals. You can call me opposite side of that equation, conservative, all day---and it IS not labelling. But it IS getting tiresome to say this.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 04, 2007, 03:10:26 PM
One thing that would be good on this forum would be if we earned stars for the quality of the posts vs the quantity of the posts.

Yeah but that would mean I'd have to read them....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 03:11:19 PM
One thing that would be good on this forum would be if we earned stars for the quality of the posts vs the quantity of the posts.


I can only imagine whom would be the one determining this. I would LOVE to see this based on TRUTH and FACTS, rather than anything else.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 04, 2007, 03:12:48 PM
One thing that would be good on this forum would be if we earned stars for the quality of the posts vs the quantity of the posts.


I can only imagine whom would be the one determining this. I would LOVE to see this based on TRUTH and FACTS, rather than anything else.
You'd be back to newbie so fast you'd get ticketed.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 03:16:52 PM
One thing that would be good on this forum would be if we earned stars for the quality of the posts vs the quantity of the posts.


I can only imagine whom would be the one determining this. I would LOVE to see this based on TRUTH and FACTS, rather than anything else.
You'd be back to newbie so fast you'd get ticketed.

Well, that IS your opinion.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 03:36:40 PM
Well, that IS your opinion.

Well, with the essence of most of your posts falling generally in the category of "Oh, Yeah? LIBERAL?", it IS not an opinion without merit.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 04:23:56 PM
Well, with the essence of most of your posts falling generally in the category of "Oh, Yeah? LIBERAL?", it IS not an opinion without merit.


That IS your opinion. I can usually tell a liberal right away---they begin to start calling names (Other than liberal or conservative---which are political conotations) and go personal....saying you are a coward, that you have a yellow streak, and/or start to go vulgar. Things that you have NOT seen me do.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 04, 2007, 07:18:26 PM
Well, with the essence of most of your posts falling generally in the category of "Oh, Yeah? LIBERAL?", it IS not an opinion without merit.


That IS your opinion. I can usually tell a liberal right away---they begin to start calling names (Other than liberal or conservative---which are political conotations) and go personal....saying you are a coward, that you have a yellow streak, and/or start to go vulgar. Things that you have NOT seen me do.

That's not true.  You called me a coward, you liar.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 04, 2007, 08:01:34 PM
Well, with the essence of most of your posts falling generally in the category of "Oh, Yeah? LIBERAL?", it IS not an opinion without merit.


That IS your opinion. I can usually tell a liberal right away---they begin to start calling names (Other than liberal or conservative---which are political conotations) and go personal....saying you are a coward, that you have a yellow streak, and/or start to go vulgar. Things that you have NOT seen me do.

Of course you can tell them right away! And then having determined their liberal status you turn off to any ideas and thoughts and opinions that they may have. It's pretty clear how the narrow framework of your mind shows itself here.

Believe it or not.

I can always tell a neo-conservative by the repositioning he/she takes through the years on various issues as the politics surronding those issue changes. Like the sudden lack of concern for "nation building" that was previously expressed by that group during the last administration. Or the sudden lack of concern for balanced budgets, once the record-setting surplus had been blown on that nation building that was so abhorrent.  Or the idea that one is "tough on crime" while making it easier for criminals to get guns, and while reducing funding for the police departments of our largest cities.

It's all quite clear.

As opaque as your daily bias and prejudice displayed here.

It's time to challenge yourself, Mr. Viet Nam Era Vet. Time to see if you can move past the rhetoric and the divisive speech-making, and the neo-con cheerleading, and the CNN paranoia and embrace the best of what it means to be an American.

Can you move towards the ideas of compromise, so that the best and faires choices for the country--and not just what's good for your chosen party---can be made?

Can you abandon your kneejerk reactions to everything you automatically disagree with, and take time to consider the opposite point of view as having some basis in reality and potentially some merit? Can you expand intellectually to consider two diametrically opposed ideas without accepting or rejecting either one?

Can you do it???

When you can, you're on your way to be a real and responsible American citizen! Until then you'll just be an aging guy with a dismal continuous harping issuing through your fingertips as they dash across your keyboard in whatever lonely outpost you've fashioned for yourself by your continued alienation of all around you.

Think about it.

What kind of legacy do you want to have?

1. There goes a guy who loved his country and want what was best for it and was always willing to listen to others and be a fair-minded individual while he considered ways to make this a better land.

2. There goes the guy who hated liberals. Whatever that means.

It's your choice. By your posts we'll know what choice you've made.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:12:19 PM
There goes a guy who loved his country and want what was best for it and was always willing to listen to others and be a fair-minded individual while he considered ways to make this a better land.


Sure---as long as double standards are not employed---as long as defending terrorists IS not a part of 'ideas'.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 04, 2007, 08:16:18 PM
Well, with the essence of most of your posts falling generally in the category of "Oh, Yeah? LIBERAL?", it IS not an opinion without merit.


That IS your opinion. I can usually tell a liberal right away---they begin to start calling names (Other than liberal or conservative---which are political conotations) and go personal....saying you are a coward, that you have a yellow streak, and/or start to go vulgar. Things that you have NOT seen me do.

That's not true.  You called me a coward, you liar.

I was referring to someone who said I was a coward for not having served in Vietnam even tho I was in the service. But I do remember that comment---I'm honest--you got me on that point there. I stand corrected here. But other than that, I know I have not gone vulgar on anyone---as you have on me. You respectfully care to admit to that? I have for my error.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 04, 2007, 10:45:34 PM
NGC.

You say you will be a good citizen only as long as double standards are not applied (but you retain the right to classify what is and isn't a double standard, as in the case of air-born bombs on civilian populations), and as long as there is no "defense" for terrorists. You have on several occassions defined "terrorists" as those who strap explosives to women and children and send them into peopled places. Let's assume that inasmuch as we have female "warriers" that the "terrorists" do as well, and take the women out of the consideration. OK, now we are talking about strappling explosives to children thereby murdering the child and anyone nearby.

How many of these incidents have happened? Have they been verified? Were any of these children mentally abused so as to have committed the offense themselves? Has this been verified? If so, we can subtract those from the number of "terrorist" events.

Then, if you will, estimate how many terrorists would it require to force a child to commit this act leading to his/her own death? Multiply it by the number of child-committed incidents, and determine how many terrorists there are that you want excluded from any defense.

When you compute the number of actual terrorists, calculate how many soldiers it will take to kill the calculated number of terrorists. Then, we can determine how many soldiers we need to have in Iraq in order to establish peace.

I suspect, if you do this, you will determine that we have far more soldiers in Iraq than we need to do the job against those you claim to be terrorists. We can bring the rest of them home.

Now, before you say I am "parsing" the situation, look at it realistically. Why keep more soldiers in harms way than are needed to round up the actual "terrorists" and put them away. The rest of the soldiers there are only stirring up ill feelings.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 06:16:50 AM
NGC.

You say you will be a good citizen only as long as double standards are not applied (but you retain the right to classify what is and isn't a double standard, as in the case of air-born bombs on civilian populations), and as long as there is no "defense" for terrorists. You have on several occassions defined "terrorists" as those who strap explosives to women and children and send them into peopled places. Let's assume that inasmuch as we have female "warriers" that the "terrorists" do as well, and take the women out of the consideration. OK, now we are talking about strappling explosives to children thereby murdering the child and anyone nearby.

How many of these incidents have happened? Have they been verified? Were any of these children mentally abused so as to have committed the offense themselves? Has this been verified? If so, we can subtract those from the number of "terrorist" events.

Then, if you will, estimate how many terrorists would it require to force a child to commit this act leading to his/her own death? Multiply it by the number of child-committed incidents, and determine how many terrorists there are that you want excluded from any defense.

When you compute the number of actual terrorists, calculate how many soldiers it will take to kill the calculated number of terrorists. Then, we can determine how many soldiers we need to have in Iraq in order to establish peace.

I suspect, if you do this, you will determine that we have far more soldiers in Iraq than we need to do the job against those you claim to be terrorists. We can bring the rest of them home.

Now, before you say I am "parsing" the situation, look at it realistically. Why keep more soldiers in harms way than are needed to round up the actual "terrorists" and put them away. The rest of the soldiers there are only stirring up ill feelings.



What IS the point?  Nothing I can say will convince you of anything. You insult my service in the military with your projections. You have said I have a yellow streak down my back. You loathe the military and those connected to it in any way. It IS pointless.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 06:26:05 AM
Here's a link to a great ad:  http://www.johnedwards.com/wethepeople/


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 05, 2007, 08:07:20 AM
NGC,

So, you make assertions and then use them as "reasons" not to participate in a meaningful debate? How convenient for you.

As I pointed out in another thread, I do not "loathe" the military any more than I am a "liberal". It is your nonsensical interpretation of people who disagree with your war-mongering while you, yourself, sat back in safety, that is at fault.

If you cannot make a distinct difference between the Iraqis who are fighting to control their own destiny, and those who commit acts of terrorism defined as using children as combatants, you are wasting manpower and money on an unwinnable war. What part of "throwing money at the problem" do you not understand?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on May 05, 2007, 09:55:19 AM
Hard to imagine how in the world the 'ngc', et alii, posters can continue to scream 'liberal', 'terrorist lover', 'anti-American' and 'anti-military' at those of us in here who read, ponder, compare/contrast and somehow or other go on trying to make sense of what has gone wrong with our beautiful country.  Since when, pilgrims, is it anti-American to question the decisions of our deeply flawed president and his party?  Isn't that what the Constitution, in all its misused glory, would have us do?  In the real King George's time, questioning a king was treason...in our times, questioning the mini-me Current Occupant is in fact an act of patriotic virtue.  As the evidence continues to mount about the missing e-mails, the crony appointments, the lies and evasions and lawyering-up of so many of mini-me's administration...shouldn't we be paying attention, asking questions and [if warranted] getting angry about it?  Putting post-it labels on genuinely concerned folks doesn't do much more than spray-painting a sgraffito on a wall.  Maybe huffing all those weird effluvia from a badly tilted press has done some damage after all.  How else could we interpret the posturing of Ni Jerque thinkers?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 05, 2007, 10:17:36 AM
Hatred makes people do "animal" things.  So if root cause of this re-newed US hatred is Collateral Damage.... isn't it wise to stop causing more? -KAM

So you acknowledge that people that do these kinds of things are animals, indeed? That should be removed from the face of the earth--REGARDLESS of why they hate? Murder IS murder, and using 'A bomb from Americans' killed my daughter IS reason to murder non-americans? That just ISn't a very sound arguement.

You know, don't you, that if these animals did NOT set themselves up in civilian neighborhoods, that a LOT of collateral damage would not occur. These cowardly animals HIDE among civilians -ngc

1) No i don't acknowledge that the people who blow themselves up are animals.  Unless we go with the literal definition and then of course, we're all animals.  And thats the point with the "War is Hell" comment.  Whether you have a missile destroy your home from a faceless US soldier or face to face with an exploding enemy combatant... you're flat dead.  Nothing more dead or less dead about seeing your family dead.  Its all the same in the END isn't it?  Who cares about the means?  The enemy sheds no tear for us believe me.  We've exhausted their reservoir of empathy.  They think WE are the animals who deserve slaughter and the means they use is the only one available.  They don't have the money to compete with our army muscle-power and weapon power in a large scale economy of war.

2) They're trying to remove US from the face of the earth.  Sure: we can try and remove them from the face of the earth. But no. my point was that we're in an endless cycle and we can't win this war of attrition.  We can never wipe out the insurgency or the US hate with more Collateral Damage.  They don't believe us when we issue a statement saying "We regret..."  To them, its all the same.

and

3) "The cowardly hide among the civilians".  Yes you're right, but we are over there pressing them into this tactic.  What you call cowardly, is strategy in War (read: Hell). 



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 05, 2007, 10:33:33 AM
NGC.

You say you will be a good citizen only as long as double standards are not applied (but you retain the right to classify what is and isn't a double standard, as in the case of air-born bombs on civilian populations), and as long as there is no "defense" for terrorists. You have on several occassions defined "terrorists" as those who strap explosives to women and children and send them into peopled places. Let's assume that inasmuch as we have female "warriers" that the "terrorists" do as well, and take the women out of the consideration. OK, now we are talking about strappling explosives to children thereby murdering the child and anyone nearby.

How many of these incidents have happened? Have they been verified? Were any of these children mentally abused so as to have committed the offense themselves? Has this been verified? If so, we can subtract those from the number of "terrorist" events.

Then, if you will, estimate how many terrorists would it require to force a child to commit this act leading to his/her own death? Multiply it by the number of child-committed incidents, and determine how many terrorists there are that you want excluded from any defense.

When you compute the number of actual terrorists, calculate how many soldiers it will take to kill the calculated number of terrorists. Then, we can determine how many soldiers we need to have in Iraq in order to establish peace.

I suspect, if you do this, you will determine that we have far more soldiers in Iraq than we need to do the job against those you claim to be terrorists. We can bring the rest of them home.

Now, before you say I am "parsing" the situation, look at it realistically. Why keep more soldiers in harms way than are needed to round up the actual "terrorists" and put them away. The rest of the soldiers there are only stirring up ill feelings.


In defense of the larger point of ngc's about terrorists involving children, i don't know how many as children actually commit acts like becoming martyrs in a suicide-bombing, but i do know that i am less worried about the number of children TODAY, than i am about where we will be in a few years.  The biggest THREAT to the WEST is those that use Religion, in this case the clerics i'm talking about who have power in Iran and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, to shape a political message.

Clerics have set up those maddrasahs, the religious schools, so kids all day, innocent children are being subtle-ly indoctrinated.  Then, when the kids go to escape school and watch TV, the cartoons they watch are political.  I was deeply angered and saddened when I first saw this clip:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-UZyNssGj0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-UZyNssGj0) But its a real eye-opener NGC.  You will see that trying to separate the Animals from the Innocent is very difficult.  And if i have come to know you at all, i would expect your reaction might be just to nuke the entire middle east after you see this because you'll see the futility in trying to root out this hatred with conventional weapons.

They're fighting a battle of life and death against the West.  Are we any more committed to our cause than they are entrenched in theirs? 

Conclusion:  We can't win with bombs unless we're ready to go all in and exterminate the entire lot of them, men women, babies.. they are all potential future combatants.  Future animals right?  Might as well stop it all now right?

Well that is one answer.  I think most of this forum -liberal or not- would prefer a different answer.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 12:37:20 PM
 NRA demands that suspected terrorists be permitted to buy guns
by Joe Sudbay (DC) · 5/04/2007 06:11:00 PM ET
Discuss this post here: Comments (200) · digg it · reddit · FARK ·  · Link

To deny AK-47s and Uzis to terror suspects is downright un-American according to the National Rifle Association:

    The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

    In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

Think of all the things the Bush administration has done, all the laws they've broken, all the rights they've taken away, in order to "fight terror." They've tapped our phones, read our emails, thrown us in jail without the right to an attorney or even a trial, assumed that we're guilty until proven innocent. But all of that, we are told, is necessary if we are to stop suspected terrorists from killing another 3,000 Americans, or worse, killing 1 million Americans with a nuke.

But God forbid a suspected terrorist isn't permitted to buy an Uzi. Oh no, we wouldn't want to take away the constitutional rights of a suspected terrorist to buy the weapons he needs to kill us all. No, that would be un-American. Will the anti-gun movement in this country finally come back from its extended vacation in obscurity? Will Democrats finally realize that permitting suspected terrorists to buy Uzis so they can then go to shopping malls and kill mom and little Jimmy in a hail of bullets just might be a losing issue for George Bush and the Republicans? Don't bet on it. And don't bet on George Bush ever saying no to the NRA. They're working out of his office:


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 05, 2007, 01:43:21 PM
"And don't bet on George Bush ever saying no to the NRA. They're working out of his office:"

Too true, Sam. Repubs and the NRA---it's as American as Apple Pie and homophobia. You wonder though, if it is not too late for gun control in this country, what with the huge number of guns already in circulation.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 01:54:13 PM
"And don't bet on George Bush ever saying no to the NRA. They're working out of his office:"

Too true, Sam. Repubs and the NRA---it's as American as Apple Pie and homophobia. You wonder though, if it is not too late for gun control in this country, what with the huge number of guns already in circulation.

And when you have people suggesting that had the students at VT been carrying concealed weapons, the tradegy there would have been avoided.  Duh.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 04:00:57 PM
Too true, Sam. Repubs and the NRA---it's as American as Apple Pie and homophobia. You wonder though, if it is not too late for gun control in this country...


Contact your liberal representatives and say PLEASE make gun control an issue in the next elections.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 04:04:03 PM
In defense of the larger point of ngc's about terrorists involving children, i don't know how many as children actually commit acts like becoming martyrs in a suicide-bombing...


It ISn't how many---it IS those that would commit to the act of using children. And harboring and funding the people that do this IS just as bad as those that commit to it. In other words, for example, the current govt of Iran.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 04:11:36 PM
We can't win with bombs unless we're ready to go all in and exterminate the entire lot of them, men women, babies.. they are all potential future combatants.  Future animals right?  Might as well stop it all now right?


Wrong. You start the process by getting rid of the govts that harbor and fund this type of action. If you can't get to those in charge, get rid of the means to fund the animals---in Iran's case, they have I believe ONE refinery that produces gasoline. Also, factories that produce war materials. If they still don't change their ways, up the ante. Liberals will never go for this because they never see any reason to get rid of bad people. They even say Iraq would be better off with saddam still in power (rrriiiggghhhttt) Tell that to the families of those that have relatives with their fingers chopped off, ears chopped off, tortured, or murdered.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 05, 2007, 04:20:42 PM
No i don't acknowledge that the people who blow themselves up are animals.

It ISn't that they blow themselves up, they blow up innocent people in markets trying to buy food---tell me there IS one speck of logic in this. Only animals commit to this action.

They don't have the money to compete with our army muscle-power and weapon power in a large scale economy of war.


So committing to murdering innocent women and children IS rational? It ain't!! There IS no defense of it. Period. I do not care what country it happens in.

The cowardly hide among the civilians". Yes you're right, but we are over there pressing them into this tactic.  What you call cowardly, is strategy in War.

It IS not war---it IS terror. And absolutely cowardice. If they are at war, why are they killing people that have NOTHING to do with the American forces? It IS terror. Period---and unacceptable to any rational human. There IS no defense of it. Saying that slaughtering women and children IS a war strategy, IS crazy---I have studied military tactics for many years and there IS nothing like this in war---it does nothing to your enemy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 05, 2007, 06:11:20 PM
I have studied military tactics for many years and there IS nothing like this in war---it does nothing to your enemy.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 05, 2007, 07:25:39 PM
Kam,

A very thoughtful post!

The tactics used in Iraq are not terribly different from those used by the Native Americans against the invading colonists, nor are the terribly different from those used by the Americans against the British, or the Confederate against the Union. The underdogs do what they can.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 05, 2007, 07:33:59 PM
NGC,

If you studied military tactics, please tell me where it was OK for the Jamestown Colonists to kill whole villages of people, including women and children, because they refused to sell scarce food to the lazy colonists? Was that not a "war tactic"? It certainly was considered to be one by those who wrote the letters and journals of the colony at that time. The idea of killing woman and children seemed insane to the Indians. It wasn't their way. But, the Europeans were quite comfortable with doing it. The English were doing so in Ireland, as the settlers began it in Virginia.

Maybe you should study some history along with "military tactics".


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 08:29:53 PM
Kam,

A very thoughtful post!

The tactics used in Iraq are not terribly different from those used by the Native Americans against the invading colonists, nor are the terribly different from those used by the Americans against the British, or the Confederate against the Union. The underdogs do what they can.


Or the Irish over the British.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 05, 2007, 08:32:03 PM
We just watched the movie "Queen" with Helen Mira.  I thought it was very good, very well acted, and worth viewing.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 05, 2007, 10:21:12 PM
Yep - hell of an actress, that Mira.  :)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 08:30:47 AM
Yep - hell of an actress, that Mira.  :)

I wonder if Elizabeth's life is protrayed accurately in this film.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 08:35:47 AM
If you studied military tactics, please tell me where it was OK for the Jamestown Colonists to kill whole villages of people, including women and children, because they refused to sell scarce food to the lazy colonists?

The colonists were not military. It absolutely was not any sort of military tactic. Incidents in the past are not comparable to what the US Military has evolved into as far as tactics due to technological advancement in weaponry. And to suggest that the colonists were soldiers anyway, IS ludicrous. They were Europeans that landed on the shore of N America seeking religious freedom, were they not?

Terror IS different from warfare. They do not produce battlefield deaths, they produce atrocities. Tactics of terror are NOT the same as military tactics---period. And when these terror actions are directed at civilians and not soldiers, how can you claim they are military in nature? They simply are not. And all the parsing in the world will not change it. There IS nothing like this taught in military academies in the US, and any comment I make IS regarding US military operations. There may actually be something from another country that could possibly imagine that these acts are of some military value, but that IS simply absurd by any modern warfare definition. Terrorists (Not soldiers) that are in conflict with, for example, the US military in Iraq, cannot possibly claim that strapping explosives onto children and have them kill civilians IS any kind of military tactic because it IS not---it IS a tactic of terror. These murders do nothing to weaken th US military's ability to engage in any offensive or defensive action. Period. Even during WWII when the germans were bombing London, it was called the 'Terror Bombing of London", as even tho the germans thought it would reduce British morale, it did not. And any actual realized military value was pathetically minimal, as only occasionally would a bomb actually hit something connected to Britains military infrastructure.

Why don't you check with some world body's thoughts on this like the geneva convention, or the UN, to see what IS thought of the act of strapping explosives onto men, women, or children and have them walk into marketplaces full of people trying to buy food? Not a doggone thing military about it. But, I suspect you will keep parsing just to gain a few mere moments of political expediency. It ain't gonna happen.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:13:05 AM
The California Assembly Judiciary Committee has just reported out legislation to force the mammoth State Pension Fund to divest from 485 companies that have been named by www.disinvestterror.com as doing business with Iran, Syria, North Korea, or Sudan.


This legislation, more than almost any other governmental act at the state or federal level, can be the key to frustrating Iranian nuclear ambitions and curbing their sponsorship of terror. With government revenues from the energy sector dropping from $55 billion to $44 billion between last year and this, Iran desperately needs new investment to develop its oil production (which is down 1/3 since the Shah left). But this bill would send a clear signal that companies can’t rush in to fill this gap without paying a huge price. State pension funds, in toto, in the US provide these companies with almost $200 billion of investments. If California follows the lead of Missouri where State Treasurer Sarah Steelman has disinvested already, it will encourage all states to fall in line.


Sounds good to me!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 09:27:19 AM
If you studied military tactics, please tell me where it was OK for the Jamestown Colonists to kill whole villages of people, including women and children, because they refused to sell scarce food to the lazy colonists?

The colonists were not military. It absolutely was not any sort of military tactic. Incidents in the past are not comparable to what the US Military has evolved into as far as tactics due to technological advancement in weaponry. And to suggest that the colonists were soldiers anyway, IS ludicrous. They were Europeans that landed on the shore of N America seeking religious freedom, were they not?

Terror IS different from warfare. They do not produce battlefield deaths, they produce atrocities. Tactics of terror are NOT the same as military tactics---period. And when these terror actions are directed at civilians and not soldiers, how can you claim they are military in nature? They simply are not. And all the parsing in the world will not change it. There IS nothing like this taught in military academies in the US, and any comment I make IS regarding US military operations. There may actually be something from another country that could possibly imagine that these acts are of some military value, but that IS simply absurd by any modern warfare definition. Terrorists (Not soldiers) that are in conflict with, for example, the US military in Iraq, cannot possibly claim that strapping explosives onto children and have them kill civilians IS any kind of military tactic because it IS not---it IS a tactic of terror. These murders do nothing to weaken th US military's ability to engage in any offensive or defensive action. Period. Even during WWII when the germans were bombing London, it was called the 'Terror Bombing of London", as even tho the germans thought it would reduce British morale, it did not. And any actual realized military value was pathetically minimal, as only occasionally would a bomb actually hit something connected to Britains military infrastructure.

Why don't you check with some world body's thoughts on this like the geneva convention, or the UN, to see what IS thought of the act of strapping explosives onto men, women, or children and have them walk into marketplaces full of people trying to buy food? Not a doggone thing military about it. But, I suspect you will keep parsing just to gain a few mere moments of political expediency. It ain't gonna happen.

Basically, it was terrorism at its core.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 09:47:02 AM
If you studied military tactics, please tell me where it was OK for the Jamestown Colonists to kill whole villages of people, including women and children, because they refused to sell scarce food to the lazy colonists?

The colonists were not military. It absolutely was not any sort of military tactic. Incidents in the past are not comparable to what the US Military has evolved into as far as tactics due to technological advancement in weaponry. And to suggest that the colonists were soldiers anyway, IS ludicrous. They were Europeans that landed on the shore of N America seeking religious freedom, were they not?

Terror IS different from warfare. They do not produce battlefield deaths, they produce atrocities. Tactics of terror are NOT the same as military tactics---period. And when these terror actions are directed at civilians and not soldiers, how can you claim they are military in nature? They simply are not. And all the parsing in the world will not change it. There IS nothing like this taught in military academies in the US, and any comment I make IS regarding US military operations. There may actually be something from another country that could possibly imagine that these acts are of some military value, but that IS simply absurd by any modern warfare definition. Terrorists (Not soldiers) that are in conflict with, for example, the US military in Iraq, cannot possibly claim that strapping explosives onto children and have them kill civilians IS any kind of military tactic because it IS not---it IS a tactic of terror. These murders do nothing to weaken th US military's ability to engage in any offensive or defensive action. Period. Even during WWII when the germans were bombing London, it was called the 'Terror Bombing of London", as even tho the germans thought it would reduce British morale, it did not. And any actual realized military value was pathetically minimal, as only occasionally would a bomb actually hit something connected to Britains military infrastructure.

Why don't you check with some world body's thoughts on this like the geneva convention, or the UN, to see what IS thought of the act of strapping explosives onto men, women, or children and have them walk into marketplaces full of people trying to buy food? Not a doggone thing military about it. But, I suspect you will keep parsing just to gain a few mere moments of political expediency. It ain't gonna happen.

Basically, it was terrorism at its core.


Very correct. Very true.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 04:35:55 PM
Wow.  We agree about something.  Amazing, a liberal progressive and a rightwing fascist agreeing about something.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 05:54:23 PM
rightwing fascist agreeing about something....


A very pathetic and gratuitous comment there. But, it IS expected from a liberal. There IS hope for you, because the first step to be cured of being a liberal IS to admit you are one. I, however, am not a fascist, regardless of how many ad nauseum times you state so. But, you'll continue with the juvenility. How do I know? You are a liberal---you have admitted it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 06, 2007, 05:59:08 PM
Terrorism is like an immune response.  It is a symptom of a greater problem.  Trying to root out the symptom without addressing the problem is pure lunacy. 

We're spending 2 billion a week on Iraq.  I'd rather spend the 100 bil a year on a missile defense system.

By the way, waiting for the iraqi govt to ask us to leave is also lunacy.  We will be there forever watching the country devolve into civil war between shiite and sunni.

Cut and run?  Not at all... we've spent more years in Iraq than in WW2.  We've spent a ton of money and predictably made a ton of mistakes and probably seen a lot of that money stolen by profiteers, warlords, and defense contractors.

Staying the course is just being stubborn at this point.  We're not here to prop of Iraq.  She must stand or fall on her own.  Terror will not be stopped by staying there.  Terror will stop when greater issues are addressed.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 06:15:01 PM
Staying the course is just being stubborn at this point.  We're not here to prop of Iraq.  She must stand or fall on her own.  Terror will not be stopped by staying there.  Terror will stop when greater issues are addressed.


Yet even CNN (A decidedly liberal entity) analysts see that leaving too soon would not be good. Did you see the poll of Iraqis that said they did want the US to leave---but not just yet. When the Iraqis can fend for themselves, or when the iraqi govt asks us to leave, we'll be gone.


I wonder what you think of Iraqi women being able to vote in the last election? Aren't women second class citizens in most of the moslem world? Iran included? Just curious.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 06:26:42 PM
rightwing fascist agreeing about something....


A very pathetic and gratuitous comment there. But, it IS expected from a liberal. There IS hope for you, because the first step to be cured of being a liberal IS to admit you are one. I, however, am not a fascist, regardless of how many ad nauseum times you state so. But, you'll continue with the juvenility. How do I know? You are a liberal---you have admitted it.

I don't think you know what a fascist is.  Thing might help:  http://www.oldamericancentury.com/14pts.htm


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 06, 2007, 06:28:13 PM
Staying the course is just being stubborn at this point.  We're not here to prop of Iraq.  She must stand or fall on her own.  Terror will not be stopped by staying there.  Terror will stop when greater issues are addressed.


Yet even CNN (A decidedly liberal entity) analysts see that leaving too soon would not be good. Did you see the poll of Iraqis that said they did want the US to leave---but not just yet. When the Iraqis can fend for themselves, or when the iraqi govt asks us to leave, we'll be gone.


I wonder what you think of Iraqi women being able to vote in the last election? Aren't women second class citizens in most of the moslem world? Iran included? Just curious.



Women being able to vote is largely meaningless in Iran since un-elected clerics hold all the true power.

CNN polls say Iraqis want us to stay until there is security: in other words -indefinitely since there will never be a secure Iraq without fear to hold these different ethnic groups together.  But Americans want us to leave.  SHould we listen stronger to Iraqis than Americans?  We have lots of problems at home 100 bil a year could help solve.

Iraq will balkanize eventually.  It is inevitable now with Saddam gone and no real government to hold the country together.  Why stop the natural order?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 06, 2007, 06:43:38 PM
Staying the course is just being stubborn at this point.  We're not here to prop of Iraq.  She must stand or fall on her own.  Terror will not be stopped by staying there.  Terror will stop when greater issues are addressed.


Yet even CNN (A decidedly liberal entity) analysts see that leaving too soon would not be good. Did you see the poll of Iraqis that said they did want the US to leave---but not just yet. When the Iraqis can fend for themselves, or when the iraqi govt asks us to leave, we'll be gone.


I wonder what you think of Iraqi women being able to vote in the last election? Aren't women second class citizens in most of the moslem world? Iran included? Just curious.



Women being able to vote is largely meaningless in Iran since un-elected clerics hold all the true power.

CNN polls say Iraqis want us to stay until there is security: in other words -indefinitely since there will never be a secure Iraq without fear to hold these different ethnic groups together.  But Americans want us to leave.  SHould we listen stronger to Iraqis than Americans?  We have lots of problems at home 100 bil a year could help solve.

Iraq will balkanize eventually.  It is inevitable now with Saddam gone and no real government to hold the country together.  Why stop the natural order?

I think this is what will happen too.  It is only natural for these tribal people.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 10:15:33 PM
indefinitely since there will never be a secure Iraq without fear to hold these different ethnic groups together.


How very conveniente for your argument that you leave out that fact that Iran IS the cause of so much of the trouble there....not the iraqi ethnic groups you speak of. Iran IS playing both sides of the field with their bloody interference and you know it. Unless you are just closing your eyes to them.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 10:16:35 PM
Terrorism is like an immune response.  It is a symptom of a greater problem.  Trying to root out the symptom without addressing the problem is pure lunacy.


Murdering innocent women and children in markets IS what IS pure lunacy, and evading this fact IS pathetic.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 06, 2007, 10:36:15 PM
NGC,

I keep reminding you that murdering women and children is an ancient way to wage war. It was introduced in America with the colonists at Jamestown. You keep making a big deal of it in Iraq, as if it's something new in the world. Even during your "service" stateside during the Vietnam was, the killing of women and children went on. Sure, we prosecuted a few here and there, but most went unnoticed and unpunished.

And, by the way, what is your evidence that it is Iran and not the Iraqis themselves who are the problem? Anything more than Iran rattling your chain? 



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 06, 2007, 11:38:57 PM
WOW!! No name calling---I think I am impressed!!

I keep reminding you that murdering women and children is an ancient way to wage war.

Maybe then by a lotta savages, but not now---just an abomination being carried out by savages, and w/o defense. The civilians are not in the war, are they? Just being victimized by the iranians and bloodthirsty iraqi terrorists. Your attempt to rationalize murder of women and children IS quite pathetic I might add.


You keep making a big deal of it in Iraq, as if it's something new in the world.

Tell the families of the murdered that it IS no big deal. AND what your opinions are of those that are committing the murders. I'm sure you'll make friends fast there.



Even during your "service" stateside during the Vietnam was, the killing of women and children went on.

Ya gotta qualify my service, huh? As if I am not honorable? IS that it? If so, take the log out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in mine. At least I served and did what was asked and went where I was told. You state the killing of women and children as if it was part of the daily routine of our armed forces---it was not, regardless of your obviously liberal military detesting thoughts. (A conservative or moderate comment would NOT look like what you have posted)


And, by the way, what is your evidence that it is Iran and not the Iraqis themselves who are the problem?

There undoubtedly are Iraqis that are murdering their own. And I know someone over there that tells me things they see and experience. That good enuff for ya? Well, you're just gonna say I am lying, or some other disbelieving retort.

I haven't seen much moderation from you BTW. Just spin and debasements. I wonder how long you'll refrain from name calling? It will be interesting to see.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 05:45:36 AM
WOW!! No name calling---I think I am impressed!!

I keep reminding you that murdering women and children is an ancient way to wage war.

Maybe then by a lotta savages, but not now---just an abomination being carried out by savages, and w/o defense. The civilians are not in the war, are they? Just being victimized by the iranians and bloodthirsty iraqi terrorists. Your attempt to rationalize murder of women and children IS quite pathetic I might add.


You keep making a big deal of it in Iraq, as if it's something new in the world.

Tell the families of the murdered that it IS no big deal. AND what your opinions are of those that are committing the murders. I'm sure you'll make friends fast there.



Even during your "service" stateside during the Vietnam was, the killing of women and children went on.

Ya gotta qualify my service, huh? As if I am not honorable? IS that it? If so, take the log out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in mine. At least I served and did what was asked and went where I was told. You state the killing of women and children as if it was part of the daily routine of our armed forces---it was not, regardless of your obviously liberal military detesting thoughts. (A conservative or moderate comment would NOT look like what you have posted)


And, by the way, what is your evidence that it is Iran and not the Iraqis themselves who are the problem?

There undoubtedly are Iraqis that are murdering their own. And I know someone over there that tells me things they see and experience. That good enuff for ya? Well, you're just gonna say I am lying, or some other disbelieving retort.

I haven't seen much moderation from you BTW. Just spin and debasements. I wonder how long you'll refrain from name calling? It will be interesting to see.



America with its "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq is as much a terrorist as those who believe in jihad.  That the people are also is a blood-letting is the result of America's action.  The Iraqis are Arab; the Iranians are Persian.  Saudi Arabia, once a tight Bush ally, is as much a threat to the area as is Iran.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 07, 2007, 06:03:23 AM
kam,

We're spending 2 billion a week on Iraq.  I'd rather spend the 100 bil a year on a missile defense system.

I would rather spend it on education and health care!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 07:08:53 AM
NGC,

So the colonists were a lotta savages? The American solders in Viet Nam were a lotta savages? What an interesting way of parsing the history.

Personally, I am more concerned for the families of those military personel who are coming home in flag-draped coffins. If that isn't moderate enough for you, that is too bad. You seem to think that war is an honorable way to die. But, to the families of the fallen soldier, it is small comfort for their loss.

Perhaps if you had sons and daughters who were putting their lives at risk you could understand why Sam and I are opposed to using our own children as cannon fodder.

It is time to end the slaughter of our children. Bring the troops home now. If Iraq cannot stand on their own, let the UN send in the necessary forces. That is the purpose of the UN.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 08:19:10 AM
NGC,

So the colonists were a lotta savages? The American solders in Viet Nam were a lotta savages? What an interesting way of parsing the history.

Personally, I am more concerned for the families of those military personel who are coming home in flag-draped coffins. If that isn't moderate enough for you, that is too bad. You seem to think that war is an honorable way to die. But, to the families of the fallen soldier, it is small comfort for their loss.

Perhaps if you had sons and daughters who were putting their lives at risk you could understand why Sam and I are opposed to using our own children as cannon fodder.

It is time to end the slaughter of our children. Bring the troops home now. If Iraq cannot stand on their own, let the UN send in the necessary forces. That is the purpose of the UN.

One of the biggest insults is that these young people are dying in vain for a failed leader and a failed policy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:11:03 AM
So the colonists were a lotta savages?

I didn't say that. You are parsing and spinning. Very liberal of you.



The American solders in Viet Nam were a lotta savages? What an interesting way of parsing the history.


Not parsing at all. It IS you that must go to bad things to try to rationalize the actions of a few as a policy of the many. Verrrrry liberal of you to generalize like that.




Personally, I am more concerned for the families of those military personel who are coming home in flag-draped coffins. If that isn't moderate enough for you, that is too bad.

That IS good that you feel for the families of the those that have given their lives. That ISn't a liberal, moderate, or conservative feeling---it IS human. But I see you wish to politicize humanities---that IS a part of liberalism that IS pathetic!



Perhaps if you had sons and daughters who were putting their lives at risk you could understand why Sam and I are opposed to using our own children as cannon fodder.

If we didn't have a 100% volunteer military, you'd have a point. But since no-one in the service was drafted, maybe against his or her will, you have not a leg to stand on.




 If Iraq cannot stand on their own, let the UN send in the necessary forces. That is the purpose of the UN.


I wonder why the UN hasn't sent in troops LONG to assist as you suggest? Or are you saying the US should have no presence there at all? Doing so NOW would certainly enable the US to reduce its' presence there, wouldn't it? But you just do not SEE that the UN IS a hate America organization that IS only interested in our money, and that it IS so corrupt that it will not even police itself.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:14:35 AM
America with its "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq is as much a terrorist as those who believe in jihad.

Only in the mind of an america hating liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 09:15:08 AM
Quote
Verrrrry liberal of you to generalize like that.
Comrade, you are the master of unintentional irony.

Quote
If we didn't have a 100% volunteer military, you'd have a point. But since no-one in the service was drafted, maybe against his or her will, you have not a leg to stand on.
Great!  So in addition to hating the airforce because they do not fight the enemy face to face, you favor treating our brave soldiers as cannon fodder!  Why do you hate our troops?

Quote
But you just do not SEE that the UN IS a hate America organization that IS only interested in our money,
What money?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:41:20 AM
Comrade, you are the master of unintentional irony.

And that IS your opinion. Have at it.



So in addition to hating the airforce because they do not fight the enemy face to face, you favor treating our brave soldiers as cannon fodder!  Why do you hate our troops?

I don't. You are just projecting and spinning what you WISH was true so you can slam me---verrrry liberal of you. Pathetic, too.



But you just do not SEE that the UN IS a hate America organization that IS only interested in our money,
What money?

Are you not being just a bit naive with this thought? Do some homework if this IS really in your mind, mr. liberal.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 09:50:24 AM
Quote
I don't. You are just projecting and spinning what you WISH was true so you can slam me---verrrry liberal of you. Pathetic, too.
A tissue thin denial.  What a typical response from a troops hater.  Why do you hate our troops, comrade?  Or are you too afraid to answer the question?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 09:57:47 AM
America with its "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq is as much a terrorist as those who believe in jihad.

Only in the mind of an america hating liberal.

Nonsense.  If you had been an Iraqi living in Baghdad on that fateful night, you would have thought America was a terrorist state.  And it is.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:57:49 AM
A tissue thin denial.  What a typical response from a troops hater.  Why do you hate our troops, comrade?  Or are you too afraid to answer the question?

Not afraid. I do not hate our troops and you know it. You are just living the lie in your own little liberal brain. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise, will it, mr. liberal? Of course not. It ISn't hard to understand from your post that you live a life of hate.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:58:47 AM
Nonsense.  If you had been an Iraqi living in Baghdad on that fateful night, you would have thought America was a terrorist state.  And it is.

Man, you are just 'eat up' with liberalism. You reek of it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 10:05:26 AM
Quote
I do not hate our troops and you know it.
I know you hate our air force because they do not fight the enemy face to face.  I know you support our ground troops being treated as cannon fodder. So why do you hate our troops?   So verrrry conservative of you to avoid answering.

And of course, by conservative I mean "major league arse wipe."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 10:15:23 AM
Nonsense.  If you had been an Iraqi living in Baghdad on that fateful night, you would have thought America was a terrorist state.  And it is.

Man, you are just 'eat up' with liberalism. You reek of it.

If you lived in Iran, you'd think that America was a terrorist, with its gun boats sitting off your coast and its missle aimed at you.  If you lived in Afganistan you'd know America was a terrorist state as well.  Nothing to do with being a liberal.  It has to do with reality and seeing the world through other people's eyes, you commie.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:15:56 AM
I know you hate our air force because they do not fight the enemy face to face.  I know you support our ground troops being treated as cannon fodder. So why do you hate our troops?   So verrrry conservative of you to avoid answering.

And of course, by conservative I mean "major league arse wipe."


Only a liberal will project that he KNOWS what IS in someone elses mind. Your liberal blinders work overtime for you, don't they? Or are they molecularly bonded to your skull? I have not evaded answering as you well know, mr. liberal. You just have to live your little lie to feel superior.

I see you felt the need to go vulgar---liberal trait in action again. Quite predictable these vulgar liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 10:30:10 AM
Quote
Only a liberal will project that he KNOWS what IS in someone elses mind.
The master of unintentional irony strikes again!

Quote
I see you felt the need to go vulgar---liberal trait in action again. Quite predictable these vulgar liberals.
Ah, well, you see, since your fellow conservative kidcarter had used the term without you calling him vulgar or empty minded, I thought the term was acceptable to you.  If you object to the term, stop being a conservative.

To protect your virgin ears, though, I'll rephrase.  You are a typical conservative.

And by conservative, I mean a major league wiper of other people's bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:32:57 AM
To protect your virgin ears, though, I'll rephrase.  You are a typical conservative.

And by conservative, I mean a major league wiper of other people's bottoms.


I see you need another glassful of kool aid, too, mr. liberal. Thanks for calling me conservative, tho. I am properly insulted now---BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:34:23 AM
Ah, well, you see, since your fellow conservative kidcarter had used the term without you calling him vulgar or empty minded...

I did state that it was un-necessary. For the record, it IS vulgar and weak minded....just like you, mr. vulgar liberal!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 10:36:10 AM
Comrade ngc -

If you enjoy being a wiper of other people's bottoms, you enjoy it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
Comrade ngc -

If you enjoy being a wiper of other people's bottoms, you enjoy it.


Why can't you grow up? "Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?

This fits you like a glove, mr. child-like liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 10:49:00 AM
Ngc, the commie loving conservative fascist.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 10:51:09 AM
Comrade ngc -

Well, if you do not like being called that, just stop being a conservative.

And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other people's bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 10:55:00 AM
Not that we have determined that ya'll are liberals, and I am not a liberal, why don't we return to the reason for this thread---National Security? Or IS that too arbitrary a thing to suggest?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 11:19:24 AM
When you stop pretending you are not insulting people, stop using liberal as a cloture device, and stop with the mendacious superiority act, maybe.  Just stop being a conservative.

And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other psople's bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:25:10 AM
When you stop pretending you are not insulting people, stop using liberal as a cloture device, and stop with the mendacious superiority act, maybe.

Sorry, if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...I'll call it a duck.

Thank you for calling me conservative (And not something so very liberally vulgar)---I will not stop being one, and I feel properly insulted when you call me one. For you to go over the edge they way you do about being called a liberal, I know I have hit the mark. You ARE a liberal.


And as much as you are talking about the gluteous maximus, are you gay? Or just juvenile liberal?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 11:29:57 AM
Quote
Sorry, if looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck...I'll call it a duck.
Which is why I call you a conservative.  And by a conservative I mean a major league wiper of other people's bottoms.
Quote
You ARE a liberal.
Never denied it.  But it is your deliberately insulting definition of liberal that is pulled straight out of you rectal opening, not my politics.
Quote
And as much as you are talking about the gluteous maximus, are you gay?
Oooh - homophobic too?  Excellent.  I have not the honor.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:53:19 AM
You can continue being the vulgar liberal all you want. It just shows you have a weak and vulgar mind.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 11:55:27 AM
You can continue being the vulgar liberal all you want. It just shows you have a weak and vulgar mind.
You can continue to be a homophobic wiper of other people's bottoms all you want.  It just shows you have a weak and hateful little mind.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 11:57:43 AM
rrriiiggghhhttt....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 11:58:37 AM
rrriiiggghhhttt....
Ah!  So you agree that you are a homophobic wiper of other people's bottoms!  Excellent.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:00:47 PM
rrriiiggghhhttt---pathetic. Just liberally, vulgarly pathetic..Hey liberals---look at this---

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- A backpack exploded in a parking garage attached to a Las Vegas hotel early Monday, killing a man who had picked it up and injuring another person, authorities said.

The man had removed the backpack from atop his car when it exploded shortly after 4 a.m. on the second floor of a parking behind the Luxor hotel-casino, said Officer Bill Cassell, a police spokesman.


Should the Las Vegas police and state authorities just 'cut and run' from Las Vegas?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 12:04:34 PM
rrriiiggghhhttt---pathetic. Just liberally, vulgarly pathetic..Hey liberals---look at this---

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- A backpack exploded in a parking garage attached to a Las Vegas hotel early Monday, killing a man who had picked it up and injuring another person, authorities said.

The man had removed the backpack from atop his car when it exploded shortly after 4 a.m. on the second floor of a parking behind the Luxor hotel-casino, said Officer Bill Cassell, a police spokesman.


Should the Las Vegas police and state authorities just 'cut and run' from Las Vegas?
What an idiotic irrelevancy.  Exactly what I would expect from a conservative.

And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other people's bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:09:34 PM
wiper of other people's bottoms.

You appear to have an unhealthy obsession. But, that IS expected from a liberal to be vulgar.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 12:13:02 PM
You don't like the phrase, stop being a conservative.

And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other peoples' bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:15:24 PM
You do to have an unhealthy obsession. But, that IS expected from a liberal to be vulgar.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 12:23:25 PM
You do to have an unhealthy obsession. But, that IS expected from a liberal to be vulgar.
You don't like the phrase, stop being a conservative.

And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other peoples' bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 12:24:53 PM
You don't like the phrase, stop being a conservative.

And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other peoples' bottoms.

Whiskey: Maybe :
"ngc" stands for "no good conservative"???

Seriously, ngc was presented with the challenge days ago to see if he could post cogent arguments in a manner that was respectful, and in a manner that showed he could consider the merits of another posters arguments OR he could be that old guy who hates liberals. He has subsequently made his choice. I don't know why anyone would try changing his mind. He's shown himself to be committed to that latter category. Do you expect that to end, merely because you continue to point out his ironic posts, hypocracy, and inconsistencies?

The only consistency we can expect by virtue of the choice has has made himself is that he will continue to label anyone who disagrees with him as a "liberal".

Watching you toy with him intellectually like a kitten with yarn is probably starting to be less than amusing.

Keep it up. I am easily amused!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:25:20 PM
I am so cowed and intimidated with the searing vulgar logic of your fiery juvenile liberal rhetoric---NOT!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:30:14 PM
respectful, and in a manner that showed he could consider the merits of another posters arguments OR he could be that old guy who hates liberals. He has subsequently made his choice. I don't know why anyone would try changing his mind. He's shown himself to be committed to that latter category. Do you expect that to end, merely because you continue to point out his ironic posts, hypocracy, and inconsistencies?



And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other peoples' bottoms.


The incessant vulgarity only emphasizes my very correct affirmation of this juvenile's being a liberal. And your getting into the reference to being a liberal MUST be correct, as the responses I get show, positively, that I am hitting the mark. I, however, do not get vulgar or complain about being called a conservative, the opposite of liberal, like liberals do. The posts I get demonstrate the accuracy of my determinations. They are coming from liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 12:33:52 PM
respectful, and in a manner that showed he could consider the merits of another posters arguments OR he could be that old guy who hates liberals. He has subsequently made his choice. I don't know why anyone would try changing his mind. He's shown himself to be committed to that latter category. Do you expect that to end, merely because you continue to point out his ironic posts, hypocracy, and inconsistencies?



And by conservative I mean major league wiper of other peoples' bottoms.


The incessant vulgarity only emphasizes my very correct affirmation of this juvenile's being a liberal. And your getting into the reference to being a liberal MUST be correct, as the responses I get show, positively, that I am hitting the mark. I, however, do not get vulgar or complain about being called a conservative, the opposite of liberal, like liberals do. The posts I get demonstrate the accuracy of my determinations. They are coming from liberals.
And your responses show the accuracy of my determinations.  You are a conservative.

And by conservative I mean a major league wiper of other peoples' bottoms.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 12:38:16 PM
The incessant vulgarity only emphasizes my very correct affirmation of this juvenile's being a liberal. And your getting into the reference to being a liberal MUST be correct, as the responses I get show, positively, that I am hitting the mark. I, however, do not get vulgar or complain about being called a conservative, the opposite of liberal, like liberals do. The posts I get demonstrate the accuracy of my determinations. They are coming from liberals.

I think the point is, NGC, that people would rather be called liberal than to be continually shown that their arguments are deeply flawed and that they are incapable of understanding or acknowledging a point of view different from their own.

But, hey, it's your life. If you wish to be known as not a liberal by virtue of being inarticulate and incomprehensible, by all means, proceed.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 12:45:04 PM
Throughout this "debate" I'm still trying to get a grasp on what "liberal" means and what "conservative" means.

I'm still trying to figure things out.  I mean is being anti-death penalty "liberal" or "conservative"?  What if the reason you're against the death penalty is that you don't want the big, bad government (the supposed anathema of all conservatives) involved in taking lives.   I'm so confused.

Love,

Yankguy


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 12:45:56 PM
Excellent point, ham.  I should look on the more positive side of things.

Comrade ngc, you are not a liberal.  And by liberal I mean intelligent, open to discussion, and willing to consider points of view in an intelligent and rational manner.

I, on the other hand, am proud to be a liberal.  And by liberal when I apply it to myself I mean one who tends more or less but not eclusively towards the left side of the political debate, particularly on social issues, matters of justice, and the use of the military.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 12:46:13 PM
"Gasoline prices have surged to a record nationwide average of $3.07 per gallon, nearly 20 cents higher than two weeks earlier," analysts say. "The previous record was $3.03 per gallon on Aug. 11, 2006."

Will the oil companies be posting even bigger profits this year than last?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 12:49:18 PM
You see, I'm supposed to be a "liberal".  Yet, I don't have a problem with oil companies making profits, huge profits even.  That's "conservative". As long as dumb Americans continue to buy SUV's we'll use too much gasoline and the oil companies will make huge profits.  Wait, that's "liberal" to call fellow Americans dumb and to decry the use of SUV's.  I'm still so confused.  Help me.

Love,

Yankguy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:51:40 PM
The incessant vulgarity only emphasizes my very correct affirmation of this juvenile's being a liberal. And your getting into the reference to being a liberal MUST be correct, as the responses I get show, positively, that I am hitting the mark. I, however, do not get vulgar or complain about being called a conservative, the opposite of liberal, like liberals do. The posts I get demonstrate the accuracy of my determinations. They are coming from liberals.

I think the point is, NGC, that people would rather be called liberal than to be continually shown that their arguments are deeply flawed and that they are incapable of understanding or acknowledging a point of view different from their own.

But, hey, it's your life. If you wish to be known as not a liberal by virtue of being inarticulate and incomprehensible, by all means, proceed.


I am impressed---no name calling and no vulgarity. It IS a pleasure to see this. Whatta shame that others cannot be civil as well. Oh, well.

I am inarticulate and incomprehensible? OK---your opinion. And I thought speaking, reading, and writing 3 languages would make me otherwise. Your observation may be correct.

To be continually shown their arguements are flawed? It IS called debate for crying out loud.

Incapable of acknowledging a point of view that IS different? That IS what IS happening. Many stop trying to debate an issue and go personal with the obvious attempt to destroy character and do nothing more than insult. I cite the MYRIAD of vulgarities, name calling, even bringing my family into it, that have been thrown my way. Yet I have not responded in kind.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 12:54:52 PM
Will the oil companies be posting even bigger profits this year than last?

I wonder what gasoline prices would be if the US population was the owner of all non-renewable natural resources? And not an individual or a very small cadre of people? I proposed a solution and you went ballistics. True?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 12:56:18 PM
Quote
And I thought speaking, reading, and writing 3 languages would make me otherwise.
No, that only makes you an inarticulate and incomprehensible polyglot.

Or, as Wanda Gershwitz noted, when Otto responded to being called an ape by noting "Apes don't read Nietzsche,":  "Yes they do.  They just don't understand it."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 12:57:43 PM
Nitschke wasn't nearly as good as Butkus, though they both went to Illinois.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 12:59:03 PM
Will the oil companies be posting even bigger profits this year than last?

I wonder what gasoline prices would be if the US population was the owner of all non-renewable natural resources? And not an individual or a very small cadre of people? I proposed a solution and you went ballistics. True?

I wonder what they would be if we had an energy policy that imposed the same CAFE standards on SUVs, and light trucks, as it does on cars?

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 07, 2007, 01:07:38 PM
indefinitely since there will never be a secure Iraq without fear to hold these different ethnic groups together.


How very conveniente for your argument that you leave out that fact that Iran IS the cause of so much of the trouble there....not the iraqi ethnic groups you speak of. Iran IS playing both sides of the field with their bloody interference and you know it. Unless you are just closing your eyes to them.

Iraqis have been divided along religious lines forever.  You are incorrect in assuming this is a new problem.
Furthermore, Irans reaction should have been anticipated but wasn't.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 01:11:05 PM
Will the oil companies be posting even bigger profits this year than last?

I wonder what gasoline prices would be if the US population was the owner of all non-renewable natural resources? And not an individual or a very small cadre of people? I proposed a solution and you went ballistics. True?

Ah, the communist way of management, comrade.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:09:49 PM
Ah, the communist way of management, comrade.

So you disagree with the premise? Liberals would no longer be able to sqwawk about bsuh's oil biddies getting rich at the populace's expense tho, right? I made a suggestion. I do not have the power to implement it. If this IS not a satisfactory approach, what would you do to alleviate the problem?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:11:55 PM
indefinitely since there will never be a secure Iraq without fear to hold these different ethnic groups together.


How very conveniente for your argument that you leave out that fact that Iran IS the cause of so much of the trouble there....not the iraqi ethnic groups you speak of. Iran IS playing both sides of the field with their bloody interference and you know it. Unless you are just closing your eyes to them.

Iraqis have been divided along religious lines forever.  You are incorrect in assuming this is a new problem.
Furthermore, Irans reaction should have been anticipated but wasn't.


That IS a very gratuituous comment. Iran can react all it wants to--internally. But if they decide to meddle across their border, how could this be anticipated? The vulcan mind meld? It IS easy to be a 20/20 hindsight armchair general.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:13:11 PM
I wonder what they would be if we had an energy policy that imposed the same CAFE standards on SUVs, and light trucks, as it does on cars?


Good point.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 02:22:06 PM
You know what an "energy policy that imposes the same CAFE standards on SUVs, and light trucks, as it does on cars" is don't you?

Yep.  It's "liberal."  I mean a government dictating how a private company should act?  That's darn near socialism.  Liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 07, 2007, 02:26:47 PM
indefinitely since there will never be a secure Iraq without fear to hold these different ethnic groups together.


How very conveniente for your argument that you leave out that fact that Iran IS the cause of so much of the trouble there....not the iraqi ethnic groups you speak of. Iran IS playing both sides of the field with their bloody interference and you know it. Unless you are just closing your eyes to them.

Iraqis have been divided along religious lines forever.  You are incorrect in assuming this is a new problem.
Furthermore, Irans reaction should have been anticipated but wasn't.


That IS a very gratuituous comment. Iran can react all it wants to--internally. But if they decide to meddle across their border, how could this be anticipated? The vulcan mind meld? It IS easy to be a 20/20 hindsight armchair general.

What is scary is I could have predicted it.  Anyone with a brain could anticipated that our other enemies in the middle east would capitalize on the chance to inflict damage on the USA.  Its just like the game RISK when two smaller armies align against a larger regional threat.  

This IS the role of our governement and its national security policy, isn't it?  To anticipate where we could get bogged down in a military operation is what Generals are for aren't they?  I'm no armchair general but i know an obvious threat when i see one.  But i forgive our generals for this because i think they did warn but warning fell on deaf ears.

The government of Iran is simply acting in its best security interest. Why shuold the government in Iran welcome a puppet govt in Iraq controlled by the West?  Look at it from the standpoint of the ruling clerics there.  National security is what they are persuing just like we are.  


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:35:48 PM
I'm no armchair general but i know an obvious threat when i see one.

So we should initiate some response to the iranians terrorist entry into the field of cambat---or just turn tail and run?



The government of Iran is simply acting in its best security interest.

By murdering women and children?




Why shuold the government in Iran welcome a puppet govt in Iraq controlled by the West?

I guess you missed the elections that were held in Iraq. It IS none of Iran's business what the Iraqis decide to do internally, right? You evidently believe the results were subverted?




National security is what they are persuing just like we are.

Murdering women and children IS not the way to do it. We are pursuing national security by trying to eliminate the animals that would indiscriminately murder others ON PURPOSE.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 02:37:15 PM
I mean a government dictating how a private company should act?

There IS a lot of federal regulation in this country---yes.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 02:42:56 PM
That's liberal!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 02:58:04 PM
I'm no armchair general but i know an obvious threat when i see one.

So we should initiate some response to the iranians terrorist entry into the field of cambat---or just turn tail and run?

You would bomb Iran?  We don't have enough military to fight a third war.


The government of Iran is simply acting in its best security interest.

By murdering women and children?

And what do you call it when we drop bombs from high in the air and kill women and children>  Collateral damage?




Why shuold the government in Iran welcome a puppet govt in Iraq controlled by the West?

I guess you missed the elections that were held in Iraq. It IS none of Iran's business what the Iraqis decide to do internally, right? You evidently believe the results were subverted?

And it is none of our business what goes on in Venezula either, by that logic.


National security is what they are persuing just like we are.

Murdering women and children IS not the way to do it. We are pursuing national security by trying to eliminate the animals that would indiscriminately murder others ON PURPOSE.

To them you and your murdering ilk are no different.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 03:14:04 PM
Quote
But if they [Iran] decide to meddle across their border, how could this be anticipated?
Good lord, how in the name of all you hold Holy could you ever think they WOULDN'T?  It was the most likely scenario of the creation of a political vacuum in Iraq.  How they might meddle might be an open question, but there's no question they would try to fill the power gap somehow.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 07, 2007, 03:16:34 PM
A Peaceful Solution to Oil Wars:

You need only open the morning paper to understand the importance — and urgency — of America‘s reduced reliance on foreign oil. The instability of the Middle East makes our 58% dependence on foreign oil a dangerous and costly proposition.

Look even closer and you'll see that the lion's share of American oil use (nearly two-thirds of our consumption) is tied directly to transportation. If ever there was a time when a gasoline-free car was needed, that time is now.


http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil.php

Stop the maddness.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:18:58 PM
We would be created as liberators, remember?  They would be throwing flowers at the troops.  With this kind of mentality, it's no wonder they never thought about anything beyond "shock and awe", a night of terror in Baghdad.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 03:21:34 PM
We meant well.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 07, 2007, 03:29:52 PM
As I point out in my new book, Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought down the Republican Revolution, conservatives once opposed things like a federal takeover of education or giving tax dollars to private charity.  Now a new brand of conservatism has no problem with big government as long as it can be used to achieve conservative ends.  Just look at some of what President Bush has done:

Enacted the largest new entitlement program since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit that could add as much as $11.2 trillion to the program’s unfunded liabilities;

Dramatically increased federal control over local schools while increasing federal education spending by nearly 61 percent;

Signed a campaign finance bill that greatly restricts freedom of speech, despite saying he believed it was unconstitutional;

Authorized warrantless wiretapping and given vast new powers to law enforcement;
Federalized airport security and created a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security;

Added roughly 7,000 pages of new federal regulations, bringing the cost of federal regulations to the economy to more than $1.1 trillion;

Enacted a $1.5 billion program to promote marriage;

Proposed a $1.7 billion initiative to develop a hydrogen-powered car;

Abandoned traditional conservative support for free trade by imposing tariffs and other import restrictions on steel and lumber;

Expanded President Clinton’s national service program;

Increased farm subsidies;

Launched an array of new regulations on corporate governance and accounting; and

Generally done more to centralize government power in the executive branch than any administration since Richard Nixon.

Yet, Bottum offers no criticism of this agenda.  Instead he is upset that Bush “fumbled” the faith-based initiative. What Bottum and others need to understand is that the biggest failure of the Bush administration (and its allies in Congress), is not incompetence but an abandonment of conservatives’ traditional belief in limited government.

posted by Michael D. Tanner on 03.13.07



Yep, it's them Liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 03:49:43 PM
So we should initiate some response to the iranians terrorist entry into the field of cambat---or just turn tail and run?

You would bomb Iran?  We don't have enough military to fight a third war.


I asked a question---I said nothing about doing anything. But we do have the air power in the gulf to do this.



The government of Iran is simply acting in its best security interest.

By murdering women and children?

And what do you call it when we drop bombs from high in the air and kill women and children>  Collateral damage?


Yep---unfortunate and not on purpose---unlike iranian and iraqi terrorists. That IS truth, ISn't it?




Why shuold the government in Iran welcome a puppet govt in Iraq controlled by the West?

I guess you missed the elections that were held in Iraq. It IS none of Iran's business what the Iraqis decide to do internally, right? You evidently believe the results were subverted?

And it is none of our business what goes on in Venezula either, by that logic.


We are not setting off bombs in marketplaces there either. Iranians and Iraqi terorists are doing this in Iraq.



National security is what they are persuing just like we are.

Murdering women and children IS not the way to do it. We are pursuing national security by trying to eliminate the animals that would indiscriminately murder others ON PURPOSE.

To them you and your murdering ilk are no different.


That IS a pathetic statement---typical of a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 07, 2007, 03:58:09 PM
Yep---unfortunate and not on purpose---unlike iranian and iraqi terrorists. That IS truth, ISn't it?

Dropping bombs happens - "not on purpose"?


We are not setting off bombs in marketplaces there either. Iranians and Iraqi terorists are doing this in Iraq.

Never heard of Shock and AWE did you?

Being bombed on purpose or not, is wrong on both sides.




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 03:59:55 PM
Shock and awe was purposefully done.  Bush was out to get Saddam.  Thousands of innocents died for that.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:02:28 PM
Dropping bombs happens - "not on purpose"?


Dropping bombs IS on purpose---killing non-combatants IS not done on purpose, and you know it. Unless you are an iranian or iraqi animal that detonates explosives in marketpalces, right? Those civilian deaths ARE purposely done.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:04:46 PM
It's called ethnic cleansing.  It's been done since bibilical times.  Recently, we've witnessed it in the Balkans, in Rowanda, and Darfur, as well as Iraq and to some extent is Syria.  The US did it to the native people here.  It is nothing new.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 07, 2007, 04:06:53 PM
Shock and awe was purposefully done.  Bush was out to get Saddam.  Thousands of innocents died for that.

Many are alive because of it


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:07:52 PM
Shock and awe was purposefully done.  Bush was out to get Saddam.  Thousands of innocents died for that.

Many are alive because of it

Who?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 04:10:05 PM
Didn't we bomb a wedding?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 04:11:17 PM
Shock and awe was purposefully done.  Bush was out to get Saddam.  Thousands of innocents died for that.

Many are alive because of it

Who?

American soldiers -- at least until the occupation....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:12:32 PM
Didn't we bomb a wedding?

I think I did hear/read something about that---supposedly an al-qaida or taliban event with a lotta members supposed to be present?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:14:53 PM
Nothing to do with either group.  It was in Anwar province.  It was an innocent wedding party.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 04:15:14 PM
You tell 'em NGC.  The liberal media just report a garden-variety wedding.  WE know better, it was crawling with terrorists and the only shame is that we didn't get 'em all.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 04:16:38 PM
It wasn't in Anwar province.  It was in Afghanistan.  Reporting such misinformation is liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 04:20:26 PM
So, NGC,

Not only did you avoid combat duty yourself, you raised your children to avoid their patriotic responsibility, too. And you want to call "liberals" names? It's perfectly all right for Sam's son the have made the ultimate sacrifice. You just expect others to fight your battles for you. It is perfectly all right for my son to served, and, fortunately to come home unscarred twice. You expect that. But, when it comes to your own sacrifice - it is hands off - my kids aren't volunteering!

Suppose all the troops decided to do what you and your children are doing? Suppose they all resigned from the military and just came home. Who would wage your and Bush's silly war then?

As to the UN, I understand why they haven't come in. We snubbed our noses at them in the beginning and said we would do it ourselves rather than submit to their refusal to sanction our attacks. Has Bush humbled himself  and ASKED the UN to come into the chaos? NO! He is still thinking he can get away with wasting American lives to keep from getting egg on his own face.

Now, you will assert that I hate Bush. Go ahead. It makes you feel so smug. But the truth is not that I hate Bush, but I do not approve of his policies. If you don't understand the difference between hate and disapproval, perhaps your parents were too apply the rod, rather than spoil the child. Perhaps they should have explained to you why you deserved the spankings instead of just administering them and letting you think they hated you for what you did.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 04:23:27 PM
In any case, non-combatants routinely are killed, certainly they should not be the primary target, but they  often are considered acceptable casualties.  That said warfare has changed much in the past few decades with a greater emphasis on targeting specific military installations and targets.  Consider the bombing that was conducted indiscriminately during WWII, reaching perhaps its most climactic moment with the dropping of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 07, 2007, 04:26:02 PM
It wasn't in Anwar province.  It was in Afghanistan.  Reporting such misinformation is liberal.

It happened in western Iraq as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1220750,00.html


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:29:10 PM
Those conservatives don't know everything, now do they!!! Ha, ha, ha, ha.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 07, 2007, 04:33:06 PM
So, NGC,

Not only did you avoid combat duty yourself, you raised your children to avoid their patriotic responsibility, too. And you want to call "liberals" names? It's perfectly all right for Sam's son the have made the ultimate sacrifice. You just expect others to fight your battles for you. It is perfectly all right for my son to served, and, fortunately to come home unscarred twice. You expect that. But, when it comes to your own sacrifice - it is hands off - my kids aren't volunteering!

Suppose all the troops decided to do what you and your children are doing? Suppose they all resigned from the military and just came home. Who would wage your and Bush's silly war then?

As to the UN, I understand why they haven't come in. We snubbed our noses at them in the beginning and said we would do it ourselves rather than submit to their refusal to sanction our attacks. Has Bush humbled himself  and ASKED the UN to come into the chaos? NO! He is still thinking he can get away with wasting American lives to keep from getting egg on his own face.

Now, you will assert that I hate Bush. Go ahead. It makes you feel so smug. But the truth is not that I hate Bush, but I do not approve of his policies. If you don't understand the difference between hate and disapproval, perhaps your parents were too apply the rod, rather than spoil the child. Perhaps they should have explained to you why you deserved the spankings instead of just administering them and letting you think they hated you for what you did.





Your son's service, as well as sam's, is not so much expected as revered.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 04:34:58 PM
Thank you, Kid.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 07, 2007, 04:37:58 PM
In any case, non-combatants routinely are killed, certainly they should not be the primary target, but they  often are considered acceptable casualties.  That said warfare has changed much in the past few decades with a greater emphasis on targeting specific military installations and targets.  Consider the bombing that was conducted indiscriminately during WWII, reaching perhaps its most climactic moment with the dropping of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

Never forget Dresden either.  Allied forces firebombed the ENTIRE city ngc.  Every THING died.  On purpose.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 07, 2007, 04:38:27 PM
Nothing to do with either group.  It was in Anwar province.  It was an innocent wedding party.

I think Bush and Cheney were looking specifically to bomb innocent nuptials


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 07, 2007, 04:38:53 PM
Nothing to do with either group.  It was in Anwar province.  It was an innocent wedding party.

I think Bush and Cheney were looking specifically to bomb innocent nuptials

Don't tell us it was a same-sex wedding.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 04:40:24 PM
Quote
Never forget Dresden either.  Allied forces firebombed the ENTIRE city ngc.  Every THING died.
Not EVERY thig.  Kurt Vonnegut, for instance, survived it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 04:42:09 PM
Kidcarter,

I truly appreciate your comment on revering those who make the sacrifices.

Sadly, I see no reverence coming from NGC, nor his buddy Bush. Not even appreciation. Just excuses to do in more people's beloved sons and daughters.

I really do not see a distinction between suicide bombers taking out innocents and the air force knowing that their will be "collateral damage" and doing it anyway. Sometimes, the "collateral damage" kills our own forces, tho that information is often suppressed by the military until the family of the deceased kicks up a fuss.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:44:39 PM
And you want to call "liberals" names?

Other than calling a liberal a liberal, what names have I called anyone? You continue to impugn my military service. That IS very liberal of you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:45:14 PM
I really do not see a distinction between suicide bombers taking out innocents and the air force knowing that their will be "collateral damage" and doing it anyway.

One of the reasons I call you a liberal.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 04:46:34 PM
Sadly, I see no reverence coming from NGC, nor his buddy Bush. Not even appreciation. Just excuses to do in more people's beloved sons and daughters.


I could care less what a liberal like you sees or does not see.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 07, 2007, 04:49:34 PM
I really do not see a distinction between suicide bombers taking out innocents and the air force knowing that their will be "collateral damage" and doing it anyway.

I think this is an argument against having an Air Force-or at least an argument which seeks to restrict the Air Force from engaging in offensive operations, which I'm not quite sure is a legitimate argument.  Collateral damage is a terrible thing and something that I don't believe that this administration takes that seriously.  On the other hand, unless you are prepared to argue that all wars, all the time, everywhere, are unjust, I don't think you can realistically argue that collateral damage is not going to happen.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 04:49:41 PM
Quote
Other than calling a liberal a liberal, what names have I called anyone?
And of course, by liberal you mean intelligent, open to discussion, and willing to consider all arguments in debate.  I am proud to be a liberal.  You on the other hand are not a liberal.  And of course  by liberal I mean intelligent, open to discussion, and willing to consider all arguments in debate.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 07, 2007, 04:52:41 PM
[ I think this is an argument against having an Air Force-or at least an argument which seeks to restrict the Air Force from engaging in offensive operations, which I'm not quite sure is a legitimate argument.  
I'd agree with that, although a troop haters like comrade ngc who disparages anyone who does not fight the enemy face to face might disagree, at least to the extent the air force is directed against a military target.  As Sherman noted, war is cruelty and you cannot refine it; while it makes no difference to those that are dead just how they are killed, there is a moral difference between accidental deaths incured during a military operation and the intentional infliction of casualties on citizens.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 07, 2007, 04:54:34 PM
I really do not see a distinction between suicide bombers taking out innocents and the air force knowing that their will be "collateral damage" and doing it anyway.

One of the reasons I call you a liberal.

One of the reasons I call her human.  You... i'm not so convinced have that compassion and empathy gene.  You seem incapable of caring that innocents die... "Collateral Damage" is a farce.  The US government knows and accepts that non-combatants will be killed by their bombings.  Saying "Collateral Damage" is not a free pass.  

The only thing you are right about is that our enemies stopped caring who they target.  I don't think this makes them morally worse than us (because we also kill, we just attempt to take the moral high ground).  It just means they can't fight us on our terms.  

By the way, those terrorist scum also take the moral high ground, so quit your whining about innocents dying.  It happens every day in their backyards while we watch from afar.  None of this killing and war is morally justified.  

Fight an immoral war, get faced against immoral warriors.  I hate terrorists and i hate defending them.  But i have to bring to light our own hypocrisy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 07, 2007, 04:55:41 PM
Kidcarter,

I truly appreciate your comment on revering those who make the sacrifices.

Sadly, I see no reverence coming from NGC, nor his buddy Bush. Not even appreciation. Just excuses to do in more people's beloved sons and daughters.

I really do not see a distinction between suicide bombers taking out innocents and the air force knowing that their will be "collateral damage" and doing it anyway. Sometimes, the "collateral damage" kills our own forces, tho that information is often suppressed by the military until the family of the deceased kicks up a fuss.



I think you really need someone to help you understand some things.  The comment concerning suicide missions vs collateral damage - my Lord, you are mixed up.

And need to lose your anger a bit, listen.  Your president certainly does revere the troops.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 05:19:45 PM
I mean a government dictating how a private company should act?

There IS a lot of federal regulation in this country---yes.


Actually, I think it is closer to the truth to say that private companies are dictating how the government should act. Especially with respect to Iran, our energy policy-making, our pharmaceutical industry, the auto-making industry...I could go on, but you get the point.

That is the Reagan- Bush and Bush-Cheney neo-con way. And the Clinton-Gore way, too, I might add.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 06:43:59 PM
I think you really need someone to help you understand some things.  The comment concerning suicide missions vs collateral damage - my Lord, you are mixed up.

And need to lose your anger a bit, listen.  Your president certainly does revere the troops.



Too true.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 06:46:39 PM
 I hate terrorists and i hate defending them.  But i have to bring to light our own hypocrisy.


There IS no defense of them---that IS the point. The hypocrisy IS yours, and you are showing it in every post you make. Comparing unintended collateral damage deaths to the outright intentional murders by terrorists IS just plain silly.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 06:47:45 PM
Your president certainly does revere the troops.


Perhaps your president, but not the president I see in the WH today.  He is a simpleton with an evil heart, IMHO.  But you are certainly welcome to revere him.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 06:50:45 PM
there is a moral difference between accidental deaths incured during a military operation and the intentional infliction of casualties on citizens.

This IS so very true. But to keep suggesting that I hate our troops IS just plain silly. But I believe that you already surmise this. Your tortured logic just requires you make posts like you have been making regarding my position on our troops. I am a veteran for crying out loud. But, you'll continue with the slander. No doubt.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 07, 2007, 06:55:45 PM
Did you suffer post traumatic syndrome, Ngc, after your service?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 07:50:30 PM
I disagree that the current president reveres our troops. If so, he and Cheney would not have turned down the chance to provide equipment that would have prevented deaths a few years ago. If he revered the troops, he would not have them in harms way after they completed the mission he sent them on - to find WMDs and take out Hussein. The troops did what he asked, but he keeps finding excuses to keep them in harms way.

To the person who is dead, it doesn't matter if they were killed by "friendly" fire or "unfriendly" fire, from whichever side. It does matter greatly to the families of the deceased as to why they were killed. The people who are considered "collateral damage" by the US on their way to get Hussein never got to reap the rewards of a country free of a dictator. The people who are considered "collateral damage" by the terrorists never get to reap the rewards of whatever it is the terrorists are fighting for. The dead have more in common than the definitions allow.

Referring to the innocent deaths as "collateral damage" is to minimize their humanity. It is no different than the colonists all over the world, referring to the Natives as "savages", "devil worshipers", and such in order to justify killing them and taking their land and wealth.

There will certainly be "collateral damage" in any war. That is why a war MUST be justified, on moral grounds, as absolutely necessary with no other way possible to solve the problem. And, there must be a clear goal so that the war will end as quickly as possible, to minimize the "collateral damage". That was not done in the case of the war in Iraq. It was and is an immoral war, and the "collateral damage" is simply murder.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 07, 2007, 07:52:49 PM
I hate terrorists and i hate defending them.  But i have to bring to light our own hypocrisy.


There IS no defense of them---that IS the point. The hypocrisy IS yours, and you are showing it in every post you make. Comparing unintended collateral damage deaths to the outright intentional murders by terrorists IS just plain silly.

I'm not convinced that all "collateral damage" (ie, killing innocent people) is unintended. I think it's possibly a real part of the program, especially when you advertise military action as "shock and awe".

Call it the Madison Avenue approach to war. We don't really want to kill innocent people, but we can only be so precise with our "surgical strikes". If a few extra people go, well, who's to say they didn't hate America, anyway?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 07, 2007, 09:30:39 PM
I'm not convinced that all "collateral damage" (ie, killing innocent people) is unintended. I think it's possibly a real part of the program..

This IS probably a real possibility. In war, there are certain civilians that are compromising part of a military infrastructure---doctors that treat wounded who are not military medics, laborers that load and unload supplies or drive trucks, workers in factories making munitions, uniforms, all sorts of equipments used by their military, workers preparing meals, packaging preserved foodstuffs for field use, undercover units that attempt to weed out spies and traitors to their own side, a whole flurry of non-uniformed participants. These are civilians that are supporters of the regime or govt in power. But in all the military I have ever studied or been associated with, I have never heard of directly planning to remove civilians in strictly civilian areas---unless they happened to be in something like a munitions factory when it was bombed. Or a railroad marshalling yard. There are, definitely, cases where it IS known beforehand that some civilians are going to get hit. Purposely targeting civilian neighborhoods and schools or the like? Not since WWII have I heard of this being part of a military strategery. In WWII, the first 'terror' bombing of London's civilians was actually an accident by the Germans dropping bombs on the wrong target at night. The British perceived it to be on purpose, and the rest IS part of tit-for-tat WWII history.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 07, 2007, 10:18:18 PM
NGC,

I was not using the term "collateral damage" to refer to workers in munitions plants or civilian doctors treating the injured, I was referring to the innocent civilians who live near the munitions plant and have for umpteen generations, who find their house blown up and the children killed by the bomb intended for the munitions plant that also hit their home. I am referring to the fact that not all the bombers used in Iraq were those that could pinpoint a target and take it out "surgically". In the beginning those type of bombers were used, but later on, we started using any old bomber we could, including those that just sorta got close to the target and took out neighborhoods in the process. Now, I know you will want to argue that such bombing doesn't happen in modern war, but we both really know it does. If it didn't, what do you think took out the utilities in Baghdad? Surely they were not a military target. Yet they were hit and the innocent civilians were without water and electricity for months.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 08, 2007, 06:06:24 AM
there is a moral difference between accidental deaths incured (sic.) during a military operation and the intentional infliction of casualties on citizens.

Really?

I would be mighty pleased if one of you righties would explain just what the difference really is.

A six-year old girl in Iraq is just as dead under either scenario.

Her family mourns just as deeply under either scenario.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 06:11:05 AM
there is a moral difference between accidental deaths incured (sic.) during a military operation and the intentional infliction of casualties on citizens.

Really?

I would be mighty pleased if one of you righties would explain just what the difference really is.

A six-year old girl in Iraq is just as dead under either scenario.

Her family mourns just as deeply under either scenario.
Well, since he was quoting me....  The difference is in the moral guilt of the actor, of course, not the victim - who as you noted is tragically and horribly dead under any circumstances.  It is the same moral difference as exists between first degree murder and manslaughter - one of intent.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:34:10 AM
I believe that somewhere in Iraq today lives a young person who has witnessed the "collateral" damage of American agression who will one day strap to his or her body the means to destroy as many Americans as he can in this country.  It may not happen for 20 years, but it will happen, and the person to blame will be George Bush and his evil, immoral, illegal war.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 08:53:25 AM
I was not using the term "collateral damage" to refer to workers in munitions plants ...


Unintended deaths are going to happen. Period. If anyone IS going to suggest at any time that bombs should not be dropped in warfare because of this IS just so anti-war that they can't see the forest for the trees. As technical advancement continues, these deaths will get lower and lower as 'smart' munitions will eventually replace 'dumb' munitions for certain targets.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 10:15:23 AM
I believe that somewhere in Iraq today lives a young person who has witnessed the "collateral" damage of American agression who will one day strap to his or her body the means to destroy as many Americans as he can in this country.  It may not happen for 20 years, but it will happen, and the person to blame will be George Bush and his evil, immoral, illegal war.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up.

Now, how about some constructive dialogue regarding what to do in Iraq, instead of the same song of "It's all Bush's fault", which leads to nowhere?

What can be done to turn that attitude that you predict as inevitable so that Iraquis see Americans as a caring people?

Lay that out for us.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 10:18:48 AM
Quote
What can be done to turn that attitude that you predict as inevitable so that Iraquis see Americans as a caring people?
Well, to start, there's the first rule of holes.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:20:52 AM
I believe that somewhere in Iraq today lives a young person who has witnessed the "collateral" damage of American agression who will one day strap to his or her body the means to destroy as many Americans as he can in this country.  It may not happen for 20 years, but it will happen, and the person to blame will be George Bush and his evil, immoral, illegal war.

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up.

Now, how about some constructive dialogue regarding what to do in Iraq, instead of the same song of "It's all Bush's fault", which leads to nowhere?

What can be done to turn that attitude that you predict as inevitable so that Iraquis see Americans as a caring people?

Lay that out for us.



Very rational thought there. Good idea, indeed.

Would you think fault for a large part of the mess that's going on over there now lies with Irans terrorist insurgents and their activities? Would you think that if they stopped their involvement that things would be a lot easier to deal with? Maybe not everything cooling down, but a lot less deadly?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 10:34:20 AM
I'm not getting the "holes" comment, whisk. you gotta explain.

Would you think fault for a large part of the mess that's going on over there now lies with Irans terrorist insurgents and their activities? Would you think that if they stopped their involvement that things would be a lot easier to deal with? Maybe not everything cooling down, but a lot less deadly?  

I think the way to success in Iraq begins with ending the blame-game.

I get tired of the endless debate surrounding the beginning of the war---it's justification---etc.

The fundamental question is what is in the best of interests of the USA at this juncture, and how can we best achieve them?

The folks on the left and the right who spend their time either attacking or defending "W" regarding this war, aren't really interested in what's best for the country. They are more interested in what's best for their side.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 10:36:00 AM
The first rule of holes?

If you want to get out of a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 10:37:01 AM
NGC, your point is exactly why I am opposed to the use of war unless there is ABSOLUTELY no other way to solve the problem. War is deadly, not only to participants, but to the innocents who are "in the way". You present the best argument to be "anti-war" that I have ever seen.

Now, you know why I am against war. Please explain why you are in favor of this horribly savage and uncivilized activity.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:39:40 AM
I'm not getting the "holes" comment, whisk. you gotta explain.

Would you think fault for a large part of the mess that's going on over there now lies with Irans terrorist insurgents and their activities? Would you think that if they stopped their involvement that things would be a lot easier to deal with? Maybe not everything cooling down, but a lot less deadly?  

I think the way to success in Iraq begins with ending the blame-game.

I get tired of the endless debate surrounding the beginning of the war---it's justification---etc.

The fundamental question is what is in the best of interests of the USA at this juncture, and how can we best achieve them?

The folks on the left and the right who spend their time either attacking or defending "W" regarding this war, aren't really interested in what's best for the country. They are more interested in what's best for their side.

I'll buy that. Although, what would you think maybe should be done with Iran? I have the feeling that if/when/however the terms/conditions come about for eventual US withdrawal, they are going to act in some sort of opportunist fashion. And I cannot help but think that this will not be such a good thing. Maybe I am wrong on this feeling.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 10:43:07 AM
The beginning of the end of the terrorist attacks in Iraq is to find out what the terrorists want in order for them to stop making the attacks. Do they want political power? Religious power? The end to the occupation of their country?

What is best for the USA is to get out of there --- period. Yes, Iran will do what they feel is best for Iran. They are acting no different than we are.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 10:52:44 AM
Quote
if/when/however the terms/conditions come about for eventual US withdrawal, they are going to act in some sort of opportunist fashion.
I would expect an independent nation to act as all other independent nations do: in their own perceived national self-interest.  That we don't like them and they don't like us does not change it.

A blind man could see that this was the biggest, most dangerous risk of the Iraq invasion, and it should have been a major factor in our pre-war, war, and post-war planning.  If it was, we did an absolutely horrible job of taking it into account.  Between our invasion of Iraq and Israel's foray into Lebanon... between us, we could not have done a better job of making Iran the major player in that section of the Middle East if we had actually intended it.  Now we are forced into a situation with no good resolution.

But the idea that we must somehow stay in Iraq until the threat of Iran is contained militarily is stupid.  The solution, even if temporary, is going to have to be diplomatic, and is going to have to include some people we really, really, don't like.

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 10:54:46 AM
Iran will do what they feel is best for Iran. They are acting no different than we are.

Hysterical! Laffin my a$$ off!!! Take off the blinders!! As if we are strapping explosives onto our soldiers, or iraqi civilians, and have them march into markets before detonation...rrriiiggghhhttt.....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 10:57:53 AM
Quote
Irans terrorist insurgents and their activities?
You got a cite for that counsellor?  Leaving aside the "terrorist insrugent" non sequitor....  While there is some evidence of Iranian involvement with arming part of the insurgency - although it is far from conclusive - there is nothing I have seen anywhere that indicates that "Iran's terrorist insurgents" are a major problem.  It looks like the typical Bushite dodge of reality, which is it is mostly the Iraqis that are the ones who are killing us and each other.

Quote
As if we are strapping explosives onto our soldiers, or iraqi civilians, and have them march into markets before detonation...
What's your source for Iranians doing this, or others at the behest of the Iranian government?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 11:01:58 AM
What's your source for Iranians doing this,...

How about members of the military I know in Iraq?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 11:07:26 AM
Nothing like anecdotal evidence to base a policy of extermination on.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 08, 2007, 11:10:15 AM
How do your military chums know that it is in fact Iranians who are doing this...let alone doing this at the behest of the Iranian government?

Did your buddies ask?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 08, 2007, 11:14:42 AM
How do your military chums know that it is in fact Iranians who are doing this...let alone doing this at the behest of the Iranian government?

Did your buddies ask?

I will give no names of people, unit designations, or locations in Iraq. Believe what you wish.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 08, 2007, 11:20:56 AM
There you go.  Your buddies can tell you but you can't tell us.  That's so unfair!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 08, 2007, 11:26:36 AM
My military chums told that were Mexicans illegally immigrating there and then taking over all of the Iraqis unwanted jobs


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 11:41:24 AM
Oh yeah?  The soldiers I know in Iraq tell me that the whole "insurgency" was created and funded by the US Governemnt through Haliburton in order to keep the country on perpetual war footing and justify both huge profits for Haliburton and the slow overthrow of our civil liberties by the Bush administration.

Because when you get to just make stuff up like ngc, it will always support exactly what you want it to support.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 12:35:21 PM
Congratulations to the current adminiustration for foiling a terror plot planned on U.S. soil.

Not that we don't realize that eventually the zany lot will succeed at something similar, whether it be under Republican or Democratic reign.  Just the times we live in.  While praise is certainly apropos here, there should be no fingerpointing if an attack does succeed, whether it be under a Republican prez or if the Dems take hold again.  Again - the times.

Our faith gets us through.  CHANGING the current landscape, where the possibility of such terror exists, is a lengthy process.  Working to thwart such action is tough work and I applaud all who are involved in it daily.

Peace to all today.  Keep prayer in your daily regimen.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: bankshot1 on May 08, 2007, 12:40:38 PM
Quote
Keep prayer in your daily regimen.

kid-do you have a prayer in mind, or is it a prayer to be named later?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 12:45:03 PM
Looks like good, sound, police work by the FBI, using ome of the best, old fashioned method for catching bad guys: a good citizen dropped a dime.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 01:15:30 PM
Paid informant


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 01:21:10 PM
Quote
The FBI was tipped off in January 2006 when a shopkeeper alerted agents about a "disturbing" video he had been asked to copy onto a DVD, according to court documents. The video showed 10 men in their early 20s "shooting assault weapons at a firing range ... while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic 'Allah Akbar' (God is great)," the complaint said.
After which they put the informant in.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 01:52:00 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has notified more than 35,000 Army soldiers to be prepared to deploy to Iraq beginning this fall, a move that would allow commanders to maintain the ongoing buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday the deployment orders, which have been signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, do not mean that the military has made a decision to keep the increased level of 20 brigades in Iraq through December. A brigade is roughly 3,500 soldiers.
Instead, he said the decision gives the Pentagon the "capability" to carry the buildup to the end of the year. The replacement forces, Whitman said, would give commanders in Iraq the flexibility they need to complete the mission there.  

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AMT00&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AMT00&show_article=1)

While the House unveils a new plan for the war in Iraq:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AN2G2&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AN2G2&show_article=1)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 03:08:04 PM
If it walks like a duka, and spews hate like a duka...


Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer, 22, of Cherry Hill. He was born in Jordan, is a U.S. citizen and is employed as a taxicab driver in Philadelphia.

• Eljvir Duka, 23, of Cherry Hill, a.k.a. "Elvis Duka," a.k.a. "Sulayman," was born in the former Yugoslavia. Duka is illegally residing in the U.S. and operates businesses known as Qadr. Inc., Colonial Roofing and National Roofing, all of which list business addresses the same as his residence.

• Dritan Duka, 28, of Cherry Hill, a.k.a. "Distan Duka," a.k.a. "Anthony Duka," a.k.a. "Tony Duka." He was born in the former Yugoslavia, is illegally residing in the U.S. and operates businesses known as Colonial Roofing and National Roofing, both of which list business addresses at the residence of defendants Eljvir Duka and Shain Duka. (All of the Dukas charged are brothers).

• Shain Duka, 26, of the same address as Eljvir Duka in Cherry Hill, a.k.a. "Shaheen," was born in the former Yugoslavia. Shain Duka is illegally residing in the U.S. and operates businesses known as Colonial Roofing and National Roofing, both of which list business addresses the same as his residence.

• Serdar Tatar, 23, of Philadelphia, was born in Turkey. Tatar is legally residing in the U.S. His last know employment was at a 7-Eleven convenience store in Philadelphia.
• Agron Abdullahu, 24, of Buena Vista Township, Atlantic County, was born in the former Yugoslavia. Abdullahu is legally residing in the U.S. and is employed at a Shop-Rite Supermarket.

The Duka brothers and Abdullahu are ethnic Albanians born in the former Yugoslavia.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20070508_A_look_at_the_Fort_Dix_suspects.html


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 03:56:32 PM
Sweetest Tata, 23, born in Turkey............................

MY GOD


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 08, 2007, 05:06:14 PM
I'm not getting the "holes" comment, whisk. you gotta explain.

Would you think fault for a large part of the mess that's going on over there now lies with Irans terrorist insurgents and their activities? Would you think that if they stopped their involvement that things would be a lot easier to deal with? Maybe not everything cooling down, but a lot less deadly?  

I think the way to success in Iraq begins with ending the blame-game.

I get tired of the endless debate surrounding the beginning of the war---it's justification---etc.

The fundamental question is what is in the best of interests of the USA at this juncture, and how can we best achieve them?

The folks on the left and the right who spend their time either attacking or defending "W" regarding this war, aren't really interested in what's best for the country. They are more interested in what's best for their side.

I'll buy that. Although, what would you think maybe should be done with Iran? I have the feeling that if/when/however the terms/conditions come about for eventual US withdrawal, they are going to act in some sort of opportunist fashion. And I cannot help but think that this will not be such a good thing. Maybe I am wrong on this feeling.

We can't control Iran. We should get out of the mindset of meddling with other nations.  It has not increased national security.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 08, 2007, 05:07:36 PM
Iran will do what they feel is best for Iran. They are acting no different than we are.

Hysterical! Laffin my a$$ off!!! Take off the blinders!! As if we are strapping explosives onto our soldiers, or iraqi civilians, and have them march into markets before detonation...rrriiiggghhhttt.....

No evidence. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 08, 2007, 05:20:48 PM
Iran will do what they feel is best for Iran. They are acting no different than we are.

Hysterical! Laffin my a$$ off!!! Take off the blinders!! As if we are strapping explosives onto our soldiers, or iraqi civilians, and have them march into markets before detonation...rrriiiggghhhttt.....

No evidence. 
Oh, no.  he's got plenty of evidence - some guy told him so.  He'd tell us who but then he'd have to kill us.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:30:58 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon has notified more than 35,000 Army soldiers to be prepared to deploy to Iraq beginning this fall, a move that would allow commanders to maintain the ongoing buildup of troops through the end of the year if needed.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Tuesday the deployment orders, which have been signed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, do not mean that the military has made a decision to keep the increased level of 20 brigades in Iraq through December. A brigade is roughly 3,500 soldiers.
Instead, he said the decision gives the Pentagon the "capability" to carry the buildup to the end of the year. The replacement forces, Whitman said, would give commanders in Iraq the flexibility they need to complete the mission there.  

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AMT00&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AMT00&show_article=1)

While the House unveils a new plan for the war in Iraq:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AN2G2&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AN2G2&show_article=1)

This will solve the problem of Islamist hatred for Americans how exactly?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 06:41:26 PM
Writers who cannot quote their sources and substantiate them, cannot make assertions based on those sources. In scholarship, it is known as a falsehood, a lie, and gives no credence whatsoever to the author. Even in the courtroom, you have to prove the evidence given is creditable and accurate. That is why so much "evidence" ends up being excluded. Heresay has no credence in the courtroom, and no place in a discussion. It is nothing more than rumors and gossip and should be considered only as such.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 08, 2007, 06:45:50 PM
I'm reading a book called "Kingdom Coming" about the kkkristian right and their desire to make America a theocracy.  They use the word "liberal" the same way comrade Ngc uses it.  I wonder if that's where he is coming from, some ultra rightwing christer jihad.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 08, 2007, 09:17:28 PM
This will solve the problem of Islamist hatred for Americans how exactly?

Islamist hatred is not reserved for American soldiers and politicians like Bush who participated in the Iraq invasion. It is not rooted in our actions, strictly, but has roots in their commitment to a religion that shows no tolerance for any other.

They hate the left in our country, as much if not more than they hate the right.

So don't kid yourself, sam.

They're just as interested in taking you out as they are "W".


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 08, 2007, 09:55:31 PM
NY Temps,

That is a good thought. Likr you, I wonder if it would have been more successful it we had made an appeal to justice instead of war? I am appalled that six years after the event, the perpetrator has not been brought to justice. It just does not give me much confidence in our "intelligence" community. But, then, ain't hindsight great!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 08, 2007, 11:13:27 PM
I wonder what the reaction of some would have been had we captured (if we capture) bin Laden and ended his life.

There would have been plenty of debate, sadly.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 12:12:51 AM
Do you have a problem with debate?

As to Bin Laden, since he admitted he engineered the attack, there would not have been any debate on his guilt or innocence, just on what was best to do with him - end his life, and enprison him for the rest of his life. There are good people who feel that execution is legal murder. I am not one of them. I don't see the sense in feeding and housing someone for the rest of their life if they have murdered, especially on the scale of 9/11.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 07:00:32 AM
There are other good people who would debate whether Bin Laden should be beheaded and have his head placed on a pole and left facing New York Harbor until all the seabirds peck away the flesh from his skull, or to publicly disembowel him in Central Park.

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:15:12 AM
Writers who cannot quote their sources and substantiate them, cannot make assertions based on those sources. In scholarship, it is known as a falsehood, a lie, and gives no credence whatsoever to the author.


Alright. I'll buy that logic. Since I was asked by the soldier that told me what he did NOT to reveal who he IS or exactly where he IS located, I will withdraw what I said. IS that fair?




As to Bin Laden, since he admitted he engineered the attack, there would not have been any debate on his guilt or innocence, just on what was best to do with him - end his life, and enprison him for the rest of his life. There are good people who feel that execution is legal murder. I am not one of them.

I agree. It IS a very moderate, logical position btw.



Islamist hatred is not reserved for American soldiers and politicians like Bush who participated in the Iraq invasion. It is not rooted in our actions, strictly, but has roots in their commitment to a religion that shows no tolerance for any other.

This IS very true.




I'm reading a book called "Kingdom Coming" about the kkkristian right and their desire to make America a theocracy.  They use the word "liberal" the same way comrade Ngc uses it.  I wonder if that's where he is coming from, some ultra rightwing christer jihad.

Are you not using Christian/Christ the same way? Take the log out of your own eye before you criticize the splinter in mine.



There are other good people who would debate whether Bin Laden should be beheaded and have his head placed on a pole and left facing New York Harbor until all the seabirds peck away the flesh from his skull, or to publicly disembowel him in Central Park.


Or maybe do his head on video with a hacksaw and give the video to al jazeera?







Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 07:28:19 AM

I'm reading a book called "Kingdom Coming" about the kkkristian right and their desire to make America a theocracy.  They use the word "liberal" the same way comrade Ngc uses it.  I wonder if that's where he is coming from, some ultra rightwing christer jihad.

Are you not using Christian/Christ the same way? Take the log out of your own eye before you criticize the splinter in mine.

Can you explain what this means?  I have not idea what you're trying to say.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 07:42:06 AM

I'm reading a book called "Kingdom Coming" about the kkkristian right and their desire to make America a theocracy.  They use the word "liberal" the same way comrade Ngc uses it.  I wonder if that's where he is coming from, some ultra rightwing christer jihad.

Are you not using Christian/Christ the same way? Take the log out of your own eye before you criticize the splinter in mine.

Can you explain what this means?  I have not idea what you're trying to say.

I was referring to how the use of 'liberal' was comparable to the use of 'Christian/Christ', and that if one way was to be criticized, so could the other.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 09, 2007, 09:50:43 AM
Dropping bombs IS on purpose---killing non-combatants IS not done on purpose, and you know it. Unless you are an iranian or iraqi animal that detonates explosives in marketpalces, right? Those civilian deaths ARE purposely done.

The whole WAR was done ON  PURPOSE __ and YOU know it!

Iraq did not attack us.

How many thousands of lives have been needlessly wasted?

Killing non-combatants is a KNOWN factor.

Kill them, before they kill us.

What else do you NOT KNOW about WAR?












Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 10:00:07 AM
Dropping bombs IS on purpose---killing non-combatants IS not done on purpose, and you know it. Unless you are an iranian or iraqi animal that detonates explosives in marketpalces, right? Those civilian deaths ARE purposely done.

The whole WAR was done ON  PURPOSE __ and YOU know it!

Iraq did not attack us.

How many thousands of lives have been needlessly wasted?

Killing non-combatants is a KNOWN factor.

Kill them, before they kill us.

What else do you NOT KNOW about WAR?












Yep---The war done on purpose, and congress IS the entity that authorized it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 10:56:32 AM
Dropping bombs IS on purpose---killing non-combatants IS not done on purpose, and you know it. Unless you are an iranian or iraqi animal that detonates explosives in marketpalces, right? Those civilian deaths ARE purposely done.

The whole WAR was done ON  PURPOSE __ and YOU know it!

Iraq did not attack us.

How many thousands of lives have been needlessly wasted?

Killing non-combatants is a KNOWN factor.

Kill them, before they kill us.

What else do you NOT KNOW about WAR?


As much as you like to hammer ngc for being a one-trick pony with his constant "liberal, liberal, liberal", I find your posts equally lacking because you pretty much say the same thing over and over. That is, "we shouldn't be there, it was a mistake, it's all Bush's fault", etc, etc, etc....

 Let's hear your REASONABLE AND WELL-THOUGHT OUT SOLUTION to the situation in Iraq...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 11:14:02 AM
Dropping bombs IS on purpose---killing non-combatants IS not done on purpose, and you know it. Unless you are an iranian or iraqi animal that detonates explosives in marketpalces, right? Those civilian deaths ARE purposely done.

The whole WAR was done ON  PURPOSE __ and YOU know it!

Iraq did not attack us.

How many thousands of lives have been needlessly wasted?

Killing non-combatants is a KNOWN factor.

Kill them, before they kill us.

What else do you NOT KNOW about WAR?


As much as you like to hammer ngc for being a one-trick pony with his constant "liberal, liberal, liberal", I find your posts equally lacking because you pretty much say the same thing over and over. That is, "we shouldn't be there, it was a mistake, it's all Bush's fault", etc, etc, etc....

 Let's hear your REASONABLE AND WELL-THOUGHT OUT SOLUTION to the situation in Iraq...

Sounds reasonable.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 12:36:45 PM
Dropping bombs IS on purpose---killing non-combatants IS not done on purpose, and you know it. Unless you are an iranian or iraqi animal that detonates explosives in marketpalces, right? Those civilian deaths ARE purposely done.

The whole WAR was done ON  PURPOSE __ and YOU know it!

Iraq did not attack us.

How many thousands of lives have been needlessly wasted?

Killing non-combatants is a KNOWN factor.

Kill them, before they kill us.

What else do you NOT KNOW about WAR?


As much as you like to hammer ngc for being a one-trick pony with his constant "liberal, liberal, liberal", I find your posts equally lacking because you pretty much say the same thing over and over. That is, "we shouldn't be there, it was a mistake, it's all Bush's fault", etc, etc, etc....

 Let's hear your REASONABLE AND WELL-THOUGHT OUT SOLUTION to the situation in Iraq...

We'd like to hear your solution first.  You must have one since you expect everyone else to.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 09, 2007, 01:35:46 PM
"We'd like to hear your solution first.  You must have one since you expect everyone else to."

Odd that so many on the right now want to hear our solution to the problem.... Before the war started they didn't want to hear a word out of anyone else, foreign or domestic. Now these once haute Neanderthals have got themselves stuck so deeply in the tar pit that the only squeak you hear out of them is "Please help us to solve this situation." Only problem is that the situation is insoluble. Leave today, leave tomorrow, leave 6 months from now....it's all the same result. The only difference being that if we leave tomorrow a whole lot of young Americans might get to live a full and productive life instead of being shipped home in a box just to prove George Bush is the worst President EVER.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 01:37:41 PM
Nice deflection, trying to put it back on me.....but you've been called on to offer more than wanton criticism and angry leftist verbosity aimed only at the start of the war----

Tell us what you think should be done.

At least make that the topic, or you're no better than the ones for whom you profess so much loathing.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 01:47:40 PM
Nice deflection, trying to put it back on me.....but you've been called on to offer more than wanton criticism and angry leftist verbosity aimed only at the start of the war----

Tell us what you think should be done.

At least make that the topic, or you're no better than the ones for whom you profess so much loathing.

It is really quite simple.  Bring the troops home.  Now it's your turn , MrNanny.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 02:56:11 PM
This will solve the problem of Islamist hatred for Americans how exactly?

Islamist hatred is not reserved for American soldiers and politicians like Bush who participated in the Iraq invasion. It is not rooted in our actions, strictly, but has roots in their commitment to a religion that shows no tolerance for any other.
They hate the left in our country, as much if not more than they hate the right.

So don't kid yourself, sam.

They're just as interested in taking you out as they are "W".

Where's your evidence of this?  People of the mulim faith come in all colors and painting with a broad brush like that is dangerous.  Some vengeful extremists are not the voice of the entire religion. The terrorists are giving a bad name to Islam.  The word muslim means servant of God.  Islam recognizes Jesus Christ, for example as a prophet.  The difference is Muslims don't worship Christ or even Mohammed,.  Their worship is reserved for God alone.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 03:05:45 PM
The seeds of our foreign policy have sprouted and they're in our own backyard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874369/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874369/)

Hezbollah in South America shold scare the hell out of all of us.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 03:05:52 PM
Nice deflection, trying to put it back on me.....but you've been called on to offer more than wanton criticism and angry leftist verbosity aimed only at the start of the war----

Tell us what you think should be done.

At least make that the topic, or you're no better than the ones for whom you profess so much loathing.

It is really quite simple.  Bring the troops home. 

Sorry, you don't get off that easily. NO substance? NO supporting details? just "bring the troops home"? What about the Iraqui people whose lives you deem as valuable as American lives? You want to just abandon them to the chaos of a civil war?   What about your concern for lives of the citizens of Iraq that you have already expressed?

What about future foreign affairs around the globe?




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 03:06:03 PM
Islam is a decentralized religion with many different factions - much like what Christianity is now like.  Certainly there are extremist movements within the religion like followers of the Wahabbiyyah doctrine.  There are extremist movements within Christianity as well -- that does not mean they represent the majority of Christians.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 03:10:04 PM
This will solve the problem of Islamist hatred for Americans how exactly?

Islamist hatred is not reserved for American soldiers and politicians like Bush who participated in the Iraq invasion. It is not rooted in our actions, strictly, but has roots in their commitment to a religion that shows no tolerance for any other.
They hate the left in our country, as much if not more than they hate the right.

So don't kid yourself, sam.

They're just as interested in taking you out as they are "W".

Where's your evidence of this?  People of the mulim faith come in all colors and painting with a broad brush like that is dangerous.  Some vengeful extremists are not the voice of the entire religion. The terrorists are giving a bad name to Islam.  The word muslim means servant of God.  Islam recognizes Jesus Christ, for example as a prophet.  The difference is Muslims don't worship Christ or even Mohammed,.  Their worship is reserved for God alone.

Hamas is now using a Mickey Mouse like character to teach Palestinian children to dedicate their lives to martyrdom --- and we were discussing Islamist hatred, not all Islamists. Keep up.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 03:15:38 PM
Utley you said a commitment to a religion that shows no tolerance.  You didn't lay it at the feet of the actors, you laid it on the religion.

And i know about the methods used to teach martyrdom. I posted that vid here you may have seen.  I keep up with everything.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 03:17:14 PM
Quote
Hamas is now using a Mickey Mouse like character to teach Palestinian children to dedicate their lives to martyrdom --- and we were discussing Islamist hatred, not all Islamists. Keep up.

And there is a video game produced by evangelical Christians called, "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" marketed through churches that teaches that those who refuse to be converted must die.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 03:19:19 PM
Mr. Utley,

I agree with Sam, and for similar reasons, that we should just bring the troops home and let whatever will happen happen. Our country had a civil war - it was bloody - but it was ours alone. That is the way civil wars should be. As for future foreign policy, I would suggest that in the future, we stay in line with the UN, which we thumbed our noses at when we invaded Iraq. We are not the supreme nation of the world. We are just one of many who all need to learn to get along.

Think about it this way. When you were a kid, and your mom caught you with your hand in the cookie jar, did you immediately withdraw your hand empty, or did you try to claim the cookies in your hand as your "prize". We need to take our hand out of the cookie jar, and if a whipping is in the offing, we should take it like a man!



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 03:27:40 PM
Mr. Utley,

I agree with Sam, and for similar reasons, that we should just bring the troops home and let whatever will happen happen. Our country had a civil war - it was bloody - but it was ours alone. That is the way civil wars should be. As for future foreign policy, I would suggest that in the future, we stay in line with the UN, which we thumbed our noses at when we invaded Iraq. We are not the supreme nation of the world. We are just one of many who all need to learn to get along.

Think about it this way. When you were a kid, and your mom caught you with your hand in the cookie jar, did you immediately withdraw your hand empty, or did you try to claim the cookies in your hand as your "prize". We need to take our hand out of the cookie jar, and if a whipping is in the offing, we should take it like a man!



We did it in Viet Nam, Utley.  We failed there and we left it for the people of Viet Nam to figure it out.  The Iraqis will have their blood letting no matter.  Then they will come together and establish a government.  It won't be a puppet government of the US.

Now Mr. Utley, tell us your solution.  We are ALL ears.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 03:28:39 PM
It will be a puppet government for Iran...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 03:29:31 PM
It will be a puppet government for Iran...

So be it.  It is obvious we can't fix the mess.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 03:31:58 PM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 03:34:18 PM
Sorry to those who hate the Bush-bashing but Bush is really not a smart man.  Saddam was what kept Iraq together.  Saddam was who kept the shiites in Iran in check.  We could have left sleeping dogs to lie while we went about with our Al-Queda fetish.  We should have had a troop surge when we were in tora Bora and had Bin Laden cornered.

But now we have three problems when we had one before.. growing Iran threat, growing unrest in Iraq, al qaeda back in afghanistan.  Bush was a mediocre student and is a mediocre president.  And i'm being nice in my choice of words here so cut me some slack when you respond.

Abandon ship is a funny phrase.  When is it acceptable to leave a sinking ship?  And do we possess the hubris to think we can stop a ship that wants to break apart from doing so?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 03:36:57 PM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

Are you suggesting that there  IS a US solution in Iraq?  If so, what is your solution?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 09, 2007, 03:42:58 PM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

Are you suggesting that there  IS a US solution in Iraq?  If so, what is your solution?

They're workin on it, patriot

You're quitting


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 09, 2007, 03:46:48 PM

As much as you like to hammer ngc for being a one-trick pony with his constant "liberal, liberal, liberal", I find your posts equally lacking because you pretty much say the same thing over and over. That is, "we shouldn't be there, it was a mistake, it's all Bush's fault", etc, etc, etc....

 Let's hear your REASONABLE AND WELL-THOUGHT OUT SOLUTION to the situation in Iraq...

Leave.

The mission has already been accomplished.

Why is that "solution" so hard for you folks to understand?

We have OTHER "messes" to clean up at home.

Start with Kansas and the Katrina devastation...






Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 03:53:26 PM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

True, abandoning ship IS not wise, and many have said so---but just because stabilization IS proving difficult, does not necessarily mean it IS incompetent. While bush IS the cmdr in chief, he listens to the commanders in the field as to what IS necessary. So if there IS any incompetency, it would lie with the military, right?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 03:55:22 PM
Leave.

The mission has already been accomplished.

Why is that "solution" so hard for you folks to understand?



It IS easy to understand, it just ISn't well thought out.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 09, 2007, 03:56:04 PM
Sorry, you don't get off that easily. NO substance? NO supporting details? just "bring the troops home"? What about the Iraqui people whose lives you deem as valuable as American lives? You want to just abandon them to the chaos of a civil war?   What about your concern for lives of the citizens of Iraq that you have already expressed?

What about future foreign affairs around the globe?


Sounds as though your leaders should have done a little more thinking before they started this.

I'm sick and freaking tired of our troops being killed and maimed while you all do your hand wringing routine for the people we've already screwed over in Iraq.

Now do some soul searching for OURS....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 03:57:29 PM
kam,

We're spending 2 billion a week on Iraq.  I'd rather spend the 100 bil a year on a missile defense system.

I would rather spend it on education and health care!


In terms of National security and leaving education and health care out of it, if the money is allocated towards defense i have no problem using it for a worthwhile defense system.  

There is much to be gained from a missile defense system including knowledge of space and the eventual application of missile defense towards global protection against space threats like asteroids. We'd actually be advancing the human being.

This war and the money we spend financing it really has no side benefit for the greater good of all. A Cost-benefit analysis of the war would put us in a staggering amount of red ink.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 04:07:49 PM
Sounds as though your leaders should have done a little more thinking before they started this.

Thinking---you mean like a leader of a nation saying it IS going to destroy another nation? Doesn't sound like a lotta thinking has been going on with those kind of words---but they are just not to be taken seriously? Are they? A little more thinking, huh?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 04:11:16 PM
missile defense towards global protection against space threats like asteroids.

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 04:24:27 PM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

Are you suggesting that there  IS a US solution in Iraq?  If so, what is your solution?

They're workin on it, patriot

You're quitting

Please share your wealth of knowledge about the SOLUTION, bingo boy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 04:27:31 PM
missile defense towards global protection against space threats like asteroids.

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

Missle defense is another republican boondoggle for the rich to get richer.  But as far as abandoning ship....well, the ship is filled with rats.  It's time to get out.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 04:30:39 PM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

Are you suggesting that there  IS a US solution in Iraq?  If so, what is your solution?

Basically we need to either make concessions to the UN in order to get a massive deployment of peacekeeping forces to the region -- or we need a massive deployment of our own troops.  To stabilize Iraq, we need to commit a massive presence - perhaps several hundred thousand troops to bring order to the country, secure the borders, and allow the Iraqi government to gradually assert its control.   



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 04:31:26 PM
missile defense towards global protection against space threats like asteroids.

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

What are you a caveman?  We need to move past throwing rocks at each other and explore the universe as humans so we can scope out an exit strategy when this planet becomes so polluted and overcrowded it aint even worth fighting over anymore.  Science is our species salvation.  Meanwhile we're fighting stupid wars over fossil fuel.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 09, 2007, 04:33:02 PM

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

Sort of, it was a hollywood actor that first proposed it back in '83 - Reagan.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 05:16:25 PM
missile defense towards global protection against space threats like asteroids.

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

What are you a caveman?  We need to move past throwing rocks at each other and explore the universe as humans so we can scope out an exit strategy when this planet becomes so polluted and overcrowded it aint even worth fighting over anymore.  Science is our species salvation.  Meanwhile we're fighting stupid wars over fossil fuel.

Who's throwing rocks? It seems to me that trying to stop an asteroid IS like trying to stop a tidal wave, tornado, hurricane, or earthquake---good luck!



Meanwhile we're fighting stupid wars over fossil fuel.

What does this have to do with asteroids? Your fossil fuels arguement---got some substantiated evidence of this instead of a particular political position/belief to back it up? Besides---if you are so against fossil fuels, when will you start going everywhere on a bicycle? There IS already a lotta arguement about how bad alcohol fuels and carbon emissions will be, right?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 05:17:38 PM

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

Sort of, it was a hollywood actor that first proposed it back in '83 - Reagan.



Yeah, but he wasn't talking about asteroids, was he? I thought it was a space based missile defense that the Ds were so against---are you now for it?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 09, 2007, 05:24:34 PM

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

Sort of, it was a hollywood actor that first proposed it back in '83 - Reagan.



Yeah, but he wasn't talking about asteroids, was he? I thought it was a space based missile defense that the Ds were so against---are you now for it?

A missile defense program may never actually result in a reliable system, but the effort is worthwhile.  New technologies get developed when scientists are given the resources.  Some of them are war technologies, some of them space technologies.  Some technologies apply to the business and home.  Didn't we get Plastic packaging as a residual from the space program?  Medical imaging of our internal organs came from the NASA development on sending pictures from outer space.  The satellite dish.. etc. etc.

War bring nothing but more hate.  Science spending is the way to go.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 09, 2007, 06:32:08 PM

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

Sort of, it was a hollywood actor that first proposed it back in '83 - Reagan.


,



Yeah, but he wasn't talking about asteroids, was he? I thought it was a space based missile defense that the Ds were so against---are you now for it?

A missile defense program may never actually result in a reliable system, but the effort is worthwhile.  New technologies get developed when scientists are given the resources.  Some of them are war technologies, some of them space technologies.  Some technologies apply to the business and home.  Didn't we get Plastic packaging as a residual from the space program?  Medical imaging of our internal organs came from the NASA development on sending pictures from outer space.  The satellite dish.. etc. etc.

War bring nothing but more hate.  Science spending is the way to go.

Maybe if they spent the money and effort on finding new sources of renewable energy, it would be worth the money, but IMHO, missle defense is a waste of money.  It doesn't work, it never will, but a lot of people in the war-making business have made a lot of money.

The only attack on the country was accomplished with simple box cutters.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 09:27:18 PM

You've been watching too much hollywood fiction. 

Sort of, it was a hollywood actor that first proposed it back in '83 - Reagan.





Yeah, but he wasn't talking about asteroids, was he? I thought it was a space based missile defense that the Ds were so against---are you now for it?

A missile defense program may never actually result in a reliable system, but the effort is worthwhile.  New technologies get developed when scientists are given the resources.  Some of them are war technologies, some of them space technologies.  Some technologies apply to the business and home.  Didn't we get Plastic packaging as a residual from the space program?  Medical imaging of our internal organs came from the NASA development on sending pictures from outer space.  The satellite dish.. etc. etc.

War bring nothing but more hate.  Science spending is the way to go.

Defensive systems? Fine. Trying to do something about an asteroid? Just plain silly.

Technical developments like the plastic you describe? Fine. However, let the companies that are going to benefit from these advancements due to research in space foot part of the NASA bill---not just the taxpayers. For defensive purposes? Ok. No problem.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 09, 2007, 10:33:00 PM
Sorry, you don't get off that easily. NO substance? NO supporting details? just "bring the troops home"? What about the Iraqui people whose lives you deem as valuable as American lives? You want to just abandon them to the chaos of a civil war?   What about your concern for lives of the citizens of Iraq that you have already expressed?

What about future foreign affairs around the globe?


Sounds as though your leaders should have done a little more thinking before they started this.

I'm sick and freaking tired of our troops being killed and maimed while you all do your hand wringing routine for the people we've already screwed over in Iraq.

Now do some soul searching for OURS....

Your posts are quite bitter, and maybe with good reason, but the hate you have toward others because of this stifling trauma that you haven't apparently recovered from now distorts your perspective in such away that I really don't feel you are capable of understanding a point of view that is different than your own.

Even with all of that, I will offer some of my thoughts on resolution in Iraq. I'm not foolish enough to believe that I have the answers to this complex problem, but I find it morally repugnant to go to another country, participate in its destruction and then walk away as though it isn't our problem any more.

Increase the number of UN/US troops in Baghdad to stabilize that area for two years, while simultaneously reaching out to neighboring countries of Syria and Iran regarding their concerns about Iraq. Begin negotiations with all parties within Iraq with a goal towards partitioning it for Shi'ah, Kurds, et alia---while working out the deal to share the natural resources of water, oil, etc...and the penalties for not sticking to the deal, as well as a third party--mutually agreed upon--and not the US who will settle among the parties regarding disputes..

Locate those safehousing anyone with terrorists, give them fair warning to turn those people in or see their own sanctuary reduced to rubble. Set about on a course of diplomacy by inviting OPEC nations and other countries in the region to a summit in which their input is sought and which it is pitched that it is everyone's best interest to gain peace in this region.

At home, convene a think tank of Middle East experts to help determine the best course of actions both here and abroad.

Support the troops by helping the military find ways to shorten their rotations in and out of Iraq.

Institute a gas tax to help pay for the war that targets all light trucks and SUVs, while at the same time giving long-term tax breaks to domestic car makers who quadruple production of safe automobiles that run on alternative fuels. Provide tax breaks to citiziens who purchase such vehicles.

Invest government monies into public transportation and urban renewal.

Allow all immediate families and dependents of military personnel, and military personnel who are currently serving to forgo any tax liability to the federal government for up to five years after they have served in Iraq.

These are only a few ideas that I have, and I am not certain any would work.

The point is, that until we start looking at the problem in Iraq as complex, dynamic, and long-term, instead of like some bad '60's acid trip that will go away with some kind of 28-day treatment plan called "Operation bring the troops home now", we will be as irresponsible as those we wish to, however justifiably, blame for putting us there in the first place.

And that, to me, is unacceptable.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 09, 2007, 11:19:38 PM
the hate you have toward others because of this stifling trauma that you haven't apparently recovered from now distorts your perspective in such away that I really don't feel you are capable of understanding a point of view that is different than your own.

And it IS very obvious.



to go to another country, participate in its destruction and then walk away as though it isn't our problem any more.

We have been rebuilding infrastructure since the war with saddam's troops ended---terrorists and insurgents are very debilitating to the efforts.



Increase the number of UN/US troops in Baghdad to stabilize that area for two years

I cannot see the UN doing this. It would tend to make bush look better. But it IS a good thought.



simultaneously reaching out to neighboring countries of Syria and Iran regarding their concerns about Iraq.

If you can place any credence in what Syria or Iran says, you're taking a dangerous road. Too many terrorists and insurgents are coming from these countries. The thought IS fine, but the practical application just ain't gonna happen. IMHO. Syria and Iran do NOT want to see democracy of any kind implemented in Iraq. And I would imagine that neither do the Kuwaitis, Saudis, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Qataris, the UAE---the kingdoms and families that have been in power and ruling for years and years do not want their power and wealth threatened. IMHO.



Begin negotiations with all parties within Iraq with a goal towards partitioning it for Shi'ah, Kurds, et alia

Great---if possible.



Locate those safehousing anyone with terrorists, give them fair warning to turn those people in or see their own sanctuary reduced to rubble.

This IS already going on. When they find bodies in the street that have been tortured and murdered by terrorists and death squads, you can quickly seen the destabilization the terrorists are succeeding in, as civilians are scared to death. When influence from Iran in particular stops, things will get better. (But since I have been chided for not naming and stating the location of my friend who IS THERE, I cannot use my military friend who IS THERE as a source, so maybe this bit of wisdom IS not acceptable to some....regardless of how true it may be in actuality.)



 inviting OPEC nations and other countries in the region to a summit in which their input is sought and which it is pitched that it is everyone's best interest to gain peace in this region.

The moslems in this part of the world cannot even get along with each other. One of the Saudis worst enemies IS Bin Laden, and he IS an ally of Iran. Seems always to come back to Iran's presence over there---which seems to always be bad (A good start would maybe be Iran backing off its' statement that it IS going to destroy the US and Israel---not likely tho--IMHO). There IS also that part of Iraq that still sees Kuwait as their '19th' province. ISn't Qatar where the US military went to when it left Saudi Arabia? They ain't gonna fit in well. But---the thought IS recognized for the summit. It would be great if it IS possible.



At home, convene a think tank of Middle East experts to help determine the best course of actions both here and abroad.

This IS going on now. Politics in this country affects too much of what happens or doesn't happen.



Institute a gas tax to help pay for the war that targets all light trucks and SUVs...

We do NOT need any more taxes, especially on fuels---gas IS too high right now---unless you specify that more taxes would be going onto the top 5% of the population. And the right goes ballistics at that thought. The middle and lower classes in the US are paying too much as it IS, and they would be the primary consumers of at least the light trucks.



at the same time giving long-term tax breaks to domestic car makers who quadruple production of safe automobiles that run on alternative fuels.

anything that could be done would be a LONG way down the road...as in nothing immediate would be able to happen. But the thought IS noted. From what I have read and seen, these vehicles would be a lot more expensive than the light trucks and mini-compact cars of today. But it IS a thought to be explored (At least a feasability study?)...a different point of view.



Invest government monies into public transportation and urban renewal.

Is this here or in Iraq? US money or Iraq oil money? Not clear.



Allow all immediate families and dependents of military personnel, and military personnel who are currently serving to forgo any tax liability to the federal government for up to five years after they have served in Iraq.

This sounds nice! Vets would LOVE this. Talk about a morale booster!



These are only a few ideas that I have, and I am not certain any would work.

Same for me and what I have commented on.



some kind of 28-day treatment plan called "Operation bring the troops home now", we will be as irresponsible as those we wish to, however justifiably, blame for putting us there in the first place.

Too true.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 09, 2007, 11:55:22 PM
I like some of the suggestions on ending the Iraq issue. I like the idea of tax abatement for those who serve and their families. There was a piece on the news last week about grandparents caring for the children of deceased soldiers who were not receiving any benefits to raise those children because they are not the spouse of the deceased.

I also feel like the UN is the best source of troops to stabilized Iraq while we pull most of our troops out (leaving only our fair share of the UN burden). Of course, Bush would have to eat crow with the UN, but he has only himself to blame for being on the bad side of the UN.

As to the idea of a defense system to save us from asteroids, I don't see a serious threat there, other than from science fiction. I see such a system being misused by any other "mediocres" we stupidly elect to the highest office.

I do feel that the Middle East folks need to solve their own problems, even if it takes them some time to learn why it is important. We can certainly offer advice if we are asked, but it should be OK with us if it takes a different administration and some years in which we re-establish our trustworthyness.

As to demanding that Iraq or any other country become a democraticy, we should look first to establishing a true democracy within our own borders before we go 'round telling others how to govern themselves.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 05:34:44 AM
Sorry, you don't get off that easily. NO substance? NO supporting details? just "bring the troops home"? What about the Iraqui people whose lives you deem as valuable as American lives? You want to just abandon them to the chaos of a civil war?   What about your concern for lives of the citizens of Iraq that you have already expressed?

What about future foreign affairs around the globe?


Sounds as though your leaders should have done a little more thinking before they started this.

I'm sick and freaking tired of our troops being killed and maimed while you all do your hand wringing routine for the people we've already screwed over in Iraq.

Now do some soul searching for OURS....

Your posts are quite bitter, and maybe with good reason, but the hate you have toward others because of this stifling trauma that you haven't apparently recovered from now distorts your perspective in such away that I really don't feel you are capable of understanding a point of view that is different than your own.

Even with all of that, I will offer some of my thoughts on resolution in Iraq. I'm not foolish enough to believe that I have the answers to this complex problem, but I find it morally repugnant to go to another country, participate in its destruction and then walk away as though it isn't our problem any more.

Increase the number of UN/US troops in Baghdad to stabilize that area for two years, while simultaneously reaching out to neighboring countries of Syria and Iran regarding their concerns about Iraq. Begin negotiations with all parties within Iraq with a goal towards partitioning it for Shi'ah, Kurds, et alia---while working out the deal to share the natural resources of water, oil, etc...and the penalties for not sticking to the deal, as well as a third party--mutually agreed upon--and not the US who will settle among the parties regarding disputes..

Locate those safehousing anyone with terrorists, give them fair warning to turn those people in or see their own sanctuary reduced to rubble. Set about on a course of diplomacy by inviting OPEC nations and other countries in the region to a summit in which their input is sought and which it is pitched that it is everyone's best interest to gain peace in this region.

At home, convene a think tank of Middle East experts to help determine the best course of actions both here and abroad.

Support the troops by helping the military find ways to shorten their rotations in and out of Iraq.

Institute a gas tax to help pay for the war that targets all light trucks and SUVs, while at the same time giving long-term tax breaks to domestic car makers who quadruple production of safe automobiles that run on alternative fuels. Provide tax breaks to citiziens who purchase such vehicles.

Invest government monies into public transportation and urban renewal.

Allow all immediate families and dependents of military personnel, and military personnel who are currently serving to forgo any tax liability to the federal government for up to five years after they have served in Iraq.

These are only a few ideas that I have, and I am not certain any would work.

The point is, that until we start looking at the problem in Iraq as complex, dynamic, and long-term, instead of like some bad '60's acid trip that will go away with some kind of 28-day treatment plan called "Operation bring the troops home now", we will be as irresponsible as those we wish to, however justifiably, blame for putting us there in the first place.

And that, to me, is unacceptable.

Constructive ideas.  But you seem to forget that the US is bankrupt; that the UN is not the lacky of the White House; that much of the world saw our arrogance before the war and will not support us now, since during this present administration, our reputation has been lost on the world stage.  You also forget that we walked away from Viet Nam knowing that we had failed, yet today we are not trading with that country, once an enemy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 06:19:47 AM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

True, abandoning ship IS not wise, and many have said so---but just because stabilization IS proving difficult, does not necessarily mean it IS incompetent. While bush IS the cmdr in chief, he listens to the commanders in the field as to what IS necessary. So if there IS any incompetency, it would lie with the military, right?

The military follows the directives outlined by the Bush administration.  The Bush administration has not been listening to what commanders in the field have been saying as to what IS necessary.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 07:13:54 AM
you seem to forget that the US is bankrupt; that the UN is not the lacky of the White House; that much of the world saw our arrogance before the war and will not support us now,

I was trying to finance the war without wrecking the economy with my ideas for the tax proposals and incentives. We have to go back to the UN to appeal, as the UN authorized the war----

I believe that multilateral diplomacy has to be a part of the long-term solution.

 Viet Nam was a different situation---very different, in my opinion.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 09:19:54 AM
As to demanding that Iraq or any other country become a democraticy, we should look first to establishing a true democracy within our own borders before we go 'round telling others how to govern themselves.

I case you have not noticed, women do not get the standing in a moslem society that you have here. That doesn't influence your thought at all? Does that need to be elaborated on? We, including women, vote in this country. Or could you state what type of govt you believe should be in place over there? I think, even with all its flaws, that the US has the best form of govt the face of this planet has seen in the last 5,000 years.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 09:23:08 AM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

True, abandoning ship IS not wise, and many have said so---but just because stabilization IS proving difficult, does not necessarily mean it IS incompetent. While bush IS the cmdr in chief, he listens to the commanders in the field as to what IS necessary. So if there IS any incompetency, it would lie with the military, right?

The military follows the directives outlined by the Bush administration.  The Bush administration has not been listening to what commanders in the field have been saying as to what IS necessary.

Of course he has been listening. The military may indeed follow his directives, but he IS not micro-managing the efforts over there (Unlike what the Ds apparently want to do).


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 09:26:46 AM
 he has only himself to blame for being on the bad side of the UN.

This IS absolute hogwash. When you get the UN to police its' own corruptions, give me a call. I detest funding kofi annan's son's cars for example. It IS just an organization that looks to the US for its money, and that IS about it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 09:56:07 AM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

True, abandoning ship IS not wise, and many have said so---but just because stabilization IS proving difficult, does not necessarily mean it IS incompetent. While bush IS the cmdr in chief, he listens to the commanders in the field as to what IS necessary. So if there IS any incompetency, it would lie with the military, right?

The military follows the directives outlined by the Bush administration.  The Bush administration has not been listening to what commanders in the field have been saying as to what IS necessary.

Of course he has been listening. The military may indeed follow his directives, but he IS not micro-managing the efforts over there (Unlike what the Ds apparently want to do).

Then why have so many generals come out and said otherwise?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 09:56:45 AM
you seem to forget that the US is bankrupt; that the UN is not the lacky of the White House; that much of the world saw our arrogance before the war and will not support us now,

I was trying to finance the war without wrecking the economy with my ideas for the tax proposals and incentives. We have to go back to the UN to appeal, as the UN authorized the war----

I believe that multilateral diplomacy has to be a part of the long-term solution.

 Viet Nam was a different situation---very different, in my opinion.



I don't believe the UN authorized the war; I don't believe they ever voted on it.  Bush asked them to do so, but then withdrew the request when he realized he wasn't going to get it.  I could be wrong, but that is what I remember without researching it.

I also believe we were told the Iraqi oil would pay for the war.  That has turned out not to be true.  Instead, we've borrow on your grandchildren's credit card from China to pay for this mistake.   Their quality of life will be greatly reduced because of Bush's incompetence.

I agree, a multi national response would have been helpful, as it was in the first gulf war, but the "coalition of the willing" was made of very few strong members.  And most of them have "abandoned ship" at this point.

I'm not sure how the reality of Viet Nam is much different from the quamire we are in today.  That too was a civil war, based on political objectives, rather than religious ones, I suppose.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 10:03:11 AM
Quote
I'm not sure how the reality of Viet Nam is much different from the quamire we are in today.  That too was a civil war, based on political objectives, rather than religious ones, I suppose.

We didn't liberate Vietnam from communist dictatorship and then struggle to stablize it amidst an insurgency. If we were still struggling to depose Saddam Hussein -- while losing thousands of lives in the process -- the comparison would be more realistic.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:05:17 AM
What's going on now in Iraq is a Civil War and a messy one at that.  It's hard to figure who the "good guys" are, what side is worth fighting for etc.  The Viet Nam war essentially involved two sides (though, I suppose, an argument can be made that we picked the wrong one) and was essentially a proxy war for a bigger one.  

The religious component of the Vietnamese war shouldn't be underestimated as the U.S. backing of Diem (a Catholic in a 10% Catholic country) could well be viewed as a sop to the Vatican and a counter to "Godless" communism.  

Ultimately, while the "we can't get out cleanly" sense in Iraq is parallel to that of Viet Nam, there are a lot more differences than similarities and in my opinion the U.S. Viet Nam experience should not necessarily be used as a reason for doing or not doing what is done in Iraq.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 10:27:46 AM
Here are some parelles between Viet Nam and Iraq:

l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam.

2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win.

3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha.

4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq.

5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.)

6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq.

7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain.

8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true.

9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets.

10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves.

11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two.

12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:28:31 AM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

True, abandoning ship IS not wise, and many have said so---but just because stabilization IS proving difficult, does not necessarily mean it IS incompetent. While bush IS the cmdr in chief, he listens to the commanders in the field as to what IS necessary. So if there IS any incompetency, it would lie with the military, right?

The military follows the directives outlined by the Bush administration.  The Bush administration has not been listening to what commanders in the field have been saying as to what IS necessary.

Of course he has been listening. The military may indeed follow his directives, but he IS not micro-managing the efforts over there (Unlike what the Ds apparently want to do).

Then why have so many generals come out and said otherwise?

Sure there are some that have chosen to express one point of view---there are also plenty that expressed the opposite. Open rebellion by US commanders in the field IS rare.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:36:28 AM
What's going on now in Iraq is a Civil War and a messy one at that.  It's hard to figure who the "good guys" are, what side is worth fighting for etc.  The Viet Nam war essentially involved two sides (though, I suppose, an argument can be made that we picked the wrong one) and was essentially a proxy war for a bigger one.  

The religious component of the Vietnamese war shouldn't be underestimated as the U.S. backing of Diem (a Catholic in a 10% Catholic country) could well be viewed as a sop to the Vatican and a counter to "Godless" communism.  

Ultimately, while the "we can't get out cleanly" sense in Iraq is parallel to that of Viet Nam, there are a lot more differences than similarities and in my opinion the U.S. Viet Nam experience should not necessarily be used as a reason for doing or not doing what is done in Iraq.

I disagree that what IS going on 'NOW' IS a civil war. If it were a civil war, there would be a lot more 'actions' going on. It may be a prelude to one, yes. Who the good guys are IS cloudy. The religious component IS palpable.

Referring to Iraq and Nam, yes, there are a lot more differences than similarities.


The Viet Nam war essentially involved two sides (though, I suppose, an argument can be made that we picked the wrong one) and was essentially a proxy war for a bigger one.

Siding against communism was not a wrong choice. The desire to rid the planet of entities like the KGB, the GRU, and gulags IS quite honorable one. IMHO. I still believe to this day that Vietnam was a 'chosen' field of pitting soviet against US military harwares. And that the conflict was going to be an economic one for the US.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 10:36:41 AM
while the "we can't get out cleanly" sense in Iraq is parallel to that of Viet Nam, there are a lot more differences than similarities and in my opinion the U.S. Viet Nam experience should not necessarily be used as a reason for doing or not doing what is done in Iraq.

Well, put.

I am glad to see that many of us are willing to look at teh situation in Iraq as being one that is extremely complex in nature. While that complexity may be vexing, the people who chant "Bring the Troops Home, Now!" or "Stay the Course!" aren't being honest in their attempts to discuss the Iraq. They come off as merely attempting to frame the debate as an either-or situation.

As an American citizen, I find that to be irresponsible behavior.

Understandable, but irresponsible, nonetheless.

Perhaps this comes about due to the way that most people process information coming from Iraq---choosing their favorite media outlet and taking in only the photo-ops and sound bites that align with their own narrow views.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 10:39:40 AM
Here are some parelles between Viet Nam and Iraq:

l. Both wars were illegal acts of pre-emptive aggression unsanctioned by international law or world opinion. Earlier, U.S. interventions involved successive US administrations. JFK's CIA helped put Saddam in power, Reagan armed him to fight Iran. George Bush, 41 led the first Gulf War against him. Clinton tightened sanctions. George Bush, 43 invaded again. Five Administrations--Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford fought in Vietnam.

2. Both wars were launched with deception. In Iraq it was the now proven phony WMD threat and contrived Saddam-Osama connection. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elections mandated by the Geneva agreement that were canceled by Washington in l956 when the US feared Ho Chi Minh would win.

3. The government lied regularly in both wars. Back then, the lies were pronounced a "credibility gap." Today, they are considered acceptable "information warfare." In Saigon military briefers conducted discredited "5 O'Clock Follies" press conferences. In this war, the Pentagon spoon-fed info at a Hollywood style briefing center in Doha.

4. The US press was initially an enthusiastic cheerleader in both wars. When Vietnam protest grew and the war seen as a lost cause, the media frame changed. In Iraq today most of the media is trapped in hotel rooms. Only one side is covered now whereas in Vietnam, there was more reporting occasionally from the other. In Vietnam, the accent was on progress and "turned corners." The same is true in Iraq.

5. In both wars, prisoners were abused. In South Vietnam, thousands of captives were tortured in what were the called "tiger cages." Vietnamese POWs were often killed; In North Vietnam, some US POWs were abused after bombing civilians. In Iraq, POWs on both sides were also mistreated. It was US soldiers that first leaked major war crimes and abuses. In Vietnam, Ron Ridenour disclosed the My Lai Massacre. In Iraq, it was a soldier who first told investigators about the torture in Abu Ghraib prison. (Seymour Hersh the reporter who exposed My-Lai in Vietnam later exposed illegal abuses in Iraq.)

6. Illegal weapons were "deployed" in both wars. The US dropped napalm, used cluster bombs against civilians and sprayed toxic agent orange in Vietnam. Cluster bombs and updated Mark 77 napalm-like firebombs were dropped on Iraqis. Depleted uranium was added to the arsenal of prohibited weapons in Iraq.

7. Both wars claimed to be about promoting democracy. Vietnam staged elections and saw a succession of governments controlled by the US. come and go. Iraq has had one election so far in which most voters say they were casting ballots primarily to get the US to leave. The US has stage-managed Iraq's interim government. Exiles were brought back and put in power. Vietnam's Diem came from New Jersey, Iraq's Allawi from Britain.

8. Both wars claimed to be about noble international goals. Vietnam was pictured as a crusade against aggressive communism and falling dominos. Iraq was sold as a front in a global war on terrorism. Neither claim proved true.

9. An imperial drive for resource control and markets helped drive both interventions. Vietnam had rubber and manganese and rare minerals. Iraq has oil. In both wars, any economic agenda was officially denied and ignored by most media outlets.

10. Both wars took place in countries with cultures we never understood or spoke the language, Both involved "insurgents" whose military prowess was underestimated and misrepresented. In Vietnam, we called the "enemy" communists; in Iraq we call them foreign terrorists. (Soldiers had their own terms, "gooks" in Vietnam, "ragheads" in Iraq) In both counties, they was in fact an indigenous resistance that enjoyed popular support. (Both targeted and brutalized people they considered collaborators with the invaders just as our own Revolution went after Americans who backed the British.) In both wars, as in all wars, innocent civilians died in droves.

11. In both countries the US promised to help rebuild the damages caused by US bombing. In Vietnam, a $2 Billion presidential reconstruction pledge was not honored. In Iraq, the electricity and other services are still out in many areas. In both wars US companies and suppliers have profited handsomely; Brown &Root in Vietnam; Halliburton in Iraq, to cite but two.

12. In Vietnam, the Pentagon's counter-insurgency effort failed to "pacify" the countryside even with a half a million US soldiers "in country." The insurgency in Iraq is growing despite the best efforts of US soldiers. More have died since President Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished" than during the invasion.


Are these your words or did this come from another source? IF, it is the latter case, you ought to give the source credit.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 10:43:38 AM
"Stay the course"  pretty much just means we are not getting out of Iraq at this time.

I think many of us that agree with this have an open mind to future tactics.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 10:49:06 AM
"Stay the course"  pretty much just means we are not getting out of Iraq at this time.

I think many of us that agree with this have an open mind to future tactics.

"Stay the course"  may mean that to you, but to many it means "just keep doing what we're doing", and the American people seem to disagree with that notion.




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 10:54:26 AM
Perhaps this comes about due to the way that most people process information coming from Iraq---choosing their favorite media outlet and taking in only the photo-ops and sound bites that align with their own narrow views.


Too true. The 'mainstream' media IS loathe to show anything good that IS going on over there. Too many dan rather types in the business that will selectively report, or outright fabricate.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 10:55:55 AM
I recall that when the cold war ended, there was a short era of peace. There were no enemies to rail against, and the war correspondents wondered if they would ever have a job again. Into the vacuum lept "the terrorists" to become the new enemy of patriotic Americans. The communists were "godless" and that was a good reason to take them out. The "terrorists" are strong supporters of "God", but we disdain their flavor of religion, so they have to go.

At the end of Viet Nam, as we sadly brought home our troops and as many Viet Namese civilians as could hang onto the rudders of the helicopters, we promised to learn from this experience, never again to get into an unwinnable war. We were going to learn not to meddle in the affairs of foreign entities. Yet, that is exactly what we did in Iraq. We went in to meddle. Sure there are differences. Every situation has a unique set of variables. But the similarities are stark. We went in to meddle. We went without the sanction of the World Community. We failed. We have egg on our face. We repeated the mistakes we promised to learn from Viet Nam.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 10:58:48 AM
Too true. The 'mainstream' media IS loathe to show anything good that IS going on over there. Too many dan rather types in the business that will selectively report, or outright fabricate.

Do you have anything that's not right off of the "The Rush Limbaugh Show"?  Is your next criticism going to be of "the drive-by media" while lauding the fun and games at "Camp Gitmo"?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 10, 2007, 10:59:42 AM
Just because the current administration has proved to be incompetent in stabilizing Iraq doesn't mean that we should abandon ship.

True, abandoning ship IS not wise, and many have said so---but just because stabilization IS proving difficult, does not necessarily mean it IS incompetent. While bush IS the cmdr in chief, he listens to the commanders in the field as to what IS necessary. So if there IS any incompetency, it would lie with the military, right?

The military follows the directives outlined by the Bush administration.  The Bush administration has not been listening to what commanders in the field have been saying as to what IS necessary.

Of course he has been listening. The military may indeed follow his directives, but he IS not micro-managing the efforts over there (Unlike what the Ds apparently want to do).

Then why have so many generals come out and said otherwise?

Sure there are some that have chosen to express one point of view---there are also plenty that expressed the opposite. Open rebellion by US commanders in the field IS rare.

Just a guess but it wasn't the U.S. commanders in the field that made the decision of debaathification and the dissolution of Iraq’s military and police forces


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:00:09 AM
The "terrorists" are strong supporters of "God", but we disdain their flavor of religion, so they have to go.


The terrorists are murdering people in the name of god---there IS no defense of that.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 11:01:23 AM
NGC,

It is ingenious of you to point our that if a US-style democracy is not installed in Iraq, whether they want it or not, women will be denied the right to vote. In some middle east countries, women DO have the right to vote. In others they do not. It is a problem to be solved by the women of that region, not to be imposed by "Ugly Americans".

It is revealing that you are incensed with the notion of a woman running for president. You assinate her character by innuendo and gobbly-do-gook. I get the feeling you think it is a sop to women to be allowed to vote, only as long as they can only vote for men. I am not personally in favor of Hillary, but I strongly resent your massive mischaracterization of her. Your notion of keeping "women in their place" is apparent in your posts.




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 11:03:47 AM
NGC,

Pick up any good world history book, and learn how often people have been murdered "in the name of God". Even in our good ally, there has been a religious war going on in Ireland, which is only now showing signs of ending. The murders committed there were also "in the name of God". There is nothing new under the sun.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 10, 2007, 11:07:02 AM
NGC,

It is ingenious of you to point our that if a US-style democracy is not installed in Iraq, whether they want it or not, women will be denied the right to vote. In some middle east countries, women DO have the right to vote. In others they do not. It is a problem to be solved by the women of that region, not to be imposed by "Ugly Americans".

It is revealing that you are incensed with the notion of a woman running for president. You assinate her character by innuendo and gobbly-do-gook. I get the feeling you think it is a sop to women to be allowed to vote, only as long as they can only vote for men. I am not personally in favor of Hillary, but I strongly resent your massive mischaracterization of her. Your notion of keeping "women in their place" is apparent in your posts.




LOL

I think this particular woman candidate is the problem


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:13:58 AM
 The 'mainstream' media IS loathe to show anything good that IS going on over there. Too many dan rather types in the business that will selectively report, or outright fabricate.

I think you just undescored my earlier point in a rather ironic way.

FoxNews vs MSNBC....Olbermann vs Hannitization, etc....

Instead of picking sides, try seeing the whole picture and then demand better from everyone.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 11:14:51 AM
I think many feel betrayed by the government of this administration.  We were lied to.  We were deceived.  We don't feel that more should die to save Bush's legacy.  This action had proven to be a collassal failure.  Even the generals call it a civil war now.


http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0501-32.htm  MrUtley.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:19:35 AM
  I think this particular woman candidate is the problem.

Agreed. All "kidding" aside, there are many Democratic Party members who fear Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, and it's not because she's a woman.

It's because she's Hillary Clinton.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:21:47 AM
think many feel betrayed by the government of this administration.  We were lied to.  We were deceived.

I can say that about pretty much any adminstration in my short 51 years on the planet.

That's not an excuse, just a fact.

Nice website, Samster. Kind of one-sided, though, don't ya think. and nice to see you give them credit.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:24:19 AM
NGC,

It is ingenious of you to point our that if a US-style democracy is not installed in Iraq, whether they want it or not, women will be denied the right to vote. In some middle east countries, women DO have the right to vote. In others they do not. It is a problem to be solved by the women of that region, not to be imposed by "Ugly Americans".

It is revealing that you are incensed with the notion of a woman running for president. You assinate her character by innuendo and gobbly-do-gook. I get the feeling you think it is a sop to women to be allowed to vote, only as long as they can only vote for men. I am not personally in favor of Hillary, but I strongly resent your massive mischaracterization of her. Your notion of keeping "women in their place" is apparent in your posts.





You may strongly resent anything you choose. Hillary IS an abomination, and that IS my opinion---just as you are such a bush and american military hater that it IS coming out of your ears. Why don't you ask your 'god' klynton about Ng Lapseng, but I'll just bet that you don't even know whom that IS. You want to espouse an absolute waffler for pres? Your choice---have at it.

I am not against a woman for president, but your projections indicating I think that way are about as BIASED as a biased mind can get. I had started to think that you were getting away from this kind of post, but I see I am wrong.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 11:27:44 AM
  I think this particular woman candidate is the problem.

Agreed. All "kidding" aside, there are many Democratic Party members who fear Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, and it's not because she's a woman.

It's because she's Hillary Clinton.

I have to agree with you.  We need fresh people in the White House, not the old tired has beens we've been living with for the last 35 years.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:31:13 AM
The 'mainstream' media IS loathe to show anything good that IS going on over there. Too many dan rather types in the business that will selectively report, or outright fabricate.

I think you just undescored my earlier point in a rather ironic way.

FoxNews vs MSNBC....Olbermann vs Hannitization, etc....

Instead of picking sides, try seeing the whole picture and then demand better from everyone.

Underscored your point? Where was my mischaracterization wrong? The only thing I listed by name was dan rather---not any news entity. Any reporter that fabricates news or documents IS gonna get my 'wrath'er. I have not picked any sides in my post. Do you disagree that good things that happen over there get LESS attention than bad things? If so, it IS just incomprehensible. There IS simply no question of this occuring right now. And that IS selective reporting---period.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 11:37:40 AM
I think this particular woman candidate is the problem.

Agreed. All "kidding" aside, there are many Democratic Party members who fear Hillary Clinton getting the nomination, and it's not because she's a woman.

It's because she's Hillary Clinton.



You got it! Hillary has HER interests at heart, not the US. Those that think otherwise are simply snowed, and will 'swallow' a lie just as fast for mere political expediencies. Pitiful.

Anyone OR anything but hillary.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:38:44 AM
Underscored your point? Where was my mischaracterization wrong? The only thing I listed by name was dan rather---not any news entity. Any reporter that fabricates news or documents IS gonna get my 'wrath'er. I have not picked any sides in my post. Do you disagree that good things that happen over there get LESS attention than bad things? If so, it IS just incomprehensible. There IS simply no question of this occuring right now. And that IS selective reporting---period.

cut back on the caffeine, dean.

The point was that looking at reality through the lens of ANY ONE NEWS MEDIA OUTLET gives a skewed view.

Example, if I only read the NYTimes, I tend to think in terms of its framework. Ditto(head) for those who's primary source of information is  the Limbaugh Lunatic, the Hannitizer, the Olbermanmeister, the YesSpinZOne'Reilly, the Great Interrupter Chris Matthews,  etc....



 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 10, 2007, 11:46:00 AM
As to demanding that Iraq or any other country become a democraticy, we should look first to establishing a true democracy within our own borders before we go 'round telling others how to govern themselves.

I case you have not noticed, women do not get the standing in a moslem society that you have here. That doesn't influence your thought at all? Does that need to be elaborated on? We, including women, vote in this country. Or could you state what type of govt you believe should be in place over there? I think, even with all its flaws, that the US has the best form of govt the face of this planet has seen in the last 5,000 years.



So what?  This was never the reason presented for going to war.  Furthermore, maybe we should allow a society to continue with their traditional structure.  Meddling makes no friends.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 11:46:22 AM
Hillary has HER interests at heart, not the US


Same as Rudi Giuliani...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:01:35 PM
Do any of them have the country's interest at heart?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 12:03:13 PM
Hillary has HER interests at heart, not the US


Same as Rudi Giuliani...


As I have repeatedly said---when we get a D or an R for president, we are ALL going to be losers. No-one has heard me advocate voting for ANY D or R. Just as I have repeatedly said I never once voted for bush. That IS a fact.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:23:47 PM
Hillary has HER interests at heart, not the US


Same as Rudi Giuliani...


As I have repeatedly said---when we get a D or an R for president, we are ALL going to be losers. No-one has heard me advocate voting for ANY D or R. Just as I have repeatedly said I never once voted for bush. That IS a fact.

So, if you don't vote republican or democratic, who would you vote for?  Jesus Christ?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 12:55:17 PM
 We're playing into the terrorists' hands


For the Monitor
May 10. 2007 8:00AM

Advocates of remaining in Iraq are fond of sports analogies. They speak of remaining on offense and equate withdrawal with defeat. They seem unfamiliar with the concept of a "good loss." In team sports, a good loss helps a team identify and correct its weaknesses, regroup and become stronger.

Our soldiers need a respite from this war without end. In addition to deaths and injuries, it is estimated that 50 percent of returnees from Iraq suffer from serious psychological difficulties. The longer the tour of duty, the greater the trauma. By continuing to try to win the tactical battle of Iraq, we risk losing the strategic war on terror.

War supporters argue that Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. Terrorists know no front lines. They can launch sneak attacks from any direction. Our remaining stagnant in Iraq serves the terrorists' purposes. Incapable of winning a conventional war, they are using Iraq as a diversionary tactic to wear us down.

Withdrawing from Iraq would show al-Qaida that we are an intelligent adversary. We are not going to play its game. We are going to return to the successful strategy of cooperation with allies until the enemy implodes from its own internal weakness.

The extremism of terror has no more mass appeal than communism or fascism. We can wear down our enemy by being prudent, not wasteful, in the deployment of our military assets.

   
Our greatest asset is our value system. We abandoned our values when we invaded Iraq. We can restore them by pulling back. If our leader can't or won't guide us safely to the moral high ground, it is time, in the language of sports, to "fire the manager."

Letter to the editor, Concord Monitor, Concord, NH


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 01:05:57 PM
We abandoned our values when we invaded Iraq. We can restore them by pulling back. If our leader can't or won't guide us safely to the moral high ground, it is time, in the language of sports, to "fire the manager.

This war has been misconceived and mismanaged and clearly has not been succesful.  I think a compelling case can be made to bring troops home solely on the basis of not having any more good, decent Americans dying for some impossible to define cause. 

On the other hand, it's gets a lot stickier when the talk turns to "values" and "moral high ground."  I think any definition of morality would certainly take into account the fact that we started this and a lot of people-who are not Americans-are dying as a result of us starting it.  Don't our "values" and our "morality" extend to helping people who we've caused harm to?  Now I think it's likely that things won't get better if we stick around, they clearly won't get better if we don't. 

We've got ourselves a quagmire and my solution is one that's been bandied about: partition.  While dealing with the Turks might be an issue, it's better than what we've got now, I think.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 01:28:59 PM
Joe Biden has been chatting up "partition" for a long, long time, now..


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 10, 2007, 01:31:17 PM
Yeah, that's his baby.  I liked Biden 20 years ago, but he's become way too long-winded for my tastes.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 01:31:26 PM
Biden's Plan:

http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 10, 2007, 01:32:31 PM
Yeah, that's his baby.  I liked Biden 20 years ago, but he's become way too long-winded for my tastes.

He does do some stemwinding, that's for sure, but apparently he is aware of it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: bankshot1 on May 10, 2007, 01:33:08 PM
I think its pretty clear that the day the U.S pulls out of Iraq, chaos, anarchy and the deaths of thousands of innocent vctims will follow. Unfortunately, that outcome is probably the same if we stay there.

if someone were to say with 100% certainty: If the U.S. stays in Iraq for 20 years at a cost of trillion of dollars and 40,000 additional U.S combat deaths, and untold other casualties of war, BUT stability would be brought to Iraq for at least 10 years, would we accept that policy choice?

How long does one perpetuate a failed policy?

edit: I like Biden, he's an adult, and while he's full of himself, he knows it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 10, 2007, 02:33:45 PM
I have to agree with you.  We need fresh people in the White House, not the old tired has beens we've been living with for the last 35 years.

I don't mind Hillary __ better than any on the other side. 

Long as she learns to get rid of the "Mars Attacks" voice.

RAAH!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 02:35:57 PM
I don't see that staying in Iraq is going to help the Iraqi people.  They are damned either way.  Besides that, they don't want us there.  Who would want an occupying force in their land?  We didn't when we had one.  Had this all been handled correctly from the beginning we won't be in this position today.  Rumsfield and Cheney are mostly to blame, along with Rice and Bush.  Their desire for Iraq oil was their main objective, and even that has failed.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 10, 2007, 02:38:40 PM
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ

April 2, 2007

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.


http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html


Sometimes answers don’t have to be complicated. Just realistic.



Additional note: If posters are offended by my tone on this thread, maybe they would be more suited to spend their time perusing less contentious topics like the home or garden threads.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 02:40:55 PM
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ

April 2, 2007

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.


http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/20070402.html


Sometimes answers don’t have to be complicated. Just realistic.



Additional note: If posters are offended by my tone on this thread, maybe they would be more suited to spend their time perusing less contentious topics like the home or garden threads.


Speaking for myself, I appreciate both your tone and your input to the forum.  We do have some deadheads who like to whine and bitch.  Just ignore them.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 02:49:33 PM
New apostasy bill to impose death on anyone who leaves Islam
by Qaiser Felix
Pakistan’s government sends draft bill tabled by six-party Islamic alliance to standing committee for review. Under the bill’s terms, apostates would be sentenced to death or life in prison. Testimony by two adults is the only independent evidence needed to determine or demonstrate apostasy. Lahore archbishop is praying the bill is never adopted.


Islamabad (AsiaNews) – A draft bill adopted in first reading by Pakistan’s National Assembly is now before a standing committee. Tabled by a six-party politico-religious alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal or MMA, the Apostasy Act 2006 which the government sent to the committee would impose the death penalty on Muslim men and life in prison on Muslim women in case they leave Islam. It would also force them to forfeit their property and lose legal custody of children.


And many wonder why some have complete and utter disgust for a lot of the moslem world. Chow down pathetic appeasers!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 10, 2007, 03:06:05 PM
New apostasy bill to impose death on anyone who leaves Islam
by Qaiser Felix
Pakistan’s government sends draft bill tabled by six-party Islamic alliance to standing committee for review. Under the bill’s terms, apostates would be sentenced to death or life in prison. Testimony by two adults is the only independent evidence needed to determine or demonstrate apostasy. Lahore archbishop is praying the bill is never adopted.


Islamabad (AsiaNews) – A draft bill adopted in first reading by Pakistan’s National Assembly is now before a standing committee. Tabled by a six-party politico-religious alliance, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal or MMA, the Apostasy Act 2006 which the government sent to the committee would impose the death penalty on Muslim men and life in prison on Muslim women in case they leave Islam. It would also force them to forfeit their property and lose legal custody of children.


And many wonder why some have complete and utter disgust for a lot of the moslem world. Chow down pathetic appeasers! 


1) "Chow down pathetic appeasers"  from the guy who feigned shock at the lack of civility when i said "Iran doesn't give a ****".   So now i know that was just an act and all that screaming you did about it.  My words were no attack, there was no aggression, but yours are loaded with vitriol.  Weak mind indeed.

2) So what?  Those people can pass their crazy laws or not.  It's not law yet is it?  And is it justification to hate the "lot of the moslem world"?  Thats like me coming on here and saying I hate all Christians because of those televangelists who get caught with their pants down and hand in the cookie jar.

So just cool it with your negativity against an entire peoples. You really sound like you could have been pals with Hitler. It is the sign of a weak mind to paint with a broad brush.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 10, 2007, 03:22:12 PM
Speaking of appeasers….

Muslem terror has been increasing ever since Bush started his war in Iraq. They will continue to recruit, train, and kill as long as American troops remain in the ME. Just like OBL said they would.
 

There`s a reason terrorists have laid off Saudi Arabia, Bush appeased them by removing our troops from that country just like OBL wanted us to.

That is what 9/11 was all about.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 04:26:13 PM
So just cool it with your negativity against an entire peoples.

I did say a lot of the moslem world, not all tho, didn't I?

The statement stands. When ALL moslem countries stop with their making women second class people, harboring and funding terrorism and terrorists, and saying they'll destroy other countries, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

Appeaser. Or maybe those blinders are just getting in the way.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 04:31:28 PM
Muslem terror has been increasing ever since Bush started his war in Iraq.

You liberals keep referring to bush's war---it IS just as much the congress war since they voted to give the go ahead. If they want to vote to stop it, fine. That ain't happened yet. Only liberals keep referring to bush's war.


They will continue to recruit, train, and kill as long as American troops remain in the ME.

So---you are saying that a particular country cannot decide to have the US a a friend because it might not fit what terrorists want? Your rationale IS so pathetic it doesn't merit discussion.



There`s a reason terrorists have laid off Saudi Arabia, Bush appeased them by removing our troops from that country just like OBL wanted us to.


We left saudi arabia for several reasons--none of which are what your liberal mind IS conceiving. Bin Laden lays off saudi arabia bacause they PAY him!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 04:33:19 PM
the lack of civility when i said "Iran doesn't give a ****".

There IS no place for profanity and vulgarity---period. Regardless of what your profane mind tells you. You haven't seen me get profane or vulgar. And you won't.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 10, 2007, 05:01:25 PM
the lack of civility when i said "Iran doesn't give a ****".

There IS no place for profanity and vulgarity---period. Regardless of what your profane mind tells you. You haven't seen me get profane or vulgar. And you won't.

"Chow down pathetic appeasers" is vulgar and pre-sophomoric.

You have no leg to stand on when Womens suffrage didn't happen in this country (and WE'RE the democracy?) for a loooong time either.  Get off the high horse.  Slavery, Jim Crow, Institutional racism and the Glass ceiling are all honorable practices in the past, and present of this nation.  Don't throw rocks from a glass house.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 05:56:49 PM
Kam,

Well said. All of those issues you mention such as Jim Crow, institutional racism, and the Glass Ceiling have happened in my lifetime. While they are downplayed at present, they have not yet gone away. There are still businesses that won't let black or women rise above a "certain level". And, now we have the disdain for the hard-working Mexicans who come here for the same reasons that all immigrants have come.

I just got a CD I ordered called the Jamestown Jubilee. It contains the music of the celebrations of Jamestown for 1807, 1907, and 2007. The music was played by a university band of excellent talent. The names listed on the CD as the players, reads like a register of the UN.

For more than 200 years, American has had the goal to provide freedom to all, equality for all, and the right of happiness to all, but it has had a horrid history in trying to deliver it. We are not there yet. Anyone who thinks we are, is wearing blinders.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 10, 2007, 06:21:47 PM
You have no leg to stand on when Womens suffrage didn't happen in this country (and WE'RE the democracy?) for a loooong time either.

I understand that the US IS one of the youngest countries around---that most moslem countries have been around longer. Seems they wouldv'e learned respect for all humans by now...regardless if man or woman.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 10, 2007, 08:07:02 PM
You have no leg to stand on when Womens suffrage didn't happen in this country (and WE'RE the democracy?) for a loooong time either.

I understand that the US IS one of the youngest countries around---that most moslem countries have been around longer. Seems they wouldv'e learned respect for all humans by now...regardless if man or woman.

Many Americans would have us return to a patriarchy system whereby a woman is the property of her father, until he arranges her marriage to the man who will become her husband, and then she is the property of her husband, and must bow to him.  Many of the Christian right believe this is God's Plan.  Since I don't believe it a god, I think these people are scary, but they exist right here in the good old USA.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 10, 2007, 10:12:09 PM
Sam,

If it were up to the Christian Right, women and minorities would have no rights, and neither would children. It is amazing the things that "Christians" believe they can do to their wives, girlfriends, and children, and do so while professing they are "following God". And, then there are the Christians who don't believe in providing for themselves at all --- God will provide --- out of someone else's pocket!











Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 05:57:10 AM
Sam,

If it were up to the Christian Right, women and minorities would have no rights, and neither would children. It is amazing the things that "Christians" believe they can do to their wives, girlfriends, and children, and do so while professing they are "following God". And, then there are the Christians who don't believe in providing for themselves at all --- God will provide --- out of someone else's pocket!











And these people want to bring theocracy to America.  Under Bush, they have gained a great deal of power.  Just the money spent of abstence education alone is unbelievable.  Especially, since these programs have been proven not to work, yet the kids are givien wrong information or they are out right lied to about how to protect themselves.  It is a shame what has happened.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 06:58:44 AM
Sam,

It was probably fifteen years ago that sex ed came to Virginia. The state trained all the relevent teachers in week long sessions on a college campus. I was one sent because I taught special ed, and it was recognized that our students would need more than just the instruction from the PE teacher to learn the essentials. During that week, we were treated to a variety of sessions during the day and lectures from "conservative", religious right, sent by Jerry Falwell (who was in power at the time). They objected to the teaching of sex education and said so, one after another. Each one introduced him/herself with the word "I am a conservative and proud of it" before they launched into a diatribe about why sex ed should not be taught in school.

I remember one speaker insisting that because high school was "too early" to be the right time to start into sex, that it should not be taught. The students did not "need" to learn it. I raised my hand, and asked why, then, were we teaching history, since there was no apparent need, and the speaker stumbled all over himself, and the teachers in the auditorium were a-chuckling. Another speaker stated emphatically that the teaching of sex should be left to the parents (and the church), so I raised my hand again, and asked that good pastor what his church was doing to help parents be able to accomplish that goal. He stumbled all over himself, and admitted that his church had NO guidance available for parents, or for teens. And another teacher raised his hand, and pointed out that that was exactly why the state was putting it in the schools.

During the days, as we learned the ins and outs of the new curriculum, we were treated like educated folks who were taking on a new subject. In the evenings we were harrangued, and told we were a bunch of "liberals" who "wanted" to "impose" our "liberal values" on the kids. None of us teachers "wanted" to take on this new responsibility, but the "conservatives" insisted we were foaming at the mouth for this "new opportunity" to subvert Christian values.

It was a week to remember!
 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:05:40 AM
If it were up to the Christian Right, women and minorities would have no rights, and neither would children. It is amazing the things that "Christians" believe they can do to their wives, girlfriends, and children, and do so while professing they are "following God". And, then there are the Christians who don't believe in providing for themselves at all --- God will provide --- out of someone else's pocket!



I have seen some tortured logic posts in my time, but this one has to at least rate the 'stupid post of the day' award. Christian right, huh? Christians, huh? Take the log out of your own eye before you criticize the splinter in mine...if you think that the 'christian left' (IS there such a thing?) IS not just as guilty, or non-christians as well, your blinders are getting in the way---again. Christians? They're about what percent of the populace of this country? You sure are an angry woman for some reason. You certainly are making a rather LARGE generalization here---but you already know this, don't you?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 09:10:52 AM
Quote
You certainly are making a rather LARGE generalization here....
I go away for a couple days, and what do I find when I get back?  Irony man picking up right where he - or rather I - left off.

Because in his own post, we get:

Quote
if you think that the 'christian left' (IS there such a thing?)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:20:28 AM
if you think that the 'christian left' (IS there such a thing?)


Well, the rationale here IS---how many times have you seen this collection of words posted here? "Christian left" has not been phrased this way since I have been here at ELBA. That IS what I was expressing. And if you read the post, she IS saying "Christians"---making NO distinction between those that may be on the R or L side of the fence, right? So---the irony ACTUALLY "IS" that you make a generalization yourself by NOT reading all the words.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 09:30:19 AM
Ah.  So you cannot write any clearer than you think!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 09:40:26 AM
NGC,

I think the Christian Left is not organized as such. They just blend in with the rest of us. Would you be happier if I called them the Christian Extremists, as you are wont to refer to the "Muslim Extemists" for whom you have no respect. Like your reference to "Muslim Extremists" as unworthy of having a voice in their governments, I am loath to want the "Christian Extremists" to have a significant voice in our government.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:41:26 AM
Ah.  So you cannot write any clearer than you think!

Well, well, well----you just trashed weezo---I was commenting on her post---I wonder what you say now? LMAO


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 09:45:09 AM
You have no leg to stand on when Womens suffrage didn't happen in this country (and WE'RE the democracy?) for a loooong time either.

I understand that the US IS one of the youngest countries around---that most moslem countries have been around longer. Seems they wouldv'e learned respect for all humans by now...regardless if man or woman.

Many Americans would have us return to a patriarchy system whereby a woman is the property of her father, until he arranges her marriage to the man who will become her husband, and then she is the property of her husband, and must bow to him.  Many of the Christian right believe this is God's Plan.  Since I don't believe it a god, I think these people are scary, but they exist right here in the good old USA.

Daddy set you up bad, did he?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 09:50:19 AM
Ah.  So you cannot write any clearer than you think!

Well, well, well----you just trashed weezo---I was commenting on her post---I wonder what you say now? LMAO
That you cannot read, either.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 11, 2007, 09:50:44 AM
I have seen some tortured logic posts in my time, but this one has to at least rate the 'stupid post of the day' award. Christian right, huh? Christians, huh? Take the log out of your own eye before you criticize the splinter in mine...if you think that the 'christian left' (IS there such a thing?) IS not just as guilty, or non-christians as well, your blinders are getting in the way---again. Christians? They're about what percent of the populace of this country? You sure are an angry woman for some reason. You certainly are making a rather LARGE generalization here---but you already know this, don't you?

You obviously have never been to JESUS CAMP!

http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/


And You apparently know nothing about:


Warren Jeffs  and the Fundamentalist LDS Church.

In the largest US community of open polygamists, the 48-year-old cleric is judge and jury, bank and police, and above all defender of the faith as head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
There is no area of local life that does not bear his imprint.
"The prophet decides who marries whom and when," says Flora Jessop, a native of Colorado City who fled in 1986 after being forced to marry her cousin.


http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy186.html

Want more links???

We have enough fundie Christians in the good ol’ USA to keep several Army regiments busy full time!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:51:18 AM
NGC,

I think the Christian Left is not organized as such. They just blend in with the rest of us. Would you be happier if I called them the Christian Extremists, as you are wont to refer to the "Muslim Extemists" for whom you have no respect. Like your reference to "Muslim Extremists" as unworthy of having a voice in their governments, I am loath to want the "Christian Extremists" to have a significant voice in our government.


US, huh?


You said "Christians"---that seems to be rather an encompassing statement right there. Now I suppose you will just -- again -- have to qualify your debasing and demeaning of what--90% of this nation, or whatever the HIGH percentage IS, of those that revere jesus in some religion? I wonder if you are an atheist?

you are wont to refer to the "Muslim Extemists" for whom you have no respect.

Well, when you have the leaders of a sovereign nation, in addition to plain ol' run-o-the-mill terrorists, saying they want to destroy 2 other separate sovereign nations, it kinda leads NOT to the usage--since it appears that it IS rather widewpread (And in case you have missed some of the videos from moslem countries that show people in the streets shouting 'death to america' or something along those lines, it ain't just men in the 18-40 year old range---and it IS including, from the looks of their attires, lawyers, business people, a lotta wel-to-dos...that are right there in the streets)---unless, of course, one IS a liberal and cannot SEE that which IS in front of their face!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 09:55:13 AM
Quote
You said "Christians"---that seems to be rather an encompassing statement right there.
I was right - either you cannot read or you are deliberately and mendaciously altering the meaning of what weezo wrote.  Neither would surprise me.

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:55:42 AM
So many here that trash Jesus, Christians---I wonder if you would also trash allah? No? Feeling a bit of the old double standard clasping its claws around you, huh? Well, then, let's hear it about allah---or are you afraid of offending moslems? You shouldn't be--since you are already experts at offending Christians.

The double standard---itr IS alive and well in you liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 09:58:56 AM
It is amazing the things that "Christians" believe they can do to their wives, girlfriends, and children, and do so while professing they are "following God".


There IS her sentence---you may now begin your flaming liberal parsing of it. I would say, reading the english as it IS written, that it says "CHRISTIANS"---that seems like the definition of ALL of them. But, I guess liberals see only what they want to.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 10:05:01 AM
It is amazing the things that "Christians" believe they can do to their wives, girlfriends, and children, and do so while professing they are "following God".


There IS her sentence---you may now begin your flaming liberal parsing of it. I would say, reading the english as it IS written, that it says "CHRISTIANS"---that seems like the definition of ALL of them. But, I guess liberals see only what they want to.
And the context - the sentence before it, you lying rightist shill?  It isn't parsing a thing to give people credit for what they are actually saying.  But you are a conservative.  And by conservative I mean a mendacious idiot.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 10:06:39 AM
Quote
Well, when you have the leaders of a sovereign nation, in addition to plain ol' run-o-the-mill terrorists, saying they want to destroy 2 other separate sovereign nations

Kind of reminds of the Axis of Evil


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 10:35:46 AM
And the context - the sentence before it, you lying rightist shill?

I would say the statement stands on its own. Only liberals see it different. When will you slander allah? Never IS the answer. The double standard swallows you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 10:43:09 AM
And the context - the sentence before it, you lying rightist shill?

I would say the statement stands on its own. Only liberals see it different. When will you slander allah? Never IS the answer. The double standard swallows you.
I would say the reason you refuse to give the context is because you are a conservative and have no intellectual honesty.  And by conservative I mean a lying, mendacious idiot. 

The original comment in context refered to the Christian right - as the quotation marks around Christian clearly show - and lying, intellectual dishonest fool that you are, you try to twist it into something it isn't.

As for slandering Allah, right after I slander the Christian God or Christ.  Which is to say, never.  Distaste for the policies and practices on earth of some who claim to serve God is not slandering God.  But don't let being honest about your opponents' arguments stop you now.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 10:44:45 AM
Democrats: America's Surrender Monkeys
Michael Reagan
Friday, May 11, 2007
 
Maggie Thatcher had a great line about politicians who lose their nerve when faced with a big problem: She warned them against going wobbly.

That warning would be lost on the members of today's national Democratic Party. They've gone far beyond that stage.

Nowadays they have no problem with being seen as America's surrender monkeys.

Covering their eyes so they won't be able to see how their policies will bring on a holocaust that will afflict the Middle East, and their ears so they won't hear the cries of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans as they are butchered by al-Qaida and Iranian terrorists, they are willing to stand by while chaos reigns in the entire region, a major part of our oil supply is cut off, and terrorism comes home to our front door.


Shows how liberals are running the D party. Nauseating, ISn't it?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 10:47:32 AM
Democrats: America's Surrender Monkeys
Michael Reagan
Friday, May 11, 2007
 
Maggie Thatcher had a great line about politicians who lose their nerve when faced with a big problem: She warned them against going wobbly.

That warning would be lost on the members of today's national Democratic Party. They've gone far beyond that stage.

Nowadays they have no problem with being seen as America's surrender monkeys.

Covering their eyes so they won't be able to see how their policies will bring on a holocaust that will afflict the Middle East, and their ears so they won't hear the cries of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans as they are butchered by al-Qaida and Iranian terrorists, they are willing to stand by while chaos reigns in the entire region, a major part of our oil supply is cut off, and terrorism comes home to our front door.


Shows how liberals are running the D party. Nauseating, ISn't it?

Not in the way you mean it.  What is nauseating is the legitimate debate about the course of our nation gets ruined by braying jackasses like Michael Reagan.  Lumping Iraq qith Afghanistan, "hundreds of thousands" butchered, "Iranian" terrorists - what, he's been talking to your imaginary friends?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 10:50:43 AM
What Iraq and History Teach Us
Barry Farber
Friday, May 11, 2007


The most unchallenged cliché in world affairs is the oft-repeated warning by George Santayana that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Sure, I thought Saddam Hussein had WMD, but that was far from my main reason for favoring his overthrow. Look at the past, the way Santayana and everybody else insists we should.

Didn't Saddam's forces use poison gas against the Iranians and even against Iraqi Kurds?

Didn't Israeli planes destroy Saddam's atomic bomb factory in Orirak in 1991?

Didn't every intelligence agency on earth agree that Iraq had WMD?

But neither Saddam's WMD nor his possible threat to America were my paramount reasons for favoring military intervention. To me the "slam-dunk" was after American and coalition forces wrested Afghanistan from the Taliban and al-Qaida could no longer operate there, I figured bin Laden needed another country if he intended to remain a successful enemy of the United States.

Yes, you can make serious mischief operating from caves with cell phones, but to plan and pull off 9/11s you need a country. You need mininsties, chanceries, treasuries, embassies, laboratories and "official" forgery of documents.

You need a police force to chase five thousand peasants out of a valley if the terrorists need a new training camp.

I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida. Look at history. Saddam had much more reason to hate America than bin Laden ever did.

America helped bin Laden eject the Soviets from Afghanistan. America destroyed Saddam's army while ejecting him from Kuwait in Desert Storm in 1991. You often hear that Saddam, the secular Moslem and bin Laden, the fundamentalist, were irreconcilable foes who could never join forces. To me that argument is weightless.

Didn't capitalist America side with Soviet communism in World War 11? If Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs can team up so seamlessly against Israel, why couldn't they join likewise against America?

No matter how warped, distorted, freakish, and discredited you find my views now, I'm actually guilty of nothing but heeding history. All you can say is, "Things didn't work out that way." I can say a lot more.


I can wrap myself in the robes of Santayana. History, if not headlines, is all on my side.


You liberals should think some---if it ISn't too painful.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 11:06:55 AM
Quote
Didn't Saddam's forces use poison gas against the Iranians and even against Iraqi Kurds?

Didn't the United States supply Saddam with biological and chemical agents?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 11, 2007, 11:08:00 AM
We meant well.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 11:24:03 AM
Quote
I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida.
Leave aside for a moment the author's warped misunderstanding of al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq - the odds of a brutal but secular Arab government giving refuge to an organization who has a stated goal of eliminating secular Arab governments seem a bit thin, and leaving aside Pakistan and Iran as more likely refuges for al Qaeda - the War on Iraq has made Iraq into precisely what the author thought justified invasion.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 11:34:28 AM
Quote
I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida.
Leave aside for a moment the author's warped misunderstanding of al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq - the odds of a brutal but secular Arab government giving refuge to an organization who has a stated goal of eliminating secular Arab governments seem a bit thin, and leaving aside Pakistan and Iran as more likely refuges for al Qaeda - the War on Iraq has made Iraq into precisely what the author thought justified invasion.

Exactly, liberals like you fail to understand Bush's master plan.  By occupying Iraq, we brought Al Qaeda to us rather than have to go through the time and energy to uproot them in other countries.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 11:52:58 AM
Quote
I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida.
Leave aside for a moment the author's warped misunderstanding of al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq - the odds of a brutal but secular Arab government giving refuge to an organization who has a stated goal of eliminating secular Arab governments seem a bit thin, and leaving aside Pakistan and Iran as more likely refuges for al Qaeda - the War on Iraq has made Iraq into precisely what the author thought justified invasion.

Exactly, liberals like you fail to understand Bush's master plan.  By occupying Iraq, we brought Al Qaeda to us rather than have to go through the time and energy to uproot them in other countries.


You got it. Liberals cannot stand having truth thrown at them.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 12:04:23 PM
NGC,

I think the Christian Left is not organized as such. They just blend in with the rest of us. Would you be happier if I called them the Christian Extremists, as you are wont to refer to the "Muslim Extemists" for whom you have no respect. Like your reference to "Muslim Extremists" as unworthy of having a voice in their governments, I am loath to want the "Christian Extremists" to have a significant voice in our government.


US, huh?


You said "Christians"---that seems to be rather an encompassing statement right there. Now I suppose you will just -- again -- have to qualify your debasing and demeaning of what--90% of this nation, or whatever the HIGH percentage IS, of those that revere jesus in some religion? I wonder if you are an atheist?

you are wont to refer to the "Muslim Extemists" for whom you have no respect.

Well, when you have the leaders of a sovereign nation, in addition to plain ol' run-o-the-mill terrorists, saying they want to destroy 2 other separate sovereign nations, it kinda leads NOT to the usage--since it appears that it IS rather widewpread (And in case you have missed some of the videos from moslem countries that show people in the streets shouting 'death to america' or something along those lines, it ain't just men in the 18-40 year old range---and it IS including, from the looks of their attires, lawyers, business people, a lotta wel-to-dos...that are right there in the streets)---unless, of course, one IS a liberal and cannot SEE that which IS in front of their face!

LOL. You've got your facts correct but you are not seeing everything. Ordinary people do that for the cameras.  They'd get beaten otherwise.  This is what I am told first hand from people who've been there.  Its what you do in order to survive, in order not to get your head cracked in from some teenage militia-men with clubs. Due to their baby boom, the vast majority of people living in the Iran are under 30 years of age and love america and want to live here someday.  They love american cars, music, and fashion.  They hate American aggression and meddling.  They love americans.  Many have family in America.  Just go to Los Angeles, or "Tehrangeles" as its called.  Chanting political slogans is done at forced rallies at the behest of the government for the cameras.  Nothing more.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 12:08:10 PM
Sam,

If it were up to the Christian Right, women and minorities would have no rights, and neither would children. It is amazing the things that "Christians" believe they can do to their wives, girlfriends, and children, and do so while professing they are "following God". And, then there are the Christians who don't believe in providing for themselves at all --- God will provide --- out of someone else's pocket!












Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 12:10:21 PM
I see Ngc has been at it again with his "liberal" this and "liberal" that as he spiins.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  Round and round he goes.  Conservative nutcase shill.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 12:13:03 PM
DUMBEST POST OF THE DAY ALERT:

I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida. Look at history. Saddam had much more reason to hate America than bin Laden ever did.

A secular leader like Hussein would get into bed with a religious nut like OBL who could undermine his power base WHY???

What an idiot!  Of all the countries in the ME or Africa he picked the one least likely to harbor religious terrorists.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 11, 2007, 12:16:15 PM
DUMBEST POST OF THE DAY ALERT:

I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida. Look at history. Saddam had much more reason to hate America than bin Laden ever did.

A secular leader like Hussein would get into bed with a religious nut like OBL who could undermine his power base WHY???

What an idiot!  Of all the countries in the ME or Africa he picked the one least likely to harbor religious terrorists.
Michael Reagan is writing for people who are unlikley to understand that distinction, of course.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 12:16:57 PM
The Bushies talk about Al Queda in Iraq as if they were the major enemy.  But I don't believe that's whose doing the majority of the killing, is it?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 12:18:04 PM
Quote
I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida.
Leave aside for a moment the author's warped misunderstanding of al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq - the odds of a brutal but secular Arab government giving refuge to an organization who has a stated goal of eliminating secular Arab governments seem a bit thin, and leaving aside Pakistan and Iran as more likely refuges for al Qaeda - the War on Iraq has made Iraq into precisely what the author thought justified invasion.

Exactly.  We've just recently made western Iraq a haven for terrorists when it wasn't before under the sadistic Hussein.  Wow, i can't believe how we screwed things up over there. But we did.  Hussein was our ally.  He kept Iran in check, he kept the religious fanatics out of his country.  He killed many, including my own people. But to America, he was just one of the many necessary evils we have supported.  Now we're in neck deep and have lost both countries whose governments we destroyed.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 12:19:00 PM
Quote
I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida.
Leave aside for a moment the author's warped misunderstanding of al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq - the odds of a brutal but secular Arab government giving refuge to an organization who has a stated goal of eliminating secular Arab governments seem a bit thin, and leaving aside Pakistan and Iran as more likely refuges for al Qaeda - the War on Iraq has made Iraq into precisely what the author thought justified invasion.

Exactly, liberals like you fail to understand Bush's master plan.  By occupying Iraq, we brought Al Qaeda to us rather than have to go through the time and energy to uproot them in other countries.


You got it. Liberals cannot stand having truth thrown at them.

You're not getting the sarcasm.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 11, 2007, 12:32:59 PM
Once, just once, I would like one of you Reichwingers to tell the forum just what Victory in Iraq is going to look like.

How about it, ngc, old fool?  How about a definition, right after you tell us about the meaning of Occam's razor?

Many years go, Richard Hofstadter and Walter Metzger, both of whom I was fortunate to have as my profs at Columbia, had you knuckleheads summed up when they wrote Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

Do you guys ever stop "thinking" with the lower head?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 12:44:21 PM
On the energy front:   Letter in today's Concord Monitor, Concord, NH


May 11, 2007

Your May 9 editorial on the drawbacks to corn-based ethanol was right on the mark. The stampede to expand ethanol production from corn is motivated more by politics than any truly objective analysis of a sustainable energy policy for our nation.

If the points you raised weren't enough, the editorial missed one of the most glaring drawbacks of producing ethanol from corn: the horrendously low net energy balance.

The University of California at Berkeley has published an analysis of this topic titled "Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle." In it, researchers evaluate extensive work of leading scientists on this topic. They show that the net energy balance is about 25 to 30 percent. This means that for every gallon of corn-based ethanol produced, it takes three-fourths of a gallon of energy input, primarily from petroleum.

Sooner or later America's political leaders will figure out that energy policy should be based on achieving the highest efficiency possible from the full array of energy resources available to us. For example, it makes far more sense to convert biomass energy into thermal energy, or heat (at 80-90 percent efficiency), than it does to turn biomass into electrical energy or transportation fuel (at roughly 20 and 25 percent efficiency, respectively).

It is bordering on criminal to be converting a protein resource that can feed the world into liquid fuel to satiate America's appetite for vehicle miles.
There are no simple solutions to solving America's energy challenge. Let's hope our state and national political leadership gets wise to the bottom-line imperative of maximum efficiency and conservation before we dig ourselves even deeper in the hole we're already in.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 12:56:38 PM
The reality is that we are at war against a vicious, relentless and implacable global enemy whose mission, partially like our Cold War enemy, is world domination and submission.

By underestimating its resolve and its global reach, by pretending it is not the primary causal agent in the Iraq war and behind nearly every act of jihad throughout the globe, including inside the United States, we handicap ourselves even more than we already are in fighting a conscienceless enemy that fights asymmetrically and targets innocent civilians.

To get a real glimpse of the way liberals are viewing this global war all you have to do is listen to their analyses, envisioning the enemy, in its entirety, as Osama, the Taliban and a mere handful of others.

All you have to do is observe their painful efforts to legislate away the Iraq theater portion of the global war on terror.

If and when the war shifts more prominently to our shores, will they suggest we withdraw from here, too?

It's time for us all to wake up....especially liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 11, 2007, 12:57:48 PM
IS that Rush or is Hannity?  Where are the quotes and the cite?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 01:02:45 PM
IS that Rush or is Hannity?  Where are the quotes and the cite?

Does it really matter? If it ISn't coming from some flaming liberal, you will just say that the words are valueless. I posted these words because I happen to agree with them---REGARDLESS of where they came from.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 11, 2007, 01:05:49 PM
It really doesn't matter who wrote them.  It's more proof that you have no original thoughts/ideas and merely parrot your gurus.   


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 01:23:22 PM
"If and when the war shifts more prominently to our shores,"

Stop right there... why participate in a War that threatens to shift PROMINENTLY to your own shores?  Why perpetuate a policy that endangers your shores?  This is the result of those that want to "Stay the course"  war will be visited upon our heads here in the states. 

The falling towers were not the signal of the start of a new war. The war of those in the M.E. vs. the Israel/USA has been going on.  Just like in ww2, our enemies dragged us into the fray with a surprise attack.  I believe the attack on our shores that killed over 3,000 was a ploy to cause the US to respond in a way that has only strengthened terrorism and its chief proponents (as well as opponents).

If OBL is still alive, he has to be laughing at our current policy.  We're doing exactly what our enemies want us to be doing.  Thats very unsettling to me.  Wobbly knees are apropos.  Nobody owns the knees of Atlas.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 01:24:51 PM
David Limbaugh's take on comparing it to the Cold War is interesting in that he obviously didn't learn the lessons of the Cold War.  Military might did not win the Cold War. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 01:32:29 PM
The reality is that we are at war against a vicious, relentless and implacable global enemy whose mission, partially like our Cold War enemy, is world domination and submission.

I'd like to see your documentation for this.  Are you sure you weren't referring to the christian dominionists?  It was my understanding that Al Queda basically wants the US out of the Middle East.  Perhaps my liberal view is incorrect.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 01:37:28 PM
Quote
I saw Iraq as the country most likely to offer itself to al-Qaida.
Leave aside for a moment the author's warped misunderstanding of al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq - the odds of a brutal but secular Arab government giving refuge to an organization who has a stated goal of eliminating secular Arab governments seem a bit thin, and leaving aside Pakistan and Iran as more likely refuges for al Qaeda - the War on Iraq has made Iraq into precisely what the author thought justified invasion.

Exactly, liberals like you fail to understand Bush's master plan.  By occupying Iraq, we brought Al Qaeda to us rather than have to go through the time and energy to uproot them in other countries.

Bush had/has a "mater plan". Wonder where he hid it? Under his pillow and the tooth fairy took it?

And, the reason Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran, was because whe gave them to him, and asked him to. He, gratuitously, used the leftovers on the Kurds.

Try again, NGC, you got an F on reasoning that one. Your application of history is a MINUS-F


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 11, 2007, 01:39:26 PM
Israel is the sticky issue.  Not just about the US being out of the ME.  Its about the link between Israel and the US.

Why did we ever insert ourselves to referee between Israel and its Neighbors? Hope someone can please educate me on this.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 01:41:49 PM
The truth is, NGC, we ARE that enemy you describe, the good old USA, especially people like you (Jeez - I shiver at the thought that there are others as warped as you!). You have made it clear that your desire is for world domination - you laugh at the idea of submitting to the UN which is the current World-Wide Organization of Nations.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 11, 2007, 01:43:02 PM
Once, just once, I would like one of you Reichwingers to tell the forum just what Victory in Iraq is going to look like.

How about it, ngc, old fool?  How about a definition, right after you tell us about the meaning of Occam's razor?

Many years go, Richard Hofstadter and Walter Metzger, both of whom I was fortunate to have as my profs at Columbia, had you knuckleheads summed up when they wrote Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.

Do you guys ever stop "thinking" with the lower head?

Took 2 guys to write one book, eh?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 01:57:58 PM
Israel is the sticky issue.  Not just about the US being out of the ME.  Its about the link between Israel and the US.

Why did we ever insert ourselves to referee between Israel and its Neighbors? Hope someone can please educate me on this.

Its not just that, its that with one hand we tout democracy and a free market while on the other hand support regimes in the Middle East that are very much diametrically opposed to those ideals. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 02:15:46 PM
And we have support states that influence terrorism...like Saudi Arabia.  Talk about your double standard.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 11, 2007, 03:28:34 PM
ngc,

The reality is that we are at war against a vicious, relentless and implacable global enemy whose mission, partially like our Cold War enemy, is world domination and submission.

Pity the poor radical right.

They must have an external enemy to satisfy both their drive to curtail civil liberties at home and their bloodlust.

They have been seeing far too many Marion Morrison videos.

The reality is that the radical right needs to create and rail against their "enemies" and threats to their fragile self-concepts.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 11, 2007, 03:46:13 PM
The reality is that we are at war against a vicious, relentless and implacable global enemy whose mission, partially like our Cold War enemy, is world domination and submission.

And in what way was that "Cold War enemy" DEFEATED?

Go ahead, you know the answer....


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 11, 2007, 03:49:05 PM
If "conservatives" have truly become the bitter little weasels that cannot function without demonizing or hating others, then I'm even prouder today to be the opposite.

A LIBERAL!



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 04:03:46 PM
Why did we ever insert ourselves to referee between Israel and its Neighbors? Hope someone can please educate me on this.

Well, as a nation that has been trumpeting democracy around the world since the Wilson Administration, it seems like a good idea to help out the one true democracy in the region: Israel.


We also want to make sure that Israel doesn't go around and kick everybody's ass who is sitting on that oil we SUV junkies need to run our economy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 04:08:18 PM
ngc,

The reality is that we are at war against a vicious, relentless and implacable global enemy whose mission, partially like our Cold War enemy, is world domination and submission.

Pity the poor radical right.

They must have an external enemy to satisfy both their drive to curtail civil liberties at home and their bloodlust.

They have been seeing far too many Marion Morrison videos.

The reality is that the radical right needs to create and rail against their "enemies" and threats to their fragile self-concepts.

You have to wonder how they get any sleep at all!!!  What with all the fear and anxiety they live with.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 04:09:18 PM
Quote
Well, as a nation that has been trumpeting democracy around the world since the Wilson Administration, it seems like a good idea to help out the one true democracy in the region: Israel.

Israel is not a true democracy as it fails to give full equal rights for Israeli Arabs. One-third of the population of Israel does not have the right to vote.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 04:28:24 PM
And in what way was that "Cold War enemy" DEFEATED?

Well, did the Berlin wall come down? I''ll bet there are a lotta Germans that are glad for that. How's that for starters?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 11, 2007, 04:33:09 PM
That doesn't answer the question.  He was asking how the Cold War enemy was defeated not for a defining moment of that defeat.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 11, 2007, 04:41:04 PM
That doesn't answer the question.  He was asking how the Cold War enemy was defeated not for a defining moment of that defeat.

I thought that the example was a good one. The question was,"In what way was the cold war enemy defeated", and I gave a perfectly valid answer---the Berlin Wall came down, and that was certainly a cold war victory---and there are more examples. I really shouldn't need to expend time on that as Google IS readily available for anyone that cares to read about history.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 11, 2007, 06:13:55 PM
NGC,

While the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was a moment in history, the actual end of the cold war came with the break up of the USSR into separate nations with separate governments. It was an action that was perhaps another great moment for those who hate "communists", but for the average moderate American it was just the inevitable results of a failed economic system.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 11, 2007, 06:25:56 PM
Quote
Well, as a nation that has been trumpeting democracy around the world since the Wilson Administration, it seems like a good idea to help out the one true democracy in the region: Israel.

Israel is not a true democracy as it fails to give full equal rights for Israeli Arabs. One-third of the population of Israel does not have the right to vote.

“On election day, voters cast one ballot for a political party to represent them in the Knesset. Every Israeli citizen aged 18 or older has the right to vote. Israelis of all ethnic groups and religious beliefs, including Arab Israelis, actively participate in the process and for many years, voting percentages have reached 80%.”

“According to the Basic Law: The Knesset , the Central Elections Committee may prevent a candidates' list from participating in elections if its objectives or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people;
negation of the democratic character of the State;
incitement to racism.”



I guess advocating the negation of the existence of Israel is pretty widespread among those Arabs who “can’t vote”.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Historic%20Events/Elections%20in%20Israel%20January%202003%20-%20Special%20Update

Still the best democracy in the region, and maybe a better one than we have here...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 11, 2007, 07:10:47 PM
Quote
Well, as a nation that has been trumpeting democracy around the world since the Wilson Administration, it seems like a good idea to help out the one true democracy in the region: Israel.

Israel is not a true democracy as it fails to give full equal rights for Israeli Arabs. One-third of the population of Israel does not have the right to vote.

“On election day, voters cast one ballot for a political party to represent them in the Knesset. Every Israeli citizen aged 18 or older has the right to vote. Israelis of all ethnic groups and religious beliefs, including Arab Israelis, actively participate in the process and for many years, voting percentages have reached 80%.”

“According to the Basic Law: The Knesset , the Central Elections Committee may prevent a candidates' list from participating in elections if its objectives or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people;
negation of the democratic character of the State;
incitement to racism.”



I guess advocating the negation of the existence of Israel is pretty widespread among those Arabs who “can’t vote”.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/Modern%20History/Historic%20Events/Elections%20in%20Israel%20January%202003%20-%20Special%20Update

Still the best democracy in the region, and maybe a better one than we have here...


Other democracies in the region include Turkey, Greece and ???????????????


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 08:21:06 AM
Sorry, but Greece and Turkey ain't in the Middle East--


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 11:09:35 AM


Still the best democracy in the region, and maybe a better one than we have here...


Then, do tell us about the other democrcacies in the region, Mr. Knowitall.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 12, 2007, 11:52:28 AM


Still the best democracy in the region, and maybe a better one than we have here...


Then, do tell us about the other democrcacies in the region, Mr. Knowitall.
Uh - I think that's the point.  Israel is the only real, stable democracy in the Middle East.  Other countries have elections, but with much more limited access to the ballot than Israel, or with so much fraud, corruption and interference that they are mere shows.  Israel isn't perfect, and I would reject the idea that their democracy is better than the one we have here, but it is far more open than anywhere else in the region.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 12:19:53 PM
Well, that's probably true, but it something is the best, then there has to be something that isn't.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 12, 2007, 12:26:31 PM
The mainstream media insists on minimizing terror threats that our intelligence operatives smash before they can wreck mayhem and kill our people. They did it with the Sears Tower raid, the jets that were going to be destroyed over the Atlantic, the Millennium attack on LA airport, the shoe bomber, the Brooklyn Bridge attack, and Padilla the would-be dirty bomber. In each case, the media is fond of writing how the gang could never have gotten it together to pull off the raid. They portray the attackers as clowns who were disorganized and just dabblers in terror whose case is being hyped by the right wing to stoke terror fears.


But these characterizations of real threats we faced and, thanks to our homeland security forces, thwarted are quite wrong and distorted. Had these liberal critics interviewed Mohammed Atta and his gang of 9-11 hijackers, they might have come to the same conclusion.

The blunt fact is that the liberals do not want us to take terrorists seriously because they want us to vote Democrat and not be pushed by our legitimate fears into supporting Republican candidates. But this partisanship goes way too far. It belittles the efforts of those who work to protect us and minimizes the very real dangers they help us to avert every day.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 12, 2007, 12:37:03 PM
Quote
The blunt fact is that the liberals do not want us to take terrorists seriously
Pretty funny - yet more proof that when ngc - or whoever he is quoting since he is unable to actually "think" for himself - uses the term liberal it has no connection with the real world.  A pure mental construct to give him a bogeyman to fight against.

That type of lie does nothing to move the fight against terrorism forward.  It is vile and reprehensible.  But then, that's pretty much been the typical media rightist's mo from the start.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 12:46:39 PM
The blunt fact is that the liberals do not want us to take terrorists seriously because they want us to vote Democrat and not be pushed by our legitimate fears into supporting Republican candidates. But this partisanship goes way too far. It belittles the efforts of those who work to protect us and minimizes the very real dangers they help us to avert every day.

You know they do have some really good medications today to help you with your paranoia and anxiety, boy.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 01:46:43 PM


Still the best democracy in the region, and maybe a better one than we have here...


Then, do tell us about the other democrcacies in the region, Mr. Knowitall.
Uh - I think that's the point.  Israel is the only real, stable democracy in the Middle East.  Other countries have elections, but with much more limited access to the ballot than Israel, or with so much fraud, corruption and interference that they are mere shows.  Israel isn't perfect, and I would reject the idea that their democracy is better than the one we have here, but it is far more open than anywhere else in the region.

Well, put.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 01:49:45 PM
Quote
The blunt fact is that the liberals do not want us to take terrorists seriously
Pretty funny - yet more proof that when ngc - or whoever he is quoting since he is unable to actually "think" for himself - uses the term liberal it has no connection with the real world.  A pure mental construct to give him a bogeyman to fight against.

That type of lie does nothing to move the fight against terrorism forward.  It is vile and reprehensible.  But then, that's pretty much been the typical media rightist's mo from the start.


But we have samiamanahole to counterbalance ngc, whisk.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 02:21:15 PM
There needs to be a counterbalance since you Utley provide absolutely nothing to the conversation of any value, IMHO.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 12, 2007, 03:30:21 PM
There needs to be a counterbalance since you Utley provide absolutely nothing to the conversation of any value, IMHO.

You've never actually participated in a conversation. Conversation implies listening and considering a point of view different from your own, something as foreign to your nature as logic and reason appear to be.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 12, 2007, 04:56:34 PM
Quote
"not be pushed by our legitimate fears into supporting Republican candidates."
[/color]

Finally!!!! A truthful and valid statement from our intrepid cold warrior. The only thing that the Republicans have to offer anymore is fear.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 12, 2007, 07:04:17 PM
Quote
"not be pushed by our legitimate fears into supporting Republican candidates."
[/color]

Finally!!!! A truthful and valid statement from our intrepid cold warrior. The only thing that the Republicans have to offer anymore is fear.

How true.  Remember all the terror alerts a few years ago?  Always came right after another Bush administration scandal.  Quite a diversion. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 12, 2007, 08:31:22 PM
Hey! I remember those terror alerts that never came to anything. And, finally they stopped. I never noticed they occurred at the time of scandals. Do you have anything you can share that pinpoints that?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 13, 2007, 01:22:09 AM
Quote
Remember all the terror alerts a few years ago?

And here is Giuliani trying to pull off the same kind of smarmy trick a few of weeks ago when he claimed that some kind of horrible terrorist events would occur if the people elected a Democrat president.... (conveniently forgetting, it would seem, that it was the Republicans who were in power during the last disaster--9/11).


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 07:02:56 AM
Hey! I remember those terror alerts that never came to anything. And, finally they stopped. I never noticed they occurred at the time of scandals. Do you have anything you can share that pinpoints that?

Im not sure that there has been a "terror alert" since Nov. 2004, after the election.  They became more of the boy crying wolf.  I cannot find a link to a specific example, sorry, but at the time of those alerts many believed they were being used to divert our attention from something the Bushies had done.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 13, 2007, 10:37:13 AM
There needs to be a counterbalance since you Utley provide absolutely nothing to the conversation of any value, IMHO.

You've never actually participated in a conversation. Conversation implies listening and considering a point of view different from your own, something as foreign to your nature as logic and reason appear to be.


You left out getting vulgar. But there are several reasons that I just do not respond any more to this liberal. If there ever was a liberal out there that actually has blinders molecularly bonded to the skull, this IS one of 'em. A true spineless liberal cowering behind a keyboard safely ensconced with anonymity. With kool aid.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 13, 2007, 10:43:21 AM
that some kind of horrible terrorist events would occur if the people elected a Democrat president...

This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 11:15:11 AM
There needs to be a counterbalance since you Utley provide absolutely nothing to the conversation of any value, IMHO.

You've never actually participated in a conversation. Conversation implies listening and considering a point of view different from your own, something as foreign to your nature as logic and reason appear to be.


You left out getting vulgar. But there are several reasons that I just do not respond any more to this liberal. If there ever was a liberal out there that actually has blinders molecularly bonded to the skull, this IS one of 'em. A true spineless liberal cowering behind a keyboard safely ensconced with anonymity. With kool aid.

You are nothing more than a windup doll, drooling over neocons and communists.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 13, 2007, 12:29:31 PM
Quote
This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

Only in YOUR mind, my friend. People who don't drink the Kool-Aid have been aware of this BS for a long time.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 01:01:33 PM
that some kind of horrible terrorist events would occur if the people elected a Democrat president...

This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

Here, just for you:  http://the-end.com/2008GodsFinalWitness/?gclid=COiMwOvOi4wCFRGCGgodZQ_iBA


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 13, 2007, 02:26:33 PM
http://ronaldweinland.com/?page_id=5

One truly sick puppy!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 02:47:37 PM
Ronald Weinland says that 2008 will mark the beginning of the final events that will thrust the world into the great tribulation (last three and one-half years of the end-time), which will usher in World War III, the death of billions, and on the last day of this great tribulation, the return of Jesus Christ.

Yet there are those who believe this crap.  Lots of them right here in America.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 13, 2007, 02:54:10 PM
This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

I am curious as to how you make this assertion.

Do you have ANY supporting data for this comment???


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 13, 2007, 05:24:03 PM
This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

I am curious as to how you make this assertion.

Do you have ANY supporting data for this comment???
He heard it from an imaginary friend, just like the Iranian led Iraqi insurgency business.

In a sense, it is an easy statement to make because there is always an out; the odds favor a terrorist attack on American soil eventually.  If it is a Democrat in office, they told us so.  If it is a Repo in office, well, just think how many more of them there would have been with a Democrat in office.  The mendacity of the intellectually dishonest never sleeps.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 13, 2007, 05:28:50 PM
This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

I am curious as to how you make this assertion.

Do you have ANY supporting data for this comment???
He heard it from an imaginary friend, just like the Iranian led Iraqi insurgency business.

In a sense, it is an easy statement to make because there is always an out; the odds favor a terrorist attack on American soil eventually.  If it is a Democrat in office, they told us so.  If it is a Repo in office, well, just think how many more of them there would have been with a Democrat in office.  The mendacity of the intellectually dishonest never sleeps.

It is much like the power of prayer.  Eventually, it comes true.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 09:16:32 AM
This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

Nothing dishonest about it. And it wasn't made looking for an 'out'. Talk about being itellectually dishonest? Your PROJECTING "IS" what "IS" dishonest. With the talk that the left shoots out about efforts to stop and/or arrest those that would commit to such acts, by inherent design of the legislations of these liberals, there will be less restrictions for the bad guys to have to look out/worry about. And thereby, logically, have an easier time of conducting their mayhem.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 09:39:20 AM
Comrade ngc -

You don't like beiung called intellectually dishonest stop being intellectually dishonest.

As in, your claim that other posters are projecting thoughts on you.  You have never mentioned the word liberal without doing that.  I'd think you were being intentionally ironic if I thought you knew what the word meant.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 09:46:48 AM
You don't like beiung called intellectually dishonest stop being intellectually dishonest.

As in, your claim that other posters are projecting thoughts on you.  You have never mentioned the word liberal without doing that.  I'd think you were being intentionally ironic if I thought you knew what the word meant.


I didn't say I disliked being called that---you can call me anything you want, and I will not get upset like liberals do at being called what they are---liberals. I see the politics of the matter, not true name-calling like you liberals get into. It appears that you need to lie, project, and call names in order to feel superior. Hey---have at it. When the discussion gets around to being adult for you, meaning that the words are going to be dealt with, and w/o some petty liberal emotionality bursting thru, a bit of logic will return. One of the BEST things ya can do "IS" remove those liberal blinders. You'll SEE a lot more clearly.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 09:47:02 AM
This IS, unfortunately, and regardless of how much you'd choose to accept it, probably more true than false, regardless of the politics assigned to it.

Nothing dishonest about it. And it wasn't made looking for an 'out'. Talk about being itellectually dishonest? Your PROJECTING "IS" what "IS" dishonest. With the talk that the left shoots out about efforts to stop and/or arrest those that would commit to such acts, by inherent design of the legislations of these liberals, there will be less restrictions for the bad guys to have to look out/worry about. And thereby, logically, have an easier time of conducting their mayhem.

It would be nice if you could learn how to format your posts so that we know to whom you are responding and what quotation of theirs you are referring to.  Your posts are sometimes hard to follow.  Not trying to be critical; just I would like to be able to understand what you are trying to say and to whom.  Thanks.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 09:48:28 AM
You don't like beiung called intellectually dishonest stop being intellectually dishonest.

As in, your claim that other posters are projecting thoughts on you.  You have never mentioned the word liberal without doing that.  I'd think you were being intentionally ironic if I thought you knew what the word meant.


I didn't say I disliked being called that---you can call me anything you want, and I will not get upset like liberals do at being called what they are---liberals. I see the politics of the matter, not true name-calling like you liberals get into. It appears that you need to lie, project, and call names in order to feel superior. Hey---have at it. When the discussion gets around to being adult for you, meaning that the words are going to be dealt with, and w/o some petty liberal emotionality bursting thru, a bit of logic will return. One of the BEST things ya can do "IS" remove those liberal blinders. You'll SEE a lot more clearly.

Maybe you need to remove those commie fascist blinders, bud.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 14, 2007, 09:51:56 AM
I still haven't seen a good answer from ngc on how we won the cold war.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 09:55:02 AM
I still haven't seen a good answer from ngc on how we won the cold war.



Are we sure we did?  Sounds like the tough talk coming from Russia these days is very much like the talk we heard for many years from former Russian dictators.  But don't count on any reasonable answer for ngc.  She'll just make up something that is anti-liberal, donja know.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:08:21 AM
I still haven't seen a good answer from ngc on how we won the cold war.

In a nutshell? Money. We outspent them. They could not keep pace with the defenses that Reagan committed to (And klynton decimated). And the beginnings of foreign capitalist companies in the old CCCP gave some push. Solidarity in Poland also affected people's minds over there. But, you'll disagree in some fashion for all of these listed reasons and probably start calling names. That IS typical of the liberal. If you don't, I'll be pleasantly surprised!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 10:15:49 AM
I still haven't seen a good answer from ngc on how we won the cold war.

In a nutshell? Money. We outspent them. They could not keep pace with the defenses that Reagan committed to (And klynton decimated). And the beginnings of foreign capitalist companies in the old CCCP gave some push. Solidarity in Poland also affected people's minds over there. But, you'll disagree in some fashion for all of these listed reasons and probably start calling names. That IS typical of the liberal. If you don't, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

And now we are bankrupt and our country is owned by the Chinese.  Whoopie do, comrade.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:36:29 AM
GW BUSH---Could you please tell the good people of the United States of America why there is a double standard when it comes to illegals coming across our borders? You definitely need to take a stand to follow We The Peoples demands of following "THE LAWS OF THE LAND"...

HARSH, YOU SAY?

1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, and all government business will be conducted in our language.

2. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.

3. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

4. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, nor any other government assistance programs.

5. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

6. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

7. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no "bad-mouthing" our president or his policies. If you do you will be sent home.

8. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

Harsh, you say ?.......

 

The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of MEXICO!!!!!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 10:39:20 AM
GW BUSH---Please ask president Putin the difference between the USA putting a missile shield in Europe that can shoot down unmanned missiles, and Russia selling weapons to Iran which are for shooting down manned planes and helos?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 11:25:55 AM
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Islamic State of Iraq -- a Sunni insurgent coalition that includes al Qaeda in Iraq -- issued a statement Monday warning the U.S. military to call off its search for three missing American soldiers.

"Your soldiers are in our hands. If you want your soldiers' safety, do not search for them," the Internet posting said.


I wonder why these guys are afraid? Well, they should be!! It ain't a good feeling to know that special forces are after your tail!! If they are found, and they have brutalized our guys, I wouldn't want to be one of 'them'. But, liberals are probably going to praise the 'freedom fighters'----rrriiiggghhhttt...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 11:28:50 AM
Quote
But, liberals are probably going to praise the 'freedom fighters'----rrriiiggghhhttt...

I believe liberals want American soldiers to come home safe and sound -- that is a large part of the reason why they are against the war.  They aren't praising the insurgents.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 11:29:50 AM
Quote
But, liberals are probably going to praise the 'freedom fighters'
Once again the "don't project" man projects.  What an intellectually dishones toad you are.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 12:16:22 PM
They aren't praising the insurgents.

They may not be actually PRAISING them, but many have certainly DEFENDED them. Don't, please don't tell me you have NOT seen this at this very forum.


They do tend to praise some of the nastiest things tho---as you should well know already.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 12:18:03 PM
Once again the "don't project" man projects.  What an intellectually dishones toad you are.

I should also have added,"Or start to call names". Sooooo very liberal of you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 12:19:20 PM
They aren't praising the insurgents.

They may not be actually PRAISING them, but many have certainly DEFENDED them. Don't, please don't tell me you have NOT seen this at this very forum.


They do tend to praise some of the nastiest things tho---as you should well know already.

I haven't seen anyone defending or praising Al Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgents on these forums.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 12:20:55 PM
They aren't praising the insurgents.

They may not be actually PRAISING them, but many have certainly DEFENDED them. Don't, please don't tell me you have NOT seen this at this very forum.


They do tend to praise some of the nastiest things tho---as you should well know already.

Please document these statement, toad.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 12:34:54 PM
They aren't praising the insurgents.

They may not be actually PRAISING them, but many have certainly DEFENDED them. Don't, please don't tell me you have NOT seen this at this very forum.


They do tend to praise some of the nastiest things tho---as you should well know already.

I haven't seen anyone defending or praising Al Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgents on these forums.
And you won't.  Comrade ngc needs to project disloyalty on those he disagrees with to justify the hate he feels.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 12:52:19 PM
NGC is very much like the sociatist regime. He creates a claim against all truths as "liberal", which, to him, means disloyal. Yet, he himself, is grounded in destroying the constitutional basis of this nation. He claims to want the government to take over ownership of "scarce" natural resources, and pretends he is not in favor of the government continuing until it takes over ownership of all resources. He pretends to disavow communism, but he persists in sanctioning this method of government. He eschews peace in any form, and wants to keep wasting our resources on bigger and better "weapons" even tho our "enemies" are mostly unarmed except for home-made "bombs. Although he is a "foreigner" himself, he advocate stricter laws against any other "foreigners" than his own brand.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 14, 2007, 12:57:34 PM
Quote
"And you won't.  Comrade ngc needs to project disloyalty on those he disagrees with to justify the hate he feels."

Actually, when you think about it, it must be a terrible way to live your life, always filled with fear and suspicion. Not such a surprise then how he could alienate everyone so easily, beyond even his affiliation with the 'other' side of the political fence.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 01:09:01 PM
Dear Comrade Ngc also likes to make grandiose statements but fails to provide documentation to support them, even when asked to do so.  So like a neocon fascist.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 01:55:12 PM
I see that the liberals have degenerated into a fest of hate on me---have at it, liberals. Stroke yourselves allllll ya feel the need to. Ya just cannot bring yourselves to understand that THIS IS not the place to be overdosing on kool-aid!

Here IS another morsel of agony for some of you liberals---

Al Qaida has captured 3 American soldiers south of Baghdad, or have you not heard yet?

HOW CAN IT BE AL QAIDA IF THEY ARE NOT IN IRAQ, AS SO MANY LIBERALS CONTINUE TO SAY? How can they continue NOW to say that there ARE no terrorists, foreign insurgents, etc. IN Iraq? Here IS a clue for you---you need to remove your heads from that notorious place where the sun doesn't shine where you currently have your heads located!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 01:56:21 PM
Thanks, Rush.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 01:57:53 PM
He creates a claim against all truths as "liberal", ...

ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:00:16 PM
They aren't praising the insurgents.

They may not be actually PRAISING them, but many have certainly DEFENDED them. Don't, please don't tell me you have NOT seen this at this very forum.


They do tend to praise some of the nastiest things tho---as you should well know already.

I haven't seen anyone defending or praising Al Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgents on these forums.

Well, dude, you have simply missed them. Or, your mind will not let you see their defense (Or trying to apply a rationale for the logic of their actions---which I determine to be a defense) or praise as being such. THAT, of course, IS your choice.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:01:51 PM
Quote
ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?

You asked for evidence and I provided it last week, I don't believe you ever responded.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:03:15 PM
Here is the post:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased
markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values
determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM-1). The global
increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change,
while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.


http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:04:31 PM
As noted previously as well:

The head of the U.S. delegation, White House associate science adviser Sharon Hays, called the panel's summary "a significant report. It will be valuable to policymakers."

In Washington, Stephen Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said the report "marks a great day for the scientific body of knowledge on climate change."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 14, 2007, 02:05:45 PM
Quote
Remember all the terror alerts a few years ago?

And here is Giuliani trying to pull off the same kind of smarmy trick a few of weeks ago when he claimed that some kind of horrible terrorist events would occur if the people elected a Democrat president.... (conveniently forgetting, it would seem, that it was the Republicans who were in power during the last disaster--9/11).
\\

Could we have that direct Guiliani quote, please?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:08:06 PM
I saw a poll this morning that New Yorkers favor Bloomberg over Guiliani for the Presidency


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:09:47 PM
Quote
ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?

You asked for evidence and I provided it last week, I don't believe you ever responded.

There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS man-made---period. IS there evidence that man could be CONTRIBUTING to global warming? How about if I go outside and strike a match? I suppose that IS contributing. On a scale that really, truly matters? It ain't happening. And you cannot produce evidence to the contrary.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 02:10:31 PM
Quote
HOW CAN IT BE AL QAIDA IF THEY ARE NOT IN IRAQ, AS SO MANY LIBERALS CONTINUE TO SAY? How can they continue NOW to say that there ARE no terrorists, foreign insurgents, etc. IN Iraq? Here IS a clue for you...
They don't, you intellectually dishonest lying fool.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:10:39 PM
Quote
On a scale that really, truly matters? It ain't happening. And you cannot produce evidence to the contrary.

I just did.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:12:48 PM
I believe the view you are expressing is one that has been funded heavily by Exxon which much like the tobacco industry spent millions of dollars to try and subvert evidence that has been widely supported and espoused throughout the global scientific community.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 02:13:07 PM
Quote
There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS man-made---period. IS there evidence that man could be CONTRIBUTING to global warming? How about if I go outside and strike a match? I suppose that IS contributing. On a scale that really, truly matters? It ain't happening. And you cannot produce evidence to the contrary.
He has produced the evidence; you just decide not to credit it.  "Evidence" and "evidence that will convince someone disinclined to believe anything not particularly convenient to his world view" are not the same concepts.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:31:28 PM
Quote
There IS no scientific evidence that global warming IS man-made---period. IS there evidence that man could be CONTRIBUTING to global warming? How about if I go outside and strike a match? I suppose that IS contributing. On a scale that really, truly matters? It ain't happening. And you cannot produce evidence to the contrary.
He has produced the evidence; you just decide not to credit it.  "Evidence" and "evidence that will convince someone disinclined to believe anything not particularly convenient to his world view" are not the same concepts.


EVIDENCE IS not necessarily scientific fact---period. If I walk outside and strike a match, that IS evidence of man made global warming, right? How about SCIENTIFC FACT as evidence? You cannot find it. Only concensus, and that AIN'T facts.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 02:31:58 PM
Looks like the forum has you there, comrade ngc.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 14, 2007, 02:33:24 PM
What do you think "scientific fact" is? 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:33:37 PM
I believe the view you are expressing is one that has been funded heavily by Exxon which much like the tobacco industry spent millions of dollars to try and subvert evidence that has been widely supported and espoused throughout the global scientific community.


As you appear to discount just as many scientists that refute the man-made global warming alarmism. And there it IS. YOU can choose to believe what you want. I do so NOT because of politics. Or a fleeting few seconds of political expediency. That IS petty. That IS what liberals are after.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 02:35:28 PM
What do you think "scientific fact" is? 
 

You are the one that has been vehemently saying my position IS wrong, so why don't you dazzle me with what YOU believe to be fact? Scientific fact---no concensus stuff, OK?

Waiting patiently.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 02:36:20 PM
Quote
As you appear to discount just as many scientists that refute the man-made global warming alarmism. And there it IS. YOU can choose to believe what you want. I do so NOT because of politics. Or a fleeting few seconds of political expediency. That IS petty. That IS what liberals are after.

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that man has not made a significant contribution to global warming. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 02:38:10 PM
I would like to be dazzled by your correct spelling of the word consensus.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 14, 2007, 02:39:00 PM
I still haven't seen a good answer from ngc on how we won the cold war.

In a nutshell? Money. We outspent them. They could not keep pace with the defenses that Reagan committed to (And klynton decimated). And the beginnings of foreign capitalist companies in the old CCCP gave some push. Solidarity in Poland also affected people's minds over there. But, you'll disagree in some fashion for all of these listed reasons and probably start calling names. That IS typical of the liberal. If you don't, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

So we didn't need a war in Iraq after all.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 02:39:22 PM
Please show us your documention, comrade ngc, that gobal warming is not the result of mankind's burning of fossil fuels.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 14, 2007, 02:51:24 PM
ngc, why do you care so much whether global warming is "man made" or not?

Even if it isn't is it acceptable or even moral that we continue to pollute at the rate we do?



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 14, 2007, 03:00:11 PM
Quote
"Could we have that direct Guiliani quote, please?"

I'm tempted to say FY 'Kid'---do your own work--as in Google. Or watch the news once in awhile. The quote was all over the networks that day. But maybe just this once:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/260407Olbermann.htm


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 03:00:26 PM
ngc, why do you care so much whether global warming is "man made" or not?

Even if it isn't is it acceptable or even moral that we continue to pollute at the rate we do?



NGC pines for the days before Silent Spring was ever published.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:04:45 PM
ngc, why do you care so much whether global warming is "man made" or not?

Even if it isn't is it acceptable or even moral that we continue to pollute at the rate we do?



NGC pines for the days before Silent Spring was ever published.

She probably drives a bigass SUV.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 03:08:14 PM
He creates a claim against all truths as "liberal", ...

ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?

Projecting again, and making up lies, lies lies!

How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT subscribe to the man-made global warming theory, nor do I tend to speak against it. It is a theory. It may be true. It may not be true. What is true is that the planet is in a warming trend no matter the cause. Whether it will be catistrophic or just another climate variation remains to be seen. It is true that in cities, with a lot of man-made pollution and concrete, temperatures are warmer than in the countryside. That is clearly a fact.

It was not very long ago that scientists advocated the return of the Ice Age. So I'm taking no sides. I will wait and see. My personal consumption of fuel is minimal.  



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:11:14 PM
I believe we'd all be surprised at how much CO2 we produce each year.  It it in the tons/per person in the USA.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 14, 2007, 03:31:38 PM
Why haven't we been pursuing alternative energy sources with equivalent gov't subsidies for oil all along?

Why do we continue to burn fossil fuels that we already know are finite?

Why did Reagan take down the solar panels that Carter put on the W/H?

Why are oil companies making record profits, while at the same time we are paying record prices for gasoline?

Where is my plug-in car (w/ home solar charging station)?

 



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 03:55:15 PM
Why haven't we been pursuing alternative energy sources with equivalent gov't subsidies for oil all along?

Why do we continue to burn fossil fuels that we already know are finite?

Why did Reagan take down the solar panels that Carter put on the W/H?

Why are oil companies making record profits, while at the same time we are paying record prices for gasoline?

Where is my plug-in car (w/ home solar charging station)?

 



Excellent questions.  The problem has been that the oil companies have the politicans in their pockets, or they have become politicans on their own.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 03:59:05 PM
He creates a claim against all truths as "liberal", ...

ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?

Projecting again, and making up lies, lies lies!

How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT subscribe to the man-made global warming theory, nor do I tend to speak against it. It is a theory. It may be true. It may not be true. What is true is that the planet is in a warming trend no matter the cause. Whether it will be catistrophic or just another climate variation remains to be seen. It is true that in cities, with a lot of man-made pollution and concrete, temperatures are warmer than in the countryside. That is clearly a fact.

It was not very long ago that scientists advocated the return of the Ice Age. So I'm taking no sides. I will wait and see. My personal consumption of fuel is minimal.  




I am impressed. I just happen to agree with everything you said that we are warming up, indeed. Your expression looks like what I think about it.

As gas prices are trending upward right now, my usage, I would have to say, IS minimal as well. Sure wish they'd go down some.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:06:50 PM
High gas prices are good for Bush and his buddies.  Create a shortage, jack the price, make huge profits.  That's the way these guys like to do business.  Right...neocon fascism.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 04:12:13 PM
ngc, why do you care so much whether global warming is "man made" or not?

Even if it isn't is it acceptable or even moral that we continue to pollute at the rate we do?




It does make a difference, as those that can convince certain areas of the govt sector that funds would be needed to research this, monitor that, perform this, re-do that because of man-made global warming. I can't see taxpayers having to shell out $$$ for sham. As for pollution, I currently see no applicable rational alternatives to oil, coal, palstics or a lot of other industrially made things. Should some, many, all of these industries try to do something about their emissions? Sure. But----How much of your everyday life do you want to give up until viable bio-fuels are refined? Until batteries are reduced in weight sufficiently for genuine practical auto usage? Until plastics/polymers compounds are refined? I notice that there are some like algore that do not practice what they preach----members of the 'Do as I say, not as I do" crowd. Caring for the environment IS laudible, indeed, but presently, at what cost IS the question?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 04:15:33 PM
Where does "algore" come from?

Oh, let me guess.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:16:06 PM
ngc, why do you care so much whether global warming is "man made" or not?

Even if it isn't is it acceptable or even moral that we continue to pollute at the rate we do?




It does make a difference, as those that can convince certain areas of the govt sector that funds would be needed to research this, monitor that, perform this, re-do that because of man-made global warming. I can't see taxpayers having to shell out $$$ for sham. As for pollution, I currently see no applicable rational alternatives to oil, coal, palstics or a lot of other industrially made things. Should some, many, all of these industries try to do something about their emissions? Sure. But----How much of your everyday life do you want to give up until viable bio-fuels are refined? Until batteries are reduced in weight sufficiently for genuine practical auto usage? Until plastics/polymers compounds are refined? I notice that there are some like algore that do not practice what they preach----members of the 'Do as I say, not as I do" crowd. Caring for the environment IS laudible, indeed, but presently, at what cost IS the question?

I see.  Your greed outweighs you concern for future generations.  How special.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 14, 2007, 04:23:35 PM
Currently, the United States is one of the most lax countries in the world in terms of imposing fuel economy standards.   I would think a good start would be to either set a higher minimum fuel economy on new vehicles and/or raise the tax liability incurred by the Gas Guzzler tax.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 04:27:54 PM
I believe one house of Congress has passed a bill that would set the standards at 35 MPG by 2020.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 04:31:19 PM
Currently, the United States is one of the most lax countries in the world in terms of imposing fuel economy standards.   I would think a good start would be to either set a higher minimum fuel economy on new vehicles and/or raise the tax liability incurred by the Gas Guzzler tax.



Only a liberal cares to talk about MORE TAXES. I am sick of more taxes. More taxes are NOT going to solve a thing....Not with democrats and republicans in charge. If someone can afford a vehicle that uses more gas than a lawnmower, that IS their choice. Penalizing the vehicle IS not an answer. How about trying to stabilize the population? GROWTH "IS" what "IS" using more and more fuels than before.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 14, 2007, 04:33:09 PM
As Quisling was synonymous with "traitor", algore IS synonymous with "Buffoon". (You really place any creedence at all in this character algore?)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 14, 2007, 04:35:46 PM
It's so cute when NGC channels Rush.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 14, 2007, 06:25:20 PM
Fuel economy back on US agenda
A bipartisan bill, which cleared a Senate committee Tuesday, seeks to boost average car mileage by about 10 miles per gallon from 2011 to 2020.
By Mark Clayton and Mark Trumbull | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

Page 1 of 3

Concern about global warming is changing the dynamics of a longstanding debate on Capitol Hill: whether to tighten America's standards for automotive fuel economy.

One bipartisan bill, which cleared a Senate committee Tuesday, seeks to boost average car mileage by about 10 miles per gallon during the 10 years between 2011 and 2020, a so-called "10 in 10" proposal.

Although no one sees it as a one-step fix for the nation's energy challenges, such a move would have major effects – but only if provisions that give US automakers an out are eliminated, say environmentalists.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 14, 2007, 08:37:21 PM
He creates a claim against all truths as "liberal", ...

ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?

Projecting again, and making up lies, lies lies!

How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT subscribe to the man-made global warming theory, nor do I tend to speak against it. It is a theory. It may be true. It may not be true. What is true is that the planet is in a warming trend no matter the cause. Whether it will be catistrophic or just another climate variation remains to be seen. It is true that in cities, with a lot of man-made pollution and concrete, temperatures are warmer than in the countryside. That is clearly a fact.

It was not very long ago that scientists advocated the return of the Ice Age. So I'm taking no sides. I will wait and see. My personal consumption of fuel is minimal.  




I am impressed. I just happen to agree with everything you said that we are warming up, indeed. Your expression looks like what I think about it.

As gas prices are trending upward right now, my usage, I would have to say, IS minimal as well. Sure wish they'd go down some.

Now, you say you are impressed. I've said this over and over many times, and you failed to take it in. Now, you are willing to agree with me.

I wonder how long it will take you to forget this again.....

And, gas prices are unlikely to come down until the summer is over and people stop taking vacations. As I've said before, I don't see why we don't just put another windfall tax on the oil companies and use the revenue to improve the environment. Seems to me if we would tap that profit, we could afford to make the changes necessary.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 05:47:16 AM
He creates a claim against all truths as "liberal", ...

ALL truths? Nahhhhh---just liberal truth. C'mon, it IS like your liberal truth that global warming IS man made. So ya oughtta feel right at home. Kinda like leaving out 'man-made' when you give responses on it. Ain't that right, weasel?

Projecting again, and making up lies, lies lies!

How many times do I have to tell you that I do NOT subscribe to the man-made global warming theory, nor do I tend to speak against it. It is a theory. It may be true. It may not be true. What is true is that the planet is in a warming trend no matter the cause. Whether it will be catistrophic or just another climate variation remains to be seen. It is true that in cities, with a lot of man-made pollution and concrete, temperatures are warmer than in the countryside. That is clearly a fact.

It was not very long ago that scientists advocated the return of the Ice Age. So I'm taking no sides. I will wait and see. My personal consumption of fuel is minimal. 




I am impressed. I just happen to agree with everything you said that we are warming up, indeed. Your expression looks like what I think about it.

As gas prices are trending upward right now, my usage, I would have to say, IS minimal as well. Sure wish they'd go down some.

Now, you say you are impressed. I've said this over and over many times, and you failed to take it in. Now, you are willing to agree with me.

I wonder how long it will take you to forget this again.....

And, gas prices are unlikely to come down until the summer is over and people stop taking vacations. As I've said before, I don't see why we don't just put another windfall tax on the oil companies and use the revenue to improve the environment. Seems to me if we would tap that profit, we could afford to make the changes necessary.

Personally, I think it is all a big scam and rip-off by the oil companies.  They create a shortage; demand doesn't change or goes up, and they can set the price at whatever they want.  Soon, it will ripple throughout the economy, and we'll be in recession.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 06:45:30 AM
Personally, I think it is all a big scam and rip-off by the oil companies.  They create a shortage; demand doesn't change or goes up, and they can set the price at whatever they want.  Soon, it will ripple throughout the economy, and we'll be in recession.

And a recession would benefit the oil companies, how?

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 08:28:27 AM
It's a catch-22, isn't it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 09:22:48 AM
I don't see why we don't just put another windfall tax on the oil companies and use the revenue to improve the environment.

Laudible---but...


Taxation IS not the way. You are not accomplishing a thing except making the oil companies find some other way to up prices, and continue the pain at the pump...especially for, again, the middle and lower classes. I know you remember my suggestion about non-renewable natural resources (And the storm that was created--including the continuing hate) but has anyone really done a few calculations about just what kind of financial relief the populace would see from this? And not just oil, but natural gas, coal (Low-sulphur too, 'mrs'. klynton), Phosphate mines, Titanium mines, gold mines, and yes, salt mines...all strip mines---JUST natural resources. And through the controls/regulations/standards (Whatever you wish to call it) not only would you be generating the ability to 'order' more stringent cleanups of existing polluting systems, but it cease the 'windfalls' to a select few to favor the populace where this nations natural resources are concerned.

Instead of a windfall 'tax', how about a revenue 'restrictor'---with the profits going to the individuals that purchase gasoline?

Just an idea.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 09:25:00 AM
I'm not sure changing the words really changes the connotation.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 09:48:52 AM
In my opinion, you need to change the demand.  More fuel efficient vehicles mean more supply.   Less vehicles on the road mean more supply.  More supply means lower prices. 

I think that the government should raise the fuel economy standards on new vehicles and/or tax more heavily those vehicles that are less efficient.

I also think the government should issue greater tax credits for individuals that use public transportation to get to work.       Additionally, the government needs to better incentivize its citizens to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles as well as use public transportation.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 09:54:16 AM
In my opinion, you need to change the demand.  More fuel efficient vehicles mean more supply.   Less vehicles on the road mean more supply.  More supply means lower prices. 

I think that the government should raise the fuel economy standards on new vehicles and/or tax more heavily those vehicles that are less efficient.

I also think the government should issue greater tax credits for individuals that use public transportation to get to work.       Additionally, the government needs to better incentivize its citizens to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles as well as use public transportation.


More 'affordable' efficient vehicles are a ways off right now. We have them, but they are expensive. As for more supply, we could certainly build a few more refineries, as I believe that through the last 1/4 century "at least", usage has been on the rise and there have been no new refineries produced. Just a train wreck waiting to happen.

More taxes are not the answer. imho





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 09:56:27 AM
As demand for more fuel efficient vehicles heightens, the economies of scale kick in, allowing production costs to fall -- and in turn resulting in more competitively priced efficient automobiles


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 15, 2007, 10:03:52 AM
ngc, why do you care so much whether global warming is "man made" or not?

Even if it isn't is it acceptable or even moral that we continue to pollute at the rate we do?




It does make a difference, as those that can convince certain areas of the govt sector that funds would be needed to research this, monitor that, perform this, re-do that because of man-made global warming. I can't see taxpayers having to shell out $$$ for sham. As for pollution, I currently see no applicable rational alternatives to oil, coal, palstics or a lot of other industrially made things. Should some, many, all of these industries try to do something about their emissions? Sure. But----How much of your everyday life do you want to give up until viable bio-fuels are refined? Until batteries are reduced in weight sufficiently for genuine practical auto usage? Until plastics/polymers compounds are refined? I notice that there are some like algore that do not practice what they preach----members of the 'Do as I say, not as I do" crowd. Caring for the environment IS laudible, indeed, but presently, at what cost IS the question?

So you don’t think we need to do any monitoring, or ongoing testing of air water and land just because there's not enough evidence (according to you) that humans are causing any harm?

Pretty convoluted logic I’d say. Remember, it will likely be too late to do anything once these things begin to do harm to humans.

I think taxpayers are sick of paying for wars like the fiasco in Iraq, and would be happy to pay to keep our environment clean.

Just because the oil co’s. tell us there are no viable alternatives does not make it true. You will see as more subsidies go elsewhere besides to big oil, that there ARE viable alternatives as with electric cars just on the horizon. First with hybrids, then with plug in electric like the Tesla that will deliver 200+ miles on a charge and costing just 2 cents a mile.

There will have to be a paradigm shift if we expect to prosper in the future. That we know for sure.

It will come despite the backward looking amongst us, like Bush and his cronies, and like you, one of the many on his side that always have an excuse why we can’t do something.

I'm on the side that says we can do ANYTHING if we decide to do it.

(Now get on with your name calling: call me a liberal. I actually LIKE it!)




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:10:07 AM
As demand for more fuel efficient vehicles heightens, the economies of scale kick in, allowing production costs to fall -- and in turn resulting in more competitively priced efficient automobiles


True, but still a ways off. Oil IS not going away during our lifetimes.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 15, 2007, 10:13:17 AM
Oil IS not going away during our lifetimes.

No one said it would.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 10:20:52 AM
So you don’t think we need to do any monitoring, or ongoing testing of air water and land just because there's not enough evidence (according to you) that humans are causing any harm?

I didn't say this. You did.



Remember, it will likely be too late to do anything once these things begin to do harm to humans.

A liberal's alarmist drivel.



I think taxpayers are sick of paying for wars like the fiasco in Iraq, and would be happy to pay to keep our environment clean.

That IS your opinion. For real workable programs, maybe---not for algore shams. Only liberals swallow his alarmist drivels. NO-ONE likes paying taxes of ANY kind, BTW. Except for maybe you.



Just because the oil co’s. tell us there are no viable alternatives does not make it true.

It ISn't just oil companies saying this---do some homework.



viable alternatives as with electric cars just on the horizon.

Not as soon as you think---they will be viable only when they can get the weight of the batteries down for this to happen on an effective scale. And it ain't gonna be tomorrow.



It will come despite the backward looking amongst us, like Bush and his cronies, and like you, one of the many on his side that always have an excuse why we can’t do something.

More drivel from a liberal---unfair, unbalanced, and unhinged. I have agreed with some of what you have said---except for the time involved. You let too much of your liberalism get in the way. I am not 'on' bush's side---that IS more of the liberal in you because you think YOUR way IS right and any other way IS wrong----wrong, mr. liberal.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: yankguy on May 15, 2007, 10:23:56 AM
It ISn't just oil companies saying this---do some homework.

Most of us consider homework to be a little more comprehensive and balanced than "Rush's Stack of Stuff."


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 10:31:34 AM
Was reading that new book last night "What Would Jefferson Do?" and came to a part when he told the story of the rise of Hitler to power. It was so hard to read, since I kept thinking he was talking about the Bush Administration. How the fear of "terrorists" was used to build a "Homeland Security" program, take away rights from individuals, round up the "intellectuals" and "liberals" and put them in detention centers without trial, etc., And, then there was the merger of corporations and the government, which Hitler called "corporatism", and the build up of "defenses" against the "terrorists" who were suspected of being from the "middle east". Which then led to the "friendly" takover of Austria "We liberated them - I never saw so much love" quoted Hitler. Next were the Chzecks. It was amazing as reading it, how it parallels current events. Nationalizing the resources would be the first step.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 10:35:49 AM
Quote
True, but still a ways off. Oil IS not going away during our lifetimes.

I never said it was, I was pushing for more fuel efficient vehicles.   When you consider the escalating demand for oil in the future by countries like China and India - there is nowhere for prices to go but up.  Look at what has been going on in the steel industry. 

Considering other technologies over the same length of time, automobiles and the reliance on the internal combustion engine have hardly advanced.  While fuel cells and electric cars may not be dependable or very feasible, more fuel efficient cars very much are both feasible and dependable. 

Plus, our dependence on oil has led to us making some unsavory bedfellows over years, wouldn't it be nice if the United States didn't have to depend on the Middle East so much for its lifeblood?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:17:25 AM
May 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages

by Joseph Carroll

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. 29% of Americans approve of Congress while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%.


Well---you know you really must sukk---when your numbers are lower than bush's. A possible harbinger of doom in the offing for pelosi/reid and crowd? It'll be interesting to see if liberals are going to spin or qualify this. LMAO!

When moveon.org types are no longer holding the Ds by their nards, we could see something for all of America---not just flaming liberals.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 11:24:23 AM
Yeah, except that Pelosi's individual approval rating is still higher than Bush's at 45%


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 11:48:01 AM
Yeah, except that Pelosi's individual approval rating is still higher than Bush's at 45%

Pelosi ISn't apparently in control of what IS around her then, IS she? The fact remains that people see bush better NOW than the democrat congress---that sukks, doesn't it? It may change again, but right now it sure speaks volumes about just what the Ds are really interested in---and that ain't their constituencies. When they get past their tortured desires to hate and slander bush with their every breathing moments, well, you get the idea. The Ds need to get the moveon.org monkey off their back. I ain't gonna hold my breath. You WILL see an impeachment of bush before the next elections.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 15, 2007, 12:10:47 PM
Quote
Personally, I think it is all a big scam and rip-off by the oil companies.  They create a shortage; demand doesn't change or goes up, and they can set the price at whatever they want.  Soon, it will ripple throughout the economy, and we'll be in recession.

Sam: It is just my impression but I don't think that the oil market has that much to do with supply and demand at all anymore. All of that has been altered by the industry being controlled by huge monopolies (like OPEC) working hand-in-glove with corporate giants like Exxon. I believe that these greedy bastards have been watching Europe pay huge amounts for fuel for years now and they have been thinking to themselves "Isn't it about time that these people in the U.S. get a taste of the same thing, (and WE double or triple our profits)?" And for the last few years they have been doing some tentative little experiments with jacking up the price (with some lame reason issued to the public to supposedly 'explain' the increase). And then after say, a nice three month period of great profits, they lower the prices down again, again with some lame explanation that has only the most tentative connection to the market. All the while I think they were just watching to see just how much of a political stir their actions were going to cause. I believe that they have just been waiting for just the right political situation to occur (in other words, when THEY finally own the government) to continue the corporate demolition of the American middle class. And that situation has now more or less occurred with the ascendancy of BushCo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America. You can bet all that A that ngc has been laughing off that there are not going to be any serious investigations into these things as long as Boy George and Big Dick are in charge. (Most probably not from the Democrats either...but we shall see).


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 12:15:18 PM
Yeah, except that Pelosi's individual approval rating is still higher than Bush's at 45%

Pelosi ISn't apparently in control of what IS around her then, IS she? The fact remains that people see bush better NOW than the democrat congress---that sukks, doesn't it? It may change again, but right now it sure speaks volumes about just what the Ds are really interested in---and that ain't their constituencies. When they get past their tortured desires to hate and slander bush with their every breathing moments, well, you get the idea. The Ds need to get the moveon.org monkey off their back. I ain't gonna hold my breath. You WILL see an impeachment of bush before the next elections.

I believe the correlation that was cited in the slide was the Iraq war.  Given that the American public seemingly elected a Democrat controlled Congress to take the country in a new direction, I find it hardly surprising that they the majority are disappointed that the war rolls on and the casualties continue to mount without any seeming success.  Unfortunately, what many of the public fail to realize is that Congress has little control over the day to day operations of the country and any legislation that they do succeed to pass takes a significant amount of time to yield any results - favorable or unfavorable.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 01:21:31 PM
In my opinion, you need to change the demand.  More fuel efficient vehicles mean more supply.   Less vehicles on the road mean more supply.  More supply means lower prices. 

I think that the government should raise the fuel economy standards on new vehicles and/or tax more heavily those vehicles that are less efficient.

I also think the government should issue greater tax credits for individuals that use public transportation to get to work.       Additionally, the government needs to better incentivize its citizens to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles as well as use public transportation.


I like your ideas, but the picture of the Muppet is killing it all for me. It's hard to take it seriously with that picture.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 15, 2007, 01:22:48 PM
Was reading that new book last night "What Would Jefferson Do?" and came to a part when he told the story of the rise of Hitler to power. It was so hard to read, since I kept thinking he was talking about the Bush Administration. How the fear of "terrorists" was used to build a "Homeland Security" program, take away rights from individuals, round up the "intellectuals" and "liberals" and put them in detention centers without trial, etc., And, then there was the merger of corporations and the government, which Hitler called "corporatism", and the build up of "defenses" against the "terrorists" who were suspected of being from the "middle east". Which then led to the "friendly" takover of Austria "We liberated them - I never saw so much love" quoted Hitler. Next were the Chzecks. It was amazing as reading it, how it parallels current events. Nationalizing the resources would be the first step.



Wow. What an original thought.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:33:16 PM
what many of the public fail to realize is that Congress has little control over the day to day operations of the country...


You do not seem to realize "IS" that congress has all the control they could possibly want---as long as they get that veto proof majority. End of story!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:35:23 PM
I believe that these greedy bastards have been watching Europe pay huge amounts for fuel for years now and they have been thinking to themselves "Isn't it about time that these people in the U.S. get a taste of the same thing, (and WE double or triple our profits)?"

So taking some control of this vital sector of daily life ISn't a good idea? Oil IS a non-renewable natural resource!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:36:12 PM
Congressional authority does not extend to running the day to day management of the state - that is the Executive branch.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 15, 2007, 01:37:00 PM
I believe that these greedy bastards have been watching Europe pay huge amounts for fuel for years now and they have been thinking to themselves "Isn't it about time that these people in the U.S. get a taste of the same thing, (and WE double or triple our profits)?"

So taking some control of this vital sector of daily life ISn't a good idea? Oil IS a non-renewable natural resource!
Bravo. comrade ngc!  We have nothing to lose but our chains!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 15, 2007, 01:38:07 PM
I believe that these greedy bastards have been watching Europe pay huge amounts for fuel for years now and they have been thinking to themselves "Isn't it about time that these people in the U.S. get a taste of the same thing, (and WE double or triple our profits)?"

So taking some control of this vital sector of daily life ISn't a good idea? Oil IS a non-renewable natural resource!

European countries don't subsidize oil as heavily as the United States does.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 01:40:50 PM
Oil should not be subsidized at all. Nor Coal or natural gas.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 02:40:17 PM
Oil should not be subsidized at all. Nor Coal or natural gas.

I couldn't agree more.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 15, 2007, 02:56:18 PM
Quote
"So taking some control of this vital sector of daily life ISn't a good idea? Oil IS a non-renewable natural resource!"

I'm saying that there should be some oversight at the very least. If we are operating in a free market economy then even the oil industry should have to respond to supply and demand like everyone else. When they artificially manipulate supplies to effect demand, or just randomly set artificial prices because they hold a monopoly on that product they are operating illegally and should be called to account for it by the government---some part of the government anyway that still cares about the common, ordinary American citizen (assuming there still is such a thing).


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 15, 2007, 02:59:27 PM
ngc, why did I just know you were going to name call and add nothing to the debate?

Run along back to your 4th grade class now, I'm done with you.





Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:03:57 PM
ngc, why did I just know you were going to name call and add nothing to the debate?

Run along back to your 4th grade class now, I'm done with you.





He is a little twit.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 15, 2007, 03:32:55 PM
ngc, why did I just know you were going to name call and add nothing to the debate?

Run along back to your 4th grade class now, I'm done with you.



Poor little liberal youngster can't stand being stuck on his side of the political fence. How liberal of you. You can choose to close your eyes to everything your little liberal eyeballs choose not to see. I could care less!

Once again, liberals, being a liberal IS being on a particular side of the political fence---it IS not name calling. And I know I am correct and hitting the mark to get responses like the one above.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 15, 2007, 03:38:21 PM
ngc, why did I just know you were going to name call and add nothing to the debate?

Run along back to your 4th grade class now, I'm done with you.



Poor little liberal youngster can't stand being stuck on his side of the political fence. How liberal of you. You can choose to close your eyes to everything your little liberal eyeballs choose not to see. I could care less!

Once again, liberals, being a liberal IS being on a particular side of the political fence---it IS not name calling. And I know I am correct and hitting the mark to get responses like the one above.

LMAO.  You are too funny, in a sick sort of way.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 15, 2007, 10:12:21 PM
According to Thom Hartman, a liberal is one who believes in democracy - rule by the people, and for the people. A system of government that does not give human or civil rights to an institution or corporation. A system of government which regulates business for the benefit of the people, not to increase profits and lower accountability.  And, according to the same author, democracy is the natural state of people and animals. The so called Alpha Male is awarded only with sexual preference, they are not allowed to vote for the herd or the tribe. Decisions are made only by the group, not a single individual. Lobbies are not allowed.

The information on the natural state of democracy in animal groups was described by two biologists at the University of Sussex, Tim Roper and L. Conradt. The information on the natural state of democracy in people is described by any number of anthropologists who study tribal life. A tribe has a chief, but the chief typically has a single vote in tribal affairs. He/she is usually not a dictator or an autocrat. The model for the American Democracy is in the Iroquis constitution, and the head of the Iroquis nation was consulted by Ben Franlkin as he helped develop our governing document.

Corporate welfare is an abuse of taxpayers and their money. Regulations set by corporations, as when conservatives are in the White House are to the detriment of the people, the taypayers, and the consumers.






Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 16, 2007, 02:39:28 AM
Sam,

LMAO.  You are too funny, in a sick sort of way.

Why are we wasting valuable bandwidth responding to the sick little troll?

Remember how much time we spent on the NYT Fora responding to another equally sick creature which called itself "georgette"?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 06:00:36 AM
According to Thom Hartman, a liberal is one who believes in democracy - rule by the people, and for the people. A system of government that does not give human or civil rights to an institution or corporation. A system of government which regulates business for the benefit of the people, not to increase profits and lower accountability.  And, according to the same author, democracy is the natural state of people and animals. The so called Alpha Male is awarded only with sexual preference, they are not allowed to vote for the herd or the tribe. Decisions are made only by the group, not a single individual. Lobbies are not allowed.

The information on the natural state of democracy in animal groups was described by two biologists at the University of Sussex, Tim Roper and L. Conradt. The information on the natural state of democracy in people is described by any number of anthropologists who study tribal life. A tribe has a chief, but the chief typically has a single vote in tribal affairs. He/she is usually not a dictator or an autocrat. The model for the American Democracy is in the Iroquis constitution, and the head of the Iroquis nation was consulted by Ben Franlkin as he helped develop our governing document.

Corporate welfare is an abuse of taxpayers and their money. Regulations set by corporations, as when conservatives are in the White House are to the detriment of the people, the taypayers, and the consumers.






Like Hillary said, the present administration believes in government of the few, for the few and by the few.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 06:01:26 AM
Sam,

LMAO.  You are too funny, in a sick sort of way.

Why are we wasting valuable bandwidth responding to the sick little troll?

Remember how much time we spent on the NYT Fora responding to another equally sick creature which called itself "georgette"?

Indeed, I do.  Wash, rinse, repeat...just like a friggin washing machine.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 07:06:06 AM
According to Thom Hartman, a liberal is one who believes in democracy - rule by the people, and for the people. A system of government that does not give human or civil rights to an institution or corporation. A system of government which regulates business for the benefit of the people, not to increase profits and lower accountability.  And, according to the same author, democracy is the natural state of people and animals. The so called Alpha Male is awarded only with sexual preference, they are not allowed to vote for the herd or the tribe. Decisions are made only by the group, not a single individual. Lobbies are not allowed.

The information on the natural state of democracy in animal groups was described by two biologists at the University of Sussex, Tim Roper and L. Conradt. The information on the natural state of democracy in people is described by any number of anthropologists who study tribal life. A tribe has a chief, but the chief typically has a single vote in tribal affairs. He/she is usually not a dictator or an autocrat. The model for the American Democracy is in the Iroquis constitution, and the head of the Iroquis nation was consulted by Ben Franlkin as he helped develop our governing document.

Corporate welfare is an abuse of taxpayers and their money. Regulations set by corporations, as when conservatives are in the White House are to the detriment of the people, the taypayers, and the consumers.

For a person who claims to study history, it amazes me that you could embrace such a naive view of reality. I prefer the  views of H.L.Mencken on democracy in America, because they seem to cut more closely to the truth than the above.

Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is only a dream: it should be put in the same category as Arcadia, Santa Claus, and Heaven.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.
H. L. Mencken

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken

But to really have a hard look at things, read Mencken's "last words": http://www.bigeye.com/mencken.htm


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 07:08:10 AM
Bejamin Shapiro

The Democrats' big lie

May 16, 2007

The Democratic Party, we are led to believe, is the party of live-and-let-live, you-do-your-thing-I'll-do-mine, let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom morality. Part and parcel of the Democratic commitment to tolerance, we are told, is their commitment to religious and political diversity.

At the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan 2005, Rep. Nancy Pelosi explained, "We must continue to work to promote religious tolerance; our diversity as a nation is one of our greatest strengths." In April 2005, Sen. Hillary Clinton stated, "Religious liberty is one of the most important issues on the world's agenda today." Today, Barack Obama warns that Democrats must not "equate tolerance with secularism and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our policies with a larger meaning."

Similarly, throughout the war on Islamo-fascism, Democrats have declared that political dissent is sacrosanct – that political dissent, in fact, is the highest form of patriotism. "Patriotism is about refusing to support something you know is wrong and having the courage to speak out with strength and passion and backbone for something you know is right," Sen. John Edwards recently stated. Sen. Hillary Clinton shrieked in April 2003: "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"

Liars!

Democratic tolerance means tolerance for secularism, but absolute intolerance for religion. Democratic tolerance means tolerance for their supporters, but absolute intolerance for their political opponents. The proof is in the pudding: The House Democrats are currently pursuing policies that would criminalize religious thought and crack down on political speech. On May 3, House Democrats voted to create extra penalties and additional investigatory funding for crimes committed against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, transvestites and others with statistically deviant "sexual orientations" or "gender identities."

This bill is aimed at quashing traditional religious thought. No one advocates violent attacks in any case – all this "hate crimes" bill does is stigmatize anti-homosexuality religious principle. All "hate crimes" are thought crimes, designed to more harshly punish offenders for their racism, sexism or religious bigotry. By lumping in "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" with categories like race and religion, House Democrats seek to legally enshrine homosexuality as morally legitimate.

It will not be long before Democrats apply the same principle – homosexuality as protected status – to federal housing and employment law. The day is close at hand when church organizations are forced to hire homosexuals, when parochial schools are punished for firing Mary-formerly-known-as-Bob.

But Democrats aren't only focusing on silencing traditional religion. They're focusing on shutting down conservative thought more generally. Naturally, the Democrats are targeting Rush Limbaugh and Salem Radio Network in particular. To that end, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi are eager to reinstate the misnamed Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively shut down talk radio.

The defunct Fairness Doctrine required radio stations to warn political figures before they were attacked, and then give the political figures airtime to respond. It also forced stations to give equal time to proponents and opponents of given issues and candidates. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would essentially turn talk radio into PBS, restoring a virtual monopoly to the major liberal media.

The Democrats do not stand for "live and let live." If you want to make a liberal utopian omelet, they say, you have to break some religious and constitutional eggs. And if you have to lie to the American people to do it, so be it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 07:30:41 AM
That's wrong on so many levels....

Start with the idea that "Hate Crime" legislation is aimed at religious thought.  To the extent hating someone is based on religion, you still get to do that.  You just can't beat someone up because of that.  Your religious beliefs are respected, it's the criminal act that is punished.  But far be it for the RWM to actually honestly represent what is being debated - people might start reasoning rather than reacting in a knee jerk fashion and they would all be out of a job.

And yes, some Democrats are working towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and housing.  As they should; I've told gay friends that I think making gay marriage the touchstone of the gay rights movement is a tactical mistake; after all, seeing as there is no job I can think of off hand where the class of who you sleep with is a particularly relevant consideration, ending the right to fire someone simply because of their sexual preference is a far more palatable step to most people who can see the injustice in that.  But even so, as with hatre crimes, you are free to hate gays if you want to, for religious reasons or otherwise, just as you are free to continue to hate African Americans.  You just cannot drag your hatred into the world and act on it in an irrational way.

And of course, I get a kick out of the take on the fairness doctrine.  And here I thought CNN, CBS, all of the MSM was a liberal bastion!  Why, than, wouldn't the fairness doctrine increase Conservative speech in those networks, at least as much as it would affect Faux News?

Note that I am at best squeamish about hate crime laws for reasons I have discussed in detail on the gay rights forum, and oppose reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but for entirely different reasons.  But the article comrade ngc quotes is, like everything he posts, so intellectually dishonest that I had to comment.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 08:04:58 AM
like everything he posts, so intellectually dishonest that I had to comment.

Everything? Get real----I erred on Somalia and admitted it. You erred on klynton as well, right? Just because you disagree with the point of view of the article does NOT mean that it IS dishonest. It means you disagree.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 08:54:14 AM
like everything he posts, so intellectually dishonest that I had to comment.

Everything? Get real----I erred on Somalia and admitted it. You erred on klynton as well, right? Just because you disagree with the point of view of the article does NOT mean that it IS dishonest. It means you disagree.

Dude: I don't think you know the difference between "intellectually dishonest" and "dishonest". THe Priestly One is merely pointing out the faults in your arguments. He is not necessarily accusing you of being a willful liar. A person easily duped by others, yes, but not a scheming, conniving, low-life scum-sucking, Sean Hannity-like weasel.

I hope that clears things up for you.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 09:05:54 AM
Utley,

I have already read all the "people be damned" literature, or at least a large chunk of it, and rejected it as alien to my beliefs in the basic goodness of people.

As I study more about the "uncivilized" societies in America, I realize that these people existed with few laws, not police, and no standing armies. The lived gently on their land, and did not insult mother nature by abusing her resources. I am interested in the studies of animals that show that democracy is their natural state.

The classification of "hate crimes" is needed. As my daddy taught me: "Your right to express yourself ends at the tip of my nose!" You can think and feel all the revulsion towards those of other races and life styles as you please, but when you commit a crime against them, you have overstepped your "rights".

If you can, show me an example where democracy ruled to the detriment of the best interests of the majority of people. Prove to me that Menchen is right.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 09:09:39 AM
Utley,

I have already read all the "people be damned" literature, or at least a large chunk of it, and rejected it as alien to my beliefs in the basic goodness of people.

As I study more about the "uncivilized" societies in America, I realize that these people existed with few laws, not police, and no standing armies. The lived gently on their land, and did not insult mother nature by abusing her resources. I am interested in the studies of animals that show that democracy is their natural state.

The classification of "hate crimes" is needed. As my daddy taught me: "Your right to express yourself ends at the tip of my nose!" You can think and feel all the revulsion towards those of other races and life styles as you please, but when you commit a crime against them, you have overstepped your "rights".

If you can, show me an example where democracy ruled to the detriment of the best interests of the majority of people. Prove to me that Menchen is right.

You ought to put down your books, stretch, and get out of Virginia sometime, and take a look around.

If you think what we have in America is democracy, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is really going on.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 09:26:44 AM
Utley,

If we don't have a government based on democracy in this country, why are we demanding that other countries adopt democratic values when we sweep away their govenment which has offended us?

No, our government is not as democratic as it once was, and it would behoove us to return to those democratic principles that served us well. We are moving towards  "corporatism" which was the goal of facism, which overturned a democracy that served the people. Our founding fathers warned about the takeover of despots and it seems that it falls to us, here and now, to keep them out of power.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 16, 2007, 09:38:19 AM
Utley,

If we don't have a government based on democracy in this country, why are we demanding that other countries adopt democratic values when we sweep away their govenment which has offended us?

No, our government is not as democratic as it once was, and it would behoove us to return to those democratic principles that served us well. We are moving towards  "corporatism" which was the goal of facism, which overturned a democracy that served the people. Our founding fathers warned about the takeover of despots and it seems that it falls to us, here and now, to keep them out of power.

Mr. Utley and yourself are both right.

And I don't believe there has been a generally fair vote for president in this country by a majority of the people in several decades.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 16, 2007, 09:52:50 AM
ngc,

The defunct Fairness Doctrine required radio stations to warn political figures before they were attacked, and then give the political figures airtime to respond. It also forced stations to give equal time to proponents and opponents of given issues and candidates. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would essentially turn talk radio into PBS, restoring a virtual monopoly to the major liberal media.

It truly takes a warped mind to believe that airing both sides of an issue is censorship.  Welcome to Newspeak!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 10:13:11 AM
ngc,

The defunct Fairness Doctrine required radio stations to warn political figures before they were attacked, and then give the political figures airtime to respond. It also forced stations to give equal time to proponents and opponents of given issues and candidates. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would essentially turn talk radio into PBS, restoring a virtual monopoly to the major liberal media.

It truly takes a warped mind to believe that airing both sides of an issue is censorship.  Welcome to Newspeak!
No, he's right.  It is a censorship issue because the Fairness Doctrine acts as a prior restraint on news coverage - because a tv station is forced to provide air time to an opposing view (And now, with a response to our editorial on the Soviet Union, Mr. Laurentin Beria.  Mr. Beria?) as essentially a penalty they are going to alter the way they provide news coverage or simply not cover at all.  (In theory - if you recall in practice, you got a lot of Floyd R. Turbos in full hunting gear and Emily Litellas trying to figure out why all the fuss about Endangered Feces.)  Plus, it is the government taking private property to force the owner to air a view possibly repugnant to him or her.  While the fiction of limited public airwaves justified the doctrine in the old days when we had only narrow broadcast frequencies for airing views, it is of even more doubtful application now, with cable and sats providing much broader access for competing views.

But there is a reason why the Fairness Doctrine has never been, and could never be, applied to, say, The New York Times.  (Someone tried, or rather, tried the first step towards applying the doctrine to print, over 20 years ago.  Used to know the name of the case but left it behind years ago.)  Given the current state of communications, the "scarcity" argument, that allowed the SCOTUS to ignore the prior restraint and First Amendment issues before, may no longer allow the Fairness Doctrine.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 10:19:57 AM
Given the proliferation of informational resources in the Information Age, I'm not sure why the Fairness Doctrine is necessary.  Things have changed a lot since 1949, I'm not so sure we need the fed policing the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 16, 2007, 10:49:55 AM
lsilver,

Things have changed a lot since 1949, I'm not so sure we need the fed policing the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard

An educated, not indoctrinated, populace would seem to me to be a prerequisite for our form of government.  That requires exposure to all perspectives.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 16, 2007, 10:58:57 AM
Utley,

If we don't have a government based on democracy in this country, why are we demanding that other countries adopt democratic values when we sweep away their govenment which has offended us?

No, our government is not as democratic as it once was, and it would behoove us to return to those democratic principles that served us well. We are moving towards  "corporatism" which was the goal of facism, which overturned a democracy that served the people. Our founding fathers warned about the takeover of despots and it seems that it falls to us, here and now, to keep them out of power.

Our government is not as democratic as you think it ever was...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 10:59:32 AM
lsilver,

Things have changed a lot since 1949, I'm not so sure we need the fed policing the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard

An educated, not indoctrinated, populace would seem to me to be a prerequisite for our form of government.  That requires exposure to all perspectives.
Just so I can understand your position, that logic would apply to newspapers, cable broadcasts, and internet news sources as well, right?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 11:13:03 AM
 
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. 

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. 

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa.


Does anyone really STILL place any credibility in anything said or written by the charlatan/alarmist/narcissist algore? What would you call the maroons that decided that "An Inconvenient Truth" was deserving of an award---maroons?







Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 12:29:46 PM

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. 

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. 

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa.


Does anyone really STILL place any credibility in anything said or written by the charlatan/alarmist/narcissist algore? What would you call the maroons that decided that "An Inconvenient Truth" was deserving of an award---maroons?







Can you site your sources?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 16, 2007, 01:58:45 PM
Pussy.  Kings used to be made of sterner stuff:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/ap_on_re_eu/britain_prince_harry


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 02:44:52 PM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=


Here IS the link for liberals that will still refuse to SEE what IS right in front of their eyes (Those blinders will have to work overtime on this one!)

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 02:57:22 PM
I would hope you would point to a less biased source than Sen. James Inhofe otherwise known as Senator Crank.


He continues to rely on a minuscule number of skeptic scientists for his evidence rather than the huge body of work by The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society which all broadly agree that temperatures are rising, at least in part as a result of human greenhouse-gas emissions.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 03:03:26 PM
The source does not matter---what matters IS the veracity of the report.

Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?

Here IS something else---

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House ****Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority****.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. ****This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822****.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 03:15:16 PM
Quote
Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?

I'm saying that the majority of climatologists around the world do believe that temperatures are rising at least in part as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 16, 2007, 03:19:07 PM
The source does not matter---what matters IS the veracity of the report.

Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?


The source of information ALWAYS matters! The fact that some scientists, and some opinion spinners have changed their mind does not change the significance of the fact that a majority of scientists have proved at least to themselves (if not to you), that man is a source of some of the global warming. I saw, as I read the details, that some have changed their focus not on the basis of scientific information or the lack thereof, but because the funding is going to issues other than scientific research and actual lowering of the green-house gases. Money is going to fund publicity rather than solutions. Taxing households for the industrial emissions makes absolutely no sense.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 04:14:59 PM
Quote
Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?

I'm saying that the majority of climatologists around the world do believe that temperatures are rising at least in part as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions. 

The beliefs of some do NOT constitute scientific proof---period. If you could show some, go ahead. But you cannot---concensus IS not scientific proof---period! Just as the article described some of the leading scientists that were previously on board that wagon, they are changing their minds after being scientists, and realizing that there simply IS no proof. Suspicion, concensus, belief does not constitute what liberals want....proof.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 16, 2007, 04:18:35 PM
I have shown you, you have yet to acknowledge the scientific proof that I presented you


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 16, 2007, 05:28:09 PM
Quote
Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?

I'm saying that the majority of climatologists around the world do believe that temperatures are rising at least in part as a result of human greenhouse gas emissions. 

The beliefs of some do NOT constitute scientific proof---period. If you could show some, go ahead. But you cannot---concensus IS not scientific proof---period! Just as the article described some of the leading scientists that were previously on board that wagon, they are changing their minds after being scientists, and realizing that there simply IS no proof. Suspicion, concensus, belief does not constitute what liberals want....proof.

Rather like religion, eh?  Though millions may believe in god, doesn't mean there is a god.  There is absolutely no evidence that there is a god. (Well, except when people like Jerry Falwell die, then maybe.)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 16, 2007, 11:00:09 PM
The source does not matter---what matters IS the veracity of the report.

Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?

Here IS something else---

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House ****Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority****.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. ****This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822****.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.




Knew the cu** would muddy the waters


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: ngc321 on May 16, 2007, 11:44:50 PM
The source does not matter---what matters IS the veracity of the report.

Are you saying what IS contained IS full of lies? Are you saying that each of those individuals IS being mis-represented?

Here IS something else---

After losing a string of embarrassing votes on the House floor because of procedural maneuvering, Speaker of the House ****Nancy Pelosi has decided to change the current House Rules to completely shut down the floor to the minority****.

The Democratic Leadership is threatening to change the current House Rules regarding the Republican right to the Motion to Recommit or the test of germaneness on the motion to recommit. ****This would be the first change to the germaneness rule since 1822****.

In protest, the House Republicans are going to call procedural motions every half hour.




Knew the cu** would muddy the waters

Well this IS just a part of liberalism---silence the opposition. Liberals cannot stand dissent in any form. Facts are almost always spun to fit their own circumstances and needs. The first thing that IS usually done, IS very klyntonesque---destroy the messenger---facts, evidence, and reality do not matter because liberals are right and everything else IS wrong. They live by the double standard. Using sick-willie for an example, they to this day do NOT believe that he deserves a jail cell. And they are good at their deceptions, evasions, and subterfuges.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 05:53:16 AM
Quote
Well this IS just a part of liberalism---silence the opposition.
It was what the Republican congress did for the last 12 years too.  Such is power: when you have it you wield it.

What did you think about the Repo Senate changing cloture rules to prevent the Dems from blocking Bush's judicial appointments?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 06:07:23 AM
Whiskey,

All of those Repos who voted to stop the debate were really liberals in sheeps clothing, Doncha Know!

I really like the definition of a liberal given by Thom Hartman, that they are the advocates of democracy over aristocracy, facism, corporatism, and all those bad "isms" that diminish the will of the people.

I remember when NGC asserted it was wrong of liberals to advocate peace. That is one of the hallmarks of a democracy. Hartman asserts that democracies rarely go to war, and then only in a defense posture. Bush did not act as the president of a democracy when he unilaterally declared war on Iraq. It was an uncharacteristic invasion of another country. Democracy is, according to Hartman, the natural state of human beings. It is the government of choice for people who are "underdeveloped" in the modern sense. It is the best defense against war, poverty, and famine. Yet, America wants to move away from democracy. Why?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 06:26:36 AM
I haven't read Hartman; but there are two different ways of talking about liberal; there is "classical liberal" which we all are except comrade ngc, who is a Marxist, and Mr. Utley, who hates democracy, and there is "liberal" in the sense of the current political debates.  A classical liberal is someone who follows the democratic principles articulated by John Locke and others - it is the system of philosophical thought that underpins our Constitution.  In terms of modern political debate, almost all liberals and conservatives are liberals in the classic sense.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 17, 2007, 06:42:06 AM
whiskey,

A classical liberal is someone who follows the democratic principles articulated by John Locke and others -

And a classical conservative is one who follows the principles of Edmund Burke - which excludes most of the current crowd.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 06:44:13 AM
comrade ngc -

Quote
Suspicion, concensus, belief does not constitute what liberals want....proof.
What do you mean by "proof?"  In the scientific sense, "proving" something means testing it - an old vernacular meaning as well, memorialized in phrases like "proving ground," "the proof of the pudding is in the eating," and "the exception that proves the rule."  When a scientist talks about a theory that has been "proven" he's talking about a theory that accounts for a physical phenomenon based on those tests, he is not talking about a theory that has been "proven" in the legal sense of the word.  As such, there is "proof" of humans exaccerbating global warming, because expirements and computer models have supported global warming.

You continue to misunderstand consensus, but then I suppose you got that word stuck in your head from the right wing blogs you read and just parrot it back, like you do, say, parse, or quota, or narcicism.

Of course, there is a scientific consensus on global warming because the vast majority of scientists who have looked at the proofs and tests and scientific evidence have agreed that the model in which human activity increases global warming is the best explanation for the phenomena.  Speaking of "consensus" in the way you do is merely an intellectually dishonest way of ignoring the fact that there is solid science behind that consensus.

So tell me, do you think that the vast weight of scientific opinion should be ignored because there are scientists who do not agree?  Because that's a little like saying we should not be chasing after al Qaeda because there are metalurgists who believe that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a controlled demolition.  And there are, you know.  Scientists will never entirely agree on anything.  What our political leaders do is identify the best available science to underpin policy and work from there.  "The best available science" does not mean that science which comports with wishful thinking, or the science that will allow us to continue to live our lives without any concern for greenhouse gasses.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 17, 2007, 06:51:05 AM
I haven't read Hartman; but there are two different ways of talking about liberal; there is "classical liberal" which we all are except comrade ngc, who is a Marxist, and Mr. Utley, who hates democracy, and there is "liberal" in the sense of the current political debates.  A classical liberal is someone who follows the democratic principles articulated by John Locke and others - it is the system of philosophical thought that underpins our Constitution.  In terms of modern political debate, almost all liberals and conservatives are liberals in the classic sense.


Hold the phone, Joan!

I don't hate democracy.

I'm just willing to discuss its faults, it ineffiency, and  like many of the Founding Fathers, I am wary of the "mob mentality".  far from hate.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 17, 2007, 06:53:08 AM
 ;D


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 17, 2007, 03:56:23 PM
Utley,

I suggest you read Hartman for yourself. What I read is his latest book, but he seems to have written a long list of books, some on similar subject, some otherwise.

Hartman has done what seems to me to be a creditable effort at debunking a lot of what you believe, including the myth of "mob rule". Perhaps you have some examples to share. Hartman's evidence is based largely on the fact that most of the third world and indiginous people had a "democratic" form of government, usually free of crime, police, and prisons. He suggests that "mob rule" is more often the result of a demegogue than due to "democracy". What impressed me most is that he points out that a "democratic" government will never declare war on another "democracy", so that as the world moves more and more towards the "democratic" form of government, the need for wars will disappear (along with military spending - yah!)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 17, 2007, 07:25:57 PM
I enjoy listening to Hartmann on Air America Radio, that extremely liberal radio station.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 09:52:08 AM
I enjoy listening to Hartmann on Air America Radio, that extremely liberal radio station.

It 's refreshing to hear the other side sometimes.

I also like that Thom will have an opposing figure on and have a reasonable debate with them. Something you'll never hear on the right.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 18, 2007, 10:58:00 AM
I really can't stand Air America.  At least when I used to listen to it when Franken was on, I really despised the whole "we're smarter than everyone else" mentality.  Its like listening to Faux News pundits only with an entirely leftist agenda.   



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 12:04:00 PM
I really can't stand Air America.  At least when I used to listen to it when Franken was on, I really despised the whole "we're smarter than everyone else" mentality.  Its like listening to Faux News pundits only with an entirely leftist agenda.   



You and I think alike on that score. It's like "Sean" Franken and "Rush" Rhodes.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 18, 2007, 02:02:53 PM
I really can't stand Air America.  At least when I used to listen to it when Franken was on, I really despised the whole "we're smarter than everyone else" mentality.  Its like listening to Faux News pundits only with an entirely leftist agenda.   



Have you seen t he documentary about the 2004 election?

Whining sissies.

Damn - and I used to like Garafalo.  (Not unlike Belzer, Carlin and a few others, who I can no longer stomach the sight of)


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 03:31:37 PM
Most of those hosts are gone.

Maybe time for another listen?

I mean gosh, we wouldn't want to hear anyone that actually KNEW something or offered another point of view would we?




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 18, 2007, 03:37:14 PM
SPEAKING OF 2004....

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.    ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:40:22 PM
I really can't stand Air America.  At least when I used to listen to it when Franken was on, I really despised the whole "we're smarter than everyone else" mentality.  Its like listening to Faux News pundits only with an entirely leftist agenda.   



Have you seen t he documentary about the 2004 election?

Whining sissies.

Damn - and I used to like Garafalo.  (Not unlike Belzer, Carlin and a few others, who I can no longer stomach the sight of)

I used to like Dennis Miller, too, until he went NEO-Con on us.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 03:42:11 PM
SPEAKING OF 2004....

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.    ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen


Guess RFK, Jr. would be able to get the INSIDE SCOOP on all of this...I'm not diggin the picture that goes with that article,  though...Bit graphic, don't ya think?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 18, 2007, 04:48:49 PM
Quote
Damn - and I used to like Garafalo.  (Not unlike Belzer, Carlin and a few others, who I can no longer stomach the sight of)

Hmmmm. And what are we to make of a statement like this? Were you lured in by their snaky leftist charms back there in your 'youth' (what's pre-kidcarter? fetalcarter?). And so what happened was......what? You got smarter? They somehow became dumber? Or were you finally just exposed to something that struck you to the heart of your soul (such as it is).......RUSH?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 05:38:27 PM
Quote
Damn - and I used to like Garafalo.  (Not unlike Belzer, Carlin and a few others, who I can no longer stomach the sight of)

Hmmmm. And what are we to make of a statement like this? Were you lured in by their snaky leftist charms back there in your 'youth' (what's pre-kidcarter? fetalcarter?). And so what happened was......what? You got smarter? They somehow became dumber? Or were you finally just exposed to something that struck you to the heart of your soul (such as it is).......RUSH?

Excuse me, dude, but carter's entitled to his opinion without your suppositions. You have something constructive to add to the conversation? Or do you wish to just emulate the very people you are claiming to abhor?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 18, 2007, 06:59:21 PM
Quote
Excuse me, dude, but carter's entitled to his opinion without your suppositions.

Well, excuse you Dude, but when did they appoint you as God? Did anybody say that he was not entitled to an opinion? I don't think so. But it is fair to ask someone to explain why "they can not stomach" someone who they claim they formerly admired. By the by, did you find this comment below by 'the kid' to be as offensive as you found mine to be? Are you aware that it was a woman he was directing this towards?

Quote
"Knew the cu** would muddy the waters"

Can you figure out what cu** stands for or are you going to need a little elucidation from the ever-so-proper 'kid'?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 18, 2007, 08:39:23 PM
MrUtley does sometimes act like he was the forum nanny.  Beware.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 11:11:25 PM
Quote
Excuse me, dude, but carter's entitled to his opinion without your suppositions.

Well, excuse you Dude, but when did they appoint you as God? Did anybody say that he was not entitled to an opinion? I don't think so. But it is fair to ask someone to explain why "they can not stomach" someone who they claim they formerly admired. By the by, did you find this comment below by 'the kid' to be as offensive as you found mine to be? Are you aware that it was a woman he was directing this towards?

Quote
"Knew the cu** would muddy the waters"

Can you figure out what cu** stands for or are you going to need a little elucidation from the ever-so-proper 'kid'?

I can figure out that you're an asshole.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 18, 2007, 11:16:46 PM
MrUtley does sometimes act like he was the forum nanny.  Beware.

Yeah. Beware of people who challenge you to bring substance to the forum...instead of what our resident couldn't-make-in-teaching-cause-it -got hard- and -longing-for -the-age-of Aquarius-New Hampshihite brings to the table each day----what he heard on NPR or what he quoted from his favorite leftist gay blogger.

Be very ware.

Christ, we wouldn't want intellectual honesty to break out here, would we?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 02:07:05 AM
Utley,

You seem to have a problem with the teaching profession. You told the Cap that the reason he was opposed to taxing estates was because he had not been successful in collecting riches. Now, you complain that Sam left teaching for a less-than-allowable reason. Do you really think that teachers can amass fortunes large enough to be taxed on their death? Do you really think that once someone is a teacher, they must remain no matter how they feel about it? Come on! MANY folks leave teaching when the values that they began teaching under shift with the generations. And, teacher salaries are typically so low, that if you are raising a family, you are often hard-pressed to send your children to college, let alone leave them with an inheritance.

Intellectual honesty is not the same thing as not being all things to all people. Intellectual honesty is about how you present your point of view. You are more reasonable than some, but not without totally free of intellectual dishonesty yourself. Is there a mote in your eye? Do you fail to see you are human like the rest of us?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 19, 2007, 04:57:23 AM
Quote
Christ, we wouldn't want intellectual honesty to break out here, would we?

No danger of that happening with you around here, pal. None at all. Of course, you will be holding up the I-know-it all portion of the program.

Quote
"what he heard on NPR or what he quoted from his favorite leftist gay blogger."

Sorry, pal no score. Everyone has seen your type before. Just another Right-Wing cement-head posing as some sort of middle-of-the-road 'moderate' after the people you really admire (assuming, of course that there really is someone you admire more than yourself) have spent the last six years being total failures. But you keep on trying that line. You're so 'intellectually honest' you'll be able to get away with it (for about 10 minutes or so) before people catch on. Actually, it seems they pretty much have your number already...

Quote
"MrUtley does sometimes act like he was the forum nanny."

Of course there is the humor you provide, talking about your 'intellectual honesty' and all. Disguising all that 'honesty' as insult...

Quote
"instead of what our resident couldn't-make-in-teaching-cause-it -got hard- and -longing-for -the-age-of Aquarius-New Hampshihite brings to the table each day"

Brilliant, there Utley, and wicked-funny, Dude.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 19, 2007, 07:12:34 AM
Utley,

You seem to have a problem with the teaching profession. You told the Cap that the reason he was opposed to taxing estates was because he had not been successful in collecting riches. Now, you complain that Sam left teaching for a less-than-allowable reason. Do you really think that teachers can amass fortunes large enough to be taxed on their death? Do you really think that once someone is a teacher, they must remain no matter how they feel about it? Come on! MANY folks leave teaching when the values that they began teaching under shift with the generations. And, teacher salaries are typically so low, that if you are raising a family, you are often hard-pressed to send your children to college, let alone leave them with an inheritance.

Intellectual honesty is not the same thing as not being all things to all people. Intellectual honesty is about how you present your point of view. You are more reasonable than some, but not without totally free of intellectual dishonesty yourself. Is there a mote in your eye? Do you fail to see you are human like the rest of us?

For some reason, I thought the guy was a guidance counsellor or something.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 07:27:58 AM
Whiskey,

Cap teaches AP Social Studies - history, geography, sometime psychology, etc. All Sam said is, I think, that he taught in a middle school, which is a hard gig. Neither dude was a guidance counselor.

As I said, it is not uncommon for teachers to react to the lack of respect for the profession along with the low wages, by voting with their feet. They are exercising their freedoms as an American Citizen to leave when the working conditions are substandard to their liking. Certainly there are more people qualified to teach than those who actually teach. Some try it, and can't hack it. Some try it and it turns on them. There is a never-ending set of reasons why people do not teach at the low wages currently offered in most places. Lack of respect from students, parents, administrators and the community at large is a biggie.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 07:46:28 AM
Whiskey,

Cap teaches AP Social Studies - history, geography, sometime psychology, etc. All Sam said is, I think, that he taught in a middle school, which is a hard gig. Neither dude was a guidance counselor.

As I said, it is not uncommon for teachers to react to the lack of respect for the profession along with the low wages, by voting with their feet. They are exercising their freedoms as an American Citizen to leave when the working conditions are substandard to their liking. Certainly there are more people qualified to teach than those who actually teach. Some try it, and can't hack it. Some try it and it turns on them. There is a never-ending set of reasons why people do not teach at the low wages currently offered in most places. Lack of respect from students, parents, administrators and the community at large is a biggie.



Also, my kids liked to eat year round.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 08:20:06 AM
The Christian Right's Fear of Pleasure is Our Greatest Threat to Choice

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted May 19, 2007.

Here's a good article about the truth of abortion.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/51674/




Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 06:24:54 PM
Utley,

You seem to have a problem with the teaching profession. You told the Cap that the reason he was opposed to taxing estates was because he had not been successful in collecting riches. Now, you complain that Sam left teaching for a less-than-allowable reason. Do you really think that teachers can amass fortunes large enough to be taxed on their death? Do you really think that once someone is a teacher, they must remain no matter how they feel about it? Come on! MANY folks leave teaching when the values that they began teaching under shift with the generations. And, teacher salaries are typically so low, that if you are raising a family, you are often hard-pressed to send your children to college, let alone leave them with an inheritance.

Intellectual honesty is not the same thing as not being all things to all people. Intellectual honesty is about how you present your point of view. You are more reasonable than some, but not without totally free of intellectual dishonesty yourself. Is there a mote in your eye? Do you fail to see you are human like the rest of us?


Let's just say I know a lot more about the teaching profession than I have seen by the professed "educators" on this board. Many people leave the teaching profession because they are certain what their own values are---they haven't cemented their own philosophy of education. Thus, rudderless, they drift towards the rocks of dependence (administrators and school boards and the unions or the latest "experts" who will  tell them what to do).

Sheep like that get shorn or eaten---Never met an educator yet who was worth their weight in salt who didn't have a clear vision of what they were doing and where they wanted to lead their students.

And, yeah, while I am human, I'm not like the rest of you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 06:27:41 PM
Quote
Christ, we wouldn't want intellectual honesty to break out here, would we?

No danger of that happening with you around here, pal. None at all. Of course, you will be holding up the I-know-it all portion of the program.

Quote
"what he heard on NPR or what he quoted from his favorite leftist gay blogger."

Sorry, pal no score. Everyone has seen your type before. Just another Right-Wing cement-head posing as some sort of middle-of-the-road 'moderate' after the people you really admire (assuming, of course that there really is someone you admire more than yourself) have spent the last six years being total failures. But you keep on trying that line. You're so 'intellectually honest' you'll be able to get away with it (for about 10 minutes or so) before people catch on. Actually, it seems they pretty much have your number already...

Quote
"MrUtley does sometimes act like he was the forum nanny."

Of course there is the humor you provide, talking about your 'intellectual honesty' and all. Disguising all that 'honesty' as insult...

Quote
"instead of what our resident couldn't-make-in-teaching-cause-it -got hard- and -longing-for -the-age-of Aquarius-New Hampshihite brings to the table each day"

Brilliant, there Utley, and wicked-funny, Dude.


Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

TFF!!!!!! Right-wing! LMAO!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 19, 2007, 06:42:15 PM


And, yeah, while I am human, I'm not like the rest of you.

Should we say thank goodness?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 07:10:39 PM
Utley,

I haven't figured you out as yet. I'm not sure what you are. One time your posts are sincere, thoughtful and intelligent, then you come back and go balistic for no discernable reason.

And, I don't think your evaluation of the teachers in this forum is accurate. I do not know how someone who seems to be intelligent, would judge teachers on the basis of how they deal with the nin-com-poops who have posted on here. And I put that in the past tense since I notice that the second of the worst nin-com-poops seems to have faded into the sunset following the first one.

I have seen none of the teachers in here post anything about their educational philosophy, not even in the education forum. They have talked about their experiences, the challenges they face/faced. But nothing that resembles a philosophy statement. They have not discussed their practice at all. So, I don't know how you can judge them as teachers. You can only judge them as discussants in a political arena, which is NOT indicative of their teaching ability.

When you first appeared on the forum, I thought you were a teacher, but you blew that away when you started complaining about being able to leave all your wealth to your children. Teachers typically do not have enough wealth for it to be an issue.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 19, 2007, 07:34:43 PM
Quote
TFF!!!!!! Right-wing! LMAO!

Me?????!!!!! Little 'ol me??? Right Wing. Why heaven forbid! Those people are a bunch of losers. I'd NEVER be grouped with that crowd. Heavens nooooooo. I only spend most of my time criticizing everything on the left because.....well, because.....I'M SO INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!!!!! And as for my habit of insulting everyone in the name of intellectual honesty, well, hate so often masquerades as humor, don't you think?

Come on, buck up Utley. Think of it in these terms. You're part of one of the fastest growing groups in America. The "What, Me? I didn't vote for George Bush...twice....group". Well, who did you vote for since you can't seem to find a good word to say about the so-called Liberals? And don't tell us it was Harris Dickweed, 3rd party write-in candidate in you area.

Quote
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing

I can't help it. Every time I think of you and the term 'Intellectual Honesty' at the same time I just break out laughing. Have you considered changing your screen name to something like UTTERLY-HUMOROUS or UTTERLY-RIDICULOUS or something along those lines?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:26:40 PM
Quote
TFF!!!!!! Right-wing! LMAO!

Me?????!!!!! Little 'ol me??? Right Wing. Why heaven forbid! Those people are a bunch of losers. I'd NEVER be grouped with that crowd. Heavens nooooooo. I only spend most of my time criticizing everything on the left because.....well, because.....I'M SO INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!!!!! And as for my habit of insulting everyone in the name of intellectual honesty, well, hate so often masquerades as humor, don't you think?

Come on, buck up Utley. Think of it in these terms. You're part of one of the fastest growing groups in America. The "What, Me? I didn't vote for George Bush...twice....group". Well, who did you vote for since you can't seem to find a good word to say about the so-called Liberals? And don't tell us it was Harris Dickweed, 3rd party write-in candidate in you area.

Quote
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing

I can't help it. Every time I think of you and the term 'Intellectual Honesty' at the same time I just break out laughing. Have you considered changing your screen name to something like UTTERLY-HUMOROUS or UTTERLY-RIDICULOUS or something along those lines?

Get a clue.

Then come back, after you've been educated.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:30:41 PM
Utley,

I haven't figured you out as yet. I'm not sure what you are. One time your posts are sincere, thoughtful and intelligent, then you come back and go balistic for no discernable reason.

And, I don't think your evaluation of the teachers in this forum is accurate. I do not know how someone who seems to be intelligent, would judge teachers on the basis of how they deal with the nin-com-poops who have posted on here. And I put that in the past tense since I notice that the second of the worst nin-com-poops seems to have faded into the sunset following the first one.

I have seen none of the teachers in here post anything about their educational philosophy, not even in the education forum. They have talked about their experiences, the challenges they face/faced. But nothing that resembles a philosophy statement. They have not discussed their practice at all. So, I don't know how you can judge them as teachers. You can only judge them as discussants in a political arena, which is NOT indicative of their teaching ability.

When you first appeared on the forum, I thought you were a teacher, but you blew that away when you started complaining about being able to leave all your wealth to your children. Teachers typically do not have enough wealth for it to be an issue.


I guess one of the reasons your superiors let you go would be your jarring inabilty to comprehend what you read.

 
You accuse me of opinions I have not expressed. You challenge me to explain assertions I haven't made.

Now,go back and read my posts carefully. Very carefully.

It's apparent that the teacher in you needs to revive the student that may have once been there.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 08:36:50 PM
Utley,

I haven't figured you out as yet. I'm not sure what you are. One time your posts are sincere, thoughtful and intelligent, then you come back and go balistic for no discernable reason.

And, I don't think your evaluation of the teachers in this forum is accurate. I do not know how someone who seems to be intelligent, would judge teachers on the basis of how they deal with the nin-com-poops who have posted on here. And I put that in the past tense since I notice that the second of the worst nin-com-poops seems to have faded into the sunset following the first one.

I have seen none of the teachers in here post anything about their educational philosophy, not even in the education forum. They have talked about their experiences, the challenges they face/faced. But nothing that resembles a philosophy statement. They have not discussed their practice at all. So, I don't know how you can judge them as teachers. You can only judge them as discussants in a political arena, which is NOT indicative of their teaching ability.

When you first appeared on the forum, I thought you were a teacher, but you blew that away when you started complaining about being able to leave all your wealth to your children. Teachers typically do not have enough wealth for it to be an issue.


I guess one of the reasons your superiors let you go would be your jarring inabilty to comprehend what you read.

 
You accuse me of opinions I have not expressed. You challenge me to explain assertions I haven't made.

Now,go back and read my posts carefully. Very carefully.

It's apparent that the teacher in you needs to revive the student that may have once been there.

Utley, there you are going ballistic again. No, I did not need my "superiors" permission to retire. Yes, I comprehend rather well. If someone else expressed those opinions forgive me for getting you mixed up. I have always been a student as well as a teacher. So should we all be. There is never an end to the new information to be learned.

Now calm down and discuss the issues and stop going ballistic. It doesn't make you any prettier.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 08:50:53 PM
Let's just say I know a lot more about the teaching profession than I have seen by the professed "educators" on this board. Many people leave the teaching profession because they are certain what their own values are---they haven't cemented their own philosophy of education. Thus, rudderless, they drift towards the rocks of dependence (administrators and school boards and the unions or the latest "experts" who will  tell them what to do).

Sheep like that get shorn or eaten---Never met an educator yet who was worth their weight in salt who didn't have a clear vision of what they were doing and where they wanted to lead their students.

And, yeah, while I am human, I'm not like the rest of you.

This is the post that I was principally referring to. If you think you know more about the teaching profession, please feel free to fill all of us in. We are waiting on the edges of our seats. You assertion as to why "many people" leave the teaching profession may or may not be applicable to anyone here. It certainly does not apply to me. I left because my health would no longer let me work a full schedule.

It is your second paragraph that caused me to decry the fact that you are not in a position to judge the effectiveness of teachers on this forum. If you want to know what someone's educational philosophy is, either ask them or observe them in the classroom over a period of time. You can't judge that from their posts in here.

I'm amused that you aren't "like the rest of you", but wonder how you made such a judgement on a slim margin of information. You have not even been a member of the forums very long. You would rightly question a professor who would judge a student on their behavior at a rock concern, yet that is exactly what you seem to be practicing here. People are not here because they have expertise in politics, just an opinion they want to test.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:55:34 PM
No one ballistic, here. Just pointing out your incomprehension.

 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 19, 2007, 08:56:48 PM
It is your second paragraph that caused me to decry the fact that you are not in a position to judge the effectiveness of teachers on this forum. If you want to know what someone's educational philosophy is, either ask them or observe them in the classroom over a period of time. You can't judge that from their posts in here.


Actually, I can judge it, and I will continue to do so.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 19, 2007, 09:52:35 PM
Quote
Get a clue.
Then come back, after you've been educated

Get a life, then come back should you happen to develop into a human being.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 19, 2007, 09:54:44 PM
It is your second paragraph that caused me to decry the fact that you are not in a position to judge the effectiveness of teachers on this forum. If you want to know what someone's educational philosophy is, either ask them or observe them in the classroom over a period of time. You can't judge that from their posts in here.


Actually, I can judge it, and I will continue to do so.

I do not think you can. I think you are pulling my leg. That's OK, I've got another one.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 09:37:01 AM
It is your second paragraph that caused me to decry the fact that you are not in a position to judge the effectiveness of teachers on this forum. If you want to know what someone's educational philosophy is, either ask them or observe them in the classroom over a period of time. You can't judge that from their posts in here.


Actually, I can judge it, and I will continue to do so.

I do not think you can. I think you are pulling my leg. That's OK, I've got another one.

Maybe Utley posts after he's had a few drinks and has turned belligerent.  Alcohol can do nasty things to some people.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 20, 2007, 01:35:34 PM
Sam, I know all about the nasty side of alcohol. Hubby just gave it up and he has returned to being the sweetheart I married after a long spell of the nasties.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 20, 2007, 03:18:48 PM
Sam, I know all about the nasty side of alcohol. Hubby just gave it up and he has returned to being the sweetheart I married after a long spell of the nasties.

I wish you both success one day at a time.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 20, 2007, 03:30:55 PM
Sam, I know all about the nasty side of alcohol. Hubby just gave it up and he has returned to being the sweetheart I married after a long spell of the nasties.

I'm sure we can all guess what drove him to drink.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 20, 2007, 04:24:16 PM
Hi, ho, hi, ho, it's off to work we go ....
We work and slave the live-long day
Hi, ho, hi, ho.

Guess again, said Rumpelstilskin, you will never guess my name!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 20, 2007, 08:28:16 PM
Sam,

I wish you both success one day at a time.

There are more Friends of Bill on this forum than you may suspect.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 07:22:44 AM
Sam,

I wish you both success one day at a time.

There are more Friends of Bill on this forum than you may suspect.



Bill has been a good friend since 1982.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 21, 2007, 10:10:19 AM
Nat security anyone?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 02:05:18 PM
It is your second paragraph that caused me to decry the fact that you are not in a position to judge the effectiveness of teachers on this forum. If you want to know what someone's educational philosophy is, either ask them or observe them in the classroom over a period of time. You can't judge that from their posts in here.


Actually, I can judge it, and I will continue to do so.

I do not think you can. I think you are pulling my leg. That's OK, I've got another one.

Maybe Utley posts after he's had a few drinks and has turned belligerent.  Alcohol can do nasty things to some people.

Quite weak


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 21, 2007, 02:25:19 PM
It is your second paragraph that caused me to decry the fact that you are not in a position to judge the effectiveness of teachers on this forum. If you want to know what someone's educational philosophy is, either ask them or observe them in the classroom over a period of time. You can't judge that from their posts in here.


Actually, I can judge it, and I will continue to do so.

I do not think you can. I think you are pulling my leg. That's OK, I've got another one.

Maybe Utley posts after he's had a few drinks and has turned belligerent.  Alcohol can do nasty things to some people.

Quite weak

Are you drunk too, or is nasty your middle name?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 21, 2007, 02:48:12 PM
Your tax dollars at work!

WASHINGTON, May 19 — The United States is continuing to make large payments of roughly $1 billion a year to Pakistan for what it calls reimbursements to the country’s military for conducting counterterrorism efforts along the border with Afghanistan, even though Pakistan’s president decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the area where Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most active.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/world/asia/20pakistan.html?ex=1337313600&en=8d85128b70029860&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


I feel safer now.

And at such a bargain!!!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 02:50:24 PM
On Billion Dollars could buy an interesting quantity of updated maps and new textbooks for our underesourced classrooms. And, it would be a better use of the money!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 21, 2007, 03:20:57 PM
underpaid teachers, veterans benefits, healthcare for American kids...

little stuff like that


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 21, 2007, 03:40:20 PM
Quote
underpaid teachers, veterans benefits, healthcare for American kids...

So sorry, but the RW calls that kind of stuff Socialism. Can't have any of that. But throw a trillion dollars down a black hole in the desert--they will do that in an instant. Just as long as Boeing, Hughes, Halliburton et al are getting theirs.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 06:55:19 PM
On Billion Dollars could buy an interesting quantity of updated maps and new textbooks for our underesourced classrooms. And, it would be a better use of the money!

LOL

As usual, you see the bil as either/or - as it has to be spent.

Putz.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 21, 2007, 08:15:14 PM
kid,

As usual, you see the bil as either/or - as it has to be spent.

It and much MUCH more if we are ever to claim to be a just society.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 21, 2007, 08:17:55 PM
Kid,

If we have that kind of money laying around to be wasted, I'd rather see it spend on the schools - our future - than on war - our destruction!

Dumkuff!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 21, 2007, 11:25:50 PM
It's not laying around to be wasted, chumlie.  National security costs.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on May 22, 2007, 01:16:26 AM
kid,

National security costs.

We all know that.

What a shame you can think of "national security" only in militaristic terms.

When every American has access to single-payer health care,

When every child receives her/his immunizations,

When every American child attends a decent school which is adequately supplied and equipped,

When every high school graduate who is capable of attending college matriculates,

When every veteran can have access to the medical care (s)he needs,

When no American need stand on a street corner holding a sign,

When every America capable of working is employed,

When every American has access to the justice system on an equal basis,

When no American lives in poverty,

When every American is adequately nourished,

Then, and only then, can we speak of true National Security.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 07:48:48 AM
You hit a home run there cap.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 22, 2007, 12:13:35 PM
kid,

National security costs.

We all know that.

What a shame you can think of "national security" only in militaristic terms.

When every American has access to single-payer health care,

When every child receives her/his immunizations,

When every American child attends a decent school which is adequately supplied and equipped,

When every high school graduate who is capable of attending college matriculates,

When every veteran can have access to the medical care (s)he needs,

When no American need stand on a street corner holding a sign,

When every America capable of working is employed,

When every American has access to the justice system on an equal basis,

When no American lives in poverty,

When every American is adequately nourished,

Then, and only then, can we speak of true National Security.

Sounds  a lot like China. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 03:27:53 PM
Don't look in your rear view mirror...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 22, 2007, 03:31:09 PM
and you wouldn't say that if you had ever been to China...


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 22, 2007, 09:26:41 PM
This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

Bush will declare maritial law and become the dictator if we experience another national emergency.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 22, 2007, 10:58:06 PM
Weather forecasts are for a busy hurricane season, but they said the same for last year and it never happened.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 08:04:29 AM
Weather forecasts are for a busy hurricane season, but they said the same for last year and it never happened.

This year, it is my understanding, conditions are ripe for a busy hurrican season.  No El Nino.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 09:25:32 AM
Farmers in southern Iraq have started to grow opium poppies in their fields for the first time, sparking fears that Iraq might become a serious drugs producer along the lines of Afghanistan.

Rice farmers along the Euphrates, to the west of the city of Diwaniya, south of Baghdad, have stopped cultivating rice, for which the area is famous, and are instead planting poppies, Iraqi sources familiar with the area have told The Independent.

The shift to opium cultivation is still in its early stages but there is little the Iraqi government can do about it because rival Shia militias and their surrogates in the security forces control Diwaniya and its neighbourhood. There have been bloody clashes between militiamen, police, Iraqi army and US forces in the city over the past two months.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 12:27:07 PM
Don't look in your rear view mirror...

Bottom line, the dude wasn't writing about NAtional Security in America--he was writing about some other country.

True freedom includes the freedom to fail...

Shut up, now.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 23, 2007, 03:46:09 PM
Whatever you say...

...dude.






Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 04:20:10 PM
Speaking of failures and stupidity, here is Pope Ratzi the Nazi:  “The proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture,” he said in Brazil.

This guy is outright MAD.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 23, 2007, 06:44:59 PM
Quote
“The proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture,” he said in Brazil.

Well....aheemm....errrrr----maybe he was just looking at it from his own perspective. As in "Hand over the gold and the silver and the diamonds and the emeralds, you heathens, and everything will be cool, bay-bee"


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 23, 2007, 06:59:34 PM
Speaking of failures and stupidity, here is Pope Ratzi the Nazi:  “The proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture,” he said in Brazil.

This guy is outright MAD.

Three things:

1. This might hold up his sainthood.

2. I wish you wouldn't use the word Nazi so indiscriminately. It cheapens its real meaning.

3. Nobody expected the "Spanish Imposition". Or the Portuguese one, either.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 23, 2007, 07:21:44 PM
Speaking of failures and stupidity, here is Pope Ratzi the Nazi:  “The proclamation of Jesus and of his Gospel did not at any point involve an alienation of the pre-Columbus cultures, nor was it the imposition of a foreign culture,” he said in Brazil.

This guy is outright MAD.

Three things:

1. This might hold up his sainthood.

2. I wish you wouldn't use the word Nazi so indiscriminately. It cheapens its real meaning.

3. Nobody expected the "Spanish Imposition". Or the Portuguese one, either.

How very true.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 24, 2007, 02:53:04 PM

2. I wish you wouldn't use the word Nazi so indiscriminately. It cheapens its real meaning.


Kinda like "queenie".



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 24, 2007, 04:42:11 PM

2. I wish you wouldn't use the word Nazi so indiscriminately. It cheapens its real meaning.


Kinda like "queenie".



Fuck you.

Dickhead. Hope that has meaning for you.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 24, 2007, 04:53:33 PM
Utley,

Kinder and gentler, call 'em a "True Richard Cranium", and they will smile as you say what you wanted to say! Kinder and gentler!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 05:03:41 PM
Nothing wrong with being an old queen.  Jerry Falwell was probably an old queen himself. ;D


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 24, 2007, 05:20:57 PM
You're not waiting for someone to defend that, are you?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 24, 2007, 06:54:48 PM
Quote
Fuck you.
Dickhead. Hope that has meaning for you.

Oooo.... Nasty little bugger, aren't you Utley? Or is that just you being "Intellectually Honest"? What a sad little joke you are. Nothing like a quick glance at that wormy little soul you keep hidden under that faux intellectualism.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 24, 2007, 07:34:49 PM
Utley is taking lessons from Cheney and that wacko from Arizona, John McCann.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on May 24, 2007, 11:10:25 PM
Are there still people gullible enough to believe that Bush's grandstanding press conference today about Bin Laden getting operational thru the Iraq al quaeda...a replay of the "over there or over here", complete with this-just-in details..."which now can be revealed", et bloody cetera...is actually hot new evidence that the funding better go thru or the ragheads will be marching down Broadway?  As theatre noir, it's right out of Central Casting.  Tiny jaw firmed up, puzzled simian eyes piercing holes thru the dweebs perched on the metal chairs out front, I mean he's ready for everything.  The real message is clear and directed at the handful of decent GOP Senators and Representatives--get with the program or your kids will die.  Not, of course, the Holy Twins...and you won't see Barney climbing piles of rubble at some urban bomb-site, either.  Bush lusts after fresh disasters--for only another one will save his sorry ass from impeachment.  So the spinners are out on the media hustings backing his play...and if the MSM ever locates the word "ethics" in their dictionaries, maybe--just maybe--someone will be pointing some of this out before it's too late.  Imagine having a president who truly believes he's Anointed and that all words that proceedeth from his lips are Writ.  Delusional?  Pathological!


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 01:27:53 AM
prairiepop:
 
All true, exactly as you so humorously describe it. Except for one part:

Quote
for only another one will save his sorry ass from impeachment.

The sorry-ass Democrats are too cowardly to even cut off the funding for this war. Who would lead an impeachment effort?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 25, 2007, 07:30:39 AM
prairiepop:
 
All true, exactly as you so humorously describe it. Except for one part:

Quote
for only another one will save his sorry ass from impeachment.

The sorry-ass Democrats are too cowardly to even cut off the funding for this war. Who would lead an impeachment effort?

I am disappointed with the democrats too; I don't see anyone talking impeachment though.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 09:47:52 AM

Fuck you.

Dickhead. Hope that has meaning for you.

Don't like it, don't dish it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 10:11:13 AM
Quote
I am disappointed with the democrats too; I don't see anyone talking impeachment though

Well, there are some (Dennis Kucinich, etc.) but talk is about all that it is. It's not going anywhere for several reasons. It's getting late in Dubya's term and soon he'll be out naturally (we think/hope). Also, with impeachment you would have to do a two-fer. NOBODY wants the Big Dick as president. But the Dems need to start to show people that there is a reason to vote for them, above and beyond the fact that the Republicans must go.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on May 25, 2007, 12:56:57 PM
As long as the MSM journo-hookers continue to get away with pimping for Dubya and the sliming of lib-Dems continues unabated and unexamined, we can expect more jelly-legged Dems to back off from any really decisive activity in Congress.  They read the polls and tremble at the wrath of the demigods Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but they are scared to read our minds or our e-mails or our letters.  Fine, go ahead on...we'll send another message in 2008 that perhaps they will be forced to read.  Simple message, one word...GOODBYE.

Several people we know are re-registering as Independents...and if this trend takes hold even beyond our area, the shrinkage of the Democrat base may alert these clowns that folks are fed up beyond all description.  The Dems were not given a majority to flinch or flee from the wrath of our mini-me Dubya...much more was expected and certainly hoped for.   Bait and switch has apparently now become the technique back there.  A much stronger message is required next time...status quo ante  is not something you'd want to see embroidered on the edge of Old Glory.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 02:55:27 PM
Not to worry, these neo-rightie-cons are in the last "throes"...

... if you will.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 02:57:13 PM
Quote
Several people we know are re-registering as Independents

In a way I understand the Dems reticence. The Republicans have used the end of the Viet Nam war like a club (lost the war, weak on defense---blah, blah, blah) on the Democrats for 30-some years now, and they don't want to see that happen again. And in a cowardly kind of way they are still in the drivers seat on this issue. If they just do nothing at all the war WILL be ended by W's successor (if it's a Dem) and except for hard-heads among the Repubs the war and its aftermath will remain the sole property of George Bush forever. Unfortunately, how many people are going to die while they are waiting for him to leave office?
In my opinion the Dems have become too sensitive to this issue. I think that is about time for them to stand up and show that they have people who are capable of leadership---NOW. They might be right about the fact that the most important thing is to be elected (you can't do anything if you don't have the power)....but they also need to show that they have people who are worth expending your vote on and who are worth trusting with our future. They keep saying they have these kind of candidates, but this whole thing with the funding bill says to me the exact opposite.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 25, 2007, 03:16:58 PM
Good points driver.

This summer is the time for dems to buck up. I think Bush is on notice, he'll have to sell this all over again in September.

AND NOW is NOT the time to run off to find another Nader.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 04:20:34 PM
Quote
AND NOW is NOT the time to run off to find another Nader

Nope. The Republicans need to go, NOW, and stay gone for as long as possible. A third party won't have enough strength in time to accomplish that. But what kind of leadership are the Dems going to provide if they are afraid of every popularity poll that says that they have dropped by a percentage point? My Gosh, Clinton can't  seem to make a statement about anything until she gets about 40 members of her team to research it, and Obama acts like he's walking on egg shells every time he's asked anything.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 06:55:47 PM
The Democratic Party continues to fumble opportunity after opportunity to LEAD the country, because it acts out of FEAR, and it lets the REpukes set the afenda, so that it finds itself constantly in a state of reaction---instead of proaction.

The Party has the same addiction to CASH as the REpukians---and the same inability to cut itself loose from it's extreme wing of the party--the NEO-liberals, who don't understand that liberalism is about acting democratically, not just taking a stance opposite to the neo-cons...

WAKE the Fuck up and smell the coffee, Dems.


You're gonna blow it---



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: MrUtley3 on May 25, 2007, 06:57:07 PM
Quote
AND NOW is NOT the time to run off to find another Nader

Nope. The Republicans need to go, NOW, and stay gone for as long as possible. A third party won't have enough strength in time to accomplish that. But what kind of leadership are the Dems going to provide if they are afraid of every popularity poll that says that they have dropped by a percentage point? My Gosh, Clinton can't  seem to make a statement about anything until she gets about 40 members of her team to research it, and Obama acts like he's walking on egg shells every time he's asked anything.

They show all the courage of a dickhead like you. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 25, 2007, 10:48:36 PM
Quote
They show all the courage of a dickhead like you

Ohhh, Yah.......It must REALLY get you off to write something like this Utterly.....Makes you feel like a full-fledged man, doesn't it? It's a good thing that you have probably learned to type one-handed. I would guess it makes the experience so much more complete for you that way, no?

Think of you as the one it was way too easy to figure......


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 26, 2007, 07:53:10 AM
Accepting Bush as a monumental failure
May 23, 2007 - 7:23am.



Conservative Republicans finally realize they've been had

By MARTIN SCHRAM

President Bush (AP)Today we are news-trackers, hot on the trail of tomorrow's Page One, prime-time news.

And it appears that tomorrow's news may be a glimmer of good news at last for conservative Republicans who have been bitterly disappointed with what they concede, mostly in private, but occasionally in public, is the overwhelming failure of the Bush presidency: The misconduct of the Iraq war, a series of political and intelligence leadership blunders that has trapped America's brave, volunteer military in a combat mission that is not yet lost, but may never be won.

Evidence has surfaced, not on Page One or in prime time, but on page A15, the op-ed page of the May 22 edition of The Washington Post, that President Bush is reportedly working, belatedly but finally, to come up with a post-surge strategy, the so-called Plan B the administration hadn't gotten around to devising.

Post columnist David Ignatius, who is of the school that prefers hard reporting to soft punditry, wrote of this new development after talking with senior administration officials who now clearly want to get out the word that they have begun discussing what to do after the so-called surge of more than 20,000 combat troops. Soon the news will make its way to the 24/7 cable news. The surge was supposed to last just a few months, to see if it was possible to secure, at least, Baghdad.

Time-out: You are probably thinking that commons sense should have dictated that a Plan B had to be developed months, if not years. ago. You are of course right, but you are of course not president. The fact that Bush never ordered it has infuriated many former generals, conservative think-tank experts and members of Congress who supported Bush in two elections.

"The new policy would focus on training and advising Iraqi troops rather than the broader goal of achieving a political reconciliation in Iraq, which senior officials recognize may be unachievable within the time available," Ignatius wrote. "The revamped policy, as outlined by senior administration officials, would be premised on the idea that, as the current surge of U.S. troops succeeds in reducing sectarian violence, America's role will be increasingly to help prepare the Iraqi military to take greater responsibility for securing the country."

Time-out Again: You are probably thinking that training Iraqi troops to take over was what we've been told was already America's main effort in Iraq. You are of course right, but by now you know that Page One and prime-time news scoops are not always all that new. Journalists are just pleased to have been leaked upon.

New military brainpower has been infused into a White House bunker that had gone sadly stale. Bush recently named a White House overseer of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- three-star Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who had been quite skeptical of the surge idea, had urged that Iraqis needed to assume greater responsibility for securing their country.

And you don't have to be a journalist scribbling down whispered leaks to get informative hard-line news insights. A panel of retired generals offered tough but thoughtful analysis on CNN's "This Week at War" on May 19, especially on the importance of insisting that Iraq's military assume the lead security responsibility.

"I think it's absolutely mandatory that we do that," said retired four-star Gen. George Joulwan, former supreme allied commander of NATO. "I think we've had too much of a U.S. face on this. ... We should have done this six months after we entered after the fall of Baghdad. ... It's about time that the Iraqis step forward. We need to facilitate that."

To which Lt. Gen. William Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency, interjected a bottom-line reality that brought the unrelenting tensions of Iraq's civil war home to Americans: "We're not dealing with Iraqis. We're sitting on top of several sides in multiple civil wars in Iraq. So asking the Iraqis to step up is sort of like asking will the Confederates and Union leaders step up to a convention that the British have called that we ought to stop fighting after Gettysburg."

That seems to be what one of Ignatius' sources was saying: "'Sectarian violence is not a problem we can fix,' said one senior official. 'The Iraqi government needs to show that it can take control of the capital.' "

So the good news -- if anything can be called "good" in this badly bungled Iraq operation -- is that Team Bush's new whisperers and leakers may have come around to the insights of the old generals. Hopefully, they finally get it.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: kidcarter8 on May 29, 2007, 01:16:19 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/28/sheehan/index.html

YES, Cindy.  Please just go home.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 05:50:28 AM
Cindy has a whole lot more going for than lots of rightwing posters in this forum.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 29, 2007, 10:00:32 AM
Yeah, go home Cindy, the haters and all those that got it WRONG about Iraq, will never stop with their smears, their bile, and their attacks on anyone that dares to contradict their boy prez.

Go home, be safe, if that's your wish. You've sacraficed more than enough for these idiots.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: weezo on May 29, 2007, 10:11:56 AM
IMHO, Cindy Sheehan is almost as much a hero as her son. She, too, has given her best for her country in trying to guide it away from its destructive course. She has pointed out the emptiness of a hero's death, the terribly aching emptiness in her heart and her arms that will never again embrace the son she brought into this world. Perhaps we will never know what evils were threatened her and the memory of her son to appease the powers in Washington. She has done her duty to the country, and it is time for her to retire to her garden and her hobbies.



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on May 29, 2007, 02:12:39 PM
I listened to a radio program from Boston last Friday morning about the sacrifices that so many have made, and it makes your heart bleed for these families who have lost so much and for what.  Our country is less safe today than it was when Bush started this horror in 2003.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 29, 2007, 02:24:04 PM
It may seem obvious to (most) of us that Bush owns this war, but the argument WILL come that the reason Iraq is in such a mess is because the Democrats prevented Bush from "winning".

That argument will be made and unfortunately it will be compelling to many people. At the very least, it will unfairly occupy future debates about who's responsible for the situation in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

Someone please convince me that I am wrong.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Kam on May 29, 2007, 03:39:53 PM
It may seem obvious to (most) of us that Bush owns this war, but the argument WILL come that the reason Iraq is in such a mess is because the Democrats prevented Bush from "winning".

That argument will be made and unfortunately it will be compelling to many people. At the very least, it will unfairly occupy future debates about who's responsible for the situation in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

Someone please convince me that I am wrong.


Ask the people who make that argument to define what "Winning the war" would have meant.  Is it killing every last Mulsim in Iraq?  Or at least any muslim with a gun? What about the ones who want to shoot each other and don't care if we're in the way?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: Driver125 on May 30, 2007, 12:41:34 AM
srnich:

Quote
That argument will be made and unfortunately it will be compelling to many people

Good post. The one part that you may have incorrect is the word 'many'. It will be that same twenty-some percent that still (almost unbelievably) support him today. I think you write that bunch off. There will never be a way to convince them of their error nor to change their minds, and for whatever reason they ended up the way they are they are they going to stay that way. And they will continue to vote the same way (for whatever new version of Bush the RW cranks out in '08). But, as I say, they are not the ones you need to convince (particularly since you can't change their minds). There are millions of voters in play now who are moving towards the center who are up for grabs. The Right is giving them every reason in the world to vote against the Right, now all that the Left needs to do is give them some positive reasons to vote FOR the left.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 06:59:46 AM
Quote
It will be that same twenty-some percent that still (almost unbelievably) support him today.
No, it will be more than that. 


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 30, 2007, 03:23:07 PM
I'm afraid you may be right WP, the other 70-80 percent have tiny attention spans and are eager to follow like little puppies....the next IDOL....   :o


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 30, 2007, 03:26:25 PM
The numbers that feel we failed in Iraq will go up for the same reason they went up after Nam: as a nation, we don't like to think of ourselves as not able to accomplish a goal, so we look for an excuse.  Not sure any nation doesn't think that way, of course.  So we look for scapegoats and excuses.  In time, it will be the peace movement for Iraq just as it is now with Nam.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on May 31, 2007, 09:47:47 AM
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3041621320070530?pageNumber=1

Forever, and ever, and ever, and ever........................................


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: whiskeypriest on May 31, 2007, 09:52:45 AM
Ah.  U.S. troops as a permanent fixture in the middle east.  Interesting.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: liquidsilver on May 31, 2007, 10:19:14 AM
I thought we already had a permanent military base in Qatar


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on June 01, 2007, 03:08:06 PM
Where don't we have bases?

http://www.globemaster.de/regbases.html


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: srnich on June 01, 2007, 03:10:59 PM
Cool map.

http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/draft3.jpg

Nice avatar liq.   ;D


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on June 01, 2007, 06:07:01 PM
Bush envisions U.S. presence in Iraq like S.Korea

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.

The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3041621320070530?pageNumber=1

Forever, and ever, and ever, and ever........................................

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL.  THAT'S WHAT IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING. OIL.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: thecap0 on June 01, 2007, 06:44:48 PM
sam,

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL.  THAT'S WHAT IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING. OIL.

Was there ever any doubt?


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on June 01, 2007, 07:12:11 PM
sam,

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL.  THAT'S WHAT IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING. OIL.

Was there ever any doubt?

Not in my mind, that's for sure.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: prairiepop on June 02, 2007, 04:28:19 PM
It never ceases to amaze me just how artfully the administration times the release of case information.  I mean, what with the general dissatisfaction with the Eye Rack funding and the disastrous current conditions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, what better verification of "fight 'em there or fight 'em here" theory than the revelation of the JFK Airport Plot.  Mind you, this great non-story story is merely the report of a year-long investigation culminating in the arrest of 3.  The plot was terminated before even the materials for it had been acquired, time-line for attack established, etc.  One of the wanna-be plotters was roped in by an FBI sting-type informant...nice long story for the weekend coverage [in between Paris Hilton coverage and the like] and buried deep is the real bottom line:  Scare the sheep into submission & compliance with whatever might be next in the way of Total 24/7 Control.  We can next expect gasoline prices to go down, fresh naughty bits about Democrats considering the 2008 campaign [Obama's basketball photo...gee he's got sharp elbows!] and a few more "this just in" grist for the neocon mills. 

Kudos to the investigators who wrapped up the airport case--their hard work should not be utilized for further political machinations, true, but it couldn't have been timed better for Team Bush.

Meanwhile, over at CommonDreams.org and SmirkingChimp.com, we're learning what the soft underbelly looks like in real time.   


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: madupont on June 02, 2007, 05:24:28 PM
samiinh and the capO

"IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL.  THAT'S WHAT IT HAS BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING. OIL."

Gee, that is  refreshing (on a hot, humid day). But you know, your president would tell you, that it is all for your own good and that he is doing it for you because you need the oil.


Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on June 02, 2007, 06:14:32 PM

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://www.smirkingchimp.com)
78,000 Iraqis Killed by Coalition Air Strikes
By Sherwood Ross
Created Jun 2 2007 - 12:27pm

An estimated 78,000 Iraqis were killed by U.S. and Coalition air strikes from the start of the war through June of last year, an article in "The Nation" magazine says.

The estimate is based on the supposition that 13 percent of the 601,000 Iraqis who met violent deaths reported by The Lancet study released last October "had been killed by bomb, missile, rocket or cannon up to last June," author Nick Turse writes in the June 11th issue of the weekly magazine.

"There are indications that the air war has taken an especially grievous toll on Iraqi children," Turse said.

"Figures provided by the Lancet study suggest that 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 in that same period (March 2003 through June 2006) were due to coalition airstrikes."

Since April, 2003, Turse reports, the U.S. has dropped at least 59,787 pounds of cluster bombs in Iraq, a type of weapon Human Rights Watch(HRW) termed "the single greatest risk civilians face with regard to a current weapon that is in use."

The author notes cluster bombs have "a high failure rate" so that unexploded bomblets that fall to ground become, in fact, landmines which, Marc Garlasco of HRW points out, are "already banned by most nations."

Garlasco, the HRW senior military analyst, says, "I don‚t see how any use of the current U.S. cluster-bomb arsenal in proximity to civilian objects can be defended in any way as being legal or legitimate."

At a time when many nations are moving toward banning cluster munitions, the U.S. China, Israel, Pakistan and Russia are opposing new limits of any kind. At a conference in Oslo last February, 46 of 48 governments supported an international ban on cluster bombs by 2008.

The cluster bomb bursts above ground and releases hundreds of smaller "bomblets" that create a kill radius about the size of a football field, shredding virtually every object in the zone.

Aside from these deadly devices, Air Force officials acknowledge Coalition aircraft dropped at least 111,000 pounds of other types of bombs in Iraq last year as part of 10,519 "close air support missions," author Turse said.

According to Les Roberts, co-author of two surveys of mortality in Iraq published in the British medical journal The Lancet, "Rocket and cannon fire could account for most coalition-attributed civilian deaths." The magazine quotes him further as stating, "I find it disturbing that they (Pentagon) will not release this (figure), but even more disturbing that they have not released such information to Congressmen who have requested it."

Turse‚s article is titled, "The Secret Air War in Iraq," and alleges "The devastation from U.S. bombing is underreported---and may be increasing." He writes, "That an occupying power regularly conducts airstrikes in or near dense population centers should have raised serious concerns in the mainstream media, unfortunately, reports on the air war are sparse and mostly confined to regurgitations of military announcements."

"..Until reporters begin bypassing official U.S. military pronouncements and locating Iraqi sources, we will remain largely in the dark regarding the secret and deadly U.S. air war in Iraq," Turse concludes.
_______



Title: Re: National Security
Post by: samiinh on June 03, 2007, 09:07:50 AM
Terror plot against JFK Airport was busted a year ago!  Why now is it front page news?  Who is controlling the medi