OT strange coincidence of Ft. Hood shooting.
PeterL
shooting in US history.
The_LA_Flash
> the alleged shooter was a grad of VTech, scene of the worse mass
> shooting in US history.
A very sad fun fact indeed, may those good people RIP.
topcat
<briansa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBAD35B2274...@188.40.43.213...
> PeterL <po....@gmail.com> wrote in news:f1709487-5c2a-43fd-9f65-
> a06e3d...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> the alleged shooter was a grad of VTech, scene of the worse mass
>> shooting in US history.
>
> that the "crazy" Taxed Enough Already crowd and townhall brownshirts (as
> Pelosi called them) were the ones to worry about. These were the people
> who were going to go ballistic. These were the ones exercising their 2nd
> Amendment rights. These were the ones the government needed to monitor.
> But instead... who goes on a killing rampage? An Obama supporter and
> apparent jihadist named Nidal Malik Hasan.
>
> So let's hope this horrific tragedy will serve as a much needed lesson for
> the politically correct higher-ups in our government: We're not going to
> win the war on terror by allowing the enemy to be promoted up the ranks of
> our own military.
This won't teach them anything, and the fact the guy is a Muslim will pretty
much be ignored in the MSM. Even though this is the *second* case of a
Muslim soldier killing fellow American soldiers. Remember this?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/5518/troops_testify_in_grenade_attack_hearing/index.html
If this was an Christian American soldier shooting up a bunch of Iraqi
soldiers, I'm thinking that fact would probably be mentioned - like 10,000
times.
TC
Sarah B
> <briansataiem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CBAD35B2274...@188.40.43.213...
>
>
>
> > PeterL <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f1709487-5c2a-43fd-9f65-
> > a06e3d57e...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> the alleged shooter was a grad of VTech, scene of the worse mass
> >> shooting in US history.
>
> > And how about the irony... The Obama administration has been telling us
> > that the "crazy" Taxed Enough Already crowd and townhall brownshirts (as
> > Pelosi called them) were the ones to worry about. These were the people
> > who were going to go ballistic. These were the ones exercising their 2nd
> > Amendment rights. These were the ones the government needed to monitor.
> > But instead... who goes on a killing rampage? An Obama supporter and
> > apparent jihadist named Nidal Malik Hasan.
>
> > So let's hope this horrific tragedy will serve as a much needed lesson for
> > the politically correct higher-ups in our government: We're not going to
> > win the war on terror by allowing the enemy to be promoted up the ranks of
> > our own military.
>
> This won't teach them anything, and the fact the guy is a Muslim will pretty
> much be ignored in the MSM. Even though this is the *second* case of a
> Muslim soldier killing fellow American soldiers. Remember this?
>
>
> If this was an Christian American soldier shooting up a bunch of Iraqi
> soldiers, I'm thinking that fact would probably be mentioned - like 10,000
> times.
>
> TC
Actually, I've been watching the news this morning and the newscasters
mention the guy was a Muslim right off the bat. And often. No ignoring
it here, at least not on NBC...
topcat
"Sarah B" <sarah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af111c71-741f-4d5c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
*********
That's good to hear. I don't watch NBC. Way too liberal and biased towards
Obama for me. Every interview I've seen, they've been tip-toeing around the
Muslim fact and no one has even mentioned the other attack. The US military
has a problem on their hands, and no one wants to talk about what needs to
be done to fix it.
I spoke to my brother, a US Navy veteran of 14 years, retired from the
service now. He was livid that this guy was able to make the kind of
statements he made and was still in the service and allowed to carry
weapons. This guy should have been in Gitmo. Oh wait, Obama is closing that.
Does the title of this article surprise anyone?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091106/ap_on_re_us/us_fort_hood_shooting
TC
Salad
The guy was a Muslim? Where'd you get that info? Was it reported in
the MSM?
So what is your solution? No Muslims in the US Army? Kill all Muslims?
Round up all Muslims in the US?
topcat
"Salad" <o...@vinegar.com> wrote in message
news:3_udnZkSIMprpWnX...@earthlink.com...
*sigh* Does everyone notice Salad's knee jerk reactions to every situation?
Give us your solution, Mr Liberal? Is it okay to have American soldiers
killed every so often by fifth column Muslim jihadists who happen to join
the military?
TC
Salad
mention the shooter was Muslim? Maybe you need to switch to a more
reliable new station.
topcat
I watch the fair and balanced station. FNC.
TC
Salad
And it made no mention of the shooter being a Muslim? Odd. If there
were any station in the world that I would think would make hay over the
shooter being a Muslim, it would be your fair and balanced station. Asd
I noted previously, you need to switch to a more informative station.
topcat
I didn't say no mention. I said *everyone* I've seen is tip-toeing around
it.
TC
Salad
But if you don't watch biased for Obama stations and watch a biased
against anything Obama stateion, how would you know? You are starting
from a premise of ignorance and taking it further.
topcat
Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. I told you watch the fair and balanced
station. They have people from both sides of the political spectrum on it.
End of conversation.
TC
The_LA_Flash
>
> - Show quoted text -
I heard the same report this morning too.
The_LA_Flash
> topcat wrote:
> > <briansataiem...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CBAD35B2274...@188.40.43.213...
>
> >>PeterL <po.n...@gmail.com> wrote in news:f1709487-5c2a-43fd-9f65-
> >>a06e3d57e...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>shooting in US history.
>
> >>And how about the irony... The Obama administration has been telling us
> >>that the "crazy" Taxed Enough Already crowd and townhall brownshirts (as
> >>Pelosi called them) were the ones to worry about. These were the people
> >>who were going to go ballistic. These were the ones exercising their 2nd
> >>Amendment rights. These were the ones the government needed to monitor.
> >>But instead... who goes on a killing rampage? An Obama supporter and
> >>apparent jihadist named Nidal Malik Hasan.
>
> >>So let's hope this horrific tragedy will serve as a much needed lesson for
> >>the politically correct higher-ups in our government: We're not going to
> >>win the war on terror by allowing the enemy to be promoted up the ranks of
> >>our own military.
>
> > This won't teach them anything, and the fact the guy is a Muslim will pretty
> > much be ignored in the MSM. Even though this is the *second* case of a
> > Muslim soldier killing fellow American soldiers. Remember this?
>
>
> > If this was an Christian American soldier shooting up a bunch of Iraqi
> > soldiers, I'm thinking that fact would probably be mentioned - like 10,000
> > times.
>
> > TC
>
> The guy was a Muslim? Where'd you get that info? Was it reported in
> the MSM?
>
> So what is your solution? No Muslims in the US Army? Kill all Muslims?
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree with you, that is hardly a solution it did not work during
WWII with the Japanese and it won't work now with the Muslims.
The_LA_Flash
> > it.
>
> > TC
>
> But if you don't watch biased for Obama stations and watch a biased
> against anything Obama stateion, how would you know? You are starting
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've never trusted anything FoxsNews has to report too.
Salad
What does TC stand for? Scaredy Cat? IF you watch a station that feeds
your brain and not others, how would you know what those stations
report? Does your station update you on what the other stations are
reporting?
Salad
I'm sure some are saying if everybody had a piston or rifle, concealed,
it wouldn't have happened.
And who knows what TC's final solution is.
Larc
wrote:
| > The guy was a Muslim? �Where'd you get that info? �Was it reported in
| > the MSM?
| >
| > So what is your solution? �No Muslims in the US Army? �Kill all Muslims?
| > � Round up all Muslims in the US?- Hide quoted text -
| >
| > - Show quoted text -
|
| I agree with you, that is hardly a solution it did not work during
| WWII with the Japanese and it won't work now with the Muslims.
Even if this jerk is Muslim, we don't know if that's the basis for his actions.
He could be just flat-out crazy. Best to wait until all the facts are in before
we start jumping to conclusions.
BTW, there are ways of stopping such Muslim-inspired terrorist acts, but we have
neither the standards nor the stomach for doing what's necessary. Once the cost
of their actions becomes so unbearably high that they can't accept it, the acts
will become rare if not nonexistent.
There was an unconfirmed story floating around back in 1980 when Iranian
extremists were holding US hostages. Russians seemed to be immune from such
capture. One explanation was that the extremists did grab a Russian citizen and
communicated demands to USSR officials. There was some back and forth
communication, but USSR intelligence wasn't able to learn where the hostage was
being held. But they were able to arrange delivery of a nicely wrapped gift
package to the person who was claiming responsibility. It contained the head of
his brother whose genitals had been cut off and stuffed into his mouth. The
package was accompanied by a note saying that the captor could expect a similar
"gift" each week until the Russian captive was released unharmed. He was freed
the next day.
That was language the extremists understood. They may not fear harm to
themselves, but there are other people and things they hold dear.
Larc
topcat
"Bob Rudd" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.255e2d4c6...@news.albasani.net...
> In article <TfGdnYOmsuZDymnX...@earthlink.com>,
> o...@vinegar.com says...
>> What does TC stand for?
>>
>
> --
In case you missed it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KVmRtEO18k
TC
Thanatos
Larc <la...@notmyaddress.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:54:23 -0800 (PST), The_LA_Flash <Phil...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> | > The guy was a Muslim? �Where'd you get that info? �Was it reported in
> | > the MSM?
> | >
> | > So what is your solution? �No Muslims in the US Army? �Kill all Muslims?
> | > � Round up all Muslims in the US?- Hide quoted text -
> | >
> | > - Show quoted text -
> |
> | I agree with you, that is hardly a solution it did not work during
> | WWII with the Japanese and it won't work now with the Muslims.
>
> Even if this jerk is Muslim, we don't know if that's the basis for his
> actions.
He frakking shouted "Allahu Ahkbar!" before pulling the trigger.
Thanatos
Salad <o...@vinegar.com> wrote:
> I'm sure some are saying if everybody had a piston or rifle, concealed,
> it wouldn't have happened.
Sure it would have happened. But it would have ended a helluva lot
quicker and with a lot less loss of innocent life.
Well, I take that back. Giving everyone pistons probably wouldn't do
much good. What are they gonna do-- throw them at the bad guy?
Thanatos
wrote:
> I spoke to my brother, a US Navy veteran of 14 years, retired from the
> service now. He was livid that this guy was able to make the kind of
> statements he made and was still in the service and allowed to carry
> weapons. This guy should have been in Gitmo. Oh wait, Obama is
> closing that.
I talked with a DIA analyst recently and she said they routinely flag
web postings and other writings by Muslims in the military of the same
tone and tenor as this Hasan guy but they're told by the higher-ups to
ignore them because making an issue of it could be perceived as
profiling or discrimination.
We're going to end up PCing ourselves into an early grave as a nation.
topcat
"Thanatos" <atr...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-85ECEE...@news.giganews.com...
It is truly scary that we are allowing PC to cause deaths. We have to draw
the line somewhere.
TC
topcat
Thanatos
wrote:
Well, to the modern liberal, the absolute worst thing that can happen is
that someone might be offended by something. That's a tragedy of the
highest order and nothing is more important than making sure that
doesn't happen. (Unless it's a white male or a conservative-- you can
offend them as much as you want. In fact, the more the better.)
Thanatos
wrote:
Funny how Obama doesn't want to rush to judgment on an act of Islamic
terrorism on American soil-- he wants us to "wait until all the facts
are in"-- but when it comes to a white cop arresting a black Harvard
professor, it's perfectly okay to rush to judgment and say the cop acted
stupidly. No need for all the facts to be in there, huh?
topcat
And Christians, you can piss on them too and a liberal won't say a word.
TC
topcat
Just posted a new thread about that. Great minds think alike. How about Col.
Peters take? I think it's spot on.
TC
Salad
It sounds like the DIA analysts have no clout with the higher ups. "We
have a crazy, sir!" "Excellent, carry on!" says the higher up. Sounds
like some heads need to roll from up above or else the policies in
handling crazies needs adjustments.
topcat
> In article <hd3ue...@news5.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
> have taken 2x-4x stronger steps than he has and without a second
> thought.
> --
>
Here are some words I never thought I'd utter - I wish Hillary Clinton was
CIC.
TC
Ron Capik
the Democratic primary....
Later...
Ron Capik
--
Cheri
news:hd1oi...@news2.newsguy.com...
I really like that song. I had never heard it before, now saved to my
favorites.
Cheri
Cheri
Damnit, you made me LOL.
Cheri
topcat
"Cheri" <che...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hd4k0...@news1.newsguy.com...
They'll be headlining Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert next summer. That is
the theme song for the event. I think it's great.
TC
Vandar
<loads gun>
Hey TC! Can you come to the back of the barn for a minute. I have
something to show you...
Tin@
> In article <sgj8f5p4otbvpihq864rnfmehka4o1p...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Larc <l...@notmyaddress.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:54:23 -0800 (PST), The_LA_Flash <Phil3...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > | > The guy was a Muslim? Where'd you get that info? Was it reported in
> > | > the MSM?
> > | >
> > | > So what is your solution? No Muslims in the US Army? Kill all Muslims?
> > | > Round up all Muslims in the US?- Hide quoted text -
> > | >
> > | > - Show quoted text -
> > |
> > | I agree with you, that is hardly a solution it did not work during
> > | WWII with the Japanese and it won't work now with the Muslims.
>
> > Even if this jerk is Muslim, we don't know if that's the basis for his
> > actions.
>
What more needs to be said?
Thanatos
<1eae4f51-d0f3-4279...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tin@" <tinas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:18�pm, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <sgj8f5p4otbvpihq864rnfmehka4o1p...@4ax.com>,
> > �Larc <l...@notmyaddress.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:54:23 -0800 (PST), The LA Flash
> > > <Phil3...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > | > The guy was a Muslim? Where'd you get that info?
> > > | > Was it reported in the MSM?
> > > | >
> > > | > So what is your solution?�No Muslims in the US Army?
> > > | > Kill all Muslims? Round up all Muslims in the US?
> > > | I agree with you, that is hardly a solution it did not work during
> > > | WWII with the Japanese and it won't work now with the Muslims.
> >
> > > Even if this jerk is Muslim, we don't know if that's the basis for his
> > > actions.
> >
> > He frakking shouted "Allahu Ahkbar!" before pulling the trigger.-
>
> What more needs to be said?
Salad apparently requires a detailed and lengthy pre-attacl explanation
by the murderer of his motivations before he can make the determination
as to whether he's a terrorist or not.
topcat
Salad probably thinks the 9/11 terrorists were framed.
TC
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
Charlie Sheen does.
--
Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
topcat
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-FFB4B...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
Ah...so Salad is really Charlie Sheen, since there can't be two people who
would actually think that.
TC
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
Rosie O'Donnell
Oh, wait, you said 'people'
topcat
Isn't Rosie O'Donnell really Charlie Sheen only 40 lbs heavier?
TC
Salad
No solutions from either of you two idiots. Just rants.
Thanatos
Salad <o...@vinegar.com> wrote:
> No solutions from either of you two idiots. Just rants.
I gave a solution to the question asked: "Was this a terrorist attack?"
It's clear that it was. You're the one who-- because of your personal
biases-- can't seem to solve that little problem.
surfingnoreen
> In article <p7ydna_rO7F1d2vXnZ2dnUVZ_qBi4...@earthlink.com>,> > > "Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > >news:atropos-59EFAA...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > >>In article
> > >><1eae4f51-d0f3-4279-ab37-467c87ade...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
With the little information we have, it sounded like the shooter was
disgruntled about re-deployment back to Afghanistan. He had served
his time over there already. Over 30% of military personnel kill
themselves when faced with re-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104008228. I
wonder what that says about the good we're really doing over there.
The last ethical war we fought was WWII. The Gulf War was tolerable
because it was so short, even though the motive was protecting some
oil reserves. Unless the situation is bad enough to warrant a real
World War where many countries share the costs, we shouldn't be
involved in any war where we're primarily footing the bill.
Salad
So murders done for God are terrorist acts, random serial killings
aren't. Gotcha.
Tin@
He had never been deployed there in the first place. He had been at
Walter Reid.
>He had served
> his time over there already.
That is not what I've ever heard reported.
>Over 30% of military personnel kill
> themselves when faced with re-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistanhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104008228. I
> wonder what that says about the good we're really doing over there.
> The last ethical war we fought was WWII. The Gulf War was tolerable
> because it was so short, even though the motive was protecting some
> oil reserves. Unless the situation is bad enough to warrant a real
> World War where many countries share the costs, we shouldn't be
> involved in any war where we're primarily footing the bill.- Hide quoted text -
Vandar
This would have been his first deployment after having spent most of his
military career at Walter Reed.
> He had served his time over there already. Over 30% of military personnel kill
> themselves when faced with re-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan
That's not true.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104008228. I
> wonder what that says about the good we're really doing over there.
> The last ethical war we fought was WWII.
That's not true either. A group based in Afghanistan and considered an
honored guest of the Afghan government at the time killed nearly 3000
people on American soil.
There is no greater justification for war.
> The Gulf War was tolerable
> because it was so short, even though the motive was protecting some
> oil reserves.
The motive was to protect the people of Kuwait.
> Unless the situation is bad enough to warrant a real
> World War where many countries share the costs, we shouldn't be
> involved in any war where we're primarily footing the bill.
Ha! I'm suprised that one could so naive as to even think such a thing.
Following that line of thought, the Revolutionary War was unjust, which
is absurd.
Anim8rFSK
wrote:
And 40 IQ points stupider.
Anim8rFSK
<a652b4d3-2ae3-442c...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:16�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <p7ydna rO7F1d2vXnZ2dnUVZ qBi4...@earthlink.com>,
You really shouldn't provide a link that doesn't say anything like what
you claimed it does. Let's quote, shall we?
"Last year the rate of suicide in the military exceeded that of the
general population"
No rates given.
"Many officials blame the increased rate on repeated deployments in Iraq
and Afghanistan."
They're talking about the suicide rate in the entire military; not
people being redeployed.
I
> wonder what that says about the good we're really doing over there.
It doesn't say anything, since it doesn't say what you claimed it did to
begin with.
The only place I could find anything like your numbers was on a
socialist website, and they aren't saying 30% of soldiers kill
themselves when faced with re-deployment, or to where; the actual claim
is that 30% of those that kill themselves do so while deployed. Not 30%
of all the military; 30% of the military that kill themselves ANYWAY.
You know what that actually says? It says that soldiers who kill
themselves are more than three times as likely to do it while NOT
deployed.
Thanatos
<a652b4d3-2ae3-442c...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 8:16�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article <p7ydna rO7F1d2vXnZ2dnUVZ qBi4...@earthlink.com>,
> > > �Salad <o...@vinegar.com> wrote:
> > > > No solutions from either of you two idiots. �Just rants.
> > >
> > > I gave a solution to the question asked: "Was this a terrorist attack?"
> > >
> > > It's clear that it was. You're the one who-- because of your personal
> > > biases-- can't seem to solve that little problem.
> >
> > With the little information we have, it sounded like the shooter was
> > disgruntled about re-deployment back to Afghanistan. He had served
> > his time over there already. Over 30% of military personnel kill
> > themselves when faced with re-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan
Actually, here's the little information we have:
(1) He screamed the standard Islamic terrorist slogan before firing on
his fellow soldiers.
(2) He has a history of subjecting his patients to anti-American
pro-Islamic propaganda during treatment.
(3) He has posted comments on the internet justify jihad and suicide
bombing as legitimate tactics for Muslims to employ against American
soldiers and civilians.
Lots of people don't want to redeploy. They don't all also have the
personal history described above, nor do they walk into a crowded room
and scream "Allahu Ahkbar!" before slaughtering their fellow soldiers.
The guy's a terrorist. Simple as that.
Thanatos
Salad <o...@vinegar.com> wrote:
Among all your other failings, you apparently don't know the difference
between a serial killer and spree killer.
surfingnoreen
> surfingnoreen wrote:
<snip>
> > With the little information we have, it sounded like the shooter was
> > disgruntled about re-deployment back to Afghanistan.
>
> This would have been his first deployment after having spent most of his
> military career at Walter Reed.
I heard on the radio the shooter was upset about being deployed to
Iraq. Unfortunately, I assumed he had already been there based on how
many years he had served in the military. So, yes, I got that fact
wrong.
> > He had served his time over there already. Over 30% of military personnel kill
> > themselves when faced with re-deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan
>
> That's not true.
Here are some more sites which highlight the rising suicide rate among
the US military -- the highest since the Vietnam War back in the
60's. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html
"According to Army statistics, the incidence of U.S. Army soldiers
attempting suicide or inflicting injuries on themselves has
skyrocketed in the nearly five years since the start of the Iraq war.
Last year's 2,100 attempted suicides -- an average of more than 5 per
day -- compares with about 350 suicide attempts in 2002, the year
before the war in Iraq began, according to the Army.
The figures also show the number of suicides by active-duty troops in
2007 may reach an all-time high when the statistics are finalized in
March, Army officials said.
The Army lists 89 soldier deaths in 2007 as suicides and is
investigating 32 more as possible suicides. Suicide rates already were
up in 2006 with 102 deaths, compared with 87 in 2005."
"Multiple deployments and long deployments appear to exact a toll on
relationships, thereby boosting the number of suicide attempts, she
said.
Traditionally, the suicide rate among military members has been lower
than age- and gender-matched civilians. But in recent years the rate
has crept up from 12 per 100,000 among the military to 17.5 per
100,000 in 2006, she said. That's still less than the civilian figure
of about 20 per 100,000, she said.
The "typical" soldier who commits suicide is a member of an infantry
unit who uses a firearm to carry out the act, according to the Army."
"Since the beginning of the global war on terror, the Army has lost
over 580 soldiers to suicide, an equivalent of an entire infantry
battalion task force," the Army said in a suicide prevention guide to
installations and units that was posted in mid-March on the site.
"This ranks as the fourth leading manner of death for soldiers,
exceeded only by hostile fire, accidents and illnesses," it said.
"Even more startling is that during this same period, 10 to 20 times
as many soldiers have thought to harm themselves or attempted
suicide."
> >http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104008228. I
> > wonder what that says about the good we're really doing over there.
> > The last ethical war we fought was WWII.
>
> That's not true either. A group based in Afghanistan and considered an
> honored guest of the Afghan government at the time killed nearly 3000
> people on American soil.
> There is no greater justification for war.
I've said before on this group that I supported going after Bin Laden
and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we were backed by most of the world in
that mission. What upset all that was a focus on Iraq by Bush and
Cheney. Very few countries supported the US invasion of Iraq.
> > The Gulf War was tolerable
> > because it was so short, even though the motive was protecting some
> > oil reserves.
>
> The motive was to protect the people of Kuwait.
Didn't do so well protecting the people of Tibet. I'm guessing oil
had something to do with it as well.
> > Unless the situation is bad enough to warrant a real
> > World War where many countries share the costs, we shouldn't be
> > involved in any war where we're primarily footing the bill.
>
> Ha! I'm suprised that one could so naive as to even think such a thing.
> Following that line of thought, the Revolutionary War was unjust, which
> is absurd.
Oh, please. The US wasn't even a nation back then. Bottom line,
modern day warfare is far too expensive for any one country to foot
the bill. We're in debt by the trillions and counting and the last
thing we should be doing is fighting someone else's civil war in Iraq.
I maintain the rising suicide rates among front line soldiers speak
volumes on the wisdom of our being in Iraq, as it did during the
Vietnam war years.
Ryan
<sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I've said before on this group that I supported going after Bin Laden
>and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we were backed by most of the world in
>that mission.
Are you still in favor of going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan and Pakistan?
During his entire campaign Obama talked about how Afghanistan is a war
of necessity. He appointed a new commander who recommended sending
additional troups. What the fuck is Obama waiting for. Why the
indecisiveness? Is it a war of necessity or not?
Actually, the truth is likely that Obama used his "pro" war stance on
Afghanistan during the campaign as a cynical political move to
convince the public that he was not soft on the war against the
Islamo-fascist terrorists.
Maybe his true colors are coming out.
> What upset all that was a focus on Iraq by Bush and
>Cheney. Very few countries supported the US invasion of Iraq.
Are we supposed to let other countries set our agenda?
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
ATAI Bragging Rights Champion, 2006
Everything that is ever going to happen,
has already happened.
Tin@
Bob Rudd
>
> "Bob Rudd" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.255f91c16...@news.albasani.net...
> > In article <hd3ue...@news5.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
> >>
> >> > In article <hd1ar...@news3.newsguy.com>, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I spoke to my brother, a US Navy veteran of 14 years, retired from the
> >> >> service now. He was livid that this guy was able to make the kind of
> >> >> statements he made and was still in the service and allowed to carry
> >> >> weapons. This guy should have been in Gitmo. Oh wait, Obama is
> >> >> closing that.
> >> >
> >> > I talked with a DIA analyst recently and she said they routinely flag
> >> > web postings and other writings by Muslims in the military of the same
> >> > tone and tenor as this Hasan guy but they're told by the higher-ups to
> >> > ignore them because making an issue of it could be perceived as
> >> > profiling or discrimination.
> >> >
> >> > We're going to end up PCing ourselves into an early grave as a nation.
> >>
> >> It is truly scary that we are allowing PC to cause deaths. We have to
> >> draw
> >> the line somewhere.
> >>
> >> TC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > In Barack's world, that will never occur. Even Hillary Clinton would
> > have taken 2x-4x stronger steps than he has and without a second
> > thought.
> > --
> >
>
> Here are some words I never thought I'd utter - I wish Hillary Clinton was
> CIC.
>
>
>
>
Compared to who we got in the Oval Office right now, I agree with you.
She's more of a POTUS that he can even, ever, hope and dream to be.
--
Orrin Knox would make a great President.
Bob Rudd
r.c...@verizon.net says...
> the Democratic primary....
>
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
> --
>
We would have had, close, to the general election campaign that Kennedy
and Goldwater had discussed.
Bob Rudd
> Ha! I'm suprised that one could so naive as to even think such a thing.
> Following that line of thought, the Revolutionary War was unjust, which
> is absurd.
>
Again, my often repeated thought...that as a generation, Baby
Boomers...for the most part are the least heroic, most spoiled and least
likely to fight for any kind or degree of our way of life or freedoms.
Bob Rudd
@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, tinas...@yahoo.com says...
> Subject: Re: OT strange coincidence of Ft. Hood shooting.
> From: Tin@ <tinas...@yahoo.com>
He was barely out of his residency at Walter Reed. This would have been
his first deployment of any substance.
Bob Rudd
atr...@mac.com says...
While in the Uniformed Services Medical School, he often spoke about how
the U.S. was really fighting a war against Muslims/Islam. He worked it
into his medical school presentations even, according to the statements
of his classmates as reported by the Washington Post.
Bob Rudd
Bob Rudd
atr...@mac.com says...
Or a terrorist, even when he walks up to you and either shoots you or
detonates a bomb strapped around his waist.
Thanatos
<a652b4d3-2ae3-442c...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:16�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <p7ydna rO7F1d2vXnZ2dnUVZ qBi4...@earthlink.com>,
> > I gave a solution to the question asked: "Was this a terrorist attack?"
> >
> > It's clear that it was. You're the one who-- because of your personal
> > biases-- can't seem to solve that little problem.
>
> With the little information we have, it sounded like the shooter was
> disgruntled about re-deployment back to Afghanistan. He had served
> his time over there already.
You were already corrected several times when you posted this the first
time: he'd never been to Afghanistan before, so he wasn't being
redeployed. He was being deployed.
And here's the little information we have:
God's Debris
wrote:
>the alleged shooter was a grad of VTech, scene of the worse mass
>shooting in US history.
And he was an natural born American.
Salad
Are spree killers motivated by religion and serial by psychotic notions?
surfingnoreen
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:47:50 -0800 (PST), surfingnoreen
>
>
> >I've said before on this group that I supported going after Bin Laden
> >and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we were backed by most of the world in
> >that mission.
>
> Are you still in favor of going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in
> Afghanistan and Pakistan?
Yes. Mainly because we know for a fact Pakistan has nukes and at the
very least we can't let the extremists in Afghanistan empower
themselves to the point they overrun Pakistan.
> During his entire campaign Obama talked about how Afghanistan is a war
> of necessity. He appointed a new commander who recommended sending
> additional troups. What the fuck is Obama waiting for. Why the
> indecisiveness? Is it a war of necessity or not?
>
> Actually, the truth is likely that Obama used his "pro" war stance on
> Afghanistan during the campaign as a cynical political move to
> convince the public that he was not soft on the war against the
> Islamo-fascist terrorists.
>
> Maybe his true colors are coming out.
>
> > What upset all that was a focus on Iraq by Bush and
> >Cheney. Very few countries supported the US invasion of Iraq.
>
> Are we supposed to let other countries set our agenda?
When it comes to Iraq, yes. The support of the rest of the world
acted as an ethical barometer. The world supported our invasion of
Afghanistan and was opposed to the US going into Iraq. The right
thing to do would have been to focus on Afghanistan and not get
detracted by Iraq. Once again, I'm not sure how many times I need to
make this point. Modern warfare has become FAR too expensive to fight
for any length of time unilaterally. We're in the toilet because of
it and sinking ever deeper.
surfingnoreen
>
> surfingnoreen <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 8:16 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article <p7ydna rO7F1d2vXnZ2dnUVZ qBi4...@earthlink.com>,
> > > I gave a solution to the question asked: "Was this a terrorist attack?"
>
> > > It's clear that it was. You're the one who-- because of your personal
> > > biases-- can't seem to solve that little problem.
>
> > With the little information we have, it sounded like the shooter was
> > disgruntled about re-deployment back to Afghanistan. He had served
> > his time over there already.
>
> You were already corrected several times when you posted this the first
> time: he'd never been to Afghanistan before, so he wasn't being
> redeployed. He was being deployed.
And I admitted I made a mistake. There's a difference between having
facts wrong and coming to different conclusions.
> And here's the little information we have:
>
> (1) He screamed the standard Islamic terrorist slogan before firing on
> his fellow soldiers.
>
> (2) He has a history of subjecting his patients to anti-American
> pro-Islamic propaganda during treatment.
>
> (3) He has posted comments on the internet justify jihad and suicide
> bombing as legitimate tactics for Muslims to employ against American
> soldiers and civilians.
>
> Lots of people don't want to redeploy. They don't all also have the
> personal history described above, nor do they walk into a crowded room
> and scream "Allahu Ahkbar!" before slaughtering their fellow soldiers.
>
> The guy's a terrorist. Simple as that.
The shooter is still alive. I doubt he had direct connections to Al
Qaeda. If he's a terrorist, he's more of a copycat terrorist than a
trained terrorist.
Salad
Doesn't have the title, tho. Who was more Potus in your world; bush or
Cheney?
surfingnoreen
>
> >>"Bob Rudd" <bobr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:MPG.255f91c16...@news.albasani.net...
>
> >>>In article <hd3ue10...@news5.newsguy.com>, top...@aboy.com says...
>
> >>>>"Thanatos" <atro...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:atropos-85ECEE...@news.giganews.com...
>
> >>>>>In article <hd1ars02...@news3.newsguy.com>, "topcat" <top...@aboy.com>
Raising hand diligently, "I can answer that!" ;-)
Ryan
<sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 3:00�pm, Ryan <r...@idol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:47:50 -0800 (PST), surfingnoreen
>>
>> <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I've said before on this group that I supported going after Bin Laden
>> >and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we were backed by most of the world in
>> >that mission.
>>
>> Are you still in favor of going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in
>> Afghanistan and Pakistan?
>
>Yes. Mainly because we know for a fact Pakistan has nukes and at the
>very least we can't let the extremists in Afghanistan empower
>themselves to the point they overrun Pakistan.
How do you feel about Obama delaying decision about complying with the
request of the commander McChrystal for more troups? He still has not
said what he will do, nor when he will make that decision. Seems to me
that the longer he holds out, the more the enemy is emboldened by
thinking he is weak.
>> Are we supposed to let other countries set our agenda?
>
>When it comes to Iraq, yes.
What if the world was not in favor of our attacking Afghanistan?
Should we not have done so?
Israel continues to be attacked by terrorists from the Palestinian
territory. The world rebukes Israel for defending themselves against
these attacks by striking back forcefully. Should Israel listen to the
world and stop defending themselves so aggressively?
Iran has explicitly stated that they want to wipe out Israel and
appear to be trying to make weaponized nukes with missiles that could
reach Israel. We cannot get consensus from the world community for
severe sanctions against Iran. Should we not act independently or in
concert with a few other countries to try to stop them from becoming
a nuclear power?
> The support of the rest of the world
>acted as an ethical barometer.
I don't have much faith in the ethics of the world community. Just
look at the United Nations who are supposed to represent world
opinion. They have a terrorist nation on the ethics committee.
You are very naive in thinking that we should rely on the world's
opinion before making decisions about what we believe is in our best
interests.
> The world supported our invasion of
>Afghanistan and was opposed to the US going into Iraq.
And if the world didn't, that should give us pause? What if the world
said that we should not attack a whole sovereign country because of
the actions of a few terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
>The right
>thing to do would have been to focus on Afghanistan and not get
>detracted by Iraq.
You might be right but not because the world said so. If we found
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we would have been vindicated.
Hindsight is 20:20.
> Once again, I'm not sure how many times I need to
>make this point. Modern warfare has become FAR too expensive to fight
>for any length of time unilaterally.
And the world terrorist situation has become so serious that not
fighting proactively may be even more expensive.
> We're in the toilet because of
>it and sinking ever deeper.
And if someone sets off a nuke on American soil we will wonder why we
did not act more aggressively.
Some say that we had the chance to get bin Laden during the Clinton
years and as a result we had 911. I don't know if that is necessarily
true but decision making is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Ryan
Ryan
<sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The guy's a terrorist. Simple as that.
>
>The shooter is still alive. I doubt he had direct connections to Al
>Qaeda. If he's a terrorist, he's more of a copycat terrorist than a
>trained terrorist.
What the fuck is the difference? People are dead as a result of some
Islamist extremist thinking that he was doing jihad by killing
infidels. The sooner this guy is dead the better.
surfingnoreen
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:12:09 -0800 (PST), surfingnoreen
> <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 3:00 pm, Ryan <r...@idol.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:47:50 -0800 (PST), surfingnoreen
>
> >> <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I've said before on this group that I supported going after Bin Laden
> >> >and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we were backed by most of the world in
> >> >that mission.
>
> >> Are you still in favor of going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in
> >> Afghanistan and Pakistan?
>
> >Yes. Mainly because we know for a fact Pakistan has nukes and at the
> >very least we can't let the extremists in Afghanistan empower
> >themselves to the point they overrun Pakistan.
>
> How do you feel about Obama delaying decision about complying with the
> request of the commander McChrystal for more troups? He still has not
> said what he will do, nor when he will make that decision. Seems to me
> that the longer he holds out, the more the enemy is emboldened by
> thinking he is weak.
Certainly, both wars have suffered from lack of long-range planning.
Obama taking his time to make a decision doesn't mean he isn't
weighing all the options. If it took him six months to decide, that
could be a problem. If it takes him less than three months, I'll
defer that he's sorting out a plan.
> >> Are we supposed to let other countries set our agenda?
>
> >When it comes to Iraq, yes.
>
> What if the world was not in favor of our attacking Afghanistan?
> Should we not have done so?
I think you miss my main point. Sometimes there is a very clear evil
and when the rest of the world sees it, too; it provides a sort of
checks and balances. Obviously, there were riches to gain by invading
Iraq. But the world had pause about those WMDs and guess what. We
were wrong.
> Israel continues to be attacked by terrorists from the Palestinian
> territory. The world rebukes Israel for defending themselves against
> these attacks by striking back forcefully. Should Israel listen to the
> world and stop defending themselves so aggressively?
Honestly, there's never an end to Old Testament eye-for-an-eye
retaliation. So you have multiple Old World cultures going at each
other aggressively and that's why there's never an end to the
violence. Israel expanding settlements into the West Bank certainly
doesn't help matters much. To answer your question directly, yes,
Israel should stop and consider why world opinion considers some of
their actions extreme.
> Iran has explicitly stated that they want to wipe out Israel and
> appear to be trying to make weaponized nukes with missiles that could
> reach Israel. We cannot get consensus from the world community for
> severe sanctions against Iran. Should we not act independently or in
> concert with a few other countries to try to stop them from becoming
> a nuclear power?
Boy, was the Iranian situation ever mishandled by the Bush
administration in this regard. We actually had quite a bit of support
from young Iranians for America before all his heavy-handed bullying.
> > The support of the rest of the world
> >acted as an ethical barometer.
>
> I don't have much faith in the ethics of the world community. Just
> look at the United Nations who are supposed to represent world
> opinion. They have a terrorist nation on the ethics committee.
The UN Ethics Committee essentially establishes ethics code for UN
members. Who is the terrorist nation on the committee?
> You are very naive in thinking that we should rely on the world's
> opinion before making decisions about what we believe is in our best
> interests.
You've respectfully debated to this point so I apologize for meeting
you in candor...but Ryan, you are incredibly naive to think the Big
Bully method of dealing with other nations has brought us much
success. We are floundering like never before on many different
fronts. In fact, the world community was so disgusted with eight
years of Big Brother Bully that they gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize
for just having a different point of view.
> > The world supported our invasion of
> >Afghanistan and was opposed to the US going into Iraq.
>
> And if the world didn't, that should give us pause? What if the world
> said that we should not attack a whole sovereign country because of
> the actions of a few terrorists like Osama bin Laden.
Once again, missed the point about the world providing a measure of
checks and balances against going to war for greed over purpose.
> >The right
> >thing to do would have been to focus on Afghanistan and not get
> >detracted by Iraq.
>
> You might be right but not because the world said so. If we found
> weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we would have been vindicated.
> Hindsight is 20:20.
>
> > Once again, I'm not sure how many times I need to
> >make this point. Modern warfare has become FAR too expensive to fight
> >for any length of time unilaterally.
>
> And the world terrorist situation has become so serious that not
> fighting proactively may be even more expensive.
Not going to help one bit if we're defeated because we've become
bankrupt.
> > We're in the toilet because of
> >it and sinking ever deeper.
>
> And if someone sets off a nuke on American soil we will wonder why we
> did not act more aggressively.
One thing is sure, when this country is directly attacked, retaliation
will always be warranted. All this nation building crap is more
financially motivated, though.
> Some say that we had the chance to get bin Laden during the Clinton
> years and as a result we had 911. I don't know if that is necessarily
> true but decision making is not as simple as you make it out to be.
Clinton tried to get rid of bin Laden and failed rather
embarrassingly. Of course, had Rice taken that memo seriously, we
also might not have suffered through 9-11 either.
We may need to leave it as agreeing to disagree on whether world
support is needed or not. I see it as a practical and ethical
solution, though.
surfingnoreen
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:16:57 -0800 (PST), surfingnoreen
>
Oh, please. There will be a BIG difference certainly from the
standpoint of the military if a trained Al Qaeda operative was serving
as a military officer. You're letting emotion cloud your reason on
this one. I'm glad the guy is still alive so that they can find out
whether the military was infiltrated or not.
Ryan
<sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How do you feel about Obama delaying decision about complying with the
>> request of the commander McChrystal for more troups? He still has not
>> said what he will do, nor when he will make that decision. Seems to me
>> that the longer he holds out, the more the enemy is emboldened by
>> thinking he is weak.
>
>Certainly, both wars have suffered from lack of long-range planning.
>Obama taking his time to make a decision doesn't mean he isn't
>weighing all the options. If it took him six months to decide, that
>could be a problem. If it takes him less than three months, I'll
>defer that he's sorting out a plan.
He already had a plan. Now in order to complete the mission, more
troups are needed. What part of that do you not understand? Obama is
delaying for political reasons. He has pressure from the left to get
out of Afghanistan. I bet he sends half the troups asked for just to
appease his base. That is a recipe for disaster and we will end up
with another Vietnam. Obama is a good campaigner but he has never run
anything and his indecisiveness is of great concern.
>
>> >> Are we supposed to let other countries set our agenda?
>>
>> >When it comes to Iraq, yes.
>>
>> What if the world was not in favor of our attacking Afghanistan?
>> Should we not have done so?
>
>I think you miss my main point. Sometimes there is a very clear evil
>and when the rest of the world sees it, too; it provides a sort of
>checks and balances. Obviously, there were riches to gain by invading
>Iraq. But the world had pause about those WMDs and guess what. We
>were wrong.
The world had pause about those WMDs?
Really?
Where did you get that idea from?
Do you think that the world was against our invading Iraq because
they knew that Iraq did not have WMDs beforehand?
If so, you are rewriting history. Intelligence from multiple
independent sources and countries indicated that Iraq had WMDs. John
Kerry thought that they did. Al Gore thought that they did. Bill
Clinton thought that they did. Hilary Clinton thought they did.
Russian intelligence thought they did. Israeli intelligence thought
they did. British intelligence thought they did.
Please give us the credible evidence for lack of WMDs before we
invaded. What intelligence are you basing your opinion on?
>
>> Israel continues to be attacked by terrorists from the Palestinian
>> territory. The world rebukes Israel for defending themselves against
>> these attacks by striking back forcefully. Should Israel listen to the
>> world and stop defending themselves so aggressively?
>
>Honestly, there's never an end to Old Testament eye-for-an-eye
>retaliation. So you have multiple Old World cultures going at each
>other aggressively and that's why there's never an end to the
>violence. Israel expanding settlements into the West Bank certainly
>doesn't help matters much. To answer your question directly, yes,
>Israel should stop and consider why world opinion considers some of
>their actions extreme.
Last century six million Jews were exterminated by Hitler. No one did
much of anything until it was too late. Israel's population is about 6
million. They are surrounded by enemies. They just want to live in
peace. The so called settlements are being made on territories that
they obtained after they were attacked.
Hamas and Hezbollah have vowed to destroy Israel. They refuse to
acknowledge their right to exist. The leader of Iran denies that the
Holocaust existed. Iran is trying to get nukes that they can put on
missiles that can reach Israel.
You are very naive if you think that the problem is the settlements.
Israel gave up the West Bank in an effort to appease the Palestinians.
What was the result. More attacks from the West Bank.
Israel is not going to let another six million Jews be exterminated
despite what surfingNoreen thinks that they should do. They are in a
life and death struggle for their existence.
>
> > Iran has explicitly stated that they want to wipe out Israel and
>> appear to be trying to make weaponized nukes with missiles that could
>> reach Israel. We cannot get consensus from the world community for
>> severe sanctions against Iran. Should we not act independently or in
>> concert with a few other countries to try to stop �them from becoming
>> a nuclear power?
>
>Boy, was the Iranian situation ever mishandled by the Bush
>administration in this regard. We actually had quite a bit of support
>from young Iranians for America before all his heavy-handed bullying.
What does this have to do with the threat to Israel and their need to
not be passive and appeasing the enemies. They stop the settlements
and that emboldens the enemy. The enemy does not care what Israel
gives them. They are bent on their destruction. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
>
>
>> > �The support of the rest of the world
>> >acted as an ethical barometer.
>>
>> I don't have much faith in the ethics of the world community. Just
>> look at the United Nations who are supposed to represent world
>> opinion. They have a terrorist nation on the ethics committee.
>
>The UN Ethics Committee essentially establishes ethics code for UN
>members. Who is the terrorist nation on the committee?
Let's see. Syria is on the UNs Human Rights Council.
>> You are very naive in thinking that we should rely on the world's
>> opinion before making decisions about what we believe is in our best
>> interests.
>
>You've respectfully debated to this point so I apologize for meeting
>you in candor...but Ryan, you are incredibly naive to think the Big
>Bully method of dealing with other nations has brought us much
>success.
We have not been attacked since 911 until recently. Maybe we have had
more success than you think. Terrorists are more likely to respond to
strength than to appeasement.
>We are floundering like never before on many different
>fronts. In fact, the world community was so disgusted with eight
>years of Big Brother Bully that they gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize
>for just having a different point of view.
So what?
>> > Once again, I'm not sure how many times I need to
>> >make this point. �Modern warfare has become FAR too expensive to fight
>> >for any length of time unilaterally.
>>
>> And the world terrorist situation has become so serious that not
>> fighting proactively may be even more expensive.
>
>Not going to help one bit if we're defeated because we've become
>bankrupt.
Obama is doing his best to see the country go bankrupt. It is not
going to help if they drop a nuke on American soil.
>
>> > �We're in the toilet because of
>> >it and sinking ever deeper.
>>
>> And if someone sets off a nuke on American soil we will wonder why we
>> did not act more aggressively.
>
>One thing is sure, when this country is directly attacked, retaliation
>will always be warranted.
Then it may be too late. I am for pro-active measures.
> All this nation building crap is more
>financially motivated, though.w
I thought it was going to bankrupt us. Which is it?
Actually wars tend to help the economy. That is not to say that we
should have wars in order to improve the economy but that is the
reality.
Thanatos
<f3e4702f-35ac-4467...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Doesn't matter if he did or not. Not all terrorists in the world are
affiliated with al-Qaeda. Timothy McVeigh didn't have direct connections
to al-Qaeda, either, but he was nevertheless a terrorist.
> If he's a terrorist, he's more of a copycat terrorist than a
> trained terrorist.
I doubt that matters much to those he shot dead, nor to the families
they left behind.
surfingnoreen
> In article <5879dbfa-0fea-4631-b722-0f75e2ba7ca5
> @y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, sortingthings...@gmail.com says...
> barometer." The only thing that matters is whether what we, as a nation
> does, is in our own best national interests for the majority of American
> citizens.
> --
> Orrin Knox would have made an outstanding President.
"We as a nation" all depends on who is in the Oval Office and who has
the majority in the House and the Senate. Bush/Cheney never spoke for
me once in their entire eight years of office. We may have enough
nukes to blow up the entire planet but it would be the height of folly
to ever believe the US can act unilaterally without concern for what
other countries have to say. Your half of "We as a nation" did a piss
poor job in catching bin Laden, in winning the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and in balancing the budget. The other 50% of "We as a
nation" actually care about engaging the rest of the world in helping
to resolve conflicts and global problems.
surfingnoreen
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:06:27 -0800 (PST), surfingnoreen
>
>
> >> How do you feel about Obama delaying decision about complying with the
> >> request of the commander McChrystal for more troups? He still has not
> >> said what he will do, nor when he will make that decision. Seems to me
> >> that the longer he holds out, the more the enemy is emboldened by
> >> thinking he is weak.
>
> >Certainly, both wars have suffered from lack of long-range planning.
> >Obama taking his time to make a decision doesn't mean he isn't
> >weighing all the options. If it took him six months to decide, that
> >could be a problem. If it takes him less than three months, I'll
> >defer that he's sorting out a plan.
>
> He already had a plan. Now in order to complete the mission, more
> troups are needed. What part of that do you not understand? Obama is
> delaying for political reasons. He has pressure from the left to get
> out of Afghanistan. I bet he sends half the troups asked for just to
> appease his base. That is a recipe for disaster and we will end up
> with another Vietnam. Obama is a good campaigner but he has never run
> anything and his indecisiveness is of great concern.
Ryan, we already had another Vietnam in Iraq and Afghanistan about two
years ago. Neither you or I know why Obama is delaying. He may be
delaying for political reasons or he could be refining strategy. Had
there been more long-range planning, and especially with the invasion
of Iraq, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. Like I said,
a three-month delay is reasonable.
> >> >> Are we supposed to let other countries set our agenda?
>
> >> >When it comes to Iraq, yes.
>
> >> What if the world was not in favor of our attacking Afghanistan?
> >> Should we not have done so?
>
> >I think you miss my main point. Sometimes there is a very clear evil
> >and when the rest of the world sees it, too; it provides a sort of
> >checks and balances. Obviously, there were riches to gain by invading
> >Iraq. But the world had pause about those WMDs and guess what. We
> >were wrong.
>
> The world had pause about those WMDs?
>
> Really?
>
> Where did you get that idea from?
>
> Do you think that the world was against our invading Iraq because
> they knew that Iraq did not have WMDs beforehand?
>
> If so, you are rewriting history. Intelligence from multiple
> independent sources and countries indicated that Iraq had WMDs. John
> Kerry thought that they did. Al Gore thought that they did. Bill
> Clinton thought that they did. Hilary Clinton thought they did.
> Russian intelligence thought they did. Israeli intelligence thought
> they did. British intelligence thought they did.
>
> Please give us the credible evidence for lack of WMDs before we
> invaded. What intelligence are you basing your opinion on?
The evidence was always sketchy about the WMDs and even the Brits
tried to dissuade the Americans from going to war in Iraq by sending
their best agent to ferret out information -- and Tony Blair passed
the findings that nothing was suspect to Bush and Cheney and the info
was buried: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4466512.ece
Obama hasn't even come close to making the huge mistakes Bush made
which sent our country to war over unsubstantiated evidence: "The
president’s Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United
States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction called this profound
intelligence failure “one of the most public—the most damaging—
intelligence failures in recent American history."
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/tracey.html
And had George Tenet and John McLaughlin not called their scant
evidence a "slam dunk case," they wouldn't have had the backing of all
the other politicians you mentioned.
I'm fully aware of the dangers Israel faces. So you either believe
Israel has to be a bad-ass aggressor for the rest of their existence
or else ponder a different tactic. One possibility is to keep to
their concession on the West Bank even when sabotage for peace is
presented by a radical faction.
> > > Iran has explicitly stated that they want to wipe out Israel and
> >> appear to be trying to make weaponized nukes with missiles that could
> >> reach Israel. We cannot get consensus from the world community for
> >> severe sanctions against Iran. Should we not act independently or in
> >> concert with a few other countries to try to stop them from becoming
> >> a nuclear power?
>
> >Boy, was the Iranian situation ever mishandled by the Bush
> >administration in this regard. We actually had quite a bit of support
> >from young Iranians for America before all his heavy-handed bullying.
>
> What does this have to do with the threat to Israel and their need to
> not be passive and appeasing the enemies. They stop the settlements
> and that emboldens the enemy. The enemy does not care what Israel
> gives them. They are bent on their destruction. Wake up and smell the
> coffee.
The US had an opportunity for a diplomatic conversation with Iran, and
especially with a undercurrent of support from the younger generation
who were showing some favor towards America. And Bush came in with
his gun-toting, shoot-'em-up, my-way-or-the-highway approach and any
positive regard we might have had completely vanished. I guess the
connection here is one can't live by the sword alone without
consequences. Same goes for Israel.
> >> > The support of the rest of the world
> >> >acted as an ethical barometer.
>
> >> I don't have much faith in the ethics of the world community. Just
> >> look at the United Nations who are supposed to represent world
> >> opinion. They have a terrorist nation on the ethics committee.
>
> >The UN Ethics Committee essentially establishes ethics code for UN
> >members. Who is the terrorist nation on the committee?
>
> Let's see. Syria is on the UNs Human Rights Council.
I asked what terrorist nation is on the UN Ethics Committee?
> >> You are very naive in thinking that we should rely on the world's
> >> opinion before making decisions about what we believe is in our best
> >> interests.
>
> >You've respectfully debated to this point so I apologize for meeting
> >you in candor...but Ryan, you are incredibly naive to think the Big
> >Bully method of dealing with other nations has brought us much
> >success.
>
> We have not been attacked since 911 until recently. Maybe we have had
> more success than you think. Terrorists are more likely to respond to
> strength than to appeasement.
Rooting out terrorists and the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been
enough of a show of strength if the US had made it the main focus.
Iraq was a disastrous diversion which will give us two Vietnams for
the price of one.
> >We are floundering like never before on many different
> >fronts. In fact, the world community was so disgusted with eight
> >years of Big Brother Bully that they gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize
> >for just having a different point of view.
>
> So what?
And your response is so telling on why Americans are so hated by the
rest of the world. You get quite a bit more cooperation with respect
rather than disdain.
> >> > Once again, I'm not sure how many times I need to
> >> >make this point. Modern warfare has become FAR too expensive to fight
> >> >for any length of time unilaterally.
>
> >> And the world terrorist situation has become so serious that not
> >> fighting proactively may be even more expensive.
>
> >Not going to help one bit if we're defeated because we've become
> >bankrupt.
>
> Obama is doing his best to see the country go bankrupt. It is not
> going to help if they drop a nuke on American soil.
No one is going to drop a nuke on American soil anytime soon. The
terrorists got a first-hand show of what happens when planes are used
as bombs and they won't want the retaliation for anything bigger. My
guess is the big plan is to continue to engage the Americans until we
go bankrupt. No better way to take down a Superpower really. Worked
really well when weakening the former Soviet Union.
> >> > We're in the toilet because of
> >> >it and sinking ever deeper.
>
> >> And if someone sets off a nuke on American soil we will wonder why we
> >> did not act more aggressively.
>
> >One thing is sure, when this country is directly attacked, retaliation
> >will always be warranted.
>
> Then it may be too late. I am for pro-active measures.
>
> > All this nation building crap is more
> >financially motivated, though.w
>
> I thought it was going to bankrupt us. Which is it?
> Actually wars tend to help the economy. That is not to say that we
> should have wars in order to improve the economy but that is the
> reality.
War is only profitable in the short-term and only to a few chosen
companies and defense contractors. The cost of war far outweighs the
benefits. I already made the argument on another thread on how
unprofitable war really is. Weapons are built to be destroyed. Plus
there are lifetime costs to support maimed veterans, war widows, VA
Hospitals, and VA benefits. You get a far better return if we spend
our money on building roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals than on
unnecessary wars.
Thanatos
<09524b02-461c-43c5...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Obama is doing his best to see the country go bankrupt. It is not
> > going to help if they drop a nuke on American soil.
>
> No one is going to drop a nuke on American soil anytime soon.
So your strategy is to wait until "soon" arrives before addressing the
issue?
surfingnoreen
>
> surfingnoreen <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Obama is doing his best to see the country go bankrupt. It is not
> > > going to help if they drop a nuke on American soil.
>
> > No one is going to drop a nuke on American soil anytime soon.
>
> So your strategy is to wait until "soon" arrives before addressing the
> issue?
We addressed the issue when the first bomb was dropped on
Afghanistan. Our retaliation was swift and fierce along with the
blessings of the rest of the world. The real threat Saddam presented
to the US was his decision to switch the oil transaction currency
standard to euros and the fear other Middle East nations would follow.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707 from a more standard source
and http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html from a more
radical source.
In the short term, the US needs to refocus on paying down our debt so
that China and Japan don't own over 50% of our asses. That might mean
cutting our loses in Iraq and taking on one war rather than two.
Bob Rudd
65b19e...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, sortingt...@gmail.com
says...
They were elected by a majority of Americans and spoke for everyone one
of us, whether you personally agreed with them or not. Same as Obama
now. The difference is how much more dangerous Obama is for America.
Scarlett
Agreed. But he isn't a very smart terrorist to open fire on the military.
What is next, the police station? If he was a terrorist that infiltrated
the military, he could have done far more damage by quietly going about his
"mission" than opening fire on his fellow soldiers.
--
Scarlett
When I want your opinion, I'll remove the duct tape.
Thanatos
<ae957ed4-d361-46dd...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:08�am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <09524b02-461c-43c5-9f0a-6a18a4a13...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �surfingnoreen <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Obama is doing his best to see the country go bankrupt. It is not
> > > > going to help if they drop a nuke on American soil.
> >
> > > No one is going to drop a nuke on American soil anytime soon.
> >
> > So your strategy is to wait until "soon" arrives before addressing the
> > issue?
>
> We addressed the issue when the first bomb was dropped on
> Afghanistan.
Really? You might want to tell the Iranians. I don't think they got the
message.
surfingnoreen
>
>
>
>
>
> surfingnoreen <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 5:08 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <09524b02-461c-43c5-9f0a-6a18a4a13...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > surfingnoreen <sortingthings...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Obama is doing his best to see the country go bankrupt. It is not
> > > > > going to help if they drop a nuke on American soil.
>
> > > > No one is going to drop a nuke on American soil anytime soon.
>
> > > So your strategy is to wait until "soon" arrives before addressing the
> > > issue?
>
> > We addressed the issue when the first bomb was dropped on
> > Afghanistan.
>
> Really? You might want to tell the Iranians. I don't think they got the
> message.
We'll always have this fundamental disagreement about preemptive
strikes. War carries far too many long-term consequences and drains
resources too quickly for it to be used preemptively. The immediate
fire is not Iran. The immediate fire is Afghanistan and our national
debt.
Thanatos
<a42f1e0b-7c75-4340...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
surfingnoreen <sortingt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, hopefully you'll never see an even more immediate (and literal)
fire due to your attitude.
Scarlett
I'm going to take my pistol and go next door and shoot my neighbor. I don't
like her at all, and I'm pretty darn sure she pulled up my flowers last
year, and I KNOW she planted that damn crawling prickly vine that keeps
coming over in my yard. Plus, she is Catholic, and I'm not.
What?