Obama is doing a job.

POSTED BY: OPPYH
UPDATED: Thursday, July 2, 2009 13:59
VIEWED: 13329
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

OPPYH

Sunday, June 21, 2009 6:02 PM

I'll have to eat my words. Being an adamant supporter of Hillary Clinton. It was quite a tough pill to swallow when Obama beat her for the democratic front runner.

That being said, I admire most of his ideas. Although it may take a while to see most come to fruition. Just give him time.

It's better to have many ideas, and get half of them realized, then no ideas except for a war in Iraq.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 21, 2009 6:32 PM

I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, June 21, 2009 6:38 PM

I disagree.

I rate him as about 40% below minimum acceptable parameters.

While that's better than anyone who ran against him might have gotten, it's still a piss poor job in my eyes.

-F

OPPYH

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I disagree.

I rate him as about 40% below minimum acceptable parameters.

While that's better than anyone who ran against him might have gotten, it's still a piss poor job in my eyes.

-F

"Piss poor"? How so? He has a lot on his plate. It's going to take some time. Our country is damaged. You can't just snap your fingers, and expect it to be be all better.

OPPYH

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.

The laughing Chrisisall

He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?

KWICKO

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:11 PM

My beef with him is that he's waffling on things he has absolutely no need to waffle on. There ARE things he can do, and he just isn't, in too many cases, or is doing half-assed sorry compromises on them when there's no need. He was voted in with a pretty solid mandate ("Change"), and he's got an all-but-filibuster-proof majority, and all we're getting is more of the same.

I supported him, I *STILL* support him, but I'm more than a little disappointed at the same time. It doesn't mean I wish I'd voted differently; it means I wish Obama had done some things differently.

And yes, Oppyh, he has a lot on his plate, and he was handed a shit sandwich as well - but that's never been an acceptable excuse. It wasn't acceptable for the previous administration, so I'm not giving Obama a pass just because it's a tough job. It's SUPPOSED to be a tough job! Everyone knows that going in, or at least they damned well should!

Quote:

He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?

Well, no... he isn't idle, but being seen a lot and looking busy isn't the same thing as actually DOING something. Anyone who's ever worked in an office can attest to that.

And if you've ever been promoted into a new position or hired on in a new job where you have responsibility to make things happen, you know that you have a short "golden time" where you're given a whole lot of leeway to enact new policies and try new things - if they work, you're a hero, and if they don't, well... you tried something new. After a bit, though, you're no longer the new hotshot, so your ideas don't have the same luster to them, and you're just another guy showing up for work and taking home a check.

Obama's been in less than six months, but it's often the first hundred days that set the tone, and where the most sweeping changes can take place. My fear is that Obama squandered his political capital by waffling, and when he decides he wants to really DO something, it may well be too late; the people and the Congress may no longer be under his spell by then.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:19 PM

Oh I am well aware - remember, I was the one who said we should hand him a mop immediately after he took the oath of office.

The bailouts were a jackass move, as is not at LEAST cutting back (preferably off) foreign aid, most especially to our so-called-ally Israel, his healthcare plan is a freakin disaster, and he was a dimwit to let Hillary write it cause of her connections with that industry...
(No matter where the trail "officially" leads, Hillary wrote it, believe it.)

Not getting us the hell OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq, something which could be done in 72 hours under the worst-case GOTH plan devised by Gates.

Failure to slash a lot of really obvious waste and pork in the budget despite a massive deficit and enough political cred to have gotten away with it.

And most importantly, A number ONE priority in my opinion, not putting a fucking leash on the goddamn alphabet boys even if it takes military intervention to do it.

And I am a little upset at the non rightwing media for not being critical enough, but he's got them over a barrel with some of the serious crap they did (pay for play editorials, fake "news" stories, direct shilling, etc) to sychophantically suck the bushcock, so they HAVE to suck up to him or face the hammer - slick, smart move, but I don't have to like it, no.

He needs to step up his game if he wants to convince me he's not just another mouthpiece for the slimy chicago political machine dating back to the days of Tammany Hall.

There's few enough folk in our Gov at all that impress me as respectable folk - Gates, for example, although I am sorely pissed over letting that murderous asswipe McChrystal take charge, seniority or not - and in order to join that Obamalamadingdong is gonna have to come up with prettier rabbits out of that hat than he already has done.

-F

OPPYH

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:23 PM

Obama's health care reform is a HUGE step in the right direction. This is no small, petty plan to please the a few people. This will change America for the better(much better).

This is something that has needed fixing since the 80's. Surely you agree with this.
It proves he is going to try to re-structure America out of Iron, not cardboard.

KWICKO

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Obama's health care reform is a HUGE step in the right direction. This is no small, petty plan to please the a few people. This will change America for the better(much better).

This is something that has needed fixing since the 80's. Surely you agree with this.
It proves he is going to try to re-structure America out of Iron, not cardboard.

Thing is, there ISN'T *a* single, all-encompassing plan that I've seen yet. There's everybody and their lobbyist writing their own damn plan, and none of them mesh or jibe with each other so far. And NOBODY seems to give a rat's ass about bringing the single-payer option to the table. Lots of them agree that it would be a better system, but claim that they don't have the votes, even before trying to put it up to a vote or talking about it in committee or anywhere else.

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

OPPYH

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:33 PM

Quote:

Obama's been in less than six months, but it's often the first hundred days that set the tone, and where the most sweeping changes can take place. My fear is that Obama squandered his political capital by waffling, and when he decides he wants to really DO something, it may well be too late; the people and the Congress may no longer be under his spell by then.

Mike

The first hundred days do set the tone, and he has made some poor choices in areas that have no relevance to helping our nation. But I feel he is learning a lot as he goes. It is a monumental job to change things for the better, but I think he will do just that.
I'm almost positive he will be elected for a second term. He has plenty of time to fix America.

OPPYH

Sunday, June 21, 2009 7:41 PM

Quote:

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike

I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

Ayup. And I've been following this pretty closely. Congress is declaring it "universally agreed" that this is the way to go - meaning, of course, that the health care industry and insurance lobbyists agree. Obama campaigned against this approach, but recently stated he's ready to reverse his position and sign whatever congress dishes up (there's a shocker). Unless he reads my remarkably eloquent and persuasive letter soon, it's exactly what we're going to get.

It's not that Obama isn't changing things fast enough. As is all too common with modern politics, doing nothing would be better than most of the "changes" he's acting on.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people.

I hope not- I live in Mass, & if that's the plan for the country, then God help us all.

The laughing Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, June 21, 2009 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

Then better get to sandbaggin it, quick...

Cause this is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the ruinous, useless, complete fucking scam that is auto insurance.

Having been screwed near unto death (and this is NOT rhetoric, but let's not go there now) by both industries in the name of profit, I have a dim view of the idea of "insurance" to begin with, as in essence and actual practice it's not much more than a protection racket once it's legally mandatory.

-F

KWICKO

Sunday, June 21, 2009 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:

You know what we're going to get? We're going to get "universal" health care in the sense that Massachusetts got it under Romney: A law that says you have to carry health insurance, but no incentive for the insurance industry to make such health insurance decent in scope or affordable in practice for huge numbers of people. In other words, you'll pay more than you do now, your employer will pay less, and you'll likely get worse coverage than whatever measly plan you may already have. Unless you're poor - then you can get a waiver and opt out of coverage. Gosh, pinch me now; I must be dreaming...

Mike
I swear to God, that is the scariest assessment of a health care plan I've ever heard. Crap, if that's how it plays out I'll move to Canada so damn fast.

That's what has me so damn scared about Obama. You know me - well, as much as we can "know" each other on a fan board, I guess. You know I was one of Obama's biggest supporters around here. You know I still like the guy; he's charming as hell. I'd LOVE for him to really do some great things for this country; hell, just being elected President is a pretty amazing thing, really, when you think about it.

But some of his weak-willed compromises aren't compromises to political parties or compromises in the interest of bipartisanship - they're compromises purely driven by greed and profit, and they're not designed to actually HELP the American people in any conceivable way, but rather to help the ultra-rich and the corporations once again line their pockets at the expense of the working class.

THAT is the thing I fear most about Obama. I don't worry that he's a socialist - I worry that he's more capitalist than anyone can imagine, and that he's only selling us the image of the socialist reformer.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
this is EXACTLY how we got stuck with the ruinous, useless, complete fucking scam that is auto insurance.

Absolutely.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

THAT is the thing I fear most about Obama. I don't worry that he's a socialist - I worry that he's more capitalist than anyone can imagine, and that he's only selling us the image of the socialist reformer.

Positively.

The laughing Chrisisall

PIRATENEWS

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:33 AM

Obama's Jewish Polish advisor Zbigniew Brezinski founded AllCIAduh, hanging out with CIA employee USAma Bin Laden in Pakistan

There were several superior candidates for president in 2008, who were actually US citizens. McCain wasn't one of them. Neither was Billary "Clinton" Blythe Rockefeller.

Millions of people rate Hussein Obama Soetoro a big fat ZERO. Actully negative, since he's not even president and is an illegal alien traitor. He spent onver $1-million in court refusing to show his birth certificate. "Obama" represents the total decapitation of USA by the NWO, something Jr Bush tried to do on 9.11 but failed.
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1

Every person who supports Hussein Obama Soetoro is also guilty of treason, which carries a death penalty, one way or another. Either by arrest, trial and sentence, or by civil war, or by genocide.

If you want to know what "his" socialized medical cartel will be like, ask the military. I've been waiting on a VA doctor appointment for 13 years. The only VA doc in TN that does private radiation testing is from Pakistan. Over 700,000 US soldiers in the 18-year Iraq War are now paid disability pensions, mostly due to sabotaged vaccines. Try living on $100/month, which is more than most disabled soldiers are paid.

Quote:

"Obama is a radical Communist. He's going to destroy this country, and we're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
-Ambassador Alan Keyes PhD, candidate for president in 2008
www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

"Yes we can, thank you Satan."
-President Hussein Obama, acceptance speech in Chicago, November 4, 2008
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37513&m=688607
MP3: www.archive.org/details/ObamaInauguralMashup/

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:49 AM

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 22, 2009 8:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I wouldn't say "great", but he's still the best choice we had.

He wasn't the best choice we had. He was the best choice the two party system let us have.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]

[audience gasps in terror]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.

Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]

-- "Treehouse of Horror VII"

I think the last election in Peru allowed Peruvians to choose amongst something like 42 candidates for president. Then they had a run-off election amongst the top 3 candidates. Sure, the assholes always end up winning, but at least there is some semblance of choice.

We don't even have that anymore.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 22, 2009 9:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
He certainly isn't an idle president. He hasn't even been in office for a year yet. You can't expect "change" in a 6 month period can you?

Except NOT doing anything (no change) would have been better than what he's done. The complaint is NOT that he isn't improving things fast enough. The complaint is that he is making things worse than before!

Let's recap, shall we? (Read the following and imagine how you would feel if it were McCain who were doing it instead of Obama. Incidentally, the following quotations come from fellow liberals.)

Quote:
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley: "Well it can't get any worse: extreme executive privilege arguments in court, withholding of abuse photos, adoptions of indefinite detentions without trial, restarting military commissions, and blocking any torture investigation. Welcome to Bush 2.0..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/a-war-on-terror-by-any-ot_b_
204887.html

1. Sovereign Immunity: Instead of reversing the broad surveillance powers Bush enacted ("state secrets"), or at least not changing them, Obama has added a new executive power called "sovereign immunity." That's right. His DOJ defends Bush policies, and then adds one worse.

Quote:
In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/obama/index.html

2. Secrecy Law. Instead of opposing it, or at least abstaining from it, Obama is supporting a bill that would keep detainee abuse photos from being released. Thankfully, his fellow Democrats are opposing him and blocking this bill.

Quote:
The photo suppression bill is an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses. It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even if you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don't see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what's best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/house-liberals-trying-block-ob
ama-backed-foia-exemption-torture-photos

Quote:
Exactly. We already have a law in place -- FOIA -- that is incredibly permissive in what it allows the government to keep secret... But passing a new law because you don't want to abide by the old one and because courts have rejected the President's claimed powers was one of the most defining and abusive strategies of the Bush administration....

The issue is not whether disclosure of these photographs will produce value... The issue is whether or not you believe in transparency in government (a major plank of Obama's campaign), and whether you want the President to have the unilateral, unreviewable power to simply decree that the 4o-year-old FOIA law need not be complied with when it comes to all photographic evidence of detainee abuse.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/05/photos/index.html

3. Indefinite preventative detention. Instead of releasing Gitmo detainees as he campaigned, or at least detaining them without good cause as Bush did, Obama is instituting a new policy to justify such detentions and carry them out indefinitely.

Quote:
It's important to be clear about

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

6IXSTRINGJACK

Monday, June 22, 2009 12:37 PM

ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 22, 2009 4:20 PM

In the interest of clarity, this site seems to track things relatively accurately:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It's not quite as bad as some of us pretend, but it's hardly the sweeping change that was supposedly his mandate.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

SERGEANTX

Monday, June 22, 2009 5:05 PM

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGNoJqVBrCNNa8y75cZS
59Go96FgD98VMGMO0"]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...Go96FgD98VMGMO0

Quote:
No health care? Expect a requirement to get it
By LIZ SIDOTI – 5 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Don't have health insurance? Don't want to pay for it? Too bad.
It's looking like President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are going to require you to pick up the bill.
In Washington-speak, it's called an individual mandate — or a requirement that people who don't already have health insurance to purchase it, much like most states require drivers to have automobile insurance.
Obama long has been wary of the idea, arguing that people cannot be required to buy coverage if they can't afford it. His plan during the presidential primary didn't require all adults to have coverage, only children. He and then-rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who backed a universal requirement, sparred repeatedly over the issue.
Now in the White House, Obama has set in motion steps toward his broad goal of making health care more affordable, improving quality of care and expanding coverage. Says Obama: "We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children."
He largely has left it to the House and Senate to work it out.
But in recent weeks, Congress signaled that legislation overhauling health care was all but certain to require that people have insurance. Of course, details about how to implement such a mandate must be worked out — and there are many — but the overall concept increasingly seems on track to be included in any sweeping health care overhaul that makes its way to Obama's desk.
The president's support for the requirement is recent — and conditional.
In a letter in early June, he told key Senate Democrats writing legislation that he was willing to consider their ideas for "shared responsibility," requiring people to have insurance with employers sharing in the cost. "But," he added, "I believe if we are going to make people responsible for owning health insurance, we must make health care affordable."
He went a smidgen further last week.
"I am confident in our ability to give people the ability to get insurance," he told doctors. Thus, he said: "I am open to a system where every American bears responsibility for owning health insurance, so long as we provide a hardship waiver for those who still can't afford it."
Obama also indicated that if he were giving a little, insurance companies eager for new customers must as well, and called on them to stop denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Said Obama: "The days of cherry-picking who to cover and who to deny — those days are over."
Even before the president took office in January, the insurance industry, which killed former President Bill Clinton's health care overhaul, indicated it was willing to accept that trade-off, making a mandate all the more likely.
Democrats have opposed such a mandate in previous years, fearing it would disadvantage the poor. In fact, it was Republicans, including 1996 presidential nominee and former Sen. Bob Dole, who pushed the idea in the 1990s.
These days, it's hard to find many opposed to a requirement.
Insurers like it: A mandate means a ready pool of new customers. Businesses back it: They say employers alone shouldn't shoulder the responsibility to pay for coverage. Hospitals cheer such a provision: They're tired of absorbing the costs of the uninsured seeking medical attention. Doctors support it: They want to stop providing services for free. And advocates for the poor are conditionally favorable: They want adequate subsidies and so-called hardship waivers.

This particular part infuriates me. It's the epitome of "corporatism". Clearly, the only entities that matter in this debate are large organized interest groups. And the fucking press just falls in line with this shit.

I heard a program on NPR last week, with a mouthpiece for the Massachusetts insurance slavery system br

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
In the interest of clarity, this site seems to track things relatively accurately:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

It's not quite as bad as some of us pretend, but it's hardly the sweeping change that was supposedly his mandate.

I beg to differ.

As an example, here is what they said about his promise of habeas corpus.

Quote:
Still, Obama is essentially saying that some prisoners will face neither courts nor military commissions of any sort, but will be imprisoned anyway. This is not a good sign for him keeping his promise on habeas corpus for enemy combatants. So we rate the promise Stalled.

Uh, hello?! Imprisoned anyway? That isn't a stalled habeas corpus. That is a broken promise, period. These folks are rating his broken promises with a great deal of wishful thinking.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:00 AM

Oh, come on now, CTS - I'm sure the process is just stalled. And I've no doubt they'll get around to habeas in... oh... 40 to 50 years.

Yeah, for anyone who couldn't detect the sarcasm, I'm pretty damned disgusted with Obama's treatment of detainees. If you don't have evidence - hell, in this day and age, if you can't even MANUFACTURE some decent evidence - you need to damn well let the bastards go.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:16 AM

Fair enough guys. I missed that one.

I think there are two aspects surrounding this issue that Obama didn't count on.

At this point I think he's mostly worried about the fallout of releasing prisoners who have been tortured. Are they going to promise not to tell anyone about it? No, they'll sing it from the rooftops and fill the tabloids (and the rare MSM media with the balls to publish it) with stories of US depravity.

There's also probably plenty of evidence against some of these guys. But substantiating it would reveal the deplorable lengths we went to to get it. They'd also likely spill the beans on spying that the could kick off nasty responsess, here and abroad. Obama want's neither on his watch.

Also, he's a lying piece of shit. But you know, "politician".

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
At this point I think he's mostly worried about the fallout of releasing prisoners who have been tortured. Are they going to promise not to tell anyone about it? No, they'll sing it from the rooftops and fill the tabloids (and the rare MSM media with the balls to publish it) with stories of US depravity.

It boils down to accountability, period. Everybody (except maybe Rap and folks like him) knows we did a bad thing in torturing folks. Now with any bad deed, the question is do we hide it or do we own up to it? This is elementary morality, the kind of lecture you give to an 8 year old who broke Mrs. Johnson's window.

The norm in our society is to tell the 8 year old to confess the deed to Mrs. Johnson, apologize deeply, and pay for the damage. It is the mature thing to do.

The message Obama is sending by hiding the torturers from accountability is this: Torture is justified and sanctioned, if not legal, in the USA. We will not denounce it, we will not apologize, and we certainly will not make things right.

What do you think harms our international image more? Allowing details of torture to go public with an apology for the former administration, or protecting the torturers and continuing to detained the tortured? Obama had a golden window to make things right, to let people know we are under new management, and he peed on it.

He did exactly what everyone thought McCain would have done.

Come to think of it, his health care reform is going the same direction too--doing what everyone thought McCain would have done.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:15 PM

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:17 PM

ROFL!!!!

I love it.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:01 PM

Healthcare is ...(cough, cough) very important!

On another note....what's he going to do with the increasing North Korean taunts aimed at him? Obama's taken more shit from Kim Jong Il than he has from anyone else. We've got a ship tracking their cargo ship to Myanmar. We have UN approval "to ask them to board", but not to actually board. If they just say no, will he go ahead and board it anyhow? Should he? What about the July 4th missile surprise Kim has announced? There are people on TV talking about war. Kim has already declared the 1953 cease-fire truce void, so technically we are at war. What if his missiles actually hit something, here or in S. Korea or Japan? Then what? What if China backs N. Korea like they'd likely do? What could/would Obama do?

And speaking of July 4th, the White House says it's still a go to have Iranian officials invited to participate and enjoy the holiday. I can just imagine the gentle arm nudging while chompin' on their corn on the cob....So Ali, buddy, if you release all the journalists, students, and professors that you just beat to a pulp and locked up, and you promise to only shoot people in the head "off camera"...then we can talk about a deal with your nuclear weapons program. Hey, pass the cole slaw.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Healthcare is ...(cough, cough) very important!

I agree with you - tobacco should be outlawed! Cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, snuff, pipe tobacco, roll-your-own... they should all be listed as controlled substances, and sold only by prescription! Adults should NEVER be allowed to make their own decisions or accept responsibility for their own actions, especially when it comes to things like tobacco and alcohol!

Quote:

On another note....what's he going to do with the increasing North Korean taunts aimed at him?

Probably about the same thing that's been done with the "North Korean taunts" for the past 50 years or so.

Quote:

Obama's taken more shit from Kim Jong Il than he has from anyone else.

Actually, Dick Cheney has talked more un-American crap than anyone else in the world since January 20, 2009. Kim-Jong Il is a rank amateur in comparison.

Quote:

We've got a ship tracking their cargo ship to Myanmar. We have UN approval "to ask them to board", but not to actually board. If they just say no, will he go ahead and board it anyhow?

To do so would be tantamount to an act of war against North Korea, just as much as if THEY did that to one of OUR ships in international waters.

Quote:
Should he? What about the July 4th missile surprise Kim has announced?

What about it? What did we do about it last year when it happened? Is there a reason we should do more this year?

Quote:
There are people on TV talking about war.

There always are. But it doesn't mean that war is always the answer.

Quote:
Kim has already declared the 1953 cease-fire truce void, so technically we are at war.

As we have been for the last 56 years. Technically, we've been "at war" with North Korea since the cease-fire was agreed to.

Quote:

What if his missiles actually hit something, here or in S. Korea or Japan? Then what? What if China backs N. Korea like they'd likely do? What could/would Obama do?

What if you get hit by a car getting out of your bed? What if you get food poisoning from your Pop-Tarts? What if? What if? What if?

As for what Obama would likely do, I'm sure he'd respond appropriately. I'm not at all convinced that China would back North Korea. We're a bit more important to them than Kim is, I'm afraid. For all their shared communist ideology, the Chinese really DO seem to like American cashy money quite a bit.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

JONGSSTRAW

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:20 PM

I think it's a bit more serious than you'd like to portray it. Kim's ramped this up about as far as he can go. I hope you're right.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:27 PM

Kim & Ahmadinajhad are really one guy- ever see the two of them together at the same time?!

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
To do so would be tantamount to an act of war against North Korea, just as much as if THEY did that to one of OUR ships in international waters.

Just don't fly an ensign and make no mention of country of origin.

Then it'll be just an act of piracy.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for what Obama would likely do, I'm sure he'd respond appropriately. I'm not at all convinced that China would back North Korea. We're a bit more important to them than Kim is, I'm afraid. For all their shared communist ideology, the Chinese really DO seem to like American cashy money quite a bit.

China these days is Leninist-Corporatist these days. China allows private Corporations, which precludes communism since there's no private ownership let alone corporations under Communism, but requires communist party officials to have a usually controlling interest on the board. There are exceptions to that rule, like the 'special economic zones' such as Hong Kong. It's pretty surely a form of Corporatism, with Government control of Private Corporations, as opposed to the US form of Private Corporation in control of Government.

Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.

OPPYH

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire? Because everyone either wants you for a friend, or a fuck. You ever thought about running for world domination? with none to oppose you it would probably be pretty easy.

Good luck.

WASHNWEAR

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire?

I think one of the "keys" in this case is that Jack doesn't have a rep for being a Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Bush-right-or-wrong cheerleader. If memory serves he's expressed views from "both sides of the aisle."

And just for clarity's sake, that's not a jab disguised as a response. For my own part, I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office. And now, like many others, I've got the hangover to prove it. It's not that I completely regret letting him take me home...but he looked a lot better last night at the bar.

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:
Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
ha....

You won't even recognize America in 4 years. And watch gas shoot up to eight bucks a gallon after he gets reelected. Obama is a piece of shit. He's nothing but Bush Jr. with blackface on.

Name one thing he and his Democratic Congress hasn't reneged on since his campaign.

He's a LIAR!

That's what you idiots get for voting an Illinois politician into the White House.

I didn't vote for Obama, but he's in charge so you'd better get used to it. And while we are at it....what is the key? You call those who voted for Obama "idiots", without any retaliation whatsoever. It appears you have truly achieved RWED invulnerability. Both sides seem to adore you. Are you a vampire?

I think one of the "keys" in this case is that Jack doesn't have a rep for being a Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Bush-right-or-wrong cheerleader. If memory serves he's expressed views from "both sides of the aisle."

And just for clarity's sake, that's not a jab disguised as a response. For my own part, I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office. And now, like many others, I've got the hangover to prove it. It's not that I completely regret letting him take me home...but he looked a lot better last night at the bar.

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

Thanks, WNW, for a just about perfect analogy. That's pretty much the same feeling I've got, and I too was an Obamaniac.

As for 6ix, I tend to not take him very seriously most of the time, and he IS an equal-opportunity offender; he doesn't care much for the Bushies either.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:25 PM

Quote:

Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.

Couldn't agree more with that assessment, Citizen. Seems the only real way for the U.S. to "win" in this situation is by simply refusing to play, or waiting for North Korea to overplay its hand.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office.

Ah HA!
And NOW you realize what a commie-Lib, socialist Mao-mother***** he is, and how WRONG you were to support him & his brownshirt cause! You realize NOW that Bush was just a good guy doing what he believed to be right for all freedom-loving, dictator-hating standup Americans!!!

*snaps out of it*

Uhhhhhh...AURaptor....What?

HOLY CRAP!! I thing I just got a touch of 'Rappy's Syndrome!!!
Silly me... I shouldn't post after I get hit WITH A VERY LARGE ANVIL!

The laughing Chrisisall

6IXSTRINGJACK

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:35 PM

Washnwear and Oppyh,

Thanks for those unprompted comments

I don't mean nothing personal when I call people idiots even though I'm sure it comes across that way.

Yes. I thought Bush was the worst president we've ever had. I have a long history of posts to proove that. This is something altogether different though. What I liked about Bush was that nobody trusted or liked him. His every move was scrutinized.

O'Bama has put us on the fast track to ruin and all we read about is their new dog, or their trip to Broadway that would have cost me 8 years of my life savings to pay for, or the fact that he made ammends by paying for a trip to Paris, or the fact that J Crew stock was in the stratosphere when Ms. O and the little tykes were wearing outfits fashioned by them.

What danger lurks beneath. It may be easy to think that most Americans are aware of what's all going on by posting here frequently, but I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.

Definitely, 6ix.

HEY! Get off my neck!!
It's T-Negative anyway!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I was Kool-Aid-chugging, my-Obama-right-or-wrong cheerleader (one of Jack's aforementioned "idiots", I guess) 'til a few months after he took office.

Ah HA!
And NOW you realize what a commie-Lib, socialist Mao-mother***** he is, and how WRONG you were to support him & his brownshirt cause! You realize NOW that Bush was just a good guy doing what he believed to be right for all freedom-loving, dictator-hating standup Americans!!!

Wow - it's like you tore the very heart from my still-breathing chest and read aloud to me the words writ thereon. And so forth...

At the moment Obama gets his highest marks from me for his speaking style. And by 'speaking style' I mean his ability to speak in complete sentences and his skillful handling of words in excess of two syllables.

On a somewhat related note, I've noticed lately that a lot of people mispronounce the word 'nuclear'...myself, on occasion, included...but I make up for it by always being extra careful how I say 'Uranus.'

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thanks, WNW, for a just about perfect analogy. That's pretty much the same feeling I've got, and I too was an Obamaniac.

As for 6ix, I tend to not take him very seriously most of the time, and he IS an equal-opportunity offender; he doesn't care much for the Bushies either.

Mike

My pleasure. And my I say how much I admire your "Troubled Youth" avatar? It sort of sums up how I feel much of the time.

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

WASHNWEAR

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Washnwear and Oppyh,

Thanks for those unprompted comments

I don't mean nothing personal when I call people idiots even though I'm sure it comes across that way.

Yes. I thought Bush was the worst president we've ever had. I have a long history of posts to proove that. This is something altogether different though. What I liked about Bush was that nobody trusted or liked him. His every move was scrutinized.

O'Bama has put us on the fast track to ruin and all we read about is their new dog, or their trip to Broadway that would have cost me 8 years of my life savings to pay for, or the fact that he made ammends by paying for a trip to Paris, or the fact that J Crew stock was in the stratosphere when Ms. O and the little tykes were wearing outfits fashioned by them.

What danger lurks beneath. It may be easy to think that most Americans are aware of what's all going on by posting here frequently, but I think we're a more informed bunch than the majority.

You make a good point that's real easy to forget; I think I've seen other here raise it. Any politician that damn witty and urbane needs extra watching, especially when you take into account those fly-killing reflexes of his.

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Anyway, whether China backs the US or North Korea will most likely depend on who seems to be the aggressor. China has aspirations, and it also has enough of the US public and private debt to really hurt the US economy if it so chose. If the US was seen as the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage, to show itself willing to square up against the big guys in defence of a smaller weaker nation. It would help to garner political capital through out the region, and among many of the US-unfriendly states (especially Oil producers) that China has been trying to curry favour with, such as Iran. If North Korea were the aggressor, it would be an ideal opportunity for China to assert itself on the world stage and prove itself a friend to the states with all the inherent economic privilege that could bring.

Couldn't agree more with that assessment, Citizen. Seems the only real way for the U.S. to "win" in this situation is by simply refusing to play, or waiting for North Korea to overplay its hand.

Here's a question I have and perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Does this N. Korean "mystery" ship cause any other country any degree of alarm or apprehension? And I mean in the way that it has apparently caused the U.S. more than a little concern. I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened. But still . . . The way I understand it is the UN has given the U.S. authority to board the ship and search it's contents if it is felt to be neccesary. But . . . why us? Why do WE have to be the ones to be shadowing this ship and possibly board it to find out exactly what they have on board? Why put the U.S. in that position if we are so hated around the globe?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Here's a question I have and perhaps someone here can enlighten me.

Does this N. Korean "mystery" ship cause any other country any degree of alarm or apprehension? And I mean in the way that it has apparently caused the U.S. more than a little concern. I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened. But still . . . The way I understand it is the UN has given the U.S. authority to board the ship and search it's contents if it is felt to be neccesary. But . . . why us? Why do WE have to be the ones to be shadowing this ship and possibly board it to find out exactly what they have on board? Why put the U.S. in that position if we are so hated around the globe?

Because the US wanted to be put in that position.

KWICKO

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:28 PM

Quote:
I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?

RIPWASH

Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?

Good question...

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

ODESSA762

Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?

The difference is 'WE' are predictable while 'THEY' are not. That NK boss is kinda crazy, man. Who know's what 'THEY' will do? On the other hand, everybody knows that 'WE' won't do anything without being provolked by 'THEM' first.

We are 'shadowing' this NK ship for the UN in order to control/prevent nuclear proliferation. The 'July 4 Missile' thing is a slightly seperate issue.

It is in our best interest to stop and board that ship in order to determine wheather or not it has nuclear material on board.

No matter who is in 'The Big Chair', the US will always be a target. It is our leadership's responsibility to stop our enemies from attacking us...and in order to do that they need to be pro-active. Watch and see - that ship will get boarded right after the NK's launch that 'July 4th' missile. That's all the excuse we will need.

As for President Obama ... meh, I'm not too happy/impressed (...and I thought Bush spent
$$$ like a drunken sailor, HA!) ... and I'll leave it at that.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:18 AM

Part of it is also that there's a coupla folk in the State Dept still holding a grudge over the USS Pueblo and looking for an excuse to return the favor.

Of course, what *I* would do in the situation would be stop the ship, NOT search it, and give them an actual branch from an olive tree with instructions to put it directly in the hand of Kim Jong himself.

Show em in no uncertain terms that while we COULD be dicks, we'd rather talk peace, and in a manner that will take a lot of wind right out of his sails quite publicly.

I favor Malcom Reynolds diplomacy - give em every chance to do the right thing, and if they don't ?
Shoot their horse and take their money!

-F

BYTEMITE

Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
I understand that the reason is that a missle might just be pointed right at Hawaii, so we're really the only ones threatened.

I'm curious; how many missiles do you suppose WE have pointed at THEM? Do you think THEY might feel "threatened", too?

The difference is 'WE' are predictable while 'THEY' are not. That NK boss is kinda crazy, man. Who know's what 'THEY' will do? On the other hand, everybody knows that 'WE' won't do anything without being provolked by 'THEM' first.

[*snip*]

Hmm. I'm not too sure about that. I think our leaders very good at manufacturing reasons to spoon feed our public.

Anyway. I too voted for Obama. Happy sparkles faded about six days in, when bombs went off in Pakistan. He's pretty much been on my "Go to hell, you pawn of the corporate military industrial globalists" list ever since.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 25, 2009 2:52 AM

We're as safe and predictable as an 800-lb gorilla that goes on a rampage every once in a while for no apparent reason.

Why the fuck did we invade Iraq???? Even BUSH knew they didn't have WMD, and they had fuck-all to do with 9.11. Why invade Grenada??? Just to take our minds offa Beirut? Don't forget, WE were the first and only ones to use nuclear weapons. We are the ones with 800 military installations all over the world, not Kim. Sure, Kim is crazy. But every now and again, we have our loons in office too. And WE have 30,000 nuclear warheads. If you want to see how safe we are, just read my tagline. Some of our fearless leaders feel compelled to appeal to their "blithering idiot" constituency.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

ODESSA762

Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:05 AM

Oh c'mon now - the US is predictable.

Oi, this again...The US invaded Iraq because SH refused to comply with UN mandates...and because he was supporting terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank...and he was harboring AQ & Taliban terrorists in Iraq...and other terrorists...and because the world community had reason to believe that he had WMD's and that he might provide them to terrorist organizations.

The US invaded Grenada because that country was going to pieces. The left-leaning government was overthrown by communists and the Prime Minister was murdered. Nobody knew what was really going on inside the country. The US had two primary goals: 1) Prevent Cuba from gaining control 2) Prevent a repeat of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Overall, the operation was a success and the nation's parlimentary constitution was re-instated.

Nuking Japan ended the war rapidly and saved American lives. There is simply no way around that. They started it, btw. Also, one has to consider the 'Pay Back' angle too. They deserved it, btw ;)

What point are you trying to make by referring to the size of the US nuclear arsenal?

The US has installations across the globe at the invitation of the host countries. The overwhelming majority are happy to have Americans around. Have you been to Japan? Have you been to Germany? Italy? Kosovo? The UK? They love GI's. LMAO - The girls want to marry GI's/Marines/Sailors so they can come to America.

This has gotten waaayyyy off topic, apologies to the OP.

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
Oh c'mon now - the US is predictable.

It is. I predict the US will demand, possibly at the point of a gun, that everyone adhere to International Law, while flaunting said laws itself. You know, just like the last half century.

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
Oi, this again...The US invaded Iraq because SH refused to comply with UN mandates

If that were true the US still had no right to invade without a UNSC mandate. The failure to comply with resolutions was one of the excuses, not the reason, for the invasion. An excuse, I might add, that at the time the powers that be decided wasn't good enough to invade, so they concocted this overblown farce about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Saddam's ability to destroy the universe in 45 Seconds. The reasons for the War are numerous though, perhaps we can break them down here:

Oil. That's right folks, lets point out that big black Elephant in the sand right now. Iraq has one of the largest Oil reserves in the World, anything to do with Iraq at some point comes down to Oil, from the first Gulf War, to the Oil for Food scandal, to the recent Iraq War.

Rebuilding Contracts. There's a reason that rebuilding contracts are not awarded to the lowest bidder, rather only the American corporations that had ties to the Bush Administration.

Airstrip 2. Nothing like a big subservient puppet country slap bang in the middle of the Middle East (aka Oil Well One) for your military invasion staging needs. Plus it borders Iran and Syria, Targets one and two respectively.

Family Feud. That bugger Saddam out lasted pappy Bush in office, that there's makin' a monkey outta da Bush's! Vendetta!

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
...and because he was supporting terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank...

Well yeah, that's America's job. That bastard was muscling in on the US racket.

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
and he was harboring AQ & Taliban terrorists in Iraq...and other terrorists...

No he didn't. There's more terrorists in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam. Saddam was a secular leader, if Osama Bin Laden hated anyone more than the US, he hated Saddam's Iraq. There's no evidence of actual links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, because there weren't any. It's just some bullshit lie that somebody made up, and a bunch of other people have kept repeating in the hopes that it'll magically become true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
and because the world community had reason to believe that he had WMD's and that he might provide them to terrorist organizations.

Well apparently the 'World Community' didn't actually have enough evidence for that, which is why the UNSC voted NO on invading Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by Odessa762:
Nuking Japan ended the war rapidly and saved American lives. There is simply no way around that. They started it, btw. Also, one has to consider the 'Pay Back' angle too. They deserved it, btw ;)

They started it is a valid excuse is it? America really started the recent Iraq war, so if Saddam did have WMDs strapped to ICBMs, and parked one in the middle of Central park or next to the Washington monument, you'd be cool with that, since like the US did start it after all?

There's lots of reasons for the Nuclear attacks on Japan in World War 2. Personal I find the "it saved lives" one the most revisionist and tenuous of the lot. It starts to look even more tenuous when you realise that certain clauses were removed from the Potsdam Declaration prior to the attacks, clauses that American experts on Japan flatly said were deal breakers, that Japan couldn't surrender without.

You're spot on with the revenge thing though, but how that's a valid defence for the use of nuclear weapons is where you lose me.

There's a number of reasons, finding out what nuclear weapons actually do in the field was way up there. It's actually effect on a real city and its population. Getting Japan out of the war b

RIPWASH

Thursday, June 25, 2009 4:57 PM

Okay folks. Let's get back on track just a tiny bit. Bush is gone. This is Obama's show now. Like it or not. Let's not go down the tired path of proving or disproving why we are and/or shouldn't be in Iraq.

My whole point is that if the UN has sanctioned this "shadow and boarding if necessary" of the NK ship, why not appoint ANOTHER country to shadow and board if necessary? Right now, NK is saying that if we interfere with this ship, it will be an act of war. They would consider it an action by us as if we were acting alone. Would it be the same situation if, say, Russia or the UK was shadowing? Would Russia or the UK be under those same threats?

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
My whole point is that if the UN has sanctioned this "shadow and boarding if necessary" of the NK ship, why not appoint ANOTHER country to shadow and board if necessary?

Because that's not what the US wants. The UN is rubber stamping an action the US wants to take and would most likely take regardless. Basically both the UN and the US wants the ship searched, but the US wants to do the searching.

RIPWASH

Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
My whole point is that if the UN has sanctioned this "shadow and boarding if necessary" of the NK ship, why not appoint ANOTHER country to shadow and board if necessary?

Because that's not what the US wants. The UN is rubber stamping an action the US wants to take and would most likely take regardless. Basically both the UN and the US wants the ship searched, but the US wants to do the searching.

I just think that's kinda stupid. And I'd say that now matter who was runnin' the country. I mean really . . . . we're stretched pretty thin as it is and now we wanna provoke another country on purpose? Yeah . . . real smart.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote:
Oh c'mon now - the US is predictable.

Yes, we are. Just google US +invades and see what pops up: Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Panama, Grenada. And that was just in the last 20 years and doesn't include Vietnam and Cambodia. Also Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. Our special ops to install or prop up dictators in Chile, Guatemala, Argentina, Brazil... well, ALL of the countries of South and Central America except Costa Rica... out latest special ops in Venezuela, to ensure the future of capitali... er I mean democracy. Iran, Indonesia (Kissinger provided Suharto with the guns to kill over 200,000 East Timorese.) Iraq, Philippines...

I believe you are speaking out of a vast innocence. But with the advent of the internet, innocence is now ignorance. Do some research. learn some history. The US has stuck its nose in over a hundred nations, and NOT to their benefit.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

KWICKO

Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We're as safe and predictable as an 800-lb gorilla that goes on a rampage every once in a while for no apparent reason.

Why the fuck did we invade Iraq???? Even BUSH knew they didn't have WMD, and they had fuck-all to do with 9.11. Why invade Grenada??? Just to take our minds offa Beirut? Don't forget, WE were the first and only ones to use nuclear weapons. We are the ones with 800 military installations all over the world, not Kim. Sure, Kim is crazy. But every now and again, we have our loons in office too. And WE have 30,000 nuclear warheads. If you want to see how safe we are, just read my tagline. Some of our fearless leaders feel compelled to appeal to their "blithering idiot" constituency.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

Signy, you left out our invasion of Panama, which really should have been named "Operation Just Because".

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
I'll have to eat my words. Being an adamant supporter of Hillary Clinton. It was quite a tough pill to swallow when Obama beat her for the democratic front runner.

That being said, I admire most of his ideas. Although it may take a while to see most come to fruition. Just give him time.

It's better to have many ideas, and get half of them realized, then no ideas except for a war in Iraq.

That's because you never met him.

If you met him, it's because you were brainwashed by the pretty smile and soothing words.

He'd as soon $#!+ on you as shake your hand.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=560_1217023986

Despite the claims that this must be fake, I wrote it, so I guarantee it's true. It is, of course, my personal position only.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why the fuck did we invade Iraq???? Even BUSH knew they didn't have WMD, and they had fuck-all to do with 9.11.

Great mindless bleat. Do a little research, study a little strategy, come back, apologize and explain why these statements are irrelevant.

I posed the question on "why" in my forum. Every vet in the place could figure it out.

But if you don't, I'll be happy to enlighten you.:)

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:21 PM

Quote:
Great mindless bleat. Do a little research, study a little strategy, come back, apologize and explain why these statements are irrelevant.

What "strategy" was that? To start a useless war and bleed our nation dry? And what was it FOR? To protect...who? To gain... what? The ONLY reasons we're involved in the ME are (1) oil and (2) Israel. Without oil the ME would be as interesting as Antarctica: a barren inhospitable wasteland interesting only to scientists and adventurers. And who the frak cares about Israel? Certainly not me.

So Wise One, why don't you explain to ME what our "purpose" was, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:44 PM

ODESSA I had to step away and didn't get to finish my answer, so here it is

Quote:
Oh c'mon now - the US is predictable.

Oi, this again...The US invaded Iraq because SH refused to comply with UN mandates

Bull. Did the UN authorize the invasion?
No.
Did they ask US to invade?
No.
How many UN resolutions has Israel broken?
www.mediamonitors.net/michaelsladah&suleimaniajlouni1.html

Please read UN Resolution 1440 - the last resolution on Iraq and the ONLY ONE that counts (since UN Resolutions supersede each other) and point out to me where it says they wanted to invade Iraq.
www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm.

Quote:
and because he was supporting terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank...and he was harboring AQ & Taliban terrorists in Iraq

No, no, no, and no. Been disproven, admitted to by BUSH as having been wrong.

Quote:
..and other terrorists...and because the world community had reason to believe that he had WMD's and that he might provide them to terrorist organizations.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The "world community" believed no such thing.

Quote:
The US invaded Grenada because that country was going to pieces. The left-leaning government was overthrown by communists and the Prime Minister was murdered. Nobody knew what was really going on inside the country. The US had two primary goals: 1) Prevent Cuba from gaining control 2) Prevent a repeat of the Iran Hostage Crisis. Overall, the operation was a success and the nation's parlimentary constitution was re-instated.

Nuking Japan ended the war rapidly and saved American lives. There is simply no way around that. They started it, btw. Also, one has to consider the 'Pay Back' angle too. They deserved it, btw ;)

And this is exactly WHY the USA is feared and hated around the world. Because Americans will justify ANY action, ANY number of deaths, ANY involvement in any nation anywhere, whether it posed a threat to us or not, whether there were other alternatives or not. And then you wonder why people hate us????

Quote:
What point are you trying to make by referring to the size of the US nuclear arsenal?

What do you think?

Quote:
The US has installations across the globe at the invitation of the host countries. The overwhelming majority are happy to have Americans around. Have you been to Japan? Have you been to Germany? Italy? Kosovo? The UK? They love GI's. LMAO - The girls want to marry GI's/Marines/Sailors so they can come to America.

Okinawans hate us. Have you been to our other areas of involvement? Central and South America? Pakistan? Southeast Asia? Saudi Arabia and the rest of the ME?

At some point, innocence becomes willful ignorance.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:30 PM

Wow. All kinds of strategic expertise here.

Um...Saddam offered and paid $26,000 per suicide bomber, Hamas had what was effectively an embassy in Baghdad, as did Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. So I don't know what "proof" you can have that he didn't support them.

Two of the first things we found when we went in were Roland AA missiles from France and Germany, and German built bunkers, and scads of new former Soviet equipment Russia sold him.

The Useless Nations objected to us going in because they knew we'd figure out they were on the take.

Then there was the corruption over the oil for food--seems everyone except the Iraqi people benefited, including Annan's relatives. Funny, that.

So a UN mandate is worthless. They're whores.

Incidentally, France is operating in Cote d'Ivoire and a few other places with no UN mandate, if that matters to you.

And my base had Americans, Brits, Aussies, Koreans, even the Japanese, Georgians, occasional others, and the Canadians used us as a waypoint, so regardless of any stupid "mandate," the civilized world is pretty much all on board. We don't have the French, but that's like swimming without a bicycle.

That's just to stop the other quotes you're borrowing from various sources.

Now, let's discuss strategy.

We were attacked by al Qaida, a diffuse, international network. They were operating from Afghanistan for ideological support from the Taliban, and because it's the ass end of nowhere.

Asscrackistan, as some of us call it, took a million casualties fighting the Soviets, and the Soviets only lost 15,000 men, but gave up. The Brits spent a century trying to pacify it. No luck. We have to go all the way back to Alexander the Great to find a successful conquest. If you fight them, you have to fight a close up infantry battle on their home mountainous terrain, with very minimal air support, crappy logistics, almost non-existent artillery, no armor. The Marines brought back the MULE PACKER specialty, it's so rugged.

Rule 1: Do not fight the enemy on his chosen ground, especially when it sucks.

So, if we're not going to fight them there, and we're not going to fight them here, and France would object to fighting them there, and Africa would be about as bad, and we can't get them to Antarctica, and Russia doesn't want to host the party...that sort of leaves the Middle East. Not ideal, but it's terrain we DO know, have every square inch dialed into GPS, and have allies.

The airbases in Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and formerly Saudi Arabia are FREE. I can't begin to describe how much Kuwaitis HATE Iraqis, and they all fear Iran, so we get free bases, free fuel, free food, free water, free electrical power, and pretty safe environments to operate from.

This caused half the crazies to leave Asscrackistan, and show up where we could stomp them. The Press screamed and wet their pants and followed along to get photos of fresh blood, because they're whores, too. (The check on this is that while I was deployed, CNN had, "AFGHANISTAN: THE FORGOTTEN WAR." I assure you, the military has not forgotten Afghanistan. What they meant was they didn't have enough blood to make headlines.) This allowed the special ops people (many of whom train at my wife's duty station, http://www.mutc.in.ng.mil, and I can't say much more than that) to sneak around, help the locals with food and veterinary support, and dig for info quietly. You might recall that after the first couple of bombing missions, it got very quiet--because you DON'T start trouble with the Pashtun if you don't have to. It heated up again a few months ago, because it took almost 8 years to make friends and earn trust and find out where the scumbags were.

We took down Saddam, who was an existing pain in our ass, and handed him over to his peasants to be hanged on youtube. This was a lesson to every other asshole in the region.

We took down THE MOST POWERFUL MUSLIM MILITARY in two weeks. This was also an object lesson.

We now have bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, oh, and a bunch we built in the 'stan

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:32 PM

Oh, yeah--and 0bama went from "bringing the troops home in 60 days" to "six months" to "within 18 months after the generals say it's safe," to "as long as it continues to improve."

He started a lot of this the afternoon after he got his NSA brief.

It seems they made him realize he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was, on the subject of military strategy.

I'd recommend googling the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Wise One, why don't you explain to ME what our "purpose" was, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

I did that earlier:

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oil. That's right folks, lets point out that big black Elephant in the sand right now. Iraq has one of the largest Oil reserves in the World, anything to do with Iraq at some point comes down to Oil, from the first Gulf War, to the Oil for Food scandal, to the recent Iraq War.

Rebuilding Contracts. There's a reason that rebuilding contracts are not awarded to the lowest bidder, rather only the American corporations that had ties to the Bush Administration.

Airstrip 2. Nothing like a big subservient puppet country slap bang in the middle of the Middle East (aka Oil Well One) for your military invasion staging needs. Plus it borders Iran and Syria, Targets one and two respectively.

Family Feud. That bugger Saddam out lasted pappy Bush in office, that there's makin' a monkey outta da Bush's! Vendetta!

BYTEMITE

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:01 PM

State of the Union Address: George W. Bush promotes view that Saddam Hussein had connections to the 9-11 attack.

Quote:
We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

George W. Bush, television address, September 2002:

Quote:
We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

George W. Bush does not mention Hamas, but Al-Qaeda, who later were admitted to have no connection to Saddam Hussein. Broadening our statement for war in Iraq to terrorism in general because the facts don't fit doesn't make those initial "facts" less false.

Hamas is a legitimately elected government, so of course Baghdad had an embassy. Furthermore, having an embassy of a government in your country is not a statement of support for the government of the embassy in question.

If military types are such experts in war and on history, then they need to stop supporting the mistruths and the fascists that undermine our diplomatic and military efforts and poison the supposedly clueless population.

This same population has contributed volunteers to your military process, and it is those soldiers who do the dirty work of fighting the wars of rich men. Your volunteers thought they were signing up to protect that SAME population that contributed them, not the bloated heartless authoritarian government that uses and abuses them.

RIPWASH

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:02 PM

The way out of using oil as an excuse?

LET US DRILL ON OUR OWN LAND FOR THE STUPID STUFF!!!!!!!

Yeah, yeah . . . I know. Our potential oil reserves don't equal a fraction of the Middle East . . . but SO FREAKIN' WHAT? Don't really mean to yell... it just frustrates me, nothing against you directly, Citizen. The main way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil is to DRILL, DRILL, DRILL. From what I understand we are the only country that prohibits itself from acquiring our own resources! Silly, silly Americans.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Incidentally, the causes of this war are indirectly traceable to 1948, and Carter and Clinton both failed to respond vigorously enough.

Surely you mean 1947, when the British post-Anglo-Iraq War occupation ended, or 1958 after the coup d'etat. If you're going back that far, why not do it properly and go back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire post World War One, or even better the beginning of Ottoman control in, what 1534?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
(And please don't repeat the BS about us selling weapons to Iraq. We stopped that in 1968, which is to say, when the Ba'athists took over, and we gave them VERY SANITIZED satellite photos to use against Iran in the 80s. All the weaponry I encountered was RUSSIAN, with the exception of a few relics left over from the Aden Protectorate and the Ottoman Empire.)

Your personal experiences on that matter prove, well nothing. Saying the US and other western nations never sold Saddam weapons is a fairy tale. Weapons sales stopped in the late eighties, which was over twenty years ago. Even if all you saw was Russian equipment, that doesn't prove equipment wasn't bought from the US earlier.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

If you military types are such experts in war and on history, then stop supporting the mistruths and the fascists that undermine our diplomatic and military efforts and poison the supposedly clueless population.

They can't stop, Byte, it's like crack-cocaine for them or something.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
The main way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil is to DRILL, DRILL, DRILL. From what I understand we are the only country that prohibits itself from acquiring our own resources! Silly, silly Americans.

Oil is a finite resource. It arguably makes strategic sense to use everyone else's before starting on your own. Historically it might not be the best idea, because one of the reasons the British Empire started to go into decline prior to the First World War (the First and Second World Wars hastened a decline that had just barely begun) was Britain's dependence on Coal, and it's inertia on the global switch to Oil. Time will tell, some people still believe in the Abiogenic Oil theory, what can I say? Some people juggle Geese.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:29 PM

RIPWash: Unfortunately, the nation's fossil fuel drilling needs means that you all have to tear up my state.

As does the Uranium needs for the nation's energy plan and all those nuclear power plants. Right in the towering monuments of the Moenkopi formation.

I believe you can see one of the Uranium mine openings from the 1960s in the green-purple shale, above the cliffs about a three quarters of the way to the right of the image.

I love southern Utah, and I'm highly frustrated that we're getting little say in what lands the BLM is pushing through to sell to the energy corporations. And it's all because of national pressure, and because my state doesn't have the population to have a large enough voice to protect itself.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Your personal experiences on that matter prove, well nothing. Saying the US and other western nations never sold Saddam weapons is a fairy tale. Weapons sales stopped in the late eighties, which was over twenty years ago. Even if all you saw was Russian equipment, that doesn't prove equipment wasn't bought from the US earlier.

Doesn't prove aliens didn't sell them weapons either. Or the Dalai Lama.

But do tell me about your personal experiences in the matter.

You find me a picture of an Iraqi soldier before 2003 with an M16, or driving an M113, or an M60 MBT, or using an M66, or any other commonly available US piece of surplus. You won't, because they don't exist, because we didn't.

I know what I saw and what I disposed of. I know what I saw on the same "news" you did. I know how our weapons are contracted and manufactured, and during the 80s, there would have been no reason to hide the fact--we openly gave the sat images to Iraq. You won't find any reports on us selling them weapons, because we didn't.

And DoD OPPOSED selling dual use equipment to Iraq, but was overridden by the Pollyannas at State who figured he was a nice guy.

Nope, the Left bears pretty much total responsibility for this mess.

BTW, what's Bill Clinton's withdrawal strategy for Kosovo? I've got friends over there who'd like to know.

Oh, and located WMD and support so far is several tons of nerve agent, several tons of binary munitions, a ricin production factory, and 550 tons of yellowcake. You can try to claim it doesn't exist. The problem is, it was sold to Canada, who's using it in their Ontario reactors. That sort of makes it rather concrete.

Yes, it was left over from Osirak. It still only takes 1940 technology to produce about 100 nukes from it.

And 1948 was when ARAMCO got started, IIRC.

And we use very little Iraqi oil, because it's a bitch to get hold of. They have that one tiny port on the Shatt al Arab. Last I checked, it was about 2% of our supply, most of which is domestic, Canadian or Mexican. Fungible resources come from the closest source.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I love southern Utah, and I'm highly frustrated that we're getting little say in what lands the BLM is pushing through to sell to the energy corporations. And it's all because of national pressure, and because my state doesn't have the population to have a large enough voice to protect itself.

Well, true. It is pretty. On the other hand, uranium is much more efficient and cleaner than coal. And since you're using a computer, you're ultimately part of the demand for that electricity. I'm not happy about the former woods behind my house being a cornfield, but I eat corn, so I accept it.

Do you really think that a nationalized corporation would mean LESS electrical power?

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

BYTEMITE

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:54 PM

Well, actually, I'm at work right now, and my work has it's own solar power energy grid.

At home, what you say is true. However, I do my best to try to buy green power from the grid, since that's the best I can do until I get over $20,000 and can invest in a solar panel roofing for my house. Because Utah gets a little more sun than much of the nation, solar power is actually pretty feasible, and I think the investment will pay off in about a decade. After that, I'll probably save up to try to build one of those passive energy homes in this small town I like that's away from the smog problem we have in the city.

I don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't plan on having children. I do breathe, but my hopes are that my carbon footprint is minimal.

What *I* think is that everyone should be responsible for their own energy. I think these energy companies are screwing us.

Thank you for not being too offended by my last post. I got a little bit hot, and I'm sorry for that.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

Nope, the Left bears pretty much total responsibility for this mess.

What "Left" are you-a-talikin' about, son? Clinton? Ha! In America, "Left" means anyone who wants it's citizens to have access to healthcare!!!
There IS no real American left- at least none that have ever been in power. There's the Right, and the Right that can lean towards the center.

Quote:

BTW, what's Bill Clinton's withdrawal strategy for Kosovo? I've got friends over there who'd like to know.

He didn't have one because he was busy with a certain intern, and a certain cover-up.

Quote:

550 tons of yellowcake.

Is that like a weapon? Cause I sure couldn't make it go boom, much less throw it far enough my own self.

Quote:

It still only takes 1940 technology to produce about 100 nukes from it.

And time. First ya gotta make room to work on it by sweeping out all the degenerated mustard junk, then ya gotta develop an intercontinental delivery system, an do it without drawing attention by, you know, testing it & stuff... then load the, you know, untested bombs & stuff...

Puh-leeze.

The laughing Chrisisall

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, actually, I'm at work right now, and my work has it's own solar power energy grid.

At home, what you say is true. However, I do my best to try to buy green power from the grid, since that's the best I can do until I get over $20,000 and can invest in a solar panel roofing for my house. Because Utah gets a little more sun than much of the nation, solar power is actually pretty feasible, and I think the investment will pay off in about a decade.

I don't drive, don't eat meat, and don't plan on having children. I do breathe, but my hopes are that my carbon footprint is minimal.

Thank you for not being too offended by my last post. I got a little bit hot, and I'm sorry for that.

No problem. Politics gets people hot, and I can be obnoxious.

I appreciate and respect your lifestyle support of your political beliefs. I don't subscribe to the causal hypothesis of CO2, but I don't think it hurts anything for you to do so. I won't ask you to stop exhaling

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

I appreciate and respect your lifestyle support of your political beliefs.

*raises hand*
My car gets 35 city, 40 highway!

The laughing Chrisisall

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

Nope, the Left bears pretty much total responsibility for this mess.
What "Left" are you-a-talikin' about, son? Clinton? Ha! In America, "Left" means anyone who wants it's citizens to have access to healthcare!!!
There IS no real American left- at least none that have ever been in power. There's the Right, and the Right that can lean towards the center.

Well, being a born Brit, then Canadian, and now American, I'm going to say it depends on your definition of left and right.

However, given that, it might surprise you that I'm willing to kill people to avoid the threat of national health care. Keep that in mind.

A quote everyone might find useful, while hating or fawning over Mr 0

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Quote:
Quote:
550 tons of yellowcake.
Is that like a weapon? Cause I sure couldn't make it go boom, much less throw it far enough my own self.
Quote:

It still only takes 1940 technology to produce about 100 nukes from it.

And time. First ya gotta make room to work on it by sweeping out all the degenerated mustard junk, then ya gotta develop an intercontinental delivery system, an do it without drawing attention by, you know, testing it & stuff... then load the, you know, untested bombs & stuff...

Puh-leeze.

Oh, those you mean those missiles he had? That the left whined "only" violated his agreed limits by a few percent?

1940s technology. His missiles were already 1960s tech. And you don't need missiles to deliver nukes. Do you remember something called the "Enola Gay"? A common airliner can carry a nuke, and very easily if you don't care if you get it back.

And South Africa never tested its bombs, nor did we test Little Boy, because they're so stupid simple a monkey can build them. You can build one without any explosives, in fact--gravity compression will suffice.

Sorry, dude, but I'm at least semi-professional in this field. Trying to talk down to me won't work, especially when it's pretty clear you don't know diddly about the field yourself.

See, this is where I refer you back to some basic study of "Strategy." In summary: You don't wait for the stampede before you go shopping for an elephant gun.

What happens if your neighbor starts building a bomb in his basement? Do the cops say, "Oh, well call us if he ever actually blows something up"?

And apparently, a decreasing minority thinks 0's doing a great job:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administ
ration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

I'll wait for those photos of Iraqi troops with US weapons, though. Taken before we started training them in 2004. Though they still use AKs because they have them, and because that's about the level of their technical ability. A 1947 design updated in 1962 or so.

Which is plenty good enough to build nukes.

Hell, PAKISTAN has a pretty effective nuclear program.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

I appreciate and respect your lifestyle support of your political beliefs.
*raises hand*
My car gets 35 city, 40 highway!

The laughing Chrisisall

Mine gets 15. But, I need the cargo space, and I only use it when I have to.

This isn't out of any fear of carbon. I just don't like wasting my ammo budget on gas.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Hmmmm... good quote.

Quote:

Sorry, dude, but I'm at least semi-professional in this field.

You think that just because you know more about these technical talking points than I do that I should actually listen to what you have to say on the broader subject?

*thinks*

Okay, I will.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:28 PM

freakin yellowcake double post

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
freakin yellowcake double post

Here's an aside, which as an immigrant, even from another western democracy (yes, I know, the US is a Republic, and I like it, but it made a quick connection) like the UK.

I had to explain to one of our Pakistani contractors how in the US, one could live in "poverty," which consisted of a roof over one's head, cable TV, a car, and enough food to be obese, and people would complain that it wasn't fair that there wasn't free medical treatment for that obesity.

Now, think about what the Pakistani definition of "poverty" might be. Think hard.

Khan was both laughing and appalled at the story, even knowing as I made more in a month than he did in a year, and he was one of the WELL PAID contractors.

The typical yank has no %@#$ing idea how good they have it.

So, no, I'm not overly impressed by the whines about how much more we should pay in taxes for someone else's benefit. I've seen real poverty up close.

When our president admits his WORST JOB was working at Baskin Robbins...

PUHlease.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Doesn't prove aliens didn't sell them weapons either. Or the Dalai Lama.

That was never my argument. The fact is yours doesn't begin to to prove what you claim either (and your above comment actually helps illustrate my point, thanks).

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
But do tell me about your personal experiences in the matter.

My personal experiences are irrelevant (just as yours are), none of your business and not something I can discuss with you over the internet even if I wanted too.

I can say I spend my days along side Majors, Brigadiers and Generals, so you're unlikely to get much traction trying to brow beat me with your military credentials. Personally I'd like to keep the whole question out of our posts, given that it's entirely irrelevant.

If you have any facts to offer, please feel free and I'm willing to listen, if all you have is "personal experience", then don't waste our time.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
You find me a picture of an Iraqi soldier before 2003 with an M16, or driving an M113, or an M60 MBT, or using an M66, or any other commonly available US piece of surplus. You won't, because they don't exist, because we didn't.

I never said M16's or any other small arm was sold to Iraq, I said weapons, Weapons can range from a sharp stick to Defender Helicopters to... knowledge and materials required to build chemical and biological weapons.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
I know what I saw and what I disposed of. I know what I saw on the same "news" you did.

You might know what you disposed of, but you don't necessarily know the whole picture. I've never seen the Aura Borealis, doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
I know how our weapons are contracted and manufactured, and during the 80s, there would have been no reason to hide the fact--we openly gave the sat images to Iraq..

Really? There's no reason for the US to supply weapons to nations secretly during the COLD WAR? That little global chess game of feints and covert ops that used other nations as proxy-pawns?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
BTW, what's Bill Clinton's withdrawal strategy for Kosovo? I've got friends over there who'd like to know.

You're comparing a UN peace keeping operation to a US unilateral invasion?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Oh, and located WMD and support so far is several tons of nerve agent, several tons of binary munitions, a ricin production factory, and 550 tons of yellowcake. You can try to claim it doesn't exist. The problem is, it was sold to Canada, who's using it in their Ontario reactors. That sort of makes it rather concrete.

I'm not claiming that those don't exist. I'm just not trying to claim it means things it doesn't, as you are. The chemical weapons found were pretty much entirely from the first Gulf War Era, and many were degraded beyond use. Your Ricin production facility seems to be little more than a fabrication of yours, you can say it exists all you want, but that doesn't mean it did.

As for Yellowcake, it's a raw material, not a bomb in and of itself. We know they had Yellowcake Uranium, but Yellowcake Uranium isn't a WMD, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Yes, it was left over from Osirak. It still only takes 1940 technology to produce about 100 nukes from it.

And most countries don't have that 1940's technology to refine the material, or to produce the bomb, so flatly claiming it's 1940's technology because that's when the US, UK, Canada and Australia developed it, isn't the best argument ever. It's possible to put a man on the surface of the Moon with 1960's technology, so everyone in the world must have done it by now, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
And we use very little Iraqi oil, because it's a bitch to get

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHUCKLES48

Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Your personal experiences on that matter prove, well nothing. Saying the US and other western nations never sold Saddam weapons is a fairy tale. Weapons sales stopped in the late eighties, which was over twenty years ago. Even if all you saw was Russian equipment, that doesn't prove equipment wasn't bought from the US earlier.

First, you need to separate "US" and "other Western nations" in this discussion. Why, because France, esp. in the 80s, was very much an independent actor in this regard.

Second, here's some hard #s:
Summary $ value of arms sales to Iraq, 1973-1990:
USSR/WP: $30,301m
France: $5,595m
China: $5,192m
US: $200m
Egypt: $568m
Other: $2,104m
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Arms-sales-to-Iraq-1973_1990

So, of that the US is responsible for 0.46%. Run the #s yourself. Want someone to bitch at? The top 3, in order, are USSR, France, and China. Go yell at them.

That being said, there's a lot of documented-but-not-discussed finds of French equipment that post-dates the 1991 Gulf War, after which (theoretically) the Iraqis were under an arms embargo. So, if France wasn't legally able to sell them equipment, why was post-91 dated equipment (including a generation of SAMs that weren't even _available_ circa 1991) found in Iraq? Samesame, on a much grander scale, with post-Soviet equipment, as well as Chinese.

Hell, 2003-dated chem warfare gear was recovered during the initial invasion.

MIKEWILLIAMSON

Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Doesn't prove aliens didn't sell them weapons either. Or the Dalai Lama.

That was never my argument. The fact is yours doesn't begin to to prove what you claim either.

It was a negative proof argument. "prove we didn't sell them weapons." Logically impossible.

Weapons have an agreed upon definition in the military and political world.

Show me a photo of US weapons in Iraqi hands.

Show me a transfer document.

Unless you're trying to claim that that left-winger Reagan arranged sales of AK47s, ZSUs and MiGs. Pull the other one. I'd have trouble writing jokes that funny.

NCO in the Guard. Day job, yes, mostly writing fiction, but I also have some consults and quite a few professional involvements. And NCOs have a lot more knowledge of certain areas than you seem aware of.

Given that, and the first two statements you made, I highly doubt you spend any time talking to any decision makers in the military. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

The accused is innocent until proven guilty. PROVE the US sold weapons to Saddam, or shut up.

Hughes 500 helicopters are frequently used as cropdusters. If Saddam put Russian guns in the doors, that does not constitute selling him weapons. Russia selling him DShK 12.7s constitutes selling him weapons.

Especially as the same whiners would have complained we were "starving the Iraqi people" if we hadn't sold helicopters.

Which, I remind you, DoD opposed, and the lefties in State insisted we do.

If you argue that State isn't full of lefties, I will laugh at you.

Just so we keep this on track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: Kîmyabarana Helebce) occurred in the period March 16–17 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja.

The attack killed instantly thousands of people (3,200-5,000 dead on the spot) and injured 7,000-10,000, most of them civilians.[1] Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[2] The incident, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) defined as an act of genocide, was as of 2009 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

Saddam was a BAD GUY.

BAD GUYs don't generally turn into GOOD GUYs.

You claim the US sold weapons to Saddam. Then you claim that all the photos of all those Russian weapons don't prove anything, then you try to claim that, "Well, maybe not weapons, but vehicles that could carry weapons." Then you demand I prove it didn't happen.

And I'm going to refuse to argue with someone who demonstrably seems to have no knowledge of the subject, and certainly doesn't know how to debate.

But, I'm willing to revisit it if the above changes.

But first, you have to prove the Invisible Martians didn't sell him the US weapons no one has ever seen.

Recent novels by Michael Z. Williamson
CONTACT WITH CHAOS, Apr 09 from Baen Books
BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Nov 07 from Baen Books
http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

CITIZEN

Thursday, June 25, 2009 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
It was a negative proof argument. "prove we didn't sell them weapons." Logically impossible.

I said your statement doesn't prove what you claim it did. I asked nothing else, and made no other claims. I haven't attempted to prove anything yet, I've merely pointed out for all your bluster and posturing, neither have you.

Though I notice you did make claims that are positive proof arguments, but those are no better supported either. In other words you've got nothing and your bluster and insults aren't hiding that fact.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Weapons have an agreed upon definition in the military and political world.

Yeah, and it includes chemical and biological weapons. True a helicopter might be pedantically called a weapons platform, but such pedantry would seem to be something only someone losing the argument would go for.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Show me a transfer document.

If you knew half what you claim too, you would know that such documents are either secret, not open to the public, or never existed as the weapons were sold through third parties.

It's interesting that you require your statements to be just taken on your say so, while anything else has to be proven as if this is a court of law.

Your alter-ego posted this:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Arms-sales-to-Iraq-1973_1990
Nationmaster is a fairly solid source, and they certainly seem to think the US sold arms to Iraq.

Still nothing but bluster from you.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Unless you're trying to claim that that left-winger Reagan arranged sales of AK47s, ZSUs and MiGs. Pull the other one. I'd have trouble writing jokes that funny.

I've already told you what I'm talking about. If you're too simple or dishonest to deal with that, that is hardly my fault.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Given that, and the first two statements you made, I highly doubt you spend any time talking to any decision makers in the military. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

Much like how it's sounding more and more like you're nothing but a back room filing clerk with delusions of grandeur. So far your only argument has been "and I'm in the army, so I know!" and, well absolutely nothing of substance. I really don't see any reason to waste my time digging up evidence to the Nth degree so you can stick your fingers in your ears and say "I don't believe it, and you don't know what your talking about!"

Your argument is pathetic, as is your desire to insult people who disagree with you, and to throw your supposed military credentials around, in lieu of providing any substance whatsoever to back up your statements.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. PROVE the US sold weapons to Saddam, or shut up.

That's just the point, the US is fairly well proven to have sold weapons to Saddam, in fact the only person who has ever tried to deny that that I can see, is you. Since you're the one making the claim it's up to you to disprove that evidence. You can do that, it's done all the time, though we both know you can't and won't.

I don't see why I have to spend hours disproving an argument you know you can't support. You've made a lot of claims you could support, but instead of doing that, you demand I make a water tight case to stand up in court, on an internet forum. The fact you can't support your case and feel the need to lay that off on me is both transparent and pathetic.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
If you argue that State isn't full of lefties, I will laugh at you.

Man you are quite an angry person aren't you. I often find when people are incapable of making their case, they get angry.

They're probably left of you, but then who the hell ain't? Maybe neo-Nazi's. Maybe.

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
You claim the US sold weapons

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

OOOPPS!
You just proved your complete lack of believability here.
Go straight to Hell, do not pass go; do not collect $500.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Since your entire argument is entirely dependent on you being this elite military strategist NCO with intimate knowledge of every US covert deal and military action since the beginning of time, maybe you can try and prove you are who you say you are. I don't hold out much hope that you will, or can...

Cit, why hold back?
LOL!

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:

If you argue that State isn't full of lefties, I will laugh at you.

And if you argue that you don't work for the Alliance, I will laugh at YOU, purplebelly.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

They're probably left of you, but then who the hell ain't? Maybe neo-Nazi's. Maybe.

This is AURaptor, getting a friend to write his uber-biased simplistic doody more eloquently for him, I conjure.
Either that, or a poor indoctrinated vet that needs to justify his skewed vision of what he's been through, but I think that highly unlikely, based on the timing of his appearance on this board.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:43 AM

i can relate to Obama in one way: when i was a teenager, i was a flaming collectivist, anti-capitalist, whacko environmental lemming. in that sense, i know exactly where he's coming from... and just how dangerous his socialist utopian ideas are. i would have ignorantly sacrificed my liberties for the illusion that this benevolent utopian government could save humanity from ourselves.

Obamacare, cap and trade, and every other hair-brained liberal scheme thats been concocted serve the same purpose: to put you in a box, to govern how you live/think, to assert the states ownership over your personal sovereignty.

are those of you who voted for the guy really this dense?

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

are those of you who voted for the guy really this dense?

The leash on the dog, or the dog on the leash?
I vote for the least perceived innocent deaths, that's all.
I'd willingly follow a socialist utopia that curtails freedoms than a right-wing agenda that wants more freedom at the cost of millions of human lives- in a perfect world we'd have the choice, in this world it's blood or Starfleet.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:19 AM

Quote:
posted by Chrisisall.

The leash on the dog, or the dog on the leash?
I vote for the least perceived innocent deaths, that's all.

dont kid yourself my friend, we havent had an event sufficient enough to plunge us into a full fledged war yet. he's still going into afghanistan, how do you think thatll work out? the soviet empire couldnt salvage that place, and they werent out mirandizing enemies on the battle field. the democrats are just as pro-interventionist as the republicans, watch and see.

and ill be curious if all the liberals out their will be willing to criticize Obama, when he takes advantage of all those tactics created by the Bush administration. my guess is, he'll be even more authoritarian in use of the patriot/military commissions acts

Quote:
I'd willingly follow a socialist utopia that curtails freedoms than a right-wing agenda that wants more freedom at the cost of millions of human lives- in a perfect world we'd have the choice, in this world it's blood or Starfleet.

i dont know, thats subjective. id argue more lives have been lost through abortion then every war we've fought combined, in the last 50 years. not that the right wing has been able to permanantly affirm the life of a fetus.. but they havent made it a tenet of socialized population control like the left has

BYTEMITE

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:24 AM

Um, I wouldn't exactly peg Chris as liberal. He's more of a jester...

At any rate, antimason, you're preaching to the choir.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MikeWilliamson:
Oh, yeah--and 0bama went from "bringing the troops home in 60 days" to "six months" to "within 18 months after the generals say it's safe," to "as long as it continues to improve." He started a lot of this the afternoon after he got his NSA brief. It seems they made him realize he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was, on the subject of military strategy. I'd recommend googling the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Ok, do I did. And the Dunning-Kruger Effect is as follows:

Quote:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which "...people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". They therefore suffer an illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average. This leads to a perverse result where people with less competence will rate their ability more highly than people with relatively more competence.

So according to your OWN WORDS Obama realized that he wasn't quite as smart as he thought he was. Therefore, not a victim of the effect that you cite.

I'm sorry MW, but you just undercut your own argument.

And BTW- the description seems to apply quite nicely to GWB.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sorry MW, but you just undercut your own argument. And BTW- the description seems to apply quite nicely to GWB.

Not just GWB...

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 26, 2009 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
*raises hand*My car gets 35 city, 40 highway!

My car (and yes, it is a car) gets 9 in the city and about 25 on the highway.

I love me my Good old pristine condition, 6,000 lb. LTD.

It smells like a lawn mower when I park it.

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM gas!

Obama will have to do a lot better than $4,500 towards a new rice burner to take it from me.

HA! His dumb bill wouldn't even give me the money for the trade in because my car is 5 years too old for the program!!!!!!!!

MY CAR!!!!! ONE OF THE WORST OFFENDERS OF THE CARBON FOOTPRINT EVER CONCEIVED AND STILL ON THE ROAD!!!!!!!!! IT'S NOT EVEN A SUV FOR CHRISSAKES!!!!!!

It only cost me $1,800 when gas was REALLY expensive ($700.00 less than my previously cheapest used car), and it's by far the favorite piece of machinery I've ever had the pleasure to ride in.

Take away my LTD? You'll have to pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead fingers....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

SIGNYM

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:25 PM

So anyway MikeWilliamson... I'd like to continue the discussion about strategies and goals.

Quote:
Saddam was a BAD GUY.BAD GUYs don't generally turn into GOOD GUYs.

NO!
REALLY?????

The world is FULL of "bad guys". We can start with Lil'Kim and work our way around to Myanamr generals, www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dictators/CommitPerfectDictatorship.html Iranian Ayatollahs, Saudi and UAE princes, Israel (in its treatment of the Palestinians), most of the warlords and dictators of central and eastern Africa, and the more corrupt leaders of central and south America, and Medvedev. Shoot man, there prolly more "bad guys" than "good guys" in leadership positions. But normally, we don't invade countries because they have a "bad guy" at the helm. In fact, we've installed and supported a lot of "bad guys" ourselves. No, what we REALLY don't like are "bad guys" who won't willingly give us what we want to take.

-------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE