|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Feb 5, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote: More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by disclosing the chemical mix they use. The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too close to the surface and in residential areas. You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't any problems.. Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS. Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I hear Obama broke it up into different agencies.. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...erior-unveils-... Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US. Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone? Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to make? I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even dangers. I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh wait, the French can't be trusted... lol I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off. It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you wring your hands because a few hundred *people have had problems with their wells. Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part of the solution. You think otherwise? It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in movies. I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are also very attractive targets for terrorists. Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog knocking over your garbage can. I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city much more unusable than a dirty bomb... |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:01:22 -0800 (PST), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!"
wrote: "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city much more unusable than a dirty bomb... Mabe it's just me but I'm very reluctant to discuss possible terror plots in a public forum. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:51:04 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote: More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by disclosing the chemical mix they use. The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too close to the surface and in residential areas. You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't any problems.. Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS. Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I hear Obama broke it up into different agencies.. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...gen-72654.html Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US. Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone? Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to make? I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even dangers. I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh wait, the French can't be trusted... lol I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off. It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you wring your hands because a few hundred people have had problems with their wells. Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part of the solution. You think otherwise? It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in movies. I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are also very attractive targets for terrorists. Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog knocking over your garbage can. I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Radiological weapons are most likely to be developed by home-grown terrorists vs. foreign ones. The biggest threat would be the so-called loose nukes, and as I said, the Republicans tried to block/delay it. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 22:52:59 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 19:01:22 -0800 (PST), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote: "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. *For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Anthrax would be easier to spread, transport, and would make a city much more unusable than a dirty bomb... Mabe it's just me but I'm very reluctant to discuss possible terror plots in a public forum. Why? It's not like the real terrorists are ignorant of the methods. Bio-weapons are probably the greatest threat. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:35:03 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:47:10 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:51:04 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Radiological weapons are most likely to be developed by home-grown terrorists vs. foreign ones. I didn't say where the terrorists come from, nor does it really even matter. If anything, home grown terrorists are better at their job than foreigners. The anthrax guy, the DC sniper, McVeigh (OK City) and the Ft Hood guy did a lot more damage than all the foreign terrorist terrorists combined if you exclude 9-11. And, yet, we invaded Iraq... sigh.... |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 23:41:46 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:18:27 -0800, wrote: On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 01:35:03 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:47:10 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:51:04 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Radiological weapons are most likely to be developed by home-grown terrorists vs. foreign ones. I didn't say where the terrorists come from, nor does it really even matter. If anything, home grown terrorists are better at their job than foreigners. The anthrax guy, the DC sniper, McVeigh (OK City) and the Ft Hood guy did a lot more damage than all the foreign terrorist terrorists combined if you exclude 9-11. And, yet, we invaded Iraq... sigh.... It wasn't my idea. But you think it was justifiable now? You seem to be saying that with the "we were already at war" claim. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:36:01 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:57:23 -0800, wrote: And, yet, we invaded Iraq... sigh.... It wasn't my idea. But you think it was justifiable now? You seem to be saying that with the "we were already at war" claim. If you are saying invading Iraq was a bad idea, I have always agreed. I think we should have come home in 1991 when they stopped the pursuit of the Republican Guard on the road to Iraq. Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:19:03 -0800, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:30:29 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 07:59:47 -0800, wrote: More than "a few problems." I'm happy to entertain the notion of fixing the problems with fracking. Perhaps they can start by disclosing the chemical mix they use. The problems I have heard are mostly because they were fracking too close to the surface and in residential areas. You mean that left up to the companies, who by the way deny everything, we shouldn't have any gov't oversight because there aren't any problems.. Did I say that? This fracking is done under a federal permit from MMS. Yes, and we all know how much oversight happened with that agency. I hear Obama broke it up into different agencies.. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05...gen-72654.html Lets keep a good thought. Maybe he will fix the agency and put an end to the revolving door that is the regulatory establishment in the US. Do you know of anything that doesn't affect someone? Sure. If my cat pees on a bush and I don't know about it, I suspect nobody is affected. Is that an equivalency attempt you're trying to make? I am trying to say "energy" is never going to be free of costs or even dangers. I agree. How about nuclear? France seems to be doing it safely. Oh wait, the French can't be trusted... lol I am OK with nuclear but the waste is still a problem. Yes, it's a problem, but there's got to be a trade-off. It is interesting how cavalier you are with fission products that have a huge potential for harm on a global scale for 10,000 years but you wring your hands because a few hundred people have had problems with their wells. Cavalier? It needs careful thought and regulation, but should be part of the solution. You think otherwise? It could be a valuable part of the 21st century energy picture. Now just convince those people who guide their lives from what they see in movies. I agree nuclear is probably our best hope for long term energy independence but the challenges are huge. I don't think we have a plant here in the US that has paid for itself yet and they get decommissioned, still in the red. These piles of high level waste are also very attractive targets for terrorists. Even a very modest dirty bomb in an urban center could make that place unusable for 1000 years. It would make Love Canal look like a dog knocking over your garbage can. I doubt the latter part of what you're saying. It's pretty well protected, esp. here in the US. In other countries.... well, the Republicans wanted to block the treaty, so I guess they thought all was cool. "The treaty" has nothing to do with non-fissionable materials. There are tons of high level waste and a few pounds of it could cause a whole lot of problems if someone threw it from a plane in a very modest low explosive bomb over a big city. For that matter you could just throw them off the roof of a few tall buildings on a windy day. Actually there is a small pile of high level waste. Most is low level, clothes, tools, etc. The fuel itself is reprocessed. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:19:07 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:37:52 -0800, wrote: Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. It is far from certain that there was any way to get Bin Laden and when it was clear he got away, why did we keep prosecuting the war? You're right. Bush lied about the effort, which was in a large measure how easy or difficult it was. We kept going to try and ensure the Taliban didn't return. Actually, Bush did little. We had to wait for Obama. Obams basically threw more troops into Afghanistan after saying he would wind down the war. I really do not see much progress tho. We are killing more people but I am not sure we are making a dent in the terrorists. We are making new ones faster than we can kill them. So, he shouldn't have listened to his generals? You make it sound like Bin Laden is some kind of criminal genius who can't be replaced. The fact is he was not even the planner of 9-11. (that guy is in Gitmo) OBL just provided some of the money. As soon as we cut him off from the money he was "contained". He was certainly in the loop on it. There may be some revenge value to going after him but if that is a justification, then getting Saddam should have been OK. Revenge had nothing to do with it. Justice did. Saddam didn't attack us or make any plans to attack us. The revenge would be for putting a contract out on GHWB. And, this is a justification for 1000s of dead US soldiers? In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:00:23 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:19:07 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:37:52 -0800, wrote: Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. It is far from certain that there was any way to get Bin Laden and when it was clear he got away, why did we keep prosecuting the war? You're right. Bush lied about the effort, which was in a large measure how easy or difficult it was. We kept going to try and ensure the Taliban didn't return. Actually, Bush did little. We had to wait for Obama. Obams basically threw more troops into Afghanistan after saying he would wind down the war. I really do not see much progress tho. We are killing more people but I am not sure we are making a dent in the terrorists. We are making new ones faster than we can kill them. So, he shouldn't have listened to his generals? Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. You make it sound like Bin Laden is some kind of criminal genius who can't be replaced. The fact is he was not even the planner of 9-11. (that guy is in Gitmo) OBL just provided some of the money. As soon as we cut him off from the money he was "contained". He was certainly in the loop on it. There may be some revenge value to going after him but if that is a justification, then getting Saddam should have been OK. Revenge had nothing to do with it. Justice did. Saddam didn't attack us or make any plans to attack us. The revenge would be for putting a contract out on GHWB. And, this is a justification for 1000s of dead US soldiers? No but it is probably more accurate than any other explanation I have heard. It's a statement of fact for sure. Bush, of course, won't admit it, but I'm sure it played a hand. That and Cheney's Haliburton. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:00:23 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:19:07 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:37:52 -0800, wrote: Iraq and Iran have never been a danger to the US but neither was Afghanistan. We invaded and occupied a country to get one guy, who isn't there. Is that dumber than invading for WMD that wasn't there? ?? We invaded Afg. to 1) get Bin Laden (Bush gave up on that one) and 2) to stop the safe harbor the Taliban were giving him. When we invaded, Bin Laden was there. Bush let him get away. It is far from certain that there was any way to get Bin Laden and when it was clear he got away, why did we keep prosecuting the war? You're right. Bush lied about the effort, which was in a large measure how easy or difficult it was. We kept going to try and ensure the Taliban didn't return. Actually, Bush did little. We had to wait for Obama. Obams basically threw more troops into Afghanistan after saying he would wind down the war. I really do not see much progress tho. We are killing more people but I am not sure we are making a dent in the terrorists. We are making new ones faster than we can kill them. So, he shouldn't have listened to his generals? Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. You make it sound like Bin Laden is some kind of criminal genius who can't be replaced. The fact is he was not even the planner of 9-11. (that guy is in Gitmo) OBL just provided some of the money. As soon as we cut him off from the money he was "contained". He was certainly in the loop on it. There may be some revenge value to going after him but if that is a justification, then getting Saddam should have been OK. Revenge had nothing to do with it. Justice did. Saddam didn't attack us or make any plans to attack us. The revenge would be for putting a contract out on GHWB. And, this is a justification for 1000s of dead US soldiers? No but it is probably more accurate than any other explanation I have heard. It's a statement of fact for sure. Bush, of course, won't admit it, but I'm sure it played a hand. That and Cheney's Haliburton. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article ,
says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, Harryk wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:57:52 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:25:22 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. They both followed the same exact path. Obama is on the Bush schedule. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. It is interesting that when this was Bush's plan you folks all said "get out now". Now that it is the Obama plan you have all the patience in the world. Really? Sounds to me like you're rewriting public opinion. Most people once they found out the facts of Iraq said we should get out asap. Most people thought that the Afg. war was justified. Feel free to keep your eyes closed if it makes you feel better. Harry is the only one who is consistent here. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. We are going to be lucky not to lose Pakistan to the Taliban right now. I think Afghanistan will go back to obscurity as soon as we leave but I doubt it will ever be a real democracy. Pakistan is making great strides in security. I hope you're not right. If it happens, it became a reality because of Bush's negligence in the region. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/9/11 2:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:14:15 -0500, wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On 2/9/11 2:55 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:07:39 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:57:52 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:25:22 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. They both followed the same exact path. Obama is on the Bush schedule. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. It is interesting that when this was Bush's plan you folks all said "get out now". Now that it is the Obama plan you have all the patience in the world. Really? Sounds to me like you're rewriting public opinion. Most people once they found out the facts of Iraq said we should get out asap. Most people thought that the Afg. war was justified. Feel free to keep your eyes closed if it makes you feel better. There were polls saying the Vietnam was the right thing to do too. It all depends on what the talking heads on TV tell Americans to believe. When the networks have their "Cronkite" moment, we will demand an end to that war too. You still can't ignore history. Harry has this one right. Afghanistan is not a country, it is just a collection of tribes who hate each other. Like most of the countries in South West Asia, Afghanistan was the creation of colonial European powers, not any natural political division. Harry is the only one who is consistent here. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. We are going to be lucky not to lose Pakistan to the Taliban right now. I think Afghanistan will go back to obscurity as soon as we leave but I doubt it will ever be a real democracy. Pakistan is making great strides in security. I hope you're not right. If it happens, it became a reality because of Bush's negligence in the region. Yup the whole 1000 years or turmoil in the middle east is GWs fault. Actually I do not remember any Bush incursions into sovereign Pakistani territory. That is not true now. Each one of them is an act of war. The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have a war. This is Obama's "Cambodia". Ignorant, simple-minded religious zealotry. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:24:30 -0500, Harryk
wrote: On 2/9/11 2:04 PM, wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 08:14:15 -0500, wrote: In , payer3389 @mypacks.net says... On 2/9/11 7:39 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 14:30:35 -0500, wrote: On 2/8/11 2:25 PM, wrote: According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a country. It's an outline on a map, with hundreds of independent villages and villagers who hate the villagers in the next village. Good explanation Iraq will fall apart. Afghanistan will never be "together" enough to fall apart. It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? I can't explain Bush II's invasion in rational terms. I can explain his invasion of Afg., and there's no need for me to rehash it. Obama is trying to get us out of Iraq. Even Bush II agreed to the withdrawal and it's proceeding. Obama will have to extricate us from Afg., and I believe that's going to happen as planned. I don't think it would be responsible to just exit immediately. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 14:55:59 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 11:07:39 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:57:52 -0500, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:25:22 -0800, wrote: On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 13:53:43 -0500, wrote: Generals always want more troops and a bigger war. It is what they do for a living, whether it is good foreign policy or not. That is why we have civilian oversight. So, which is it. Should Obama listen or not listen to military experts? Bush said he would, but he didn't. They both followed the same exact path. Obama is on the Bush schedule. Right now, it makes sense to try and wind things down in Afg. According to you, we should just get on a plane and leave. That's shortsighted nonsense, and it makes no sense militarily or politically. It is interesting that when this was Bush's plan you folks all said "get out now". Now that it is the Obama plan you have all the patience in the world. Really? Sounds to me like you're rewriting public opinion. Most people once they found out the facts of Iraq said we should get out asap. Most people thought that the Afg. war was justified. Feel free to keep your eyes closed if it makes you feel better. There were polls saying the Vietnam was the right thing to do too. It all depends on what the talking heads on TV tell Americans to believe. When the networks have their "Cronkite" moment, we will demand an end to that war too. Not sure what VN has to do with either situation. You keep bringing it up as though it's got something to do with this. You still can't ignore history. Harry has this one right. Afghanistan is not a country, it is just a collection of tribes who hate each other. It may or may not be, but in any case, we can't just drop the effort overnight even if we wanted to. Like most of the countries in South West Asia, Afghanistan was the creation of colonial European powers, not any natural political division. Harry is the only one who is consistent here. In 50 years Iraq may be seen as the good war, if they actually come out of it with a democracy. I doubt there will be any good coming out of the Afghanistan war. There is absolutely ZERO chance that **** hole will ever be a democracy. Right. Because Iraq was Bush's war, but Afg. is Obamas? There is a decent chance that they won't devolve back into Taliban control... There is a fair to middling chance that Iraq might evolve into a somewhat democratic government that successfully participates in the global economy. Afghanistan will still be a **** hole that will remain a tribal culture and the only participation in the world economy will be the powerful will exploit the weak to produce a few natural resources and a lot of smack. According the you.... expert on all things, esp. those in the middle east. You don't have to be a middle east expert to predict that. You only have to look at history (recent and long term). Iraq is a lot more westernized than Afghanistan. Well, as you're fond of saying, we'll see. It won't be an American-style democracy, but it could be a relatively safe place, free (for the most part) of terrorism. We are going to be lucky not to lose Pakistan to the Taliban right now. I think Afghanistan will go back to obscurity as soon as we leave but I doubt it will ever be a real democracy. Pakistan is making great strides in security. I hope you're not right. If it happens, it became a reality because of Bush's negligence in the region. Yup the whole 1000 years or turmoil in the middle east is GWs fault. Come on. I didn't say that. I said that Bush made things worse not better. He did this via the mechanism of neglect. Actually I do not remember any Bush incursions into sovereign Pakistani territory. That is not true now. Each one of them is an act of war. Bush's? How about the current administration? Seems to me that Pakistan complains, but only in public. The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have a war. This is Obama's "Cambodia". Again with the VN war reference. It's a bit long in the tooth. Find another analogy. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says... Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? A view that people are generally good and that they will do the right thing if given the opportunity. If you do not have a positive outlook and faith in the good of mankind then you might as well go live in a cave. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:38:01 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , payer3389 says... Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? A view that people are generally good and that they will do the right thing if given the opportunity. If you do not have a positive outlook and faith in the good of mankind then you might as well go live in a cave. I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Feb 9, 8:22*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote: I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar. This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same opinion of Obama This war as of to say, could go on longer than Obama's administration, and LePlume will still believe he is the Messiah of the ages. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article 29305ff5-b6c8-40ed-9cf4-ebd6b86c54a5
@e21g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says... On Feb 9, 8:22*pm, wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote: I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar. This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same opinion of Obama This war as of to say, could go on longer than Obama's administration, and LePlume will still believe he is the Messiah of the ages. Didn't Osellout dump more troops into Afghanistan after campaigning all year he was going to pull them out? Or did he just say that for the votes? |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:22:43 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote: I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar. This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same opinion of Obama I don't see any way that Obama has lied about either conflict. He didn't start either, and from everything I can see, he's trying to fix Bush's mess. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:21:01 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:04:21 -0800, wrote: The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have a war. This is Obama's "Cambodia". Again with the VN war reference. It's a bit long in the tooth. Find another analogy. It is hard to find examples of obfuscation, duplicity and futility like this without invoking Vietnam. There's no comparison between Obama and LBJ/Nixon. Sorry. For some of us, that was not really very long ago and we remember the lies. The people who remember the lies most vividly are the soldiers who saw it happening right in front of them with their ass on the line In any case, this has nothing to do with Obama. He isn't the one who's lying or lied about either war. Then like now. the government lied about the mission, they lied about the progress and in the end they lied about what we actually hoped to achieve. Which administration? Bush, I agree. He lied. I know you are young and got caught up in the rhetoric but some of us are old enough to be having our "you can fool us once ..." moment. Sure. Whatever. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
In article ,
says... On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:22:43 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 17:07:11 -0800, wrote: I agree. I had a good view of Bush until he was proven to be a liar. This war will go on long enough that you will end up with the same opinion of Obama I don't see any way that Obama has lied about either conflict. He didn't start either, and from everything I can see, he's trying to fix Bush's mess. Of course he lied. He said he was going to bring troops home from both countries on day one! Bold faced lie, in fact he has added to the troops in Afghanistan, I guess he had his finger (and toes) crossed during the campaign... Please check your facts |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:03:48 -0800, wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:34 -0500, wrote: It might survive as 2 countries. Then there would be Pakistan, North Pakistan and Outer Pakistan. East Iran and North Pakistan. I don't disagree with your analysis. I hope that causes you angst. It does give you pause doesn't it. I think it is encouraging that we are actually having a civilized conversation and actually agreeing on something ;-) Someone please explain to me in polite terms how the leaders of two administrations, the current one and the one in the immediate past, hoodwinked themselves into believing anything worth saving could be made from either Iraq or Afghanistan. I understand what Bush I did with his war with Iraq. It was rational. I understand what Clinton did in Bosnia. That was rational. Iraq? Afghanistan? Huh? I think the ultimate blame still comes back to GHWB. If he had actually brought our troops home in 1991 like he was advised, we would not have been in any of this. Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. If the opinion polls say get out, then get out. Is that what you're claiming? |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:27:11 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:21 -0800, wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:21:01 -0500, wrote: On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 13:04:21 -0800, wrote: The open question is how many acts of war does it take before you have a war. This is Obama's "Cambodia". Again with the VN war reference. It's a bit long in the tooth. Find another analogy. It is hard to find examples of obfuscation, duplicity and futility like this without invoking Vietnam. There's no comparison between Obama and LBJ/Nixon. Sorry. We are not talking about personalities, we are talking about situations. The situations are similar on some level I'm sure, not similar on others. For some of us, that was not really very long ago and we remember the lies. The people who remember the lies most vividly are the soldiers who saw it happening right in front of them with their ass on the line In any case, this has nothing to do with Obama. He isn't the one who's lying or lied about either war. He lies by omission. Do you really know our level of participation in the Pakistani incursions? So, you believe that all facts should be exposed to the general public, even if it's not in their best interest? How about when Bush/Cheney manipulated facts to suit them? Was that ok? We are not going to know about it until a Delta team is captured and put on trial in Islamabad for a war crime or when they shoot down one of our drones after it bombs a village. And you would prefer drones? Make up your mind. Then like now. the government lied about the mission, they lied about the progress and in the end they lied about what we actually hoped to achieve. Which administration? Bush, I agree. He lied. It is still going on. Obama is not lying about why we are in Iraq. Sorry if that flies in the face of your belief system. I know you are young and got caught up in the rhetoric but some of us are old enough to be having our "you can fool us once ..." moment. Sure. Whatever. I was like you in 1968. I thought we really needed to stop the commie menace in SE Asia. You have the same thing going on with OBL. Except that the military doesn't view him as the #1 threat any more and have said so publicly. Try again. Do you know he is not even the guy we want the most right now? It is Anwar Al-Awlaki and he is 1500 miles from Afghanistan in a place where we have zero military presence. Yes. I know this. Your point? Should we execute him or bring him home for trial? |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote: Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter what the cost. But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable. Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him qualified to know. They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air support or whatever)" I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama?? |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:39:56 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:27:11 -0500, wrote: He lies by omission. Do you really know our level of participation in the Pakistani incursions? So, you believe that all facts should be exposed to the general public, even if it's not in their best interest? That is the Wikileaks question isn't it? (or the Pentagon Papers) Yes, it's an open question. I think some things need to be kept away from the public I suppose. I'm not a spy or military expert. Are you? How about when Bush/Cheney manipulated facts to suit them? Was that ok? Having nothing to do with what we were talking about. and no it wasn't OK It has to do with facts or non-facts being released to the public. We are not going to know about it until a Delta team is captured and put on trial in Islamabad for a war crime or when they shoot down one of our drones after it bombs a village. And you would prefer drones? Make up your mind. They are about equal, although the Delta team is more surgical and has a better chance of success that a guy in North Dakota looking at a TV screen Wow... is there anything an expert like you doesn't know? I was like you in 1968. I thought we really needed to stop the commie menace in SE Asia. You have the same thing going on with OBL. Except that the military doesn't view him as the #1 threat any more and have said so publicly. Try again. Then what is our excuse for being in Afghanistan again? From Bush it was to get OBL. The other objective was to prevent the Taliban from allowing his kind to exist there. The real objective was probably the Great Game ala Haliburton, since Bush/Cheney didn't really give a crap about Americans or their safety. If they had, they would have stuck to Afg. instead of going into Iraq. Do you know he is not even the guy we want the most right now? It is Anwar Al-Awlaki and he is 1500 miles from Afghanistan in a place where we have zero military presence. Yes. I know this. Your point? Should we execute him or bring him home for trial? If we could shoot him in the head it would be great but these guys are pretty good at not getting got. So, forget Due Process, just kill him? Sounds like you're advocating throwing out some of those precious principles. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:32:06 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:38:29 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:39:56 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:31:39 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:27:11 -0500, wrote: He lies by omission. Do you really know our level of participation in the Pakistani incursions? So, you believe that all facts should be exposed to the general public, even if it's not in their best interest? That is the Wikileaks question isn't it? (or the Pentagon Papers) Yes, it's an open question. I think some things need to be kept away from the public I suppose. I'm not a spy or military expert. Are you? No but I try to pay attention. I do notice, when it is a Republican you want full disclosure but when it is a Democrat you say we should have secrets. Really? Where did I say that? If you can't show me where I've said that, then you should probably stop making up nonsense about what I said or didn't. How about when Bush/Cheney manipulated facts to suit them? Was that ok? Having nothing to do with what we were talking about. and no it wasn't OK It has to do with facts or non-facts being released to the public. See above. So, what are you for? Total disclosure, total non-disclosure, or just when you feel like it? We are not going to know about it until a Delta team is captured and put on trial in Islamabad for a war crime or when they shoot down one of our drones after it bombs a village. And you would prefer drones? Make up your mind. They are about equal, although the Delta team is more surgical and has a better chance of success that a guy in North Dakota looking at a TV screen Wow... is there anything an expert like you doesn't know? You don't have to be Tom Clancy to figure out drones, operated on a TV screen a half a world away are not as good as a guy standing on the ground to assess a target. I guess you haven't read much about how they're controlled and directed then. Read up. I was like you in 1968. I thought we really needed to stop the commie menace in SE Asia. You have the same thing going on with OBL. Except that the military doesn't view him as the #1 threat any more and have said so publicly. Try again. Then what is our excuse for being in Afghanistan again? From Bush it was to get OBL. The other objective was to prevent the Taliban from allowing his kind to exist there. The real objective was probably the Great Game ala Haliburton, since Bush/Cheney didn't really give a crap about Americans or their safety. If they had, they would have stuck to Afg. instead of going into Iraq. To what end? We have been in Afghanistan for a decade and there is no change that will last a week after we leave. To having the troops available to accomplish the mission. To not starting another war we didn't need. All of this about it not lasting a week or whatever from you, the international expert. Do you know he is not even the guy we want the most right now? It is Anwar Al-Awlaki and he is 1500 miles from Afghanistan in a place where we have zero military presence. Yes. I know this. Your point? Should we execute him or bring him home for trial? If we could shoot him in the head it would be great but these guys are pretty good at not getting got. So, forget Due Process, just kill him? Sounds like you're advocating throwing out some of those precious principles. It is the Obama policy, one I agree with. These are enemy combatants, not shop lifters.I have no problem finding them and shooting them. I draw the line at "just thinking" you saw one on TV and killing everyone in a 150 foot radius with Hellfire missiles. He's a US citizen, unless he's renounced his citizenship. If the former, he deserves a fair trial. If the latter, he's a terrorist and should be dealt with. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:10:01 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:34:22 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote: Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter what the cost. But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable. Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him qualified to know. You are simply obsessed. We were talking about NOW and GW is back in Texas. You can't seem to focus on what happened in the recent past. You're claiming that what Bush did was wrong, but well, he's no longer in office, so we should just forget about it. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. He's one step removed from a war criminal. They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air support or whatever)" I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama?? No I am saying it is not their job to question policy, they only say "can do sir" and give you the plan to do it. It is the president and congress's job to decide when and where we go to war. And, when a general gives his best, honest assessment, that should be ignored because he just wants to win? What nonsense. If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need and what they ask for. Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another 50,000 guys. Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
|
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 12:31:02 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:38:52 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 21:10:01 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:34:22 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 19:32:03 -0500, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:27:32 -0800, wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 01:14:05 -0500, wrote: Clinton could have pulled the plug too but he didn't. It just went down hill from there. So, he should have listened to his generals? Just a while ago, you were claiming he shouldn't have. Pick one please. I have never changed my opinion about Iraq. I have always said get out now. Listening to generals will give you their plan to win, not whether you should be there at all. So, in a war you don't want to know how to win, you just want to decide without any facts. I am saying it is the general's job to have a plan to win, no matter what the cost. But, he shouldn't be listened to, even if the plan sounds reasonable. Since Bush barely served in the Guard, I'm sure that would make him qualified to know. You are simply obsessed. We were talking about NOW and GW is back in Texas. You can't seem to focus on what happened in the recent past. You're claiming that what Bush did was wrong, but well, he's no longer in office, so we should just forget about it. Sorry, but that's not going to happen. He's one step removed from a war criminal. How is he a war criminal? Only the losers are war criminals. They never hang the winners. He lied and 10s of 1000s died for one thing. I think that's good enough to qualify. They are not the people to ask if you want to know if you should be there at all. No general who wants to stay a general will tell his boss "this is hopeless and there is no way to win". They come up with something and it is usually "I just need more (troops, guns, air support or whatever)" I don't know any generals, but it seems to me that honesty is the best policy, esp. if asked by one's boss. Are you saying all of them lied to Bush and all of them are lying to Obama?? No I am saying it is not their job to question policy, they only say "can do sir" and give you the plan to do it. It is the president and congress's job to decide when and where we go to war. And, when a general gives his best, honest assessment, that should be ignored because he just wants to win? What nonsense. That is the job of the civilian leadership, to look at the general's assessment and weigh the cost against the objective and what we hope to win. In the case of Afghanistan the cost is far greater than anything we can possibly hope to win. Yes, and that's something Bush didn't do.. or claimed he was doing but didn't. In the case of Iraq, if we take a threat away from Israel, it might have been worth it. That will be WWIII if it really gets going. Huh? Israel is or isn't capable of defending herself? So, we should or shouldn't be the world's police? Please pick one. If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need and what they ask for. Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another 50,000 guys. Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus. When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic Wars and still be relevant. Really? Even the 100 Years War (actually 116, but who's counting)? Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"? An avenue that may bring us to a way to get out without abandoning them to utter chaos. |
You Will be forced to use 15% ethanol
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:13:51 -0500, BAR wrote:
In article , says... If there is any lying at all it is in what they really think they need and what they ask for. Patton used to call it "rock soup". You make a modest request and then keep needing a little more until you get what you wanted in the first place. That is how we get into these wars that were only supposed to take 3 months and a few thousand covert operatives. Then 10 years later we are asking whether we should "double down" and put in another 50,000 guys. Wow... quite a reach going back to WW2. Try quoting Petraeus. When you are dealing with the military, you can quote Caesar's Gallic Wars and still be relevant. Petraeus used the "rock soup" tactic in Iraq and he is using in Afghanistan as we speak. What else can you call "double down"? Sun Tzu is taught at the USMA (West Point). That's the Art of War you idiot. It's not "war" itself. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com