|
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? Like Elian's father? Not all Cubans are unhappy with life under Castro, all Cuban refugees are. Not to defend Castro, the Cuban people have an unacceptable limit to their freedoms, but why are Cubans automatically political refugees, when Haitians, Mexicans, and other Latinos aren't? |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. Other "interesting" notes: On average, more Americans died in a 2 week period of WWII than the entire time period of both Gulf Wars combined. On average, 526 Americans died each month in Vietnam vs. just under 65/mo in the second Gulf War. More Americans died on 9/11 than in both Gulf Wars combined. So? Does this mean it's OK to waste a few lives because more were lost elsewhere in the past? You must love the "acceptable loss" formulae used by airlines. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. From the Washington Times: Review finds no pre-9/11 Atta file By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES August 23, 2005 A Pentagon investigation has found no evidence that Able Danger, a secret military intelligence operation, identified September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terror cell member more than a year before the attacks. Larry Di Rita, chief Pentagon spokesman, said investigators have failed to find a chart that Able Danger supposedly created before the winter of 2000 that listed Atta as a member of an al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y. Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer has told reporters and cable news shows that Able Danger had created such a chart and that Pentagon attorneys in 2000 had blocked moves to provide the information to the FBI. Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has backed Col. Shaffer's assertion. But Mr. Di Rita said investigators have not found any evidence that such a chart existed. "We have been very aggressive," Mr. Di Rita told The Washington Times. "We haven't been able to find anything that would corroborate the kind of detail Lt. Col. Shaffer and Congressman Weldon seem to recall." Mark Zaid, Col. Shaffer's attorney, said yesterday that his client stands by his assertion. He also said: "There are at least two other Able Danger team members who are coming forward and are specifically confirming what Mr. Shaffer has been saying in that they had identified several of the hijackers, including Atta, prior to September 11," Mr. Zaid said. "The Pentagon is either looking in the wrong places or not talking to the right people to confirm this same information." The national commission that investigated the September 11 attacks first learned of Able Danger in 2003 and requested information from the Pentagon before releasing its report last year. Commission staff met with Col. Shaffer in Afghanistan but say he never mentioned Atta's name. Mr. Di Rita said the Pentagon's review, spearheaded by Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, confirmed that relevant data on Able Danger was turned over to the commission in 2003 and 2004. "We, to the best of our understanding now, developed the information that was available at that time for the commission, and the commission factored it in as it felt appropriate," Mr. Di Rita said. Former Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton said Aug. 12 that information on Able Danger was not significant enough to include in the panel's lengthy report. Able Danger was essentially a data-mining operation aimed at obtaining more information on terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist cells. Mr. Di Rita said Able Danger compiled some information on suspected cells in this country, but that investigators have found no evidence that the operation identified Atta or other September 11 hijackers. Col. Shaffer has said that he was told about the Atta chart by Able Danger team members. He has said it identified Atta as being in the U.S. in early 2000. But the September 11 commission said Atta did not enter the country until late 2000 and was not identified by the U.S. as a terror suspect. "We have to wonder whether [the chart] did exist," Mr. Di Rita said. "It's a bit of a phantom search here." He said investigators debriefed Col. Shaffer, who acknowledged that he does not have a copy of the chart and had based his statements on what others told him. Mr. Di Rita said the probe is continuing, but will end "soon" unless new evidence materializes. "We have not been able to determine the information Lt. Col. Shaffer and Congressman Weldon described actually existed," Mr. Di Rita said. Mr. Zaid said Col. Shaffer was on active duty when working as a liaison between the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency and the Able Danger team. He then became a civilian analyst at DIA. He was suspended in March 2004. The DIA is in the process of revoking Col. Shaffer's security clearance, Mr. Zaid said, for what he called "trivial matters." They include reimbursements for mileage and telephone charges, and whether he properly received an award for his Able Danger work. Mr. Zaid said the Army promoted Col. Shaffer from the rank of major during the time of his paid suspension. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? With that post, harry is in serious contention for the title of "King of the NG idiots" |
Damn, I could not believe that this was true, but it is. Shows that we have
much better weapons today, than the old muskat. "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? In recent years, because of the lack of economic opportunity in Cuba, the same reason why we get so many immigrants from Mexico, Salvador, et cetera. Cuba has never been a wealthy country. Prior to Castro, Cuba did make significant amounts of money for its leaders, and for US gangsters and corporations, but that is because they were sucking up the profits and doing next to nothing for the workers. Then why didn't the workers hop on a boat and flee the country under Batista? I suspect that growing up in New Jersey (my mom was from Hudson County), and living so close now to Little Havana, that I have a lot more Cuban friends than you. None of them share your view of Castro vs. Batista. Your knowledge of history is defective, as is your understanding of the motivation of many of the Cubans who came here in years past. The motivation of many of the folks who I know that moved here is that Castro came in and took their homes, took their businesses, and put their family members in jail. There's nothing "defective" about those first-hand accounts. I dated a girl that was born in Cuba......that is exactly what happened to her family.......lost everything they had. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. Other "interesting" notes: On average, more Americans died in a 2 week period of WWII than the entire time period of both Gulf Wars combined. On average, 526 Americans died each month in Vietnam vs. just under 65/mo in the second Gulf War. More Americans died on 9/11 than in both Gulf Wars combined. Should one conclude, then, that your point is the 1800+ Americans who have died so far fighting Bush's war do not add up to a number of any consequence? I wouldn't say that. Afterall, the 6000 or so Americans who died during the American Revolution (a number that pales in comparison to the number who died in any of our other major wars) certainly played a very important role in the future of our country. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:05 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? Like Elian's father? Not all Cubans are unhappy with life under Castro, all Cuban refugees are. Maybe Elian's dad figured life under Castro was better than life with Elian's mom. Not to defend Castro, the Cuban people have an unacceptable limit to their freedoms, but why are Cubans automatically political refugees, when Haitians, Mexicans, and other Latinos aren't? I dunno. Ask President Carter. |
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:05 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? Like Elian's father? Not all Cubans are unhappy with life under Castro, all Cuban refugees are. Maybe Elian's dad figured life under Castro was better than life with Elian's mom. Not to defend Castro, the Cuban people have an unacceptable limit to their freedoms, but why are Cubans automatically political refugees, when Haitians, Mexicans, and other Latinos aren't? I dunno. Ask President Carter. What percentage of mexicans, haitiand, dominicans etc are thrown in prison when returned for entering this country illegally? And cubans? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com