Don't anger the bad guys

Senate Passes 9/11 Security Recommendations
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291050,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday night approved a package of security measures recommended by the 9/11 commission, shifting more federal money to high-risk states and cities and requiring more stringent screening of air and sea cargo.

The measure passed by a 85-8 vote.
Click to expand...

I believe the House will now send this right on through, sending a strong message to the pres.
 
Gato_Solo said:
a pile of shit
Click to expand...

well at least you got that right.

as to the bullshit about honoring commitments... are you kidding? that kinda shit hasn't been a part of US foreign policy since... well i'm not even sure...

or are you suggesting that there is some kind of choice here?

ha ha ha.

considering the track record in iraq it is just as likely to get worse as it is better if we stay. "cut and run?" no... "stop bleeding money when it won't make no difference"...? perhaps.

but the macho "commitment" crap, contraposed to "cut and run" as the sissy alternative... as long as you keep spouting that shit, you ain't never gonna see reasoned alternatives. you'll just keep waving flags.
 
2minkey said:
but the macho "commitment" crap, contraposed to "cut and run" as the sissy alternative... as long as you keep spouting that shit, you ain't never gonna see reasoned alternatives. you'll just keep waving flags.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...who used the word 'sissy', and who used the word 'macho'? This has nothing to do with wimpy or macho. and you know it. You'd like to believe that, I'm sure, but its totally off the point. What it comes down to is this...You start an action, you complete the action especially when there are lives at risk. You put those lives at risk, you'd better be prepared and willing to finish the job. You are the one who wants to see alternatives, so why do you keep spouting off the 'cut and run'? Until you see this as something more than a 'money' issue, you will always fail to see the larger picture. As for the cut and run, its been done before...on more than one occasion. Most recently in the 1980's in Afghanistan. You can see what happened there...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Hmmm...who used the word 'sissy', and who used the word 'macho'? This has nothing to do with wimpy or macho. and you know it. You'd like to believe that, I'm sure, but its totally off the point. What it comes down to is this...You start an action, you complete the action especially when there are lives at risk. You put those lives at risk, you'd better be prepared and willing to finish the job. You are the one who wants to see alternatives, so why do you keep spouting off the 'cut and run'? Until you see this as something more than a 'money' issue, you will always fail to see the larger picture. As for the cut and run, its been done before...on more than one occasion. Most recently in the 1980's in Afghanistan. You can see what happened there...
Click to expand...

Actually, it has everything to do with "sissy" and "macho" whether or not it does for you personally. "You put those lives at risk, you'd better be prepared and willing to finish the job?" No matter what the cost? I don't think so, that would be mindless. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Sometimes you have to write some things off as mistakes regardless of what they've cost you. Does that mean people lost their lives for no purpose? Sure it does. I've been saying so all along. How many more have to before it's enough for you? I personally think it's been too many already.
 
chcr said:
Actually, it has everything to do with "sissy" and "macho" whether or not it does for you personally. "You put those lives at risk, you'd better be prepared and willing to finish the job?" No matter what the cost? I don't think so, that would be mindless. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Sometimes you have to write some things off as mistakes regardless of what they've cost you. Does that mean people lost their lives for no purpose? Sure it does. I've been saying so all along. How many more have to before it's enough for you? I personally think it's been too many already.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're falling into the same trap as 2minkey. I've never advocated 'staying the course'. I have mentioned, several times, about doubling the manpower. I also mentioned securing the borders. Public opinion should have nothing to do with fighting a war, and, yet, thats where most of the war is being fought. The idea is this. Finish it now, or finish it later. Sure, its expensive in terms of lives. Every war is. Its expensive in terms of equipment. Every war is. However...unless you, the public, are willing to use whatever means necessary, this will drag on. One more thing...You write this one off, how long do you think it will take before we have to go back in?

There are three ways in which a ruler can bring
misfortune upon his army:--

13. (1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat,
being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey.
This is called hobbling the army.

14. (2) By attempting to govern an army in the
same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant
of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes
restlessness in the soldier's minds.

15. (3) By employing the officers of his army
without discrimination, through ignorance of the
military principle of adaptation to circumstances.
This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.
Click to expand...

Of the above, 13 sums up the Iraq campaign today.

Linkage...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Unfortunately, you're falling into the same trap as 2minkey. I've never advocated 'staying the course'. I have mentioned, several times, about doubling the manpower. I also mentioned securing the borders. Public opinion should have nothing to do with fighting a war, and, yet, thats where most of the war is being fought. The idea is this. Finish it now, or finish it later. Sure, its expensive in terms of lives. Every war is. Its expensive in terms of equipment. Every war is. However...unless you, the public, are willing to use whatever means necessary, this will drag on. One more thing...You write this one off, how long do you think it will take before we have to go back in?



Of the above, 13 sums up the Iraq campaign today.

Linkage...
Click to expand...


I understand that you don't favor staying the course. Two important considerations though. First, I don't think the American people will stand still for the increased cost in lives and dollars that your way entails because it in no way serves US interests. Second neither the current administration nor any possible foreseeable one will do it. It's all well and good to talk about what might work, but we need a realistc workable solution that has some chance of actually being implemented and the only viable one out there is withdrawal. The question is how many more soldiers have to die for no reason before someone in authority makes the hard decision (and make no mistake, despite the whining of the various right and left factions, withdrawal is the hard decision) and gets us out of this cluster-fuck.

Somehow, you seem to have the idea that the situation is salvageable. It's not unless you're prepared for it to get much, much worse first. For what? Viet Nam nearly led to a revolt in this country for all it's been swept under the rug for forty years. Would it have been worth that to stay? How long until we Have to go back in? Listen to yourself. Have to go back in? We didn't have to go in in the first place and it has certainly not made the country any more secure (in fact it's done the opposite). We won't have to go back in, we may or may not choose to.

Your other conclusion is in error too, the troops in Iraq are not fully engaged, they can leave at any time. IMO number 13 doesn't apply at all.
 
We need a draft, to learn some of these whipper-snappers some respect.:devious:

That might actually bring back some family values sur-nuf.
 
WE ARE NOT LEAVING
WE ARE GOING TO TEHRAN
NOW STFU QUIT YER WHINING AND ENJOY THE CARNAGE M'Kay?

In 1218, the eastern Khwarazmid provinces of Transoxiana and Khorasan suffered a devastating invasion by Genghis Khan. During this period more than half of Persia's population were killed, turning the streets of Persian cities like Neishabur into "rivers of blood", as the severed heads of men, women, and children were "neatly stacked into carefully constructed pyramids around which the carcasses of the city's dogs and cats were placed". In a letter to King Louis IX of France, Holaku, one of the Genghis Khan's grandsons, alone took responsibility for 200,000 deaths in his raids of Persia and the Caliphate.

They need a lesson from time to time and they are long over due.

Na na na na
Na na na na
Hey, Hey,
kiss your Persian ass

Goodbye


MK6_TITAN_II.jpg
 
chcr said:
I understand that you don't favor staying the course. Two important considerations though. First, I don't think the American people will stand still for the increased cost in lives and dollars that your way entails because it in no way serves US interests. Second neither the current administration nor any possible foreseeable one will do it. It's all well and good to talk about what might work, but we need a realistc workable solution that has some chance of actually being implemented and the only viable one out there is withdrawal. The question is how many more soldiers have to die for no reason before someone in authority makes the hard decision (and make no mistake, despite the whining of the various right and left factions, withdrawal is the hard decision) and gets us out of this cluster-fuck.

Somehow, you seem to have the idea that the situation is salvageable. It's not unless you're prepared for it to get much, much worse first. For what? Viet Nam nearly led to a revolt in this country for all it's been swept under the rug for forty years. Would it have been worth that to stay? How long until we Have to go back in? Listen to yourself. Have to go back in? We didn't have to go in in the first place and it has certainly not made the country any more secure (in fact it's done the opposite). We won't have to go back in, we may or may not choose to.

Your other conclusion is in error too, the troops in Iraq are not fully engaged, they can leave at any time. IMO number 13 doesn't apply at all.
Click to expand...

:thumbup: Nice post.
 
chcr said:
I understand that you don't favor staying the course. Two important considerations though. First, I don't think the American people will stand still for the increased cost in lives and dollars that your way entails because it in no way serves US interests. Second neither the current administration nor any possible foreseeable one will do it. It's all well and good to talk about what might work, but we need a realistc workable solution that has some chance of actually being implemented and the only viable one out there is withdrawal. The question is how many more soldiers have to die for no reason before someone in authority makes the hard decision (and make no mistake, despite the whining of the various right and left factions, withdrawal is the hard decision) and gets us out of this cluster-fuck.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Withdrawal is the easiest decision. Always has been. Thats why its so popular. The reason my idea doesn't have a chance of being implemented is because of cost. Not in lives, but in dollars. Ask any accountant. I'm about to go over again soon, so, to me, the best answer is to actually try, instead of the half-stepping the government is doing in hopes of getting re-elected. The only reason why its a cluster-fuck is because somebody didn't want to spend the money in the first place because they knew it was going to be unpopular.

chcr said:
Somehow, you seem to have the idea that the situation is salvageable. It's not unless you're prepared for it to get much, much worse first. For what? Viet Nam nearly led to a revolt in this country for all it's been swept under the rug for forty years. Would it have been worth that to stay? How long until we Have to go back in? Listen to yourself. Have to go back in? We didn't have to go in in the first place and it has certainly not made the country any more secure (in fact it's done the opposite). We won't have to go back in, we may or may not choose to.
Click to expand...

This is our second time. I'm already seeing it happening a third. Per your reasoning, we didn't have to go into Afghanistan, either...nor did we have to go into Normandy...nor did we have to take back the Phillipines. I've been there 4 times, and I can tell you that the west is not liked by the Islamic world. Most of this comes from fanaticism in Saudi Arabia, but attacking the root of the problem there will only lead to a war of genocide. Whats going on now...in Iraq and Afghanistan, is just pruning the bush, as it were.

chcr said:
Your other conclusion is in error too, the troops in Iraq are not fully engaged, they can leave at any time. IMO number 13 doesn't apply at all.
Click to expand...


They were in the beginning...then the Congress stepped in. ;)
 
catocom said:
Senate Passes 9/11 Security Recommendations
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291050,00.html

I believe the House will now send this right on through, sending a strong message to the pres.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure if the veto option ever was on the table, of if it was
just hearsay on some peoples' part in congress.

Either way it looks like we have (again, a/an Historic Bi-Partisan Event)
that the pres. is definitely behind Now, and is looking forward to being a part
of positively.

This alone may significantly bring up the approval rating of the Whole capital hill.
It does with me personally.
NOW, if they will just continue in the (what I consider) logical manner,
this country will start rebuilding it's reputation, at home and abroad, I believe.
:beardbng:
 
Gato_Solo said:
I disagree. Withdrawal is the easiest decision. Always has been. Thats why its so popular. The reason my idea doesn't have a chance of being implemented is because of cost. Not in lives, but in dollars. Ask any accountant. I'm about to go over again soon, so, to me, the best answer is to actually try, instead of the half-stepping the government is doing in hopes of getting re-elected. The only reason why its a cluster-fuck is because somebody didn't want to spend the money in the first place because they knew it was going to be unpopular.
Click to expand...
No, withdrawal is the hard decision because it makes us look lie idiots. Again. Arren is headed that way again too. Point is, at some point the politicians have to do what the majority of the people (well, people who vote) want or lose their jobs. It's the way the system works, the way it's supposed to work. Oh, and it was always going to be a cluster-fuck. I understand that you believe there was a way it wouldn't have been, but you're wrong IMO.

Gato_Solo said:
This is our second time. I'm already seeing it happening a third. Per your reasoning, we didn't have to go into Afghanistan, either...nor did we have to go into Normandy...nor did we have to take back the Phillipines. I've been there 4 times, and I can tell you that the west is not liked by the Islamic world. Most of this comes from fanaticism in Saudi Arabia, but attacking the root of the problem there will only lead to a war of genocide. Whats going on now...in Iraq and Afghanistan, is just pruning the bush, as it were.
Click to expand...
Yep, we did such a good job bringing peace and prosperity to the Philipines. I can't understand why these other countries won't welcome us with open arms. We didn't have to go there, or Normandy or Afghanistan. We had better reasons for those, but we certainly didn't have to.


Gato_Solo said:
They were in the beginning...then the Congress stepped in. ;)
Click to expand...
Again, that's the way it's supposed to work. They're supposed to correct their mistakes when they make them and they made a big one this time. Intelligent people admit when they've made them and move on. As SnP is so fond of pointing out, if you don't like it, elect someone else. That's what happened in the midterm, and as I'm fond of pointing out the lack of action on this front once again proves that everone on capital hill, regardless of apparent affiliation, is sucking from the same teat.
 
chcr said:
No, withdrawal is the hard decision because it makes us look lie idiots. Again.
Click to expand...

Which is where I disagree. You said it yourself. It isn't the first time we've looked like idiots, and it won't be the last, either. What would make us look worse is leaving before we at least get the majority of the stuff we broke fixed. Thats another reason we need the extra forces on the ground. If we don't do at least the repairs, we're not only idiots, but we're unapologetic idiots. Any way you slice it, the decision to leave will be worse than any other.

chcr said:
Arren is headed that way again too. Point is, at some point the politicians have to do what the majority of the people (well, people who vote) want or lose their jobs. It's the way the system works, the way it's supposed to work. Oh, and it was always going to be a cluster-fuck. I understand that you believe there was a way it wouldn't have been, but you're wrong IMO.
Click to expand...

So we agree to disagree on that point, at least. One thing is for certain, though. Whatever decision Congress and the President make, it will be the wrong one, and I'll tell you why. The voters are a fickle, apathetic bunch who are easily led and easily fooled. You know it, and I know it. Thats why Ted Kennedy is still in the Senate...and why the system doesn't work. ;)

Another thing...

If you go into a fight with the attitude that you're going to have to run away before its over, thats usually what happens.


chcr said:
Yep, we did such a good job bringing peace and prosperity to the Philipines. I can't understand why these other countries won't welcome us with open arms. We didn't have to go there, or Normandy or Afghanistan. We had better reasons for those, but we certainly didn't have to.
Click to expand...

They were alright until we let Marcos run the place. :shrug: As for today, you'll have to ask Toolbox.


chcr said:
Again, that's the way it's supposed to work. They're supposed to correct their mistakes when they make them and they made a big one this time. Intelligent people admit when they've made them and move on. As SnP is so fond of pointing out, if you don't like it, elect someone else. That's what happened in the midterm, and as I'm fond of pointing out the lack of action on this front once again proves that everone on capital hill, regardless of apparent affiliation, is sucking from the same teat.
Click to expand...

You don't correct a mistake by compounding your error through 'inaction' and/or indecisiveness, either. You also don't make a mess without cleaning it up. Its called courtesy and respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top