Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

U.S. Combat Fatality Rate Lowest Ever

Military Fatalities Low rate

  • Please log in to reply
232 replies to this topic

#221 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 31 December 2004 - 03:55 PM

^ Guys relax, it's New Years Eve. People have lives outside of EI. :)
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#222 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 01 January 2005 - 10:26 AM

Rhea, on Dec 31 2004, 03:33 PM, said:

^Might as well throw another log on the fire and get comfy. It's going to be a long wit. :p

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll be back after the New Year to make a post.  In the meantime I'll leave the thread to the liberal counterparts of a certain conservative poster you all hate. ;)  Since several liberal posters in this thread can play those games just as well.

No need to start the New Year off with political name calling and fighting quite yet. Have a Happy New Year.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#223 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 01 January 2005 - 10:44 AM

Well, none of this is news, or new.  Go back through posts over the last almost 2 years.  

It's all been posted and discussed here before, ad nauseum, with more than a few different spins.

#224 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 01 January 2005 - 11:59 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Jan 1 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

Since several liberal posters in this thread can play those games just as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I learned by defending myself.  Who knew that a good defense really was the best offense?!  :hehe:

CJ AEGIS, on Jan 1 2005, 07:26 AM, said:

No need to start the New Year off with political name calling and fighting quite yet. Have a Happy New Year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, Happy New Year, everybody!  :)

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#225 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 04:45 AM

Steven_Q, on Dec 30 2004, 04:55 AM, said:

Quote

We went to war against a nation that was harbouring a known criminal that had been indicted by the US as far back as June 1998. Bush demanded that they hand bin Laden over or suffer the consequences. bin Laden wasn't a head of state and yet we still managed to go to war. The Afghani government refused to turn bin Laden over and suffered the consequences. Bush's approach wasn't all that special or unique.

You mention later in your post that the US goverment knows where Bin Laden is. Does that mean you'd support the US going to war with Pakistan if they refuse to hand him over?
Of course not. Pakistan has been the single most cooperative country in the Middle East to our cause. They have limited juridiction in that area. They can't just go in there and remove him without it causing major problems. So I don't see this as being a situation in which Pakistan is standing in our way of getting him.

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#226 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 04:57 AM

Elara, on Dec 30 2004, 12:49 PM, said:

Waterpanther says:

Quote

As I recall, the Republicans in Congress yelped and brayed about how he was just trying to divert attention from his domestic problems--problems those Republicans were instrumental in creating.


Bouree says:

Quote

First of all, the "problems" Bill Clinton had were a result of his actions. This wasn't about entrapment. He screwed up (or screwed around take your pick) and got caught. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that these "problems" were more substantial than dealing with a known terrorist who threatened and attacked the US over 3 times?

~.~ Waterpanther is correct. We all heard the Republicans say this, over and over. All I thought back then was: "Don't they want to check into this instead of how Clinton was an adulterer? Let his wife make him pay."
No one is saying he didn't mess up, big time.

As for those problems being more substantial, no, they weren't. However, they took him away from doing his job as president, didn't they? They were an attempt to disparage him and those people of 9/11 paid for the Republican's games.
If they took him away from doing his job then it is his fault. Politicians play games. That's a fact. Whether they are Republican or Democrats, they play games. What I remember from that time is that most Americans did not want the Clinton/Monica thing to dominate the news. Most of the people I know, Republican and Democrat alike, didn't want all the bruhaha about Monica to drag on the way it did.

Clinton could have made a case for going after bin Laden. Especially after the announcement of the jihad. He didn't, that's my point.

Quote

Bouree says:

Quote

Clinton hunted him (at least) for the last 4 years of his adminstration giving bin Laden plenty of practice and plenty of time to gather support for his cause. He made Bush's job that much harder.

~.~ How could Clinton's hunt for him have hampered bush's job? Are you saying that if Clinton had not bothered, Bush would have him caught by now?
By not going after bin Laden with a considered determined approach (ie read that as half-?ssed), he's given bin Laden time to gain strength/support. That certainly has hampered our attempts to get him now.

Quote

Bouree says:

Quote

Furthermore, this isn't about oil. Iraq isn't about oil. The Iraqi people need that oil to support themselves.  We repair the oil fields only to have terrorists blow up our hard work.

~.~ That, I would question. Yes, the Iraqi people need that oil to survive, but are we helping to get breaks on the price of that oil? Or are we really just helping?
Only time will tell for sure. But until the the Iraqi invasion, we were not dependant on Iraqi oil to meet our demands. I don't really know whether our sources have changed since the invasion.

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#227 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:08 AM

waterpanther, on Dec 30 2004, 03:41 PM, said:

Bouree--

You say that Clinton should have taken greater action against bin Laden and Saddam.  Okay--how do you propose he should have done that?  Going to war takes money and troops.  While the Commander-in-Chief can order up the regiments, he can't pay them without action in Congress.  Congress at the time, and specifically the conservative/Republican branch of Congress, was preoccupied with Monica's dress, not with putative threats from the Middle East. 
Republicans, like Democrats, still have to listen to the American people. Like I said in an earlier post, I recall most Americans not being that interested pursuing the Clinton/Monica scandal. Well, at least those people I know.

Quote

Here's some of what Clinton faced from that quarter:

Quote

AT LEAST TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE INITIATION OF WAR ON IRAQ
A project of  The Conservative Caucus
450 Maple Avenue East * Vienna, Va. 22180 * 703-938-9626



Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues and Strategy Bulletin of February 15, 1998

www.conservativeusa.org/iraq-war.htm

Iraq? What does Clinton's actions against bin Laden have to do with Iraq? bin Laden was in Afghanistan mostly though sometimes he was in Sudan. Maybe the issues involving war (ie in regards to low resources) might have been the same, but I doubt it. Neither country was as strong as Iraq.

Quote

In hindsight, you have to say the dude was prescient.  Too bad the conservatives have changed their minds since.
Is it really such a big surprise? Republicans supporting the actions of a Republican president. Not a big news story, nor would Democrats supporting the actions of a Democratic president be big news.

Quote

But it leaves us with the question, how could Bill Clinton have "gone to war" with Osama facing this kind of opposition?  Maybe he and Al Gore could have shoved bombs out Air Force 1's luggage bay?

waterpanther
Like I said earlier, 1) go to the American people. 2) Afghanistan wasn't the military threat that Iraq was, so the effort needed would be different.

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#228 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:13 AM

Bouree57, on Jan 9 2005, 10:45 AM, said:

Of course not. Pakistan has been the single most cooperative country in the Middle East to our cause. They have limited juridiction in that area. They can't just go in there and remove him without it causing major problems. So I don't see this as being a situation in which Pakistan is standing in our way of getting him.

So because Pakistan doesn't have control over it's own nation, it's okay for him to hide in Pakistan without retribution?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#229 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:16 AM

A message to those that have waited for replies:

I have a life outside Ex Isle and I live in the south where we have had a few ice storms. We didn't lose electricity this time but we did lose our phone for a couple of days. I'm on dial-up, so no internet.  :pout:  But I'm back on line now and will endeavor to not leave you wanting for so long. (If possible, it is still winter).

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#230 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:30 AM

waterpanther, on Dec 30 2004, 03:59 PM, said:

And here's a brief but cogent discussion of oil as a motive for the war:

Quote

History Will Show US Lusted After Oil
By Linda McQuaig
Toronto Star
December 26, 2004
<article snipped>

www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/1226lust.htm
It's an interesting article to be sure. One which causes me concern to be sure. But only time will tell if any of this true.

Quote

You can choose to disbelieve this, of course.  But you will then also need to disbelieve Paul Bremer's "100 Laws" which open the way for 100% foreign (read:  American) ownership of Iraqi businesses and industries.  An exceptionally egregious application of these regulations is Monsanto's obtaining patents on seed varieties developed in Iraq, by Iraqis.   Iraqi farmers are now obliged to by their seed stock from an American company; they are legally forbidden to do what farmers have done for centuries, save seed from one harvest to plant the next crop. 

Now, tell us again how the US is just looking after the Iraqi peoples' best interests.  Tell us why/how the same thing can't happen with the oil.
I believe what I know. Speculation like the article will bear itself out or not as time passes.

As for Bremer, I'm not a fan of his. I think he screwed up royally when he fired the police force of Iraq instead of using them to keep the peace in there. When you fire 400,000 people from their jobs, don't expect them to like you very much.

Furthermore, if Monsanto is robbing the Iraqi people then the American people need to know about this. Because we do have a voice and we should be using it to make sure our government does what we want it to do. A nice email campaign would be help the cause quite nicely.

Quote

Added:  Yes, it's obvious that some al-Qaida operatives were in Somalia.  It's not obvious that they were involved in the killings of American troops in Mogadishu.
Well if bin Laden's admissions don't convince you, nothing I say will.  :eh:

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#231 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 05:40 AM

Steven_Q, on Jan 9 2005, 05:13 AM, said:

Bouree57, on Jan 9 2005, 10:45 AM, said:

Of course not. Pakistan has been the single most cooperative country in the Middle East to our cause. They have limited juridiction in that area. They can't just go in there and remove him without it causing major problems. So I don't see this as being a situation in which Pakistan is standing in our way of getting him.

So because Pakistan doesn't have control over it's own nation, it's okay for him to hide in Pakistan without retribution?
The tribal areas of Pakistan are equvilent to those of American Indian reservations. The American government has limited juridiction over these areas in the same or similar way.

It doesn't mean that Pakistan is standing in our way. They simply aren't. It's more a matter of understanding the importance that the tribal lands have in their society. They are cooperating as much as they are able to do so. What we must not do is cause civil unrest in a country that has aided us the way Pakistan has over the last 4/5 years.

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)

#232 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 09 January 2005 - 07:34 PM

Quote

If they took him away from doing his job then it is his fault. Politicians play games. That's a fact. Whether they are Republican or Democrats, they play games. What I remember from that time is that most Americans did not want the Clinton/Monica thing to dominate the news. Most of the people I know, Republican and Democrat alike, didn't want all the bruhaha about Monica to drag on the way it did.

Let me think about this a moment.  If my neighbor's pit bull chews through the wrought iron fence and chomps down on my ankle, and I take time to fight the critter off and maybe even go to the ER to get a Band-Aid slapped on a severed artery and get a tetanus shot, it's my fault if I'm late to work and then can't give it quite the attention I normally would.  Your underlying premise here seems to be that Clinton had no right to defend himself.  I'd say he had the obligation to do so, for the sake of the people who elected him.  The onus lies with the political hacks and opportunists who made the defense necessary in the first place.

Quote

Republicans, like Democrats, still have to listen to the American people. Like I said in an earlier post, I recall most Americans not being that interested pursuing the Clinton/Monica scandal. Well, at least those people I know.

No, most Americans were not.  That didn't stop the Henry Hydes, the Ken Starrs, the Midge Decters and the whole crew of conservatives who attempted, in fact, a coup d'etat against a lawfully elected President.  Hell, it still doesn't stop them.  Anything negative is still, according to the arch-conservative faithful, Bill Clinton's fault.  It was Bill Clinton's fault that bin Laden attacked the WTC.  It was Bill Clinton's fault the economy tanked once Bush got his hands on it.  It was Bill Clinton's fault Shrub didn't show up to make his announcement about tsunami aid earlier than he did.  Humbug.  

Quote

The tribal areas of Pakistan are equvilent to those of American Indian reservations. The American government has limited juridiction over these areas in the same or similar way.

No.  If this were even remotely true, Leonard Peltier would be a free man today, and Annie Aquash would be alive.  There would never have been a federal invasion of Pine Ridge, and no siege at Wounded Knee.

The "tribal areas" of Pakistan and Afghanistan are under the control, essentially, of warlords over whom the central government has been unable to establish authority.  Musharraf doesn't go in there because he can't do so without inciting an uprising against himself.  The US doesn't go in there for the same reason; Musharraf is still a useful tool.  The minute he ceases to be useful, he'll face a takedown just as Saddam did.
Posted Image

#233 Bouree57

Bouree57
  • Islander
  • 578 posts

Posted 10 January 2005 - 04:41 AM

waterpanther, on Jan 9 2005, 07:34 PM, said:

Quote

If they took him away from doing his job then it is his fault. Politicians play games. That's a fact. Whether they are Republican or Democrats, they play games. What I remember from that time is that most Americans did not want the Clinton/Monica thing to dominate the news. Most of the people I know, Republican and Democrat alike, didn't want all the bruhaha about Monica to drag on the way it did.

Let me think about this a moment.  If my neighbor's pit bull chews through the wrought iron fence and chomps down on my ankle, and I take time to fight the critter off and maybe even go to the ER to get a Band-Aid slapped on a severed artery and get a tetanus shot, it's my fault if I'm late to work and then can't give it quite the attention I normally would.  Your underlying premise here seems to be that Clinton had no right to defend himself.  I'd say he had the obligation to do so, for the sake of the people who elected him.  The onus lies with the political hacks and opportunists who made the defense necessary in the first place.
What you said might make sense if we were talking about Clinton being attacked for something real. It wasn't real and I won't ignore the fact that he didn't have the balls to stand up and do what was right. Clinton spent his time being more worried about his political face than a real threat to our country.

Clinton didn't have to play the political games Republicans were playing.

Quote

Quote

Republicans, like Democrats, still have to listen to the American people. Like I said in an earlier post, I recall most Americans not being that interested pursuing the Clinton/Monica scandal. Well, at least those people I know.

No, most Americans were not.  That didn't stop the Henry Hydes, the Ken Starrs, the Midge Decters and the whole crew of conservatives who attempted, in fact, a coup d'etat against a lawfully elected President.  
Need I ask which President we have that wasn't lawfully elected? They played and lost. Big deal.

Quote

Hell, it still doesn't stop them.  Anything negative is still, according to the arch-conservative faithful, Bill Clinton's fault.  It was Bill Clinton's fault that bin Laden attacked the WTC.  It was Bill Clinton's fault the economy tanked once Bush got his hands on it.  It was Bill Clinton's fault Shrub didn't show up to make his announcement about tsunami aid earlier than he did.  Humbug. 
See? Now we are back to Republican vs. Democrat. Everything I see from left says exactly what you just said with a different name inserted. Personally I've seen more people blame Bush for the attack on 9/11 than Clinton. Most of them actually believe that bin Laden hates Bush more than Clinton. Not so. He hates us all equally and they just don't get that.

As for the economy, it was in trouble because of Enron, Worldcom and 9/11. But again I've seen more people blame Bush than Clinton. Bush is the current president and the other side of the fence will complain. But it doesn't matter who is president, the other side of the fence will complain.

Quote

Quote

The tribal areas of Pakistan are equvilent to those of American Indian reservations. The American government has limited juridiction over these areas in the same or similar way.

No.  If this were even remotely true, Leonard Peltier would be a free man today, and Annie Aquash would be alive.  There would never have been a federal invasion of Pine Ridge, and no siege at Wounded Knee.

The "tribal areas" of Pakistan and Afghanistan are under the control, essentially, of warlords over whom the central government has been unable to establish authority.  Musharraf doesn't go in there because he can't do so without inciting an uprising against himself.  The US doesn't go in there for the same reason; Musharraf is still a useful tool.  The minute he ceases to be useful, he'll face a takedown just as Saddam did.
Civil unrest is still civil unrest. Maybe we learned something from Wounded Knee. The point is that we can't go in there and take bin Laden. Pakistan is cooperating with the US as best they can. They are not standing in our way and Musharraf is an ally to the US today. Maybe the next adminstration won't think so but that is 4 years away.

-- B
My words but a whisper, your deafness a shout!
I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
(from Thick as a Brick, Jethro Tull)

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass.
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns.
(from Bungle in the Jungle--War Child, JT)



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Fatalities, Low rate

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users