G W Bush...

[leefields]

Originally Posted by sfixx

That repulsive graphic adds nothing to this discussion and I for one wish it was removed.


By the way canny_banjo_man forget about baggage handling you should get into the diplomatic corps somehow...

Steve

you are upset about a graphic...?

[Silvertwinkie]

Steff has a clue. She's one of the folks on this forum I respect. I might not totally agree with some of her views when it comes to politics or religion, but then again, she might not agree with mine, it doesn't mean she hasn't a clue, she just repectfully disagrees and that's part of what makes a forum a forum, healthy adult exchange.

That said, the graphic appears to have been removed. My gut tells me that there was nothing malicious about it, but it might not have been the best choice given the level of stress these types of conversations seem to bring out in folks...present company included.

[leefields]

Originally Posted by tinsltootsie

More of my civilian non military thoughts prior to Mr. Bush invading Iraq:Once again, I hoped to be wrong.

Violence begets violence.
Using violence to quell a violent force only creates more violence.

nope, ...violence in Iraq (us against them) makes a lot of dead people...dead people are not going to be hanging our men from bridges, they are not going to be blowing themselves up at wedding parties, they are not firing rockets at schools or polling places, they are not going to be doing drive by shootings of government officials, they are not going to be pulling police recruits off buses and shooting them in the back of the head.....nope, they will to too dead to do anything...

My next thoughts were that the American public is not prepared to be as nasty as we would have to be to fight this war. I knew we would need to fight dirty and use methods that the American public would abhor.

Absolutly correct, war is a messy business....

[sfixx]

Originally Posted by leefields

you are upset about a graphic...?

No, not upset. Upset would be ranting on for 150 lines...

And for the benefit of those of you who missed it it was an animated graphic of Bart Simpson mooning the viewer. I've become a lot more sensitive with 2 young kids at home and I simply dislike the influence of rude TV characters like Spongbob and Bart.

Anyway, thanks to whomever removed it

[Sneakinup]

Wow, my Bart Simpson graphic was deleted. So much for a little levity. I didn't think it was any more offensive than anything I have read here so far. Actually, I am offended at a number of the posts. Please delete those too.

Don't click here

[85MH325]

Originally Posted by leefields

nope, ...just me being as honest as most people wish they were....

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety


Ben Franklin did not have airplanes flying into buildings, did not have to worry about dirty bombs, did not have to worry about his family's throats getting cut, ....listen to my phone calls if they interest you, see what i am buying with my credit cards, read my spam email, ...just whatever you do....do whatever needs to be done to protect me, my family, and my country from the monsters that roam the earth.


quotes are always nice, ...the libertarians are repeating stuff like this constantly.

Lee, honesty is OK with me. I'm not what many ultra-convservatives have painted as a cookie-cutter "liberal". Unfortunately the world is not as simple as most "conservatives" tend to see it either. I am a realist.

<soapbox on>
To paraphrase another saying: It's amazing how folks who hold the strongest opinions tend to have the least amount of knowledge on the subject.

Lee, I respect your right to your opinions as I expect you to respect the rights of all the folks here to theirs. I have to tell you I strongly disagree with them. The rhetoric is good, it sounds strong, and there's lots of flag-waving there, but the ideas themselves are fundamentally flawed, and the solutions you so passionately support are so simplistic that they just don't address the problem.

And you're right, there weren't airplanes flying into buildings in Ben Franklin's day. There WERE foreign troops (British in this case) being quartered (housed by force) in residents' homes. There were no protections against search and seizure by the Crown. Citizens were routinely seized and tortured as the local governor saw fit. There were many, many things going on that were as, if not more dangerous for the average citizen than what we see today. Franklin's quote is as current today as it was in his time.

Unfortunately, we have surrendered much of our individual freedom to protect our safety. When this country was founded, the Government was not responsible for the safety of any particular citizen. Frankly, both by law and by Court decision today, the Government still is not responsible for the safety of any particular citizen; but we are ALL responsible for the safety of the public. As a matter of fact the quote from the U.S. Supreme Court is "the government has no duty to protect any individual from criminals or madmen".

Most citizens today don't recognize that, and have delegated the care for their own safety to someone else; be that from street thugs or international terrorists. That concerns me. Government at all levels have gotten our citizens to believe "To Protect and Serve". Government can't protect ANYONE from ANYTHING! There are many parallels in history to our current situation, most notably the Roman Empire in the last couple of hundred years before their fall where the citizens expected the Legion to "protect" them. Didn't happen. Isn't happening today.

While dirty bombs, airliners AS bombs, and car bombs may be relatively new tactics, the ideas of spreading fear in individuals and groups through terrorism has been used since the dawn of recorded history. Check out the Inquisition. The Dark Ages. Sherman's March to the Sea. WWII. Unfortunately, history has showed time and again that rampant militarism is not a good tool against it, unless it's state-sponsored terrorism that extends to OTHER states. Internal state-sponsored terrorism can only be stopped by a civil war, and it must be started internally, it can't be imposed externally and be effective. Education, preparedness, and a people willing to act in concert on their own behalf for the good of all of them is what stops terrorism. U.S. history is filled with anecdotes of a local community dealing with a terror crisis.

On September 7, 1876 the citizens of Northfield MN responded to a terrorist incident and decimated the Jesse James gang. They could do that because the citizens who participated knew who the bad guys were 'cause they were strangers engaged in robbing the bank, and they were willing to take personal risk to deal with "their" problem.

The problem today with vigilantism is that it's not so clear who the good guys and bad guys are, or what steps should be taken to stop them. It used to be pretty clear when a thief stole a horse, or a bad guy robbed a bank. Not so anymore.

Two years ago I had a resident of Los Angeles in my town in Iowa and several other county seat towns all over the Midwest "buying" (stealing) Sony PlayStations from Wal-Mart in bulk probably using "supernote" counterfeit $100 bills printed in the Bekka Valley in Lebanon on an Itaglia press (same as our U.S. Mint uses, and the one presented to the Shah of Iran by Pres. Reagan years ago).

Investigation showed that the Playstations were being sold in South America at 2-3 times their retail value in the U.S. and apparently that the funds ($400 per machine, counterfeit $100 plus $300 from the sale) generated were going to support Hamas, a terrorist group that has allegedly killed more U.S. citizens abroad than any other group. Is he a terrorist? Should we kill him? Imprison him? What SHOULD the response be? It took us a couple of weeks to figure out what he was doing, and we were only able to connect the dots, we can't PROVE anything. What should we (law enforcement) have done next?

Many of the phishing scams you see and a high percentage of credit card fraud world-wide is now believed to be done by terrorist groups for funding. How do we go after them? Will stationing troops every 10 feet at the border stop them?

So, Lee, you see that the direction we need to take isn't so clear-cut. Organized religion has taken very good notes regarding organized crime's financial dealings. Terrorism is just a new name for religious radicals trying to promote their particular brand of politics/theocracy through violence with the knowledge that individual citizens allow themselves to be powerless.

And we have misguided political leadership who are applying band-aids to symptoms, but who aren't recognizing and dealing with the causal issues. Until we identify and address WHY these folks want to hurt us, all of the invasions, carpet bombing, and intelligence maneuvering in the world won't stop the problem. Remember, terrorism today isn't done for the purpose of one state overthrowing another, it's done with a religious zeal and aimed at an entire population of non-believers; wherever they may be in the world.

I agree that we need to address these issues. There are some of us out here though who recognize that many of the tactics used by T.R. Roosevelt and J.J. Pershing to try to secure our borders just aren't effective in dealing with these bandits any more.

<soapbox off>

Roger

p.s. Lee, I believe that this thread is healthy discourse and that Andy and the mods will allow it to continue as long as there is good discussion on ideas. It's perfectly legitimate to attack ideas; that's how we grow. I can't condone attacks on individuals, however. It's a sure way to get the thread shut down and removed.

[85MH325]

Has anyone else noticed the headlines about SecDef forming a new clandestine military intelligence organization called the "Strategic Support Branch" that is funded by moving money out of other funding without Congressional oversight?

I was under the impression that the CIA was the outgrowth of the O.S.S. in WWII, and that they were responsible for international intelligence gathering? It appears that SecDef isn't getting what he wants from CIA, so he's started his own new version of OSS.

Is there something so wrong at the Cabinet level of this administration that agencies under the cabinet not only can't work together for common goals anymore, but we have to pay for duplicating efforts? And this helps homeland security and military operations how?

Wow...

In fairness to SecDef, here's a link to the article on CNN where a spokesperson for Rumsfield admits and denies the allegations, apparently at the same time. Unfortunately I don't subscribe to the Washington Post, so I can't link to the original article.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...tel/index.html

Roger

[Over59]

Roger there is nothing new in this other than some guy trying to keep his job at DOD or CIA or NSA or ASA or AFSG or NSG or DIA or SDI or ..... We really need to learn to not get sucked in by the self serving pols in DC. Frankly I would be disappointed if the man didn't have his own A team. The real world is a very dangerous place and nice guys playing by the rules don't win wars.
I hope spring is early this year so we can get back to streamin...

[Silvertwinkie]

Originally Posted by Over59

Roger there is nothing new in this other than some guy trying to keep his job at DOD or CIA or NSA or ASA or AFSG or NSG or DIA or SDI or ..... We really need to learn to not get sucked in by the self serving pols in DC. Frankly I would be disappointed if the man didn't have his own A team. The real world is a very dangerous place and nice guys playing by the rules don't win wars.
I hope spring is early this year so we can get back to streamin...

Ditto every word. Every CEO, leader, etc surround themselves with folks they can trust, a hand picked group. Why should Rummy be any different. You think Bin Laden has any problems picking his own goon squad. This is exactly what the Dr. ordered. The 'ol CIA back in business and IMHO money well spent and doesn't effect my movements, communication or ability to earn a living and raise a family.

I feel a significant amount of oversight when it comes to dealing with these nasty folks is warranted. Of course, I can understand how civil libertarians and the ACLU would scream bloody murder...but not any more or less than they did on 9/11. Come to think of it, a good compromise would be to have Michael Moore be Sec of Defense.

[85MH325]

I've got cabin fever... need desperately to escape... sigh...

Roger

[ALANSD]

Originally Posted by sfixx

No, not upset. Upset would be ranting on for 150 lines...

And for the benefit of those of you who missed it it was an animated graphic of Bart Simpson mooning the viewer. I've become a lot more sensitive with 2 young kids at home and I simply dislike the influence of rude TV characters like Spongbob and Bart.

Anyway, thanks to whomever removed it

YOU'RE WELCOME. I'm not easily offended, but did not think that belonged here.

[bredlo]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science....ap/index.html

Excerpt:
Global warming is approaching the critical point of no return, after which widespread drought, crop failure and rising sea-levels would be irreversible, an international climate change task force warned Monday.

[The task force co-chair] said it was vital [to] secure U.S. cooperation in tackling climate change. U.S. President George W. Bush has rejected the Kyoto accord, arguing that the carbon emission cuts it demands would damage the U.S. economy.

This is why I'm a democrat. Because I'm vastly more interested in protecting the future generations' right to see America the way it looks today, than protecting big businesses from those mean ole' strict pollution laws that the rest of the civilized world is willing to adhere to.

[markdoane]

The media has convinced us that the Kyoto accord is the ONLY way to prevent global collapse. When did the idea of buying and selling the right to pollute become the only solution? And why doesn't it apply to China?

[Over59]

Read the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth . You will find that it was too late 40 years ago. http://dieoff.org/page25.htm
or try this solution http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwop...t10mar81.shtml

[AgZep]

Hey Brad,

About 12,000 years ago, the lovely place where I grew up was under a sheet of ice that was several miles thick. Yet as a child, I picked up basketloads of fossils of sea creatures from that area.

Now, unless you can convince me that the wooly mammoths and the sabretooth cats really got aggresive with their fuel burning, I can only conclude that climate changes drastically from time to time, and their ain't a thing we can do to stop it. Kyoto is an effort to make a tiny, tiny impact on something we don't understand. Even the models the enviros use disagree on what Kyoto might accomplish by an order of magnitude.

I firmly believe a better approach would be to think about how to handle drastic climate changes when they actually happen, like the year Krakatoa's explosion resulted in practically no growing season in North America.

My personal strategy involves making sure my Airstream works very, very well...

[bredlo]

Originally Posted by markdoane

The media has convinced us that the Kyoto accord is the ONLY way to prevent global collapse. When did the idea of buying and selling the right to pollute become the only solution? And why doesn't it apply to China?

Yeah, that darn media again. Always brainwashing us. I suppose they're also keeping hush-hush the solutions we've come up with that is superior to Kyoto? Until we come up with something better, we ought to try any viable solution instead of simply writing it off. And as for China, I guess you're prefer to play the kid that whines on the playground, "But what about him, Mommy? He doesn't haftuh!"

And Over59, I don't take every "report" as the gospel. I know there are doomsdayers all around. But I do have more respect for the overall intelligence of the international scientific community than I do for those currently in the White House. One day we're going to wake up to the headlines about a problem we can't simply throw money or troops at. Here's a clue: it's going to be big, irreversable, and it won't be hiding in a cave in Tora Bora.

[bredlo]

Originally Posted by AgZep

Hey Brad,

About 12,000 years ago, the lovely place where I grew up was under a sheet of ice that was several miles thick. Yet as a child, I picked up basketloads of fossils of sea creatures from that area.

Now, unless you can convince me that the wooly mammoths and the sabretooth cats really got aggresive with their fuel burning, I can only conclude that climate changes drastically from time to time, and their ain't a thing we can do to stop it. Kyoto is an effort to make a tiny, tiny impact on something we don't understand. Even the models the enviros use disagree on what Kyoto might accomplish by an order of magnitude.

I firmly believe a better approach would be to think about how to handle drastic climate changes when they actually happen, like the year Krakatoa's explosion resulted in practically no growing season in North America.

My personal strategy involves making sure my Airstream works very, very well...

I'm sure there are other great ways to handle the problem, I just haven't heard any from my government. America is still the world's worst polluter, and IMHO we should be authoring these treaties first, we should be first in line.

Yup, that next ice age will happen one day either way, I'm not arguing that. But with the studies I've seen about how quickly the process is being accelerated since the industrial revolution, why wouldn't we want to handle those drastic changes, and simultaneously postpone them?

[Over59]

Brad you miss my point. It really is too late to avoid a major collapse and as a species we are too self serving to have a planned collapse. I believe that the conclusions of the report are valid even if some of the modeling was flawed.

[bredlo]

Originally Posted by Over59

Brad you miss my point. It really is too late to avoid a major collapse and as a species we are too self serving to have a planned collapse. I believe that the conclusions of the report are valid even if some of the modeling was flawed.

Gotcha, I stand corrected.

With all due respect, (and my own fear that you may indeed be proven right,) that's why we need people running our countries that simply won't sit back and accept that outcome. We need the vision in America that brought us out from under England's thumb, reunited a country broken in two, and that delivered us to the moon, Mars, and now Titan. It's a giant challenge, and one that may ultimately prove impossible to survive - for the literally universal forces involved, and for our character flaws as a species (as you mention,) but there is an answer out there somewhere. We must see beyond the end of the internal combustion engine, past the limits of what will be immediately financially profitable, and perhaps beyond the borders of our very planet to find it... but an answer is out there and if we apply ourselves, we won't be forced to succumb to a sad, cold death.

[markdoane]

Originally Posted by bredlo

And as for China, I guess you're prefer to play the kid that whines on the playground, "But what about him, Mommy? He doesn't haftuh!"

You mean by putting it into a juvenile context that my point isn't valid?