OT: Frontline / "A Counter-insurgency War?"

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:

> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
>> the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
>> years.
>
> That explains a few things, eh?

Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response as
I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.





--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

RE: Subject

Why waste time?

Lew

"J. Clarke" wrote:

> Bush exemplifies the "for God's sake _do_ something" school of
> leadership,
> but Obama doesn't seem to be in any hurry to undo anything that Bush
> did.


Surely you jest.

Lew

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
>>> discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
>>> cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
>>> the
>>
>> Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
>> opinion?
>
> There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
> countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies
> (maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran),
> oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies
> (Sudan, Somalia).
>


Really? .......... How about:

Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
democracy

Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
million) - democracy

Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.

On 10/14/2009 04:43 PM, Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:

> As a aside simply locking the pilots
> door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private and public
> individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security breach bodes poorly
> for prevention of all other creative future attacks.

Up until 9/11, the normal course of action was to fly to where the
hijacker wanted to go, and then stall on the ground to give time to put
together an assault on the aircraft. There was little to be risked by
letting the hijacker into the cockpit, and the alternative was them
shooting the other passengers (aka hostages) one by one.

After 9/11 the game is different. When the hijacker might want to turn
the whole plane into a flying bomb, the other passengers have nothing to
lose by attacking the hijackers, and the pilot has nothing to gain by
letting them into the cockpit. Basically, the terrorists ruined
everything for "normal" hijackers.

Chris

evodawg wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:

> I remember that stuff. It actually widen my horizon. Oh btw listening to
> Rush right now through the computer. Care to listen?
>
> http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=st
>
>
I might suggest that you go to Rush's web site and read the transcripts
of his broadcasts rather than listening to his show. You get the stuff
he's promoting without the showmanship. Much different.

"charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>> Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
>> peril of your eventual demise.
>
> You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
> A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
> they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
> "Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
> to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
> but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
> intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.
>

Double bullshit Charlie. The reason these fanatics felt comfortable
executing their plan was that we had lost the image of invincibility. We
got our asses kicked by the war in Viet Nam, and had become a nation of
don't ask, don't tell. The feminization of our country and our culture was
visible world wide. We were an easy target because we no longer represented
a threat of retaliation. Or a threat of "don't mess with us". And... look
how we have proven that to be true. Bin Ladin headed off to Pakistan
because he knew he could. We wouldn't pursue him. He toys with us (or his
followers), because they know they can. He knew exactly how to play us
because we trained him. And... funded him. But what he was able to observe
was that we were losing our "might is right" posture, and embracing
everything that feels good, and in the end stands for nothing.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Oct 3, 9:56=A0pm, "DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer.

Oh, damn, now you've outed the guy!
http://comp.webstockpro.com/rubberball/a01484.jpg

R

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
>>> the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
>>> years.
>> That explains a few things, eh?
>
> Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
> to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response as
> I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
>
>
>
>
>

How convenient it is to be tone deaf. It's easy to come up with a list
of squealing lefties, any one of whom exceeds Rush/Beck/O'Reilly in
bile and volume. A small sampling:

Keith Obermeyer
Rachel Maddow
Bill Maher
Alec Baldwin
Arianna Huffington
Michael Moore
Whoopie Goldberg


Beyond just being fundamentally more obnoxious than anyone on the right,
all the above are prone to more than just exaggeration for effect (which
pretty much everyone on both sides practices), most of them are outright
liars. Good thing you can't hear them ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 20, 9:28=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Blanchard wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>
> >> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing of=
f
> >>> the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 =
+
> >>> years.
> >> That explains a few things, eh?
>
> > Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. =A0I have =
yet
> > to see it on the left. =A0If I did, I'd have the same negative response=
as
> > I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
>
> How convenient it is to be tone deaf. =A0It's easy to come up with a list
> of squealing lefties, any one of whom exceeds Rush/Beck/O'Reilly in
> bile and volume. =A0A small sampling:
>
> Keith Obermeyer
> Rachel Maddow
> Bill Maher
> Alec Baldwin
> Arianna Huffington
> Michael Moore
> Whoopie Goldberg
>
> Beyond just being fundamentally more obnoxious than anyone on the right,
> all the above are prone to more than just exaggeration for effect (which
> pretty much everyone on both sides practices), most of them are outright
> liars. =A0Good thing you can't hear them ...
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Now that you have shown your hardcore right-wing colours....was that
so hard? Don't you feel better now?

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:43:03 -0500, "HeyBoob" <[email protected]>
wrote: More of his right wing nut job bullshit.

Why don't you save it for one of the fifteen political newsgroups that
you mouth off on.





Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

HeyBub wrote:

SNIP

> As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.

Please define "success", and please clarify to which of "Bush's war"
you are referring since he started two, one "pre-emptive" (Iraq)
and one not.

charlile b

and which "Bush's war" that you meant in your statement
"As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible."

And please quantify what would be required to make it
"possible" - especially given the current economic conditions
and the international relationships that need some mending
as a result of the previous administrations policies during
their 8 years in power.

"Possible" is a wide open term. Theoretically, ANYTHING is
POSSIBLE. Perhaps providing some quantitative, objective
probabilities for what I believe is the method of achieving
the success you believe was possible. Please be as
specific as possible and include time lines, cost in dollars
and in lives - ours and "theirs" - and troop levels and
deployment. Might want to start with a clear statement
of the objectives and then perhaps the strategies for
attaining them. Oh - and if you have any historical examples
of the successful use of these strategies that would
be nice to include.

We live in a world more like chess than checkers. Most
of the rest of the world understands that, but some of
us are certain that all we need is a checkers master
as president - despite the fact that we just tried that
- and we've already lost two rooks and a bishop, along
with most of our pawns. There ain't no King ME! in the
game in which we are involved - heavily involved.

Think four or five steps ahead and remember - the
goal is to win - in the long run. And winning doesn't
mean I WON - and - YOU LOST! - the keystone of thinking
in terms of a Zero Sum Game.

The other thing is to remember that revenge can
take a while to attain. It took Mossad a LONG time
to find and kill the 1972 Munich Olympics Terrorists.
Didn't stop terrorism - but they did kill them all
- that were still alive to kill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wrath_of_God

Wonder where we'd be today if Reagan hadn't Cut
and Run in Beirut after the bombing of the marine
barracks back in 1983

Swingman wrote:
>
> Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
> peril of your eventual demise.

You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
"Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.

> How soon we fucking forget ...

Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
It's not that we fucking forget, it's that we fucking
don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
almost insured that Europe would have another major
and more devistating war before the century was even
half over.

I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
another world war than did SAC, and the economic
benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
and prosperity.

But my original question has not been answered.
Please define "success" in the context of the original
statement HeyBub made.

Do you actually believe that someone who intentionally
flys a plane in to a tall office building full of people is
at all concerned about what an "invincable" was going to
do to them in retaliation?

If fear of retaliation deters what we're facing now, let's
look at Isreal's response to the '72 Munich Olympics
Terrorist Massacre. Mossad hunted down and killed
every one directly involved - and that took 20 years.
Is Isreal safer today than they were in 1972?

Where to begin with the rest of your response to the
original question - what is your definition of "success"
in terms of either of the two current wars we're in?

Viet Nam was the result of fear of "communism" taking
precidents over history and facts. We saw the North
South conflict as a surrogate war between "communism"
and "the free world", rather than what it was - a civil
war between nationalists. The country was supposed
to have a free and democratic election in 1954 and
had that election been held, historians have agreed
that Ho Chi Mihn would have been elected president
of the reunited Viet Nam. And if that happened, France
would lose their holdings in the south - and they weren't
ready to do that. So there was no election and the
civil war began.

The driving motivation here, and in other conflicts
we've engage in, was nationalism. The Viet Namese
had driven out every "invincible power that attempted to
colonialize them - including China AND Japan, as
well as the French. OK - so the French don't produce
much of an army - but they tried to keep the south
of Viet Nam by force anyway - and also were eventually
forced to leave.

As for "the feminization of our country and our culture"
you do realize that half or so of the world's population
are females?

And "don't ask, don't tell" - the greatest conquering
army in history - Alexander's army, had a significant
number of homosexual warriors and Alexander was
probably at least bisexual if not homosexual.

In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
deal with the world as it is then we better get better
at defining "success" before we we commit our
sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
"don't mess with us!".

evodawg wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>> evodawg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fox does have some beautiful women working for them and they have a
>>> brain.
>> Must be getting old ... even Liz Cheney looked pretty damn good last
>> night. ;)
>>
> You know that was the daughter not the wife of Dick?

Yeah, Bubba ... it's obvious from the post that I wasn't born yesterday. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

On Oct 20, 10:21=A0pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Fox does have some beautiful women working for them

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o290/Robatoy/Michelle_Malkin2.gif

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:20:29 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment,
>> particularly of the young; and some counter-productive western policies
>> have no place in the set of "factors" to which you refer?
>
> There are a lot of poor folks in this world - most of them don't go out
> to kill all who don't share their faith. Or do the terms "jihad" and
> "holy war" have no meaning to you?
>
> Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education consists
> of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.
>
> Most of the folks on this group consider me to be a liberal, and I mostly
> am. But I'm not blind.
>

You're a liberal?????? I always thought you were just an American...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
>> he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
>> land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
>> can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
>> the airplane.
>
> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
> http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender. Right
> side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.
>
> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked again.
> No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long enough to
> forget.
>
> -- Doug

Which at current pace will be about an hour ...

The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
willing to die for a cause. Imagine a situation in which the bad guys
are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. It's an agonizing
situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.

The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. So long
as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisited
regularly. This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a problem
of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically done
particularly well. The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. Unless and
until this is addressed, nothing much will change.

In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces of
evil that animate such behavior. Just recently, Turkey was lost:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_was_lost?page=full&comments=true

The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance. The Iranian
thugocracy prevails with Western silence. The Russian bear flexes its muscles
while Western democracies run away in limp silence. Evil has always required
counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. No amount of cockpit
technique can address these moral failings ...




--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
>> discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
>> cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
>> the
>
> Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
> opinion?

There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim countries
in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies (maybe Iraq).
The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran), oligarchies (Egypt),
thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies (Sudan, Somalia).

If you had 50 different people, from different parts of the world, speaking
different languages, with different income levels, of different ages, all
report to the emergency room with a nail in their head, would you look for a
guy with a hammer or start running some exotic tests?



>
> Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment,
> particularly of the young; and some counter-productive western
> policies have no place
> in the set of "factors" to which you refer?
>

Heck, the WEATHER has a place in the equation! But it's pretty obvious to
most what the main factor is.

Some things are more important than others. When Israel occupied the West
Bank, the Arab residents there were better off than their co-religionists in
almost any other Arab land. Life expectancy, sufferage, universal education,
wages, employment, incidence of crime, access to health care,
blah-blah-blah. But being governed by Jews was antithetical to the teachings
of Islam. Today, they are SPIRITUALLY better off, even though unemployment
is 70% and the other indicators are likewise in the ditch.

Look, too, and India/Pakistan. Once one colony, ruled by the British, this
territory was partitioned in 1947. Today, India is the largest democracy in
the world while Pakistan is a basket case (officially tabulated as an
"impoverished nation").

I guess the disparity for the last sixty years could be the result of
unemployment, envy, western policies, or the difference in broccoli
consumption. It could also result from something more obvious.

diggerop wrote:

> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
>>>> discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
>>>> cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in
>>>> the
>>>
>>> Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
>>> opinion?
>>
>> There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
>> countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are democracies
>> (maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco), theocracies (Iran),
>> oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or out-and-out anarchies
>> (Sudan, Somalia).
>>
>
>
> Really? .......... How about:
>
> Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
> democracy
>

Marginally so. The Suartos were hardly champions of free and open
democracy. Even today, Indonesia is definitely neither tolerant nor
inclusive. Our church has a mission there. When living in Texas, we
called one of the Missionaries to be our pastor. After having one of our
board meetings with him one evening, he leaned back in his chair, smiled
and said, "you know, this is nice -- we just had a meeting here and
finished it and no one threw any bricks through the windows." Let me add
that our church body does not practice in-your-face evangelism. In
Indonesia, the default religion is the religion of peace and no open
evangelism is allowed. People who have been in car accidents there have
been declared guilty even when not really at fault because the judge has
determined, "if you weren't in our country, this accident wouldn't have
occurred".




> Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
> million) - democracy
>
> Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.

Again, marginally democratic, most definitely not free to practice one's
faith unless it is as a member of the religion of peace. People in
Pakistan get killed when they aren't members of the religion of peace.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

"charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Do you actually believe that someone who intentionally
> flys a plane in to a tall office building full of people is
> at all concerned about what an "invincable" was going to
> do to them in retaliation?
>


Not after they hit the building. But, in answer to your question, yes I
certainly do believe there is a relationship between how a country is
perceived and the actions that others may take against it. I don't believe
that's the only reason for events like 911, but I certainly believe that is
a part of it.

> If fear of retaliation deters what we're facing now, let's
> look at Isreal's response to the '72 Munich Olympics
> Terrorist Massacre. Mossad hunted down and killed
> every one directly involved - and that took 20 years.
> Is Isreal safer today than they were in 1972?
>

Good counter-point. Where I think that point loses some of its potency
though is in the fact that these two cultures have been at each other for
eons, with deeply routed philosophical and ideological warfare at the root
of it all. That said, I also believe that Isreal's willingness to strke
with force into the heart of any threat, does indeed curb behaviors of the
radicals that would otherwise enjoy the annialation of Isreal.

> Where to begin with the rest of your response to the
> original question - what is your definition of "success"
> in terms of either of the two current wars we're in?

I guess I might leave the offering for that definition on the table for you
to suggest. I most certainly do not see the capture and elimination of
Saddam Hussein as a success. Nor do I see the successful evasion of Bin
Laden as a marker of success. Nor, the re-entrance into Afghanistan. Nor
the overwhelming peace and security that Iraq enjoys today.

>
> Viet Nam was the result of fear of "communism" taking
> precidents over history and facts.

<Snip a bunch of stuff that was quite true, but not terribly relevant...>
We still got our asses handed to us.

>
> As for "the feminization of our country and our culture"
> you do realize that half or so of the world's population
> are females?

Sure - and I find myself enjoying that fact from time to time...

>
> In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
> was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
> deal with the world as it is then we better get better
> at defining "success" before we we commit our
> sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
> our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
> "don't mess with us!".

I do not at all disagree with this statement. I'm no advocate of throwing
our weight around. I am an advocate of being the big asshole on the block
that nobody dares to screw with though.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

DGDevin wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> Nope. From October 1, 2001 onward, capturing or killing OBL was never
>> the policy of the United States. The avowed policy of the U.S. was to
>> prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To
>> achieve this goal, several strategies were employed to disrupt the
>> terrorist training, communication, financing, weapons acquisition,
>> recruitment, and movement. And kill as many as possible in the
>> effort.
>
> Really? So when CIA director Porter Goss said in 2005 that although
> they knew where Bin Laden was, unfortunately he hadn't been captured
> because he had sanctuary in one or more foreign nations and thus more
> steps had to be completed to "wrap up the war on terror," he wasn't
> referring to killing or capturing Bin Laden, he meant no link between
> getting Bin Laden and defeating terrorism? Odd choice of words then,
> wasn't it.

Peter Goss was a former House member. What do you expect from a congressman?

>
> I recommend a book called Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and
> Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander,
> written by Gary Berntsen. He was on the ground with a CIA/Special
> Forces team in 2000, to capture Al Qaeda leaders and figure out what
> Bin Laden was up to. He (and the Afghans helping him) were enraged
> when Clinton pulled his team out. He thought the job would finally
> get done when Bush invaded Afghanistan. He was *there* directing air
> strikes on the cornered Al Qaeda fighters at Tora Bora, he could hear
> Bin Laden on the radio apologizing to his men for leading them into
> what appeared to be a death-trap. And then Berntsen's request for a
> couple of battalions of Rangers to be dropped in behind Bin Laden so
> he couldn't escape into Pakistan was denied, repeatedly, and of
> course Bin Laden escaped.

I suggest you read "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy and Plans. He was part of the decision-making process.
All I can conclude is that the tactics got garbled as they filtered down to
the lowest activist in the food chain.

>
> But of course now that you've explained none of that mattered, well I
> guess we should just forget it. But I can't help but wonder how many
> American taxpayers thought getting that sonofabitch was part of the
> whole freakin' idea?

About 40%. Those who harken to the misapprehensions of the Democrats.


>
> Does the Bush admin deserve credit for disrupting Al Qaeda? I think
> so, along with other nations which broke up AQ networks and froze
> their finances and so on. But on the other hand they spent a
> trillion dollars (and 4,500 American lives) wallowing around in Iraq
> and Afghanistan and Pakistan's nukes are still in peril, the Taliban
> controls most of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda is still in business.

So what? Destruction of the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda - like the killing of
OBL - was never a goal. The single goal of all our efforts was and is to
prevent another assault on the U.S. or civilian U.S. interests abroad. Now
it MAY BE the best way to achieve that goal is to destroy Al Qaeda, but so
far less drastic measures have sufficied.

>
>> Liberals are good at anguishing.
>
> I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer. And as for what liberals
> (or "progressives" as they like to call themselves at times) think
> about this war, here's an interesting article that points out some of
> them thought the invasion of Afghanistan was justified. Of course
> they probably didn't expect the Bush administration to abandon the
> job unfinished and instead waste lives and money in Iraq. Too bad
> Charlie Wilson's War hadn't been published yet, Bush might have
> appreciated the consequences of unfinished work in Afghanistan. But
> then he isn't a big reader, is he.

You make some good points. You have, however, succumbed to the meme that
Bush was a big dummy and, perforce, did not, or could not read. Fact is,
Bush reads much more than I (and probably you) and I'm a voracious reader.

Bush read 95 books in 2006 (51 in 2007, and 40+ in 2008), including:

"The nonfiction ran from biographies of Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Carnegie,
Mark Twain, Babe Ruth, King Leopold, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, LBJ
and Genghis Khan to Andrew Roberts's "A History of the English Speaking
Peoples Since 1900," James L. Swanson's "Manhunt," and Nathaniel Philbrick's
"Mayflower." Besides eight Travis McGee novels by John D. MacDonald, Mr.
Bush tackled Michael Crichton's "Next," Vince Flynn's "Executive Power,"
Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact," and Albert Camus's "The Stranger," among
others.

"Each year, the president also read the Bible from cover to cover, along
with a daily devotional."

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB123025595706634689.html

On Oct 20, 2:28=A0pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> > evodawg wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I remember that stuff. It actually widen my horizon. =A0Oh btw listeni=
ng to
> >> Rush right now through the computer. Care to listen?
>
> >>http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=3Dst
>
> > I might suggest that you go to Rush's web site and read the transcripts
> > of his broadcasts rather than listening to his show. =A0You get the stu=
ff
> > he's promoting without the showmanship. =A0Much different.
>
> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off th=
e
> left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 + years.

That explains a few things, eh?

jo4hn wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for
>>>> much after he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a
>>>> food service cart land on him. Airliners are not stressed for
>>>> aerobatics but a skilled pilot can nonetheless do things like that
>>>> when he has nothing to lose by breaking the airplane.
>>> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
>>> http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a
>>> blender. Right
>>> side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.
>>>
>>> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high
>>> jacked again.
>>> No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long
>>> enough to
>>> forget.
>>>
>>> -- Doug
>>
>> Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
>>
>> The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
>> willing to die for a cause. Imagine a situation in which the bad guys
>> are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. It's an agonizing
>> situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
>>
>> The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
>> cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
>> all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. So long
>> as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisited
>> regularly. This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a
>> problem
>> of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically done
>> particularly well. The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stalin,
>> Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. Unless and
>> until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
>>
>> In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces of
>> evil that animate such behavior. Just recently, Turkey was lost:
>>
>>
>> http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_was_lost?page=full&comments=true
>>
>>
>> The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance.
>> The Iranian
>> thugocracy prevails with Western silence. The Russian bear flexes its
>> muscles
>> while Western democracies run away in limp silence. Evil has always
>> required
>> counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. No amount of cockpit
>> technique can address these moral failings ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> For what it's worth...
> there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
> there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
> time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
> you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
> away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
> down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> you hippie fuckers!

How ironic that you quote a stoned song writer from the 1960s - a
group noteworthy for decimating American liberty and values hiding
behind phony anti-war rhetoric to hide their deep narcissism,
laziness, and cowardice. These 1960s refugees are now in charge and we
can expect further erosion of liberty and planetary sanity.

Whether you like it or not, some problems require force to be
remedied. You can't hide from it, you can't pretend it does not exist,
you'd can't write it off as "paranoia". You either confront it or die
by it.





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

HeyBub wrote:
> informer wrote:
>> FRONTLINE/World
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
>>
>> Look for "A Counter-insurgency War?"
>>
>> This Week: Special Preview of 'Obama's War'
>>
>
> Shit!
>
> We've had Obama's Stimulus Plan, Obama's Health Care Plan, Obama's Energy
> Plan, Obama's group of community organizers, Obama's first picks for
> Secretary of HHS and Treasury, Obama's Clunkers, and Obama's push for the
> Olympics.
>

And just yesterday in Denmark, we got, "No We Can't!"

> As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.
>
>

I'm not sure I know what "success" means any more. I used to think
it meant neutering AQ - which has happened to a significant degree.
That mission WAS largely accomplished but needs to be renewed
periodically.

Then some State Department wonk convinced W that it also entailed
nation building - hard to do in a place that's essentially not had
any rule of law except at the point of a gun.

Now Dear Leader seems to be leaning toward a definition of "success"
that translates to mostly walking away (shocking, I know), or at the
very least, simply maintaining the status quo. Those of us who witnessed
the LBJ insanity during Vietnam can attest that such a policy does not
end well. Half a fight is worse than a real fight.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Oct 20, 12:12=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> Douglas Johnson wrote:
> >>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for
> >>>> much after he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a
> >>>> food service cart land on him. =A0Airliners are not stressed for
> >>>> aerobatics but a skilled pilot can nonetheless do things like that
> >>>> when he has nothing to lose by breaking the airplane.
> >>> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for =
it:
> >>>http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. =A0Terrorist in a
> >>> blender. =A0Right
> >>> side, ceiling, left side, floor. =A0Repeat as necessary.
>
> >>> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high
> >>> jacked again.
> >>> No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long
> >>> enough to
> >>> forget.
>
> >>> -- Doug
>
> >> Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
>
> >> The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
> >> willing to die for a cause. =A0Imagine a situation in which the bad gu=
ys
> >> are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. =A0It's an agonizin=
g
> >> situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
>
> >> The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
> >> cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
> >> all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. =A0So long
> >> as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisi=
ted
> >> regularly. =A0This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a
> >> problem
> >> of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically done
> >> particularly well. =A0The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stal=
in,
> >> Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. =A0Unless=
and
> >> until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
>
> >> In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces =
of
> >> evil that animate such behavior. =A0Just recently, Turkey was lost:
>
> >>http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_wa..=
.
>
> >> The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance.
> >> The Iranian
> >> thugocracy prevails with Western silence. =A0The Russian bear flexes i=
ts
> >> muscles
> >> while Western democracies run away in limp silence. =A0Evil has always
> >> required
> >> counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. =A0No amount of co=
ckpit
> >> technique can address these moral failings ...
>
> > For what it's worth...
> > there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
> > there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
> > time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> > paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
> > you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
> > away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> > its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
> > down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> > you hippie fuckers!
>
> How ironic that you quote a stoned song writer from the 1960s - a
> group noteworthy for decimating American liberty and values hiding
> behind phony anti-war rhetoric to hide their deep narcissism,
> laziness, and cowardice. These 1960s refugees are now in charge and we
> can expect further erosion of liberty and planetary sanity.
>
> Whether you like it or not, some problems require force to be
> remedied. You can't hide from it, you can't pretend it does not exist,
> you'd can't write it off as "paranoia". You either confront it or die
> by it.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-- -
> Tim Daneliuk =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> PGP Key: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Dude... don't be such a drag, man....

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
>he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
>land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
>can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
>the airplane.

Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender. Right
side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.

I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked again.
No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long enough to
forget.

-- Doug

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
>>>
>> For what it's worth...
>> there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
>> there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
>> time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
>> paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
>> you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
>> away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
>> its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
>> down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
>> you hippie fuckers!
>
> How ironic that you quote a stoned song writer from the 1960s - a
> group noteworthy for decimating American liberty and values hiding
> behind phony anti-war rhetoric to hide their deep narcissism,
> laziness, and cowardice. These 1960s refugees are now in charge and we
> can expect further erosion of liberty and planetary sanity.
>
> Whether you like it or not, some problems require force to be
> remedied. You can't hide from it, you can't pretend it does not exist,
> you'd can't write it off as "paranoia". You either confront it or die
> by it.
>
----
( )
(( ))
( )
------
| |
| |
------

How ironic that you denigrate a song writer from the 1960s - a
group noteworthy for declaring American liberty and values hiding
behind phony pro-war rhetoric to hide their deep narcissism,
laziness, and cowardice. These 1980s refugees were in charge and were
championing the erosion of liberty and planetary sanity.

Whether you like it or not, some problems require intelligence to be
remedied. This IS paranoia, Timwit, whether you want to admit it or not.
It is championed by Rush, Glen, and the rest of the right wing
personalities in the acquisition of ratings and subsequent power and
money.

DGDevin wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.
>
> Really? How many more years do you figure it would have taken him to
> get Bin Laden if not for the Presidential term limit? That was the
> reason for going into Afghanistan, wasn't it, to get Bin Laden and Al
> Qaeda? Pity they let him escape from Tora Bora like that, oh well. Or
> maybe that was all part of the plan, or something.

Nope. From October 1, 2001 onward, capturing or killing OBL was never the
policy of the United States. The avowed policy of the U.S. was to prevent
another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To achieve this goal,
several strategies were employed to disrupt the terrorist training,
communication, financing, weapons acquisition, recruitment, and movement.
And kill as many as possible in the effort.

Invading Afghanistan was part of the plan to remove training grounds and
state-sponsorship. Capturing or killing OBL was NEVER given as a reason for
the invasion.

In the decade before 9-11, there was, on average, one or more attacks on
U.S. interests: The first WTC bombing, the USS Cole, bombs at U.S.
embassies, kidnapping of U.S. diplomats, and so on. In the eight years since
9-11 - and the implementation of the aforementioned strategies - not a
single civilian target of the U.S. has been messed with.

Don't get me wrong, if during the tactics to achieve these strategies, OBL
had been killed or captured, that would have been a plus, but it was never a
goal.

The Democrats have, since day one, have complained that the administration
never killed or captured OBL. I think many liberals are forever trapped in a
"law enforcement" mindset: take the perp into custody, have a trial, exhaust
the appeals, and commute the death sentence. Then, for the next thirty
years, until OBL dies of (presumably) old age, anguish over repeated demands
that he be released or the current crop of hostages will be killed.

Liberals are good at anguishing.

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> diggerop wrote:
>
>>
>> Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million) -
>> democracy
>>
>
> Marginally so. The Suartos were hardly champions of free and open
> democracy. Even today, Indonesia is definitely neither tolerant nor
> inclusive. Our church has a mission there. When living in Texas, we
> called one of the Missionaries to be our pastor. After having one of our
> board meetings with him one evening, he leaned back in his chair, smiled
> and said, "you know, this is nice -- we just had a meeting here and
> finished it and no one threw any bricks through the windows." Let me add
> that our church body does not practice in-your-face evangelism. In
> Indonesia, the default religion is the religion of peace and no open
> evangelism is allowed. People who have been in car accidents there have
> been declared guilty even when not really at fault because the judge has
> determined, "if you weren't in our country, this accident wouldn't have
> occurred".
>
>

Interesting. I lived and worked in Indonesia for a time in the post Suharto
era.
I found the Indonesian people where I was in East Kalimantan, to be
friendly,
open and extremely tolerant. Likewise in Bali, (which is predominantly
Hindu.)
It's worth noting that Indonesia is made up of an agglomeration of very
different
cultures, brought together under one political banner, so that which applies
in one part of Indonesia cannot necessarily be applied to the nation as a
whole.
No-one cared about my religious beliefs, except to say that it was important
to have some religious belief. Atheism was viewed with suspicion.
Trying to convert someone's religious beliefs was viewed as highly
offensive, but then,
the same applies in my country today. : )

The accident scenario has more to do with their pragmatic view of justice
than
anything else. It's based on the social responsibility of a person's
capacity to pay,
not fault as we are accustomed to. Based on negotiation and it works, in a
quirky way.
In the eyes of the average Indonesian citizen, Westerners are viewed as
being wealthy
beyond belief, a proposition that had much justification.
In 1996, when I was there, I earned as much per day as the average
Indonesian earned
in a year! Per capita incomes have increased by 700% since then, yet today
is still only around A$4000 p.a. With the unequal distribution of wealth,
the average man in the
street probably has less than half of that figure in reality
So it was regarded as just, that in the event of an accident, I could easily
afford to
pay, - therefore I should. Not to do so would have been regarded as mean and
churlish.
Accepting that responsibility gained enormous respect. Doors were opened,
the path was
smoothed. Everyone was happy.

As an aside, the principle of "if you weren't there the accident wouldn't
have happened," is not
unique to Indonesia. I have personal experience of it being applied in civil
litigation over an accident
here in Australia. The starting point was that the complainant (Me) was
deemed to have 30% responsibility simply by virtue of being there. Legal
argument was then undertaken as to fault and the result was that the other
party was deemed to be completely at fault. In spite of that, I still bore
10% of the responsibility and the damages were reduced by that amount. Fair?
I didn't think so. : )

Diggerop

On 10/14/2009 04:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> "charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
>> was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
>> deal with the world as it is then we better get better
>> at defining "success" before we we commit our
>> sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
>> our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
>> "don't mess with us!".
>
> I do not at all disagree with this statement. I'm no advocate of throwing
> our weight around. I am an advocate of being the big asshole on the block
> that nobody dares to screw with though.

Let me say up front that I'm not from the USA. (I'm from your neighbour
up North.)

The British had one of the best armies in the world, but they were at a
loss when the American revolutionaries fought skirmishes rather than
stand in a line and go toe-to-toe.

There's a fairly obvious parallel to be drawn. Being the big asshole
only works if you have something that the asshole can damage in retaliation.

When terrorists are not affiliated with any particular nation-state the
threat of being the big asshole doesn't help much. If you go in
somewhere, they just move elsewhere. (Afganistan/Pakistan, for
instance.) In some cases going in somewhere and throwing your weight
around may actually work against you by causing resentment amongst the
locals. Invariably there will be civilian casualties, mistreatment of
locals, etc. This then makes their point for them..."look, see how
arrogant the Americans are", "they're bombing innocent children", etc.

I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
place.

9/11 was a terrible and reprehensible act. About 3000 people died.
For comparison, every year over 40000 people die in car crashes. The
goal of terrorists is to inspire terror, and they've done that. The
best response would have been to rebuild, make a monument to the lost,
and get on with living the american dream.

Chris

HeyBub wrote:

> As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.

Really? How many more years do you figure it would have taken him to get
Bin Laden if not for the Presidential term limit? That was the reason for
going into Afghanistan, wasn't it, to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Pity they
let him escape from Tora Bora like that, oh well. Or maybe that was all
part of the plan, or something.

diggerop wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
>>>> discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
>>>> cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them
>>>> in the
>>>
>>> Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your
>>> opinion?
>>
>> There's the empirical evidence. Of the 50-odd predominately Muslim
>> countries in the world, only two (Malaysia and Turkey) are
>> democracies (maybe Iraq). The rest are monarchies (Morocco),
>> theocracies (Iran), oligarchies (Egypt), thugocracies (Lybia), or
>> out-and-out anarchies (Sudan, Somalia).
>>
>
>
> Really? .......... How about:
>
> Indonesia - the worlds largest muslim population (88% of 245 million)
> - democracy
>
> Pakistan - the worlds second largest muslim population (97% of 165
> million) - democracy
>
> Your "empirical evidence" looks a little shaky to me.

I stand corrected with regard to Indonesia. Thanks for the refresher.

Pakistan is a bit more problematic. Until recently, Musharaff was both the
military chief of staff and putative president. I think the jury is still
out on that country. Irrespective of whether Pakistan is or is not currently
a democracy, the US State Department still classifies it as an "impoverished
nation."

So, then, counting Malaysia, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and Indonesia as
democracies, let me see... um, mumble-mumble, carry the three, ah, we still
end up with about, um, 12% of the Muslim countries being democracies and 88%
not.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:03:53 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>> Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education
>>> consists of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.
>> There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
>> unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into extremist
>> cults.
>
> I agree there are some of those for whom the unemployment comes ahead of
> the extremism. But for many (most?) it's the lack of education other
> than religious that makes them unemployable.
>

They are trainable - they can learn to fly a modern jet airplane, just
not take-off and land.

- Doug

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> evodawg wrote:
>
>
>> Fox does have some beautiful women working for them and they have a
>> brain.
>
> Must be getting old ... even Liz Cheney looked pretty damn good last
> night. ;)

She the lesbitarian?

Dave in Houston

On Oct 21, 8:49=A0am, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> evodawg wrote:
> > Fox does have some beautiful women working for them and they have a bra=
in.
>
> Must be getting old ... even Liz Cheney looked pretty damn good last
> night. ;)
>
> --www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 10/22/08
> KarlC@ (the obvious)

Agreed on Liz Cheney. Totally.

HeyBub wrote:

> Nope. From October 1, 2001 onward, capturing or killing OBL was never
> the policy of the United States. The avowed policy of the U.S. was to
> prevent another attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests abroad. To
> achieve this goal, several strategies were employed to disrupt the
> terrorist training, communication, financing, weapons acquisition,
> recruitment, and movement. And kill as many as possible in the effort.

Really? So when CIA director Porter Goss said in 2005 that although they
knew where Bin Laden was, unfortunately he hadn't been captured because he
had sanctuary in one or more foreign nations and thus more steps had to be
completed to "wrap up the war on terror," he wasn't referring to killing or
capturing Bin Laden, he meant no link between getting Bin Laden and
defeating terrorism? Odd choice of words then, wasn't it.

I recommend a book called Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda:
A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander, written by Gary
Berntsen. He was on the ground with a CIA/Special Forces team in 2000, to
capture Al Qaeda leaders and figure out what Bin Laden was up to. He (and
the Afghans helping him) were enraged when Clinton pulled his team out. He
thought the job would finally get done when Bush invaded Afghanistan. He
was *there* directing air strikes on the cornered Al Qaeda fighters at Tora
Bora, he could hear Bin Laden on the radio apologizing to his men for
leading them into what appeared to be a death-trap. And then Berntsen's
request for a couple of battalions of Rangers to be dropped in behind Bin
Laden so he couldn't escape into Pakistan was denied, repeatedly, and of
course Bin Laden escaped.

But of course now that you've explained none of that mattered, well I guess
we should just forget it. But I can't help but wonder how many American
taxpayers thought getting that sonofabitch was part of the whole freakin'
idea?

Does the Bush admin deserve credit for disrupting Al Qaeda? I think so,
along with other nations which broke up AQ networks and froze their finances
and so on. But on the other hand they spent a trillion dollars (and 4,500
American lives) wallowing around in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan's
nukes are still in peril, the Taliban controls most of Afghanistan, and Al
Qaeda is still in business.

> Liberals are good at anguishing.

I'm a liberal like you're a ballet dancer. And as for what liberals (or
"progressives" as they like to call themselves at times) think about this
war, here's an interesting article that points out some of them thought the
invasion of Afghanistan was justified. Of course they probably didn't
expect the Bush administration to abandon the job unfinished and instead
waste lives and money in Iraq. Too bad Charlie Wilson's War hadn't been
published yet, Bush might have appreciated the consequences of unfinished
work in Afghanistan. But then he isn't a big reader, is he.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12171

"da pickle"


>> Seccess ... piolet's ... Accoplished

> Apologies to our woodworking friends.
>
> We have a hard head over here that cannot play poker either.

Not sure what this references, but can only guess it’s another in a long
line of threads where you're either unable to understand the argument or you’ve
lost the argument and revert to spell checking, sentence structure or ASCII
transfers to divert from your incapability’s.


Jerry ‘n Vegas

"Jerry Sturdivant"

> Seccess ... piolet's ... Accoplished

Apologies to our woodworking friends.

We have a hard head over here that cannot play poker either.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
>>> he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
>>> land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
>>> can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
>>> the airplane.
>> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
>> http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender. Right
>> side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.
>>
>> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked again.
>> No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been long enough to
>> forget.
>>
>> -- Doug
>
> Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
>
> The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
> willing to die for a cause. Imagine a situation in which the bad guys
> are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. It's an agonizing
> situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
>
> The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
> cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
> all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. So long
> as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisited
> regularly. This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a problem
> of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically done
> particularly well. The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stalin,
> Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. Unless and
> until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
>
> In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces of
> evil that animate such behavior. Just recently, Turkey was lost:
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_was_lost?page=full&comments=true
>
> The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance. The Iranian
> thugocracy prevails with Western silence. The Russian bear flexes its muscles
> while Western democracies run away in limp silence. Evil has always required
> counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. No amount of cockpit
> technique can address these moral failings ...
>
>
>
>

For what it's worth...
there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
you hippie fuckers!

On Oct 20, 1:07=A0pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
> jo4hn wrote:
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> Douglas Johnson wrote:
> >>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for mu=
ch
> >>>> after he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food
> >>>> service cart
> >>>> land on him. =A0Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skil=
led
> >>>> pilot can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to los=
e
> >>>> by breaking the airplane.
> >>> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for =
it:
> >>>http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. =A0Terrorist in a blen=
der.
> >>> =A0Right
> >>> side, ceiling, left side, floor. =A0Repeat as necessary.
>
> >>> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jac=
ked
> >>> again. No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has bee=
n
> >>> long enough to forget.
>
> >>> -- Doug
>
> >> Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
>
> >> The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
> >> willing to die for a cause. =A0Imagine a situation in which the bad gu=
ys
> >> are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. =A0It's an agonizin=
g
> >> situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
>
> >> The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
> >> cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
> >> all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. =A0So long
> >> as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisi=
ted
> >> regularly. =A0This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a
> >> problem of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically
> >> done
> >> particularly well. =A0The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stal=
in,
> >> Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. =A0Unless=
and
> >> until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
>
> >> In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces =
of
> >> evil that animate such behavior. =A0Just recently, Turkey was lost:
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_wa...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance.
> >> The Iranian
> >> thugocracy prevails with Western silence. =A0The Russian bear flexes i=
ts
> >> muscles
> >> while Western democracies run away in limp silence. =A0Evil has always
> >> required
> >> counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. =A0No amount of co=
ckpit
> >> technique can address these moral failings ...
>
> > For what it's worth...
> > there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
> > there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
> > time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> > paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
> > you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
> > away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> > its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
> > down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> > you hippie fuckers!
>
> Always loved that song by, The Buffalo Springfield. Think Stephen Stills
> wrote it. Oh and it had nothing to do with the Vietnam War or Kent State.
> Was written years before Kent State. Yes in the 60,s I was a hippie, now =
a
> strict conservative. Isn't it funny how things change, you grow up and ga=
in
> knowledge and your prospective changes.

I guess what you're trying to say is that you dropped some brown acid
and it fucked your head.

charlieb wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>>
>> Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
>> peril of your eventual demise.
>
> You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
> A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
> they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
> "Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
> to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
> but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
> intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.

You poor misguided puppy ... stick to woodworking topics, demonstrably a
more intelligent use of your intelligence.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You illustrate my checkers vs chess analogy perfectly.
> A dozen or so fanatics murder (since none were combatants
> they were murdered, not "killed") three thousand plus people.
> "Might" did nothing to prevent those murders. It's not going
> to be big muscles and lethal weapons that we should rely on,
> but rather the effective use of that which evolved after muscles,
> intelligence and the intelligent use of intelligence.


One can not prevent any and all terrorist acts, as a absolute criteria of
success that ideal is pretty meaningless...Security or prevention will
indeed diminish those opportunities. As a aside simply locking the pilots
door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private and public
individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security breach bodes poorly
for prevention of all other creative future attacks.

I am however a bit curious as to when "effective use of that which evolved
after muscles" has ever actually worked, at least without the brawn or the
threat thereof?

It is interesting to note that following our help with the overthrow of the
Soviets in Afghanistan we backed off and meddled not .....But in the 90's we
were however the worlds largest supplier of foreign aid (foodstuffs etc.) to
Afghanistan......In response to our largess they provided safe haven to al
Queda..... and in fact the Taliban could have avoided our overthrow if they
simply had turned Osama over to us.

> Again, perhaps unintentionally, you make my point.
> It's not that we fucking forget, it's that we fucking
> don't learn the lessons of history. It's not who "wins"
> a war that reduces the likelyhood of another. It's how
> the post war is handled that's a good predictor of
> the duration of peace afterwards. The Versaille Treaty
> almost insured that Europe would have another major
> and more devistating war before the century was even
> half over.

It may as well be worthy of note that if the WW1 treaty had been enforced
WW2 would not have happened either.....The early appeasement of Germany and
the Allies desire to avoid war at nearly any cost allowed the means. That
the West effectively disarmed did nothing to stop either Germany or Japans
imperialist desires.

> I submit that the Marshall Plan did more to prevent
> another world war than did SAC, and the economic
> benefits of the Marshal Plan resulted in more peace
> and prosperity.

As much as I'd largely agree I'd still suggest the Marshal plan without the
utter destruction of the AXIS powers would not have worked.

Rod

Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 04:28 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "charlieb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> In a world of established nations Might Makes Right
>>> was true. The world has changed, and if we don't
>>> deal with the world as it is then we better get better
>>> at defining "success" before we we commit our
>>> sons AND daughters, and our treasures to throwing
>>> our weight around, thumping our chest and growling
>>> "don't mess with us!".
>>
>> I do not at all disagree with this statement. I'm no advocate of
>> throwing our weight around. I am an advocate of being the big
>> asshole on the block that nobody dares to screw with though.
>
> Let me say up front that I'm not from the USA. (I'm from your
> neighbour
> up North.)
>
> The British had one of the best armies in the world, but they were at
> a loss when the American revolutionaries fought skirmishes rather than
> stand in a line and go toe-to-toe.
>
> There's a fairly obvious parallel to be drawn. Being the big asshole
> only works if you have something that the asshole can damage in
> retaliation.
>
> When terrorists are not affiliated with any particular nation-state
> the threat of being the big asshole doesn't help much. If you go in
> somewhere, they just move elsewhere. (Afganistan/Pakistan, for
> instance.) In some cases going in somewhere and throwing your weight
> around may actually work against you by causing resentment amongst the
> locals. Invariably there will be civilian casualties, mistreatment of
> locals, etc. This then makes their point for them..."look, see how
> arrogant the Americans are", "they're bombing innocent children", etc.
>
> I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
> conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
> place.
>
> 9/11 was a terrible and reprehensible act. About 3000 people died.
> For comparison, every year over 40000 people die in car crashes. The
> goal of terrorists is to inspire terror, and they've done that. The
> best response would have been to rebuild, make a monument to the lost,
> and get on with living the american dream.

Yep, should have rebuilt them exactly as they were with one
modification--put a Patriot battery on the roof of one of them.

Or put up Frank Lloyd Wright's Illinois Building.

"The Department of Homeland Security" and the like are gross overreaction.
Bush exemplifies the "for God's sake _do_ something" school of leadership,
but Obama doesn't seem to be in any hurry to undo anything that Bush did.

Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 04:43 PM, Rod & BJ Jacobson wrote:
>
>> As a aside simply locking the pilots
>> door would have specifically prevented 9/11 and that both private
>> and public individuals failed to anticipate such a obvious security
>> breach bodes poorly for prevention of all other creative future
>> attacks.
>
> Up until 9/11, the normal course of action was to fly to where the
> hijacker wanted to go, and then stall on the ground to give time to
> put together an assault on the aircraft. There was little to be
> risked by letting the hijacker into the cockpit, and the alternative
> was them shooting the other passengers (aka hostages) one by one.
>
> After 9/11 the game is different. When the hijacker might want to
> turn the whole plane into a flying bomb, the other passengers have
> nothing to lose by attacking the hijackers, and the pilot has nothing
> to gain by letting them into the cockpit. Basically, the terrorists
> ruined everything for "normal" hijackers.

And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much after
he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food service cart
land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled pilot
can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose by breaking
the airplane.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:03:53 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>> Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education
>>> consists of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.
>>
>> There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
>> unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into
>> extremist cults.
>
> I agree there are some of those for whom the unemployment comes ahead
> of the extremism. But for many (most?) it's the lack of education
> other than religious that makes them unemployable.

How do you explain Osama who is university educated and rich like some
governments?

jo4hn wrote:

> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for much
>>>> after he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a food
>>>> service cart
>>>> land on him. Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a skilled
>>>> pilot can nonetheless do things like that when he has nothing to lose
>>>> by breaking the airplane.
>>> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for it:
>>> http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf. Terrorist in a blender.
>>> Right
>>> side, ceiling, left side, floor. Repeat as necessary.
>>>
>>> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high jacked
>>> again. No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it has been
>>> long enough to forget.
>>>
>>> -- Doug
>>
>> Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
>>
>> The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
>> willing to die for a cause. Imagine a situation in which the bad guys
>> are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit. It's an agonizing
>> situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
>>
>> The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
>> cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
>> all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring. So long
>> as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past revisited
>> regularly. This is not a problem of flying technique, it is first a
>> problem of conquering insanity - something humans haven't historically
>> done
>> particularly well. The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler, Stalin,
>> Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering. Unless and
>> until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
>>
>> In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces of
>> evil that animate such behavior. Just recently, Turkey was lost:
>>
>>
http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_was_lost?page=full&comments=true
>>
>> The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance.
>> The Iranian
>> thugocracy prevails with Western silence. The Russian bear flexes its
>> muscles
>> while Western democracies run away in limp silence. Evil has always
>> required
>> counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent. No amount of cockpit
>> technique can address these moral failings ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> For what it's worth...
> there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
> there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
> time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
> you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
> away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
> down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
> you hippie fuckers!
Always loved that song by, The Buffalo Springfield. Think Stephen Stills
wrote it. Oh and it had nothing to do with the Vietnam War or Kent State.
Was written years before Kent State. Yes in the 60,s I was a hippie, now a
strict conservative. Isn't it funny how things change, you grow up and gain
knowledge and your prospective changes. Still like the music from the 60's
though no matter how radical it seemed at the time. Least it had something
to say unlike the crap today....
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Robatoy wrote:

> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>> jo4hn wrote:
>> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> >> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>> >>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> And a terrorist standing in the aisle is not going to be good for
>> >>>> much after he has fallen the full length of a 747 cabin then had a
>> >>>> food service cart
>> >>>> land on him.  Airliners are not stressed for aerobatics but a
>> >>>> skilled pilot can nonetheless do things like that when he has
>> >>>> nothing to lose by breaking the airplane.
>> >>> Or simple aileron rolls would do the job and the 747 is stressed for
>> >>> it:
>> >>>http://www.svpilots.com/JJ747/B-747_LIMITS.pdf.  Terrorist in a
>> >>>blender.
>> >>> Right
>> >>> side, ceiling, left side, floor.  Repeat as necessary.
>>
>> >>> I would suggest it will be generations before an airliner is high
>> >>> jacked again. No pilot will ever yield control of the plane until it
>> >>> has been long enough to forget.
>>
>> >>> -- Doug
>>
>> >> Which at current pace will be about an hour ...
>>
>> >> The truth is that there is no simple solution to dealing with people
>> >> willing to die for a cause.  Imagine a situation in which the bad guys
>> >> are slitting throats while you sit in the cockpit.  It's an agonizing
>> >> situation for which there is no "good" choice - only bad and worse.
>>
>> >> The only "answer" - if there is one - is to work on solving the root
>> >> cause problems: poverty, despair, denying access in the first place -
>> >> all things that the complacent West seems bent on ignoring.  So long
>> >> as death is preferable to life, we will see horrors of the past
>> >> revisited regularly.  This is not a problem of flying technique, it is
>> >> first a problem of conquering insanity - something humans haven't
>> >> historically done
>> >> particularly well.  The major despots of history - Mao, Hitler,
>> >> Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, et al - all capitalized on human suffering.
>> >> Unless and until this is addressed, nothing much will change.
>>
>> >> In the mean time, Western leaders are capitulating to the very forces
>> >> of evil that animate such behavior.  Just recently, Turkey was lost:
>>
>> http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2009/10/19/how_turkey_wa...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> The American president waffles while Afghan lives are in the balance.
>> >> The Iranian
>> >> thugocracy prevails with Western silence.  The Russian bear flexes its
>> >> muscles
>> >> while Western democracies run away in limp silence.  Evil has always
>> >> required
>> >> counterpoint - it is today, almost entirely absent.  No amount of
>> >> cockpit technique can address these moral failings ...
>>
>> > For what it's worth...
>> > there's something happening here. what it is ain't exactly clear.
>> > there's a man with a gun over there. telling me i got to beware. its
>> > time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
>> > paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when
>> > you're always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you
>> > away. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
>> > its time we stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going
>> > down. stop, hey, what's that sound? everybody look what's going down.
>> > you hippie fuckers!
>>
>> Always loved that song by, The Buffalo Springfield. Think Stephen Stills
>> wrote it. Oh and it had nothing to do with the Vietnam War or Kent State.
>> Was written years before Kent State. Yes in the 60,s I was a hippie, now
>> a strict conservative. Isn't it funny how things change, you grow up and
>> gain knowledge and your prospective changes.
>
> I guess what you're trying to say is that you dropped some brown acid
> and it fucked your head.
I remember that stuff. It actually widen my horizon. Oh btw listening to
Rush right now through the computer. Care to listen?

http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=st


--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

jo4hn wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 1:07 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I remember that stuff. It actually widen my horizon. Oh btw listening to
>> Rush right now through the computer. Care to listen?
>>
>> http://www.kfiam640.com/cc-common/ondemand/player.html?world=st
>>
>>
> I might suggest that you go to Rush's web site and read the transcripts
> of his broadcasts rather than listening to his show. You get the stuff
> he's promoting without the showmanship. Much different.

I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off the
left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 + years.
And if I can't listen I get his show notes, which is a condensed version of
his show in email.
Thanks for the tip!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
>>> the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
>>> years.
>> That explains a few things, eh?
>
> Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
> to see it on the left.

Apparently you're not reading this newsgroup. All you have to do is
mention anything remotely related to a "right wing" mentality and you
get an automatic onslaught of foam. It's pretty tiresome really.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
>>> the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
>>> years.
>>
>> That explains a few things, eh?
>
> Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
> to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response as
> I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
>
Then you must be both blind and deaf. Ever hear of Chris Mathews, Keith
Obermister, Rachel Mad Mancow, matter of fact all of MSPMS, NBC, CBS and
ABC. The NYT, LAT, Miami Herald,and about a thousand other state run media
outlets.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

> Robatoy wrote:
>> On Oct 20, 9:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing
>>>>>> off the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for
>>>>>> 10 + years.
>>>>> That explains a few things, eh?
>>>> Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have
>>>> yet
>>>> to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response
>>>> as I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
>>> How convenient it is to be tone deaf. It's easy to come up with a list
>>> of squealing lefties, any one of whom exceeds Rush/Beck/O'Reilly in
>>> bile and volume. A small sampling:
>>>
>>> Keith Obermeyer
>>> Rachel Maddow
>>> Bill Maher
>>> Alec Baldwin
>>> Arianna Huffington
>>> Michael Moore
>>> Whoopie Goldberg
>>>
>>> Beyond just being fundamentally more obnoxious than anyone on the right,
>>> all the above are prone to more than just exaggeration for effect (which
>>> pretty much everyone on both sides practices), most of them are outright
>>> liars. Good thing you can't hear them ...
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
>> Now that you have shown your hardcore right-wing colours....was that
>> so hard? Don't you feel better now?
>
> Oh, I dislike 'em all, right and left. For the past few years I have
> found the left more obnoxious. Also, most of the chicks on the left
> are fat, ugly, and need a good shave.

> Given your proclivities, I
> realize the women are of no interest (unless they dress up as sheep),

That was perfect LMFAO

> but if I have to listen to their whining on TV, at least I'd like to
> enjoy what I see. Fox wins by miles on that score...
>

Fox does have some beautiful women working for them and they have a brain.
Unlike the ugly ones on MSPMS that just repeat the Lefts taking points..
and barely have a thought of their own. I have this think for CP Cupp,
she's got something going on with those glasses and her long legs, wew!!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Swingman wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
>
>> Fox does have some beautiful women working for them and they have a
>> brain.
>
> Must be getting old ... even Liz Cheney looked pretty damn good last
> night. ;)
>
You know that was the daughter not the wife of Dick?
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:00:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

> I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
> conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
> place.

I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in the
middle ages while the rest of the world advances. The final stage of
that which we are beginning to see among the religious right in the US.

AFAIK, there are only three ways to deal with fanatics. Destroy them,
isolate them, or give in to them.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

evodawg wrote:


> Fox does have some beautiful women working for them and they have a brain.

Must be getting old ... even Liz Cheney looked pretty damn good last
night. ;)

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

jo4hn wrote:
<SNIP>

> How ironic that you denigrate a song writer from the 1960s - a
> group noteworthy for declaring American liberty and values hiding
> behind phony pro-war rhetoric to hide their deep narcissism,
> laziness, and cowardice. These 1980s refugees were in charge and were
> championing the erosion of liberty and planetary sanity.
>
> Whether you like it or not, some problems require intelligence to be
> remedied. This IS paranoia, Timwit, whether you want to admit it or not.

Which will not be found anywhere left of center.

> It is championed by Rush, Glen, and the rest of the right wing
> personalities in the acquisition of ratings and subsequent power and money.

Another Historical Revisionist heard from.

(And I don't listen to the rightwing echo chamber much nor am I personally
a political conservative.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:29:06 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:


>
>And I defer to you for the counter-insouciancy ...


You have won a copy of Ms. Palin's new tome:

Going Rouge.



Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:03:53 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:

>> Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education
>> consists of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.
>
> There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
> unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into extremist
> cults.

I agree there are some of those for whom the unemployment comes ahead of
the extremism. But for many (most?) it's the lack of education other
than religious that makes them unemployable.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:25:22 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>informer wrote:
>> FRONTLINE/World
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
>>
>> Look for "A Counter-insurgency War?"
>>
>> This Week: Special Preview of 'Obama's War'
>>
>
>Shit!
>
>We've had Obama's Stimulus Plan, Obama's Health Care Plan, Obama's Energy
>Plan, Obama's group of community organizers, Obama's first picks for
>Secretary of HHS and Treasury, Obama's Clunkers, and Obama's push for the
>Olympics.
>
>As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.

Obama is a war president.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:20:29 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment,
> particularly of the young; and some counter-productive western policies
> have no place in the set of "factors" to which you refer?

There are a lot of poor folks in this world - most of them don't go out
to kill all who don't share their faith. Or do the terms "jihad" and
"holy war" have no meaning to you?

Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education consists
of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.

Most of the folks on this group consider me to be a liberal, and I mostly
am. But I'm not blind.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Tom Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT), informer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> FRONTLINE/World
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
>>
>> Look for "A Counter-insurgency War?"
>>
>
>
>
> We refer all the counter stuff to Robotoy.
>
> The hamster and duct tape stuff goes to Jackstein.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Tom Watson
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

And I defer to you for the counter-insouciancy ...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT), informer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>FRONTLINE/World
>
>http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
>
>Look for "A Counter-insurgency War?"
>



We refer all the counter stuff to Robotoy.

The hamster and duct tape stuff goes to Jackstein.



Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

charlieb wrote:


> We live in a world more like chess than checkers. Most
> of the rest of the world understands that,


What a crock of silly horse shit! Just how is that, huh? Example?

Sure, Charlie ... and when they get in trouble playing their
chess/games, to whom have they looked to bail them out in the last 100
years?

Might makes right, Bubba ... and don't you ever forget that, or do so at
peril of your eventual demise.

How soon we fucking forget ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"charlieb"



>> As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.

> Please define "success", and please clarify to which of
> "Bush's war" you are referring since he started two, one
> "pre-emptive" (Iraq) and one not.

Seccess is when you have your aircraft carrier get as close to American as
it safely can; them have it wait while somebody dress you up in a piolet's
uniform and flies you to it. You strut around like a fat duck and have a big
sign say, "Mission Accoplished." Then go back to the safety of your office
and send the carrier off and start another war you can't finish.


Jerry 'n Vegas

- Don't hit me, Mr. Moderator... I'll go back on topic... I swear!

Robatoy wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:28 pm, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:03:15 -0700, Robatoy wrote:
>>>> On Oct 20, 2:28 pm, evodawg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I enjoy the showmanship. Love his antagonistic approach to pissing off
>>>>> the left. Believe me I have been listening to him in the shop for 10 +
>>>>> years.
>>>> That explains a few things, eh?
>>> Funny how it's the right that's always foaming at the mouth. I have yet
>>> to see it on the left. If I did, I'd have the same negative response as
>>> I do to Limbaugh, Beck, and O'Reilly.
>> How convenient it is to be tone deaf. It's easy to come up with a list
>> of squealing lefties, any one of whom exceeds Rush/Beck/O'Reilly in
>> bile and volume. A small sampling:
>>
>> Keith Obermeyer
>> Rachel Maddow
>> Bill Maher
>> Alec Baldwin
>> Arianna Huffington
>> Michael Moore
>> Whoopie Goldberg
>>
>> Beyond just being fundamentally more obnoxious than anyone on the right,
>> all the above are prone to more than just exaggeration for effect (which
>> pretty much everyone on both sides practices), most of them are outright
>> liars. Good thing you can't hear them ...
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
> Now that you have shown your hardcore right-wing colours....was that
> so hard? Don't you feel better now?

Oh, I dislike 'em all, right and left. For the past few years I have
found the left more obnoxious. Also, most of the chicks on the left
are fat, ugly, and need a good shave. Given your proclivities, I
realize the women are of no interest (unless they dress up as sheep),
but if I have to listen to their whining on TV, at least I'd like to
enjoy what I see. Fox wins by miles on that score...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.woodworking.]

> well as the French. OK - so the French don't produce
> much of an army.....

What was Napoleon? An insurgent?

nb

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> writes:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:00:18 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> I may be an idealist, but in my view the only way to reduce the level
>> conflict is by reducing the factors leading to discontent in the first
>> place.
>
>I guess I'm a bit of a pessimist on the issue. The "factors" of
>discontent in that middle east are driven by religious fanatics who
>cannot face the fact that it is that religion that's keeping them in the

Do you have any scholarly cites for this, or is this just your opinion?

Do you think that global inequities[*], wide-spread unemployment, particularly
of the young; and some counter-productive western policies have no place
in the set of "factors" to which you refer?

scott

[*] read: jealousy

informer wrote:
> FRONTLINE/World
>
> http://www.pbs.org/frontline/
>
> Look for "A Counter-insurgency War?"
>
> This Week: Special Preview of 'Obama's War'
>

Shit!

We've had Obama's Stimulus Plan, Obama's Health Care Plan, Obama's Energy
Plan, Obama's group of community organizers, Obama's first picks for
Secretary of HHS and Treasury, Obama's Clunkers, and Obama's push for the
Olympics.

As long as it was Bush's war, success still was possible.

On 10/15/2009 09:42 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:

> There are a lot of poor folks in this world - most of them don't go out
> to kill all who don't share their faith. Or do the terms "jihad" and
> "holy war" have no meaning to you?
>
> Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education consists
> of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.

There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into extremist
cults.

Chris

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> writes:
>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:03:53 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>>> Of course those young are unemployed. When your only education
>>> consists of the Koran, you'll find it difficult to get a good job.
>>
>> There are at least some for whom it's the other way around. They're
>> unemployed and disaffected and so they're easy to recruit into extremist
>> cults.
>
>I agree there are some of those for whom the unemployment comes ahead of
>the extremism. But for many (most?) it's the lack of education other
>than religious that makes them unemployable.

Education notwithstanding, there just aren't any jobs. Particularly in
Gaza, Afghanistan and Waziristan.