Pakistan

[dbackjon]

I tried posting the name several times, but keep getting the Same Error

[AZGrizFan]

I tried posting the name several times, but keep getting the Same Error

StrangE.

[bobbythekidd]

Kraft****!

[BlueHen86]

Yes I do. Do you have any original ideas on the subject? All you've done is criticize the posts of others... and suck up to someone who agrees with you - why don't you guys get a room?

We have one....just waitin' on you. And how can I add any more to the perfect dissection of liberal gibberish?

You know I'm not a liberal - at least you should. Shame on you!

I just don't agree with Bushs' handling of Iraq.

[Cleets Part 2]

You know nothing about me...

And if the rest of your posts are as vacuous as the post that prompted my smack, I am unlikely to learn anything about you.


...empty suit ... prove me wrong!

Why should I feel any compulsion to prove you wrong
By the way: That's an interesting way of engaging people you have...

1) Make an unsubstantiated attack regarding the person you figure to be your opponent
2) Then demand that they prove otherwise

Good luck with that... I'm sure it will work out for you

However, You do seem skilled at celebrating yourself... Much like T-man
I predict You two will get along great

[native]

And if the rest of your posts are as vacuous as the post that prompted my smack, I am unlikely to learn anything about you.


...empty suit ... prove me wrong!

Why should I feel any compulsion to prove you wrong
By the way: That's an interesting way of engaging people you have...

1) Make an unsubstantiated attack regarding the person you figure to be your opponent
2) Then demand that they prove otherwise

Good luck with that... I'm sure it will work out for you

However, You do seem skilled at celebrating yourself... Much like T-man
I predict You two will get along great

I actually think you have something to offer, Cleets!

I am just trying to goad you into offering it.

[native]

Funny, Blue Hen, but do you have an analysis to challenge the proposition on its merits?

Other than the fact that Saddam was not Hitler...

Hitler declared war on us - Saddam did not.
I believe that WWII met the criteria in the Weinberger Doctrine. I don't believe that the Iraq War meets that criteria.

Hey, thanks for the try, Blue Hen! Great!

But but that one was a swing and a miss. In fact, you missed the strike zone.

1. Hitler declared war on us only after we had been not-so-secretly helping the British and only after we declared war on his ally Japan after Pearl Harbor. In fact Hitler assiduously avoided declaring war on the U.S. as he invaded Czeckoslovakia, Poland, and Western Europe from 1938 through 1941.

2. Of course Saddam was not Hitler, but that s hardly a deconstruction of my comparison. Let's deconstruct:
a. Hitler and Saddam were both dictators? Yes.
b. Hitler and Saddam both killed large number of their own populations? Yes.
c. Hitler and Saddam both used poisonous gas against their own populations? Yes.
d. Hitler and Saddam both used ethnic minorities as scapegoats? Yes.
e. Hitler and Saddam were both militarily aggressive towards their neighbors? Yes.
f. The world tried to hold both Hitler and Saddam in check through "peaceful" means and turned a blind eye to his atrocities while tr5ading with him? Yes.
g. Hitler and Saddam both used execution as a means to control their own followers? Yes.
h. Hitler and Saddam both used legitimate political parties to begin their assent to power? Yes.
i. Hitler and Saddam both established fascist societies? Yes.
j. Saddam openly admired and emulated Hitler? Yes!

FYI: Part 2 is the strike zone!

Batter up!

[native]

...I believe that WWII met the criteria in the Weinberger Doctrine. I don't believe that the Iraq War meets that criteria.

I agree with you that WWII met the criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine. But in my opinion it met the criteria long before we actually went to war - and the delay in our decision cost many lives.

I also agree with you that George Bush did NOT articulate the case or craft a plan to meet the criteria of the Weinberger Doctrine, but I disagree in that the case was there to be made and the plan could have been there to implement. (Hindsight, of course.)

Thanks for the great post!

[OL FU]

However, You do seem skilled at celebrating yourself... Much like T-man
I predict You two will get along great

[/quote]

Something in that California water

[travelinman67]

And if the rest of your posts are as vacuous as the post that prompted my smack, I am unlikely to learn anything about you.


...empty suit ... prove me wrong!

Why should I feel any compulsion to prove you wrong
By the way: That's an interesting way of engaging people you have...

1) Make an unsubstantiated attack regarding the person you figure to be your opponent
2) Then demand that they prove otherwise

Good luck with that... I'm sure it will work out for you

However, You do seem skilled at celebrating yourself... Much like T-man
I predict You two will get along great

You got owned, Hippie. Get over it.

What's so ironic is that you have the knowledge to substantively debate these issues, yet repeatedly you target the form rather than the assertion.

Dive in...the water's fine.

[travelinman67]

However, You do seem skilled at celebrating yourself... Much like T-man
I predict You two will get along great

Something in that California water

...dehydration...

[OL FU]

Something in that California water

...dehydration...

I suppose lack thereof may have been more appropriate

[BlueHen86]

Other than the fact that Saddam was not Hitler...

Hitler declared war on us - Saddam did not.
I believe that WWII met the criteria in the Weinberger Doctrine. I don't believe that the Iraq War meets that criteria.

Hey, thanks for the try, Blue Hen! Great!

But but that one was a swing and a miss. In fact, you missed the strike zone.

1. Hitler declared war on us only after we had been not-so-secretly helping the British and only after we declared war on his ally Japan after Pearl Harbor. In fact Hitler assiduously avoided declaring war on the U.S. as he invaded Czeckoslovakia, Poland, and Western Europe from 1938 through 1941.

2. Of course Saddam was not Hitler, but that s hardly a deconstruction of my comparison. Let's deconstruct:
a. Hitler and Saddam were both dictators? Yes.
b. Hitler and Saddam both killed large number of their own populations? Yes.
c. Hitler and Saddam both used poisonous gas against their own populations? Yes.
d. Hitler and Saddam both used ethnic minorities as scapegoats? Yes.
e. Hitler and Saddam were both militarily aggressive towards their neighbors? Yes.
f. The world tried to hold both Hitler and Saddam in check through "peaceful" means and turned a blind eye to his atrocities while tr5ading with him? Yes.
g. Hitler and Saddam both used execution as a means to control their own followers? Yes.
h. Hitler and Saddam both used legitimate political parties to begin their assent to power? Yes.
i. Hitler and Saddam both established fascist societies? Yes.
j. Saddam openly admired and emulated Hitler? Yes!

FYI: Part 2 is the strike zone!

Batter up!

Okay...let's assume that Saddam was Hitler.

At the time we invaded we already had no fly zones in the north and south making it harder for Saddam to carry out genocide against the ethnic minorities that lived there.

We already had inspectors on the ground to make it harder for him to build his country into a superpower.

Saddam was in no position to carry out the same type of attrocities that Hitler carried out.

You mentioned Roosevelt getting building a coalition after Munich and taking out Hitler. We know that didn't happen, but George H. Bush put together a coalition and neutered Saddam after the first Gulf War. There was no need for Dubya to fix something that wasn't broken.

[native]

Hey, thanks for the try, Blue Hen! Great!

But but that one was a swing and a miss. In fact, you missed the strike zone.

1. Hitler declared war on us only after we had been not-so-secretly helping the British and only after we declared war on his ally Japan after Pearl Harbor. In fact Hitler assiduously avoided declaring war on the U.S. as he invaded Czeckoslovakia, Poland, and Western Europe from 1938 through 1941.

2. Of course Saddam was not Hitler, but that s hardly a deconstruction of my comparison. Let's deconstruct:
a. Hitler and Saddam were both dictators? Yes.
b. Hitler and Saddam both killed large number of their own populations? Yes.
c. Hitler and Saddam both used poisonous gas against their own populations? Yes.
d. Hitler and Saddam both used ethnic minorities as scapegoats? Yes.
e. Hitler and Saddam were both militarily aggressive towards their neighbors? Yes.
f. The world tried to hold both Hitler and Saddam in check through "peaceful" means and turned a blind eye to his atrocities while tr5ading with him? Yes.
g. Hitler and Saddam both used execution as a means to control their own followers? Yes.
h. Hitler and Saddam both used legitimate political parties to begin their assent to power? Yes.
i. Hitler and Saddam both established fascist societies? Yes.
j. Saddam openly admired and emulated Hitler? Yes!

FYI: Part 2 is the strike zone!

Batter up!

Okay...let's assume that Saddam was Hitler.

At the time we invaded we already had no fly zones in the north and south making it harder for Saddam to carry out genocide against the ethnic minorities that lived there.

We already had inspectors on the ground to make it harder for him to build his country into a superpower.

Saddam was in no position to carry out the same type of attrocities that Hitler carried out.

You mentioned Roosevelt getting building a coalition after Munich and taking out Hitler. We know that didn't happen, but George H. Bush put together a coalition and neutered Saddam after the first Gulf War. There was no need for Dubya to fix something that wasn't broken.

Homerun!

I could quibble with some details, but you swung at and hit a fastball in the middle of the strike zone, friend!

[Cleets Part 2]

I actually think you have something to offer, Cleets!

Gosh Mr. Native, thanks for thinking I might have something to offer... that's wonderful

Here's what I have to offer you:
You have absolutely no interest in my opinion.. no rocket science was required to figure that one out
and I'm okay with that... in fact that's the way I like it

But lets be honest - you can stop now - pretending you care about anybody but yourself on this forum
your pomposity - demeanor - speech and behavior will tel us all we need to know

[native]

I actually think you have something to offer, Cleets!

Gosh Mr. Native, thanks for thinking I might have something to offer... that's wonderful

Here's what I have to offer you:
You have absolutely no interest in my opinion.. no rocket science was required to figure that one out
and I'm okay with that... in fact that's the way I like it

But lets be honest - you can stop now - pretending you care about anybody but yourself on this forum
your pomposity - demeanor - speech and behavior will tel us all we need to know

Geez, man, get over yourself! Why would I not care about your opinion? It gets boring talking with people who agree with me all the time. I like challenges! Don't you like challenges? Is it so hard to imagine that I don't want the intellectual challenge?

Is it so easy to imagine that I hate you because we might disagree? That's absurd! I disagree alot with DBJon and I really like DBJon!

If you want to make your point you'll just have to offer up some substance! No way out, rookie! No excuses! Step up or sit down!

[Cleets Part 2]

Gosh Mr. Native, thanks for thinking I might have something to offer... that's wonderful

Here's what I have to offer you:
You have absolutely no interest in my opinion.. no rocket science was required to figure that one out
and I'm okay with that... in fact that's the way I like it

But lets be honest - you can stop now - pretending you care about anybody but yourself on this forum
your pomposity - demeanor - speech and behavior will tel us all we need to know

Geez, man, get over yourself! Why would I not care about your opinion? It gets boring talking with people who agree with me all the time. I like challenges! Don't you like challenges? Is it so hard to imagine that I don't want the intellectual challenge?

Is it so easy to imagine that I hate you because we might disagree? That's absurd! I disagree alot with DBJon and I really like DBJon!

If you want to make your point you'll just have to offer up some substance! No way out, rookie! No excuses! Step up or sit down!

Okay... you win.. you're the smartest

[native]

Okay... you win..

Nah, you "win," you've retained your identity as an empty suit...

[native]

Hey Wedgebuster,

On a separate note, that is a cool avatar.

Is it from the movie, "Tron?"

Warning:

It is of a barely recalled techno band from the 80's known for their irritating robot music.

any guesses?

Nope. Looked at about 500 images that popped up from a search of "techno band" and did not find it. Tried to PM, but the message is stuck in the outbox.

[native]

If you think the recent pirate escapade will embolden our allies and intimidate our enemies, portending success, think again. It will embolden our enemies. Oh, it will probably intimidate some of the illiterate and impoverished pirates, but it did not fool the world's intelligence agencies.

You probably believe what you were told by the mainstream media about the pirate episode, that Obama saved the day by ordering the timely use of deadly force to save the hostage Captain's life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hostage was saved despite the President's decision to suppress a readily available military option and use the FBI to negotiate a "peaceful" solution. It took the SEALS four hours to depart from Virgina Beach for the coast of Somalia. At twelve hours the FBI were still packing their bags. Meanwhile the hostage's life was in constant danger as the drama dragged on. The military solution was available on the first day when the hostage jumped overboard and tried to escape, but the rescue was explicitly vetoed by the Whitehouse. After the drama dragged on for four days, the hostage was finally saved ONLY because the Captain of the USS Bainbridge, contrary to the expressed desires of the Whitehouse for a "peaceful" solution, had the balls to risk his career and declare that the hostage's life was in danger, then giving the go-ahead as the on-scene-commander for the SEALS to take out the pirates and set the hostage free.

The President did do one intelligent thing for which I give him credit. He accepted the decision to use force AFTER THE FACT as his own.

Unlike Jack Kennedy, who was tested early in his Presidency with an unprecedentedly grave world crisis and found largely worthy, Obama has been tested early in his Presidency with a trivial incident and found wanting.

How many troops do you think it will take to invade and stabilize Pakistan? What do you imagine to be the tactical differences between Iraq and Pakistan?

NATO is already squeemish about Afghanistan. Who the he77 do you think is going to join us in an invasion of Pakistan?

Who would be foolish enough to fight an enemy six times larger than Iraq, who follows NO Geneva conventions or civilized rules of engagement, now that our Dear leader has abolished even modest little water board exercises as "torture?"

Who the he77 do you think wants to follow this commander-in-chief into harm's way? Do you think Barry Soetoro will allow the military chain of command to use rules of engagement designed to protect their own troops? Do you think our command-in-chief will stand up for troops who make borderline decisions under pressure in life and death situations? Do you think the Taliban and al Qaeda fear our commander-in-chief?

Could you give us a link to this intel?

Yes, of course. The country data is readily available online at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/iz.html and
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/pk.html

The details of waterboarding and and its routine uses on U.S. military personnel are readily available online, for example, at: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23220 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

For the rescue specifics, I apologize that I cannot provide the reference. It's a personal information source, and not from a web site. Neither the right wing web sites not the left wing web sites got the details right. I understand you might be skeptical, and I do not blame you if you wish to discount my post, but for those who have been there, those who understand the capabilities of SEALs, and legal responsibilities of the commanding officer of a US Navy ship, the on-scene commander and rules-of-engagement particulars are easy to understand and have ring of truth. I apologize I cannot be any more specific.

Best regards,
Native

[catamount man]

I am fairly certain that President Obama knows of this situation, knows how other countries view him and has arsenal on stand by to take out the sites that are currently housing the nuclear weapons should the Taliban gain control of the capital of Pakistan.

I think he's starting to see that peace and talks are just that, cheap talk. It's time he flex his muscle. For the sake of the world, he better.

[houndawg]

Could you give us a link to this intel?

Yes, of course. The country data is readily available online at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/iz.html and
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... nt/pk.html

The details of waterboarding and and its routine uses on U.S. military personnel are readily available online, for example, at: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23220 and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

For the rescue specifics, I apologize that I cannot provide the reference. It's a personal information source, and not from a web site. Neither the right wing web sites not the left wing web sites got the details right. I understand you might be skeptical, and I do not blame you if you wish to discount my post, but for those who have been there, those who understand the capabilities of SEALs, and legal responsibilities of the commanding officer of a US Navy ship, the on-scene commander and rules-of-engagement particulars are easy to understand and have ring of truth. I apologize I cannot be any more specific.

Best regards,
Native

Don't apologize, bro. We know you're only taking care that we can't spill any vital information should any of us be captured and tortured.

I think T'man has just been dethroned as the King of Pompous, and if he isn't careful he might lose his Hero of Half-witted Jabber title, too.

[Cleets Part 2]

I think T'man has just been dethroned as the King of Pompous, and if he isn't careful he might lose his Hero of Half-witted Jabber title, too.

I second that

[native]

I am fairly certain that President Obama knows of this situation, knows how other countries view him and has arsenal on stand by to take out the sites that are currently housing the nuclear weapons should the Taliban gain control of the capital of Pakistan.

I think he's starting to see that peace and talks are just that, cheap talk. It's time he flex his muscle. For the sake of the world, he better.

I hope you are right, Catamountman!

[native]

I think T'man has just been dethroned as the King of Pompous, and if he isn't careful he might lose his Hero of Half-witted Jabber title, too.

I second that

It hurts to be on the sidelines and unable to contribute and compete with varsity, eh kids?

If you cannot contribute here, there are other threads for smack.