Oh I see...native wrote:It hurts to be on the sidelines and unable to contribute and compete with varsity, eh kids?Cleets Part 2 wrote:
I second that
If you cannot contribute here, there are other threads for smack.
Still an empty suit.Cleets Part 2 wrote:Oh I see...native wrote:
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.
Now you determine the standards by which we all engage each other... (your pomp knows no boundary)
and regarding smack... you initiated it... on this same thread I believe
By far the most practical answer given on this thread, BlueHen89, IF the anti-military snotty-nosed kids on the White House staff are willing to execute it properly.BlueHen86 wrote:...We should locate as many of their nukes as possible and be prepared to take control of them or destroy them before the Taliban gets to them.
We should step up our war on the Taliban in the Afghan mountains - I think we are already doing this.
Let the Pakistani government deal with the Taliban as they see fit. If they ask for our help, we should help them.
If the Pakistani gov. falls then we have to go in and eliminate the Taliban. If the Pakistani gov. falls to the Taliban the country will be a mess, we won't be making it much worse if we go in and take out the Taliban. We'll just be replacing one chaotic situation with another.
I wonder how India is viewing this situation?
First: You come in here telling others what they are...native wrote:Still an empty suit.Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Oh I see...
Now you determine the standards by which we all engage each other... (your pomp knows no boundary)
and regarding smack... you initiated it... on this same thread I believe
What are YOUR standards, Cleets?
The invitation for rational discourse is always open.
You ask me "what are my standards" presumably because I find you instantly tiresome and ridiculously pompous... you want to know how I'm grading others... just three minutes after you post in a different thread about "what the sins of others are" again.. as though you define what is a sin Still an empty suit.Cleets Part 2 wrote:First: You come in here telling others what they are...native wrote:
Still an empty suit.
What are YOUR standards, Cleets?
The invitation for rational discourse is always open.
then you encounter the largest empty suit on the entire site, but because he is conservative - he's somehow not an empty suit...
Then: You tell others how to behave and how to post - and attempt to set some minimum standard by which you shall grade all posters..
all the while, you're posting like a presumptive blow hard...
The good news Native is.. you're moving from tiresome to laughable quickly
I believe my post was completely rational...native wrote:Still an empty suit.Cleets Part 2 wrote:
First: You come in here telling others what they are...
then you encounter the largest empty suit on the entire site, but because he is conservative - he's somehow not an empty suit...
Then: You tell others how to behave and how to post - and attempt to set some minimum standard by which you shall grade all posters..
all the while, you're posting like a presumptive blow hard...
The good news Native is.. you're moving from tiresome to laughable quickly
The invitation for rational discourse is always open.
Maybe if we'd invested those hundreds of billions in energy independence we wouldn't give a shit who ran Pakistan.Pwns wrote:Was Iraq under Saddam really any more intimately connected with terrorist groups than, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia? Will a republican form of government work in a place that is so culturally and ethnically heterogeneous (I believe Dick Cheney said back in 1994 this would be a big problem with overthrowing Saddam)? Are Al Qaeda's ranks growing? (I'll answer that last one for you: yes). I'm honestly hoping for the best but I'm just no optimistic that the outcome of our actions in Iraq will be good for the US, Iraq, or the middle east.
Maybe if we had used all the billions used in the war for port and border security instead of foreign adventures we'd actually be a lot safer and we wouldn't have been routed in the last election by a man that makes George W. Bush and LBJ look like fiscal conservatives.
A salient point, my friend!houndawg wrote:...maybe if we'd invested those hundreds of billions in energy independence we wouldn't give a poop who ran Pakistan.
The economics of the proposition have significantly changed since the eighties, my friend!dbackjon wrote:You mean the oil shale program cancelled by Reagan?
But the foresight to know that conservation, and research into alternative fuels was needed.native wrote:The economics of the proposition have significantly changed since the eighties, my friend!dbackjon wrote:You mean the oil shale program cancelled by Reagan?
houndawg wrote: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.native wrote:
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
Go peel that potato! 
Houndawg, you know full well that Obama has probably classified the chronology of events aboard the USS Bainbridge, and that any active duty personnel who recounted events honestly could be severely punished for doing so.houndawg wrote:...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 only look pompous to the empty suits on the sidelines. When you shed the sophomoric BS and get into the arena, I don't appear nearly so intimidating, as you yourself have demonstrated with cogent posts on those rare occasions when you deign to elevate your brains a couple of feet back up to where they belong.houndawg wrote:
...
Kiss my hairy azz, Hitandrundawg. I've pummeled you so many times, I'll bet you have my picture taped to a punching bag out in the carport of your single-wide.houndawg wrote:...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.
Of course we care who controls the nukes, but there isn't much we can do about it. If there were, we would have dropped the hammer on Pakistan a few years ago when AQ Khan was selling nuclear technology to North Korea.native wrote:A salient point, my friend!houndawg wrote:...maybe if we'd invested those hundreds of billions in energy independence we wouldn't give a poop who ran Pakistan.
The Donks and Conks could very well have struck a bargain to develop American oil shale fields for XX years while setting aside YY percentage of the revenues for research and development of non-fossil-fuel alternatives.
But Noooooo!
We would still care who controls the nukes in Pakistan, though.
That's a great point!houndawg wrote:Of course we care who controls the nukes, but there isn't much we can do about it. If there were, we would have dropped the hammer on Pakistan a few years ago when AQ Khan was selling nuclear technology to North Korea.native wrote:
A salient point, my friend!
The Donks and Conks could very well have struck a bargain to develop American oil shale fields for XX years while setting aside YY percentage of the revenues for research and development of non-fossil-fuel alternatives.
But Noooooo!
We would still care who controls the nukes in Pakistan, though.
Obviously I wouldn't know but it I find it hard to believe that someone like A.Q. Khan can break wind without us knowing about it. Regardless of when we knew, we knew, and we let it slide. That was a real bad signal to send.native wrote:That's a great point!houndawg wrote:
Of course we care who controls the nukes, but there isn't much we can do about it. If there were, we would have dropped the hammer on Pakistan a few years ago when AQ Khan was selling nuclear technology to North Korea.
Do you think our intel weenies really knew the extent to which Khan was selling nuclear secrets?
I do not know either. But in the case studies I have examined from other eras, we have often been unable to sort the wheat from the chaff. I would not be a bit surprised if we were bamboozled by Kahn.houndawg wrote:Obviously I wouldn't know but it I find it hard to believe that someone like A.Q. Khan can break wind without us knowing about it. Regardless of when we knew, we knew, and we let it slide. That was a real bad signal to send.native wrote:
That's a great point!
Do you think our intel weenies really knew the extent to which Khan was selling nuclear secrets?
Oh please.travelinman67 wrote:Kiss my hairy azz, Hitandrundawg. I've pummeled you so many times, I'll bet you have my picture taped to a punching bag out in the carport of your single-wide.houndawg wrote:...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.
Keep swinging, Soundbiteboy: It's the only "win" you'll ever get...
You get beaten like Pee Wee Herman's pecker at a peep show every time you bring your wack job political fantasies in here.....Probably. I think we miss out on a lot of that stuff because would-be foreign assets of the human type have less than full faith that they won't show up on the 6 o'clock news..native wrote:I do not know either. But in the case studies I have examined from other eras, we have often been unable to sort the wheat from the chaff. I would not be a bit surprised if we were bamboozled by Kahn.houndawg wrote:
Obviously I wouldn't know but it I find it hard to believe that someone like A.Q. Khan can break wind without us knowing about it. Regardless of when we knew, we knew, and we let it slide. That was a real bad signal to send.
Are you sure about that? You're putting a lot of faith into the same group that thought Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction....houndawg wrote:Obviously I wouldn't know but it I find it hard to believe that someone like A.Q. Khan can break wind without us knowing about it. Regardless of when we knew, we knew, and we let it slide. That was a real bad signal to send.native wrote:
That's a great point!
Do you think our intel weenies really knew the extent to which Khan was selling nuclear secrets?
Nobody on planet earth thought Saddam had usable Nukes...AZGrizFan wrote:Are you sure about that? You're putting a lot of faith into the same group that thought Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction....houndawg wrote:
Obviously I wouldn't know but it I find it hard to believe that someone like A.Q. Khan can break wind without us knowing about it. Regardless of when we knew, we knew, and we let it slide. That was a real bad signal to send.