http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/alqaeda.strike/index.html
Man, I farging hope so. He scares me so much more than Bin Laden. Don't kill the bank, kill the brain.
Word.
We'll see in due time. I hope so, because I both dislike terrorists and have him in my death pool. Al Qaeda as it once existed has been destroyed for a while, and I somewhat doubt that getting he and bin Laden would have a whole lot more than morale value at this point, but I suppose morale victories are important in stemming the other side's recruitment and institutional support for this particular jihad -- a tactic both sides recognize.
I hope this ass-farger is dead. And blown to bits. Dead and blown to bits is good.
He was always the brains. He was responsible for planning the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He was the mastermind behind the bombings in Africa, followed by his greatest achievement, 9/11. I hope the mutherfarger suffered tremendously before he died, and burns in the deepest pit of hell.
And if you think Al Qaeda has been neutralized, you're delusional.
Bush did it!
Oh wait...we only use that for bad things, sorry. ;)
Quote from: MadMarchHare on January 14, 2006, 12:18:26 AM
He was always the brains. He was responsible for planning the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He was the mastermind behind the bombings in Africa, followed by his greatest achievement, 9/11. I hope the mutherfarger suffered tremendously before he died, and burns in the deepest pit of hell.
I'd agree that he's the brains, and more than anyone is responsible for al-Qaeda becoming the skilled operational organization that it did in the 90's. He's also bin Laden's physician. 9/11, however, was primarily the achievement of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who planned it with the blessings of bin Laden and Zawahiri. I'm guessing that fatbody hasn't had a great last three years.
Quote
And if you think Al Qaeda has been neutralized, you're delusional.
The top-down organization that existed prior to 9/11 has been destroyed, with most of its leaders, money, and facilities taken out of commission. It has been replaced by a decentralized terror network in which local cells have the freedom to operate very independently, with little if any direction from bin Laden and his senior lieutenants, who are relegated to a more inspirational role. Obviously this is far from the same thing as al-Qaeda being neutralized, but it continues as a very loose-knit operation that requires very little direction from above. It's still one of the most potent terrorist organizations in the world, and unquestionably the organizaiton that poses the biggest security threat to the United States.
I hope they got him... as it seems they got a whole bunch of people, including women and children in any case...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114...al_qaida_attack (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060114...al_qaida_attack)
If this report is true, then at the least the attack was not as much precision as it is often made out to be.
He wasn't there. (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060114/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_19)
That's okay. They killed at least 17 innocent people (including children, of course), so there's that at least.
:yay
My guess is it was a precise attack - against the wrong target. Foiled by bad intel again. YEAH!
The United States cares only about it's own innocent humans. Innocent Iraqi deaths are meaningless to the American terrorists.
(http://www.haakonmaxwell.com/images/Hard%20work.jpg)
Uh dude, it was Afghanistani lives this time. Duh.
i honestly could care less about killing those people...just know tho...shtein like this has been happening over there for the last 25 years...and remember the people killed in this missle attack have families friends and countrymen just as dick and jane on WTC floor 97 had...that way when attacks on the us are perpetrated people wont be like "OMG I CANT BELIEVE THEY DID THAT TO US"...
9-11 doesnt even compare to the amount of innocents that weve killed in the middle east in the iraqi invasion alone...now dont get it twisted...whoever did 9-11 should be tortured and raped for a lifetime...but its not we kill terrorists and they kill civilians as the politival leadrship and media over here would like you to believe...the bottom line is we kill them they kill us whoever it may be...until everyone is gone...kinda like human monopoly
Quote from: rjs246 on January 14, 2006, 09:58:35 AM
Uh dude, it was Afghanistani lives this time. Duh.
Same difference. America is every bit the terrorist villain that it claims to combat.
Pakistani, not Afghani...
Meh - what's the difference, right? Kill all those fargers who wear "turbans!"
:-D
Quote from: Diomedes on January 14, 2006, 10:32:58 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 14, 2006, 09:58:35 AM
Uh dude, it was Afghanistani lives this time. Duh.
Same difference. America is every bit the terrorist villain that it claims to combat.
So what do you recommend Dio, leave them alone, pull out of the middle east region, don't worry about them, they are harmless if we leave them be. If you haven't noticed they don't just want us out of the middle east, they want me, you, and everyone else that does not conform to their ways of life dead, it is that simple.
Making sure that the target you're after is actually there before blowing shtein up would be a good first move.
LIMITING collateral damage would be a good second move.
The farging inept, clueless, hapless civilian leadership in this so-called war on terror will be the end of all of us.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 14, 2006, 11:38:20 AM
Making sure that the target you're after is actually there before blowing shtein up would be a good first move.
LIMITING collateral damage would be a good second move.
The farging inept, clueless, hapless civilian leadership in this so-called war on terror will be the end of all of us.
I agree with the collateral damage, but a lot of these scum bags surround themselves with civilians because they know how we are. These guys hated us before the war, and will hate us after the war, but the only way to deal with them is kill them. You cannot strike a deal with these guys.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 11:20:08 AM
So what do you recommend Dio, leave them alone, pull out of the middle east region, don't worry about them, they are harmless if we leave them be. If you haven't noticed they don't just want us out of the middle east, they want me, you, and everyone else that does not conform to their ways of life dead, it is that simple.
You are mistaken. The idea that they hate freedom is a ludicrous government soundbyte. They hate American imperiallism, corporations, and military presence. They fight for the freedom of sovereignity: to run their own countries and societies without having Shell and McDonalds, MTV and "democracy" shoved down their throats. They have been very explicit in their demands: America, it's military, and it's corporations Out of Iraq. Out of Saudi Arabia. Out of Egypt. Out of Palestine. This "war" cannot be won by killing. America is creating enemies faster than we can kill them. Enemies who are happy to die. You cannot defeat an enemy who welcomes death, with death. Especially not when you kill--knowingly-a dozen innocent people at the same time.
What do I recommend? Stop bombing, for one. All bombs are instruments of terror. Get U.S. military out of all of the above places ASAP. Rely on diplomacy and focus our efforts on our own people, in our own land. If that means no more SUVs, so be it. In short, abandon empirialism and behave like a civilized country.
I recommend the U.S. join the rest of the world community in acting as a unit against rogue nations, even if the U.S. isn't perfectly happy with the plan. America cannot simply bully the world into being what it thinks the world should be. Time to cooperate, listen, and think. Time to stop killing and stealing.
I have no delusions that any of this will happen. The game is over and done. The U.S. has got the permanent war it wants, and that's it. The wealthy who make (but don't actually fight) the war have nothing to gain by changing tactics. The companies that America defends across the world have nothing to gain by stopping their slave labor practices. It's all sewn up. The measures needed at home to keep the dissenters down will only become more and more fascistic, but only the dissenters care, and they will be silenced eventually. We've already got spying on law abiding Americans, even to the point of the pentagon classifying Quakers as a "threat.' Intercepting telephone calls without warrants. Reading U.S. citizen's private mail. Abducting and holding American citizens without charge or legal representation for years. The White House paying journalists to plant positive stories in the press. The Pentagon doing the same in the press outside the U.S. Torturing prisoners of war, both for interrogation and for kicks. Pre-emptive war, for Jeebus' sake!
We are watching the birth of Nazi America.
i didn't realize that we were allowed to just drop bombs in Pakistan too. thats kinda cool, hopefully France will be next.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 11:42:10 AM..but a lot of these scum bags surround themselves with civilians because they know how we are...
Yep. They know that even though America claims to respect life, we'll self-righteously kill a dozen innocent people just for the off-chance of killing an enemy. They know that they don't have to do any actual recruiting--America will do it for them by terrorizing and killing innocent people. They know when America talks about how civilized it is, and how much it values humanity, that America is lying. Because if America weren't lying--if America were truly brave and truly cared about innocent life, then America wouldn't bomb that bulding, even if they knew the bad man was there. If America were what it says it is, it would pass on that opportunity and strike at a time when innocent people don't have to die too. They know that America would never put 2 million troops on the ground to spill their own blood and fight the war like men; America will fight safely from above, and slaughter babies rather than risk their own hides so the innocent don't have to perish.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 14, 2006, 11:58:43 AM
i didn't realize that we were allowed to just drop bombs in Pakistan too. thats kinda cool, hopefully France will be next.
Hopefully, Texas or the White House will be next.
I had one of these terrorist guys in the dead pool last year and I think this is about the 4th time their has been a news story about him being killed by the US and it turns out to be false. moral of the story? dont take him in the dead pool.
The answer there is really quite simple. Kill everyone. Nuclear annihilation. Turn the middle east into a giant parking lot for oil trucks. We have the power but not the will to rule the world. It is time we stepped up to the plate and took our rightful place amongst the great civilizations in history. World conquest is within our ken in this lifetime. Sometimes a people must dare to embrace their destiny.
We have a hard enough time with 50 states and a handful of territories, and you want this government in charge of everything else too? Okay, let's go for it. The United States of Earth will elect an Indian or Chinese president every four years. The redneck states become forgotten in the great push for the Euro vote. The uprisings will be fun to watch on whichever cable news network you prefer.
QuoteThey know that America would never put 2 million troops on the ground to spill their own blood and fight the war like men; America will fight safely from above, and slaughter babies rather than risk their own hides so the innocent don't have to perish.
What? You got me laughing good on that one. America won't put troops on the ground? America fights safely from above? America is fighting an enemy that would NEVER EVER line up man for man with USA. I still can't believe you actually posted that. America is not perfect, and yes there is collateral damage, if one of our generals were in a childrens hospital, you can bet the house that a Terrorist wouldn't even think twice about blowing it up. So even though innocent people perish during times of war America takes more precaution with life then any of our enemies, they are killing their own freakin people in Iraq everyday for crying out loud, why aren't you pissing and moaning about all the innocent Iraq citizens slaugtered by Terrorists every day? No you'd rather bash the good ol USA cause they are the Evil ones, not the terrorits trying to suppress the Iraq Population, yep the USA is the bad ones evertime right Dio?
It has always been a dream of mine. One language (ours), one political party (republican), repeal women's sufferage, withhold voting rights from cowboy fans, deny legislative representation to Giant and taterskin fans. Damn! I should be president!
"....I have a dream"
Quote from: MURP on January 14, 2006, 12:12:01 PM
I had one of these terrorist guys in the dead pool last year and I think this is about the 4th time their has been a news story about him being killed by the US and it turns out to be false. moral of the story? dont take him in the dead pool.
I think that's Zarqawi.
This also seems to be the 5th or 6th time in recent months where Pakistani intelligence has reported something that turns out to be wrong.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 01:00:31 PMWhat? You got me laughing good on that one. America won't put troops on the ground? America fights safely from above?
Bombs are terrorism. The one used against these civilians was launched by an automated CIA drone. No human risk to U.S. forces at all. Numbers aren't kept for enemies killed, so I can't give you data, but a comparison between the number of U.S. combatants killed and the number of Iraqi combatants killed would illustrate my point nicely. Conveniently, as Tommy Franks (likely a hero of yours) said "We don't do body counts." In fact, we don't even count the innocent dead. Other people do, though..and the numbers are agreed by even Bush to be greater than 30,000. With only 2,160 or so dead U.S. soldiers, I don't think it's debatable which side is doing the bulk of the dying.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 01:00:31 PMAmerica is fighting an enemy that would NEVER EVER line up man for man with USA. I still can't believe you actually posted that.
U.S. war is cowardly. We bomb from above and afar. We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do. Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is ocuupied, whose families have been murdered. They always win.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 01:00:31 PMAmerica is not perfect, and yes there is collateral damage, if one of our generals were in a childrens hospital, you can bet the house that a Terrorist wouldn't even think twice about blowing it up.
Nor would we. Because we're just like them. Not better, as people like you insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Rule of law and respect for life, and all that bullshtein. Osama bombed civilians in WTC, U.S. bombs them in small villages. Same deal. You don't seem to get it..no matter how bad they are, if we torture (as we do) then we are no better than Saddam, and we'll never win the battle for moral authority. If we kill civilians in order accomplish military goals--especially if we do so without risking our own hides--we will never with the war for the hearts of Iraqis, or anyone esle for that matter. Anyone who isn't already possessed of the idea that Americans are more imporant than Iraqis, that is.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 01:00:31 PMSo even though innocent people perish during times of war America takes more precaution with life then any of our enemies, they are killing their own freakin people in Iraq everyday for crying out loud, why aren't you pissing and moaning about all the innocent Iraq citizens slaugtered by Terrorists every day? No you'd rather bash the good ol USA cause they are the Evil ones, not the terrorits trying to suppress the Iraq Population, yep the USA is the bad ones evertime right Dio?
To say that America takes more caution to prevent civilian casualty than the "terrorists" is lousy reccomendation. We're supposed to be better than them. The fact is that we knowingly kill civilians in order to accomplish our objective. Same as Osama. If we really cared to avoid civilian death, we'd abandon remote warfare and send in troops. It would mean that they'd have to actually fight and die at much higher rates, but at the end of the day, much fewer civilians would be dead. Maybe three of those civlians in this story would have died, instaead of all of them. But so woould a few of our precious American soldiers, so that's out of the question.
Did you ever read me posting that Al Queda isn't bad? No you didn't, because I never said it. You want to put words in my mouth, have fun. But yeah, America is just as bad. I'm ashamed to be American.
War is horrible and has been for a very long time. People romantisize about world war II and how we were the good guys (we were), but horrible things happened to innocent civilians. Carpet bombing Germany and parts of Europe on the way to victory certainly had its consequences. There just wasn't that media connection to broadcast the horrors of war.
Any nation tht commits to a war laser guided bombs or not should realize that they are commiting to a horrible conflict that will take innocents lives along the way. That is what War has been throughout human history. Saying that precision weapons eliminate the horrors of war is fooling yourself. America is not the terrorist, but has commited to 'War' against a tactic.
So the question? Is War and the sacrifice of all that life worth it?
I like the crackhead's suggestion of killing everyone. Especially smelly pirate hookers.
What did pirate hookers ever do to you?
Quote from: Diomedes on January 14, 2006, 01:25:56 PM
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 01:00:31 PMAmerica is fighting an enemy that would NEVER EVER line up man for man with USA. I still can't believe you actually posted that.
U.S. war is cowardly. We bomb from above and afar. We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do. Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is occupied, whose families have been murdered. They always win.
Dio, while I agree with a lot of your points, you are pretty wrong on this one. While the "insurgents" are considered fanatical and welcome death, it is generally known that a soldier that welcomes death, almost automatically becomes an easier soldier to kill. Man for man, and Marine vs. Insurgent, you would lose your money. The training, equipment, mindset of US Troops easily overwhelms whatever the "insurgents" can produce. Especially Marines. A perfect example of, "people who are glad to die, whose land is occupied, whose families have been murdered." is the Japanese toward the tail end of WWII. They were happy to meet death, it was the first time their lands were occupied, and their families had been obliterated by American bombs - incendiary, atomic, and conventional.
Another thing, in your
justified animosity towards the government and it's actions in other countries, it shouldn't be directed at junior members of the military in any way shape or form (I'm not saying you are doing that, but whenever these debates start, someone turns it in that direction). Most of the individuals do unthinkable things on a daily basis, and must find a way for it to make sense for them, even if that is swallowing propaganda they know in their hearts is untrue. And for what it is worth, having been in both places in question while in the Marines, I can personally vouch for the Marine side of the coin, if you put them "man to man" with any other soldier, insurgent, or terrorist - anywhere and anytime, the Marines will walk out alone.
QuoteOther people do, though..and the numbers are agreed by even Bush to be greater than 30,000. With only 2,160 or so dead U.S. soldiers, I don't think it's debatable which side is doing the bulk of the dying.
I am glad our Government has developed a high tech way to kill the enemy to minimize our casualties.
QuoteU.S. war is cowardly. We bomb from above and afar. We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do. Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is ocuupied, whose families have been murdered. They always win.
Cowardly? we have put Terrorists on notice, they know they are not safe anywhere. Terrorist look for easy "soft" targets to kill unsuspecting civilians. And man for man, on the battlefield, we destroy the terrorist anyday.
QuoteOsama bombed civilians in WTC, U.S. bombs them in small villages.
You cannot (IMO) compare Osama's attack on the WTC, That was not a military target, no bases (to my knowledge) were in the WTC. Al-Zawahiri is a top level terrorist that was hiding out like a coward in a civilian house.
QuoteThe fact is that we knowingly kill civilians in order to accomplish our objective. Same as Osama.
Not the same, Osama hits soft target for shock value and to inflict civilian casualty. We are going after terrorists, and people who are out to kill us, once again they hide in civilian areas, just like in the initial war when the soldiers ran into Mosque's and hospitals, thats cowardly.
QuoteIf we really cared to avoid civilian death, we'd abandon remote warfare and send in troops. It would mean that they'd have to actually fight and die at much higher rates, but at the end of the day, much fewer civilians would be dead.
Why would we want higher troop deaths, we are the more developed nation, and have developed a higher grade of weapons. If we sent in troops, you don't think there would be civilian deaths, the Terrorits would hide amongst the population, and probably attacks civilians and blame it on us. Then everyone would be going off when one of troops goes crazy and kills some civilian. both ways innocent people die, from the air or the ground.
I understand you hate this administration, and maybe even the country, it may surprise you but I do not blindly follow Bush (George that is). I have many problems with his policies and ideas (mainly borders and other domestic issues) But IMO the only way to stop the militant Islamic based terrorism is to smack them back when they smack us. Yes it may seem Cowboyish, but that is the only way they understand that we will not be taken lightly. THis country backed down for many years, Somalia, the first WTC attacks, the Cole, etc... and that gave the terrorists the idea that we were ripe for the picking. If we don't fight back they will never stop. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, it just seems to me, that there is never much stated by you about all the negative things terrorist do, especially during this war. If I am wrong in thinking that I am sorry for offending you.
how can war be cowardly...you try and kill more of them than you...whether that be a suicide bomber...an airplane full of fuel or a computer guided missle
Dio, I cannot believe that you think the terrorists merely hate our presence in the Middle East and our "corporatism". Dude, the Taliban was the model government that the terrorists want to achieve. If you do not believe in Allah (which you don't because you're an atheist), they'll cut you head off simply because you don't believe. That has nothing to do with the US being there.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 12, 2006, 10:29:47 PM
You all laugh now but what will you say when they come for you???
[/b]
Quote from: phillymic2000 on January 14, 2006, 07:51:17 PM
QuoteOther people do, though..and the numbers are agreed by even Bush to be greater than 30,000. With only 2,160 or so dead U.S. soldiers, I don't think it's debatable which side is doing the bulk of the dying.
I am glad our Government has developed a high tech way to kill the enemy to minimize our casualties.
But when the other side does the exact same, it is called "terrorism" and cowardly. Either both are cowardly and terrorist or neither are. In this case, if 50 civilians were killed and one suspect as well, the civilians are considered collateral damage. The reverse, say 10 Iraqui or US soldiers dead and 5 civiokians killed, it is called a terrorist attack... kind of a double standard. Not that dissimilar from the situation in Israel, where the ratio between Palestinian civilans killed (in retaliation or preventive "precision" attacks) vs Israeli citizens killed over the past decade runs between 3 to 5 civilians for every single Israeli casualty. Yet the Palestinians are by defnition the terrorists.
Second, the high-tech way is absolutely not so fail safe as your government and the Pentagon suggest, as various bridal parties and numerous of your allies found out the hard way. Beside the fact that the "high tech" weapons are not at all as accurate as portrayed (simply read the article I linked to), there is the human element as well.... humans make mistakes, besides the fact that soldiers (on ground, on sea, in air) usually react in a way they are trained for. A lot of the friendly fire accidents, and some of the other f-ups involving American troops (apparently above all pilots) seems to suggest there are some serious problems there.... just as the observations of a friend who served in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, and observations of analists and soldiers that were posted in the newspapers.
I know from a friend who is in the military, and he said that there was a wry joke during NATO exercises... first thing they would look for was what sectors American troops and airsupport were assigned to. And if not to their sector, it was often joked that now they only had to worry about bullets coming from one direction.
This is in no way an attempt to disparage the effort of the 99% + of the soldier on the ground who tries to his/her job to the best of their abilities. I sincerely beleive that they try to do the best they can, and give their best effort. My problem is with the higher ups, predominantly the policy-makers.
Quote
QuoteU.S. war is cowardly. We bomb from above and afar. We kill civilians in order to achieve our ends, just like the terrorists do. Man for man, Marine vs. insurgent, I'd put my money on the people who are glad to die, whose land is ocuupied, whose families have been murdered. They always win.
Cowardly? we have put Terrorists on notice, they know they are not safe anywhere. Terrorist look for easy "soft" targets to kill unsuspecting civilians. And man for man, on the battlefield, we destroy the terrorist anyday.
Ahum, what you are riling against in the quote above is in fact simply part of the American military doctrine. And it is the goal for most militaries by the way. Man for man on the battlefield the US will beat anybody. Not necessary because man for man the US has the best soldiers or the best equipment, because frankly that is not the case (and hardly ever has been, certainly not in WWII). The deciding factor is sheer volume and amount of firepower that can be poured upon the battlefield. And anyone looking to win a war is a complete idiot if he/she does not try to work around it. By far the majority of Iraqui troops killed in 1999 was bombed to smitherines from a distance long before any regular grunt set food in Iraq.
In fact, to quite a degree the terrorists and "terrorists" are using much the same methods as the Americans used to get the British out of the country, and get or keep some areas under control.
End of part 1 (character limit)
part 2
Quote
QuoteOsama bombed civilians in WTC, U.S. bombs them in small villages.
You cannot (IMO) compare Osama's attack on the WTC, That was not a military target, no bases (to my knowledge) were in the WTC. Al-Zawahiri is a top level terrorist that was hiding out like a coward in a civilian house.
What is considered a military target is largely on a gliding scale... The US considers electrical plants, water treatment plants, radio stations, tv stations all valid military targets. Any bridge...You had to see Belgrade a couple of years ago to see what was considered a military target. Just as the passengers of a train noticed who had the bridge bombed away before them just a few seconds before they were to pass it and thus ended up on the bottom of a ravine. In fact, to a large degree, IIRC, they have even publicly stated that anything that could be of use to what the US considers the enemy is designated a military target. Pretty convenient to say that you can label anything a military target, hence by definition excluding the possibility of targeting anything but a military target. It is the same trick that is used in the creation of "unlawfull combattants" to try and get around the Geneva Convention and various human rights issues.... even though what the US labels unlawfull combattants are already covered by the Genmeva convention. And the label is applied at will.
Quote
QuoteThe fact is that we knowingly kill civilians in order to accomplish our objective. Same as Osama.
Not the same, Osama hits soft target for shock value and to inflict civilian casualty. We are going after terrorists, and people who are out to kill us, once again they hide in civilian areas, just like in the initial war when the soldiers ran into Mosque's and hospitals, thats cowardly.
That is not completely true. However, it might seem true to the pilot or the artillery crew that bombs the place to smitherines... usually they can not ditinguish between a hospital and a legit military target. If the planners label it as a target, they will bomb it. Sorry, but I convinced that the bombing of the Al Jazeera HQ in Baghdad was deliberatley... unless it is a sign of utter and shocking ioncompetence on the part of the military, as Al Jazeera had clearly stated where their HQ was and notified the US military as best it could about the whereabouts of its employees. The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is another one...
The fact that various images and movies have been pulled form internet by the American government that showed a different picture of what the administration and the Pentagon want to make you believe (many more flattened areas, civilian dead, civilian areas being bombed and far heavier fighting), or the deial of the use pf phosphorus in civilian areas, despite all the evidence to the contrary should say enough. The fact that the US refuses to limit or ban numerous horrendous weapons that cause many civilian casualties and loads of collateral damage (phosphorus, cluster bombs (large numbers of the bomblets remains unexploded), certain types of landmines, let aone landmines in general, etc) says IMHO enough.
Quote
QuoteIf we really cared to avoid civilian death, we'd abandon remote warfare and send in troops. It would mean that they'd have to actually fight and die at much higher rates, but at the end of the day, much fewer civilians would be dead.
Why would we want higher troop deaths, we are the more developed nation, and have developed a higher grade of weapons. If we sent in troops, you don't think there would be civilian deaths, the Terrorits would hide amongst the population, and probably attacks civilians and blame it on us. Then everyone would be going off when one of troops goes crazy and kills some civilian. both ways innocent people die, from the air or the ground.
I understand you hate this administration, and maybe even the country, it may surprise you but I do not blindly follow Bush (George that is). I have many problems with his policies and ideas (mainly borders and other domestic issues) But IMO the only way to stop the militant Islamic based terrorism is to smack them back when they smack us. Yes it may seem Cowboyish, but that is the only way they understand that we will not be taken lightly. THis country backed down for many years, Somalia, the first WTC attacks, the Cole, etc... and that gave the terrorists the idea that we were ripe for the picking. If we don't fight back they will never stop. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, it just seems to me, that there is never much stated by you about all the negative things terrorist do, especially during this war. If I am wrong in thinking that I am sorry for offending you.
Quote
IMHO you make a bunch of fundamental mistakes in your line of thinking...
You are, and have smacked the wrong guys. But that was never, IMHO the concern of this administartion and the ruling clique anyway... the real problem is countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and numerous others, mainly on the Arabian Peninsula. But nothing is done about them, as they cater nicely to the interests of those in power in the US. At the same time, the fight against Osama and rebuilding of Afghanistan has largely been abandoned by the US, and dumped in the lap of NATO and others.
The US has been doing almost anything else but try and take away the reasons for terrorism, or anti-American sentiment in the rest of the world in general. You blindly invaded a country which had nothing to do with 9/11. Basically the whole argumentation by the US adminiatration for giong into Iraq prior to the actrual invasion was laughed at by most of the world, and known to be either completely false or scetchy at best.
This administration, on numerous other fronts has basically told the world to go f*** itself, and that the only thiing that counts are American interests, and the rest comes second. In fact, that recently the rest of the world agreed with eachother to go forward in the Kyoto proces no matter what the US could IMHO be a HUGE sign.
Now the administration is touting it is fighting for democracy and the freedom of people. While among its allies it counts characters just as nasty as Saddam, and as dubious as Silvio Berlusconi. At the same time they are doing everything they can to get rid of or prevent administrations being elected in Latin Amercia that they do not like as these administrations want to do something for the lower classes, at the expense of the plunderings by international big business. See Chavez in Venezuela or Bolivia).
The US potrays itself as the beacon of freedom and democracy, but will not allow international observers to watch over the elections. At the same time you have the whole mess of the 2000 elections and the all but undemocratic shenanigans going on all the time (in many ways from both sides), and the merger between big business and politics.
The biggest misconception, and it seems you have swallowed propaganda hook line and sinker there, is that terrorism and extremism can completely be eradicated. That is a pipe dream. What can be done however is take away most of the base of support for these organizations, and the US has largely failed to do so.... and in many ways it seems by deliberate policy. You know what is the main reason for the support of groups like Hamas and Jihad in the Palestinian areas? Not the fact that the Palestinians want all Israelis dead. It is the fact that these organizations provide healthcare, education and other social services where others fail (for various reasons). The same kind of reasoning goes for much of the support base for Al Quaeda and its affiliates.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 14, 2006, 08:16:45 PM
how can war be cowardly...you try and kill more of them than you...whether that be a suicide bomber...an airplane full of fuel or a computer guided missle
The only non-cowardly acts left in the world are naked wrestling against a squid, shark, or bear. No oxygen tank or weapons. Chuck Norris has done all of these at the same time.
Dutchbird, how dare you! You half a Frenchman cork sucker! You're ancestors bent over and took it in the ass from Hitler in what? Like five days. May 10-14 1940. farg you scumbag! You cowardly flags should be ashamed! Our grandfathers died for your corksucking Hoyda ancestors. Wanna buy a Dutch WWII rifle cheap? Never fired and only dropped once. Euro trash like you have awfully short memories. If not for "terrorists" like the Americans soldiers, you and the rest of Europe would be eating Bratwurst and saluting the Nazi flag. How dare you? You scumbags make me sick! Go farg yourself, you self righteous jerkoff.
You're still on a short leash, crackhead. Behave or get suspended again.
Quote from: General_Failure on January 14, 2006, 10:57:19 PM
You're still on a short leash, crackhead. Behave or get suspended again.
I mis-behaved? You will let Euro-trash like that bad mouth our country and I am on a short leash? C'mon man, consider the source.
We can always do a reality tv-styled vote to see if you get to stay.
Seriously, I have no problem with Dio speaking his mind here. He is an American, and I recognize his right to state his thoughts. But the Eurotrash? I have zero tolerance for them. They loved us in the 1940's but hate us now? Screw (censoring my self) them.
Hoyda is filtered and corksucker isnt because?
How else could we describe hbionic?
Nobody cares what you love or who you hate, crackhead. Don't get all pissy about it.
for the record i vote for no filters...just was curious as to the arbitrary nature of the system
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 14, 2006, 11:13:16 PM
Hoyda is filtered and corksucker isnt because?
It should be. And will be in just a few minutes. :)
Sorry. Meant to quote you, wound up editing your post.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 14, 2006, 11:18:49 PM
for the record i vote for no filters...just was curious as to the arbitrary nature of the system
ConcreteField: We think of the children. And Mrs. Lovejoy naked.
sure...i dont care either way...i was basically saying i could care less whether csucka was filtered or not
It's part of the Roman Maroni filter system. It's not quite complete without it.
Glad we are keeping this thread near the top.
You could always get stupid again and give me a reason to lock it. I know you'd like that. :)
Dear Stillupfront,
where did I in any way imply that I hate the US, Americans or you, or am not grateful for the sacrifice of those who fought in WW II? Where did I call the American soldier (or at least the vast majority of them, as there are bad apples everywhere) a terrorist ? Nowhere did I make such a statement (unless I made a horrendous typo).
Besides the fact that you show a shocking lack of historical knowledge concerning May 1940 or the total run-up to WWII and judging by your response possibly WW II in general, you say I, as a European should keep my mouth shut about this? Even though the American invasion (or 9/11 in general) affects my own country, and my own daily live as a European as well? Then maybe you should try and tell the same to your administration concerning their interference in (internal) European affairs.
Smelly pirate hookers. Seriously.
.... I do appreciate the Roman Maroni filter.
That being said .....
Is anyone else concerned that we are launching missle attacks on Pakistan without their permission? Is some circles, that might be taken as a hostile act ..... no matter what the target is. Even if their nukes only have a range of 150 miles, their feelings still need to be taken into account. Are we getting a bit off base now?
Since when does America take into account what any other country feels?
Roman Maroni!
I love that movie.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 15, 2006, 09:20:26 AM
Since when does America take into account what any other country feels?
Why should we? We have either kicked their asses or saved their asses in the last 60 years.
Looks like they didn't get him, judging by his most recent music video.
Also, Ted Rall and I agree:
QuoteDEATH FROM ABOVE Tue Jan 17, 8:11 PM ET
U.S. Drone Planes Have a Nearly Perfect Record of Failure
NEW YORK--In the dark, pre-dawn hours of Friday, the thirteenth of January, near the Afghan-Pakistani border, the buzz of an unmanned robot plane broke the silence. Half a world and 12 and a half time zones away, someone on the sixth floor of CIA headquarters keyed a command into a computer. The digitized message, relayed through the building's circuitry and transmitted skyward, bounced along an array of aircraft and satellites before arriving at the RQ-1 Predator drone plane hovering above the Bajaur region of Pakistan's Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA). Four AGM-114N Hellfire II missiles, each purchased by American taxpayers from Lockheed Martin at a cost of $45,000, streaked off toward the hamlet of Damadola, five miles into Pakistan.
The four missiles, each carrying enough explosives to take out an armored vehicle, slammed into three local jewelers' houses at 950 miles per hour, nearly twice the speed of a passenger jet at cruising altitude. "The houses have been razed," reported a neighbor, a member of the Pakistani parliament. "There is nothing left. Pieces of the missiles are scattered all around. Everything has been blackened in a 100-yard radius." The target of this latest assassination attempt via missile strike, Al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, wasn't there. At least 22 innocent civilians, including five women and five children, were killed. "They acted on wrong information," a Pakistani intelligence official said of the Americans.
The political fallout is devastating. The Pashtun tribesmen of FATA, still enraged at the militarization of an autonomous region that regular Pakistani army troops first invaded in 2004, are threatening a general uprising. As tens of thousands of people chanted "death to America" at protest marches across Pakistan, the regime of U.S. puppet dictator General Pervez Musharraf--weakened by the West's failure to provide earthquake aid in Kashmir--was pushed to the brink of collapse. After Musharraf: the first civil war in a nuclear power.
This was only the latest botched U.S. attack. Eight days earlier, another attempt to kill al-Zawahiri failed when a missile blew up a house in the Saidgi area, also in the FATA, based on another incorrect report. Eight innocent civilians died.
If insanity is repeating an action in expectation of different results, the assassination-by-joystick squad at Langley is clearly nuts. How many must die before they notice that precision airstrikes are anything but?
In the wake of 9/11 the Pentagon went gaga over unmanned aerial vehicles. "These systems...park over the bad guys, watch them continually, never give them a break," said Dyke Weatherington, UAV chief in Donald Rumsfeld's office, in 2002. "The other aspect is that we're doing that without putting service members at risk." But history belies Rumsfeld's assurance that the Predator-Hellfire program has a "darned good record."
On February 4, 2002 a Predator fired a Hellfire missile at three men, including one nicknamed "Tall Man" who was mistaken by CIA operators for the 6'5" Osama bin Laden, near Zhawar Kili in Afghanistan's Paktia province. "The people who have the responsibility for making those judgments made the judgments that, in fact, they were Al Qaeda," said Rumsfeld. They were not. The victims were desperately poor civilians gathering scrap metal from exploded missiles to sell for food. The U.S. has not apologized.
On May 6, 2002 a Predator fired a missile at a convoy of cars in Kunar province in an attempt to assassinate Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hektmatyar because he opposes puppet ruler Hamid Karzai. Hekmatyar wasn't there. At least ten civilians were blown to bits. Hektmatyar, understandably perturbed, has since declared himself and his militia our mortal enemies. No apology there either.
And now the massacre in Pakistan.
Mishaps are unavoidable due to the Predator's design limitations. Image resolution is too fuzzy to make out much of anything at 10,000 feet up. Fly the drone lower than that and it becomes vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. Assassinations by unmanned aircraft seem doomed to failure--out of thousands of sorties, the Defense Department can only point to a single success, the alleged Hellfire killing of Al Qaeda's supposed "number five guy" in Pakistan last year. But it's not just drone planes. Attempted assassination bombings attempted by flesh-and-blood pilots haven't fared better.
Ronald Reagan ordered an airstrike on Libyan leader Moammar Khadafi's home in Tripoli. Khadafi survived, but his baby daughter and 37 others were killed. In 1998 Bill Clinton ordered Tomahawk cruise missiles fired at Osama bin Laden's training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Bin Laden wasn't there, but dozens of others died; the Sudanese facility turned out to be an innocuous aspirin factory. At the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq George W. Bush ordered 40 cruise missiles fired at a Baghdad restaurant where Saddam Hussein was reported to be eating dinner. He wasn't. No Baathist officials died. Fourteen members of two Christian families, mostly women and children, did.
Incompetence and poor intelligence are not exclusive to us. Though brutal, the 9/11 attacks fell far short of their planners' immediate goals. Tens of thousands would have died at the World Trade Center had the hijackers known that New Yorkers start work at nine. And even if one of the two Washington-bound planes had struck the White House, Bush was in Florida at the time.
Targeted killing by aerial bombardment, whether it's carried out by pilots, hijackers or computer-guided drones, is an inherently flawed concept--too easy to contemplate, too hard to carry out, and too ham-fisted to execute without also killing civilians. Intelligence is faulty, guidance systems fail, imagery is fuzzy. When the target of an assassination is present, small bombs can't ensure success and big bombs invariably result in "collateral damage." Technology hasn't changed everything. You can't know what's going on on the ground from the air.
Civilized nations should band together to renounce and outlaw these sloppy and obscene aerial assassination attempts, which send the terrifying message that killing civilians is acceptable in the pursuit of justice. But if the international community can't go that far, they can at least ban the use of unmanned vehicles like the Predator. Murder by mistake is bad enough when a human being can be held accountable.
QuoteRonald Reagan ordered an airstrike on Libyan leader Moammar Khadafi's home in Tripoli. Khadafi survived, but his baby daughter and 37 others were killed. In 1998 Bill Clinton ordered Tomahawk cruise missiles fired at Osama bin Laden's training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Bin Laden wasn't there, but dozens of others died; the Sudanese facility turned out to be an innocuous aspirin factory. At the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq George W. Bush ordered 40 cruise missiles fired at a Baghdad restaurant where Saddam Hussein was reported to be eating dinner. He wasn't. No Baathist officials died. Fourteen members of two Christian families, mostly women and children, did.
What slanted view this guy has, when Reagan, or either bush orders something, it's detailed numbers and it's innocent people, women and babies. When he mentions Clinton its, dozens others died and a "innocuous" or harmless attack. Priceless :-D
so we're farged up for killing innocent civilians...but they surround themselves with civilians also. this is a tactic the terrorist have been using now for awhile. this is an intelligence failure with the drones. i am not sure of what the CIA is doing now, and what kind of relationship they have with pakistani intell., but we need to get highly trained special forces, afghan and pakistani commandos to help weed out the terrorists on the ground. if we keep up the unmanned bullshtein, we look just as spineless as they do. they can't fight us face to face on our grounds, but why not send our best guys in take them on face to face. i thought thats what we are doing, but i guess we don't have enough special forces, reliable intelligence to be doing it.
it pisses me off when innocent civilians die, but the terrorist are the ones who are inflicting this damage to the people. they want us to take them on and so they surround themselves with civilians and promise martyrdom through suicide missions. these arabs don't even have countries they represent, they have all been kicked out or go seeking martyrdom by fighting muslims and non-muslims. they are a sick group of fanatics who care nothing about the people in afganhistan or iraq. some people might say that america is that, but what are we supposed to do as a country to stop this from happening again and again. are we supposed to let these groups go and let them re-group or form other groups. are we supposed to keep our nose out of the middle east? are we supposed to wait til they aquire some serious weapons? no farg that. i understand u can kill the terrorist, but not the movement. but if we keep killing them and keeping them down, we win. so in that case civilians will die, here and everywhere, thats life. mistakes happen, we are not a perfect species. as long as man is in power, this world will be at war with each other.
Someone in the election cycle last year suggested that the military expand the number of special forces units and operatives. I thought the idea had merit at the time. As Mussa said this Arab threat doesn't have a country to go pound. The military needs to get more surgical on the ground, not just in the air.
I would love to say that there is no need for war, but throughout human history that is just not the case. There's always some idiot who wants what you got, or they want you to think the way they do. War by default means civilians will suffer. It doesn't matter how it is fought.
I think its hilarious that Al Zawaahiri is whining about killing innocent pakistanis who had just assisted terrorist. The simple fact is Bin Laden/Al Zawahiri orderd planes into the WTC and killed 3 thousand people. They were more innocent than those who just had terrorsist over for dinner
Quotethey can't fight us face to face on our grounds, but why not send our best guys in take them on face to face.
Even in that case, they will hide in the general population and take cheap shots, then scream "butchers" when we fire back at then. Civilians know that we are hunting the terrorists, why hang out with them? it makes no sense.
because alot of them are forced to "hang out" with them. promised money, probably even given money. these people are desparate and poor and hungry. they will do anything to be in a better position.
Hope, Mussa. You want to end suicide bombings? Give them some farging hope. You got people who are dirt poor, living in substandard conditions in some of the richest countries in the world (per capita), who can't find meaningful employment or feed their families. Then some guy comes up and tells you, "Hey, if you strap 30 sticks of dynamite to your chest and kill some Isrealis/Americans/Iraqi troops, we'll make sure you wife and kids have enough money to eat every day and a nice place to live." What do you think he's gonna say? He ain't got much (nee anything) to lose.
exactly, oh you forgot the 60 some virgins waiting for him in never never land.
I would gladly suicide bomb you all for 60 filthy sluts. You can keep your stinking virgins they don't know what the farg to do anyway.
Quote from: mussa on January 31, 2006, 02:20:57 PM
exactly, oh you forgot the 60 some virgins waiting for him in never never land.
Its not about money or poverty, its about religous fundamentalism. You don't see people in Africa, China, Russia, or South America blowing themselves up.
If it was presented to them as a reasonable and honorable option, you can bet you ass they would be.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 31, 2006, 02:30:26 PM
If it was presented to them as a reasonable and honorable option, you can bet you ass they would be.
Exactly. So you agree that if they were religous fundamentalists (specifically Islam in this case) they would see it as a reasonable and honorable option.
Two edged sword. Outside of Islam, you see anyone paying for suicide bombings?
In Africa they kidnap children and force them into militias. To my mind that's no different.
I don't see the virgins as the bait. It's the we'll take care of your family that does it for the majority.
There are fundamentalists in every religion, and they need to be eliminated in no uncertain terms (Pat Robertson, Farrakhan, Osama, Stilloncrack, they're all the same). But you don't see any of the "fundamentalists Islamics" blowing themselves up - it's dirt poor bastiches with nothing else to hope for (one exception - the pilots on 9/11; evidence suggests the rest of 'em didn't know what the true mission was). The best solution is to remove the majority of people from their situation, where these lunkheads can influence them.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 31, 2006, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: mussa on January 31, 2006, 02:20:57 PM
exactly, oh you forgot the 60 some virgins waiting for him in never never land.
Its not about money or poverty, its about religous fundamentalism. You don't see people in Africa, China, Russia, or South America blowing themselves up.
that's because they are perfect. we should all hope to be so lucky.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 31, 2006, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: mussa on January 31, 2006, 02:20:57 PM
exactly, oh you forgot the 60 some virgins waiting for him in never never land.
Its not about money or poverty, its about religous fundamentalism. You don't see people in Africa, China, Russia, or South America blowing themselves up.
it most certainly is. if these people had money and lived like americans, then there would be no need for killing themselves. they could farg all the hookers they want, get fat, become a born-again christian and be forgiven at the gates. farg them.
Quote from: L-ong-B-each-I-ggle on January 31, 2006, 03:23:52 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 31, 2006, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: mussa on January 31, 2006, 02:20:57 PM
exactly, oh you forgot the 60 some virgins waiting for him in never never land.
Its not about money or poverty, its about religous fundamentalism. You don't see people in Africa, China, Russia, or South America blowing themselves up.
that's because they are perfect. we should all hope to be so lucky.
What?
QuoteThe best solution is to remove the majority of people from their situation, where these lunkheads can influence them.
Another double edged sword, The world has dumped tons and tons of cash into Africa, yet the powers that be are corrupt and take most of the cash and spend it on weapons. Saddam was the same, instead of spending it on his country he put it into his military and his lavish mansions, same with the little prick in N.Korea. So we are damned if we take them out or not.
I think the solution is to either leave them alone entirely or nuke the everloving shtein out of them. None of this half-stepping, Hoyda-footing bullshtein.
Admittedly extremely simplistic solution (I'm in a bad mood tonight):
1. Dedicate fully to developing an alternative fuel on a commercial scale.
2. Fully implement that fuel.
3. Tell the Middle East, Europe, and the rest of the world to kiss our hindquarters.
4. Pull our military out of every foreign nation, use them to patrol our own borders. We can also cut our forces 25-50% (perhaps keeping the rest in reserve- Sarge and SD know more than I do in this area.)
5. Announce that our new policy is isolationalism. We'll stay out of the world's affairs totally, but if we're attacked, we'll nuke the crap out of you.
6. Nuke Iran and North Korea as an example for the world. They're annoying.***
*** Yes, I'm kidding about this. Mostly.
I like your thinking Geo :yay
Quote from: Geowhizzer on January 31, 2006, 09:36:56 PM
Admittedly extremely simplistic solution (I'm in a bad mood tonight):
1. Dedicate fully to developing an alternative fuel on a commercial scale.
2. Fully implement that fuel.
3. Tell the Middle East, Europe, and the rest of the world to kiss our hindquarters.
4. Pull our military out of every foreign nation, use them to patrol our own borders. We can also cut our forces 25-50% (perhaps keeping the rest in reserve- Sarge and SD know more than I do in this area.)
5. Announce that our new policy is isolationalism. We'll stay out of the world's affairs totally, but if we're attacked, we'll nuke the crap out of you.
6. Nuke Iran and North Korea as an example for the world. They're annoying.***
*** Yes, I'm kidding about this. Mostly.
Can we keep a few Marines in Germany? I'm trying to stationed over there when I'm done recruiting. Everything else looks good though.
Damn, Geo. Watch the SotU?
Quote from: MadMarchHare on January 31, 2006, 10:31:02 PM
Damn, Geo. Watch the SotU?
Had it on. Half paid attention to it. Bush has lost much of his moral authority, even with many conservatives in the past year, and may already be in lame duck mode with two years to go.
Also, I tire of all the "personal stories" that the politicians try to put into the speech to pull the heartstrings. Get to your point, dang it!
On a more general note:
The spying on American citizens is scary to me. Don't use terrorism as an excuse. That's unconstitutional. Problem is, if it was Clinton doing it, the roles would be reversed, with Republicans crying foul and Democrats claiming it is "necessary to protect the nation." And yes, I realize that some has been going on for years, but to me this seems unprecedented.
And the democrats will apparently blow a golden opportunity to claim the White House by trying to run Hillary. She's the one that will galvanize enough conservatives and turn off enough in the middle to throw the election back to the Republicans, especially if McLean or Giulianni can win the nomination (which I still think is possible, especially since the Republicans will want desperately to distance themselves from GWB. Obama would be a good candidate for the democrats, but he's still young and may wisely choose to bide his time.
The guy from Virginia (Tim Kaine) seems interesting. Don't know much about him other than the death sentence case that came up recently. Apparently he has aspirations of running as well. He'd be a dark horse at best, and the liberal wing of the Dempcrats seems to favor Hillary at this point. To me, the only person that would be a worse choice for the Democrats than Hillary would be Howard Dean. He's just nutty.
Of course, all this is two years away. In 1994, I thought Bill Clinton had zero chance of winning a second term. Of course, a more inspired choice than Dole may have given him more of a run for his money as well.
What I would like to see is a choice between two strong, qualified, relatively "pure" candidates that would allow Americans to choose what they believe is the best course for the nation. But that's a pipe dream, I'm afraid.
BTW, the first two points I firmly believe in. We need to get a new fuel source and get rid of our drug-like need for OPEC, the Middle East and the oil politics that have poisoned our foreign policy for basically a century. Whether it's fuel cells, electric cars, or whatever, put the funds into developing the technology needed to tell OPEC and the oil-drug-dealers to stick it.
Don't look at Kaine. Look at his boss. He's the one with the political capital, after getting Kaine elected in largely Republican, tobacco growing VA. I'll have a hard time supporting Hillary, being in the pharmaceutical industry. I just hope that if she runs, it's McCain or Guiliani, and not some nutjob idealogue like Hatch or Lott.
And I'm all over giving the big FU to OPEC. Fuel cells rule.
I agree about Obama...that dude is brilliant and should (will?) be President someday, but 2008 is too early. If the Dems run Hillary in '08 (which I agree will be a huge mistake) look for Obama in 2012.
I think Hillary is all but a lock. The thinking will be that she'll sway a lot of centrist women, because she doesn't have a penis. And having her husband barnstorm the South will win back a few of those states, pushing her over the edge. I'm not sure that reasoning is sound, but there aren't any other Dems in the wings who aren't career assclowns like Herman Munster. Maybe Mark Warner, as I stated above. He's not exactly a household name, though, but I lived in VA when he was Governer, and he was able to get bipartisan support done, and didn't always drive on traditional party lines. I'd prefer him to Hillary, a lot.
Speaking of Hillary, did anyone else notice her smarmy, sarcastic glares at Bush during the SotU? I know I was doing that at home, but I'm not an elected official. It really kinda turned me off, even though I agreed with the sentiment.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 01, 2006, 08:36:55 AM
Speaking of Hillary, did anyone else notice her smarmy, sarcastic glares at Bush during the SotU? I know I was doing that at home, but I'm not an elected official. It really kinda turned me off, even though I agreed with the sentiment.
My wife kept pointing that out last night. It was driving her crazy.
I agree that the Democratic nomination is Hillary's to lose. I'm doubtful that she would carry enough of the middle to win a general election.
But I've been wrong before!
If Hillary is the next deomcratic candidate and she's running against an idealogue republican I'm farging leaving.
My house. To get drunk.
Sitting Senators don't win. The last was Kennedy.
Sitting Senators do run, however. All the time.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 02, 2006, 08:04:17 AM
Sitting Senators do run, however. All the time.
And lose. Therefore, I may switch party registration and work to get Hillary nominated.
She probably won't need your help. Especially in Jersey.
I think I'm gonna hurl.
Usually some unknown governor comes out of nowhere to get the nomination. Looked to me like the governor of Virginia was testing the waters. I mean who ever heard of Clinton as the Governor of Arkansas?
Sitting Senators don't win because it is way too easy to use their voting records against them.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 02, 2006, 10:57:24 AM
She probably won't need your help. Especially in Jersey.
I think I'm gonna hurl.
Oh shtein! Don't get me running on about the political wisdom of the three county Garden State. We elected Corzine, McGreevey, and Florio. We elected Lautenburg when the Senate was very much Republican controlled. The morons in this state don't realize that sending Dems into a republican controlled senate does nothing but lessen our political clout. NOTHING ever comes back to Jersey. Would Fort Monmouth have made the BRAC list if we had political power?
God damn it! Now I will be aggravatethe rest of the day.
Mission accomplished.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on February 02, 2006, 11:39:48 AM
Mission accomplished.
(http://www.thorninpaw.com/u/htdocs/thorni/images/Mission%20Accomplished.jpg)
Quote from: mussa on January 31, 2006, 04:04:48 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 31, 2006, 02:28:52 PM
Quote from: mussa on January 31, 2006, 02:20:57 PM
exactly, oh you forgot the 60 some virgins waiting for him in never never land.
Its not about money or poverty, its about religous fundamentalism. You don't see people in Africa, China, Russia, or South America blowing themselves up.
it most certainly is. if these people had money and lived like americans, then there would be no need for killing themselves. they could farg all the hookers they want, get fat, become a born-again christian and be forgiven at the gates. farg them.
Nice to see Iranians recruiting suicide bombers. These "students" don't sound too poor...they just want to "die for their god".
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1636740