Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by ApacheM: There is a HUGE difference between taking Responsibility and taking Credit. BO is really good at taking credit. Had something gone seriously wrong with this operation; say, if the Pakistanis had reacted to a military action being launched by a foreign power right next door to one of their key bases, something crazy like that, and all the helicopters shot down and all the Americans captured or killed, Obama would have claimed to know nothing about this operatives and claimed that it was all the work of those damn CIA operatives who are out of control. Then his administration would have launched hearings and investigations to find someone to blame. |
RJSmith | 91 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117: These are valid descriptions, but I think that they go without saying. I was more interested in him as a case study. The type of leader he was, and his leading style, as I compared him to Zawahiri, while looking at the complex problems that a new leader of AQ poses. I wanted to have a discussion without the redundancy of just sitting around and saying how bad he was, and look at him in an intelligent manner as Steve Coll did in his books, and profiles of the man. Do you think that wires to and from intelligence operators, read: Concerning: Codename Geronimo, Date: 10292009 To: XA-RTy325 Recently it was observed that The 1. Murderer 2. Torturer3. Genocidal maniac 4. Liar 5. Propagandist 6. Blasphemer Osama Bin Laden, was seen in a remote Suburb of Pakistan. While The 1. Murderer 2. Torturer 3. Genocidal maniac 4. Liar 5. Propagandist 6. Blasphemer Osama Bin Laden was watched numerous points of entry for a possible takedown were observed. _ Nothing Follows----------- _Page intentionally left Blank --------- Blah, blah blah. You can say the same type of things about other genocidal maniacs. Not sure what purpose it serves. You don't want to discuss anything intelligently. You just want to post ignorant things and then watch as people make posts that say how brilliant you are. I am done reading anything you post or talking to you. |
rick3117 | 22 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117: We will be in Afghanistan 10 years, and we will be leaving it in the hands of a weak American puppet and the Taliban. Please Shoot me a link to where Afghanis flew planes into our buildings. Thanks in advance for that one. I will help you out: OBL and the majority of the hijackers were of Saudi descent . We send billions and trillions of dollars to that country. Celebrate what you want, OBL's legacy lives on in the fear that allows our rights to be stripped away, and compromising our very sovereignty to play world police. I think even a casual observer can see that the plan of attack was to draw America into a drawn out war against insurgents to Economically and Morally defeat us. Same game plan that we formulated in the CIA think-tanks against the Soviets. Can you define a tangible plan of attack in Afghanistan COIN operations are not going to work in Afghanistan like they did in Iraq. Afghanistan is much more tribal, de-centralized and ........ you know what man, I do not know why I am wasting my time, you don't want to have a serious discussion and think that there is "something wrong with me". There is something wrong with you, you are a liar and an idiot. You say ignorant, deceitful things, and then when someone cannot address what you said then you say that person is stupid. You do this so that others will think you are some kind of genius and you will get lots of threads where most of the posts are "great post man". I'm done talking to you. |
fish1982 | 30 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117: The scars that he created on this country still exist. He is solely responsible for the loss of our liberties (that we may never get back), and even in celebrating his death, the fear that he represents is resurrected. People can celebrate, I just really see no point. The man was a bad guy, and he is dead. Was it worth the 3 trillion dollars 4,000 plus troops, 10 years at war. For me it is a somber time to reflect, not celebrate. Any victory is a Pyrrhic one. Of course you see no point. There is something wrong with you. You talk this stupid shit in every thread. Yes, for 10 years we have been occupying Afghanistan, a country that was controlled by people who had no problem flying air liners into our buildings and our Pentagon and would have done far worse things if they had been left in power. What would you have done? Let the Taliban and al-Qaeda in power in Afghanistan and then wonder how they got the nuclear weapons that they just used to bomb Israel or New York? The execution of Bin Laden was something for us to celebrate. |
fish1982 | 30 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by dl36: with how politicians who are supposed to be working for the government have bankrupted the country in the name of self interest and their "friends", perhaps this is a good idea... I actually have been thinking similar things about the military based on how politicians send people into wars, conflicts, situations and operations that make logical sense because they are again about self interest/"friends"... It would be interesting if the military had more of a say also This is why I believe that there should be no legal basis for a "limited" war for the United States. I also believe that once war has been decided on, then the politicians have to get out of the picture and let the generals fight the war. The politicians can negotiate a surrender of the enemy, but they cannot interfere with how the generals fight the war. This makes questions about getting involved in other people's problems very easy to answer. For example, Libya. You want to send Americans to fight in Libya? Okay, declare war, mobilize the entire country to fight a total war, conquer Libya, then send a two million person force to occupy Libya. You don't want to do that? You just want to play at war making? Sorry, there is no option for playing at war making in American law. And the military has the authority to arrest and try you in a military court if you are a politician and you try that nonsense. Take the 9/11 attack. American politicians would have had only one option. Go to Afghanistan and Pakistan and say "Turn over to us the following people ____, ______, ________, etc, who were behind the attack on the US on 9/11. Here is the proof that we have that they did this." "What's that, you refuse to turn them over, okay, the US declares war on you and the war can only be over when you surrender, all your leaders are tried and executed and the US occupies your countries with a force equal to 10% of your population." "What's that, you can turn over the terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11. Oh, okay, good idea, otherwise your countries will be destroyed." |
drJ | 23 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117: It is not an endorsement. It is looking at the man who actually existed as opposed to the looney tunes caricature that is perpetuated by the media. He was soft spoken, highly educated/ intelligent, and appealed to his followers through reason, not strong-armed fear, he was known to give hours of long lectures on the dynamics of the religion. Information like this is helpful in the real world. It gives us a glimpse not only into the man, but to his followers. Pretty sure every intelligence agency in the world follows a similar profile dissection to gain insight to AQ and other groups. Pretty sure they just don't run around the desert holding up a wanted poster and comparing the image on it to people on the street. What is the purpose of remaining willfully ignorant? You left out a few of his qualities, what is the purpose of remaining willfully ignorant? 1. Murderer 2. Torturer 3. Genocidal maniac 4. Liar 5. Propagandist 6. Blasphemer You neglected to portray these qualities of Bin Laden. |
rick3117 | 22 |
|
|
hot librarian from a college near me
|
Iveycheats | 162 |
|
|
I want to give an example of the difference between the Union that my grandfather helped create and fought for so that coal miners could get real wages and not become slaves, and the Union that workers of GM belong to.
There was a GM plant in Alabama, near where I live in Mississippi that was closed by GM because it was not profitable. Then Toyota or Honda (I forget which one) bought the plant and made it very profitable. Let me tell you why the plant was not profitable under GM. About once a month, or once every three weeks there would be a serious breakdown at the plant. GM became suspicious about this and got the state to investigate. It turns out that union employees were purposely sabotaging expensive equipment in the plant so that the assembly line would have to be shut down, so that the workers would get a long weekend with pay. The union stood behind these workers when GM tried to prosecute them criminally, so GM closed the plant. Unions today do not help employees escape from owing their souls to the company store while working 16 hours a day in cramped and unsafe mining shafts. Unions today help employees rip off the company they work for and avoid working hard. They are scum. |
Stiln | 197 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by drJ: the patriot act and all its impositions on our freedoms. this is my biggest issue. the massive ramp up of our military at tremendous expense in so many ways. bushs rubber stamping to every spending bill just so he could have the wars. Not quite as "questionable" as you originally inferred. 1. There were sound reasons why the patriot act was passed, at the time. We thought that we were under serious attack by strong, determined enemies. Turned out not to be the case, but no one who signed off on this bill had fortune teller powers. So, now, after the fact you can complain about the patriot act. Okay, repeal it. The Democrats had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress with an overwhelming majority and they did not repeal the patriot act, even though this would have been easy for them. So, do you hate Obama and the Democrats also? 2. "the massive ramp up of our military at tremendous expense in so many ways." I agree, sort of. We should not have stayed in Afghanistan after the end of December 2001. And Bush was a fool, or an idiot, or a traitor for allowing the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership escape at Tora Bora. The Army Rangers should have been sent in to Tora Bora and the leadership of the Taliban and al-Qaeda taken out and then we should have left Afghanistan with a stern warning given to the provincial governors "If you let the Taliban and al-Qaeda come back we will be back and we will make this little war look like a picnic put on by the camp fire girls". We also should not have gone into Iraq. We had allies inside Iraq who would have taken Saddam out as long as they were given a guarantee of safety by the US. Yes, Saddam needed to be removed, but I think we could have done that with some means other than invasion. The DoD budget, less the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, was raised from $311 billion in 2000 to $494 billion in 2008. Today it stands at $549 billion, 2010 was $531 billion. I am wondering if you are as incensed at Obama for spending $549 billion on defense in 2011 as you were incensed at Bush for spending $494 billion on defense in 2008? And are you incensed at Obama for "... rubber stamping to every spending bill just so he could have the wars". Because Obama is doing exactly the same thing, only spending more money than Bush spent. I agree though, that our defense spending should be both reduced and what the money is being spent on could be modified. But, you cannot blame the President for this spending. Congress controls the defense budget. And many billions of dollars are put into the defense budget to give jobs to the states that the senators who control this budget are from. And most of these jobs are wasteful. I will give you just one example. During WWII we had 7,000 people in the Department of the Navy disbursement office whose job it was to specify, order, and construct Navy ships. These 7,000 people built 88,000 ships in just shy of 4 years. That means that they each built 3 ships per year (3.14 to be exact). Today, the Navy has over 40,000 people in the disbursement office who build about 7 ships a year. Let's see, we went from 1 disbursement officer building 3 ships a year, to 5,700 disbursement officers building 1 ship a year. The defense budget is littered with this kind of insanity. But what has any President every done about any of this? NOTHING. There is a company that you have never heard of, called MITRE. I hate these idiots. Congress passed a law that requires the general staff of every military installation to contain MITRE people. They are supposed to be advanced level technical people whose job it is to give solid advice to the general staff on technology acquisitions, research, etc. And they are the most dishonest, incompetent, corrupt people I have ever encountered. And they cost $200,000 per person, per year. Every general officer I know wishes these corrupt idiots would just go away. But, Congress critters who control the budget process want these MITRE jobs in their states, so year after year they extend this mandate. I could write volumes on how the US military budget could be slashed by at least 40% while increasing the efficiency of the US military, but unless we totally change how Congress functions, this will never happen. For example, all the big accounting firms, such as Deloitte, get billions of dollars every year from the military for "research" and "consulting". And, they produce NOTHING useful. And if someone is at a base actually doing something useful who is not part of this budget process, and you won't be unless you are from one of these large companies, they do everything possible to subvert whatever it is that this outside person is doing. Bush is not the reason that this corrupt system exists and the reason that we waste hundreds of billions of dollars on "military" expenditures, Congress is at fault for this. And Obama has done nothing to fix it. So, do you hate Obama as much as you hate Bush? |
Iveycheats | 162 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by cashin: You seem to have little understanding of how things work & what is possible I know exactly how things work in the US Air Force as I spend much time with senior officers and have spent much time in command centers. You are just a liar and when someone shows that you are lying you claim that they "just don't know the real stuff" blah blah blah. |
Iveycheats | 162 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by curiousone: Mon, May 9 Alternate Run line All my picks are dogs, so let's see what we can do on the alternate run line. All plays alternate run line. Pittsburgh -1 1/2 +200 Detroit -1 1/2 +150 Florida -1 1/2 +180 Oakland -1 1/2 +160 San Diego -1 1/2 +200 NY Mets -1 1/2 +230 6 pick parlay $11.25 to win $6069 5 pick round robin $31.80 to win $6117 4 pick round robin $91.5 to win $6022 3 pick round robin $280 to win $6281 2 pick round robin $840 to win $6050 Pittsburgh -1 1/2 +200 Detroit -1 1/2 +150 Florida -1 1/2 +180 Oakland -1 1/2 +160 San Diego -1 1/2 +200 NY Mets -1 1/2 +230 6 pick parlay $11.25 to win $6069 -$11.25 5 pick round robin $31.80 to win $6117 -$31.8 4 pick round robin $91.5 to win $6022 -$91.5 3 pick round robin $280 to win $6281 -$7.00 2 pick round robin $840 to win $6050 +$380 +$238 |
curiousone | 144 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by curiousone: Mon, May 9 Pittsburgh +115 Detroit +110 Florida +100 Oakland +120 San Diego +135 NY Mets +160 6 pick parlay $50 to win $6019 5 pick round robin $114 to win $6126 4 pick round robin $255 to win $6032 3 pick round robin $600 to win $6053 2 pick round robin $1515 to win $6029 Pittsburgh +115 Win Detroit +110 Win Florida +100 Loss Oakland +120 Win San Diego +135 Loss NY Mets +160 Loss 6 pick parlay $50 to win $6019 -$50 5 pick round robin $114 to win $6126 -$114 4 pick round robin $255 to win $6032 -$255 3 pick round robin $600 to win $6053 -$300 2 pick round robin $1515 to win $6029 -$114 -$833 |
curiousone | 144 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by ApacheM: curiousone....run for office, I'll vote for you. Can I keep my beard and long hair? I don't want to shave off my beard or cut my hair. |
drJ | 23 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by cashin: Very credible & serious warnings of a 911 type attack (using aircraft targeting large American/govt institutions) began being received in June of '01. In fact, Cheney ran his own "war games" as an excercise which simulated terrorist hijackings & they were being carried out on the morning of 911. Given that, 1 would have to assume that all air defenses would be on the highest alert & if so, how could these planes have not been at the least intercepted or shot down - especially at the Pentagon?? There's nothing about the official version that makes any sense. Check out these links, gain some knowledge/understanding that you don't seem to have now (unless your just fkn around with your head intentionally in the sand, lol) & then we can discuss it if you want - goes for doc & 5f5 as well. www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATUS911/undefended.htm www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_warnings.html
I work with senior military officers on a regular basis. For the 9/11 attacks to have been some sort of plot orchestrated by Cheney giving orders to the US military is just simply outrageous. I know many senior level Air Force officers and not one of them would have participated in such a scheme, they would have told the Vice President off and refused to do it. And tried to bring military police into the picture to force an out of control politician to stand down. The officers that I know, 100% of them, would have viewed taking such action their solemn duty in the face of some kind of insane plot orchestrated by a politician to blow up the World Trade Center and blow up the pentagon. So, unless Cheney has his own defense forces that would follow insane orders like you are suggesting blindly, your statements are just lies and you are just making up shit to get attention. And I am done talking to you. |
Iveycheats | 162 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk: Yes...I, along with every US citizen with over 100 functioning brain synapses, agrees with your proposition that it is a good idea to get off imported oil. Where you miss the forest for the trees is your suggestion to invest more of the US National treasure (Manhattan-style) in projects that accelerate the demise of our biosphere even faster than we are doing now. Where did I imply....."you don't like anything that emits carbon, walk everywhere I guess" I have no problem with emitting carbon. Carbon that is already a component of the natural carbon cycle. What I do have a problem with is emitting the fossil carbon stored in over 2 trillion barrels of oil...of which we have already emitted half of the Earth's endowment. What you want to do is delve into the remaining several thousand gigatons of fossil carbon represented by coal and unconventional oil reserves, converting those to liquids which will compound the release of GHG's due to the conversion processes, and all of which are energy-intensive industrial methods that eat into current energy supply. Use more energy and more money to produce more of a liquid that only hastens the degradation of a rapidly degrading world-wide ecosystem. Good plan.
And you would leave us at the mercy of our enemies and relying on technologies which either are not feasible or have not been invented yet, so that we can adhere to your theories on the environmental impacts of fossil fuel use. I like how you act like I am some kind of retard and then you spout your green revolution nonsense. Talking to you is a waste of time, so I am out. |
ApacheM | 105 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by drJ: arabs/islamists that hate the west like to kill us. they did and in a big way. the official version is true. there are more attacks tocome, it is inevitable. terrorism is the enemy of free market societies. bush and his cronies used the war to do very questionable things and the military complex(industrial) used the politicians. I THINK YOU ALL ARE NO BETTER THAN THE BIRTHERS when it comes to buying in to this load of conspiratorial garbage. "bush and his cronies used the war to do very questionable things" What questionable things, specifically? |
Iveycheats | 162 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by kujayhwk: "The US should put together a Manhattan project style project to get industrial facilities for producing gasoline from tar sands, coal, and shale up and running as fast as possible". A Manhattan-style project to increase the amount of atmospheric-altering gases at even a greater rate than we already injecting? You do realize that those industrial facilities you mention produce even more GHG's and lower even further the EROEI ratio for oil use, in addition to the GHG's that always result when you burn the product?
How about a Manhattan-style project to address the alternatives to using a 5000 lb steel and plastic device belching damaging fossil fuel emissions to transport 600-700 million individual occupants to and fro? The goal is to eliminate dependency on imported oil. Many approaches will be needed. I don't get why you insinuate that I am opposed to some technologies because I propose a different one. Yes, you don't like anything that emits carbon, walk everywhere I guess. 100% clean technologies which can be mass produced and are affordable are decades away. If you want to live in your pie in the sky bubble and complain about anything that is not 100% clean, that is your business. But, in the interim the US must put itself in a position that our enemies cannot dictate to us. I agree that we need modern, highly available. effective mass transit like the kind that France and Japan use where the trains can travel at hundreds of miles an hour. I would support building such a system. However, even the most effective mass transit system is not going to replace automobiles or trucks. I lived in a suburb of Boston for a while and worked downtown. Driving to downtown Boston during the early morning is totally out of the question. But, the mass transit in Boston is abysmal. I would support funding a real mass transit system in all major cities and in areas between cities where it makes sense, Baltimore to Washington DC for example. But, even if these exist, the total miles driven per year in the US is not going to be decreased very much. And it is still in the best interests of the US to get us totally off of imported oil. |
ApacheM | 105 |
|
|
Mon, May 9 Alternate Run line
All my picks are dogs, so let's see what we can do on the alternate run line. All plays alternate run line. Pittsburgh -1 1/2 +200 Detroit -1 1/2 +150 Florida -1 1/2 +180 Oakland -1 1/2 +160 San Diego -1 1/2 +200 NY Mets -1 1/2 +230 6 pick parlay $11.25 to win $6069 5 pick round robin $31.80 to win $6117 4 pick round robin $91.5 to win $6022 3 pick round robin $280 to win $6281 2 pick round robin $840 to win $6050 |
curiousone | 144 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow: I can ask you the same thing. Can you actually prove that liberals are now not vocal about the wars? Do you have actual evidence of such or just opinions. Isn't your basis for this argument based on your opinion? How would one prove that anyway. Where I said I agreed is my perception is that the media has made it less of an issue now. With that said, I don't read every paper or listen to every report. So my observations are based solely on my choices of media. In the same light, I make the statement about conservatives. They were quite vocal in the support of the war. How about now? Same as above...it is my perception and my observation. It is laughable when you try to crouch your right wing views to come across as objective by stating that in retrospect, you hate Bush, yet want Obama to be impeached. True objectivity is a terrible thing to waste. In retrospect? I starting hating Bush the moment he let the Taliban and al-Qaeda leadership go at Tora Bora. And yes, I do want Obama impeached. I hated Bush senior for different reasons. And you have no objectivity, you just have lies and insults. |
14daroad | 50 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers: You realize that converting tar sands and oil shale actually uses other resources like natural gas, and only with oil over say 90 per does it start to break even..let alone the transport cost from remote locations, AND the fact that these products are sour in their output..meaning full of impurities that have to be extensively refined, so their yield is lower.. Coal is also not an easy answer..but that aside, you have to severely discount shale and sands, they are not remotely as easy to capture and process and use as crude is, as "reserves" they are severely lacking and are not a long term solution as to bringing net costs to the consumer down by much at all.. I agree with part of what you are saying. Shale is still in basic research. We still don't know if this is feasible. Oil sands are definitely feasible IF you have a source of low cost power to run the conversion process. Producing oil from coal is a well understood, well known process and the United States has the plans that the Germans used for the plants that produced oil from coal in WWII. No one knows for sure what happened to these plants at the end of WWII. Some think that the Americans dismantled them and brought them to the US. The patents exist and the plans used to build the plants in Germany exist. Neither shale, tar sands, or coal will or can replace oil in anything except the extremely long term. However, in the short term, industrial scale facilities which are ready, willing, and able to produce large quantities of gasoline from tar sands, coal, and oil shale can put a damper on escalating oil prices. The United States should develop high capacity industrial facilities to produce oil from coal, tar sands, and shale in the areas that contain large quantities of these resources. This capacity would serve as a deterrence to oil companies arbitrarily raising the price of oil. Also, the United States would be in a position to stop buying oil from its enemies. The US should put together a Manhattan project style project to get industrial facilities for producing gasoline from tar sands, coal, and shale up and running as fast as possible. |
ApacheM | 105 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.