Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sirs

Pages: 1 ... 1792 1793 [1794] 1795 1796 ... 1806
26896
3DHS / Re: Give 'em hell, Harry
« on: September 27, 2006, 12:43:08 AM »
So, you're going on record as saying that leaking classified information is a good thing?

Only if it hurts Bush.  If it hurts anyone trying to hurt Bush, then it's to be condemned, rule of law, and all that    ;)

26897
Not a claim at all, simply throwing back at Ami (and by extension, you) the silly snark you were trying to lay on others.  See where you're not really telling me anything I don't already know?

Define "silly snark"?  I just demonstrated how your baseless accusation was actually applicable to your side.  Not Ami or I

I just figure what's fair for the goose, turnabout is fair play, et cetera, et cetera, and so on

Ahhhh, so some truth comes out.  All that victim outrage in the saloon about how dare anyone make bogus assumptions about you, is no big deal when you do it.  Gotcha

Accusation aimed at you and Ami? Where did I make such?
"Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"

You have yet to demonstrate where anyone's even implied such

You really have to get over this persecution complex. Have you looked into professional help?

Ahhh, so the tactic when you're being mis-assumed or supposeedly misrepresented is to feign outrage.  But if someone brings it to your attention of you doing preceisly the same, they're simply having a "persecution complex".  Would have been so much easier if you just fessed the fact you were wrong in your original erroneous assumption.  No help necessary, though I do get periodic professional physical therapy on my shoulder.  Old tennis injury, but thanks for asking

26898
3DHS / Re: I wish some of you would get your terms right
« on: September 27, 2006, 12:16:35 AM »
in theory, one can wage a political battle against a state like Israel and even use terrorism as a possible weapon, so long as they don't use Islam as an aspect of their assault?

In theory, anything is conceivable.  In reality, the battle against Israel is founded within the mutated interpretations of the Quran & Islam

if Ahmed's home just got shelled by American artillery and he lost his wife and daughter, I don't think he's going to care if you are sent to tell him "at least we didn't specifically target your wife and daughter like Hassan over there might have."...You make an ethical clarification which is true, but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to those who suffer from collateral damage.

Absolutely conceivable, and likely happens alot.  And I'm sure it doesn't hep with the Islmaic militants, the mullahs, and the terrorists, perseverate how the U.S doesn't care, and erroneusly even accuses the U.S. of targeting women & children.  and when you consider the emotional state many of these folks who have lost loved ones thru collateral damage, could join the bandwagon of believing such.  War is hell, isn't it.  If only Saddam had complied with the UN.

1. Why are they growing in numbers?
2. Are we just trying to break even (i.e. keep their numbers down)?
3. Is this a war that can be "won?" Can we say at the end of a certain day that the war is over? Will there be a VT Day?


1) Speculation on my part, but the combination of being indoctrinated in the movement practically out of the crib, the 24/7 media drumbeat both foreign & right here in the U.S. claiming how evil Bush and America is, the scenario of the 2nd question you posed, and likely many other factors playing along in that

2) No, the goal is in trying to kill as many of them as possible and prevent them from doing any damage to our citizenry here in the U.S.

3) Yes, but only if the Muslim community recognizes the threat growing among their ranks.  Only if they take an active part (not just us) in weeding them out and killing them.  It is in all practical purposes, a malignancy.  It can't be appeased, it can't be placated, it can't be made to be nice, by being nice.  It has to be surgically removed from the Muslim community, if the war is to be "won"

26899
3DHS / Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« on: September 26, 2006, 10:38:59 PM »
In what reality, Larry?      :D

26900
3DHS / Re: Bill Clinton melts down on Fox News Sunday
« on: September 26, 2006, 08:52:41 PM »
 :D

26901
3DHS / Re: Shaping the Topic: the NIE memo
« on: September 26, 2006, 06:28:11 PM »
The situation in Iraq, and its effect on the terrorist movement, are available for all to ponder based on public information. Instead of dealing with that reality, Bush persists in claiming his idea to invade Iraq was a coup of the mind, a work of genius, when the average guy in the street knows, by now and in retrospect, that it was a collossal mistake.  Bush is mired in a "protect my ass" syndrome, seemingly compelled, even now, to justify his clear mistakes rather than get to the matter at hand.

Well, that's one person's opinion.  But I'll add this caveat, that it won't be the U.S that ultimately wins this battle against militant Islam.  It can only be ultimately won by the Muslim community and their condemnation of those trying to hijack and kill "the infidel" in the name of Islam

26902
3DHS / Re: Shaping the Topic: the NIE memo
« on: September 26, 2006, 05:51:15 PM »
I'd assume the parts that refute the other selectively released parts, minus anything that may compromise national security

26903
You wanted an answer, I gave you one. If you feel it was in error, perhaps you can explain how

Easy enough.  The baseless claim was "Ooooh, so they're only right when the administration can cherry pick them for tidbits that support their claims to convince the US to go to war, but when their conclusions point to something unfavorable to the administration, well, they can't be trusted"

Now, going back to my posts prior, I quote "I was about to say the same thing Ami (This is a NIE produced by the same groups that estimated that Iraq had WMDs, right?).  Their conclusions were denounced as not amounting to anything credible or substantive.  So much for the Bush lied diatribe"

If you notice I'm referencing (intimating if you wish) how the Anti-war & anti-Bush clans, with the most verbosity coming from Tee as I recall, were the ones denouncing the NIE's reports regarding WMD.  In other words, couldn't be trusted.  Of course here they're praising it because it happens to fit their anti-war or anti-Bush agenda.  Basically validating your claim, but for the other side I'm afraid, as I've been consistently supporting the NIE's conclusions.

See where your baseless accusation aimed at Ami & myself was actually backwards?

26904
3DHS / Re: Shaping the Topic: the NIE memo
« on: September 26, 2006, 05:16:16 PM »
Bush to declassify parts of key intel report
President says NIE leak was political, denies Iraq has worsened terrorism
 
MSNBC News Services

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday announced that he will declassify parts of the National Intelligence Estimate, which reportedly concluded that the war with Iraq has worsened terrorism.

“Some people have guessed what’s in the report and concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree,” Bush said, referring to a New York Times report over the weekend that described what it said were conclusions from the classified analysis made last April.

The key judgments from the analysis will be released “as quickly as possible,” he added.

Bush said he had directed National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to declassify those parts of the report that don’t compromise national security.

“You read it for yourself. Stop all this speculation,” Bush told a reporter who asked about the analysis.

The announcement came at a press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai after the two met for private talks at the White House.

Bush asserted that portions of the classified report that had been leaked were done so for political purposes, referring to the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

Portions of the document that have been leaked suggest that the threat of terrorism has grown worse since the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the war in Afghanistan, due in part to the war in Iraq.

Only part of the story
Democrats have used the report to bolster their criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy. The administration has claimed only part of the report was leaked and does not tell the full story.

Negroponte “is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible — declassify the key judgments for you to read yourself,” Bush told reporters in the East Room. “And he’ll do so in such a way that we’ll be able to protect sources and methods ... that our intelligence community uses.”

Bush said the full report shows “that, because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaida, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent.”

Both the chairman and the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee have urged the White House to release the material.

Using a portion of the report to attack his Iraq policy and suggest it has fanned more terrorism is “naive,” Bush said.

“I think it’s a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe,” he said.

Tense ties
The bilateral meeting was a prelude to joint talks with Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf Wednesday at the White House to discuss fighting terrorism in a region where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

The two central Asian presidents have been at odds recently over each country’s efforts to hunt terrorists and to stop them from crossing their shared border, especially in tribal areas.

“You know, it’ll be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are,” Bush said.

“I’ll be good,” Karzai said.

“We will back any move, any deal, that will deny terrorism a sanctuary” along the border, the Afghan leader added.

Bush said that it was in the interests of both Karzai and Musharraf, as well as in the interests of the United States, to see Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders brought to justice.

Even before the meetings, some tensions have surfaced among the three leaders in the last week.

Bush in a television interview said he would issue an order to go after bin Laden if there was firm intelligence about his location, including inside Pakistan. That prompted Musharraf to respond that Pakistan would handle such a situation itself.

And Karzai on Monday called on Musharraf to close extremist schools in Pakistan. “There will not be an end to terrorism unless we remove the sources of hatred in madrassas and the training grounds,” Karzai said.

More money for Afghanistan?
The Bush-Karzai meeting was expected to include rising Taliban violence and an unprecedented narcotics trade were also on the agenda — possibly along with a request for more U.S. money to stabilize Afghanistan.

Karzai said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that his country would be “heaven in less than a year” if it received the $300 billion the United States had spent in Iraq.

As it is, Karzai said at a news conference Monday that Afghanistan has $1.9 billion in reserves, up from $180 million in 2002.

And in a speech Monday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, he expressed concern — without elaboration — with “radical neighbors who have very dangerous ideas” and said narcotics had supplanted the growing of grapes, raisins, pomegranates, almonds and other crops.

Struggling farmers need more help, he said. “Give us the roads and we will give you the best grapes in the world,” Karzai said with a smile.

Afghanistan has been suffering its heaviest insurgent attacks since the Taliban regime was toppled in late 2001 in a U.S.-led war.

Border politics
U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban from power in Afghanistan in 2001 as a response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then, Afghanistan has complained that the Taliban is being sheltered on the Pakistani side of the rugged border.

Musharraf’s government this month signed a deal with pro-Taliban tribesmen in the North Waziristan region that critics said may create a refuge for the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Musharraf has disputed the criticism. “This treaty is not to deal with the Taliban. It is actually to fight the Taliban,” he said Friday.

Musharraf, speaking in New York City on Monday night, said Pakistan was being blamed unfairly for the Taliban’s resurgence. He suggested that Karzai was partially at fault for disenfranchising the majority Pashtun ethnic group and warned that the Taliban cannot be defeated by military might alone.

Musharraf praised Karzai, calling him clearly the best choice to lead Afghanistan as it rebuilds after decades of war, but he also slammed Karzai for suggesting that much of the recent violence in Afghanistan was the result of cross-border attacks from militants hiding in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

“The sooner that President Karzai understands his own country, the better,” Musharraf told the Council on Foreign Relations, referring to alleged favoritism toward ethnic minorities in the Northern Alliance that fought against the largely Pashtun Taliban. “We have a problem with Pashtuns feeling alienated.”


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913317/?GT1=8506

26905
And again I ask, 'Why bother?'

And again I'd respond that you maded a baseless/meritless claim.   I don't consider you of the likes of Tee, Brass, & Lanya, and have much more credibility to be making such baseless claims.  If that's how you wish to leave it however, fine by me

26906
Can you look back and see where Ami, then you, intimated as much?

I looked back.  I can't speak for Ami, but dare I say you're "assuming" something that never was?  I never intimated anything of the sorrt.  However, sounds quite familiar to charges being levied at me, during our saloon days, when you'd get all bent out of shape for me daring to assume what you were "intimating".  Best stick with "I errored, my bad" vs "why bother".  More credibility with that tact.

Though no doubt you'll try to put some other spin on it, which is why I asked, 'Why bother?

Naaa, that's more likely your ego being unable to acknowledge you were wrong, since you have been unable to provide an answer to a very simple charge, so best just pretend it never happened

26907
3DHS / Re: Shaping the Topic: the NIE memo
« on: September 26, 2006, 03:25:36 PM »
And with all that hot air, still the fact remains, no proof, no smoking gun, no evidence what-so-ever, outside of your Bush hating blinders as to Bush having anything to do with what happened with these Green Berets, or any torturing by any anomolous service men for that matter       ::)

26908
3DHS / Re: Is it torture if you only burn the soles of their feet?
« on: September 26, 2006, 03:22:17 PM »
Well-put.  Bush IS a moronic (and extremely cowardly) version of Hitler.

I rest my case    :D

26909
Ignored it. Why bother?

It appears, you maded a baseless/meritless claim.   I don't consider you of the likes of Tee, Brass, & Lanya, and have much more credibility to be making such baseless claims.  Is that how you wish to leave it?  Were you simply in error?    ???

26910
3DHS / Re: Shaping the Topic: the NIE memo
« on: September 26, 2006, 01:30:09 PM »
It's called reality and common sense, Tee.  You should try it some time.  Even pretending all your facts are accurate regarding the supposed torture/killing of a prisoner, you think it would have been allowed to go all the way up to the President's desk?  Common sense would make it clear as day that the immediate folks/superiors would do everything they could to keep it hush.  Your mutated hypothesis would require that Bush is given info on everything that happens at the grunt level, and even goes so far as to imply it's supported if not approved by Bush.  That's the mind reading ability of yours that really sucks, since common sense would dictate other wise

Pages: 1 ... 1792 1793 [1794] 1795 1796 ... 1806