Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2 aides to Porky taken out
#21
CC if China and North Korea move in on the world, would you support taking them out with nukes?
Reply
#22
The Cheshire Cat Wrote:
Quote:Also, if you want to scare youself, go look at how big North Korea's army is. Go look at how big China's army is. The US military is very small and weak at the moment.

It really doesn't matter in today's world how big your army is. With the advent of nuclear weapons any conflict between two atomic-armed countries will end in fallout when one gains the upper hand conventionally. The United States still has the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry and is the farthest away. Unless of course you use the military as a police force but that's a whole other can of worms.
The US isn't going to nuke China or North Korea. If we tried that, they'd send nukes right back at us.
It's the same reason nukes were not sent during the cold war. It wasn't due to diplomacy as you falesly like to claim. The leaders of our countries were smart enough to say: "Do I really want to press this button? It will surely result in the death of MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of people in both countries, not to mention surrounding countries would all be screwed too. It could possibly be the end of life of Earth as we know it"
They came to their senses and backed down.

But maybe North Korea is dumb enough to press the button, I don't know.
[Image: tancredo.jpg]
Reply
#23
Well we have islamo fascists who think they are going to receive 72 virgins.
Reply
#24
Independents4Bush Wrote:CC if China and North Korea move in on the world, would you support taking them out with nukes?
I'd send troops in only. I would never ever press the nuke button against one of those countries. They'd send the nukes back.
I would play defensive when it came to that. I'd wait for them to press the button first (and they'd probably do the same).

Sorry for hijacking CC's question S5
[Image: tancredo.jpg]
Reply
#25
Independents4Bush Wrote:Oh so lets ignore every lunatic with a screw lose because we can't get them all at the same time. You can't catch every murdered so leave them all alone. You can't catch every rapist so catch no rapist. Is that your logic?

Quote:He wouldn't of course have committed that if the spirit of good relationship from the 70-ies and beginning of the 80-ies continued

Saddam ruined the relationship by invading Kuwait for no reason. He wanted to invade Saudi Arabia after Kuwait. He was going to destablize the entire region and by consequence the whole world. We had to do somethin about it. Our mistake was not demanding the world's help in finishing him off when we had the chance.
----------------------------
It was not exactly for no reason that Saddam invaded Kuwait. He had his reasons. But he falsely got the impression that the US wasn't going to oppose the invasion.

Your mistake was (1) not trying to reason him out of this plan, and (2) not sending a strong message that you would oppose the invasion.

And about loose screws; most world leaders have at least some loose screws. As do you and I....

/track_snake
Reply
#26
track_snake Wrote:
Independents4Bush Wrote:Oh so lets ignore every lunatic with a screw lose because we can't get them all at the same time. You can't catch every murdered so leave them all alone. You can't catch every rapist so catch no rapist. Is that your logic?

Quote:He wouldn't of course have committed that if the spirit of good relationship from the 70-ies and beginning of the 80-ies continued

Saddam ruined the relationship by invading Kuwait for no reason. He wanted to invade Saudi Arabia after Kuwait. He was going to destablize the entire region and by consequence the whole world. We had to do somethin about it. Our mistake was not demanding the world's help in finishing him off when we had the chance.
----------------------------
It was not exactly for no reason that Saddam invaded Kuwait. He had his reasons. But he falsely got the impression that the US wasn't going to oppose the invasion.

Your mistake was (1) not trying to reason him out of this plan, and (2) not sending a strong message that you would oppose the invasion.

And about loose screws; most world leaders have at least some loose screws. As do you and I....

/track_snake
I don't stick people into ovens because they don't have blonde hair and blue eyes.
I don't shoot Kurds for no reason.

Don't you dare ever compare me to the likes of Saddam. There are such things as natural flaws, but killing people for absolutely no reason is not normal, civil, or worldly behavior.
[Image: tancredo.jpg]
Reply
#27
SavesTheDay Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:
Independents4Bush Wrote:Oh so lets ignore every lunatic with a screw lose because we can't get them all at the same time. You can't catch every murdered so leave them all alone. You can't catch every rapist so catch no rapist. Is that your logic?

Quote:He wouldn't of course have committed that if the spirit of good relationship from the 70-ies and beginning of the 80-ies continued

Saddam ruined the relationship by invading Kuwait for no reason. He wanted to invade Saudi Arabia after Kuwait. He was going to destablize the entire region and by consequence the whole world. We had to do somethin about it. Our mistake was not demanding the world's help in finishing him off when we had the chance.
----------------------------
It was not exactly for no reason that Saddam invaded Kuwait. He had his reasons. But he falsely got the impression that the US wasn't going to oppose the invasion.

Your mistake was (1) not trying to reason him out of this plan, and (2) not sending a strong message that you would oppose the invasion.

And about loose screws; most world leaders have at least some loose screws. As do you and I....

/track_snake
I don't stick people into ovens because they don't have blonde hair and blue eyes.
I don't shoot Kurds for no reason.

Don't you dare ever compare me to the likes of Saddam. There are such things as natural flaws, but killing people for absolutely no reason is not normal, civil, or worldly behavior.

He was not doing that, I don't believe: let's get too wound up on this. The truth is that the US's fault, if there was one, is that for years the State Department, has been loaded with elite PC NPR types, who were naturally more educated AND intellegent than their bosses. Any ambassador, or State Department official should have know that cozying up to a serpent is NOT preferable to telling that same serpent the awful and unvarnished truth.

However, the Real fault was still with Uncle Saddam, regardless what some State Department weenie was to tell him. It is he that did the invading, not the US.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#28
At the risk of sounding liberal, let me state a truth about the State dept., treasury, homeland security, SSA, veterans' affairs, etc. - our legislators pass all these laws, but don't give the bureaucrats the money to do the job well. Heather Gillaspy or Holly Golightly or Heidi Gosoftly, whatever her name, was the US Ambassador to Kuwait, and she probably wasn't the sharpest tool in the Dept. of State toolshed (maybe got her degree at a state university). Like the embassy in Nicaragua in 1979, she wasn't given the staff she needed. So she told Mr. Saddam Hussein, with apparent approval from her boss, "Oh go ahead and have your legitimate border dispute with Kuwait; we don't mind."

Some veteran of the landing at Normandy called into the VA to ask about benefits, and was upset that the young lady at the VA didn't know where Omaha Beach was. Some veterans of the war in Vietnam didn't get good care in VA hospitals, due to insufficient funding. Last time I checked at my local VA hospital in Houston for an appointment, the waiting list was six months long.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply
#29
Fit2BThaied Wrote:At the risk of sounding liberal, let me state a truth about the State dept., treasury, homeland security, SSA, veterans' affairs, etc. - our legislators pass all these laws, but don't give the bureaucrats the money to do the job well. Heather Gillaspy or Holly Golightly or Heidi Gosoftly, whatever her name, was the US Ambassador to Kuwait, and she probably wasn't the sharpest tool in the Dept. of State toolshed (maybe got her degree at a state university). Like the embassy in Nicaragua in 1979, she wasn't given the staff she needed. So she told Mr. Saddam Hussein, with apparent approval from her boss, "Oh go ahead and have your legitimate border dispute with Kuwait; we don't mind."

Some veteran of the landing at Normandy called into the VA to ask about benefits, and was upset that the young lady at the VA didn't know where Omaha Beach was. Some veterans of the war in Vietnam didn't get good care in VA hospitals, due to insufficient funding. Last time I checked at my local VA hospital in Houston for an appointment, the waiting list was six months long.

Come on Frank, the funding is MORE than sufficient. The problem is that there are TOO many bureaucrats there to divide all those considerable funds. If we downsized the scope of government, we could not only pay each person better, but we would save money at the same time, AND be more efficient.

The problem is that there are Too many bureaucrats and Statists playing the "self-preservation" game, and all it's many arms.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#30
John L Wrote:Come on Frank, the funding is MORE than sufficient. The problem is that there are TOO many bureaucrats there to divide all those considerable funds. If we downsized the scope of government, we could not only pay each person better, but we would save money at the same time, AND be more efficient.

The problem is that there are Too many bureaucrats and Statists playing the "self-preservation" game, and all it's many arms.
True. Speaking from (my short) personal experience at the VA, the emphasis is upon complying with the bureaucracy and keeping a low profile rather than in service to the vets. And, those 3% income increases just keep flowing in. Once you are tenured you can't be fired without a major federal involvement.

One of the complaints against me...........I was spending too much time helping the vets. So figure.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#31
My experiences may be too limited, primarily to a single federal agency that I worked in for 22 years. I don't doubt that governments - and many large corporations - are staffed with too many managers who are primarily there to justify their own existence. The difference between public and private organizations, the profit motive, hasn't helped GM-America to prosper, despite the competition.

One example: Congress funded a program called URP - to discover sources of income that were reported by the payer, but not declared by the individual on their Form 1040. The sub-committee chairman for IRS oversight, my own J. J. Pickle of Austin, was quoted as saying what a great money-maker the project was. For every dollar given by Congress, the program returned $5 to the treasury. Nevertheless, the program was underfunded! So severely underfunded, that it created an annual crisis in each service center that worked the program. Another example: the alternative minimum tax project, which at one point was so simple that I could analyze ten pre-selected returns per hour, and compute six examples that would almost automatically yield results of $2,000 to $18,000. Those cases sat unattended for a year before I coincidentally became the manager in the night unit and got them worked, at great profit to the treasury. Working hard and smart, we usually had far more work than we could handle, and we were CREATING REVENUE to the treasury, often $1,000 per hour. When Reagan became president, and clumsily tried to throttle govt. work in favor of the supply side, it took a secretary of the treasury to say to David Stockman, the budget chief, "Hey David, I am the supply side; give me the budget to bring in the money!!"

Solo-Nav, I am sympathetic about your spending time with the veterans. Maybe the boss was told to just make sure all the paperwork got filed. My old friend worked disability claims at the SSA, where they had almost unlimited overtime at one point, in Chicago - and all the MSW's did for months was to process quickly, disability claims where they might talk to the client for a brief interview. However, aren't call centers run like that, where the employee is only rated on how many calls they can handle per hour, with little concern for quality, or how well they speak English or understand the caller? That's mostly private industry.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)