General Music Chat

Yep 30 years and he has yet to give up, I agree he certainly is consistent and tenacious. You said that like it was a bad thing. Anyone who has liberty as their fore most agenda and all other issues dependant upon it. It just seems a natural choice too me.

Yep 30 years and he has yet to give up, I agree he certainly is consistent and tenacious. You said that like it was a bad thing. Anyone who has liberty as their fore most agenda and all other issues dependant upon it. It just seems a natural choice too me.

I think he has real solid ideas.
And term limits are a great idea.

The drug war has become a self perpetuating racket. Everybody makes money, freedom goes down the tubes.

Police departments now get all that groovy swat gear free from the govt and get to war ski masks and macho drag and carry submachine guns. There is a time in life when that sort of sh*t appeals to young men.

Worse, the departments often get to keep the money they steal confiscating people's property, even before they are convicted. So they play soldiers and make good dough. Ain't it grand.

Support your local police eh? Yeah, they may shoot your dog but come on- they are putting it on the line for you...

The politicians get their cut so it is dandy for everybody, except those of us who believe in personal freedom and a moral code. Mix in the TSA and you have a deadly brew.

It's time that decent people, wether left or right, stop playing at the imaginary two party system and kick ALL these weasels out. We need a clean sweep. I'll take an honest ncompetant anytime over a competant theif!

Talbot

Talbot

Well spoke Mike. Over ten years of undeclared war have drained this country. Paul wants to follow the constitution, what a revelation! Let the middle east blow each other up, it's time for us to butt out. Why do we need over 900 military bases all over the globe? And why should we sacrifice our liberty for some artificial notion of security. Lastly, the war on drugs has been a miserable failure.

Mostly well said Jimmy. But it has been more like sixty years. War should only be taken with the understanding of the gravest of consequences. Our founding fathers understood that well. War is not about creating social change to benefit some other country. War is about killing every man, woman and child in the most devastating possible way. To completely obliterate the enemy. It is not to teach them to order from Papa johns pizza and enjoy an ice cold coke.(sarcasm for dummies)
Here is what war is about: Israel is not going to launch a 100 planes to bomb Iran. It's a 1000 miles. They do not have the logistical support to carry out a mission of that nature. They will launch a full scale nuclear attack to wipe out an enemy that would do the very same.
THAT IS WAR.

Pretty scary thought huh? Welcome WW3.

Pretty scary thought huh? Welcome WW3.

Although that might be a pragmatic choice,
It is very unlikely,
In almost every instance of war game scenarios run mostly by the pentagon, but also with the participation of other countries.
participants never resorted to nuclear weapons. even when nukes were used by opposing sides 1st.
when asked, the participants cited the complete loss of predictability of outcome once nukes were introduced.
no matter what goal or scenario was supposed to be the point of the exercise, command structure survivability immediately became the only token of success.
No control was possible. no one could predict where or when the next volley would originate.
No resource was safe and no accounting could be made for the counter attack.
It was generally agreed that the party choosing to escalate must destroy all countries in possession of nukes to complete the game.

This of course is the Israeli fear, that a country that holds that their cause is so important that their own survival is not a factor, a country like this should not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.

BUT THEY DO!
As I said you are a typical American that doesn't understand the very nature of war.

To clarify that, you have just made the first miscalculation of what any nation or enemy would do to win.

I guess Israel should have their nukes taken away from them... and...
Maybe we should just give them to Iran.

Or we get involved more and provide logistical support for a conventional strike.

Or we just let Iran develop a nuke with a missile that could strike Israel first and watch them use it. Oh those poor Palestinians, They are going to get their butts killed due to proximity.

This is just sick. Thank God at least we will have mandated coverage for birth control in this country, (sarcasm).

Glen I'm surprised you would say such an obviously incorrect statement.

"War is about killing every man, woman and child in the most devastating possible way"

WOW!
I think you ment to say "every enemy in the most efficient way possible"

If you ment what you wrote then you condone killing the innocent.
[/b]

I do believe you missed my point.


be that as it may..
There is a very big difference in possessing nuke and using one.
which is why most information about nukes is derived from testing and not actual use.

That's the problem with war Klug. No one is truly innocent. That is why it must always be taken on with the utmost extreme understanding and judgement that can only come from a collective of thoughtful and intelligent human beings.
Unfortunately, In America it is supposed to be congress. I say unfortunately because there just appears to be a lack of thoughtful and intelligent people there now, and for perhaps the last 100 years.
Even worse is that we have allowed too many "war decisions" to be made by our commander in chiefs without the proper input of the collective.
HMMMM,Sort of sounds like the way ,,,say a hitler would do it.
None of us are innocent.

Children ARE innocent.[/b]

Glen

I understand war all too well - from both a historical and a personal perspective. What I don't understand is how we became such pussies as to consider the Muslims a fearsome enemy. We're killing them in large numbers by the rules you advocate. But huh?

Iraq - insanity. They were our proxy in the war with Iran - fought them for nearly ten years and used missiles and gas. That they got from us. That's why I nearly puked when Bush and then Bush II started blathering about WMD. Well yeah...We gave them various poison gasses and helped them start up labs to produce the Anthrax botulism.

Aphganistan? What?! We helped them kick out the Russians. We're pals right? A month before 9/11 we sent them half a billiion bucks - them being the Taliban!

Iran? Why? They pose no threat to the US. We stood up to stalin who was a homicidal maniac armed with nukes out the wazoo. Look at a map of the area around Iran and you'll see the strategic picture: they are totally surronded by US military bases, the fleet, and lots of Arab countries that don't like them. Can't imagine why they'd want nukes...

And don't tell me Israel is at risk. Conservatives keep making that mistake. I personally support them in prayer and actually tried to join their army after the war in Africa. (they turned me down because
I wouldn't convert to Judiasm - fair enough).

Israel was one of the few countries that assisted Rhodesia and I owe them on that front.

But I do not believe in military alliances. They are the cause of wars, not the answer. Right now we have treaties with all sorts of bizaare little countries and could find ourselves dragged into a war between countries most folks can't find on the map.

Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons and nobody doubts that they would use them in a pinch. So their safety is their business.

I would offer but one thing to any foriegn nations: The US will not attack you. Once we proved we meant it (might take a while...) it would have a wonderful impact on the world.

I agree that war should be to the knife. I also believe that the criteria for that should be the same as applied to you as an armed citizen - you can shoot when you are in immanent danger of death or great bodily injury. Or defending your own space.

There are many people in the places America routinely bombs, that couldn't have found the US on the map before we started shitting on them. Maybe their leaders pissed us off or whatever. But I wonder how the night watchman at the aspirin factor that clinton wiped out with a cruise missile felt about it. What had he done to us?

So think on this - we have attacked three major and a number of minor nations on the pretext of payback for 9/11. None of which were / are Saudi Arabia.

But the job (9/11) was done by Saudis...

I don't trust our leaders enough (or at all) to advocate killing folks on their say so.

Talbot

Pretty scary thought huh? Welcome WW3.

Although that might be a pragmatic choice,
It is very unlikely,
In almost every instance of war game scenarios run mostly by the pentagon, but also with the participation of other countries.
participants never resorted to nuclear weapons. even when nukes were used by opposing sides 1st.
when asked, the participants cited the complete loss of predictability of outcome once nukes were introduced.
no matter what goal or scenario was supposed to be the point of the exercise, command structure survivability immediately became the only token of success.
No control was possible. no one could predict where or when the next volley would originate.
No resource was safe and no accounting could be made for the counter attack.
It was generally agreed that the party choosing to escalate must destroy all countries in possession of nukes to complete the game.

This of course is the Israeli fear, that a country that holds that their cause is so important that their own survival is not a factor, a country like this should not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons.

There is a litany of material out there from Robert Oppenheimer about the volleying of that nuke, as well as M.A.D. policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) Adding to that, the historical evidence ( I toured Peace park museums in Nagasaki back in the 80's) , which instilled enough fear in the nation of Japan, to compel its emperor to sign a treaty...ending the Pacific War theater.

For the record, (Glen, if you are reading this...) , U.S. pentagon views war as the battle to disable the other guy...(which might include tactically killing him... but killing is not the primary objective. Destruction of the enemies means to kill us...is the primary objective.

One of the reasons the US decided to use the bomb on Japan, was because Japan had deployed a geographical strategy of spreading out their factories, so that no conventional attacks could decimate their ability to produce for the war effort. The Pentagon crunched the numbers and discovered that the death toll from an attempt to disable Japan was actually higher than the toll from getting nuked in key cities... They wanted a silver bullet to end Japan's aggression in one clean sweep...Enter: Big Man, Little man...

At the museum, I saw a six pack of coke bottles that had melted from the blast...20 miles away...[/i]

There in lies the problem Dawg. We are using an ACCEPTABLE standard of war. Tell that to the wife of a soldier that was kia because we are now on a "PEACE KEEPING, NATION REBUILDING MISSION"

As far as Israel, I am only looking at worst case scenario. I have noticed a big change in our rhetoric, because that is the only way we can stop Israel from doing the unthinkable.
Either we offer them logistical support, or Iran complies, or the stuff is going to hit the fan,one way or another.

Everything you recount is historical history and backed up by much truth. This is not the same situation that we grew up with. This is not the same scenario of MAD. That's how crazy this is. Once again we are letting ourselves be dragged into a lose, lose, situation, because of our dependence on foreign energy and a bunch of crazy men running a cutthroat country.