[N8 v2.0]

And we have neither the personnel nor the equipment to support another 4.

X2 fronts.

Study: U.S. Unprepared For Homeland Attack

well that's major bunk... at least in the south and western states..

who needs the national guard when you have plenty of well armed militias and citizens.

Perhaps you mean the NE city folk are unprepared and need the army to protect them?

 

[jimmydean]

well that's major bunk... at least in the south and western states..

who needs the national guard when you have plenty of well armed militias and citizens.

Perhaps you mean the NE city folk are unprepared and need the army to protect them?

Nobody will attack the South because nobody wants the South. You don't lock a Yugo because nobody is going to steal it, right?

 

[N8 v2.0]

Nobody will attack the South because nobody wants the South. You don't lock a Yugo because nobody is going to steal it, right?

you are so right!

 

[Westy]

well that's major bunk... at least in the south and western states..

who needs the national guard when you have plenty of well armed militias and citizens.

Perhaps you mean the NE city folk are unprepared and need the army to protect them?

You simply display your ignorance of the North. There are just as many crazy paranoid rednecks up north as there is everywhere else. I used to work with an ex cop in Lake George NY that had almost 200,000 rounds of ammo in his house. He ran out of space in the basement and had to store rounds under his children's bed. He sold me a few rifles for real cheap as he thought I was a good soldier that needed arming.

 

[manimal]

You simply display your ignorance of the North. There are just as many crazy paranoid rednecks up north as there is everywhere else. I used to work with an ex cop in Lake George NY that had almost 200,000 rounds of ammo in his house. He ran out of space in the basement and had to store rounds under his children's bed. He sold me a few rifles for real cheap as he thought I was a good soldier that needed arming.

i have about 6k

 

[N8 v2.0]

You simply display your ignorance of the North. There are just as many crazy paranoid rednecks up north as there is everywhere else. I used to work with an ex cop in Lake George NY that had almost 200,000 rounds of ammo in his house. He ran out of space in the basement and had to store rounds under his children's bed. He sold me a few rifles for real cheap as he thought I was a good soldier that needed arming.

welcome to 3 out of 4 houses here...

 

[jimmydean]

who needs the national guard when you have plenty of well armed militias and citizens.

Also, what about the month I spent in New Orleans pulling security? Where the hell were your well armed militia then? Had the LA National Guard been in town, they wouldn't have called Oregon.

 

[sanjuro]

So I felt like I had to go down to Berkeley City Hall to see the mayhem first hand, so after work I headed down there.

As rolled up on my bike, I could see from blocks away Martin Luther King Jr Drive was closed down. As I got closer, there were only about 200 people there, the largest segment of the pro and anti war protestors being the cops.

There were some dirty hippies, young and old; leather vest, Harley riding, ex vets; and a mix of everyone you might expect at this kind of protest.

Not much happened though. After I got home, I saw there were a few scuffles in the daytime, but it was a mostly sedate event.

 

[fluff]

saudi citizens != saudi gov't
taliban == rulers of afghanistan
taliban == 9/11 plotters

saudi citizens != saudi gov't - fair enough
taliban == rulers of afghanistan - fair enough
taliban == 9/11 plotters - wrong - so by the first point, not culpable

while you're making the 'blowback' argument, why not also mention the terr'ists were trained in the u.s., flying planes made in the u.s.? we really should give ourselves a good talking to.
20/20

20/20 - are you kidding, did you miss the bit where the arms inspectors said Iraq was weaponless?

And how about addressing the terrorist-harbouring argument?

Still looking for that just cause...

 

[fluff]

Accurate with regards to the threat, but do you expect the Marines to fight that battle? It's going to be a little awkward deploying platoons into state courts, American mosques, the NYT and WSJ, and the intarweb.

**** me, do you believe in the boogeyman too?

 

[$tinkle]

20/20 - are you kidding, did you miss the bit where the arms inspectors said Iraq was weaponless?

where the inspectors were allowed to do their job, yes, this was the conclusion. where they were denied access, they did not conclude this. they may have even applied the socratic method in arriving at this obvious conclusion.
here's a primer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/09/qanda.iraq

And how about addressing the terrorist-harbouring argument?

let's be plain: you remind us of the u.s. training al-queda to fight our proxy war against the russians in afghanistan. i must assume you realize the taliban were the ruling entity between 1996 until they were overthrown from the massive bombing campaign in late 2001. you do realize al-q & taliban are allies, right? you do realize they are both sunni extremists, right? frontline did a nice just-the-facts piece on it a couple years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

i think even greg palast would see things more my way. (yes, that was an appeal to 'authority'). having a unique opinion is honorable, except in the case where it's contradicted by history. just sayin'.

 

[Westy]

I've recently had to go through a bunch of export restriction for work as our products are regulated. Each country is classified and limited according the different risks they pose. The classifications include chem and bio weapons, nukular weapons, national security threat, missle technology, regional stability, organized crime and terrorism.

According to the US department of commerce Iraq and Afghanistan do not pose a terrorist risk.

 

[Silver]

where the inspectors were allowed to do their job, yes, this was the conclusion. where they were denied access, they did not conclude this. they may have even applied the socratic method in arriving at this obvious conclusion.
here's a primer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/09/qanda.iraq
let's be plain: you remind us of the u.s. training al-queda to fight our proxy war against the russians in afghanistan. i must assume you realize the taliban were the ruling entity between 1996 until they were overthrown from the massive bombing campaign in late 2001. you do realize al-q & taliban are allies, right? you do realize they are both sunni extremists, right? frontline did a nice just-the-facts piece on it a couple years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

i think even greg palast would see things more my way. (yes, that was an appeal to 'authority'). having a unique opinion is honorable, except in the case where it's contradicted by history. just sayin'.

Before you make yourself look silly, you are aware of the link between the Taliban and the ISI, right?

 

[$tinkle]

Before you make yourself look silly, you are aware of the link between the Taliban and the ISI, right?

well aware, however i don't see how it's relevant to the topic.

 

[ohio]

**** me, do you believe in the boogeyman too?

You misunderstand me. I don't think that muslim extremists are successfully infiltrating those entities (though to stinkle's point it's not for lack of trying). I think that any "battle" against religious extremism will be on those "battlegrounds." I don't see how Marines are relevant to that effort.

 

[$tinkle]

You misunderstand me. I don't think that muslim extremists are successfully infiltrating those entities (though to stinkle's point it's not for lack of trying). I think that any "battle" against religious extremism will be on those "battlegrounds." I don't see how Marines are relevant to that effort.

that's easy: where others fail, the marines will clean up. but it won't look like a clean up. in fact, it will be quite messy.

 

[Silver]

well aware, however i don't see how it's relevant to the topic.

The ISI is the intelligence service of which country? Is that country a military dictatorship propped up by America? Do they have nuclear weapons?

Hmm...not really relevant at all, I guess.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Also, what about the month I spent in New Orleans pulling security? Where the hell were your well armed militia then? Had the LA National Guard been in town, they wouldn't have called Oregon.

I heard they were in Iraq.

 

[$tinkle]

The ISI is the intelligence service of which country? Is that country a military dictatorship propped up by America? Do they have nuclear weapons?

Hmm...not really relevant at all, I guess.

you the current quibble here is about whether or not fluff will acknowledge empirical data about afghanistan harboring al-qaeda.

i know, it's hard to keep track of grown folks' conversations without a storyboard or cues from jon stewart about when to laugh.

 

[Silver]

you the current quibble here is about whether or not fluff will acknowledge empirical data about afghanistan harboring al-qaeda.

i know, it's hard to keep track of grown folks' conversations without a storyboard or cues from jon stewart about when to laugh.

Just want to make sure you realize that one of the reasons the Taliban got established is because the ISI was using them as a surrogate to release Islamist pressure from our glorious and steadfast allies and defenders of democracy over in Pakistan.

 

[fluff]

where the inspectors were allowed to do their job, yes, this was the conclusion. where they were denied access, they did not conclude this. they may have even applied the socratic method in arriving at this obvious conclusion.
here's a primer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/dec/09/qanda.iraq
let's be plain: you remind us of the u.s. training al-queda to fight our proxy war against the russians in afghanistan. i must assume you realize the taliban were the ruling entity between 1996 until they were overthrown from the massive bombing campaign in late 2001. you do realize al-q & taliban are allies, right? you do realize they are both sunni extremists, right? frontline did a nice just-the-facts piece on it a couple years back: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/view/

i think even greg palast would see things more my way. (yes, that was an appeal to 'authority'). having a unique opinion is honorable, except in the case where it's contradicted by history. just sayin'.

The terrorist-harbouring question related to the USA harbouring terrorists. You address my question and I will then address yours. It's a FIFO queuing system, don't you see?

 

[$tinkle]

The terrorist-harbouring question related to the USA harbouring terrorists. You address my question and I will then address yours. It's a FIFO queuing system, don't you see?

we don't harbor them, we make them a neverneverland place to play.

and a queue, by definition, is fifo ...{sniff}

 

[fluff]

we don't harbor them, we make them a neverneverland place to play.

and a queue, by definition, is fifo ...{sniff}

You've not heard of LIFO, leaky buckets, and weighted queuing then?

Before you claim not to harbour terrorists, perhaps you'd better define what makes a a person a terrorist. Otherwise we're simply gonna be stuck with the fact that the USA attacks people it doesn't like.

 

[MikeD]

No doubt. But how large does that military need to be? Canada has about the same coastline and landmass to cover... how big is their military? India has more civilians, more borders, and is closer to more threats. How big is their military?

If our military was purely defensive, and not serving offensive or economic interests (and I use that loosely, as those economic interests seem to cost more than they create or protect), it could be far far smaller.

China.

 

[$tinkle]

You've not heard of LIFO, leaky buckets, and weighted queuing then?

lifo == stack; as for the others, i had to wrack my brain with PriorityBlockingQueues, so yeah, we're knitting pearls here.

Before you claim not to harbour terrorists, perhaps you'd better define what makes a a person a terrorist. Otherwise we're simply gonna be stuck with the fact that the USA attacks people it doesn't like.

something about targeting civilians for violence as a means to an ideological end? i appreciate your attempt at creating a morally even playing field, but i keep getting pimp-slapped by facts (in a burberry fedora, no less). you seem to be immune to such intellectual chicanes. your thinking may allow you to be swayed into finding either arbitrary justification or condemnation for acts of violence, without respect for context. as an example, earlier you implied that our target for retribution for 9/11 should have been saudi arabia, because most of the attackers claim their citizenship. by this logic, you should attack yourself for 7/7.

maybe your point is more nuanced than that?

 

[fluff]

lifo == stack; as for the others, i had to wrack my brain with PriorityBlockingQueues, so yeah, we're knitting pearls here.
something about targeting civilians for violence as a means to an ideological end? i appreciate your attempt at creating a morally even playing field, but i keep getting pimp-slapped by facts (in a burberry fedora, no less). you seem to be immune to such intellectual chicanes. your thinking may allow you to be swayed into finding either arbitrary justification or condemnation for acts of violence, without respect for context. as an example, earlier you implied that our target for retribution for 9/11 should have been saudi arabia, because most of the attackers claim their citizenship. by this logic, you should attack yourself for 7/7.

maybe your point is more nuanced than that?

Maybe it is. This particular discussion (from my perspective anyway) started from the point of providing a moral justification for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, which at this point, is due to harbouring terrorists. Your point about 7/7 whilst designed to poke fun illustrates the absurdity of your moral justification; the UK has, and probably still does, harboured persons labelled as terrorists by some states. The US most certainly has done and still does, in fact I'd wager it would not be difficult to find lots of nations that do.

The reason I asked you to define terrorist is also down to your justification. How many civilians have been killed by US forces in Iraq? We don't know because the US refuses to count them. They are labelled collateral damage which makes it morally acceptable. They were incidental, though also inevitable, predicatible and accepted; civilians killed for an idealogical purpose.

I have more respect for people who can admit that US power is used to maintain US hegemony and further US interests, than I do for people who try and hide behind woolly 'moral' justifications that simply do not stand up.

BTW, are you a moral relativist?

 

[ohio]

China.

If China wants to hit us, it would be economically, and somehow, despite all this money we've spent on our defense, our economy still seems rickety... I just don't get it?

 

[$tinkle]

Your point about 7/7 whilst designed to poke fun illustrates the absurdity of your moral justification; the UK has, and probably still does, harboured persons labelled as terrorists by some states.

but we don't harbor terrorists against ourselves. it appears you're conflating 'harboring' with 'citizenship' (active -vs- passive). once again, taking your example of the 9/11 hijackers being citizens of saudi arabia, but their actions not known beforehand by their gov't (which would have made them harborists), there can be no moral justification for taking military action against the gov't, which you seem to imply does exist. i am puzzled why you still don't find justification for taking military action in afghanistan. or did i miss that?

The reason I asked you to define terrorist is also down to your justification. How many civilians have been killed by US forces in Iraq?

reliable estimates put it well south of those killed by terrorists, and we didn't target them to boot.

They are labelled collateral damage which makes it morally acceptable. They were incidental, though also inevitable, predicatible and accepted; civilians killed for an idealogical purpose.

i would think we could agree on a scenario arrived by reductio ad absurdum (killing a few jewbabies to get hitler), and we stray somewhere between here & there.

I have more respect for people who can admit that US power is used to maintain US hegemony and further US interests, than I do for people who try and hide behind woolly 'moral' justifications that simply do not stand up.

i admit to that, but not to the exclusion of a morally justified/humanitarian reason. of course, this gets thorny when throwing the sudan in the mix.

BTW, are you a moral relativist?

let me check.
nope, still have a penis (fwiw).
you?

 

[Toshi]

How many civilians have been killed by US forces in Iraq? We don't know because the US refuses to count them. They are labelled collateral damage which makes it morally acceptable. They were incidental, though also inevitable, predicatible and accepted; civilians killed for an idealogical purpose.

I have more respect for people who can admit that US power is used to maintain US hegemony and further US interests, than I do for people who try and hide behind woolly 'moral' justifications that simply do not stand up.

 

[MikeD]

If China wants to hit us, it would be economically, and somehow, despite all this money we've spent on our defense, our economy still seems rickety... I just don't get it?

And why will China hit us economically? Because they can't yet be assured of victory in open conflict. It needs to stay that way so that there's NOT a war as China tries to make the second East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere a reality (and turn Kyoto into an inverse Nanking...).

We can talk about the evils of American hegemony and "imperial" policy, but we have to face brass tacks. Large powers will still dominate the world's political scape. If not America and Western allied powers, then who? Russia and China. The cold war's not over...round II is starting, and it's more complicated this time. We just need to keep it cold again.

Edit: For onlookers who (like always) mistake me for some Neocon bushie shill, the war in Iraq was the LAST thing we needed to these ends. It was obvious from the start, and has done nothing to make us safer, strengthen our strategic position, or keep our economy strong.

 

[manimal]

Edit: For onlookers who (like always) mistake me for some Neocon bushie shill, the war in Iraq was the LAST thing we needed to these ends. It was obvious from the start, and has done nothing to make us safer, strengthen our strategic position, or keep our economy strong.

bull crap! it has done a lot. i mean, c'mon...at least we know what color terror threat we're in now.

 

[MikeD]

Now you're mixing 9/11 and Iraq, Mr. Manimal-Cheny.

 

[manimal]

back to the original topic.
THIS is what pisses me off. too bad they'll never have the [balls] to protest near me here in the southeast. they'll stick to the san fran area with all of the other a-hole selfish..err..special interest groups.

edit: ahahaha..they got owned while protesting in miami.

http://cbs4.com/local/political.protest.cuban.2.628601.html

 

[Silver]

back to the original topic.
THIS is what pisses me off. too bad they'll never have the [balls] to protest near me here in the southeast. they'll stick to the san fran area with all of the other a-hole selfish..err..special interest groups.

edit: ahahaha..they got owned while protesting in miami.

http://cbs4.com/local/political.protest.cuban.2.628601.html

Any chance that's a somewhat crappy photoshop? (It doesn't look right to me, anyways.)

I went to Code Pink's site and looked through some photos and didn't see anything that looked like that. I also noticed the grammar on the sign is what a right wing blogger or three year child might use.

Enquiring minds want to know...

 

[Westy]

Any chance that's a somewhat crappy photoshop? (It doesn't look right to me, anyways.)

I went to Code Pink's site and looked through some photos and didn't see anything that looked like that. I also noticed the grammar on the sign is what a right wing blogger or three year child might use.

Enquiring minds want to know...

Dude, that got forwarded to me in an e-mail, it has to be true.

 

[skinny mike]

back to the original topic.
THIS is what pisses me off. too bad they'll never have the [balls] to protest near me here in the southeast. they'll stick to the san fran area with all of the other a-hole selfish..err..special interest groups.

ok, so you're a vet who gets all high and mighty about how the soldiers supposedly ensure our rights day in, day out, and yet you get pissed off when other people exercise these rights?

and did you also read the story that you linked? it reminded me of the double standard that the us has when it comes to terrorists. kill innocent people when it's in the government's best interest and you get a pat on the back.

 

[skinny mike]

Any chance that's a somewhat crappy photoshop? (It doesn't look right to me, anyways.)

I went to Code Pink's site and looked through some photos and didn't see anything that looked like that. I also noticed the grammar on the sign is what a right wing blogger or three year child might use.

Enquiring minds want to know...

go to the site that the image originated from, holy right wing, pro war nutjobs batman! not to mention that site is filled with photoshopped images.

 

[manimal]

ok, so you're a vet who gets all high and mighty about how the soldiers supposedly ensure our rights day in, day out, and yet you get pissed off when other people exercise these rights?

and did you also read the story that you linked? it reminded me of the double standard that the us has when it comes to terrorists. kill innocent people when it's in the government's best interest and you get a pat on the back.

I'm not sure about the validity of the sign, i found it on several sites so i honestly can't vouch for it.

As far being a high and mighty vet.....eat my chode mike. yes, these wonderful and respectable women , ie: Creatively Unified Non-combatant Trippy Sisters, are exercising their rights to protest a jacked up war but they're doing so by calling ALL marines "war criminals." i tend to take offense to that statement, being that i'm a high and mighty vet and all. these wonderful women are barking up the wrong tree and doing a good job of pissing off both sides of the war argument. these women are using the old "baby killer" cry again because some civilians died in fallujah. "

"so after pearl harbor should we have just negotiated with japan?" pinko response: "what the hell were we doing in hawaii anyway?"
wtf?

putting the blame for a crummy war on the servicemen and women is like cussing out your mailman because the price of stamps went up again.
would i still join now if i had it to do all over again? yes and here's why. i guess i am one of those dying breed of americans that believe in something called "service." be it to your community or country, i believe that everyone should give back for what this country has provided them. i guess i'm just too old fashioned and unenlightened to understand the self-centered mindset of this communist group and those who think like them. if i were to do it all over again and this pinko group was blocking the entrance to the recruiting station they would be politely removed from the door by myself or law enforcement
sure, there are A LOT of problems with our policies but picking on those who choose to serve, for whatever reason, is just in bad taste and deplorable.

Rome est igneus

 

[Silver]

I'm not sure about the validity of the sign, i found it on several sites so i honestly can't vouch for it.

putting the blame for a crummy war on the servicemen and women is like cussing out your mailman because the price of stamps went up again.
would i still join now if i had it to do all over again? yes and here's why. i guess i am one of those dying breed of americans that believe in something called "service." be it to your community or country, i believe that everyone should give back for what this country has provided them. i guess i'm just too old fashioned and unenlightened to understand the self-centered mindset of this communist group and those who think like them. if i were to do it all over again and this pinko group was blocking the entrance to the recruiting station they would be politely removed from the door by myself or law enforcement
sure, there are A LOT of problems with our policies but picking on those who choose to serve, for whatever reason, is just in bad taste and deplorable.

Rome est igneus

And how do you feel about protesters outside of abortion clinics? The same way, I hope...

By the way, a quick google search would tell you that sign is a fake. Weren't you the one that pointed out that I don't ask questions I don't already know the answers to?

 

[manimal]

And how do you feel about protesters outside of abortion clinics? The same way, I hope...

By the way, a quick google search would tell you that sign is a fake. Weren't you the one that pointed out that I don't ask questions I don't already know the answers to?

yes, i feel the same way about protesters at abortion clinics. i may not agree with abortion but i respect the constitution and supreme court decisions on these matters regarding the "pulse of the nation" and leave it alone.

and yes, you obviously have much more time than I to look up the sources. i also respect your views on a lot of topics as they are well researched, even though i may not agree, and you are above playing the "high and mighty vet" game. i saw that sign on several sites when i was researching code pink and just snagged the jpeg. however, their comments in the youtube video are still enough for me to label them as non-friendlies.