azraelle wrote:Cambridge wrote:azraelle wrote:Cambridge wrote:First, you don’t need such extreme preparedness if you simply coöperate with others in this world. Second, terrorism is a police matter, not a military matter. September 11th occurred because of 19 individuals. Do we need the death of 4,000 American military lives and the expenditure of billions of dollars a month to oppose that? Stupidity. Third, the best way to protect American soldiers “in harm’s way” is to get them out of harm’s way. Especially since this war has no purpose whatsoever, anyway.
You seem to share the philosophy of the "Better Red than Deaders" of a couple of generations back. Terrorism is a police matter??? You're an idiot. I suppose if one person with Al Quaida credentials and the skill of Matthew Quigley wielding a non-registerable (because it is classified as an antique because it fires an antique or obsolete cartridge) Shiloh Sharps Rifle in caliber .50/140 takes out Obama and Biden at 1400 yards, thus making Hillary the next President by natural succession--then that would be a "police matter" too?You seem to share the philosophy of the "Better Red than Deaders" of a couple of generations back. Terrorism is a police matter??? You're an idiot.
No, you are the idiot, Az. Better red than dead is a euphemism that derives from the discredited Cold War???. It’s old-fashioned and irrelevant. Anyone who quotes it should be embarrassed.
Since I, and many others, LIVED through the Cold War, I believe I can say that there is NO DOUBT that it has NOT BEEN DISCREDITED. IDIOT! If you mean to say that some of the intelligence guestimates by the CIA, upon which many of the Cold War policies were based have, in hindsight and with the assistance of no-doubt doctored KGB files, been "discredited", then, perhaps, I may agree with you. But if that is the case--then say so. The Cold War was a fact of life for more than 30 years, and could have very well blown up the better part of the world had alternate decisions been made by either side.
My comment regarding your philosophy of life being similar to the "Better Red Than Deaders" had to do with your charge that "you don’t need such extreme preparedness if you simply coöperate with others in this world." Such cooperation would have been implicit had the "Better Red Than Deaders" won the day. Such cooperation is impliicit with, for example, giving up our long-standing alliance with Israel in order to curry favor with, AND COOPERATE WITH, Islamic extremists. Or allowing Sharia Law to have precedence in this country at the expense of the Constitution when Islamic interests hold sway. OF COURSE YOU DON'T NEED EXTRREME PREPAREDNESS--If you cooperate with the enemy. Of course, you cease as an independent nation when you do--such cooperation is synonymous with capitulation and surrender. Which you seem to favor in your intellectual stupidity.
Terrorism is a police matter. Terrorism is a tactic, not a political party. To start a war over a terrorist act involving only 19 individuals is stupidity in the extreme. It’s like using a tower crane for gardening on a quarter acre lot. It’s the old bull in a China shop routine. We broke so many things in Iraq that it has ended up costing us 4,000 American lives and over a Trillion dollars. The American public has already expressed their opinion on that gambit. What do we have in return? Iraq is now an impossible, immoral enterprise. They're throwing shoes at us, FCS. All for Dick Cheney’s ego. Disgusting.I suppose if one person with Al Quaida credentials and the skill of Matthew Quigley wielding a non-registerable (because it is classified as an antique because it fires an antique or obsolete cartridge) Shiloh Sharps Rifle in caliber .50/140 takes out Obama and Biden at 1400 yards, thus making Hillary the next President by natural succession--then that would be a "police matter" too?
Absolutely! Did the US go to war against Texas when Kennedy was assassinated? Stupidity.
Assuming only one shooter, or assuming 3, the assassination of JFK was an "in-house" affair. 9-11, on the other hand, involved INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, which typically don't fall under the jurisdiction of the NYC Police Department, unless their leaders happen to be within NYC at the time. YOU'RE STILL THE IDIOT!
Incidentally, the next in line for the Presidency would be Nancy Pelosi, not Hillary Clinton. Read the constitution, AZ.
Yes, you are correct. However, the succession going to the Speaker of the House, thence to the President of the Senate Pro Tempore, thence to the Secretary of State....Is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It is in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, and may, in fact, be unconstitutional.
Since I, and many others, LIVED through the Cold War, I believe I can say that there is NO DOUBT that it has NOT BEEN DISCREDITED. IDIOT! If you mean to say that some of the intelligence guestimates by the CIA, upon which many of the Cold War policies were based have, in hindsight and with the assistance of no-doubt doctored KGB files, been "discredited", then, perhaps, I may agree with you. But if that is the case--then say so. The Cold War was a fact of life for more than 30 years, and could have very well blown up the better part of the world had alternate decisions been made by either side,
Aze, I am 52-years old. The Cold War is no stranger to any of us. The idea of “better dead than red” was started by Joseph McCarthy, U.S. senator from Wisconsin (1947-1957). Yes, I believe that it is obvious that the intelligence of the CIA and the KGB were blown up. If you read Russia House you will see what I mean John La Carre was always on the forefront of exposing the shanghais of the principles involved.
My comment regarding your philosophy of life being similar to the "Better Red Than Deaders" had to do with your charge that "you don’t need such extreme preparedness if you simply coöperate with others in this world." Such cooperation would have been implicit had the "Better Red Than Deaders" won the day. Such cooperation is impliicit with, for example, giving up our long-standing alliance with Israel in order to curry favor with, AND COOPERATE WITH, Islamic extremists. Or allowing Sharia Law to have precedence in this country at the expense of the Constitution when Islamic interests hold sway.
No, you can accomplish so much more with diplomatic measures than you give credit for. You don’t have to be a pit-bull in the world to state your case. In fact, if you are, I kinda think you lose.
OF COURSE YOU DON'T NEED EXTRREME PREPAREDNESS--If you cooperate with the enemy. Of course, you cease as an independent nation when you do--such cooperation is synonymous with capitulation and surrender. Which you seem to favor in your intellectual stupidity.
See, this is the me or them thinking. If you assume that the world is a warfare community, you get…what?…let’s guess…warfare!!! Surprise, surprise.
Assuming only one shooter, or assuming 3, the assassination of JFK was an "in-house" affair. 9-11, on the other hand, involved INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, which typically don't fall under the jurisdiction of the NYC Police Department, unless their leaders happen to be within NYC at the time. YOU'RE STILL THE IDIOT!
What the hell does this mean? What is an “in-house affair?” What are “international terrorists?” Are you suggesting that the terrorists that are responsible for 9-11 could not be subject to NY law? You are obviously not a lawyer. Of course they would be under the jurisdiction of the NYC police department. They would be subject to NY law because they caused an event to occur within the jurisdiction of the NY law.
:
