Hillary is in for a penny, in for a pound. She will run for the Senate. It's her power base, without her senate seat she is merely ex-senator Clinton. Her massive ego requires that she be seen as an active participant in the senate's business during the ramp up to '08. Rudy will clean her clock...in '06. :thumb:
Letter of Apology
- Thread starter BillyBob
- Start date
They are awaiting orders to strike. It will happen again.
Posted by Gerald:
Surveillance requires stealth and persistence. Trumpeting is not in their bag of tricks.
Posted bt Gerald:
When the excrement hits the fan, as a retired E-9 U.S. Navy, I'll be in the Bradley looking for the bad guys with my trusty 50 cal. sniper rifle.
I agree, Rudy will win. If Hillary is sure she is going to lose, she could easily save face by announcing her Presidential candidacy early and play the martyr by claiming she won't run for Senate because she wouldn't be able to properly do her job while running a Presidential campaign. Also, she would remind everyone that she'd have to give up her Senatorial seat two years into her term and it wouldn't be fair to those who voted for her, blah blah blah.......
Gerald
Resident Fiend
You read too many comic books, man. This ain't HYDRA or THRUSH we're dealing with here, it's a bunch of little squads of guys who are supposed to hit targets of opportunity, without direction from a central authority. If one squad gets nabbed, it doesn't know about any of the others, and so can't rat anybody else out. That's how a sleeper cell network operates.
If they've been sitting around waiting for orders for the last three years, they're pretty pathetic as terrorists go. If you want to terrorize the populace, the best way to do it is to show that you can strike without warning, anytime and anywhere.
I can think of a dozen prime targets within walking distance of where I work, and I can think of precisely how to cause the most damage. Now if I can do that, it is a sure bet the bad guys can, too.
And yet there have been no attacks, not a single one.
But tripping over themselves certainly is.
And how will know who the "bad guys" are, if they melt into the populace at large?
Do you plan to just pop a cap in every unshaven brown guy you see?
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Somebody smarter, less crazy and no less evil would have replaced him, most likely. Nazi Germany would have likely continued to expand, albeit more slowly.
You are aware, are you not, that there was in the 1930s a sizable amount of support for forming an alliance between the US and the Reich?
Ah, the "Who else wants a piece?" approach to diplomacy. That generally works only if your opponent is smaller than you.
Let me ask you this: Following the atomic bombing of Japan, do you believe that Truman should have pressed his advantage and carried the fight on to Russia? Atomic bombs on Vladivostok? Kiev? Moscow itself?
And you call me naive. No doubt you whistle whenever you pass a graveyard...
It would have brought the Korean war to a hasty conclusion saving the lives of thousands of Americans and another check in our win column.
Posted by Granite1010:
That's how wars are won. Read Clausewitz.
Posted by Granite1010:
Do not tire in well doing...who cares what the rest of the world thinks. Are they going to refuse our foreign aid or stop selling into our free market?
"It would have brought the Korean war to a hasty conclusion saving the lives of thousands of Americans and another check in our win column..."
"Another check." :nono:
Dear gods, is it a wonder why people shake in their boots at this neo-con mentality? We're talking the nuclear football, folks, not a Friday night gridiron, for crying out loud.
There's always the strong probability that this would accelerated the arms race and given the Reds an even itchier trigger finger. But I digress.
"That's how wars are won."
I don't see how incinerating civilians does much more than confirm what the rest of the world and many of your countrymen think: that our leaders happen to be nuts.
"Another check." :nono:
Dear gods, is it a wonder why people shake in their boots at this neo-con mentality? We're talking the nuclear football, folks, not a Friday night gridiron, for crying out loud.
There's always the strong probability that this would accelerated the arms race and given the Reds an even itchier trigger finger. But I digress.
"That's how wars are won."
I don't see how incinerating civilians does much more than confirm what the rest of the world and many of your countrymen think: that our leaders happen to be nuts.
Gerald
Resident Fiend
Why not? If Stalin had been taken out in 1945, the Cold War would never have started. No Korea, no Vietnam, no arms race, no space race, and the US would've held dominion over the whole globe.
Don't tell me that you have a problem with stabbing an ally in the back after he's served his purpose. If the positions were reversed, you know Stalin would've done it to us...
Awesome, Skeptic.
Skeptic
New member
That ain't going to happen any time soon. Iraq is now worse off than before Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, things are not going to get better.
Saddam had not committed mass murders, since the late 1980s. There are other countries that are governed by "thugs," who kill their own people, that the U.S. has actually installed into power. Why is it that Bush only invaded and overthrew Saddam? It was NOT because he was a thug. Bush's stated reason was because Saddam posed a WMD threat, which we now know was a lie (and Bush knew it). No, Iraq was invaded, tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed, and Saddam was overthrown because of the misguided perception of Bush and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies that somehow they would gain political, economic and strategic advantage. No oil, no invasion.
We destroyed their ability to defend themselves back in 1991.
There are lots of countries that have little ability to defend themselves. I say let Iraq remain in the ranks of these other countries, until they build up their own forces using their oil revenues.
The framers should have made it much more difficult than they did. Yes, it IS supposed to be hard for us to go to war. But, Bush and company tweaked the system and hoodwinked Congress and the American people into thinking war was necessary with Iraq. It wasn't.
Agreed. So, just because Saddam was a bad guy (in a world full of bad guys), it was wrong to invade Iraq, killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, in March 2003.
War is not something one should leave to the whim of the President and his neocon Pentagon/CIA buddies. There needs to be tighter controls on the power of our own governmental thugs to wage wars.
Why the hell doesn't Bush invade Tibet and drive the Chinese out?