Base Closings Hidden Problems

[rtwngAvngr]

Come on mr. forensic society. Address my argument, or consider yourself a coward, liar and hypocrite.

 

[CSM]

I left nursing in the big round of lay-offs in the 1980's. Because of my B.S. degree I was eligible for a one-year M.A.T. program through which I became a certified biology teacher. I taught middle-school life sciences until I retired (manditory at 67). I've learned a lot in life. I don't think my resume validates my opinions, I think facts and logic do. The childish personal attacks with which you greet any opinion but your own do not reflect credit on you. Why do you hate and fear someone who disagrees with you? At the worst, I'm simply wrong. You can try to show me the error of my ways and, if that doesn't work, move on. But no, you have to call names, make silly, sarcastic slurs and attempt the politics of personal destruction. These traits reflect the insecurities of the authoritarian personality. I'll re-post, because it is so apropos, the following observation:
"The reason you find an army of right-wingers ratcheting on the radio and so few liberals is simple: Republicans are in need of affirmation, they don't feel comfortable in America and they crave listening to people who think like them. Liberals actually enoy living in a free society; tuning in to hear an echo is not our idea of a good time."

Fear you? I pity you. Your lies have been apparent since you first started posting. Your resume is in question (at least by me) I remember way back in October when you implied you oversaw several DoD contracts. You sir/madam ( I care not which) are full of crap. Honesty has a huge impact on how I view people and their opinions. You are not honest.

As for calling names...re-read some of your own posts, dirtbag. Political personal destruction is your forte'. As for my insecurties, I have them (who doesn't) but they have nothing to do with my authoritarian personality (so good of you to diagnose me!) . As for reflecting credit on myself, I sure as hell dont need or want credit from the likes of you.

I'll move on when I damn well please, not when YOU tell me to. And you are indeed entitled to your opinion...that does not make them right.

 

[mrsx]

point of order:

The smart people were blasting Clinton for being a DUMBASS in how he got involved - placing OUR Troops under foriegn command. That sorta thing. Having no 'departure' plan....yeah..those things. Not for 'getting involved' - but for 'being a dumbass in the limitations he imposed'.

You have a point, although not a point of order (need to check Robert's Rules to see what that term means) nor one with which I agree. Clinton was criticized for placing troops under U.N. command and for not having an exit strategy. You have a good point of fact there. (BTW I wasn't in favor of using our troops to protect aid workers in Somalia at the time.) the Republican position prior to 9/11 was a more broadly based opposition to "nation building" as a principle than unhappiness with Clinton's diplomatic technique. Republicans blocked intervention in the Rawanda genocide, opposed intervention in Haiti and Bosnia etc. etc. I mention these facts to support my previous sentence, not because I agree or disagree with the Republican policy against "nation building" prior to 9/11.

 

[Said1]

Mrs. X, you need to get the grip. You are a crotchety old lady that is upset because your kids don't visit you anymore. You need to get on with life and stop acting like such a whining bitch. Your opinions are just that - opinions. If others want to offer alternative opinions, they should be able to without you acting like you are the only one with any answers. You cite bullshit and claim it as fact. For an old fart, you really need to mature.

And as for wade, once again you misrepresent yourself. In another thread you admitted to being Wade, yet here you claim you are not. So blame yourself if anybody is "confused".

If it's not Wade, it's his mamma!

 

[mrsx]

No. the appeal of right wing radio is it's a nice alternative to the leftist dogma of the rest of the media.

since you listen to right wing radio and I don't, I inclined to accept your explanation of why you like it. Your explanation and the one I quoted are not mutually exclusive, however; that you characterize everything with which you disagree as "leftist dogma" appears to support the view that you prefer not to hear views other than your own.

 

[mrsx]

If it's not Wade, it's his mamma!

I suppose I am an old fart; I'll try to respect the professional assessment of a young turd like yourself. After reading a number of posts in which the voices seemed to be telling you that I was this Wade guy, I replied asking how you figured that out. Hardly an admission, although I agree that it could be seen as a deceptive response. So the f*** what? Why is your pathetic longing to identify me as someone else so important to you? You appear to be willing to follow any hare-brained fantasy that pops into your head if it lets you avoid confronting an opinion with which you disagree. Silly lad!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

since you listen to right wing radio and I don't, I inclined to accept your explanation of why you like it. Your explanation and the one I quoted are not mutually exclusive, however; that you characterize everything with which you disagree as "leftist dogma" appears to support the view that you prefer not to hear views other than your own.

If you listened, you would know that what happens on many of the shows is the dissection of liberal thinking.


It's all very logical and rational. That's why leftists hate it so. We have your number.

Why don't you address european appeasement, it's proven failure, and their continued irrational commitment to this failed ideology?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Cowardice, thy name is Wade.

 

[5stringJeff]

According to http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm , the current numbers say about 41-44% think it was worth going to Iraq, 54-57% say it wasn't. That's a far cry from 2-1. Moreover, during all of 2003, the majority of Americans supported the decision to invade Iraq.

Wow... no response on the hard polling data?

 

[mrsx]

If you listened, you would know that what happens on many of the shows is the dissection of liberal thinking.


It's all very logical and rational. That's why leftists hate it so. We have your number.

Why don't you address european appeasement, it's proven failure, and their continued irrational commitment to this failed ideology?

OK I will try right wing radio for a week. What show do you recommend I listen to? I am in eastern Maine.

I think the issue of appeasement is a very good one for you to bring up. Thank you. As I'm sure you know, the term first gained wide usage in the late 1930's when the French and British governments made a series of concessions to Hitler in the hope that it would quell his ambitions and avoid war. They were wrong and the world paid a bloody price. I assume you would agree with me so far...

BTW, we can't really lecture them on their folly in the 1930's as we did very much the same thing with Japan while practicing blind isolationism towards Europe. By 1945 everybody in the Western alliance had reached the same conclusion about the appeasment of the 1930's: morally and strategically a bad plan. The key questions that have to be answered about the EU strategy towards Iraq (I am assuming that is what you refer to in your post) are: Was Saddam capable of threatening at least regional if not world hegemony? Were his territorial demands illegitimate? Unless both questions are answered yes, the Hitler analogy falls apart and the appeasement charge won't stick.

The answers to both questions are judgement calls and honest people can disagree on them. The EU was confident that after Desert Storm, Saddam was "in a box" as they used to say, without an air force, with a decimated ground force, without his old Soviet backers and hurting from economic sanctions. We read the tea leaves differently, believing that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that he would use against us or share them with Islamist terrorist groups. This wasn't a crazy fear, given the fact that he had possessed chemical and possibly biological weapons earlier and seemed to be sniffing around for nuclear capability. To put the best face on in, we made an honest mistake. Our view may have been more cynically derived, but there is no need to argue over that in the current context.

The legitimacy of Saddam's territorial ambitions is murkier still. His war with Iran over the Shat al Arab waterway dividing them on the Gulf was based on a claim no better than Iran's - after all, the borders had been arbitrarily set up by the British in the 1920's - but did put a rather bellicose issue in play unnecessarily. The key point is: *we supported Saddam in his claims against Iran!* Were we appeasers? Probably not, as we didn't fear Saddam; it was a more cynical case of "my enemy's enemies are my friends."

Saddam's other territorial claim, Kuwait, had a lot more going for it. Kuwait (the word means "province" in Arabic) had always been part of the territory ruled from Baghdad. When the British created Saudi Arabia and divided up Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq out of the old Ottoman Empire in the 1920's, they gave the province to the Saaba'a family as one of the client states they created in the Gulf (like Qatar, UAE, Oman) as part of their divide-and-rule strategy to prevent the rise of an independent Arab power which might threaten their control of Egypt, the Suez canal, and the oil fields of Iran (Arabian oil was just beginning to trickle in at that point). The key point is: *when Saddam asked for our position on his intended occupation of Kuwait, our ambassador told him "no problem!"* Were we appeasers? Hard to say; nobody has ever given a satisfactory explanation of this crucial and curious incident in the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

I don't think that either the U.S. or the E.U. were appeasing Saddam in anything like the way Chamberlain and Daladier appeased Hitler at Munich. But if there was any appeasing concession, we were leading the way far more than the Europeans. Where we disagreed with the EU was the question of whether Saddam was under sufficient control or if additional military action was necessary. They said yes, we said no. In hindsight, it appears they were better judges than we.

 

[mrsx]

Wow... no response on the hard polling data?

As you know, different polls show different numbers although they all agree on the general trend: steadily diminishing support for the adventure in Iraq. I have no interest in quibbling over which poll is better. Your best case poll shows the "against" forces ten points below 2 : 1 (i.e. 66/33). Do you think the numbers you cite are a vote of confidence in the Bush fiasco?

Sorry to keep you waiting for a response, I'm trying to get the spring garden in. It is nice to know someone is interested in my opinions. Thanks, boys!

 

[5stringJeff]

OK I will try right wing radio for a week. What show do you recommend I listen to? I am in eastern Maine.

Sean Hannity. Everyone else - to include Rush Limbaugh - is not worth your time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

OK I will try right wing radio for a week. What show do you recommend I listen to? I am in eastern Maine.

Rush, Sean, Glen Beck, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy (yes, the con),

I think the issue of appeasement is a very good one for you to bring up. Thank you. As I'm sure you know, the term first gained wide usage in the late 1930's when the French and British governments made a series of concessions to Hitler in the hope that it would quell his ambitions and avoid war. They were wrong and the world paid a bloody price. I assume you would agree with me so far...

Sure.

BTW, we can't really lecture them on their folly in the 1930's as we did very much the same thing with Japan while practicing blind isolationism towards Europe.

We can lecture them on failing to learn from the experience. ANd plus, he was THEIR next door neighbor, making their reluctance to act a bit more representative of extreme folliment.

By 1945 everybody in the Western alliance had reached the same conclusion about the appeasment of the 1930's: morally and strategically a bad plan. The key questions that have to be answered about the EU strategy towards Iraq (I am assuming that is what you refer to in your post) are: Was Saddam capable of threatening at least regional if not world hegemony? Were his territorial demands illegitimate? Unless both questions are answered yes, the Hitler analogy falls apart and the appeasement charge won't stick.

You're assuming saddam hussein is the only concern in modern appeasement. It's not; there's also the whole web of interrconnected international islamic jihad, of which Hussein was a node.

The answers to both questions are judgement calls and honest people can disagree on them.

He had invaded Kuwait previously, gassed his citizens with WMD, supported palestinian terror. So yes, honest people can disagree, but when disagreement occurs because one is a liar, then one is a liar.

The EU was confident that after Desert Storm, Saddam was "in a box" as they used to say, without an air force, with a decimated ground force, without his old Soviet backers and hurting from economic sanctions. We read the tea leaves differently, believing that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that he would use against us or share them with Islamist terrorist groups.

Most world intelligence agencies all believed he did. And this is a quote from john kerry:"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." http://www.joelcomm.com/what_democrats_said_about_weapons_of_mass_destruction.html

This wasn't a crazy fear, given the fact that he had possessed chemical and possibly biological weapons earlier and seemed to be sniffing around for nuclear capability. To put the best face on in, we made an honest mistake. Our view may have been more cynically derived, but there is no need to argue over that in the current context.

There is a need to keep the discussion going, considering the endless recitation of the "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra.

The legitimacy of Saddam's territorial ambitions is murkier still.

Really? Even after his grab for kuwait? Interesting ignorance.

His war with Iran over the Shat al Arab waterway dividing them on the Gulf was based on a claim no better than Iran's - after all, the borders had been arbitrarily set up by the British in the 1920's - but did put a rather bellicose issue in play unnecessarily. The key point is: *we supported Saddam in his claims against Iran!* Were we appeasers? Probably not, as we didn't fear Saddam; it was a more cynical case of "my enemy's enemies are my friends."

Yeah. In context you agree it was the move for us. I'm sure you would agree it does not indicate a general hypocrisy of america, as facts like these are often interpreted by insane libs.

Saddam's other territorial claim, Kuwait, had a lot more going for it. Kuwait (the word means "province" in Arabic) had always been part of the territory ruled from Baghdad.

Oh, so I guess since texas USED TO be part of mexico, you wouldn't mind if the mexican military invaded it. (The mexican citizenry already is).

When the British created Saudi Arabia and divided up Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq out of the old Ottoman Empire in the 1920's, they gave the province to the Saaba'a family as one of the client states they created in the Gulf (like Qatar, UAE, Oman) as part of their divide-and-rule strategy to prevent the rise of an independent Arab power which might threaten their control of Egypt, the Suez canal, and the oil fields of Iran (Arabian oil was just beginning to trickle in at that point). The key point is: *when Saddam asked for our position on his intended occupation of Kuwait, our ambassador told him "no problem!"* Were we appeasers? Hard to say; nobody has ever given a satisfactory explanation of this crucial and curious incident in the presidency of George H.W. Bush.

That's our ambassador. He's a professional tea party attender. He should have spoken to someone with a little more clout.

I don't think that either the U.S. or the E.U. were appeasing Saddam in anything like the way Chamberlain and Daladier appeased Hitler at Munich.

Right. Not really comparable.

But if there was any appeasing concession, we were leading the way far more than the Europeans.

That's only because we lead the way in every action these days involving world security, due to Europes wishy washy lack of resolve.

Where we disagreed with the EU was the question of whether Saddam was under sufficient control or if additional military action was necessary. They said yes, we said no. In hindsight, it appears they were better judges than we.

This fact makes their peculiar decisions now even more peculiar, unless you consider the oil for food scandal.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135654,00.html

 

[mrsx]

Sean Hannity. Everyone else - to include Rush Limbaugh - is not worth your time.

I will find out what radio station he is on if I can. I do watch his show on Fox with Hannity and I would say that he is a very smart guy and well informed. Also *very* good looking! I find his style a little heavy handed but I think that is because I assume the game should be played by the academic rule book. Like Bill O'Reilly and some of the wannabes on this BBS, his rules seem more district attorney style. I'll try and catch him on radio for a few days.
Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[dmp]

Sean Hannity. Everyone else - to include Rush Limbaugh - is not worth your time.

Rusty Humphries is pretty good.

http://www.talktorusty.com/

 

[5stringJeff]

I will find out what radio station he is on if I can. I do watch his show on Fox with Hannity and I would say that he is a very smart guy and well informed. Also *very* good looking! I find his style a little heavy handed but I think that is because I assume the game should be played by the academic rule book. Like Bill O'Reilly and some of the wannabes on this BBS, his rules seem more district attorney style. I'll try and catch him on radio for a few days.
Thank you for the suggestion.

Here are the three closet stations to Bangor, Maine.
WVKZ 1240AM Schenectady, NY
WGY 810AM Schenectady, NY
WYBG 1050AM Massena, NY

Not sure if you could pick any of those up. Otherwise, you can listen online at www.hannity.com. Yeah, he can be heavy handed at times, but I think it's because he tries to make a dialouge of of his thought process; he is very smart.

 

[5stringJeff]

As you know, different polls show different numbers although they all agree on the general trend: steadily diminishing support for the adventure in Iraq. I have no interest in quibbling over which poll is better. Your best case poll shows the "against" forces ten points below 2 : 1 (i.e. 66/33). Do you think the numbers you cite are a vote of confidence in the Bush fiasco?

I certainly agree that the numbers are trending downward. I'm only stating that it's not 2 to 1 against the war. I'm also stating that, at the time of the war, and until the beginning of the Dem primaries, support for the Iraq war was above 50% - which, IMO, is a vote of confidence, as was Bush's 51% popular victory.

 

[mrsx]

You're assuming saddam hussein is the only concern in modern appeasement. It's not; there's also the whole web of interrconnected international islamic jihad, of which Hussein was a node.

OK, I’ll buy that. However the principal nodes of the international islamic jihad seem to be Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. I don’t know if we are appeasing them, but we sure are looking the other way on their anti-democratic regimes and support of jihadists. Hell, Pakistan has bin Ladin and won’t let us get him. The Saudis wouldn’t let us talk to the lads they said did the Kohbar Towers caper! And Bush is holding Prince Fahd's hand like something out of a Gay Pride parade.

Saddam really doesn’t fit the al-Qaeda pattern. The secular, often Marxist regimes of the Baathists in Iraq and Syria as well as the Palestinians have been big-time terror supporters (Syria and Palestine much more than Iraq) but they have different roots from the fundamentalists and, until our invasion of Arabia, were enemies rather than allies. One of the bad results of our policy has been to unite all Arabs against us, although ideologically and in tactical operations the two kinds of terrorist organizations still seem to work independently.

He had invaded Kuwait previously, gassed his citizens with WMD, supported palestinian terror. So yes, honest people can disagree, but when disagreement occurs because one is a liar, then one is a liar.

We gave the tacit OK for the Kuwait invasion, perhaps by mistake. Our ambassador (a she BTW) was perhaps not well informed of government policy. That’s our mistake, not his. He gassed the Kurds with nerve gas we supplied. He paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a PR move to gain stature in the Arab world. He had no role in their recruitment, training or planning. Look, I don’t approve of suicide bombers; but, in the Arab world they are martyrs and heroes. If the head of some government friendly to us gave $25,000 to the family of each U.S. soldier killed in Iraq many Americans would think it a noble gesture. That’s what Saddam was aiming for in the Arab world. BTW I have nothing good to say about Saddam and I was more apalled by Kerry’s incoherent double-talk than you were, Because I think the administration has handled the war on terror badly doesn’t mean I support terrorists – or even Democrats! If you stop calling me a liar, I'll forebear calling you a fool. What's the point of all that flame?

Oh, so I guess since texas USED TO be part of mexico, you wouldn't mind if the mexican military invaded it. (The mexican citizenry already is).

An interesting, provocative point. I don’t know when these kind of conquests become history and moot. If Mexico had the military power to re-take Texas, she probably would (remember the Zimmerman telegram from high school history?) and if she did, Latin America would probably think it fine and dandy. Would that make it right? The circumstances are so different it’s hard to know exactly how to compare the two. Might be something to set off another flame session here, though. Personally, I agree with the general (I think it may have been Sheridan) who said, “If I owned hell and Texas, I’d rent out Texas and live in hell.”

This fact makes their peculiar decisions now even more peculiar, unless you consider the oil for food scandal.

There are rogues in every congregation. I don’t defend the European profiteers or Kofi’s boy. We are just starting to hear about Houston companies that imported illegal Iraq oil. More will be coming out in the next week, I’m sure. Haliburton trades illegally with Iran through a Caribbean shell corporation. I don’t cite these cases as evidence against Bush and in the same way, I don’t think EU policy was shaped by their crooks. A few sharks always get in with the swimmers – that’s capitalism, but I thought you knew that already!

 

[mrsx]

Rusty Humphries is pretty good.

http://www.talktorusty.com/

His website says
M - F: 6-9 pm Pacific
9-Midnight Eastern
"Saturday Night America"
5-8 pm Pacific
8-11 Eastern
I'll see if a Bangor station carries the program Pickings are pretty slim up here. I'm going to look for him and that good-looking Sean fellow. More than that and I might get the sort of brain damage that is all around me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're assuming saddam hussein is the only concern in modern appeasement. It's not; there's also the whole web of interrconnected international islamic jihad, of which Hussein was a node.

OK, I’ll buy that. However the principal nodes of the international islamic jihad seem to be Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. I don’t know if we are appeasing them, but we sure are looking the other way on their anti-democratic regimes and support of jihadists. Hell, Pakistan has bin Ladin and won’t let us get him. The Saudis wouldn’t let us talk to the lads they said did the Kohbar Towers caper! And Bush is holding Prince Fahd's hand like something out of a Gay Pride parade.

The Iraq invasion was our way of pressuring those regimes to stop funding terror. A shot across the bow, if you will.

Saddam really doesn’t fit the al-Qaeda pattern. The secular, often Marxist regimes of the Baathists in Iraq and Syria as well as the Palestinians have been big-time terror supporters (Syria and Palestine much more than Iraq) but they have different roots from the fundamentalists and, until our invasion of Arabia, were enemies rather than allies. One of the bad results of our policy has been to unite all Arabs against us, although ideologically and in tactical operations the two kinds of terrorist organizations still seem to work independently.

The wahhabis have spread their most violent form of islam throughout the entire muslim world, hence parts of the entire muslim world are against us. I do believe our western tyrants (socialist libs) envy the efficacy of the muslim though control machine.

He had invaded Kuwait previously, gassed his citizens with WMD, supported palestinian terror. So yes, honest people can disagree, but when disagreement occurs because one is a liar, then one is a liar.

We gave the tacit OK for the Kuwait invasion, perhaps by mistake. Our ambassador (a she BTW) was perhaps not well informed of government policy. That’s our mistake, not his. He gassed the Kurds with nerve gas we supplied. He paid money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as a PR move to gain stature in the Arab world. He had no role in their recruitment, training or planning. Look, I don’t approve of suicide bombers; but, in the Arab world they are martyrs and heroes. If the head of some government friendly to us gave $25,000 to the family of each U.S. soldier killed in Iraq many Americans would think it a noble gesture. That’s what Saddam was aiming for in the Arab world. BTW I have nothing good to say about Saddam and I was more apalled by Kerry’s incoherent double-talk than you were, Because I think the administration has handled the war on terror badly doesn’t mean I support terrorists – or even Democrats! If you stop calling me a liar, I'll forebear calling you a fool. What's the point of all that flame?

Oh yeah. Not saddams' fault, it was our ambassadors fault. Bullshit.

Oh, so I guess since texas USED TO be part of mexico, you wouldn't mind if the mexican military invaded it. (The mexican citizenry already is).

An interesting, provocative point. I don’t know when these kind of conquests become history and moot. If Mexico had the military power to re-take Texas, she probably would (remember the Zimmerman telegram from high school history?) and if she did, Latin America would probably think it fine and dandy. Would that make it right? The circumstances are so different it’s hard to know exactly how to compare the two. Might be something to set off another flame session here, though. Personally, I agree with the general (I think it may have been Sheridan) who said, “If I owned hell and Texas, I’d rent out Texas and live in hell.”

So if like you say, it comes down to which side you're on, it provokes the question, Which side are you on?

This fact makes their peculiar decisions now even more peculiar, unless you consider the oil for food scandal.

There are rogues in every congregation. I don’t defend the European profiteers or Kofi’s boy. We are just starting to hear about Houston companies that imported illegal Iraq oil. More will be coming out in the next week, I’m sure. Haliburton trades illegally with Iran through a Caribbean shell corporation. I don’t cite these cases as evidence against Bush and in the same way, I don’t think EU policy was shaped by their crooks. A few sharks always get in with the swimmers – that’s capitalism, but I thought you knew that already!

Oh a week huh? Ok let's start the countdown. Go drink your koolaid!