War here, war there.

[NM_Shooter]

(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house.  Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).

Lets get real here. Any nuke fired by any country at any other country with a nuke is the same as shooting yourself because you can be assured the other side will return the favor. So if Iran or anyone else shoots one nuke at us they would be commiting suicide. Having a nuke or trying to make one is hardly a good reason to invade another country.

Hi Scott.. another teeny point (i like helping!)

Muslims are pretty fond of suicide missions, end of the world scenarios... that sort of thing. Bringing the end of the world is sort of a goal for them.

[NM_Shooter]

I can't help but notice that my simple, single question has not been answered. 

Lots of smoke and mirrors and B.S....pictures of deformed babies, nonsense about nuke weapons being used 60 years ago, but no answer to that one question.

Helllloo?  Is this thing on?  Can you hear me now?
 

[MountainDon]

Don't forget that Japan had already constructed a submarine aircraft carrier that was ready to deploy a nuke somewhere in California.  We beat them to it.  If we hadn't done it, we would have gotten nuked ourselves.  (Don.. have you been to the nuke museum in Los Alamos?  It is really well done).

The Japanese were actually not quite as far along as Germany in the quest to make an atomic bomb, from my recent reading.

BUT we didn't know that until after the war!

The Japanese were going to make any invasion of their islands very costly. They had pinpointed where the allies would land, unlike Hitler in Europe. They spent months fortifying those beaches. Even though we had pretty much wiped out their navy and maritime shipping as well as their fighter aircraft they had somewhere between 7000 and 1000 kamikaze aircraft and pilots. Some of these were purpose built one way aircraft, others simply anything they had and packed with explosives. They had hoarded enough fuel for these one way missions. The aircraft were dispersed in many hidden sights. The bombing of their air fields would not have put much of a dent in their kamikaze capacity.

Then they were also a few thousand small one/two man submaines with torpedos. Add to that some that were outfitted with nose explosives that were to be rammed. Add to that a corps of swimmers with chest strapped explosives. They had rebreathers; the plan was to wait in the water at the invasion beaches.

This could have truly been a fight to the last man situation. The Japanese warrior code was the force behind this. This was much like the religious fanaticism exhibited by today's terrorists to my eye.

Even after we dropped two atomic bombs on their cities there was a hard core of fanatical military officers who did not want to surrender. They tried to sabotage the Emperor's surrender right up to the last hour.

In the light of all that it is no wonder to me that the bombs were dropped.

In the end it was the Soviets who came closest to making their own bombs.



RE: Los Alamos... yes, we've been there. The museum in ABQ. Alamogordo, White sands. The only place related to atomics we haven't been I guess is Trinity Site. Been to Roswell too... my eyes couldn't cease rolling.    See, there they go again.

[MountainDon]

Lots of Obfuscation.

Sorry for adding to it with the history lesson above. 

[ScottA]

You have a neighbor that hates you.  He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely.  He's killed before.  He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends.  Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some.  

At what point do you    take him serious?  

If we're going to answer this we need to know if he has a reason to want to kill my family and if so is it something I did to cause him to feel this way? If I provoked his anger then I'd be looking to burn his house down or get him to leave the area in some sneaky way. If he just hates me for no real reason then I'd have to wait for him to act. Motive both his and mine would need to be considered.

[MountainDon]

Let me say that whether or not the reason for the hatred is "real" or not is a matter of perception. The reason may not seem real or rational to you or I, but if it is real to the promoter of the hatred then it must be considered a real threat. What matters most is whether or not he is capable of carrying out the threat.


To apply a name to this question...
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears threatening to me. For one, has made direct verbal threats to Israel; vowing to wipe them off the map. I also find his calling the holocaust a myth to be scary. He has since back pedaled on that statement but that's typical for public figures who make statements that are found unsavory to others. I still believe he personally wants to do just that.

However, the premise of the question still applies in a general manner to the world as a whole.

[glenn kangiser]

C'mon Glenn, don't snipe and run.  Answer the question.  Iran is an example, but not an exclusive one. 

Very simple question.  Very simple words.  Given the above condition, when would you take him as serious? 

(Scott... another minor detail, but walls can't be strapped to the top of a ballistic missile and aimed at your house.  Well, maybe they could, but the damage inflicted would be within a relatively small radius).

I wouldn't leave you if I didn't have to, Frank.  I want to help you. 

Actually I stayed an extra hour - I was already an hour late, to make the first reply to you.  I cannot parrot the mainstream media news as they are prohibited from telling the true story.  Why do you think you don't see any war dead in the US? hmm

I would take him as serious when our intelligence said he was serious, however the main ones saying he is serious are mainstream government controlled propaganda outlets here in the US such as Fox News and others.  Anyone who only follows the mainstream news and doesn't research further would think like you do, Frank.  As seen by the above video, Dubya was lying to us to get support for his oil and power war, so you have to research further.  Follow the money.  See what your leaders are up to and what is really happening.  I noticed you have still not provided proof references to these threats so I assume you believe in the Bogeyman they have made up for you.


So if it is not Iran, then I would have to reply that we can sit and make up scenarios all day but if we kill all that hate us we would have to kill the world because our foreign policies have caused many of them to hate us.



As Don noted, we are the only ones who have been cold enough to actually drop the atomic bomb because we wanted to see the results.  Not to cause the surrender of Japan.  To cause the unconditional surrender of Japan without negotiating at all with them or discussing it.  So it is us who are in need of being watched so that we don't do it again to start with.

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear attacks near the end of World War II against the Empire of Japan by the United States at the order of U.S. President Harry S. Truman on August 6 and 9, 1945. After six months of intense fire-bombing of 67 other Japanese cities, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on Monday,[1] August 6, 1945, followed on August 9 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki. These are to date the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.[

The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the hibakusha who are known to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2008 the memorials record the names of more than 400,000 hibakusha — 258,310[61] in Hiroshima, and 145,984[62] in Nagasaki.

We commissioned studies of the effects of the bomb, not to help them but as an experiment recording as if on laboratory rats.

[glenn kangiser]

I can't help but notice that my simple, single question has not been answered. 

Lots of smoke and mirrors and B.S....pictures of deformed babies, nonsense about nuke weapons being used 60 years ago, but no answer to that one question.

Helllloo?  Is this thing on?  Can you hear me now?
 

Sorry, Frank...I don't have a desk job-- worked until well after dark.

[MountainDon]

As Don noted, we are the only ones who have been cold enough to actually drop the atomic bomb because we wanted to see the results.  Not to cause the surrender of Japan.  To cause the unconditional surrender of Japan without negotiating at all with them or discussing it.  So it is us who are in need of being watched so that we don't do it again to start with.

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I've been misinterpreted.  

My statement was to say that it is absolutely right we dropped the bomb. Two of them. And no other country ever did. That's simple plain fact.

But I never intimated the reason was "because we wanted to see the results". With the knowledge we had at the time we did not have any real idea of the long term consequences. Most of the worry was about what the size of the explosion might do to the "balance" of the physical world, not that there were going to be radiation consequences. The atomic bomb was seen as the answer to the question as to how to avoid the terrible looses that would occur if a land invasion was to take place. My reading on the events do not indicate that anyone had much of an idea that the bomb, once dropped, would keep killing in future years.

At the time, it was known that Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union were working on the atomic bomb. In fact it was news that German scientists were working on splitting the atom that propelled the intense activity that went into The Manhattan Project. We did not know for certain how their research was going, but it was felt, and wisely so IMO, that it was foolhardy to not pursue the genie ourselves.

In retrospect it is true that we misjudged one aspect of demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese people have great reverence for their Emperor. If the matter had been studied more fully it would have been realized that leaving the Emperor in place, mostly as a symbol, would have likely made the idea of surrender more palatable than unconditional surrender. At the same time it must be remembered that the Japanese had been ruthless in their advancement of their territorial grabbing. They were into China long before most in the USA heard of Pearl Harbor. They were vicious and remorseless invaders. This, in part, was a product of their Bushido, the warrior code. Surrender brought disgrace. Because their military had this "die, never surrender; better to die for the Emperor than live in defeat" mentality they treated any enemy worse than animals. To the Japanese any living enemy soldier was the lowest form of life. The Japanese took far fewer prisoners in WWII than the Germans did. The Japanese slaughtered prisoners outright or worked them to death. That contributed to the USA's demand for complete and unconditional surrender.

Remember, at the time it was Japanese forces that were being the aggressors against many nations in their part of the world. Their aggression against China began in 1931. They were ahead of Hitler in being nasty. We ignored it. If they had not attacked the USA their war might have turned out quite differently.

I don't think we were "cold" about the decision to drop the bombs. At the time it was simply thought that they were big bombs. At the time, as I earlier pointed out, the invasion of the islands of Japan would have been a casualty disaster for both the Japanese and the combined forces of the Allies. At the time the Japanese military wanted to fight to the last man. I don't know what else the Allies could have done given the knowledge of the times. It is now known that even after the two bombs were dropped there were high ranking Japanese military who wanted to fight it out down to the last man if necessary, in the hope that they might kill enough Allies as to make them (us) give up.

As for studying the effects afterward... well I guess you might as well. In fact one could say that it would be irresponsible not to. I don't believe the USA went ahead dropping the bombs with the preconceived concept that this would make a cool science experiment. Again, with the knowledge of the day, it seemed like an expedient way to end the war in the Pacific.

Looking backwards, with today's knowledge, most people would say that no, we should not have dropped the bombs on Japan. However, I maintain that faced with the same circumstances and knowledge that was available back then, anyone would have made the same decision.

[glenn kangiser]

"I have no problem with having the worlds strongest military and maintaining it in great working order here, at home to where no one dare attack us."

Is this feasible to do? I tend to not think so.  Especially when dealing with terrorist organizations.  How do we keep terrorist supporting nations from lobbing nukes at us once they have them?  Do we wait to be attacked first?  At what point do we say..."OK, we now have our threshold of crispy cities... we are now justified in retaliation."?  My threshold for that is zero.  

I assume this is the question you want answered first.  I wouldn't even consider not answering it, if I had been here.

Of course it is feasible to do if that is what we want to do.  

For really nailing down the question, even though you say you don't mean Iran, I have to assume from your reference to 4000 centrifuges, that you do really mean Iran.  I can't give a specific answer on a general question with changeable unknown scenarios.

Limiting this part of the question to Iran, I say according to Iran, we are not cooperating.  Where is our diplomacy?  I haven't heard of the threats being made in the way that you refer to them.  Could you please supply references?

Wednesday, September 24, 2008    

* Iranian president calls for furthering of diplomatic relations between the two nations

NEW YORK: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday justified his policy of confronting the West by saying US troops are surrounding Iran. Interviewed by National Public Radio (NPR) about his stance, Ahmadinejad replied: "I'd like to ask you, is it the Iranian (army) that's around the territories around the country, or is it the US troops that are around? "It is the US troops around our borders. It is not ours around the American borders. So what exactly are they doing over there?" he asked.

Diplomatic relations: Ahmadinejad said the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency offers "the best guarantee" that Iran can enrich uranium for peaceful uses, and said the United States "should cease putting pressure" on the agency. He also said diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States should advance, citing a willingness to cooperate on security in Iraq. Asked if Iran has a plan to reassure the world it intends to use its nuclear program for peaceful means only, Ahmadinejad said the United States should "extend at least the equivalent of one-tenth the cooperation we have extended" to the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency. "We believe that the IAEA itself offers the best guarantee," he added.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\09\24\story_24-9-2008_pg4_13

I have to bring up this of your comments next.

I think we should spend a ton of money on "intelligence", followed up by very effective, PC unrestricted and assertive preemptive action.

You only allow one option and that is bombing the heck out of them no matter what our intelligence we have paid tons of money for says, so I have to assume you will not take no weapons of mass destruction, or not enriching for bombs as an answer -- no matter what our high cost tons of money intelligence says, just like our currently installed resident of the Whitehouse.

I will redirect you to this video - it appear you missed it.  

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bush+where+are+those+weapons+of+mass+destruction&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

Remember that he was told there were no weapons there by the inspectors and Saddam Hussein himself,  as well as Saddam inviting the inspectors to inspect-- they had to leave as we were going to bomb anyway.  That was our intent all along.  

Did we know there was no reason to attack Iraq?  Were we attacked by them?  This guy knew.  Please watch it.  I don't want to think I am talking to someone with his mind so controlled by the government propaganda that he is afraid to look at the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSunCsrkLTw

Our ill founded pre-emptive strike was for what?  Against the intelligence you claim we should use?  We just bomb them anyway because we want a powerbase and control of oil (looks like that failed) in the middle east - as it has always been.  We never intended not to bomb them and the strike on Iraq and Afghanistan was planned before the Bush Administration took office.

Should we do the same to Iran because we want their countries oil?  Negotiations are off the table?

That high cost intelligence you tout so highly says "U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

This is our own intelligence - not UN intelligence ..... .

Note that this is CNN whom I assume would be reliable enough for you to believe.

[glenn kangiser]

I am not saying we let them bomb us in the face of irrefutable evidence that he is intent on doing it.  Our highly paid intelligence says there is not a problem so we currently have no reason to kill them, unless we go with your plan and kill them anyway.    Are we being monitored to be sure we don't nuke someone?

Remember that 6 Nukes were stolen from Minot AFB with highest US Government authorization.  I assume you didn't follow the story close enough to know that only five nukes made it to Louisiana.  Yes I know the story has been changed to cover that up, but the fact remains, one nuke is missing and several people somehow are dead. 

[glenn kangiser]

Whoa. Hold on a minute. I've been misinterpreted. 

My statement was to say that it is absolutely right we dropped the bomb. Two of them. And no other country ever did. That's simple plain fact.

Guess I have to amend that to Don confirming we dropped the bombs and are the only ones in the world to have ever done so.

[glenn kangiser]

lots of differing opinions here, so I'll toss mine into the pile as well and let them fall where they may.

"You have a neighbor that hates you.  He has told you and everyone in the neighborhood that he is going to kill your family as soon as he is able to afford some tools to do so completely.  He's killed before.  He's told you he would hire others to do the work and to snipe at your family and friends.  Heck, he's even taken shots at some of your friends... killing some.  At what point do you   no idea take him serious?  "

Yes, people should be taking the United states very serious here.  We do not have a good track record for being a good international citizen.  We have threatened many and now that weakness is showing expect some of that to come back to us.  For what it is worth, if called upon I will take up arms against Iran or anyone else if needed to defend this nation if under attack.  However, I will not volunteer for it today. 

War is distraction.  War is a mechanism to swell patriotism, and get people to ignore larger failings of the leadership.  It has occurred for centuries and wont be stopping any time soon.  I believe that for most, people need a black and white, good guy/bad guy enemy to focus on. 

"Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first."  Charles de Gaulle, President of France; recalled on leaving the presidency, Life 9 May 69

"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any- price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life."  Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), U.S. Republican (later Progressive) politician, president. letter (Jan. 10, 1917).

"The art of leadership ... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.... The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 3 (1925).

"The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), German dictator. Mein Kampf, vol. 1, ch. 10 (1925).

"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland."  Adoph Hitler, 1939

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
George W. Bush, 2004.

"I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way. Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper."
George W. Bush, 2005.

muldoon, I have to say that I agree with all of that, and that obviously your mind is open enough to face the facts.

I have to add that war is not only a distraction, but a major moneymaker and played properly the corporations who make the war machines can supply both sides and profit from both as their major interest is in prolonging the war and making all they can off of it.

Frank -- I can agree with you on one thing.  Git er' done, as Russia just did with Georgia.  Obviously not a moneymaking proposition, but a simple 5 day war to correct the attack on people it had agreed to guard and keep the peace. 

Our wars are obviously for profit, as you say you disagree with, and I assume you respect the way the Russians handled themselves.

[glenn kangiser]

Bringing DU, birth defects, unintended and serious consequences all, sidesteps the question originally asked...  Those may be reasons for avoiding use of certain weapon types, not reasons for sitting back and letting acknowledged belligerents take potshots at you or your allies.

From this statement, Don, I assume you also approve of Russia's actions in protecting S. Ossettia, when our trainers and the Israeli Mercenaries in Georgia trained and influenced Georgia to test Russia by attacking one of their allies and The Russians were the agreed upon peace keepers there.  It was their agreed duty to protect S. Ossettia.  What kind of peacekeepers would they have been if they didn't carry out that protection? 

This is a fine example of a hasty and decisive response to an incursion into their territory by a terrorist group, bombing civilians indiscriminately and killing peacekeepers who were given no warning. 

It is nice to get some agreement here that terrorist organizations (the Georgians trained by us and Israel) should be stopped stopped decisively and swiftly.

The Bush administration policies are the biggest cause of danger to our families and the biggest threat to our safety in the United States.  Pre-emptive strikes do not make friends or solve problems.  They only cause us to be viewed as the world bully and the other countries will have to create alliances in order to protect themselves.  Look at us and our actions to see how they view us.

What happened to love thy neighbor?  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?  Do we ignore those commands and expect to not suffer the consequences?  hmm

[glenn kangiser]

If I missed anything let me know. 

I am going to the valley tomorrow with a helper so will not get time to reply until tomorrow night, but, I'll be back.....

[glenn kangiser]

Hiroshima & Nagasaki -
the Worst Terror Attacks in Human History
The Record Speaks...

Collated & Sequenced by Nadesan Satyendra

    "...If terrorism is the massacre of innocents to break the will of rulers, were not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, terrorism on a colossal scale?... "Hiroshima, Nagasaki & Christian Morality - Patrick J. Buchanan,  August  2005

    "...The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.." Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Ralph Raico, 2001

     "The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality " The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today - John Pilger, 6 August 2008

    "...I voiced to him [Stimson, US Secretary of War] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the [atom] bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of such a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that movement, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'." Dwight D. Eisenhower:The White House Years: Mandate For Change, 1953 - 1956  Doubleday & Company Inc., New York, 1963, pp. 312-313

http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/hiroshima.htm

Speaking of supporting terrorists, would you like more information on the ones we support, have supported and continue to support?  Here's a start - I can find more if you would like. 

Iran specialists have been aware of these groups for years, and largely discounted them. However, assertions of active United States support for them, awakened by journalist Seymour Hersh in the July 7 issue of the New Yorker, have become real cause for concern. The groups include:

*The M.E.K—Mujaheddin-e Khalq—officially a terrorist group in the United States for having killed Americans before the Revolution. They are Marxist in orientation, and are despised in Iran, since they were protected by Saddam Hussein all during the Iran-Iraq war, and are directly supported by the United States today.

*The PJAK—the "Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan," a trans-national Kurdish militant organization dedicated to an independent Kurdistan. They are supported by the United States when they launch attacks against Iranian forces, but faulted when they launch attacks against Turkish forces in Turkey.

*The Jundallah—based in Sunni Muslim Balochistan. They are supported by extreme conservative Salafi groups in Saudi Arabia. The Salafi movement also forms the religious philosophy of the Taliban of Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda. Claims of U.S. support for Jundallah are now several years old. In April 2007 Brian Ross and Christopher Isham of ABC News reported that the United States had been aiding Jundallah to attack Iranian targets. Jundallah's leader, Abdul Malik Rigi, appeared on the Iranian service of the Voice of America, where he was identified as "the leader of popular Iranian resistance movement." More disturbing are Jundallah's wider connections. As Seymour Hersh points out: "Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists."

Sunni Arab separatists in the Southeast Iranian province of Khuzistan, especially in its capital, Ahwaz, have been active since the time of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. There is no identifiable organization as with the other groups above, but Iranian security forces claim that the current round of violence, which includes the assassination of an Iranian Shi'ite cleric, Hojjat ol-Eslam Hesham Seymari on June 26, 2007, were "trained under the umbrella of the Americans in Iraq." The militants have also been linked with the London-based Ahvaz Arab People's Democratic-Popular Front.

The Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement, SANAM or GAMOH, led by Mahmudali Chehregani was founded in 1995, and is perhaps the weakest of the ethnic separatist movements today. Nevertheless, Chehregani was hosted in Washington by the U.S. Department of Defense in June 2003, according to the Washington Times, and addressed a number of neoconservative venues. One difficulty with this movement is Chehregani's antipathy to Kurds, whom he calls "guests" in the Azerbaijan region of Iran.

These separatist movements continue to have support in some legislative circles. Two of the most avid supporters are Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, both Republicans. Both favor removing the MEK from the list of terrorist organizations, and Brownback served as host to Mahmud Ali Chehregani in Washington.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=0a3f42cca536140506e6a708be367b98

Does this make us susceptible to a pre-emptive strike by Iran, Frank.  Seems it does if I understood what you said  correctly or it doesn't apply to us   You will be fair won't you?

[NM_Shooter]

Okay... I think we can agree that you won't answer the question that has been covered up by a bunch of weird rhetoric.  I was asking what your threshold was to putting up with someone who wanted you dead.  When do you consider them serious?

The point I was trying to make with that question is that I am not willing to wait until somebody pulls the trigger.  And I guarantee you that you are not that type either.  It is way too late then.  Are you telling me that you would wait for someone to go out, get a gun, load it, point it at your kid's head, and wait for them to follow through before considering them serious?  After they have told you and everyone else their intention long before they started any action? 

My guess is that if you were out and about, and someone not known to you at all were to come up to you, and point a gun at you, you would take them as serious as a heart attack.  You wouldn't wait to check any websites to see what the problem was.

This started out like this... you made the statement that we could sit here within our own border, and create such a mighty military that no one would dare attack us. 

I contend that it can not be done.  These are people who are not driven by rational thought.  In spite of your own somewhat blinding hatred towards George Bush in specific and the US / Israel in general, they hated us long ago, long before W or his dad were in the white house.  There is nothing we can do to pacify them or to make them our friends, or to even be tolerant of us.  Nothing.  Ever.

How big would a defensive military need to be to intimidate them?  How much bigger was the US military than Al Qaeda prior to 9/11?  They didn't seem at all deterred by the odds then.  What do you want in terms of military might?

Think for a bit about their (not just Iran, or Syria, or the Palestine communities) overall society and doctrines.  How do they treat their own people?  Steal something, and hands get cut off.  Blaspheme and you are put to death.  Doesn't that sound just a tad overkill?  And that is their culture and some of their governments support it!

Forgiveness has never been part of their culture.  Never.

Why do you think that they would be willing to leave us alone based on us having a big military and staying here at home? 

The best defense is a strong offense.  (not the other way around)

Your own logic is compromised by your hate of the US and the folks at the helm.  It seems to me that you are willing to allow our country's nose to be cut off to spite our face, and that you sort of long for it.  I don't understand this.   

The bunker you live in is not deep enough to protect you if this gets escalated. 

-f-

BTW... don't assume that I am saying that we have not contributed to this problem.  I am saying that it is now what it is, and that to ignore what is going on would be nothing short of suicide. 

The war in Iraq WAS justified... Iraq was found to be materially (hard evidence) in violation of UN1441.  I consider 4 tons of VX to be a WMD, and that is only one example.

What is not justified is this police action BS that doesn't seem to have an end.  I'm pissed and I want it over with. 

[apaknad]

i almost hate getting into this but... if i were king er president then our countries policy would be to live by the golden rule, love, pray for your enemies, bring back all of our troops to the mainland and have the scariest armed forces in the world to kick the s--- out of you as a deterrent. all of you are bringing good points to the table but our most pressing problem is getting back control of our country somehow.

[apaknad]

shooter what you are describing is a type of global guerilla warfare. and a large armed forces is no deterrent. this only scares countries, not terrorists. this is the world we live in. i am not sure i have an answer to this problem.

[muldoon]

I had a thought this morning on all this.  It's a possible solution to the crisis were on now, and its quite extreme and likely not persuable in any form.  Interesting thought process behind it though. 

Step 1) US prints 6 trillion dollars in foreign debt and pays way out of financial crises.  All debts are wiped clean, stock market goes to 300k in a month. 

Step 2) We tell China, thanks for all that money - were going to turn our heads and let you do whatever you need to in Taiwan.  We tell Russia, same - thanks for the cash, you go ahead and do what you need in Georgia, Ukraine and such.  Then tell the middle east, I know we still owe you alot - how does Isreal sound? 

Step 3) The us emergence debt free, with no participation in the world war. 

Can you tell I'm not getting much sleep? 

[NM_Shooter]

i almost hate getting into this but... if i were king er president then our countries policy would be to live by the golden rule, love, pray for your enemies, bring back all of our troops to the mainland and have the scariest armed forces in the world to kick the s--- out of you as a deterrent. all of you are bringing good points to the table but our most pressing problem is getting back control of our country somehow.

Apaknad, I think I can support your platform. 

[benevolance]

Not much for praying... but the golden rule is not a bad medium.... do unto others...We have never lived by that creed however

[glenn kangiser]

Okay... I think we can agree that you won't answer the question that has been covered up by a bunch of weird rhetoric.  I was asking what your threshold was to putting up with someone who wanted you dead.  When do you consider them serious?

OK - now it is clear.   When I can no longer negotiate with them.

The point I was trying to make with that question is that I am not willing to wait until somebody pulls the trigger.  And I guarantee you that you are not that type either.  It is way too late then.  Are you telling me that you would wait for someone to go out, get a gun, load it, point it at your kid's head, and wait for them to follow through before considering them serious?  After they have told you and everyone else their intention long before they started any action?

No - reliable intelligence, but not fabricated intelligence, or ignoring good intelligence such as we have been seeing to get us into our current situation, could be used to determine the threat level.  The problem is that the intelligence is ignored depending on the desires of the leaders of our nation and the chances to profit from the war and the lives of our servicemen.  Hope that wasn't too far off base for you.

My guess is that if you were out and about, and someone not known to you at all were to come up to you, and point a gun at you, you would take them as serious as a heart attack.  You wouldn't wait to check any websites to see what the problem was.

If faced with a fact, I will take action, Frank.  Yes that is correct - after the time for negotiations have ceased.  I will assume the opponent is out to kill me and I will take him out.

I was attacked by a drunk Navy Boxer at a service station in about 1973.  He  mouthed of to me as he though he could take me.  Ridiculed my hat so I told him to shut the hell up.  He asked me "When is the last time you've been really hurt?" and I told him, "When I walked in here and saw your ugly face."  

He told me he'd wait for me outside.  I got my change to go pick up my boss who was broke down and as I walked out the door I saw a fist coming at me and he hit me on the forehead.  As you know, that was not a place to hit me and do any damage.

I put my change in my billfold and when the second swing came I grabbed his hand then the other one - pushed him against his car and lifted him off the ground with my knee between his spread lags as he tried to regain his balance.  With a bit of his fight gone I tripped him with my foot as I shoved him to the ground to the right.  Throwing him on his back I sat on his chest as he continued swinging.  I put each of his arms under each of my knees then started slamming his head into the concrete until he surrendered.  I suppose you think I should have killed him, but I let him up and he slunk back into a corner just as the police arrived.  He assaulted them next but it was a losing battle for him against 3 officers.

So in light of the above, I considered that he wanted to kill me after negotiations were no longer possible due to an impass on both sides.  Yes -- I took him out and neutralized him.  No - I didn't kill him.  I did not launch a pre-emptive strike unless but responded with sufficient force to stop his attack.  I guess if he had no scruples at all he could have shot me, but from previous negotiations I did not assume that would be the case.  I did finish the war.  I did not destroy him but he was aware he was overpowered.

Will that work as a description of how I would react?  What is your take on that, Frank?  Stupid to stop without finishing him -- seems I would have gone to jail when the law arrived.  Pre-emptive strike - do it first -- I would have been the guilty party rather than him.  He went to jail - not me.

[glenn kangiser]

This started out like this... you made the statement that we could sit here within our own border, and create such a mighty military that no one would dare attack us.

I should clarify that.  We have lots of bases around the world.  I am not saying , leave them.  I am saying there is no need for the Empire building and attacking small countries with oil but no defenses to speak of.  

If we are really fighting terrorists why then is Iraq the country we chose to attack when most of the hijackers (if you buy the official story) were from Saudi Arabia?  Why did we attack Afghanistan?  If you research it you will find these were oil motivated war.

If our war machines are not destroyed in the deserts and our military are not destroyed faster than we can rebuild them they can be wherever they need to be from any of our worldwide bases with a much larger force there in a short time without the unnecessary loss of life.  Russia demonstrated this is a realistic idea in the war I mentioned above - the 5 day war in S. Ossetia.  That is what I am saying and it is exactly what you say you want.  Unquestionable and decisive power.  Overwhelming as you desire and minimal loss of life.  They did not lose over 4000 soldiers -- they lost something over a hundred as I recall. They did not make billions of dollars in non-bid contracts.

Sorry to drag all of this into my reply, Frank, but, it is all tied together.

I contend that it can not be done.  These are people who are not driven by rational thought.  In spite of your own somewhat blinding hatred towards George Bush in specific and the US / Israel in general, they hated us long ago, long before W or his dad were in the white house.  There is nothing we can do to pacify them or to make them our friends, or to even be tolerant of us.  Nothing.  Ever.

First sentance- I have to disagree and refer to the above recent war.  Overwhelming specific power and getting it done immediately stopped Georgia in it's tracks.

I contend that our leaders are not driven by rational thought either and their driving force is oil, power, money and greed without respect for human life lost on either side.


It is more that I despise what George Bush and his cabal are doing to our country and our Constitution.  I do not define patriotism as the blind following of whoever is at the helm when they are steering us into an iceberg and shooting holes in the bottom of our ship.  I define it as loving my country enough to sound a warning to others to wake up and see what is being done in our name, when there is a danger that it is destroying our country and the Freedom we have come to know in the past.  

[glenn kangiser]

I say in the past because it is gone now.  It is not any terrorists that have taken our freedom and destroyed our economy and most of our Constitution.  It is our own leaders who hold our highest offices no matter who they are or how they got there.

I do not hate Israel or Jews.  I have Jewish friends and there are Jews on our forum.  I harbor no animosity toward them of any kind.  I have had a very nice old Jewish customer and have ridden to jobs with him in his car and find him to be a very nice fellow and good friend.

On another note I have another Jewish acquaintance who works at the Home Depot as a demonstrator of windows and to arrange sales there.  I spent a long time talking to her between her customers.  She is semi-retired and works there to keep occupied.  She said that the term "Homeland Security" sent shivers down her spine and the things going on in our government now reminded her so much of Nazi Germany under Hitler, that she hoped we woke up before it was too late.  She was only a child when she was there but remembers it like it was yesterday. 

No, I'm afraid you are mistaken, I have no hate for these people and in fact there are relatives of mine in the Jewish cemeteries and marriage records in Lithuania.



I cannot tell you how these people are related but they are from our home town in Lithuania and we (GGF and GF) left in 1889. 

What I do have a problem with Israel first at all costs with loyalty sworn to support Israel without even having our national debt paid off --- we continue pretty unlimited support and billions per uyear when we can't even take care of our own citizens. We have dual US/Israeli Politicians , or is it dual Israeli/US citizens running our country with no way to determine where their allegiance is.  It's not just one --- it's a lot.  I feel this is not in the best interest of the US as it will unfairly sway decisions toward Israel at the cost of lives of our.servicemen.  It will cause us to fight wars that are of interest to Israel rather than in the best interest of the United States.

You can't see this?  Here is a reference.  Sorry for using references, Frank, but I don't see what my opinions are as being of any relevance here without supporting them by facts.  I realize you have an aversion to Google and what the rest of the world thinks but I find I cannot base my responses on only my opinion.  I have to see what is happening in the world. 

http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html

I cannot hide in my own mind and find the answers that I feel I am obliged to give.  I feel I must give the most well informed, well educated answers I can give you and they are not within the limit of what is inside my head without higher education.

Yes -- I live underground, but I do not keep my head buried there.