 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Military - Naval Forum » US drone strikes may break international law: UN... |
|
Page 10 of 10 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Wiser wrote:
[quote]
And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda?
[/quote]
Of course she does, it's to tell the lying liars what liars they are.
(that would be the warmongering lying rightwing fringe that got us into klusterfuck wars)
 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 9:34 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 10:34 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:22 pm, Matt Wiser <mattwiser... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 6:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:13 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi... at (no spam) earthlink.net
wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:05 am, John Mianowski <jo... at (no spam) boreal.org> wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:29 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
...
Personally I think it was a mistake that Bush did not declare war on the
Taliban; rather it became just another part of this featureless "War on
Terrorism", which is nothing of the sort since no war has been legally
declared. Being evasive and mealymouthed about what you're trying to do,
and labelling people as terrorists, which is also what Bush decided to
do, is precisely why we now have all this confusion. If we'd called it a
war in the first place we wouldn't now be arguing over exactly when
"terrorist" acts become acts of war.
That was exactly my thinking after the initial shock of 9/11 abated.
At a time when the US really needed a good (if not great) president,
GWB was a mediocre one at best. I had never had high hopes for him in
the 1st place, & even I was disappointed.
JM
I keep harping on the fact, belief, whatever, that theJawbreaker
people could have gotten bin Ladin in December 2001 with a small
amount of effort from Washington. Perhaps not Presidential, maybe only
CIA but they thought they had him and no one blocked his exit from
Tora Bora.
Just saw a video on Rachel Mddow's show, George W. Bush on December
14, 2001 saying he would get Osama dead or alive. Jawbreaker requested
800 American troops on December 7. The request was never answered.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And Rachel Maddow doesn't have an agenda? Right.....considering she's
a protege of Keith Olbermann (who should've stuck to being a
sportscaster, IMHO).
She aired the video, I drew the parallel between the dates Gary
Berntsen asked for the extra men and the date of Bush's statement to
the world. The reason we are in Afghanistan seems to be in question,
the fact that Osama bin Ladin is apparently holed up in Pakistan 8
years after Bush's speech seems relevant. If you can't handle it, go
lock on to Fox, they would never air that Bush video.
Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay from
$4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made at
MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show before the
NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few others have, an
independence from politically correct management.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach.
[/quote]
Take a Pepto, or glory in yesterday's Republican cum conservative
victory. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:44 am, Jim Yanik <jya... at (no spam) abuse.gov> wrote:
[quote]richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote innews:4b0971f1.864301434 at (no spam) news.east.earthlink.net:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser
mattwiser... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach.
Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des
Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
Casady
Sorry,but Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union,and
initiating ballistic missile defense in the US.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
[/quote]
So I guess all that stuff back in the 60s and 1972 was playing around?
http://law.jrank.org/pages/4355/Anti-Ballistic-Missile-Treaty-1972.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Casady... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser
<mattwiser_99 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach.
[/quote]
Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des
Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
Casady |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Yanik... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
richardcasady at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote in
news:4b0971f1.864301434 at (no spam) news.east.earthlink.net:
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser
mattwiser_99 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach.
Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des
Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
Casady
[/quote]
Sorry,but Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union,and
initiating ballistic missile defense in the US.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dennis... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]Olbermann signed a four-year contract a year ago raising his pay
from $4m to $7.5 a year. Somewhat better than the $650,000 he made
at MSNBC in 1997. He does football on NBC's Sunday night show
before the NFL game. I think he has accomplished something few
others have, an independence from politically correct management.-
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach.
Take a Pepto, or glory in yesterday's Republican cum conservative
victory.
[/quote]
This thread is sure droning on...
Dennis |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mike... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 4:35 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Just as one example, the June 1976 protests in Poland and the rise of
Solidarity in the same country, starting with its founding in 1980, are
several indicators of social currents right across the entire Communist
bloc that had everything to do with what happened roughly a decade
later. And you don't seriously believe Reagan had anything to do with
those events, do you?
[/quote]
Lech Walesa seemed to think RR had something to do with it,
from 2004.
....
I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks
he did, in supporting us at Solidarity, as well as dissident
movements in other countries behind the Iron Curtain, while
pushing a defense buildup that pushed the Soviet economy
over the brink. Let's remember that it was a time of recession
in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more
interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with
a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth
fighting for. Did he seek any profit in such a policy? Though
our freedom movements were in line with the foreign policy
of the United States, I doubt it.
I distinguish between two kinds of politicians. There are those
who view politics as a tactical game, a game in which they
do not reveal any individuality, in which they lose their own
face. There are, however, leaders for whom politics is a means
of defending and furthering values. For them, it is a moral
pursuit. They do so because the values they cherish are
endangered. They're convinced that there are values worth
living for, and even values worth dying for. Otherwise they
would consider their life and work pointless. Only such
politicians are great politicians and Ronald Reagan was
one of them.
....
Like it or not, many in Poland(and other areas too) credit him,
along with Margret Thatcher and John Paul II, for reducing Communism.
Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
**
mike
** |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Arved Sandstrom... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 5:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jim Yanik wrote:
[quote]richardcasady at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) wrote in
news:4b0971f1.864301434 at (no spam) news.east.earthlink.net:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:34:27 -0800 (PST), Matt Wiser
mattwiser_99 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
He should've stuck to being a sportscaster, because when it comes to
sports, he does do a pretty decent job. It's his political stuff I
can't stomach.
Yoou mean Ronald Reagan, the best pay by play man WHO radio, Des
Moines, ever had. He should have stuck with it.
Casady
Sorry,but Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union,and
initiating ballistic missile defense in the US.
[/quote]
Reagan is widely credited with the fall of the Soviet Union, yes.
Doesn't change the fact that he had little to do with it. The US, over
the nearly fifty years of the Cold War, certainly contributed to the
demise of the fUSSR and the Warsaw Pact, but what the US did wasn't the
major factor, and to believe that what a president did or didn't do in
the '80's _was_ the major factor runs entirely contrary to actual fact.
Just as one example, the June 1976 protests in Poland and the rise of
Solidarity in the same country, starting with its founding in 1980, are
several indicators of social currents right across the entire Communist
bloc that had everything to do with what happened roughly a decade
later. And you don't seriously believe Reagan had anything to do with
those events, do you?
AHS |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Chris... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:18 am, mike <marat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
[/quote]
In my reading and thinking about this issue, this seems to me to be
the key point. Gorbachev's decision that it was better for the Warsaw
Pact to fall than to go to war to protect it was neither inevitable
nor expected by many observers at the time. Everything that Reagan and
Thatcher ever did would have been undone had Gorbachev made the
decision to do a Czechoslovakia-68 or Hungary-56 again.
And I'm honestly not sure of how much a factor the leaders of the US
and Britain played in Gorbi's calculations on whether to use troops or
not. It's hard to read his mind on this, but I suspect that the
ongoing fiasco in Afghanistan played a large role in his calculations
(if the Soviet Army couldn't handle those Afghans, could they handle
Poland?). And that fiasco wasn't because of US support; the US didn't
start ramping up it's support for the Mujahedin until after Gorbi had
told the generals they had one year and then it was time to start
withdrawing. (That was 1985, the same year the US funneled 250 million
through Pakistan's ICI- more money than they had given since 1979
combined, that is really the start of major US involvement in
Afghanistan, but it never grew that large.)
In short, I think that the more or less peaceful break up of the
Soviet Bloc had much more to do with Gorbachev than anything that
Western Leaders did.
Chris Manteuffel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Linthicum... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 2:06 pm, Chris <cmant... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:18 am, mike <marat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
In my reading and thinking about this issue, this seems to me to be
the key point. Gorbachev's decision that it was better for the Warsaw
Pact to fall than to go to war to protect it was neither inevitable
nor expected by many observers at the time. Everything that Reagan and
Thatcher ever did would have been undone had Gorbachev made the
decision to do a Czechoslovakia-68 or Hungary-56 again.
And I'm honestly not sure of how much a factor the leaders of the US
and Britain played in Gorbi's calculations on whether to use troops or
not. It's hard to read his mind on this, but I suspect that the
ongoing fiasco in Afghanistan played a large role in his calculations
(if the Soviet Army couldn't handle those Afghans, could they handle
Poland?). And that fiasco wasn't because of US support; the US didn't
start ramping up it's support for the Mujahedin until after Gorbi had
told the generals they had one year and then it was time to start
withdrawing. (That was 1985, the same year the US funneled 250 million
through Pakistan's ICI- more money than they had given since 1979
combined, that is really the start of major US involvement in
Afghanistan, but it never grew that large.)
In short, I think that the more or less peaceful break up of the
Soviet Bloc had much more to do with Gorbachev than anything that
Western Leaders did.
Chris Manteuffel
[/quote]
You have to add in the Pope, having a Polish Pope at a time when
Poland was trying to break free of Soviet rule was an important factor
both in Poland and outside. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Arved Sandstrom... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mike wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 4:35 am, Arved Sandstrom <dces... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Just as one example, the June 1976 protests in Poland and the rise of
Solidarity in the same country, starting with its founding in 1980, are
several indicators of social currents right across the entire Communist
bloc that had everything to do with what happened roughly a decade
later. And you don't seriously believe Reagan had anything to do with
those events, do you?
Lech Walesa seemed to think RR had something to do with it,
from 2004.
[ SNIP ][/quote]
Let's put this in context - this was less than a week after Reagan's
death. Walesa is also a former president of Poland. There's no doubt in
my mind that Walesa sincerely thought that Reagan made a significant
contribution to the fall of the USSR, but (1) Walesa isn't necessarily
completely right, and (2) he was hardly going to be less than fulsome
and glowing in what was practically a eulogy.
[quote]
Like it or not, many in Poland(and other areas too) credit him,
along with Margret Thatcher and John Paul II, for reducing Communism.
Oh, and Gorby, for not starting WWIII over it.
[/quote]
Reagan and Thatcher do deserve credit. They were important - not as
important as some in the West like to think - but important nonetheless.
The major contribution that both made, once both had taken the measure
of Gorbachev, was to stop being right-wing militaristic hawks, and this
is probably what Walesa was alluding to. A lot of Americans believe that
it was our colossal military spending and Reagan's "Evil Empire" [1]
stand that did the Soviets in - that's completely the opposite of how
things really happened. It's all mythology. In fact it was the
accommodations that Reagan and Thatcher made in the late '80's that
helped the Eastern Europeans successfully negotiate this process that
was essentially driven from within, not without.
So I'm not discounting Reagan. I'm making the points that he was simply
less important than many would like to believe, and that his actual
contribution was entirely of a different nature than what many would
like to believe.
AHS
[1] The argument could be made - and has been made - that deep Cold War
rhetoric, arms-races, demonization, and sabre-rattling - on both sides -
propped up the Communist bloc for much longer than it ought otherwise to
have survived. Dictatorships need real or imaginary internal and
external enemies to survive, and we in the West gave them an enemy
figure that they couldn't have improved upon if they'd tried. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:40 am
|
|