Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 191 To 200 Of 246 Comments
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
"If the Islamic terrorists were to detonate several nuclear weapons on American soil, this would significantly weaken the US. This would make it much easier to take it over to completely destroy it. The Islamists would likely be backed up by their allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. The Islamic terrorists are already receiveing assitance from these countries in abundance. In any event, due to America’s extremly lax border security, the invading Islamic force may already be in the country."
So let me get this straight. The plan is for the Islamists to nuke America a bit, for China and Russia to ally with them in order to directly attack both America and Europe, while a concealed sleeper army of Islamists in the US continuously attacks evetually imposing Sharia law.
Is that right?
Honestly, way too much 24. Great show that it is, if it were true then this level of paranoia might be understandable but...
You've forgotten a few little facts. The Russians hate the Islamists. Sure, countries are fine in their eyes, but Islamic nutcases keep killing their kids and they keep leveling their cities. The Chinese aren't anything like as inscrutable as you seem to think. There is no Russian funded sleeper Islamic army hiding in the US. Neither is there a batallion of Spetsnatz in your fridge. The Russians wouldn't have a hope in hell of occupying the US, neither would the Chinese or the "Islamists".
And probably most notable, if there were evidence of Russian or Chinese involvement in nuclear attacks on the US then you have the world's largest nuclear arsenal at your disposal and justification to use it.
What happened that meant that MAD wasn't applicable anymore? Where's the percentage in it for the Russians or the Chinese anyway?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 26.03.2007 @ 02:20
"That still does not change the fact that our Islamic Extremists enemies who are backed up by Russia and China pose an existential threat to the United States."
Could somebody please explain to me why Islamic Exremists pose an existential danger to the US.
Could you explain, in a step by step manner how they will bring about the utter destruction of the US?
As far as I can tell Bin Laden could detonate 10 Nukes in venues of his choosing and you'd still be a viable country.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 25.03.2007 @ 06:23
THE TRIUMPH OF HATE OVER PRINCIPLE
"They do not care about the troops, because they are willing to continue to fund the war and keep the troops in harm’s way just to make a politically viable deal."
Could you please explain to me how they are supposed to make a politcally unviable deal? If they put forward a "Troops out now" bill, it would be defeated.
"Treason. Pelosi and the House Dems need to be rounded up. They need to be prosecuted. And they need to suffer the consequences of these high crimes against America."
Yes, that's right. When, in a democracy, a party with a different foreign policy to yours gets in power and starts, cautiously and consentually changing the direction of the country, that is treason.
Way to show the world how democracy works there...
Comment Posted By Drongo On 25.03.2007 @ 06:29
"clearing the way for a war funding bill that will do for al-Qaeda what they could never do for themselves in a million years; get American combat forces out of Iraq:"
Just worth pointing out that there are both a hell of a lot of ordinary Iraqis and ordinary Americans who want US troops out. In fact, unless I am much mistaken recent polls showed that the majority of each populace supports a US pull out in a year
"They hate him so much they are willing to sacrifice their anti-war principles in order to deal the President of the United States an embarrassing defeat."
Sacrificing impossible principles for an acceptable compromise is exactly what democratic government is all about. Nobody could get "Troops out now" legislation through, but scuppering "Troops out soon" legislation would be pointless.
Imagine, for a second, a bill to limit abortions to under 12 weeks. Now, a principles anti-abortionist would undoubtedly regard this as a crime, since abortion at any age is wrong. Imagine that without their support the bill would fail. By blocking it they would gain nothing, status quo remains, by voting for it they would gain a partial victory.
Mocking people for not cutting off their noses to spite their faces is just silly.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 23.03.2007 @ 09:35
"But criticizing strategy and calling for a precipitous departure are two different things."
That should be "Criticizing tactics and calling for a withdrawl are two different things". That would be true.
You see full withdrawl would be a new tactic based on a change of strategy.
Surging, new rules, outside bases vs super bases, Apaches or A10s, they are all just tactical changes with the same strategic goal, a secure client state in Iraq. This goal is clearly impossible because you are on a clock whereby the US population will not stomach this war for more than another few years.
It is well past time to be talking about the strategic goals of the war and whether they need to be changed. If we don't change our strategies then they will be changed for us by events.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 21.03.2007 @ 08:12
PLAME STILL LEAVES US WONDERING
"The second, and the one area most misunderstood by the public is “Need To Knowâ€."
OK, so in this context the people involved (according to the story) would have said that they wanted to know.
Frankly, when you are talking about the President and Vice President, there aren't any limits to what they could know if they wanted to, are there?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 21.03.2007 @ 13:32
"Why weren’t Rove and Cheney charged with the crime of exposing a covert agent? Why? Why? Why? "
Well, presumably because he didn't find enough evidence for a prosecution.
"WHy was scooter Libby prosecuted for outing a ….....er, faulty memory?"
That's an easy one. He was indicted and convicted for lying to a grand jury which was trying to determine if there was any crime to be prosecuted.
I don't get why people are so quick to ignore perjury.
"Its not about Nukular weapons, but about Saddam seeking Yellowcake uranium in Niger. You don’t even know what the central issue is about – do you?"
That was, of course, nothing to do with the conviction for perjury. Perjury is lying under oath you see.
Besides, I continue to wonder about your judgement of the "We'll get to the bottom of this!" statement by your President followed by obviously not investigating it and not simply asking his closest advisors if they knew anything about it.
maybe your just getting so used to being lied to that you don't notice it anymore.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 20.03.2007 @ 06:49
"If her status was covert, and she’d done what was needed to protect it, then why would they simply happen to know she was CIA?"
I don't understand. The "They" in question are the highest members of the government. They have the security clearance to know pretty much anything, don't they?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 19.03.2007 @ 10:03
"There are two sides to this story. And while it is clear from the Libby trial that there was a concerted effort by the Administration to inform selected members of the press that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, it is much less clear that Libby, Rove, Armitage, and others knew of her covert status and deliberately tried to ruin her career."
Do you have no concerns about all the "We're investigating, and if we find out who leaked, they're fired" lies?
Does the idea that they didn't feel that it was any concern of their to check whether her status was covert before pushing it around town.
In fact, isn't it just a little concerning that they were so eager to use Plame as a method of attack. What does it say about their characters, or their concern for others?
Surely the benefit of the doubt only goes so far?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 17.03.2007 @ 14:21
THE WORDS NONE DARE SAY: LAKOFF IS AN IDIOT
"Right, Drango. Worst President ever, the country can’t possibly survive this administration, he took all our civil liberties, blah, blah, blah…"
No, not at all. I am thinking of a specific example, to demonstrate the point, Iraq. What has happened there can only be the result of incompetence or malice, surely?
"Americans have survived far worse than executive malfeasance and incompetence."
And of course you'll survive it. It is just that both political options in your country are now clearly in favour of bigger and biger government, with more intrusion into your lives and more power abrogated to the state. Obviously, unless something big changes, you are headed towards more and more state control as time goes on no matter who is in power.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 28.02.2007 @ 16:44
