idrankwhat
-
Content
4,211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never -
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by idrankwhat
-
Sorry to be so short. Busy, but. “Everybody has to move; run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements, because everything we take now will stay ours. Everything we don't grab will go to them.” --Ariel Sharon. This has been the policy that Israel has pursued in the last decade and a half and that the US has enabled, against its own declarations. edited for punctuation.
-
Both statements are accurate. However stealing additional land in the West Bank won't protect Israel from a nuclear weapon (leave that to the US). But ceasing the expansion of Israel and working towards a mutually agreed upon border will go a long way towards defusing hostilities. We've allowed Israel to effectively expand its borders. We've said for decades that it should stop but we haven't had a President who didn't say it without a wink and a nod. I'd like to think that the current one is serious. However he's let me down before. Lobbyists are a bitch.
-
I'm pretty sure that he didn't. But he and others could if they were interested. http://www.btselem.org/English/Video/CDP_Index.asp http://www.btselem.org/English/Video/Index.asp
-
Sounds good to me. Now if we can just get the three Abrahamic religions to quit bickering over who the favorite child is we can end this nonsense.
-
Hmm....I think that tomorrow that we should have people pay for their jumps when they manifest, not by settling up at the end of the day. Thanks for the reminder. I'm going to go charge a big fat meal and a few good beers on my credit card tonight
-
We already do on an annual basis and have been for decades. And don't forget that the cost of the Iraq war. Israel was as much a factor in the decision to invade Iraq as oil was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm I don't have a problem throwing money (effectively) at this problem if it means that in the long run we'll save money. By helping to secure a solution to this conflict we will end up fighting fewer wars and we will have taken off the table one of al qaeda's key motivational concerns.
-
Excellent post. Thanks.
-
Let's see...a cubit......I used to know what a cubit was.
-
What's that she's wearing on her head? Looks like a prototype of something I saw in the photography and video forum
-
"I'm not reading this. This is bullshit," - Colin Powell 2/4/2003
-
One could argue that we don't take the land or resources but we often do open up the latter to some (still subsidized) free market entrepreneurs. $0.02
-
That's pretty much my take. If they're not convinced and want to try to find him then go ahead but I don't think we need to waste any time or resources helping them. As for the ongoing debate about whether or not he was not an immediate threat when he was killed, does it really matter? Would we be debating the issue if we had blown him up using a Predator? Probably not, and who knows, his wives may have even had him tied up like a defenseless gimp the moment that the missile blew him to pieces. The US has had him targeted for death for a decade and I don't recall anyone questioning that policy, except for maybe his current wives and kids but that should be expected. If I took credit for killing thousands of people and declared war on another country I would expect to be targeted for death. One difference between families though, mine probably would have been quoted as saying "Damn, I hate that he's gone but we knew the nature of the business".
-
Boggles the mind. I think it's been that way since the first caveman. Chuck More likely the second cave man.
-
You mean Obama did not keep Gitmo? He did not keep the Patriot Act ? He did not keep wire taps? Is that what you mean? (by the way, how is that hopey changey thing working out for you? Many fell for it I guess This may be a bit of a thread drift but the way I see it, both our economy and our recent military adventures can be summed up this way. Bush knocked 'em up (Clinton and Reagan took care of any foreplay). Obama said he'd take care of the woman and massively handicapped child. Just because he took on the responsibility for dealing with the situations doesn't mean that he can un-fuck what was fucked. He can simply deal with what he was handed.....if the lobbyists let him of course. Gitmo for example. It was wrong to institute in the first place. But then you grab an innocent person and torture and imprison them. Then what? Say "sorry" and "you can go....good luck"? Or do you realize that you just created a terrorist who is unwelcome anywhere on the planet? Just a couple of thoughts.
-
Well we subsidized heavy gas guzzling vehicles through the tax code and look where that got us (section 179 in the tax code and revived in a different form with the Obama/Republican "don't tax the rich" compromise of 2010). Using tax expenditures to get us to cut down on oil demand (for which we spend about $100B/yr in military costs to secure) is a step in the right direction IMO. Tax expenditures (aka "loopholes") are there to social engineer. Make that engineering work FOR us instead of against us.
-
But that's called a "tax increase" and it's political fodder regardless of how much sense it might make. An interesting observation though, I've noticed that people don't say anything about $0.20 weekly gas price swings but they'll grab their pitchforks and torches at the mention of adding a $0.02/gal tax.
-
It seems like a reasonable reaction to changing times. People are moving towards more efficient vehicles therefore the taxes collected on a per gallon basis will end up underfunding our transportation infrastructure. It's a draft proposal so I'm pretty sure that they'd be willing to entertain other solutions if anyone has one.
-
Jesus didn't do video. And if he did I'm pretty sure that the Catholic Church would never release the imagery, especially those of him and Mary Magdalene
-
Yeah, well unless it shows him (verified not photo-shopped/video-shopped) holding up a current newspaper, or making a very detailed reference to some specific event that will have just occurred - thus to prove the time-frame - I wouldn't give it a second thought. My thinking was that the same skeptics/followers who want to see the photos as "proof", even though they will probably choose to believe they're fake, will latch on to any video of OBL as "proof" that he's alive. It seems to be related to the backfire phenomenon that helps keep this forum humming along 24/7.
-
While driving in to work today I was trying to think of any downside for not releasing the photos. I came up with: "So what if his followers think he's still alive? Let them sit and wait for his next orders. " Then I started thinking that if I were OBL that I would have already made some videos which were to be released after my death. I wouldn't be surprised to see one show up within a few months. Then again, since we didn't obliterate his compound with a missile and were able to recover hard drives and other records (another thumbs up for making the right call) then we may have those videos (if they exist) in our possession. So I'm thinking that Obama made the best call in a no win situation. Although he may have to eventually release them if an OBL video gets released. I know.....I have a long drive to work.
-
Arabs & Muslims Rejoice at bin Laden's Death
idrankwhat replied to Andy9o8's topic in Speakers Corner
LOL! (read while looking at your profile pic) -
Regarding the above, who is it that's getting the satisfaction? But IMO, conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied. Graphic photos offer "proof" but they also inflame (see Abu Ghraib). It's a lousy situation but I still think that not releasing them is probably the best choice.
-
You don't see any consequences by giving his followers emotionally ammunition? The worst the condition (and a head shot would be bad), the more potent this would be. And what's the gain exactly? Conspiracy theorists won't believe anything you provide them. (Easier to shoot them too). So I see a small loss, and no upside. I agree. Releasing photos only satisfies morbid curiosity. That's not enough of a positive to justify the negative. John Rich's examples of dead American's being displayed is a good example. We think it's inappropriate when someone else does it. Why should we do it? Do the right thing and lead by example.
-
It's not that difficult and no personal attacks are necessary. I support trials for alleged terrorists who were captured and detained. It's possible that those detained are not terrorists. Just because someone dropped dime on you and you were picked up in Afghanistan doesn't mean you're a terrorist. Bin Laden financed, organized and took credit for a successful attack on the US. I believe he also declared war on us. So I have no problem with killing him. I would also have had no problem with capturing him and keeping him locked up here in the US for the rest of his life. Unfortunately that option wouldn't work because he inevitably would end up being used as a prop in partisan political battles.
-
ROTFLMAO!!! OH CRAP! He's gone to the sixth line. Everybody CLICK CLICK CLICK!!!!!