|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 21, 2009 18:27:02 GMT -5
... so why the heck should I waste my time doing the same for free? I don't have a cush civil service job with a no doubt great retirement package waiting for me, do I? I think Hillary summed it up best: "It takes a village".
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 21, 2009 22:28:36 GMT -5
Well, if Hillary said it it must be true. But we all have to prioritize our precious time, and frankly saving the world's wildlife and forests is more important to me than the limited threat from Islamic extremists. I think the FBI and Interpol can handle it.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Apr 22, 2009 12:00:30 GMT -5
After seeing these guys I'm a little less worried about terrorists sneaking across our Southern border. Iranian sniper or Wookiee? How to tell them apartwww.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/iranian-sniper-wookiee-star-warsOver the weekend Iranian snipers marched in the annual Army Day parade in Tehran in full camouflage, looking less like crack combatants and more like Wookiee extras from a forgotten Star Wars spin-off. So how do you tell the difference? Iranian snipers in full camouflage take part in the Army Day parade in Tehran on 18 March 2009. Photograph: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images Iranian army sniperWhen and where: now, Iran. Planet of origin: Earth. Language: Persian, officially. Average height: approximately 5ft 8in, without haystack suit. Weapon of choice: the sniper rifle, presumably, although pictured holding the rather less precise AK-47 assault rifle for some reason. Strategic advantages: concealment. Would be virtually invisible, for example, at a Star Wars convention, or in a vat of angel hair pasta. Also sometimes confused with: Cruella De Vil after dry cleaning mishap; a compost heap. WookieeWhen and where: a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Planet of origin: Kashyyyk. Language: Shyriiwook, a system of barks, groans and gargling. Average height: 6ft 11in (the actor who played Chewbacca, Peter Mayhew, stood at 7ft 3in). Weapon of choice: the bowcaster, a crossbow firing magnetically accelerated projectiles, according to online resource Wookieepedia. Strategic advantages: strong, readily lends itself to merchandising. Also sometimes confused with: the cowardly lion from The Wizard of Oz; Brian Blessed.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Apr 22, 2009 12:43:17 GMT -5
Lou, is it just me, or are we hearing much of the same head-in-sandedness pre-9/11? Yes, I agree. Apparently the Bush success, in spite of the media, is causing a return to complacency. Hopefully the current admin is keeping track.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 22, 2009 14:37:38 GMT -5
Bush and success?That's an oxymoron.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Apr 22, 2009 15:31:16 GMT -5
Bush and success?That's an oxymoron. Bruce, One of these days you're going to tell us how you really feel. ;D
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 22, 2009 16:20:29 GMT -5
Success is in the eye of the beholder too, I suppose. Yes, if success fighting terrorist actions at home is defined as something bad not happening, Bush was successful after his first f-up on 9/11. I've always said that the one thing I was grateful to Reagan for is that he didn't get us into a nuclear war.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 22, 2009 16:23:38 GMT -5
Oh by the way, Jack, I gave you an exalt for your Iranian sniper/Wookie comparison!
Leave it to those limeys...
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 22, 2009 18:15:19 GMT -5
... Yes, if success fighting terrorist actions at home is defined as something bad not happening, Bush was successful after his first f-up on 9/11... Care to clarify?
|
|
|
Post by lou on Apr 22, 2009 18:33:27 GMT -5
Success is in the eye of the beholder too, I suppose. Yes, if success fighting terrorist actions at home is defined as something bad not happening, Bush was successful after his first f-up on 9/11. I've always said that the one thing I was grateful to Reagan for is that he didn't get us into a nuclear war. Can you explain this "Bush was successful after his first f-up on 9/11"
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 22, 2009 18:40:39 GMT -5
... and please type slowly so we older folks can keep up.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 22, 2009 20:13:00 GMT -5
Success is in the eye of the beholder too, I suppose. Yes, if success fighting terrorist actions at home is defined as something bad not happening, Bush was successful after his first f-up on 9/11. I've always said that the one thing I was grateful to Reagan for is that he didn't get us into a nuclear war. Can you explain this "Bush was successful after his first f-up on 9/11" Well, 9/11 did happen on Bush's watch. But after that, no more terrorist acts on our soil. So you could say he was successful keeping us "safe" after 9/11, IF there was any further effort by Islamic extremists to do us harm here at home. I seem to remember Bin Laden saying something to the effect that 9/11 had been a mistake but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by johng on Apr 22, 2009 20:47:45 GMT -5
Interesting exchanges but I for one am concerned about all of it. As a Veteran of the Cold War and a Florida Native who remembers the "Bomb Drills" in school where we were instructed to crawl under a desk (as if that desk would protect you from a nuclear blast) in the event JFK did not succeed in turning the USSR Vessels around...
Now I clearly remember 9/11/2001 as if it were yesterday and recall reading a book many years ago which at the time was "fiction" but detailed rather precisely how the Terrorist Extremist plotted to take over American with "Sleeper Cells" in not so unbelievable fashion as to train from birth the "Sleeper Weapon".
I am very suspicious of the current President for many reasons and fear that the "Well thought process" being delivered at break neck speed in America with seeming total disregard for the Constitution has meaning we have yet to identify.
America has plenty of Domestic issues which could be addressed and possibly improved upon but we have traditions and processes fo elected representation to enable us to make these improvements with due course and analysis. By passing all that only further degrades the Nation for all of us regardless of the political label imposed. Healthcare for American's is a critical concern, especially to those who do not have it, but I have to ask why before I simple cut a check to provide it. I am opposed to any government run healthcare in this country but that is based on such ugly fact as what I see our government run now. Something which may well be "corrected in my thinking" after a full open debate and delivery of just how it would be delivered maybe? I would like to see all the homeless and hungry in the USA taken care of before we travel abroad to save all the Africans or Somalians or next Hollywood target. Afterall the bleeding hearts have been fighting hunger as long as I can recall and yet it still persists right here at home.
Label me an ol fart with antiquated thought processes but it does concern me when our President travels to so many places in such little time and delivers a message of weakness to the rest of the world. All the brave men and women who have come before and sacrificed life to protect and preserve our right to debate these issues openly and freely deserve more respect than our current President grants them. I am not yet convinced he is an evil person but certainly he has acted extremely in the opposite direction as Bush did and I feel strongly somewhere in the middle might be more digestive to the American Taxpayer!
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Apr 22, 2009 20:54:51 GMT -5
johng, It's about time that you joined the discussion. Welcome to the fray. We might argue a bit here, but we all try to keep it civilized. You also might like the discussions on things other than politics.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 23, 2009 7:23:09 GMT -5
Welcome johng-don't worry,as far as I can see most of us here are members of the "Over The Hill Gang".I remember the ducking under the desk,that would really protect us from nuclear fallout.
|
|