Jump to content

Scraps

Community Member
  • Posts

    1,432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scraps

  1. I'm neither.

     

    I'm very socially liberal (abortion, gay rights, atheist), but militarily and economically I'm as right wing as you can get.

     

    Steal the oil, nuke the mideast, and please, for the love of Darwin, lower my #$&!(@# taxes...

    607597[/snapback]

     

    Odd that your idea of "economically right wing" doesn't include any mention of governmnent spending.

  2. But of course. And it reminds me of the much forgotten proposed textile trade deal with Pakistan back in the mid '90s.  The trade pact was scuttled from the opposition by US textile industry, and leads to the question of how exactly do we expect third world countries to raise their standard of living?

    607796[/snapback]

     

    I don't see the two as being remotely similar. The opposition to the port management deal is done on a security basis. The position might be flawed because people might have the wrong idea of what port operations are really being contracted out, but I think the heart of many of those opposed is in the right place.

     

    The textile issue was one of pure job protection in an era of globalization. Were national security concerns first and foremost in anyones mind?

     

    Is the UAE really a third world country? Seems like they have to be one of the richest Arab countries in the world. Hardly similar to Pakistan.

  3. I agree that control of ANY U.S. port should not be in the hands of ANY non-U.S. entity. Why the outsourcing? That's a good question. Not to rehash the dreaded "Union Thread", but maybe it has to do with the high cost of American labor?  :lol:

    607674[/snapback]

     

    Outsourcing the management of these ports will not avoid the fact that longshoremen will be loading and unloading the ships in these ports. I don't see how this has anything to do with unions or the high cost of American labor.

  4. Good episode last night. So who else in the goverment is involved? What was in the files Jack got? And does the First Lady go down in a blaze of glory? Or does POTUS wimp out at the last second and get the cars to go a different route?

    607655[/snapback]

     

    Jack will undoubtedly cause some commotion that will force the motorcade to take a different route and provide POTUS with plausible deniability.

  5. I've come to the realization that Halliburton's not bad.  Halliburton lives in a magical pixie land inhabited by elves and unicorns and competitive bids take the same amount of time as no-bid contracts.

    607633[/snapback]

     

    If you'd just shoot down one of those contracts over the equator while wearing a clown suit, balancing on a beach ball at the South Pole, we wouldn't have these problems.

  6. Sure.  And we can seal off the borders to Canada, Mexico and the 53rd dimension while we're there.

    607492[/snapback]

     

    Most of the border between us and Canada or Mexico is thousands of miles of plains. It was certainly not necessary to seal the entire border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There were certainly a limited number of passes accessible from Tora Bora. We tried to do this at Shahikot during Operation Anaconda, why not here?

  7. Except your facts are wrong.  The operation you are referring to forced him to go into Pakistan, and US troops were delayed/denied access by the pakstanis to follow.

    607485[/snapback]

     

    How did Bin Laden get into Pakistan? He had to travel there somehow. How do you know that US forces could not have been put into blocking positions?

  8. Arab control of Seaports

    I don't have a handle on this story yet but i think it is funny that when the President brings up 9/11 the Libs call it a scare tactic.  This morning i watched Barbara Boxer and others say, "in our post 9/11 society, we cannot allow our ports to be left unprotected".

     

    Well which is it?  Does that sound like a scare tactic?

    607231[/snapback]

     

    Was she using 9/11 to justify invading another country?

  9. Well, it has stirred things up in the Middle East, prompting many to want change in their countries as well......thats a good thing!

    607162[/snapback]

     

    Not if things go from bad to worse. In literally every muslim country that has held elections in the last decade, free or partially free, fundamentalist Islamists have gained strength. The most vivid example being the Hamas victory. What is so good about an assbackward society that is legitimized by the vote of its people?

  10. And what happened in the parallel universe in which we stayed out of Iraq?  Are we all skipping down the Primrose path with flower petals raining down on us?

    607009[/snapback]

     

    We save over $400 billion, 2273 Americans are still alive, 10s of thousands of Americans haven't been maimed all in an effort to lead Iraq to a civil war or to be allied with Iran AND we concentrate on the real threat.

  11. Yeah, I guess you have to because they aren't on board with the proper agenda. We should only here from those who are. Would you see things the same way if a defector stated he had no doubt that there never were any WMD or programs?

    605464[/snapback]

     

    No, I'd call him a bald faced liar in that case.

     

    I'm keeping in mind that the guy defected 15 years ago and hence might have limited knowledge about the programs and the regime 3 years ago. I'm also suspect that these defectors might conform the information they give to something they believe I want to hear for their own agenda.

     

    Did this guy offer anything really new? Didn't the National Intelligence Estimate say that Saddam wouldn't give WMD to another country unless he were about to be overhthrown? How does his information conform with the what the Iraq Survey Group found? From what I've heard, it doesn't really jive.

     

    Sorry, but after reading what he had to say, I can't help but shrug my shoulders and ask "so what?"

  12. Sure. Like I said, it's a matter of perspective, driven by culture. Now, combined with technology. Information is available now to people who couldn't get much information even a few short years ago. Their info was government controlled, and filtered. Despite the hatred, something everyone understands is the American concept of free press. Therefor, if it's American TV, it's the truth.

     

    IMO, that's a fundamental issue and a major problem with policy. We need to win an information fight, and we don't know how. How does one wage an informational campaign to promote western ideas (and more importantly, objectives) into a system where many of them are antithetical to their basic thinking? Hence, my problem with the press. THAT is where much of the opinion comes from, as it does here. Were our press to spend more time reporting successes instead of failures, some moods could be shifted simply because that is the bulk of information being presented. Certainly, most would be taken with a grain of salt, but some would get through. What we consider hostile coverage we for the most part create ourselves.

     

    Anyone have a good answer, I'll e-mail you a few addresses.

    605217[/snapback]

     

    Actually, its pretty clear to me that they don't understand the concept of a free press. If they did, they wouldn't be going nuts over a few cartoons, threatening to kill doctors and aid workers from Denmark simply because they come from the country where the cartoons originated. They wouldn't be demanding that the editors of the newspapers be prosecuted under laws that don't exist and they wouldn't be demanding laws forbiding images of Muhammad in countries that have a free press and aren't Islamic to begin with.

     

    Furthermore I think that they get most of their information for Al Jazeera and treat our press with a jaundice eye. If the US media presented an image of peaches and cream like you desire, they'd just fool us for a little while.

  13. I'm just sitting back, waiting for the next 9/11 or whatever. It's not ours or anyone's fault, but our culture and free society are two of their best allies. Not just to the terror fellas, but to the more extreme Islamic society as a whole. It's a difference in cultures and perceptions that unfortunately for us, works to their advantage, and has to be taken into account with any dealings.

     

    That's why I get pissed with our own media from time to time. That is something that could be self policed and controlled to a degree, but there doesn't seem to be any sense of responsibility here to an understanding of the difficulties they can cause.

     

    One can still report, but I've YET to see an American media outlet in the last several years who doesn't spin things to create more news, or ratings. Here, whatever the "worst" way something can be presented is usually the way it's handled.

    Look how it drives opinions here? What do you think goes on in "Outer Buffoonistan"? Everyone in the world is watching and amused by our penchant for video self destruction.

    605185[/snapback]

     

    Isn't that how things are handled in the Islamic world?

  14. All of 'em?

     

    Particularly the rights of minorities (or, more specifically, blacks) since the 15th.  Last I checked, the rights enjoyed by blacks today evolved through Rosa Parks and Brown v. Board of Education from the 15th Amendment over the course of several decades, and not overnight.

    605164[/snapback]

     

    See, it works.

×
×
  • Create New...