Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

clark · 2005-06-30 11:39:01

I'm going to lob a softball over to Cobra:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2005063 … N4400.html

NEW YORK (AP) - Three black men who ventured into a historically white neighborhood early Wednesday to steal a car were chased by a man with a baseball bat, police said. One man was beaten and suffered a fractured skull.
The attack happened several hours before dawn in the same section of the borough of Queens as an infamous 1986 beating of three black men whose car had broken down.
In Wednesday's attack, Nicholas Minucci, 21, was being charged with first-degree assault as a hate crime, menacing and criminal possession of a weapon, police Commissioner Ray Kelly said at a news conference.
The three blacks told investigators they had been looking for a car to steal when they entered the Howard Beach neighborhood. They told police a white man in an SUV passed them in the street, exchanged stares with them and then returned with two friends and a baseball bat before chasing them on foot.
Glen Moore, 20, stumbled to the ground and was beaten, suffering a fractured skull. He was in serious condition. The other two men escaped and summoned police, who scouted the neighborhood with them and spotted the SUV again.

Hate crime? Probably. Yet there is a certain amount of "they kind of had it coming" involved here.

I think some of the history of the area may be coloring (pardon the pun) the situation.

BWhite · 2005-07-01 00:50:22

Cobra, clark offered a softball. Now your comments please on this. :;):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/30 … 3]Stirling Newberry on Iraq:

We Are Not Winning this War, Because We Cannot Win It:
There were some harsh lessons for the USSR in Afgahnistan, and an objective reading of American involvement in Iraq is that we decided to confirm everyone of them by repeating each and every one of the mistakes that the USSR made.
What leaps out looking at the documents available from the USSR and its invasion and occupation in Afghanistan, are the eerie parallels to the Downing Street Memos. In both cases the picture emerges of an ideologically rigid hierarchy committed to particular end states, regardless of whether they had the means to achieve them. To go even farther, in both cases there was an obsession with how the action would be framed, and with managing the proxies and internal bureaucracy - instead of facing the facts on the mission.

My comments from before regime change were (a) whacking Saddam is GOOD; (b) a free and stable Iraq is GOOD; but that mission was "several bridges too far" or "several bites larger" than the US military was capable of chewing, especially with modest deployments.

Go back in the records of new mars - - this is the gist of my objections to our going into Iraq.

In the United States General Tommy Franks put forward a deployment plan that involved a two prong assault and over 300,000 troops. This was rejected by Rumsfeld - a member of the American cabinet, the equivalent to the USSR's politburo. Instead an invasion with half that number went forward. Rumsfeld, like his Soviet predecessors, argued that the superiority of military hardware would make this number sufficient for the mission.
The same objections that the Soviet General Staff raised to the Afghanistan mission were raised by the British military directory - the troops were insufficient for the "total victory" endstate envisioned - that is installation of a compliant and stable regime. The British pointed out that inferior endstates might have to be accepted. It is interesting that in a 1986 meeting of the politburo, the same realization was reached by Andrei Gromyko - that total victory was outside of Soviet grasp given the resources.
Once in Afghanistan the Soviet Ground Forces took their heaviest casualties keeping the road network open. They found that they were not fighting set piece battles against a military that drew its strength from a working economy, but a military that drew its strength from a militia reserve of un and underemployed. Unlike fighting a state actor - which is easier to defeat as its economy gets worse, fighting a guerilla war is the reverse, the guerilla movement gets stronger as the economy worsens.
Looking at the location of US military fatalities since the war, the same pattern emerges - the US takes its deaths trying to maintain order in the cities, and in trying to hold the roads. The interior areas of the country are virtually ceded to the insurgency. The insurgency does not draw its strength from towns that produce a surplus to be used in fighting, but from the destruction of the economic system from before.

Not enough soldiers. The professional military was overruled by politicians!

Iraqi unemployment and the clannish or tribal desire to avenge the deaths of kinsfolk fuels the insurgency. Also, we are asking the Sunni to accept the Shia as equals which is rather like asking the whites of Carolina or Alabama to accept blacks as equals in 1865.

Yup, a good speech or two by Condi Rice and its "mission accomplished"

This problem - that the forces involved were not large enough to force a military victory, but they were too expensive to allow a full scale reconstruction - haunted Soviet post-mortems in 1986 and 1987. These failures are already being admitted by American planners and internal critics of the war in Iraq. The conclusion of the USSR's policy elite was that invasion was a mistake, and that the invasion was a lost cause long before withdrawal was considered.
. . .
This lead to the converse problem of withdrawal: after invasion and full strategic committment, the vital national interest was political victory itself. This is why, in 1986, the politburo was still worried about who would be in charge of this or that function, who would visit Moscow, who would get how much policy freedom. There was no concern about what interest was at stake, because the sunk political capital became too valuable to lose.

Now, we have to win. Why? Because Bush screwed it up so badly genuine US interests are now at stake.

That said, for Karl Rove to insist that patriotism requires that we be loyal little lemmings and stand by "our man" - - GWB - - simply will not work. If this is to be a bi-partisan war the GOP needs to genuinely share power.

The military instrument is meant to defeat and destroy the will of a nation to fight, and the war material it uses to fight with. A military instrument in combat stance cannot win a political endstate. It is not a failure of troops to fail to secure a politcal victory, because it is not their mission to do so, nor are they trained or equipped to do so. One might as well criticise them for not being able to launch a manned probe to Mars.
In the end, Iraq cannot be won, because there is nothing there to win. It was a move made to reduce the command and control stress - to remove a bullet point from the daily agenda, "contain Saddam's latest bonehead attempt to get WMD".

Define "victory" in one sentence. I submit its Shia / Sunni / Kurd living in peace. Now how does the 101st Airborne possibly do that!

To quote again: A military instrument in combat stance cannot win a political endstate.

BWhite · 2005-07-01 01:14:19

Pollster John Zogby: “The nation continues to be split down the middle but there appears to be a deep and growing concern about how polarized we are. The President tried to address the situation on the ground in Iraq and hoped to allay the fears of the nation. It looks like that did not happen. Meanwhile, opposition to the war reveals that Americans are just as hostile and intense as they were the day after the 2004 election. The message seems to be pretty clear for Mr. Bush: lay off the partisan rhetoric and work to find compromise solutions.”

Both sides need to back down simultaneously. With measurable and verifiable rewards for genuine bi-partisanship.

Step 1? Stop saying liberals are traitors. (Hint: Ann Coulter and Karl Rove)

Step 2? Harry Reid and George Bush co-equally choose the next Supreme Court justice behind closed doors and dare ANY GOP-er or Democrat to object.

DonPanic · 2005-07-01 02:47:59

What I was referring to was this sudden and dramatic outpouring of bile and hatred towards the U.S. immediately after 9/11; a disorientingly high level of it.

LO
You are totally distorting facts, this is not at all of the lumieres as you pretend to be.
In almost all industrial and develloped countries, we saw the 9/11 with horror and much emotion and tears.
We sided with USA, sent troops to act against talibans.
The outpouring of bile went with Bush's evident desire to go at war at Irak whatever would be the inspector's repports on WMD.
You can add to this the US refusal to admit climate changes that are an evidence in Europe.
Now, I see USA as a world nuisance.and so does a majority of Europeans, included the Britishes.
Now, even China is seen as a better country to deal with than USA, which is surrealistic.

Rxke · 2005-07-01 05:18:44

I largely agree with DontPanic, here.
The U.S.A. people had the world's sympathy.
The government went out of its way to nullify that.

You're *not* true if you say there was an avalanche of hatred directly after 911. Most major cities helt a minute or five minute silence, etc.
Or maybe you mean the Muslim crowds, cheering in the streets?
But *that* sentiment was not new, only your press chose to largely ignore it, up until then.

Most commentators agree on one thing: pre-911 US press largely ignored what went on outside the US, after that, the 'world' was in the news once again.
And it's not a cheerful place. Never has been.

Palomar · 2005-07-01 05:31:50

What I was referring to was this sudden and dramatic outpouring of bile and hatred towards the U.S. immediately after 9/11; a disorientingly high level of it.
LO
You are totally distorting facts, this is not at all of the lumieres as you pretends to be.
In almost all industrial and develloped countries, we saw the 9/11 with horror and much emotion and tears.

*Sorry, I don't believe my interest in 18th century Enlightenment philosophy (going on 3 years now) has anything to do with some perceptions I've had of 21st century events. ??? I'm living now. The philosophes aren't.

I can only see events and reactions through my own brain and eyes.

Sure, there were initial outpourings of grief from around the world. And a few months later we were hearing "You deserved it." And that was before Bush began openly speaking of going into Iraq.

I'm not sure what your definition of "lumieres" is, nor of your familiarity with Enlightenment philosophy. If you think my viewpoint here is contrary to it, that's your prerogative of course.

I've seen reactions from other nations which I didn't foresee or even anticipate, shortly after 9/11, which weren't pleasant and some (not all) of which seems over-wrought and inexplicable to me.

Those ARE my perceptions. Should I lie to myself because of the philosophes? How enlightened and reasonable would that be? Not very.

***Also, I have admitted the U.S. has done its share of wrong. I also still question the validity of the Iraq war. I recently re-admitted these things.***

Why do those statements seem overlooked?

I will not say, however, that the U.S. is entirely evil.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-01 05:36:10

I'm going to lob a softball over to Cobra:

And I'm going to bunt it.

Hate crime? Probably. Yet there is a certain amount of "they kind of had it coming" involved here.

Yep, most likely a racial bias was the prime motivator but it seems that the facts are three black men entered the area to steal a car, three white men responded with excessive force. I'm gonna go with aggravated assault on this one, but only because they weren't caught in the act of actually stealing a car.

"Hate crime" laws are kind of like the sex offender registry, it seems like a good idea on the surface, until a guy who took a piss in an alley makes the list and everyone thinks he's a pedophile.

From the article quoted by Bill:

We Are Not Winning this War, Because We Cannot Win It:

Nonsense. We most certainly can win it and by many criteria we are.

In the United States General Tommy Franks put forward a deployment plan that involved a two prong assault and over 300,000 troops. This was rejected by Rumsfeld - a member of the American cabinet, the equivalent to the USSR's politburo. Instead an invasion with half that number went forward. Rumsfeld, like his Soviet predecessors, argued that the superiority of military hardware would make this number sufficient for the mission.

And given the mission at the time, defeating the Iraqi army and taking possession of the country, they were more than sufficient and performed brilliantly. A textbook operation in almost every respect.

Oh, but the occupation! There was no plan! We needed more troops!

What for exactly, what precisely do you suggest these additional troops do? Soldiers don't usually make good cops, it isn't what they're trained or equipped for. If we're going to go after the insurgents and kick some ass great, but in that case we don't really need more troops, just better intel.

"More troops" is not a policy, it's panic. More checkpoints and more patrols won't really change things unless it's done by local "street cops" rather than US soldiers. We need more Iraqi police and guardsmen, not more American troops.

Once in Afghanistan the Soviet Ground Forces took their heaviest casualties keeping the road network open. They found that they were not fighting set piece battles against a military that drew its strength from a working economy, but a military that drew its strength from a militia reserve of un and underemployed. Unlike fighting a state actor - which is easier to defeat as its economy gets worse, fighting a guerilla war is the reverse, the guerilla movement gets stronger as the economy worsens.

Only in Iraq, the economy is slowly improving. The insurgency is not gaining popular support and the reason for that is simple. Many of them are not even Iraqi but rather foreign fighters, just as much invaders as the Americans. They target Iraqi police and civilians and they are fighting not only an "occupier" but an elected Iraqi government. More people are against the insurgency than support it.

Further, for being a complete failure it's striking how nearly every timetable has been met whether it be for the handoff of sovereignty, the elections, many of the reconstruction projects. Everything is on course to have a constitution right on schedule and another round of elections. Sure, the training of Iraqis is behind schedule but that in and of itself is hardly a harbinger of doom.

A bunch of terrorists blow up a few cars and we've lost? Christ people, can we get some perspective here? Iraq is well on its way to becoming a nominally democratic state in the heart of the MidEast, the US military can hit any target with impunity but simply chooses not to for political and public relations reasons. The terrorists are reduced to car bombings and intercepted communications show them to be straining far more than we are. You don't blow yourself up in a car on a street corner if your side is winning.

The military instrument is meant to defeat and destroy the will of a nation to fight, and the war material it uses to fight with. A military instrument in combat stance cannot win a political endstate.

Right. So why the hell do we need more troops now? Are we going to start killing people and blowing stuff up again on a big scale? Pretend we're still fighting a real military when it's really a few screwballs with an RPG? Great plan. :up:

Define "victory" in one sentence. I submit its Shia / Sunni / Kurd living in peace. Now how does the 101st Airborne possibly do that!

They don't, they simply remove some of the obstacles. That's why we're working with Iraqi officials trying to prepare them for self-rule. That's why we're training the Iraqi military to defend their own country. That's why we're helping them write a constitution that allows Sunni, Kurd and Shia to co-exist peacefully.

Oh, but I forgot, we need more troops.

Both sides need to back down simultaneously. With measurable and verifiable rewards for genuine bi-partisanship.

Only those elected Republicans, slow as they are to adapt, are learning that it never helps them. They always get burned on it with no return.

Step 1? Stop saying liberals are traitors. (Hint: Ann Coulter and Karl Rove)

Okay.

Except when they are.

Step 2? Harry Reid and George Bush co-equally choose the next Supreme Court justice behind closed doors and dare ANY GOP-er or Democrat to object.

This is really screwy. No precedent, Constitutionally questionable and what does Bush get out of it? Some half-lib moderate Justice? He's gonna pass, it's a no-win.

That, and are we really supposed to believe that the same deal will apply when the situation is reversed? I highly doubt it. And who elected Reid co-President exactly?

Sure, we could do this joint-rule thing, but Bush and Reid? You give them both too much credit. :;):

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1120230858

clark · 2005-07-01 05:42:35

Hate crime" laws are kind of like the sex offender registry, it seems like a good idea on the surface, until a guy who took a piss in an alley makes the list and everyone thinks he's a pedophile.

Are you suggesting these individuals get thier own list? A 'public urinator' list?

Lists for all!

Rxke · 2005-07-01 06:17:26

Cindy,

What I was referring to was this sudden and dramatic outpouring of bile and hatred towards the U.S. immediately after 9/11; a disorientingly high level of it.

You made it sound not like an opinion but like a fact.
That's probably why DontPanic and me latched onto it.

I'm pretty sure some of what you *percieved* as bile and hatred was just critique from certain corners, and that it was probably poorly phrased etc. I know it's easy to write an editorial in a snobby intellectual paper that essentially says "you should've seen this coming, what with the (intentional or unintentional ) bad things you did in country XXX" without thinking how unfair that sounds -and IS- to *people* in the States.

Though I'm of the opinion that kind of critique was in essence correct, but NOT because you guys are necc. baddies, but because certain stuff the USA did (accidentially or not) was perceived as bad, threathening, or even downright evil in places where people hold a grudge.

So yes, the US gov should've seen something coming, it happened before, though in lesser extents (cfr. the previous carbombing of the tower, bombings at bases outside US etc.) But that's not saying the same thing as 'serves you right'

Then there were certainly comments in the 'foreign' (ie non-us) press that went like 'yea, you capitalist pigs, serves you right, you oprressors, you' but those were MINORITY viewpoints, stuff you read in extreme left-right-whatever propaganda rags, thinly disguised as 'real' newspapers. You know the kind, no-one but a handful read them, but when they say something really outrageous, its all over the press.
And that quickly makes it sound like a 'common' sentiment.

perceived stuff... press... in country that is in essence at war... etc etc.

tagline: we do not like people thinking we hate *you* the peeps over there. The government, maybe. Not the peeps.

DonPanic · 2005-07-01 08:18:50

LO

And given the mission at the time, defeating the Iraqi army and taking possession of the country, they were more than sufficient and performed brilliantly. A textbook operation in almost every respect.

With such a force disbalance, I would definitively take no notice in any textbook, there nothing brilliant. Except if you would call "brilliant" a heavy weight boxing champion knocking down a 2 years old kid.
I was even surprised that some Iraqis had the unconscious bravery to oppose some resistance.
It was obvious that the only thing to do for Saddam's supporters was to bury the weapons and engage a guerrilla fighting.

Oh, but the occupation! There was no plan! We needed more troops!
What for exactly, what precisely do you suggest these additional troops do? Soldiers don't usually make good cops, it isn't what they're trained or equipped for.

Some more troops would have avoided iraqi institutionnal places such as ammunitions stockyards, museums, schools, public buildings, banks from looting,
that would have been less things to repair and refurbish.

Ho, I forgot, Bush's theory was "we invade Iraq, topple Saddam, bring democracy and welfare, then cheerful and grateful iraqi people crying with joy display flowers under our soldiers steps, thank us with free oil supply, and the whole world cheers Mr President Bush"

Palomar · 2005-07-01 08:27:03

*Good grief, I know the war-politics discussions are getting to me when I misread "unclear etiology" as "nuclear etiology." And last week I dreamed I was shot twice, including a painful wound in my left flank. :-\ Never dreamed something like that before.

Rik, thanks. I'm still working on a reply; by day's end.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_ … _tape]Have been following this item. Looks like ol' Harry (nickname for Henry; that's what folks back home in my childhood called him) is a tad bit embarrassed. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Rxke · 2005-07-01 09:04:58

*Good grief, I know the war-politics discussions are getting to me when I misread "unclear etiology" as "nuclear etiology."

Unclear Weapons, a new DARPA discovery! (pronounce as un-cli-aHr)

Palomar · 2005-07-01 09:15:43

Cindy,
What I was referring to was this sudden and dramatic outpouring of bile and hatred towards the U.S. immediately after 9/11; a disorientingly high level of it.
You made it sound not like an opinion but like a fact.
That's probably why DontPanic and me latched onto it.
I'm pretty sure some of what you *percieved* as bile and hatred was just critique from certain corners, and that it was probably poorly phrased etc. I know it's easy to write an editorial in a snobby intellectual paper that essentially says "you should've seen this coming, what with the (intentional or unintentional ) bad things you did in country XXX" without thinking how unfair that sounds -and IS- to *people* in the States.
Though I'm of the opinion that kind of critique was in essence correct, but NOT because you guys are necc. baddies, but because certain stuff the USA did (accidentially or not) was perceived as bad, threathening, or even downright evil in places where people hold a grudge.
So yes, the US gov should've seen something coming, it happened before, though in lesser extents (cfr. the previous carbombing of the tower, bombings at bases outside US etc.) But that's not saying the same thing as 'serves you right'
Then there were certainly comments in the 'foreign' (ie non-us) press that went like 'yea, you capitalist pigs, serves you right, you oprressors, you' but those were MINORITY viewpoints, stuff you read in extreme left-right-whatever propaganda rags, thinly disguised as 'real' newspapers. You know the kind, no-one but a handful read them, but when they say something really outrageous, its all over the press.
And that quickly makes it sound like a 'common' sentiment.
perceived stuff... press... in country that is in essence at war... etc etc.
tagline: we do not like people thinking we hate *you* the peeps over there. The government, maybe. Not the peeps.

*Okay, Rik. Thanks for being understanding. Your reply cleared the air a bit for me too.

America is so inundated with hype and bullshit from all sides...and I mean within our own borders. It's getting worse, louder, more intense.

Not to mention what might leak through or be said elsewhere.

It's difficult trying to sort through this seemingly impossible mess; and the incessant, manic, hyper-circus atmosphere in which I live certainly only makes matters more difficult.

I try to be fair (meaning criticism or praise for whomever I think deserves it). I also try to see and keep a grip on the Bigger Picture...and hopefully am doing a good enough job of it.

This feels akin to trying to grab a branch and haul yourself to safety in the midst of a deep, vast, swollen, raging flooded river.

--Cindy

Dook · 2005-07-01 09:30:08

And last week I dreamed I was shot twice, including a painful wound in my left flank. :-\ Never dreamed something like that before.

A person has to fire a gun. If they do it to your back then they didn't want you to know.

Did someone do something to you that hurt you? Something you did not expect?

It's the same as a getting shot from behind.

Palomar · 2005-07-01 09:40:19

And last week I dreamed I was shot twice, including a painful wound in my left flank. :-\ Never dreamed something like that before.
A person has to fire a gun.
Did someone do something to you that hurt you? Something you did not expect?

*Yes.

And I did check out Freudian dream analysis interpretation the next morning. The locations of the wounds were "interesting" too (though this is morbid): Through the palms of both hands and into the left side.

Quite a mix of intense "stuff" there. It does pertain to a real-life and unpleasant experience and...this is as personal as I care to get.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-01 09:54:48

LO

America is so inundated with hype and bullshit from all sides...and I mean within our own borders. It's getting worse, louder, more intense.

LO
Find out who are interested in making US citizens feel like lethally endangered by a surrounding hostile world...
in whose pockets the hundreds billions dollars voted for defense go ?
They aren't abroad.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-01 10:01:21

Justice O'Connor retires.

It's on.

Palomar · 2005-07-01 10:23:27

Justice O'Connor retires.
It's on.

*Yes, I saw that bit of news. Thankfully -after- the recent vote regarding property, as she voted in favor of property owners. Bless her heart for that.

Find out who are interested in making US citizens feel like lethally endangered by a surrounding hostile world...
in whose pockets the hundreds billions dollars voted for defense go ?
They aren't abroad.

Unfortunately there's not much I can do about that. That's not a flippant remark, btw.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-01 11:20:30

Quote
Find out who are interested in making US citizens feel like lethally endangered by a surrounding hostile world...
in whose pockets the hundreds billions dollars voted for defense go ?
They aren't abroad.

Unfortunately there's not much I can do about that. That's not a flippant remark, btw.

Besides, the "surrounding hostile world" that most Americans are now feeling the sting from has nothing to do with defense spending. The places where the hostile sentiment emanates from are not the places defense spending is directed at. No one expects a war with France or Canada for example.

There is some sleight of hand by the defense establishment, but this theory doesn't explain it.

But then that's beside the point anyway, if we decided to mind our own business it wouldn't be long before we'd be inundated with condemnation for all the things we aren't doing in the world. Hostility from others goes with being top dog.

clark · 2005-07-01 11:22:50

[color=#000000:post_uid0]I think I would prefer that we did more of not doing enough. [shrug][/color:post_uid0]

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-01 11:28:14

I think I would prefer that we did more of not doing enough. [shrug]

I can handle that, but it entails almost as hard a stomach as fighting wars properly.

No Tsunami relief, no aid to Africa, no freeing the oppressed and all that good stuff.

Get us off the foreign oil and the Chinese imports and it becomes downright practical, otherwise. . .

clark · 2005-07-01 11:35:04

So in order to help others in any amount, we have to be willing to invade and bomb?

So that's why the Peace Corps is such an utter failure.

Palomar · 2005-07-01 11:39:59

*Another point of feeling hopeless [I probably shouldn't be posting in this current frame of mind I'm in, but what the heck...people have died for my right to say it, so I'll say it]:

I often wonder what's the point of all this interdependence? I'm not pitching for nor advocating isolationism, btw.

For example, if every family in a neighborhood had to get everyone else's permission/input before a lawn could be mowed or a tree planted/cut down or a new door installed or whatever...either most of the neighbors would be apathetic and could care less to begin with (the masses) or they'd be picking and fault-finding and wrangling (the powerful) amongst themselves as to what exactly should be done.

Meanwhile, the weeds are growing (continued abuses around the globe), the tree is dying (violence), the door is still open (to chaos and destruction)...

I used to think an interdependent global community would stop/prevent a lot of abuses. Maybe it does. But after the UN Sudan/Darfur situation especially, the con artists just get more clever, the rich get richer, and it isn't genocide anymore.

The human mind has inexhaustible ways of conniving, excusing, rationalizing.

::shakes head::

Are we ever really better off? Rarely, it seems. Sometimes yes...but not often enough.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-01 11:42:19

So in order to help others in any amount, we have to be willing to invade and bomb?

To do it in a capacity that amounts to anything more than a token effort we need the resources that also allow us to invade and bomb.

Example, the tsunami relief efforts. Without the US Navy it wouldn't have amounted to a whole lot in the immediate aftermath. And without the need to project American military power around the world the Navy wouldn't have those carrier groups to throw around to filter water for the poor unfortunate people of the world.

If we stay at home and mind our own business, we really have to mind our own business. Our military and humanitarian efforts are so bound together as to be almost inseparable.

clark · 2005-07-01 11:50:36

Huh?

What you just offered is proof that we have a choice in how we employ our resources.

The problem with having a gun is not the gun itself, but how it is used. I think a lot of people are of the opinon that the mighty US military is being used inappropriately.

That's the problem with being "top-dog", having an apathetic electorate, and a lunatic in charge.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-06-30 11:39:01

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#102 2005-07-01 00:50:22

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#103 2005-07-01 01:14:19

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#104 2005-07-01 02:47:59

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#105 2005-07-01 05:18:44

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#106 2005-07-01 05:31:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#107 2005-07-01 05:36:10

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#108 2005-07-01 05:42:35

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#109 2005-07-01 06:17:26

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#110 2005-07-01 08:18:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#111 2005-07-01 08:27:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#112 2005-07-01 09:04:58

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#113 2005-07-01 09:15:43

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#114 2005-07-01 09:30:08

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#115 2005-07-01 09:40:19

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#116 2005-07-01 09:54:48

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#117 2005-07-01 10:01:21

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#118 2005-07-01 10:23:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#119 2005-07-01 11:20:30

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#120 2005-07-01 11:22:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#121 2005-07-01 11:28:14

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#122 2005-07-01 11:35:04

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#123 2005-07-01 11:39:59

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#124 2005-07-01 11:42:19

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#125 2005-07-01 11:50:36

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer