On Jan 18, 5:18 pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Jim Chandler" wrote in message

news:K39kj.658$pC5.511@trnddc05...



Dave Smithers wrote:
look - there may be many arguable things that one would do to protect

the

environment - but right now, there is no urgent need for this sonar,
the

US

mainland is not under attack by rogue sumbarines

And if we don't use the sonar, we'll never know when we *are* under
attack until it's too late. Doh!

Let's see, if I remember correctly it wasn't that long ago that a
Chinese
sub surfaced near one of our carriers and it was a complete shock. They
had
no idea it was even there. So it's clear that our ability to find
submarines
isn't that great, period. Therefore there is no reason to destroy a
bunch of
animals for what doesn't even work all that well. Besides, there are no
"enemy" states with submarines for us to be worried about. We're
supposedly
allies and trading partners of Russia and China. So who does that leave
for
us to worry about attacking us, India?

It's just another example of Bush's administration doing what it wants
and
daring the rest of the government to do something about it. Frontline
had a
program about how they did the same thing with the terror surveillance
programs. They think the president is not a coequal branch of
government.
They thing it's superior. Which explains why they act the way they do.
But
it's sure good to know they won't be doing it for much longer, after we
get
sane people in the White House.

Hawke

What would you call North Korea, your buddy?

Jim

I'll tell you what I call North Korea if you tell me about their fleet of
submarines and their sea launched ballistic missile capabilities first. I
swear, some of the people on the right are so scared of being attacked by
other countries it's ridiculous. We spend as much on our military as all the
other countries combined. Why some folks are so worried about being attacked
by nations that have virtually nothing militarily is hard to understand.
Someone took a worldwide poll recently and asked what country posed the
biggest threat to world peace. Guess who they picked? That's right, us. So
who is right? We have to worry about being attacked by other countries or
that we will attack someone? If you don't know the answer your IQ is
seriously low.

Hawke


There are indeed threats to the US, that is what makes the Bush legacy
even worse than it might otherwise be. He's de-legitimized the US
being strong, because he has misused that strength so, so, horribly.

Anyone who thinks we are about to be attacked (by a nation-state, not
talking indiv terroists here) is paranoid (either an actual mental
problem, or adopting that mindset because it makes the sheeple easy to
control and lines your buddies pockets), anyone who thinks we don't
have nations that want to do us harm has their head in the sand.

That's why neither the right nor the left offers any real hope, and
since R/L is the only choice, we're ****ed.


Dave