Oren wrote:

Alphabetically, it would be a Cruz / Rubio 2016 bumper sticker.

Which will be peeling by the time Shrillary is sworn in.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"

Precisely. The Saudis funded and executed the 9/11 attack but they were
Bush's BFF's so he went after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.
He
even flew the Saudis all out of the US on 9/12 when all other air travel
was
banned right after the attack.

Iraq was shown to have tried to kill Daddy Bush after he was out of
office. At the time, I noted that the run up seemed to be a Princess
Bride Moment: " I am George W. Bush. You tried to kill my father.
Prepare to die."
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
Aaron Levenstein

On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:11:12 -0600, philo* wrote:

Saudia Arabia is where Osama Bin Laden came from...those kind of friends
we don't need. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

And Bin Laden's father was Bush senior's partner in ... oil.
They made a fortune out of 9/11
All very strange.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:51:56 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:11:12 -0600, philo* wrote:

Saudia Arabia is where Osama Bin Laden came from...those kind of friends
we don't need. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

And Bin Laden's father was Bush senior's partner in ... oil.
They made a fortune out of 9/11
All very strange.
[]'s


Nothing strange just more 911 deniers loony claims, with little basis
in fact. Then guys like you take it to the next level. All you have
in the case of the Bush oil company was that many decades ago, a private
investor who put some money into the Bush oil company, was also
doing business with the Bin Laden family. The person who made the investment
says that it was his own money, had nothing to do with the Bin Ladens.
The investment was a whopping $50K. Does that sound like Bin Laden kind of
money to you? Or more likely it was what the person has said, that
it was just his own money? THAT is all you have. And only a lying loon
would turn that into "Bin Laden's father was Bush's senior partner".
Good grief, how you fabricate and lie.

On 12/19/2014 01:45 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
news:5f04ceef-ecaa-44c5-85bf-On Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:05:46 AM
UTC-5, philo wrote:

Saudia Arabia is where Osama Bin Laden came from...those kind of
friends
we don't need. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. Like I said
"**** em"

Precisely. The Saudis funded and executed the 9/11 attack but they were
Bush's BFF's so he went after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. He
even flew the Saudis all out of the US on 9/12 when all other air travel was
banned right after the attack.

Jimmy Carter told the Shah of Iran essentially to F*** off, because of
"human rights". Seems the Shah had the crazy islamic nut jobs locked up
or exiled. How did that work out?

About as well as our deposing Saddam who had the nut jobs of Iraq locked up
tight. Much of ISIS is being run by Saddam's former military officers. The
Shah was doomed to fail with or without Carter. Not so Saddam. Cheney and
his cabal alleged that Saddam had WMDs that we needed to eliminate. WMDs
that no one could find in ten years of looking. Bush should have looked in
North Korea. He would have found WMD's there. He didn't because the Iraq
war was all about Bush's hard-on for Saddam and had little to do with
*really* eliminating WMDs in the hands of nut jobs. That was just the cover
story for the feeble-minded. Philo seems to understand that.



Thank you!

No president has ever had the guts to take on North Korea.

No president has had the guts to tell our HUGE enemy Saudi Arabia where
to go.


North Korea at least does not pretend to be our friend
and they certainly did not sent people over here to blow things up like
the Saudi's did.


At any rate, out of all the problems in the world, that of Cuba is at
the bottom of the list.

On 12/19/2014 10:37 AM, nestork wrote:


troll comments snipped unread
..

I'm not a liar, but when my wife asked me if the new dress she wanted to
buy made her look fat, I said "No". I'm not a liar, but when my
neighbor's kid pressed me for an answer, I said "Yes, Jamie, there is a
Santa Claus."

Yep.

A smart move when dealing with your wife or neighbor's kid.


Stormin: some things arem't stictly black or white, but various shades
of grey.

I photocopied my income tax return at work, and now the receptionist is
telling everyone that I'm a thief.

There's a difference between a smoker, some kid who gets an adult to buy
him cigarettes so he can supposedly impress his friends, someone who
will have an occasional cigarette when offered one and someone who never
smokes under any circumstances.

"Not a smoker" means someone who isn't hooked and doesn't normally
smoke. It doesn't mean someone who never smokes under any circumstance.
So, to say "I'm not a smoker, but I had a cigarette at last year's
company Christmas Party" is not a contradiction.

I used to watch that bunk all the time on Sunday morning TV where some
TV evangelist would say "If you ever sinned, you are by definition a
"sinner"", and I thought "What bunk". If I pounded out something that
didn't make sense on a piano, does that make me a "musician"?






Last time I had a cigar was 20 years ago.

Who knows , maybe I'll have another at my funeral?

On 12/20/2014 08:11 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:51:56 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:11:12 -0600, philo wrote:

Saudia Arabia is where Osama Bin Laden came from...those kind of friends
we don't need. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

And Bin Laden's father was Bush senior's partner in ... oil.
They made a fortune out of 9/11
All very strange.
[]'s


Nothing strange just more 911 deniers loony claims, with little basis
in fact. Then guys like you take it to the next level. All you have
in the case of the Bush oil company was that many decades ago, a private
investor who put some money into the Bush oil company, was also
doing business with the Bin Laden family. The person who made the investment
says that it was his own money, had nothing to do with the Bin Ladens.
The investment was a whopping $50K. Does that sound like Bin Laden kind of
money to you? Or more likely it was what the person has said, that
it was just his own money? THAT is all you have. And only a lying loon
would turn that into "Bin Laden's father was Bush's senior partner".
Good grief, how you fabricate and lie.



When I analyze things I take the "black box" approach.


I don't look at what the Bin Laden family or the Bush family may or may
not have done. All I look at is what goes into the "black box" and what
comes out of the "black box".


It is know with certainty that 80% of the 911 attackers were Saudi's.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 06:11:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:51:56 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:11:12 -0600, philo* wrote:

Saudia Arabia is where Osama Bin Laden came from...those kind of friends
we don't need. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

And Bin Laden's father was Bush senior's partner in ... oil.
They made a fortune out of 9/11
All very strange.
[]'s


Nothing strange just more 911 deniers loony claims, with little basis
in fact. Then guys like you take it to the next level. All you have
in the case of the Bush oil company was that many decades ago, a private
investor who put some money into the Bush oil company, was also
doing business with the Bin Laden family. The person who made the investment
says that it was his own money, had nothing to do with the Bin Ladens.
The investment was a whopping $50K. Does that sound like Bin Laden kind of
money to you? Or more likely it was what the person has said, that
it was just his own money? THAT is all you have. And only a lying loon
would turn that into "Bin Laden's father was Bush's senior partner".
Good grief, how you fabricate and lie.

My saves from archive.org must be different from your saves
from archive .org.
Not surprising.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:35:44 -0600, philo* wrote:

On 12/19/2014 10:37 AM, nestork wrote:


troll comments snipped unread
..

I'm not a liar, but when my wife asked me if the new dress she wanted to
buy made her look fat, I said "No". I'm not a liar, but when my
neighbor's kid pressed me for an answer, I said "Yes, Jamie, there is a
Santa Claus."

Yep.

A smart move when dealing with your wife or neighbor's kid.


Stormin: some things arem't stictly black or white, but various shades
of grey.

I photocopied my income tax return at work, and now the receptionist is
telling everyone that I'm a thief.

There's a difference between a smoker, some kid who gets an adult to buy
him cigarettes so he can supposedly impress his friends, someone who
will have an occasional cigarette when offered one and someone who never
smokes under any circumstances.

"Not a smoker" means someone who isn't hooked and doesn't normally
smoke. It doesn't mean someone who never smokes under any circumstance.
So, to say "I'm not a smoker, but I had a cigarette at last year's
company Christmas Party" is not a contradiction.

I used to watch that bunk all the time on Sunday morning TV where some
TV evangelist would say "If you ever sinned, you are by definition a
"sinner"", and I thought "What bunk". If I pounded out something that
didn't make sense on a piano, does that make me a "musician"?






Last time I had a cigar was 20 years ago.

Who knows , maybe I'll have another at my funeral?



If I ever smoked one it would likely be a few days before my funeral -
- - -

"Shadow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 06:11:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:51:56 AM UTC-5, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:11:12 -0600, philo wrote:

Saudia Arabia is where Osama Bin Laden came from...those kind of
friends
we don't need. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

And Bin Laden's father was Bush senior's partner in ... oil.
They made a fortune out of 9/11
All very strange.
[]'s


Nothing strange just more 911 deniers loony claims, with little basis
in fact. Then guys like you take it to the next level. All you have
in the case of the Bush oil company was that many decades ago, a private
investor who put some money into the Bush oil company, was also
doing business with the Bin Laden family. The person who made the
investment
says that it was his own money, had nothing to do with the Bin Ladens.
The investment was a whopping $50K. Does that sound like Bin Laden kind
of
money to you? Or more likely it was what the person has said, that
it was just his own money? THAT is all you have. And only a lying loon
would turn that into "Bin Laden's father was Bush's senior partner".
Good grief, how you fabricate and lie.

My saves from archive.org must be different from your saves
from archive .org.
Not surprising.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 12/20/2014 11:58 AM, wrote:
On

"Not a smoker" means someone who isn't hooked and doesn't normally
smoke. It doesn't mean someone who never smokes under any circumstance.
So, to say "I'm not a smoker, but I had a cigarette at last year's
company Christmas Party" is not a contradiction.

I used to watch that bunk all the time on Sunday morning TV where some
TV evangelist would say "If you ever sinned, you are by definition a
"sinner"", and I thought "What bunk". If I pounded out something that
didn't make sense on a piano, does that make me a "musician"?






Last time I had a cigar was 20 years ago.

Who knows , maybe I'll have another at my funeral?



If I ever smoked one it would likely be a few days before my funeral -


If I knew that I only had two day to live, I don't think I'd have a
cigar, I'd be worried about what it would do to my health!

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 16:20:38 -0600, philo* wrote:

On 12/20/2014 11:58 AM, wrote:
On

"Not a smoker" means someone who isn't hooked and doesn't normally
smoke. It doesn't mean someone who never smokes under any circumstance.
So, to say "I'm not a smoker, but I had a cigarette at last year's
company Christmas Party" is not a contradiction.

I used to watch that bunk all the time on Sunday morning TV where some
TV evangelist would say "If you ever sinned, you are by definition a
"sinner"", and I thought "What bunk". If I pounded out something that
didn't make sense on a piano, does that make me a "musician"?






Last time I had a cigar was 20 years ago.

Who knows , maybe I'll have another at my funeral?



If I ever smoked one it would likely be a few days before my funeral -


If I knew that I only had two day to live, I don't think I'd have a
cigar, I'd be worried about what it would do to my health!
The day I smoked a cigar would be a few days before my funeral
because it would KILL me. On the spot.

"philo " wrote in message
...

If any country is a real and serious threat to the US,
then we simply need to blow them the hell up.

All that reputation was lost when it took ten years to accomplish close to
nothing in Afraq. It's been a long time since we nuked someone (70 years?).
We should at least nuke the NK bomb and missile factories with some neutron
bombs. Or maybe use the new big Bunker Buster bombs. The problem is that
if we do, China might cut off our supply of cheap HDTV's. (-: Busting up
NK's A-bomb facilities might make the Iranians come to Jesus. My Vietnam
buddy told me that when they took up a bunch of suspected VC in a Huey to
interrogate them, they all remained stonily silent until the first
"volunteer" left the cabin without a chute. After that you couldn't shut
ANY of them up. Or so he says. Reminds me of the line from "Full Metal
Jacket" where Joker asks the Huey gunner:

"How can you shoot women and children?!"

"Easy, you just don't lead as much"

FWIW, I always thought we did serious damage to our reputation as biggest
badass on the block by engaging in "one hand tied behind our back" wars like
Nam, Iraq and Afgoatistan. I give the Elder Bush a lot of credit for
punishing Iraq for all the world to see. Nothing says you're the biggest
badass on the block like the Iraqi "highway of death."

http://www.mimages.co.za/files/image...H-BJ_thumb.jpg

I read the other day that our big push to have "democratic" elections in
Afgoatistan resulted in a huge spike in hashish and opium exportation to pay
for the campaigns of the various candidates. There's nothing sadder than a
bunch of western politicians thinking that they can create viable Muslim
democracies. It just isn't in their DNA.

--
Bobby G.

"philo " wrote in message
...
On 12/19/2014 01:45 AM, Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

Precisely. The Saudis funded and executed the 9/11 attack but they were
Bush's BFF's so he went after Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.
He
even flew the Saudis all out of the US on 9/12 when all other air travel
was
banned right after the attack.

Jimmy Carter told the Shah of Iran essentially to F*** off, because of
"human rights". Seems the Shah had the crazy islamic nut jobs locked up
or exiled. How did that work out?

About as well as our deposing Saddam who had the nut jobs of Iraq locked
up
tight. Much of ISIS is being run by Saddam's former military officers.
The
Shah was doomed to fail with or without Carter. Not so Saddam. Cheney
and
his cabal alleged that Saddam had WMDs that we needed to eliminate.
WMDs
that no one could find in ten years of looking. Bush should have looked
in
North Korea. He would have found WMD's there. He didn't because the
Iraq
war was all about Bush's hard-on for Saddam and had little to do with
*really* eliminating WMDs in the hands of nut jobs. That was just the
cover
story for the feeble-minded. Philo seems to understand that.

Thank you!

Truth is truth. No thanks required!

No president has ever had the guts to take on North Korea.

Probably because Big Brother China stood in the background as a protector.
We would not have gone after Iraq if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed prior
to our invasion.

No president has had the guts to tell our HUGE enemy Saudi Arabia where
to go.

That's because for the longest time we were petroleum "junkies" and no
President was going to tell their "dealer" where to stuff it. We needed
that oil fix way too much. Now that OPEC has started its giant tailspin
we're not nearly as dependent on SA as we once were. A combination of good
ol' US technology *and* conservation/efficiency put an end to the
stranglehold they've had over us for decades. Couldn't come a moment too
soon to suit me. As a side benefit oil near $60 a barrel will likely put
the knife in Putin and his one-trick pony - the Russian's oil dependent
economy. I'm betting he's a little regretful spending so much money on the
Winter Olympics and the Crimean invasion. With the ruble headed into the
toilet, he knows he's very likely to follow. Couldn't happen to a "nicer"
guy.

North Korea at least does not pretend to be our friend
and they certainly did not sent people over here to blow things up like
the Saudi's did.

Yes, the NK's make no secret of hating us, unlike the Saudis. The O-jays
understood it all years ago. "They smile in your face and all the time they
want to take your place, the backstabbers." If anyone owes us reparations,
it's SA for the destruction of the WTC. A check for $80B would be a good
start.

At any rate, out of all the problems in the world, that of Cuba is at
the bottom of the list.

Ain't that the truth. After over 50 years of isolation we failed to bring
democracy to them (or Communist China). Oddly we seem to have embraced the
"red Chinese" quite completely without demanding they up-end their political
system first just because we said they should. FWIW, anyone who thinks the
Chinese are now our Best Friends Forever is about as deluded as the people
who think SA is a great and trustworthy ally. The relationship with them is
in some ways just as sick. Instead of being addicted to SA's oil, we're
addicted to China's cheap consumer goods.

What really bugs me is that for all the time we've been piddling with Cuba
and the Pakistan tribal areas, real and powerful enemies have had our
computer infrastructure under heavy, relentless and very damaging attack.
Only now are we beginning to realize that the real battle for world
supremacy is taking place in the "electronic ether" and not in Waziristan.
The Sony hack should open at least *some* people's eyes about how exposed we
are.

In other news: Now that all those schoolchildren have been killed by their
own countrymen, Pakistan might some to realize *they* have to clean up their
own backyard. They have turned a blind eye towards their own terrorist
groups because they hope to turn them against their most hated neighbor,
India. Maybe now they'll realize that wasn't such a good strategy.
Probably not. They are another very dubious ally - after all they were
harboring Bin Laden, the Saudi who masterminded 9/11! Sadly one narrative
that's evolving there is that those kids were murdered to avenge OUR drone
attacks.

As you say, Cuba is so minor a player that it's almost comical to see how
many people have their panties knotted up and sucked up their a-holes over
normalizing relationships.

--
Bobby G.

On 12/20/2014 09:14 PM, wrote:




If I ever smoked one it would likely be a few days before my funeral -


If I knew that I only had two day to live, I don't think I'd have a
cigar, I'd be worried about what it would do to my health!
The day I smoked a cigar would be a few days before my funeral
because it would KILL me. On the spot.




Yeah, I normally hate smoking and when my wife moved in here the rule of
the house is that she had to smoke outside.

Good thing about those -20F days here,

on one of those days I heard the door slam after she came back inside
and said:

**** this ****, I quit!


And she did.


That was a looong time ago.


Now , when we go grocery shopping we have to walk past the cigarettes on
the way out and we look at out grocery bill and say:


Wow, instead of all this food, we should have bought a carton of
cigarettes instead!

On 12/21/2014 01:53 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"philo " wrote in message
...

If any country is a real and serious threat to the US,
then we simply need to blow them the hell up.

All that reputation was lost when it took ten years to accomplish close to
nothing in Afraq. It's been a long time since we nuked someone (70 years?).
We should at least nuke the NK bomb and missile factories with some neutron
bombs. Or maybe use the new big Bunker Buster bombs. The problem is that
if we do, China might cut off our supply of cheap HDTV's. (-: Busting up
NK's A-bomb facilities might make the Iranians come to Jesus. My Vietnam
buddy told me that when they took up a bunch of suspected VC in a Huey to
interrogate them, they all remained stonily silent until the first
"volunteer" left the cabin without a chute. After that you couldn't shut
ANY of them up. Or so he says. Reminds me of the line from "Full Metal
Jacket" where Joker asks the Huey gunner:


I was in the Army during the late 1969 - 1971 and heard the same story.
For whatever reason I was sent to Germany but most of my friends were
over in 'Nam.

I heard the story too and don't know if it was true or not but I friend
of mine was a tail gunner and he told me he just mowed down everyone he
was told to. In particular , he told me he did kill and old lady who was
begging for mercy simply because he was told to do so by the captain.



"How can you shoot women and children?!"

"Easy, you just don't lead as much"

FWIW, I always thought we did serious damage to our reputation as biggest
badass on the block by engaging in "one hand tied behind our back" wars like
Nam, Iraq and Afgoatistan. I give the Elder Bush a lot of credit for
punishing Iraq for all the world to see. Nothing says you're the biggest
badass on the block like the Iraqi "highway of death."


Though I did not vote for the elder Bush I just cannot come up with
anything he did wrong,,,other than have sons who are wimps


http://www.mimages.co.za/files/image...H-BJ_thumb.jpg

I read the other day that our big push to have "democratic" elections in
Afgoatistan resulted in a huge spike in hashish and opium exportation to pay
for the campaigns of the various candidates. There's nothing sadder than a
bunch of western politicians thinking that they can create viable Muslim
democracies. It just isn't in their DNA.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

At any rate, out of all the problems in the world, that of Cuba is at
the bottom of the list.

Ain't that the truth. After over 50 years of isolation we failed to bring
democracy to them (or Communist China). Oddly we seem to have embraced the
"red Chinese" quite completely without demanding they up-end their political
system first just because we said they should. FWIW, anyone who thinks the
Chinese are now our Best Friends Forever is about as deluded as the people
who think SA is a great and trustworthy ally. The relationship with them is
in some ways just as sick. Instead of being addicted to SA's oil, we're
addicted to China's cheap consumer goods.

The main difference is the one I alluded to earlier. There is no
"Little Beijing" in a politically sensitive Electoral College Swing
State. As to the consumer goods addiction, I am more sanguine. We are
saying the same things about China now as we said about Japan in the 60s
and 70s and Mexico in the 80s and 90s. It is much easier to find new
sources of cheap goods.


What really bugs me is that for all the time we've been piddling with Cuba
and the Pakistan tribal areas, real and powerful enemies have had our
computer infrastructure under heavy, relentless and very damaging attack.
Only now are we beginning to realize that the real battle for world
supremacy is taking place in the "electronic ether" and not in Waziristan.
The Sony hack should open at least *some* people's eyes about how exposed we
are.
Good luck with that.


--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 12/21/2014 07:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:17:52 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/20/2014 11:12 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 11:16:01 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/20/2014 08:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:



snip

OK, it's your turn. What exactly would you do right now
to "take on" North Korea?




Build a Disney Land there of course.


sheesh that was a simple one

In other words, despite all your bloviating of how others have not
"taken on" NK, you have no clue what to actually do yourself.




Korea is a tough one and I do not pretend to have an answer. It should
have been finished off in 1953 but instead a bandage was placed over a
festering wound.

My original answer of building a Disney Land there may be the best thing
to do. It would not be very civilized of us to blow them off the map.



Aside from that, it's a bizarre foreign policy, call it the
"binary foreign policy".

Also how does this binary policy relate to Saudi Arabia? You keep
saying to tell them to "F off". That isn't leaving them alone, nor is
it wiping them out. Right now, we are leaving them alone. Make up your
mind please.

Since you dragged any country that is a threat to us into this, add
Iran to the list. Specifics please, what would you do with Iran, right
now? Leave them alone or wipe them out? Your choice.

X
To me, Saudi Arabia and Iran are both our enemies.

I just give a little more credit to Iran because they are not smiling to
our face.

What the US needs to do is abandon /all/ oil imports from the mid-East.


There is enough right here in the US to supply our needs if we
supplement our power requirements with solar.


100 square miles of panels in a place like Arizona is all it would take.


What the US needed to have done in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to have
totally decimated the countries like we did to Germany and Japan then
never leave.

Heck I was stationed on Germany 25 years after WW-II ended.


Had we treated Afghanistan and Iraq the way we handled Germany and
Japan, we would not be seeing the **** that we see today.


OK, you don't think decimating the two countries is a good idea?


If not, then we need to stay the **** out.

Applying a bandage to a festering wound is not going to help the victim
but it can infect the care giver

Xere is no government in Saudi Arabia so I guess you are correct when
you say their government didn't send anyone here.

Which of course is either ignorance or another lie:

http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/co...on/government/

"Government

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam.


Yep, like I said...no government
and indeed our enemy.


OK, now you're a liar.



No I am not a liar. I do not consider a dictatorship a government...and
that's exactly what a monarchy is.


If Saudi Arabia is such a great place, why don't you and your wife move
there, I'm sure she'd love it.

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:03:49 AM UTC-5, philo* wrote:
On 12/21/2014 07:43 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 5:17:52 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/20/2014 11:12 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 11:16:01 AM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 12/20/2014 08:42 AM, trader_4 wrote:



snip

OK, it's your turn. What exactly would you do right now
to "take on" North Korea?




Build a Disney Land there of course.


sheesh that was a simple one

In other words, despite all your bloviating of how others have not
"taken on" NK, you have no clue what to actually do yourself.




Korea is a tough one and I do not pretend to have an answer. It should
have been finished off in 1953 but instead a bandage was placed over a
festering wound.

My original answer of building a Disney Land there may be the best thing
to do. It would not be very civilized of us to blow them off the map.


It's not very much of an answer. Who exactly is going to build a "Disney Land"?
Certainly not Disney. There is very little foreign investment in NK, except for
China. It's not just the US that has issues and is ****ed off at them. Plus
there are currently UN sanctions in place, that would prohibit US investment
there. So, if you ever want to get to that point, then you'd have to
A - restore normal diplomatic relations
B - end the sanctions
C - Make nice to Kim Jung Un who just this week inflicted $100mil in
terrorism against Sony, threatened the USA with another 911, etc

You'd do that, while they are actively building nuclear weapons, thumbing
their nose at the UN, and directly threatening the USA as well as SK,
Japan, sinking SK ships, firing on them, etc?








Aside from that, it's a bizarre foreign policy, call it the
"binary foreign policy".

Also how does this binary policy relate to Saudi Arabia? You keep
saying to tell them to "F off". That isn't leaving them alone, nor is
it wiping them out. Right now, we are leaving them alone. Make up your
mind please.

Since you dragged any country that is a threat to us into this, add
Iran to the list. Specifics please, what would you do with Iran, right
now? Leave them alone or wipe them out? Your choice.

X
To me, Saudi Arabia and Iran are both our enemies.

I just give a little more credit to Iran because they are not smiling to
our face.

What the US needs to do is abandon /all/ oil imports from the mid-East.


Which isn't consistent with your stated policy of leaving them alone or
wiping them off the map. And what we import or don't import from there
isn't going to hurt them. Oil is fungible, there is a world market and it
will be sold anyway. I agree there are economic reasons and national
security reasons why the USA would be better off importing less oil. But
to think we can then ignore the middle east, let anyone take over the oil
there, is naive. How about ISIS takes over the oil?



There is enough right here in the US to supply our needs if we
supplement our power requirements with solar.


Sure, solar has been a big success so far..... It's the highest cost
electricity there is, by far. The only reason it's gotten anywhere is
because the govt is heavily subsidizing it, to hide the true cost.
Plus, we aren't burning oil to generate electricity,
with rare exceptions, anyway.




100 square miles of panels in a place like Arizona is all it would take.


This analysis says you're off by a factor of 100, which sounds about right.
Ain't no way you're going to provide the power for the USA with something
only 100 square miles. I'd be happy to see your math/reference.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2...n-solar-power/


What the US needed to have done in both Iraq and Afghanistan is to have
totally decimated the countries like we did to Germany and Japan then
never leave.


We only decimated Germany and Japan because they had formidable military
forces that were still fighting and would not surrender. Iraq/Afghanistan,
we decimated their military, they surrendered. So, you'd go on to needlessly
kill innocent civilians, women and children that had nothing to do with
Saddam or the Taliban? My God.

Regarding never leaving, we did pretty much leave both Germany and Japan.
We set up democracies, gave them enormous aid. Yeah, we have some residual
troops there, but we're not involved in governing the country. Also
leaving troops anywhere is clearly contrary to your binary foreign policy
of leaving them alone or wiping them out.


Heck I was stationed on Germany 25 years after WW-II ended.

Had we treated Afghanistan and Iraq the way we handled Germany and
Japan, we would not be seeing the **** that we see today.


OK, you don't think decimating the two countries is a good idea?


If not, then we need to stay the **** out.


So, following 911 you would have stayed out of Afghanistan? Or you
would have bombed all the civilian, women and children, when they had
no military that was capable of threatening the USA? The latter would
have been a war crime, rightly condemned by the whole world.



Applying a bandage to a festering wound is not going to help the victim
but it can infect the care giver

Xere is no government in Saudi Arabia so I guess you are correct when
you say their government didn't send anyone here.

Which of course is either ignorance or another lie:

http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/co...on/government/

"Government

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy based on Islam.


Yep, like I said...no government
and indeed our enemy.


OK, now you're a liar.



No I am not a liar. I do not consider a dictatorship a government...and
that's exactly what a monarchy is.


What you consider, doesn't matter. Look up the definition.



If Saudi Arabia is such a great place, why don't you and your wife move
there, I'm sure she'd love it.



Which of course is irrelevant. Whether it's a great place, whether one
wants to live there, has nothing to do with telling them to F** off,
destabilizing another friendly country in the mideast, etc.

For what it's worth, people should realize that Kim Jung Un is walking on thin ice.

North Korea just recently announced that Un's first foreign visit as the leader of North Korea will be to Moscow for talks with Putin.

That's significant because China has historically always been North Korea's closest ally. Un's visiting Russia first, before he visits China, is a clear indication that relations between China and North Korea aren't as friendly as we previously thought them to be. Un visiting Russia first is either an indication that North Korea is looking to Russia instead of China for protection from the west, or that Un figures the same beligerance that he uses to deal with the west will work with China too. Un's doing this at his own peril because China is not about to put up with his threats of war and military attacks the way South Korea, Japan and the USA do.

It seems that China's leadership feels that Un is too inexperienced to manage his country and his beligerance in threatening South Korea and Japan (and the USA) may be causing unnecessary tension between China and those same countries as well. China has always been North Korea's military ally, and going to war with North Korea means going to war with China. But, it seems that the Chinese leadership is giving Un the cold shoulder so that he doesn't presume that the Chinese will always be there to help him. The Chinese want Un to realize that he needs to reign in his rhetoric because he can't take Chinese protection for granted.

Un visiting Russia almost certainly won't be fruitful. North Korea has always been in China's back yard, and Russia becoming militarily involved with North Korea is going to rub the Chinese fur the wrong way. And, Russia is already up to it's ears in problems backing the Assad regime in Syria. They really don't want to have North Korea hanging onto their coat tails too, especially with the recent drop in oil prices wrecking their economy.

The problem is that Un was taught beligerance by his father and grand father. He sincerely believes that the only way to maintain North Korea's supposed position as a world "power" is to always be at the brink of war with South Korea and Japan (and as a result of international alliances) the USA as well. Without that beligerance and his ever present threat to peace, North Korea would simply be dismissed as another example of the failure of communism to provide a decent livelihood for it's people. Un would much rather be considered a powerful enemy than an impotent friend SO THAT he can use his beligerance to get what he wants from the west.

On 12/21/2014 08:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:


It's not very much of an answer. Who exactly is going to build a "Disney Land"?
Certainly not Disney. There is very little foreign investment in NK, except for
China. It's not just the US that has issues and is ****ed off at them. Plus
there are currently UN sanctions in place, that would prohibit US investment
there. So, if you ever want to get to that point, then you'd have to
A - restore normal diplomatic relations
B - end the sanctions
C - Make nice to Kim Jung Un who just this week inflicted $100mil in
terrorism against Sony, threatened the USA with another 911, etc

You'd do that, while they are actively building nuclear weapons, thumbing
their nose at the UN, and directly threatening the USA as well as SK,
Japan, sinking SK ships, firing on them, etc?

X

Like I said, I don't have the answer to North Korea and since 1953 no
one else has either. I am quite sure the US has enough missiles
programmed to get there asap should they actually try anything...and
other than containing them there is not much more we can do.




To me, Saudi Arabia and Iran are both our enemies.

I just give a little more credit to Iran because they are not smiling to
our face.

What the US needs to do is abandon /all/ oil imports from the mid-East.


Which isn't consistent with your stated policy of leaving them alone or
wiping them off the map. And what we import or don't import from there
isn't going to hurt them. Oil is fungible, there is a world market and it
will be sold anyway. I agree there are economic reasons and national
security reasons why the USA would be better off importing less oil. But
to think we can then ignore the middle east, let anyone take over the oil
there, is naive. How about ISIS takes over the oil?



I fully realize the idea of us going in there and just plain blowing up
the entire mid-East is an insane idea and I was speaking figuratively if
I implied I really meant to do that...but no matter what, we need to get
our oil interests /out/ of the mid-East.

If the US were in no way dependent on them for oil it would cloud our
thinking less.

As far as ISIS goes. since no one else is going to do it, the good old
US will have to...and of course get criticized by everyone else on Earth
for doing so



There is enough right here in the US to supply our needs if we
supplement our power requirements with solar.


Sure, solar has been a big success so far..... It's the highest cost
electricity there is, by far. The only reason it's gotten anywhere is
because the govt is heavily subsidizing it, to hide the true cost.
Plus, we aren't burning oil to generate electricity,
with rare exceptions, anyway.




100 square miles of panels in a place like Arizona is all it would take.


This analysis says you're off by a factor of 100, which sounds about right.
Ain't no way you're going to provide the power for the USA with something
only 100 square miles. I'd be happy to see your math/reference.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2...n-solar-power/


The article you linked to confirmed my figures so I don't see why your
are arguing .

Of course when I said "going solar" that does not mean we need to go
100% solar. There is plenty of oil right here and in Canada. I /think/
we get more oil from Canada than we get from the mid-East anyway






Heck I was stationed on Germany 25 years after WW-II ended.

Had we treated Afghanistan and Iraq the way we handled Germany and
Japan, we would not be seeing the **** that we see today.


OK, you don't think decimating the two countries is a good idea?


If not, then we need to stay the **** out.


So, following 911 you would have stayed out of Afghanistan? Or you
would have bombed all the civilian, women and children, when they had
no military that was capable of threatening the USA? The latter would
have been a war crime, rightly condemned by the whole world.



After 911 I would have done sufficient research to find out /exactly/
where the threat came from and completely wiped them out.

Since the terrorists apparently came from Afghanistan then that would
have been the place to go. Although the US did put some effort into
going after terrorists there, the majority of the effort was put into Iraq.


A considerably bigger problem than Iraq (Iraq was not a threat to the
US) is the issue of Saudi Arabia which you say is our good friend. The
Saudis were where the terrorists came from and the US in one way or
another needed to (and still needs to ) address that issue.


Bottom line:

Had Bush gone to the source of the problem we'd not be in the mess we
are in today,

Of course we'd just be in some kind of other mess...that's the way the
world is.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 18:08:47 +0100, nestork
wrote:


For what it's worth, people should realize that Kim Jung Un is walking
on thin ice.

North Korea just recently announced that Un's first foreign visit as the
leader of North Korea will be to Moscow for talks with Putin.

That's significant because historically China has always been North
Korea's closest ally. Un's visiting Russia first, before he visits
China, is a clear indication that relations between China and North
Korea aren't as friendly as we previously thought them to be, and that's
it's a clear indication that North Korea is looking to Russia instead of
China for protection from the west.

It seems that China's leadership feels that Un is too inexperienced to
manage his country and his beligerance in threatening South Korea and
Japan (and the USA) may be causing unnecessary tension between China and
those same countries as well. Basically, the Chinese leadership is
giving Un the cold shoulder so that he doesn't presume that the Chinese
will always be there to help him. The Chinese want Un to realize that
he can't take their protection for granted.

Un visiting Russia almost certainly won't be fruitful. North Korea has
always been in China's back yard, and Russia has never had any interest
in North Korea. Russia offering military support to North Korea is
going to rub Chinese fur the wrong way. And, Russia is already up to
it's ears in problems backing the Assad regime in Syria. They really
don't want to have North Korea hanging onto their coat tails too,
especially with the recent drop in oil prices wrecking their economy.

The problem is that Un was taught beligerance by his father and grand
father. He sincerely believes that the only way to maintain North
Korea's supposed position as a world "power" is to always be at the
brink of war with South Korea (and as a result of international
alliances) the USA as well. Without that beligerance and ever present
threat to peace, North Korea would simply be dismissed as another
example of the failure of communism to provide a decent life for it's
people.

Almost certainly, if Un gets himself into a military confrontation with
South Korea, Japan or the USA, there's a real good chance that China
won't intervene because their leadership is thinking Un needs a lesson
in diplomacy, and he won't stop being a nuisance in the world until he
gets taught that lesson.

I think are mistaken about China. Un is used to stir **** up while
the Chinese sit back and laugh. If they wanted to put a leash on him,
they would stop giving oil / fuel for his military complex. Russia
sure isn't going to provide him oil / fuel anytime soon

...that's my rulin'

Robert Green wrote:

He was kept on most likely because he had the same sort of "insurance
policy" the kept J. Edgar at the helm of the FBI for so long.
Compromising photos or something similar. Easy for me to believe about
both GWB and Bill C.

He's small potatoes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfreda_Frances_Bikowsky

I wonder who Alfreda has by the balls.

On 12/21/2014 01:23 PM, trader_4 wrote:








portions snipped for brevity

This analysis says you're off by a factor of 100, which sounds about right.
Ain't no way you're going to provide the power for the USA with something
only 100 square miles. I'd be happy to see your math/reference.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2...n-solar-power/


The article you linked to confirmed my figures so I don't see why your
are arguing .


The article says you need 10,000 square miles, not 100 square miles.


Ooops brain fart

Yes, I meant 100 x 100 miles

which is just a tiny area compared to the size of the whole country.





The rest snipped because it does no good to talk politics but you made
some good points

Kurt Ullman wrote:

The main difference is the one I alluded to earlier. There is no
"Little Beijing" in a politically sensitive Electoral College Swing
State.

Florida isn't exactly a reliable state. I'm not sure pandering to the older
residents of Little Havana will swing anything.

In article ,
rbowman wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

The main difference is the one I alluded to earlier. There is no
"Little Beijing" in a politically sensitive Electoral College Swing
State.

Florida isn't exactly a reliable state. I'm not sure pandering to the older
residents of Little Havana will swing anything.

The older part is what is making the idea of playing nice with a little
more likely going forward. However, the fact it isn't reliable is
exactly why the Cubanos have had such sway for all these years. A small
group can very much make the difference in a tight race where it is
winner take all. Thus, both parties spent a lot of time sucking up to
them.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

No, I don't think so.

Normally, whenever there's new leadership in any country, that new leader will strive to establish personal ties with the leaders of other countries that his country has economic, cultural and military ties to. That's done just so that the leaders of those countries can pick up the phone and discuss matters with each other that need to be discussed before those matters get out of hand and threaten relations between the two countries.

Un visiting Russia first IS a snub to China. Un is saying that his economic, cultural and military ties with Russia are more important to North Korea than those with China, and the Chinese won't be laughing this one off.

I expect your CIA is watching to see if and how China responds. Surely Un isn't stupid enough to offend the Chinese, who are probably North Korea's only friends in the world.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:14:34 +0100, nestork
wrote:


'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3324166']
I think (you) are mistaken about China. Un is used to stirring **** up
while
the Chinese sit back and laugh. If they wanted to put a leash on him,
they would stop giving oil / fuel for his military complex. Russia
sure isn't going to provide him oil / fuel anytime soon

...that's my rulin'

No, I don't think so.

Normally, whenever there's new leadership in a country, that new leader
will strive to establish personal ties with the leaders of other
countries that his country has economic, cultural and military ties to.
That's done just so that the leaders of those countries can pick up the
phone and discuss matters with each other that need to be discussed.

Un visiting Russia first IS a snub to China. Un is saying that his
economic, cultural and military ties with Russia are more important to
North Korea than those with China, and the Chinese won't be laughing
this one off.

I expect your CIA is watching to see if and how China responds. Surely
Un isn't stupid enough to offend the Chinese, who are probably the only
reason that the South Koreans haven't taken Un out yet.

The CIA already knows, I think. China can put a thumb on Un. Stop his
arrogant, aberrant behavior to put him in lock-step. Cut off his
military fuel and his food supply. Un would collapse in short order.

China does not want a Coup d'état in North Korea, best I can tell.
They just work the puppet for their advantage.

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:36:16 PM UTC-5, philo* wrote:
On 12/21/2014 01:23 PM, trader_4 wrote:








portions snipped for brevity

This analysis says you're off by a factor of 100, which sounds about right.
Ain't no way you're going to provide the power for the USA with something
only 100 square miles. I'd be happy to see your math/reference.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2...n-solar-power/


The article you linked to confirmed my figures so I don't see why your
are arguing .


The article says you need 10,000 square miles, not 100 square miles.


Ooops brain fart

Yes, I meant 100 x 100 miles

which is just a tiny area compared to the size of the whole country.




Yes, the area required is tiny compared to the size of the country. But
that isn't the problem. Filling a 100 mile by 100 mile area with expensive solar generation equipment is the problem.

The US made a tremendous effort after 9-11 to find out who was behind the attack. They found out it was the Al Queda group headed by Osama Bin Laden, which had basically taken over the country of Afghanistan.

But, at the time, G. W. Bush had his sites set on ridding Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. And, truth be told, Saddam Hussein did every thing he could to convince the world he was hiding something. Iraqi officials would argue with UN inspectors to stall them while trucks were hurriedly leaving inspection sites, and that made everyone believe that Iraq had WMDs.

In fact, it came out afterward that Saddam's intent was to convince Iran and the rest of the Arab world that he had WMD's so that he would command more fear and respect in the arab world.

So, largely because of Saddam Hussain pretending he had WMD's, the Bush WhiteHouse adopted the "Al Queda first" policy of trying to wipe out Al Queda before setting their sites on Iraq.

Oren wrote:

The Cuban population in Miami has changed over many years. Those
coming here in the 60's, the old ones , "would blow stuff up". Those
born here and younger are more interested in having their noses in a
smart phones. The older generation wanted nothing more than to fight
Castro (Bay of Pigs) and take out the communist.

Now there's a thought. Have the original emigres go head to head with the
original Fidelistas. Gentlemen, start your wheelchairs. It would be like
Terry Pratchett's 'The Last Hero' when Cohen the Barbarian and the Silver
Horde set off on their last mission.

nestork wrote:

In fact, it came out afterward that Saddam's intent was to convince Iran
and the rest of the Arab world that he had WMD's so that he would
command more fear and respect in the arab world.

I think that's part of Iran's coyness. Persians aren't Arabs and they're
mostly the wrong flavor of Muslims. They're trying to convince the Saudis
they've really got something, while trying to convince the Israelis they
don't. You have to be good at camel trading to live in that neighborhood.

Meanwhile Israel isn't talking. It would be funny if they've been running a
bluff all these years too.

On 12/21/2014 04:12 PM, trader_4 wrote:



snip

The article says you need 10,000 square miles, not 100 square miles.


Ooops brain fart

Yes, I meant 100 x 100 miles

which is just a tiny area compared to the size of the whole country.




Yes, the area required is tiny compared to the size of the country. But
that isn't the problem. Filling a 100 mile by 100 mile area with expensive solar generation equipment is the problem.





A trivial problem if compared to dealing with the mid-East

On Sunday, December 21, 2014 7:17:11 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
'philo*[_2_ Wrote:
;3324165']
After 911 I would have done sufficient research to find out /exactly/
where the threat came from and completely wiped them out.

Since the terrorists apparently came from Afghanistan then that would
have been the place to go. Although the US did put some effort into
going after terrorists there, the majority of the effort was put into
Iraq.


A considerably bigger problem than Iraq (Iraq was not a threat to the
US) is the issue of Saudi Arabia which you say is our good friend. The
Saudis were where the terrorists came from and the US in one way or
another needed to (and still needs to ) address that issue.


The US made a tremendous effort after 9-11 to find out who was behind
the attack. They found out it was the Al Queda group headed by Osama
Bin Laden, which had basically taken over the country of Afghanistan.

But, at the time, G. W. Bush had his sites set on ridding Saddam Hussein
of weapons of mass destruction. And, truth be told, Saddam Hussein did
every thing he could to convince the world he was hiding something.
Iraqi officials would argue with UN inspectors to stall them while
trucks were hurriedly leaving inspection sites, and that made everyone
believe that Iraq had WMDs.

In fact, it came out afterward that Saddam's intent was to convince Iran
and the rest of the Arab world that he had WMD's so that he would
command more fear and respect in the arab world.

So, largely because of Saddam Hussain pretending he had WMD's, the Bush
WhiteHouse adopted the "Al Queda first" policy of trying to wipe out Al
Queda before setting their sites on Iraq.




--
nestork

All of that is correct and makes sense, except the last part. Bush went
after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, because Saddam was acting like he had
WMDs? Bush went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because of the 911 attack,
end of story. At the same time, he started ratcheting up the screws on
Iraq, to comply with the cease fire agreement, UN orders, etc. that called
for them to fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors, account for all
WMDS, etc. When Iraq refused to comply, over a year after Afghanistan already
had been invaded, he then made the case for action against Iraq

"trader_4" wrote in message


All of that is correct and makes sense, except the last part. Bush went
after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first,


From what I've read, it took considerable convincing from wiser people for
him to do so.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Monday, December 22, 2014 8:44:26 AM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message


All of that is correct and makes sense, except the last part. Bush went
after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first,


From what I've read, it took considerable convincing from wiser people for
him to do so.



I'd like to see what you read. Clearly, the day after 911, Bush, speaking
at the WTC site, said we were going after those who did this. Within days
or weeks he was giving Afghanistan Taliban an ultimatum and the invasion
commenced shortly after, with about a month, as I recall.

This is the first I've ever heard that Bush was reluctant to go after the
Taliban, Al Qaeda in Afhanistan.

Well, that's exactly what I meant.

Bush knew that Al Queda was responsible for 9-11. All of the information he had suggested that Saddam was hiding WMD's. So, the Bush Whitehouse adopted an "Afghanistan first" policy of getting rid of Bin Laden while UN weapons inspectors were dealing with Iraq, and then, after dealing with Bin Laden, getting rid of Saddam in Iraq.

On 12/22/2014 10:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
X



But the US could deal with the mid-East with a much cleared head if we
did not get any of our oil from them.


North Korea, as bad as it is probably has better religious tolerance and
woman's rights that half of the mid-East countries.

I think you're wrong on both counts.




Well, I was going to run for president in 2016 but since you know more,
I'll step aside and let you go for it!


I figure by 2018 the world should be in pretty good shape.

On Monday, December 22, 2014 12:17:14 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
trader_4;3324428 Wrote:

All of that is correct and makes sense, except the last part. Bush
went
after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, because Saddam was acting like he
had
WMDs? Bush went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan because of the 911
attack,
end of story.

Well, that's exactly what I meant.

But that isn't what you posted.


Bush knew that Al Queda was responsible for 9-11. All of the
information he had suggested that Saddam was hiding WMD's. So, the Bush
Whitehouse adopted an "Afghanistan first" policy of getting rid of Bin
Laden while UN weapons inspectors were dealing with Iraq, and then,
after dealing with Bin Laden, getting rid of Saddam in Iraq.


Iraq wasn't even on the radar map in terms of invasion before 911.
After that, everything changed.

trader_4 wrote:

Another interesting aspect is that when this first started, the attackers
never said anything about the movie. It started with demands for money...
So, IDK. On the other hand, you would think the FBI would have better
access to all the data as to what went on, including search warrants,
cooperation from other countries, etc.

The FBI sometimes finds answers that are politically convenient. NK's
problem is like Hussein's was; throw out a constant stream of bull**** and
bluster people will eventually start to believe it.

Whether Hamlet was just woofin' when he threw his two cents in remains to be
seen.