Long Distance Phone Call Execution
God Bless America
A North Korean factory boss accused of making international phone calls was executed by a firing squad in front of 150,000 people, it emerged today.
The manager was gunned down in a sports stadium in South Pyongan province after authorities claimed he'd installed 13 in a basement to reach the outside world, the Good Friends aid agency revealed.
Remind me again why we haven't invaded North Korea?
Because they would kick our asses unless we nuked them first.
Cause look what good invading Iraq did?
Also... do you think that nuclear war with china would be a good idea?
do they manufacture anything we need? no? then leave them be til they either realize their leaders are nuts and change on their own OR they start really getting out of control and nuke them into the stone age.
china wouldn't go nuclear Ibram. it is about money now. China is now a part of the world economy even if they pretend not to be. their entire economy is based on the dollar and the US debt that they own. If they go to war with us we say, "we're not making our debt payments to you anymore" and they are out trillions of dollars. won't happen.
yeah, okay, im only half-serious, and even then exaggerating by a lot.
But still, us vs. korea would end up as us vs. china, the same way china vs. taiwan becomes china vs. us. they would fight us just to save face and such, if nothing else.
"Its citizens are banned from communicating with the outside world, part of the regime's authoritarian policies seeking to prevent any challenge to the iron-fisted rule of Kim Jong Il."
On top of public executions, and other violations, they have this attitude?? How long can this last? I mean really?
you're right it would be us vs them, but it would shift largely to back room actions with lots of prime time saber rattling. The US and Chinese economies are so tightly linked that it will be devastating even to the winner. Think of Assured Mutual Destruction for the new millenium.
In truth, I believe that we will eventually go toe to toe with China and lose. but that is years down the road. there will come a day where China is the focal point for the planet and they become far more important than the US. the US ego just can't fathom or accept that so there will be a long period of smiles and handshakes with our "partners" in the east, mixed with intermittent saber rattling. then some economic catalyst will meet an ignition source, probably taiwan and then it's on. war, baby. except this time the US will not come out on top. our day on top of the world is done and we will limp on for a few generations denying our fall from importance. like modern france.
or i might just need to adjust my tin foil hat.
On top of public executions, and other violations, they have this attitude?? How long can this last? I mean really?
isolation has worked for the latter day saints for generations. and they live and work next to us. a siege mentality ingrained from birth is very effective.
I think that Lookout's post #8 is an extremely plausible forecast. The current US ascendancy is not going to last forever, just as the British and Spanish and Roman and etc etc. didn't.
Which is one of the major reasons I don't support the war on terror. It is frittering away (well squandering really) financial, human and moral resources and trashing international support, while chasing after bad guys who have in their entire history killed fewer than 10,000 Americans. These resources are needed for managing far more important things: resurgent Russia, united Europe, and especially booming China. Terrorists are
trivial.
I suspect the reason the Chinese didn't object to the invasion of Iraq is because they are quite happy to let the US go and bleed in the desert. Meanwhile they have become good friends with Iran.
But I thought posting this
Remind me again why we haven't invaded North Korea?
was ironic, since (depending on your timezone) you apparently posted it on November 27th, the anniversary of the start of the
Battle of Chosin Reservoir.
because they are quite happy to let the US go and bleed in the desert.
hmmm, i wonder if any other country has done this? like maybe in the '80's in afghanistan?
Its been a military tactic for....ever. Only new thing is the ignorance not to learn from the past and repeat the same mistakes.
Its been a military tactic for....ever. Only new thing is the ignorance not to learn from the past and repeat the same mistakes.
For...ever?
"When the enemy is making mistakes, do not interrupt." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
It was old wisdom then, too.
Very good BigV, I like that one - a lot.
God Bless America
Remind me again why we haven't invaded North Korea?
Because it is not our place.
Shawnee that was MY joke!!!
:lol:
Very good BigV, I like that one - a lot.
Thank you classicman. Welcome to the cellar. I'm glad you like that bit of borrowed wisdom. I'm not a Bonaparte scholar, but I do tend to collect bits like this. They tend to stick in my head. There's a whole collection of them round here somewhere...
Quote of the day Found it! Enjoy. Good to have you aboard.
Might do a bit of research -- I've heard that quote attributed to Sun Tzu.
DPRK qua DPRK wouldn't manage any too well against the modern American military, regardless of how many million they have under arms (roughly two), because they are not a modern army but a mid-twentieth-century one, with the feeblest of economies behind it. I say we'd mulch them. We own the day, the night, the air, the sea, space -- everything but the bush over the fighting hole. It would be a matter of our firing two million rounds.
I mostly agree with this, but I'd like to add that I guess a large percentage of the DPRK's army only joined up because it was the only way they could get fed on a regular basis. When the shooting starts I would expect more white flags than last-ditch stands.
But, if there are 2 million enemy soldiers, do you really think the US forces would fire only 2 million bullets? This is a force that has firepower and uses it ... I'd raise that by a factor of ten.
But of course ... China ...
I'm speaking loosely, but I'm supposing two million munitions of all types in an order of battle for taking the rest of the Korean peninsula. We're getting scary accurate with smart munitions, which does a lot to cut down the sheer tonnage of stuff shot at the foe and the collateral damage too.
That you mention the white flags is I think the same reason I mentioned the feeble economy. War colleges tell us that all wars are fundamentally economic -- the economy that takes less damage or can absorb more damage is in the end what determines the winner of a war, given similar degrees of motivation to give battle. North Korea could not sustain a war with us, and likely could not sustain a war with the ROK. A month's fighting would exhaust their sinews. Intelligent psych-war would sap their wills. Internet access would defeat the ideology.
Load the B-52s with laptops.
Don't forget the HumRats too! They need something to nibble on while they surf the Web.
I have this wacky theory that we ought to prop up North Korea as a kind of global museum/giant theme park. Call it StalinistLand (the unhappiest place in the universe).
The idea being to provide a lasting example of just how screwed up the extreme Stalinist state is. DPRK is the last real example of this, I think it is good to use the tensions in the Korean peninsula to illustrate to youngsters that for 40 years the whole world was torn in similar tension.
Ok, I said it was a wacky idea.
Oh, BTW, "Internet access would defeat the ideology." ... A guy just got publicly executed for making international phone calls. I don't think they haz the interweb!
Flood them with laptops, or even Blackberries, and make the whole country a wireless hotspot.
Might do a bit of research -- I've heard that quote attributed to Sun Tzu.
--snip.
You might, but you probably won't.
Now that you've said that he probably will. It's reverse quantum.
Oh wait, now that I've said this he probably wont.
[SIZE="1"]But now that I've said that he probably will.
[COLOR="Silver"]But now that I've said that ....[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Oh ohhhh.
lol :frown: lol :frown: lol
Okay... V's not doing any research himself in apparent hopes of making me mad or something. [Marvin Martian]Very Angry.[/Marvin]
Zen's just making me confused. Perhaps it's a Koan thing...
". . . You are worthless Alec Baldwin/You are worthless Alec Baldwin..." Come to think of it he never did leave the country, did he?
[Edit] Hmm, lots and lots of hits for Napoleon saying it, and lots of near-miss references to Sun Tzu talking about the making of mistakes. That's what it looks like so far. I found one hit that could be misread to attribute it to Nietzsche, but that was a matter of juxtaposition and reading the text shows Napoleon.
DPRK wouldn't manage any too well against the modern American military, regardless of how many million they have under arms (roughly two), because they are not a modern army but a mid-twentieth-century one, with the feeblest of economies behind it. I say we'd mulch them. We own the day, the night, the air, the sea, space -- everything but the bush over the fighting hole. It would be a matter of our firing two million rounds.
Deja Vue Nam. Oh. Lesson from history is BEFORE Urbane Guerrilla rewrote the Pentagon Papers. Amazing how a military so advanced as to 'bomb them into the stone age' only 'bled to death' in a jungle. Then 30+ years later make the same mistake in a desert when another crook was president.
If UG had ever learned Military Science 101, then he knows why Nam was lost, why a strategic objective is essential, and even why war is the only solution according to wacko extremists on both sides. If UG had learned anything, then he understood why Jimmy Carter's (Nobel Prize honored) deal from the mid 1990s, destroyed by wacko extremist Americans, had to be reestablished by Condi Rice only after heavy handed pressure from China. American wacko extremists could never understand constraints upon Kim Jong Il as he carefully attempts to bring his country (and wacko extremists) back into the world and without being deposed (murdered).
Of course, all this was discussed by those with simple grasp on 28 February 2007 in
North Korea fires missles including a detailed analysis in
Radio Times on Wednesday, 5 Jul 2006 with Mike Chinoy. Since then, Condi Rice has proven that two year old analysis was correct. Our wacko extremists did not get into a shooting war as they also so desperately wanted over a silly spy plane incident in China. Wackos always see solutions only in military operations. The purpose of war is too complex for them. UG would know this if he bothered to understand Sun Tzu's writings.
How could UG have seen reality? Required is a simple grasp of Military Science 101. But a serviceman need not learn basic military concepts if they intend to remain an enlisted man and desk jockey for 20 years. No wonder UG routinely rewrites history. Otherwise he would have to admit the fallacy in his politics.
Those with basic knowledge could easily see why Kim Jong Il was saber rattling. How he was doing it was so obvious. He was trying to reestablish the Jimmy Carter solution - to bring his nation back into the world without getting murdered in a coup d'etat. In a wacko extremists world of 'black and white', 'good and evil', and perspectives, then Kim's real objectives would be too complex for wacko extremists to comprehend.
Kim Jong Il carefully attempting to bring his country back into the world?
Beyond belief. What gases in what percentages make up the atmosphere of your world, tw? You don't seem to inhabit the Earth.
You certainly don't seem to grasp the behavior of tyrants at all accurately, but that's par for the course. You're a lot better at troubleshooting automobiles, it seems, than in the people arts of politics. Those auto fixing posts were the best things you've ever written on the Cellar, and I hope you do more. Your strengths lie there, and those posts were worthy things. Certainly much more worthy than trying to attribute farsighted, humanitarian action to Kim Jong Il.
When it comes to realities in politics, they and you don't intersect much; a Venn diagram would show two separate circles, for all the accuracy you've ever shown -- especially when you're trying to fathom my thinking and predict it: the kindest description is "wide of the mark."
Tw likes to try disparaging my grasp of military science, without actually demonstrating any ability or knowledge at military science himself. I wonder when he'll give it up as unsuccessful?
He sinks into his usual slough of delusional thinking with his insistence someone somewhere wanted a war over "a silly spy plane incident." Proof is lacking. Tw cannot provide proof, and can't understand that he's a liar. In incomprehension is unrepentance, it would appear. We don't buy your Big Lie tactics, tw. You suck, hard. About 40 bars, I reckon.
He then continues in his misery, projecting a fallacy in my politics. I laugh, secure in the knowledge of just how much better at this I am than he.
Tw, kid, I can't be as stupid as you need me to be for your predictions about my thinking and behavior to come true. I can tell you that, but you can't understand. The deficiency is all yours, the smugness all mine, and justified.
And you're hopeless at foreign phrases. Google's your friend, you know.
TW, are you a Military Officer? If so, which component, what branch, what rank, and TIS?
If you are an officer, or a cadet of some kind, you better get your head out of your 4th point of contact when it comes to your ideas of enlisted men and women.
don't bother questioning tw's (mis)conception of what the military is like. he is as likely to magically turn into a purple cougar as he is to show any capacity for learning what it is really like.
Just sifting through TW's post, I think there are two points. He's my take on these ideas - as far as I can make them out.
One is military. Sure, the US would win a conventional war Vs North Korea (provided China stayed out of it) - but, then what?
How long until the liberators would be viewed as occupiers? Would there be a guerrilla campaign? and the real biggie ... how could the US rebuild a stable nation ready for reintegration into the local neighbourhood, out of people who have been brainwashed for 50 years that the rest of the world, especially the USA and South Korea, are pure evil and want to destroy them?
Which leads to the second point, which is political. UG is right that the US military would make short work of the conventional PDRK military, but this is only part of the question. Without a workable political solution, military victory is in the long term futile. This was the problem in Vietnam and has been the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"If all you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." The US has one hell of a hammer, but if the job is changing a light bulb, the hammer just makes it harder.
So the deja vu TW is on about is that this military ability gets the US into political quagmires. Sure, the conventional war would be won... then what? Nation building is not the US's forte. Imagine trying to do it out of the screwed up mess that a post-war North Korea would be.
Oh and don't forget ... they DO have The Bomb. If they were cornered, as a last resort, using a tactical battlefield strike within their own territory ... I wouldn't rule it out.
I'm probably wrong in my TW scholarship. My apologies to you TW if I've got you way wrong. But TW? "Deja vu". Not "vue". Or "déjà vu" to be really precise. ;)
i think the objection to tw's post centered on his dig at enlisted men. it is a frequent tactic he uses to try to rile people up. he knows that a couple of people he tangles with frequently were enlisted so he insinuates that the reason enlisted folks are enlisted rather than officers is an intelligence issue. i'm sure he could puke up an encyclopedia or something to support his view, but it has no basis in reality. just a little tw-ism.
The North Koreans are more interested in food than insurgency. Most of them would probably head south at the first opportunity.
And no, they don't have "The Bomb". They managed to set off one crude explosion of questionably nuclear material.
tw's perspective is not from a military position, but of civilian scholars that study military moves and their results. You know, the people that planned Afghanistan and Iraq.
Attacking North Korea would be another example of their expertise, in telling the military how to wage war... ie, fiasco.
Lookout, yes, Joe's did, but there was more to TW's post than that cheap shot.
Bruce, yes to this:
The North Koreans are more interested in food than insurgency. Most of them would probably head south at the first opportunity.
But that still would be a huge flood of refugees and all the chaos that would create.
But to this:
And no, they don't have "The Bomb". They managed to set off one crude explosion of questionably nuclear material.
Basing my position on what I recall from the Japanese and western media, it probably was nuclear. Yes, it was crude. That is small consolation to me. I am presently downwind from the Korean peninsula, I would prefer the absence of filthy, contamination-scattering crude nuclear blasts in the general area, thanks.
OK, I just googled and Wikied. Radioactive isotopes indicate there was a nuclear blast. Yield estimates range from 0.55 to 12 kilotons. Probably about 1 or so. This means it was probably a fizzle - kind of worked but not properly.
It was still a nuclear blast. Fizzles are likely to be filthy. I'd rather not have them about, thanks.
If you are an officer, or a cadet of some kind, you better get your head out of your 4th point of contact when it comes to your ideas of enlisted men and women.
Apparently you missed my point entirely. The point is why some people even after 20 years service will never be anything more than enlisted man material.
The service defines a major difference between officer and enlisted man for good reason. Enlisted men who do understand the bigger picture (ie a concept called the strategic objective) may become officers. Even Powell and Shinseki (I believe) rose through the ranks this way because they could grasp and categorize these larger perspectives. They could see the bigger picture. Clearly neither lookout123 nor Urbane Guerrilla can.
Well defined is the purpose of war - which neither nay sayer still grasps. The purpose of war is to move that conflict to a negotiation table. There is no purpose to or value of war IF the negotiation table can solve the problem.
Numerous recent examples of people with an 'officer material' perspective exist. Holbrook got Milosevic to negotiation himself right out of office. Jimmy Carter avoided war by simply addressing Kim Jong Il's problem. Powell and Jimmy Carter solved Haiti without military conflict. Kennedy's grasp of the bigger picture in Cuba and his repeated 'put downs' of Gen Curtis LeMay's solution is why we all exist. In every case, war would have accomplished nothing while negotiation solved everything. These concepts are too difficult for the enlisted man UG who can only find solutions in overt conflict.
Others have danced around (have some grasp) of those basic military concepts including a silly, unnecessary 4th generation war in North Korea. They also see the futility in what an enlisted man (who will never be officer material) cannot.
Grasping the need for a strategic objective is fundamental. No strategic objective means no victory. What is the strategic objective in N Korea? UG knows if we bomb them into the stone age, then we will win. He never learned the lessons from Nam or "Mission Accomplished".
I don't know what your above 'quoted point' is about. However we have been through this before. Was it Onyxcougar who also misinterpreted that statement by saying her enlisted man father worked in HQ? Yes, some enlisted men who never become officers can see the bigger picture. But that is completely irrelevant to my point.
My point is about a 20 year enlisted man who could never be officer material as demonstrated by his solutions to everything: more war and bigger guns.
I'm just starting to read Thomas P.M. Barnett's Blueprint For Action: A Future Worth Creating. So far, I'm fascinated. I'll probably be talking about this book's ideas from time to time.
Then he discovered Barnett discusses, for example, how to secure oil by doing NOT what George Jr, wacko extremists, and UG recommend. UG never posts ideas from a book that is quite comprehensive and that demonstrates how his idea of military imposition does not work. In fact, UG perverts quotes from Barnett's book to again promote a 'big dic' solution.
Some who will never be anything but enlisted man material read Thomas Barnett and still completely miss the point - the bigger perspective. For example, UG never comprehended Phase Four planning. 'Planning for the peace' before conflict even begins is completely lost on UG and lookout123. That means grasping concepts well beyond what is in front of a gun barrel. That means seeing the bigger picture: officer material.
These concepts were why I could see the dangers of "Mission Accomplished". These concepts - the same mistakes made in the liberation of Kuwait - were unexpected. Those same people would never make the same mistake again? Cheney, Wolfovitz, Rumsfeld, Feith, etc would never be so dumb as to ignore basic military doctrine? And yet that is exactly what these fools did. They, like UG, also view resolutions only in 'big dic' concepts. No wonder they would do anything necessary to create war in Iran, North Korea, and a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. Not officer material because they do not grasp basic MS101 concepts such as strategic objectives or the purpose of war.
The enlisted man was not disparaged. Exampled is an enlisted men who never will become officer material - who cannot see solutions beyond the point of a gun. These are 'big dic' types; who advocate war as a solution to everything.
The service defines a major difference between officer and enlisted man for good reason. Enlisted men who do understand the bigger picture (ie a concept called the strategic objective) may become officers. Even Powell and Shinseki (I believe) rose through the ranks this way because they could grasp and categorize these larger perspectives. They could see the bigger picture. Clearly neither lookout123 nor Urbane Guerrilla can.
This is what i was talking about. tw has a misconception about what the divide between officer and enlisted is all about. but he continues to throw this little gem out when discussing military/political issues with people who were enlisted. apparently he thinks it gets under their skin or something. unfortunately it is just evidence of his unwillingness to try a new concept or learn anything because people have tried to explain career paths and rank structure to him. eh, whatever. can't expect much from a little muppet. he does make a nice little pet though.
Well, since I'm not talking to a military officer, I guess I have to consider the source.
The only difference between this material and "officer material" is that I won't suck dick for a living. :bj2: :)
More to the point, many enlisted men and women choose their vocation, and career path in the military. You can see the "big picture", and set all the policy...steer the ship all you like.
Enlisted men and women work on the ground where the rubber meets the road.
After all the big wigs make their big picture plans, we will be there to clean up their mess and make em look good.
Don't disparage enlisted men and women as somehow being less then. The ability to regurgitate all them cool facts and figures...with flow charts, doesn't amount to squat when hot lead is slapping off of the concrete wall to your front. It's all balls and action at that point.
I know this is a thread about Korea. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
That's all I have to say about that.
ok, if we put away the attitudes and call a ceasefire on the pissing contest we can just some it up this way: those that have spent time in or around the military understand that the rank structure is not designed around intelligence or ability. it is designed around job descriptions.
many career paths require an officer rank even though they are quite menial jobs and don't have much in terms of planning or leading. some career paths require enlisted rank even though the people in the field may have advanced degrees. they may spend their days doing logistical and strategic planning. you don't start as an enlisted guy, do really well at your job and become an officer. a commission is not a reward for a job well done.
the rank structure has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence and abilities. mmmkay?
now back to the actual topic if you all want.
I'm all out of pee. Really, I've said all I have to say. Honest.
Well, since I'm not talking to a military officer, I guess I have to consider the source.
Why do you reinterpret (distort) in ‘black and white’? Why do you associate yourself with the politics of Urbane Guerrilla? Both were/are enlisted men. Do you believe Urbane Guerilla represents who you are? Or do you, instead, keep learning?
Enlisted men are only disparaged if reading with distortion as UG does. Why distort a post into a UG world of 'black verses white', 'good verses evil' concepts. That post clearly says contrary to your reply. Was the difference between two types of enlisted men too complex, or was the post too long to grasp?
Enlisted men were never disparaged. Noted is a type of enlisted man who could never be officer material even after 20 years. Where does that disparage all enlisted men? Hopefully you - regular.joe – are not myopic as UG. Hopefully you also don’t rewrite history to justify a political agenda; view the world only from a rifle barrel. Do you understand most military conflicts never need occur when using diplomacy? Officers and informed enlisted men understand the purpose of war. UG does not. But does regular.joe? Would you associate yourself with dangerous UG myopia. Do you advocate more wars in Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, and throughout the horn of Africa? Or do you instead continue learning so as to be potential officer material?
Some enlisted men will never be officer material, will never understand simple military principles taught in Military Science 101, in the writing of Szu Tze, or as defined by Thomas Barnett. Those who most respect the American soldier understand these concepts. Since all enlisted men are not like UG; then enlisted men were not disparaged. So tell us, regular.joe. Do you grasp the foolishness by Urbane Guerilla and lookout123? Or would you save the world by constantly going to war? Others here have demonstrated a grasp of reality? Do you?
Are you potential officer material? Do you understand a simplest concept: the purpose of war? OK. Tell us. What is the purpose of war. Regular.joe – tell us. What is the purpose of war?
Did you understand what that Captain in Iraq meant when he said, "I cannot lose this war. And I cannot win this war either." 'Officer material' comprehended the quandary defined so explicitly by this officer. Do you?
Those who respect the American soldier also routinely ask this damning question. Both UG and lookout123 have so much contempt for America and the American soldier as to openly avoid asking this question. Repeatedly challenged, neither will ask a question that every American patriot would ask. When will we go after bin Laden? Do you associate with those whose politics are more important than (subvert) America? Or do you ask this damning question? "When do we go after bin Laden?"
so when do you think we'll go after bin laden?
Well, well, tw. Your ill-founded prejudices and hard-held delusions get your dick knocked in the dirt for you. Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy, less because you're such a K-less dic[k] than because you're such an antidemocrat and such a fascisto-communist sympathizing moral pervert and despiser of all that makes life worth living, which the communism you love utterly lacks.
Bin too long now - why go after one man anyway? Does he really wield that much power still?
The attaching of too much importance to bin Laden's person is the most vivid mark of strategic amateurs imaginable. You can't personify the Islamofascist movement in one single man, and Islamofascism is not balanced atop bin Laden's shoulders. Your insistence that this is the supreme objective is wrong, for it will divert us from actually defeating Islamofascism, the broader threat. It is notable with you that you always and uniformly advocate the mistaken strategies that will lose America the war. Why you have such a resentment towards your mother country, tw, you can and will never explain, yet you must explain if you wish to redeem your soul.
It is more important to see Islamofascism destroyed and bin Laden still living out in the wilds than to get bin Laden and assume or expect that that will do the job of defeating Islamofascism. The way wars usually work, especially in modern centuries, is that the enemy's armies must be defeated and sinews of war destroyed, before it even gets possible to make the enemy's leaders captive. Wars have an attritional element.
Bin Laden is a cherry on top, and like the cherry not in himself much significance in the overall downfall of Islamofascism no matter when he's captured or dies. His intel value? -- who knows really?
Now, tw: That is the true and the right answer to the question you make such a big amateurs' deal of. I know you will not be able to accept or acknowledge the rightness of this answer, but that is just a sign I've got it right. You never knew the right, not in human affairs. You lack the knack, and it appears you have since childhood.
The attaching of too much importance to bin Laden's person is the most vivid mark of strategic amateurs imaginable.
bin Laden is a benchmark to identify false patriots. George Jr tells Urbane Guerrilla what to think. George Jr competence is why bin Laden runs free. A patriotic Urbane Guerrilla would be appalled at that George Jr incompetence for letting bin Laden go free. Instead, Urbane Guerrilla can only parrot the party line. Ignore the fact that bin Laden can kill thousands of Americans and George Jr makes no serious effort to get bin Laden. Even the group assembled by Clinton (Alec Station) to get bin Laden is disbanded by George Jr. After all, if the bogeyman is protected and still exists, then George Jr lies about enemies under our beds still works on Urbane Guerrillas.
Orange Alert – bin Laden planning to attack … Urbane Guerrilla loves such lies. It promotes more war.
The wacko extremists are so corrupt as to even repeatedly hype WWIII and Iranian threats when known was that Iran did not have a bomb program for four years. ‘Liars are Us’ is a sign hung adjacent to the one entitled “Mission Accomplished”. Same liar lets bin Laden run free. Urbane Guerrilla is either insane, stupid, or so anti-American as to parrot what the lying president says. Well after 20 years, he still was never officer material.
Urbane Guerrilla. bin Laden is how we measure your sanity, your intelligence, or your patriotism. Which one is missing? Multiple answers from those three categories are a distinct possibility. I am tired being politically correct with one who promised to rewrite the Pentagon Papers and still has no manuscript. But then George Jr also promised god told him what to do. Hummmh. Urbane Guerilla is a White House lawyer who also rewrites science reports? No wonder he has no time to rewrite the history of Nam. No wonder he cannot tell us the truth. Truth is a bad word among those who so love a scumbag.
UG - this should make you feel so much at home. I only do it for a so few select people. You so love abuse. Sorry, though, that I cannot lie like you and your idol. I know how much you love lies. But then you have George Jr. Is that not enough?
Bin too long now - why go after one man anyway? Does he really wield that much power still?
All rapists should go free after five years. All murders pardoned after six. I love the reasoning that only a scumbag president and his supporters would parrot.
America's Enemy #1 is bin Laden. Instead our wackos who even disbanded Alec Station (the group assigned by Clinton to get bin Laden) now say we must go after more dangerous enemies - such as Saddam and his WMDs. Or maybe we must nuke Iran because they might build a nuclear bomb. Guess again. Or North Korea whose only intent is to nuke the continental US. Oh. Another myth. How many more mythical enemies are more deserving of 'Pearl Harboring'? Clearly we should ignore bin Laden since ignoring promotes a wacko extremists political agenda. Remember, that political agenda is far more important than America.
In short - shame on you for even suggesting it.
IOW, tw -- I'm a poet! -- you are a false patriot. Well, hell, we knew that. And you're a resolute liar -- half the truth is as close as you come,you poor defective obsessive. It is remarkable just how inferior a being you are, how childish in your emotional postings -- for I have induced you to seven paragraphs in two posts of madness and ranting.
Spock was a master of his passions. You are not.
~snip~ shame on you for even suggesting it.
Exactly when did I suggest anything of the sort? I simply asked a question. You needn't be so rude as to make implications where none should exist. Shame on me? Shame on you!
what do you think tw will have to talk about on 1/21/09? i mean, will he talk anymore? will he even exist anymore?
He may pull a Mary McGrory and still be kicking GWB around two years after he leaves office like McGrory did with Reagan. Gawd, she was toxic -- never met a socialist dictatorship or despot she couldn't love. Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?
Fortunately it was Reagan and not McGrory who was in charge.
Nota bene: Two posts, one fairly wordy, and tw makes no explanation of why he so hates his mother country as to always try to get it to lose wars with fascists and other subdemocrats.
He can't. And he knows it. Resolutely, night and day, tw sucks at about 43 bars' suction, to embarrass himself and all the causes he endorses. This actually has value, in that it's a fair indicator of which ideas are so very bad that only left-wing intellectuals can hold them. I'd have to suck up about 43 bars' worth of drink to get intoxicated enough to agree with the man. Strike that; there isn't enough drink.
Exactly when did I suggest anything of the sort? I simply asked a question. You needn't be so rude as to make implications where none should exist.
My most polite posts are rude and my most rude posts are polite. The only thing you should have read are the facts. Any emotion you might perceive? Assume it exists only to confuse you. Only the facts are relevant. One fact is that bin Laden is America’s Enemy #1. There is no greater criminal to any patriotic American – which is a specific reference to both Urbane Guerrilla and lookout123. Again – the facts.
If you read any praise or insult, then you are reading something that is not there – or may even just test you to see whether you can separate your emotions from the facts.
If you think anything was rude, well, that was 100% your emotional response. Why did you waste time with a perceived insult rather than address only the facts? Nothing I posted (or in this post) was intended to be rude or praise. It was intended to address only one fundamental question with blunt, explicit accuracy: “when do we go after bin Laden?” It also identifies extremists who would deny this question because the question exposes the mental midget president for who he is. When do we go after American Enemy #1? America has no greater living criminal even though wacko extremists would deny it for what is more important to them - a political agenda.
which is a specific reference to both Urbane Guerrilla and lookout123
why do you continue to throw this crap in my direction? have you no more self restraint than a monkey?
My most polite posts are rude and my most rude posts are polite.~snip~ Any emotion you might perceive? Assume it exists only to confuse you. ~snip~
If you read any praise or insult, then you are reading something that is not there – or may even just test you to see whether you can separate your emotions from the facts.~snip~
You seem very confused to me tw. Polite is rude & rude is polite. You claim that nothing is relevant other than facts, then direct me to assume, then state any praise or insult is a test. seperate your emotions from the facts. Your post is full of innuendos and implications. Make up your mind please.
“when do we go after bin Laden?”
Right about the same time he stops being
already dead.
There has not been a single reliable videotape of him to surface since October 2004.
Everything since then has been unauthenticated audio recordings or laughably doctored videotapes with dubbed audio. That dude is dead, tw. Who is America's Enemy #2?
tw, Who is America's Enemy #2.
You seem very confused to me tw. Polite is rude & rude is polite. You claim that nothing is relevant other than facts, then direct me to assume, then state any praise or insult is a test. seperate your emotions from the facts. Your post is full of innuendos and implications. Make up your mind please.
Innuendos and implications mean nothing. If it is not specifically stated, then it can only be something you assume or feel. Was it my intent? Assumptions and feeling are only speculation. As stated, innuendos and implications you might perceive in that post were not my intent, obviously were not specifically stated, and (you are invited to assume this) may have only tested your ability to separate what actually was posted from perceived emotions.
Emotional assumptions have no factual significance. But what in that post is clearly significant? A simple question that supporters of George Jr apparently fear to ask. "When do we go after bin Laden?" To ask that question is to publicly admit the mental midget did not go after American Enemy #1. Purpose of that question was stated repeatedly for many years. Supporters of George Jr are repeatedly challenged to ask a question that any patriotic American would have no problem asking. But our George Jr supporters (ie Urbane Guerrilla) cannot ask that question. An extremist political agenda is more important than America.
I nominate Urbane Guerrilla for American Enemy #2. Anybody second it? UG, go ahead. Second that (e)motion. You could become famous without having your 'Pentagon Papers' manuscript published.
Is bin Laden dead? I neither see, hear, nor recognize anything that proves it. I do see an American military machine that makes no effort to get bin Laden due to incompetent top management. I see an American military machine that has so screwed up the Afghanistan war that the Taliban now control about half the country and may be threatening a nuclear power. Again, massive incompetence by the mental midget president and his administration kept the military from accomplishing victory.
No wonder UG, et al fear to ask "When do we go after bin Laden." Dead or alive; we don't know because a scumbag president refuses to go after bin Laden. It should be an impeachable offense. Those driven only by their political agendas approve of letting bin Laden run free? It is the question that pseudo-patriots cannot ask. It is a question asked until bin Laden is irrefutably proven dead. No innuendos or implications are acceptable. “When do we go after bin Laden.”
"If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
I do not fear what you say I fear, tw, and I never shall nor will. That is simply another way for you to stay delusive, you poor defective son of a mother of puppies. Perhaps your neurotic thinking gives you comfort -- you shall get none from me, antipatriot. I am here to make sure you drool and babble. (You're doing quite a job of that.) Look, O Dwellars, on the moist face of Rump Communism. Here's the hard Left in concentrated form.
The people arts of politics aren't your strength, kid. These two boards do not belong to you. They're more my field, to be blunt.
tw, you are a "great guy" wink wink, nudge nudge.
[COLOR="Silver"][SIZE="1"](no implication or innuendo intended nor inferred)[/SIZE][/COLOR]
tw, you are a "great guy"
Think Uni-Bomber Ted Kaczynski with internet access...:D
Is bin Laden dead? I neither see, hear, nor recognize anything that proves it.
tw, do you believe Hoffa is alive and well?
I saw Elvis at a gas station today.
I neither see, hear, nor recognize anything that proves it.
I had lunch with Steve Fossett.
tw, you are a "great guy"
classicman - you really need to get a grasp of reality. You know I am DB. Yeah. DB. DB Cooper. You know why you like me. I'm rich. Yea. That's it. I'm rich. But you knew that.
Mark the calendars -- tw made a joke, and a good one. I approve.
Thought he'd quit, after the comparative spate of witticisms near the beginning of the year.
Tw, is there something about snow that makes you fun?
Jeez, I'd've thought he wouldn't mind answering that. By the limited data available, there seems a correlation.
