Amazon 7
Recommended Posts
billvon 3,085
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Even in defense, military resources are offensive in nature.
Again, so are wilderness firefighters. (Google how a firebreak is created in the wilderness. They don't use water.)
Like I said before, saying "stay there until the fire is out or until you're dead" would get most dispatchers not only fired but possibly brought up on charges for gross incompetence. Firefighters cannot always control what happens in a fire; no sane person thinks they are always in control. And claiming that evacuating them when a fire is out of control means you are calling them "failures" is silly.
Again, so are wilderness firefighters. (Google how a firebreak is created in the wilderness. They don't use water.)
Like I said before, saying "stay there until the fire is out or until you're dead" would get most dispatchers not only fired but possibly brought up on charges for gross incompetence. Firefighters cannot always control what happens in a fire; no sane person thinks they are always in control. And claiming that evacuating them when a fire is out of control means you are calling them "failures" is silly.
Quote> Even in defense, military resources are offensive in nature.
Again, so are wilderness firefighters. (Google how a firebreak is created in the wilderness. They don't use water.)
It's sad to watch you and the others getting hijacked by this irrelevant offensive/defensive distinction. Gawain sure did tie you all up in knots!
And completely lost is the original topic which was far more interesting to me than a nomenclature argument about whether chopping trees down is or isn't something-or-other and what the government department that makes war is called...
First Class Citizen Twice Over
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteIn 2003 government contractors stated that they needed $15 million to bring a concrete plant on line in northern Iraq. Petreaus hired some Iraqis to get the job done and did it with $80,000. Maybe Cheney will disagree with me but I like that kind of thinking and action.
That sure as hell did not help Cheney or Bush family retirement funds.
I'm sure the Capital Partners for Education will be please to hear that, since that is where any profit from Cheney's stock goes to... and has, the entire time he's been VP.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,085
>And completely lost is the original topic . . .
True. Here's a good overview on the US senate proposal by Hagel:
--------------------
Today, Congress takes an important step in what we believe is our constitutional responsibility to actively engage and debate the war in Iraq. We agree with the president that our previous strategy in Iraq was failing. Equally, we are convinced that to succeed in Iraq, America's objective and strategy must enjoy the support of the American people and a bipartisan support in Congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on a resolution we introduced with our colleagues Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, believe: America should not deepen its military involvement in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war. More troops in Baghdad will increase the likelihood of more American casualties and will not end the sectarian Iraqi massacres that are occurring every day.
Just as important, our resolution proposes an alternative. The primary objective of America's strategy should be to help Iraqis achieve a political settlement in Iraq, secure support for that settlement from Iraq's neighbors and refocus the mission of our remaining troops on achievable objectives. That is the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Here are the main elements of our plan:
•Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;
•Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;
•Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;
•Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presented the president's plan to the Foreign Relations Committee. The reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.
A strong majority of the American people opposes sending more American troops into Iraq. So does a broad cross section of this country's leaders, military and civilian, as we have heard this month in hearings in Congress. In December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region."
Our fundamental objective is to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to support a U.S. policy on Iraq that stands the best chance of succeeding and bringing our men and women in uniform home.
We welcome debate of our resolution and proposed alternatives. The resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., contributes to this debate. As we have made clear publicly and privately, we are prepared to adjust our resolution to help broaden bipartisan support. Ultimately, this debate will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands.
We believe that the single most effective way for Congress to engage the president in developing a way forward in Iraq is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of bipartisan concern regarding his policy. The power of our resolution rests in its bipartisan foundation.
Iraq is not a partisan issue. It is a challenge that we must meet as Americans. No one in Congress and no one in America wants to see America defeated. We believe our nation is stronger when Congress fulfills its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government.
True. Here's a good overview on the US senate proposal by Hagel:
--------------------
Today, Congress takes an important step in what we believe is our constitutional responsibility to actively engage and debate the war in Iraq. We agree with the president that our previous strategy in Iraq was failing. Equally, we are convinced that to succeed in Iraq, America's objective and strategy must enjoy the support of the American people and a bipartisan support in Congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on a resolution we introduced with our colleagues Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, believe: America should not deepen its military involvement in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war. More troops in Baghdad will increase the likelihood of more American casualties and will not end the sectarian Iraqi massacres that are occurring every day.
Just as important, our resolution proposes an alternative. The primary objective of America's strategy should be to help Iraqis achieve a political settlement in Iraq, secure support for that settlement from Iraq's neighbors and refocus the mission of our remaining troops on achievable objectives. That is the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Here are the main elements of our plan:
•Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;
•Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;
•Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;
•Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presented the president's plan to the Foreign Relations Committee. The reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.
A strong majority of the American people opposes sending more American troops into Iraq. So does a broad cross section of this country's leaders, military and civilian, as we have heard this month in hearings in Congress. In December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region."
Our fundamental objective is to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to support a U.S. policy on Iraq that stands the best chance of succeeding and bringing our men and women in uniform home.
We welcome debate of our resolution and proposed alternatives. The resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., contributes to this debate. As we have made clear publicly and privately, we are prepared to adjust our resolution to help broaden bipartisan support. Ultimately, this debate will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands.
We believe that the single most effective way for Congress to engage the president in developing a way forward in Iraq is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of bipartisan concern regarding his policy. The power of our resolution rests in its bipartisan foundation.
Iraq is not a partisan issue. It is a challenge that we must meet as Americans. No one in Congress and no one in America wants to see America defeated. We believe our nation is stronger when Congress fulfills its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government.
Amazon 7
QuoteI'm sure the Capital Partners for Education will be please to hear that, since that is where any profit from Cheney's stock goes to... and has, the entire time he's been VP.
Gee did you read the story about how Cheney benefited from Katrina???
He has a LOT of tax dodges... I am sure a very smart accountant is at work... and if you truely believe he has not profited from this war... I would have to ask how that sandbox tastes that you have your head buried in.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI'm sure the Capital Partners for Education will be please to hear that, since that is where any profit from Cheney's stock goes to... and has, the entire time he's been VP.
Gee did you read the story about how Cheney benefited from Katrina???
He has a LOT of tax dodges... I am sure a very smart accountant is at work... and if you truely believe he has not profited from this war... I would have to ask how that sandbox tastes that you have your head buried in.
Wrong again.
Cheney is getting deferred pay from BEFORE he took office. That is not going to change with profits to the company AFTER he left it. Any profit from stock options that he holds is going to charity, and has since the time he took office.
Maybe it's time for YOU to pull your head out of the Liberal Rage sandbox and look around...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
I'm sure the Capital Partners for Education will be please to hear that, since that is where any profit from Cheney's stock goes to... and has, the entire time he's been VP.
That sounds a little misleading. Has he exercised those 433,333 options yet? Because to my knowledge he has just pleged to donate those profits to charity after they're cashed in. I believe that he still is getting a deferred salary as well, about $200K/yr.
edited to add:
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=254548&&
SkyDekker 1,465
Shhh, they haven't figured out yet, that he will be cashing those in about a week after his term ends...and I am pretty sure not all (if any) of it will go to charity.
QuoteShhh, they haven't figured out yet, that he will be cashing those in about a week after his term ends...and I am pretty sure not all (if any) of it will go to charity.
I'd ask the VP directly but he's got potty mouth and has a tendency to ask people to do things that aren't anatomically possible
Amazon 7
He is also a convicted drunk driver....
Thank God ! Thank the Senate ! Haven't we had enough of his incompetent Bullshit and lies already? IMPEACH him while we're at it.
*My Inner Child is A Fucking Prick Too!
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}
*Everyones entitled to be stupid but you are abusing the priviledge
*Well I'd love to stay & chat, But youre a total Bitch! {Stewie}
Gawain 0
QuoteQuote> Even in defense, military resources are offensive in nature.
Again, so are wilderness firefighters. (Google how a firebreak is created in the wilderness. They don't use water.)
It's sad to watch you and the others getting hijacked by this irrelevant offensive/defensive distinction. Gawain sure did tie you all up in knots!
And completely lost is the original topic which was far more interesting to me than a nomenclature argument about whether chopping trees down is or isn't something-or-other and what the government department that makes war is called...
Gee whiz dude...I already shared my opinion about the original post and topic. This is called a tangent, and it happens in every other thread...like you've never done that?
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
mnealtx 0
QuoteShhh, they haven't figured out yet, that he will be cashing those in about a week after his term ends...and I am pretty sure not all (if any) of it will go to charity.
Wrong again...the trust is irrevocable. As for the deferred salary, that was salary from BEFORE he left Halliburton - deferred salary payments aren't anything unusual for high level executives.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteHe is also a convicted drunk driver....
And so are the Kennedys .... your point being?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
dorbie 0
QuoteQuoteHe is also a convicted drunk driver....
And so are the Kennedys .... your point being?
You are too kind, the swimmer killed a girl. Don't worry though, he can atone by taxing your sorry ass and pointing to all the social good he can do.
I sometimes wonder if JFK would have changed over time to adopt the modern left wing policies like his brother Teddy or if the man who said "A rising tide raises all boats", would have objected to the policies on taxes and social programs.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteWrong again...the trust is irrevocable.
According to?
And if all of it would go to charity, why not exercise them right away and give it to charity? (which would be tax deductable right?)
Zenister 0
QuoteQuote
finally!!! Bush finds a General who understands "shut up and color"
Actually, Petreaus may be a good guy to have in there I think. He seems to be able to think for himself. In 2003 government contractors stated that they needed $15 million to bring a concrete plant on line in northern Iraq. Petreaus hired some Iraqis to get the job done and did it with $80,000. Maybe Cheney will disagree with me but I like that kind of thinking and action. That said, that doesn't mean that by giving a capable general only a few more good men that he'll be able to make Bush's....ummm...."plan" work. When it fails it won't be Petreaus' fault. Those troops would be better utilized in Afghanistan.
Does anyone (Active Duty Military or otherwise) think the continual rotation of Theater Commanders is a GOOD IDEA?
not singling any out (ive met several, but not Petreaus) but is continual change at the top really a good strategy?
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Amazon 7
Quotenot singling any out (ive met several, but not Petreaus) but is continual change at the top really a good strategy?
Keep cycling them till you find one that does exactly as you want...at least that seems to be the current sequence of events in this administration
Disagreeing with the administration seems to have been a BIG CLM for some of them
(Career Limiting Move)
Actually I think they found the right guy.
I watched all of his testimony and served with him. I think he will do the right thing for Iraq, and that is more important (to me) than the politics here.
Matt
I watched all of his testimony and served with him. I think he will do the right thing for Iraq, and that is more important (to me) than the politics here.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
Zenister 0
QuoteActually I think they found the right guy.
I watched all of his testimony and served with him. I think he will do the right thing for Iraq, and that is more important (to me) than the politics here.
assuming that they did (and i dont dispute that) do you think they have really given him the resources to 'finish the job'?
do you think the American public is capable of supporting the kind of Force necessary to actually accomplish the mission? (of which 20k troops is no where near enough IMO)
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
QuoteQuoteOne is an offensive tool, the other is defensive.
One belongs to the Department of the Interior
One belongs to the Department of Defence
Actually, the minority of smoke jumpers work for the Interior. (BLM) The vast majority work for the US Forest Service. The Forest Service is under the department of Agriculture. USDA
Just in case you were wondering...
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteWrong again...the trust is irrevocable.
According to?
And if all of it would go to charity, why not exercise them right away and give it to charity? (which would be tax deductable right?)
According to the documents he signed to set it up. The options are are set prices - if they were all exercised right now it would be a net loss.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
That sure as hell did not help Cheney or Bush family retirement funds.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites