TomAiello

I had a friend in college who claimed to be a vegetarian, not because he loved animals, but because he hated plants. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How about "The Law of Gravity is the only law we need"? Or, just F = G (M1*M2/r^2) [except, express it pretty like], with a caption that says "It's the only law we need." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Once again, billvon deliberately misses my point. I hate to say it, but I think maybe you've missed the point. This thread was about telling jokes. Laugh, smile, don't get worked up. We have all the other threads in this forum for that. Heard on a hike to a European BASE exit point: "Damn it, I'm an American! Where's my helicopter?!" We can't all be fat and lazy. Some of us live outside the US. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, but they did give us (US consumers) the MINI Cooper back two years ago. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Hmmm. You might want to read this. On this page the DOE lists Sudan as one of the world's 10 major non-OPEC oil exporters. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Does that mean you work in a library? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think that's why they call it "faith". Personally, I've got very little faith. But I can't help but respect those who do. Real faith is an awe inspiring quality. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, but knowing they weren't correct now and knowing they weren't correct then are two different things. I've made decisions based on bad information before, and I'm sure so have most people. At this point, all we can do is move forward from where we are. Edit: Also, I have to agree with Kev. There are plenty of good reasons advanced by various folks that weren't given as "official" reasons. Truthfully, they make more sense to me than many of the official reasons. I'm not sure they are sufficient alone, but when you add up those policy maneuvers with what we thought we knew about WMD and terrorist connections, and throw in the social injustices of the Hussein regime? I dunno, the case for war looks fairly good from there. Knowing what I know now, would I have wanted the US to go to war? Probably not. In fact, since I didn't think the war was well advised from the get-go, I can say almost certainly not. But did I have all the information that the government possessed when the decision was made? Of course not. And what would I have decided had I possessed that information (correct or not) and believed it to be good? I can't say. I really can't. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

So, are you trying to argue _for_ an invasion of Sudan? If I was arguing that the social injustices perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime were sufficient to warrant invasion (I'm not), then I'd respond to your search for justification of not invading Sudan by saying that the US military is stretched too thin to take on another invasion and occupation in Sudan. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Are you kidding? You haven't heard anyone saying that Saddam Hussein needed to be overthrown because he was murdering his own people? Emphasis on my use of the word "sole". Emphasis on you use of the word "a". Sole reason is not the same as one of many reasons. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I haven't really heard too many people arguing that righting social injustice was the sole reason for invading Iraq. I'd disagree with invading Iraq to right social wrongs, as well. The US had many reasons for invading Iraq, some good, some not so good, some good but incorrect. Is there a similiar case for invading Sudan? I don't think so, but if you want to lay out the argument, have at it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Did you get any of Arne's footage for it? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't believe that social injustice (of whatever magnitude) in the Sudan (or anywhere else) is sufficient justification for military intervention. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Is that the new definition of genocide? No, it's the new definition of women not being allowed to vote, children being forced to work at the age of 7, and a whole slew of other social situations that I, personally, perceive as injustices. I'm not comfortable saying that they are sufficient grounds to launch an invasion, though. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

For the same reasons that people associate themselves with other organizations that have performed similar or worse deeds, perhaps? I mean, why would anyone associate themselves with the Khmer Rouge, PLO, Russian Communist Party, United States, People's Republic of China, or--heck, when it comes down to it, why would anyone associate themselves with _any_ organization at all? I can think of some good reasons that people affiliate in larger organizations. They apply equally to the Catholic Church and almost any other large, old organization. The idea that we oughtn't associate ourselves with an organization based solely on it's history doesn't make sense. If that was the case, anyone opposed to racial segregation in the US should refuse to associate themselves with the Democratic party. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If we accept "righting injustices" as an adequate justification for launching a military operation (I'm not so sure, but let's just assume), we'd still need to prioritize the operations (because not even the virtually all powerful US Department of Defense has unlimited resources). So, if the reasoning behind invading Iraq was to right social injustices, then the corresponding reason for not invading Sudan would be "we haven't gotten there yet," or "we don't have enough resources right now." If social justice is a valid cause for war, that leads us to repeated and continuous invasions of nations with different social situations than ours, which we might perceive as "unjust". I believe that's a pretty serious case of cultural imperialism, and I, personally, don't agree. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sounds like you're calling for the US military to intervene/invade in dozens of countries to right injustices. Is that really your position? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If you find yourself posting a few sentences that address the poster more than the issue, you probably ought to reconsider hitting the "post" button. That's a personal attack. It also has no bearing on the discussion. I've just looked over some of your other posts, and this appears to be a trend for you. Why don't you take a few days off from this forum and consider the difference between discussing and insulting? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I heard, while watching the olympics, that the US gymnastics team, in it's entirety, will be touring and performing for audiences in the US after the Olympics end. Presumably, they will be compensated for these performances. Does this mean that the gymnasts (mostly women) who are still in (or not yet in) college will not be allowed to compete in NCAA competition? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Huh? I didn't see PhillyKev refer to rich republicans anywhere. Personally, I think it's the fault of the rich democrats. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That was funny as hell. I'm color blind, so the words "red pens" were really hard for me to read. I kept staring at the text, trying to resolve a reddish blob, wondering "who's really to blame?" -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The C2 that Kenyon is referring to at the beginning of this thread is Continuum 2 (a BASE video and sequel to Continuum). The C2 that Manbird links to is a coca-cola product (he's linking as a joke) recently released in the US. The two are not related, except, perhaps by Steve's sense of humor. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

If it's on your property without permission, you are legally entitled to remove it. You are also legally entitled to charge them for removal, and to hold the sign for surety until they pay your (reasonable) costs for removal of the sign. After a (again reasonable) time, you can assume the property left is forfeit, and dispose of it as you wish. In reality, unless we're talking about a really expensive sign, it's yours. You also probably have grounds for filing a complaint with your local elections authority. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

So serious... -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Both of the hotels right at the top of the bridge (over on the side you drive up on) have free wireless. I can't remember their names, but if you want I can try to look and post them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com