Democrats versus Republicans

[Sapperwhite]

I'll check that book out, thanks, but what does the Scorpion have to do with the fact that Israel bombed the Liberty? Is the connection that Russia actually(theoretically) bombed the Liberty?


Also, Sailaway, I don't want you to get the impression that I am attacking you. It's more of a point counter-point for me. I am genuinely interested in your (and others) views regarding matters like this.

[sailaway21]

Windy,
Sounds like GW Bush. (g)

Most pols have suffered the comparison to RW Reagan. The man stood for some core beliefs, stated them plainly (too plainly for some), didn't back down on the really important issues, and through force of character was able to drag a Democrat congress onto ending of the Cold War and an economic boom that has yet to abate. It is a little acknowledged fact that we are still living in the "Reagan recovery" of the 1980's. Those of us old enough to remember double digit inflation rates coupled with double digit mortgage rates say thanks often. That minor thing about defeating expansionist Soviet communism merits remembrence also.

[sailaway21]

The two are not related.

1967 was a very, very tense time in Israel and environs. The Soviets were actively involved in events, with a large naval presence in the Med then and for many years thereafter. Things like airspace and territorial waters meant somewhat more than they may do today. It has been held, for some time, to have been an accident. Much as the USS Vincennes shooting down of an Iranian airliner over the Gulf was. In bad neighborhoods, sometimes even cops get shot by honest citizens.

[Sapperwhite]

[QUOTE=sailaway21;173392]The two are not related.[QUOTE]

Just making sure you were not trying to give me the 'ol "We don't have anymore Liberties on the lot but how would you like to see a Scorpion" trick.

[sailaway21]

That's delicious. You're good. (lol)

[camaraderie]

I think Obama just blew up his chances of getting the Dem nomination...here's what he just said:

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, “but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Sounds almost like a neo-con there...but I don't think the idea of conducting non-sanctioned military operations in a MUSLIM NUCLEAR equipped country is something that Ted Kennedy and Pelosi probably will get behind. While I kinda like the idea...it does indicate a bit of naivete and lack of experience...Stuff like this can only help Hillary...watch her jump on it!!

[sailhog]

So what happens if Musharraf is either assassinated or ousted from power? The West can't allow a Taliban-esque government to inherit a nuclear arsenal, which means they would have to be either destroyed or confiscated. Makes me afraid for my little girls...

[camaraderie]

Hog...right...and our invading his country would surely force him to respond or be brought down by the militant islamists in his country. He may not be our ideal...but he is better for us than any alternative.

[Cruisingdad]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Hog...right...and our invading his country would surely force him to respond or be brought down by the militant islamists in his country. He may not be our ideal...but he is better for us than any alternative.

My suggestion, Cam & Hog: Pack up and go sailing to a far off place. I personally don't see girls immune from the draft anymore either. But if it comes to nukes, it really wont matter - civilian or military.

- CD

[sailhog]

Cam, CD:
I read an article a few weeks back on what the author called the "self-devouring" cycle that takes place when something like Pearl Harbor or 9-11 takes place. No matter your political affilliation, it made a lot of sense -- at least to me. This guy suggested that big events like Pearl Harbor develop into ginormous events like WWII because certain political reactions kick in and create a domino effect that ends in the detonation of two atomic weapons, and the destruction of an entire continent. The author suggested that we are at the BEGINNING of such a cycle right now. Whether you love or hate George Bush, you have to have admit that he didn't intend to overshoot in Iraq. I don't mean to go on and on... anyway, long story short, he suggested that Bush's invasion of Iraq was at attempt, in geo-political terms, to stop WWII in 1942 with one dramatic/strategic military gesture. Wouldn't have worked in 1942, and, whether or not we had invaded Iraq, things were not/are not going work themselves out in the M.E. for a long time to come.