Should the United States pay Ransom?

Should the United States Pay Ransom?


  • Total voters
    31
Intended to be, 'transparent' Cloudy, et al, more precise, announced and acknowledged.

I oppose the entire philosophy and poltical stance the new President takes on all subjects, much like you, dear Cloudy, and most here, opposed the former President on all issues.

Where there is an opportunity to criticize this administration, know that i will. In this case, the White House was silent, for day after day; that was and is perceived as weakness and indecision, whether that is the whole truth or not, it certainly gave cause for criticism.

I didn't imagine you would enjoy suffering the fate of those who rule, constant criticism, just hang about until the next election, then you can go on the offense again instead of your usual whining defense.

Should the left ever attempt to be in the least, 'objective' in their criticism, it would at least be a step in the right direction. I doubt that will ever occur as you do not accept that one can be objective about anything.

Amicus...
 
Amicus,

For some obscure reason, governments do not issue instructions to military personnel through the media.

If military action is to be taken it will be authorised and the media informed when the action has been done.

Og
 
Intended to be, 'transparent' Cloudy, et al, more precise, announced and acknowledged.

I oppose the entire philosophy and poltical stance the new President takes on all subjects,

And so you have no compulsion to be intellectually dishonest. What an asshole.

(And note that I rarely ever use profanity on this forum. but you are dispicable.)
 
So, it makes no sense huh?

It seems like you were the one who didn't make the intellectual leap and you are the one who needs to study warfare more.

:cool:

Hardly.

The Navy made a decision that the Captain's life was in enough danger that they should take the risk and use their sharpshooters. I defer to the people on the spot to make that decision. As did Obama, although he had to actually approve the plan.

The fact that the rescue was successful is a credit to the skills of our men in uniform. It pleases me immensely.

But to say that because the rescue was successful a patient approach was a tactical error is just silly. The Navy saw an opportunity and took it. Bravo!

Besides, I'd rather be wrong and have Capt. Phillips alive than be right and have him dead.
 
Amicus,

For some obscure reason, governments do not issue instructions to military personnel through the media.

If military action is to be taken it will be authorised and the media informed when the action has been done.


Og


Poor old Oggbashan, lives in some lala land beyond reach of reality.

You might recall disembarcation day, D-Day, the beaches of Normandy, with both Winston and Ike making announcement TO THE MEDIA as the events unfolded.

Likewise Gulf Wars one & two, the build up, the attack, the 'shock & awe', damn, Ogg, maybe you didn't have a tv set?

Now that we have a socialist in office, we are urged to just 'trust' the son of a bitch to do the right thing in the dark of night instead of the light of full disclosure?

Think again, Henry, Cromwell is not around to explain you away.

Amicus
 
Ami, you ignorant slut.


I never want my country's military commanders to feel like they need to warn the media about attack plans.

...especially with the advent of the internet. The enemy would know everything as quickly as the media and far more quickly than the American public.
 
Hitler: 'Rommel, Google the plans for the forthcoming invasion.'
 
The captain has been freed in a smooth seals operation endorsed by Obama. Time for some posters to eat their humble pie?:)
 
Istat...you and others may not, 'get it', but there is reason for concern over the lack of information provided by the White House during this event.

The, 'information age', instant communications world wide, has brought with it a great many ponderable possibilities.

From a cargo ship, far out at sea, an incident took place and hours, if not minutes later, the entire listening world was aware of it and questions began to come forth in rapid succession.

Totalitarian governments, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, never advise or inform their people of anything unless they want them to know.

This democracy is different. We The People, choose and support our government and our military because we freely choose to, but we do so with certain caveats: we insist on knowing, within security necessities, what the hell is going on.

If you do not understand the ominous silence from the nation's capitol, then that is your lack of understanding.

This new President, indeed his entire administration, exhibits, thus far, a disdain for the American people in terms of providing information about events that concern us all.

A proper President would have gone before the American people, through the media, the very day the incident occured to assure them that the basic principles of America were being carried out.

He did not.

He left it to his maladroit press secretary to fumble and stumble his way through a, 'have faith, all is well', rhetoric so common to closed societies.

You folks just don't have a clue as to how a free nation functions.

Now why does that not surprise me?

Amicus...
 
You re-writing history there boy?

The 'D' in D-Day stands for day.

M-Month, D-Day, H-Hour.[/
QUOTE]

~!~~

You could have just searched the web, Liar:

Acronym Definition
D-day unnamed day on which operations commence or are scheduled to commence (US DoD)
D-DAY Day of Days (Band of Brothers)
D-DAY Disembarkation Day

~~~

And no, I do not expect an apology.

Amicus
 
Many explanations have been given for the meaning of D-Day, June 6, 1944, the day the Allies invaded Normandy from England during World War II. The Army has said that it is “simply an alliteration, as in H-Hour.” Others say the first D in the word also stands for “day,” the term a code designation. The French maintain the D means “disembarkation,” still others say “debarkation,” and the more poetic insist D-Day is short for “day of decision.”

~~~

Aside from being correct, I also note the trivial response to my assertion that the new administration was remiss in not publically addressing the hostage situation for five days. Not a word from the new, so called, Commander in Chief.

You know it is a valid point, your subterfuge is also noted.

Amicus
 
~~~

Aside from being correct, I also note the trivial response to my assertion that the new administration was remiss in not publically addressing the hostage situation for five days. Not a word from the ne, so called, Commander in Chief.

You know it is a valid point, your subterfuge is also noted.

Amicus

Newsflash: the president is not obligated to tell you anything.
 
In reality, Cloudy, you are wrong again. He is ordered by the Constitution to present a 'State of the Nation', report yearly.

There are many more instances in which the leader of this nation is compelled to address the people, but just to point out your error, I offer that one.

:)

Ami
 
Last edited:
Back
Top