An Obama Obscenity on 9/11/09...

[amicus]

It is of course, de rigueur, ( "necessary according to etiquette, common sense, protocol or fashion."), for a sitting President to pay respect to the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

There has been only one President, George W. Bush, since the terrorist attack on the United States by Islamic Radicals…

…until this September 11th.

Now we have a Leader who opposed the retaliation against Islamic Terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq; who will not even refer to the acts as, ‘Terrorism’, who has eviscerated the Military and the Intelligence communities and destroyed the efficacy of the Central Intelligence Agency and the ability of the entire community to protect America from further attacks.

This leader has apologized to Iran and its Leader, the nation still providing money and weapons being used to combat Coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new President’s foreign policy has been described as kind, compassionate and non confrontational by some, but, as appeasement, by others:

Arthur Neville Chamberlain was a British Conservative politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940. Chamberlain is best known for appeasement foreign policy

Negotiating with Adolph Hitler is equitable to negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran.

In the brief period of time Obama has been in the White House, he and his administration have weakened both the military and intelligence communities and made America more vulnerable to further Islamic Terrorist attacks.

The man had no place being at the Pentagon to commemorate this new day of ‘infamy’; to do so is an injustice imposed on the victims of 9/11 and an obscenity visited upon the American people.

Amicus

 

[Pure]

Negotiating with Adolph Hitler is equitable to negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran.

reading your posts of late is equitable to lunacy.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Negotiating with Adolph Hitler is equitable to negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran.

reading your posts of late is equitable to lunacy.

Pure,
You only reveal the extent of your ignorance and naivete' when you say these things. Mon Ami knows whereof he speaks......he's reading me to sleep every night from Dick Cheney's appointment calender......

 

[Belegon]

C'mon now Ami.

Obama can't be BOTH Hitler AND Chamberlain.

 

[Teloz]

C'mon now Ami.

Obama can't be BOTH Hitler AND Chamberlain.

He can in Ami's mind! Poor ol' Ami's not been exactly shackled by the truth so far!

 

[Liar]

C'mon now Ami.

Obama can't be BOTH Hitler AND Chamberlain.

Are you saying the President can't multitask?

 

[Dragonlipz]

C'mon now Ami.

Obama can't be BOTH Hitler AND Chamberlain.

He can if Mon Ami says he can......YES HE CAN!!!!!

 

[Dragonlipz]

It is of course, de rigueur, ( "necessary according to etiquette, common sense, protocol or fashion."), for a sitting President to pay respect to the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

There has been only one President, George W. Bush, since the terrorist attack on the United States by Islamic Radicals…

…until this September 11th.

Now we have a Leader who opposed the retaliation against Islamic Terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq; who will not even refer to the acts as, ‘Terrorism’, who has eviscerated the Military and the Intelligence communities and destroyed the efficacy of the Central Intelligence Agency and the ability of the entire community to protect America from further attacks.

This leader has apologized to Iran and its Leader, the nation still providing money and weapons being used to combat Coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new President’s foreign policy has been described as kind, compassionate and non confrontational by some, but, as appeasement, by others:



Negotiating with Adolph Hitler is equitable to negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran.

In the brief period of time Obama has been in the White House, he and his administration have weakened both the military and intelligence communities and made America more vulnerable to further Islamic Terrorist attacks.

The man had no place being at the Pentagon to commemorate this new day of ‘infamy’; to do so is an injustice imposed on the victims of 9/11 and an obscenity visited upon the American people.

Amicus

Damned Right, Mon Ami! How dare that black man with a muslim name desecrate the hallowed ground of the 911 memorial?
I don't care how many votes he got!

 

[amicus]

C'mon now Ami.

Obama can't be BOTH Hitler AND Chamberlain.

~~~

I suppose that suffices as a response without substance

There have been many apologists for both Fascism and Communism, and the core disease, Socialism, they all sacrifice the individual for the collective.

Roosevelt's socialist policies were overturned by the Supreme Court in many instances, perhaps history will repeat itself, if we survive as a nation past the next three years.

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

~~~

I suppose that suffices as a response without substance

There have been many apologists for both Fascism and Communism, and the core disease, Socialism, they all sacrifice the individual for the collective.

Roosevelt's socialist policies were overturned by the Supreme Court in many instances, perhaps history will repeat itself, if we survive as a nation past the next three years.

Amicus

Mon Ami,
I'm surprised that you missed an opportunity to quote Ann Rand at this juncture.....of course, you are the intellectual....your call......but, as your acolyte, I need to remind you that the Supreme Court DID NOT overturn Roosevelts policies, ever. But, you are the intellectual, so maybe I missed something and you could enlighten us on those rulings?
You rock dude!!!!

 

[YoursSINSerely]

Guys,
War is a horrible thing, plain and simple. Two wrongs don't make it right. The defense should have been up and in place to begin with, so why doesn't anybody address that part? I lock my doors at night and our country leaves everything wide open for anybody to walk in and do whatever they want to because they have "rights". How about if everybody just had a "right" to be a decent human being and learn how to get along with each other without trying to hurt people.

War is not the answer to anything, but Obama should be supporting our troops to help them complete their task that someone before him thought, at the time, was the right thing to do. We all support our President just by being citizens, either we vote and/or we pay taxes. Therefore, WE have approved of what our government is doing.

I would like to see them spend more energy on prevention and help keep the bad guys off of my front lawn. Why are men so angry. Women don't start wars, men do.

 

[amicus]

YoursSINSerely, did I get that right?

"...War is a horrible thing, plain and simple."

~~~

I doubt any rational person with disagree with you, war is horrible.

So is crime, so are criminals, so are terrorists who value death over life as the leader of Al Quaida stated.

Could someone have stopped the Japanese before they invaded China, or the Germans before they marched on Poland? Should they have been stopped and by what means?

Islam has declared 'Jihad' on western civilization. It is a 1400 year conflict that Islam has inflicted upon the world at large that is non Muslim.

Should something be done? By whom? Would it be War, or self defense?

There have been hundreds/thousands of Islamic terrorist attacks over the past half century after Israel declared independence; it has now spread to the entire world.

What would you do? What would you recommend?

Amicus

 

[YoursSINSerely]

You are a good speller, Ami!

I don't want these people in my house. Who let's them in? I would have rounded up everyone along time ago and sent them home. There are right and wrong ways to come into this country. Why do people turn a blind eye to things being done wrong? We all need to speak up, if it doesn't get us shot. We should probably just do away with weapons altogether--around the world. That's the best answer right there.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Guys,
War is a horrible thing, plain and simple. Two wrongs don't make it right. The defense should have been up and in place to begin with, so why doesn't anybody address that part? I lock my doors at night and our country leaves everything wide open for anybody to walk in and do whatever they want to because they have "rights". How about if everybody just had a "right" to be a decent human being and learn how to get along with each other without trying to hurt people.

War is not the answer to anything, but Obama should be supporting our troops to help them complete their task that someone before him thought, at the time, was the right thing to do. We all support our President just by being citizens, either we vote and/or we pay taxes. Therefore, WE have approved of what our government is doing.

I would like to see them spend more energy on prevention and help keep the bad guys off of my front lawn. Why are men so angry. Women don't start wars, men do.

There is a way to prevent war - be prepared for it. If the western allies hadn't dismantled their armed forces and the US hadn't been so isolationist, WW2 probably never would have happened in Europe, because Hitler and Stalin wouldn't have dared start it.

 

[slyc_willie]

There is a way to prevent war - be prepared for it.

Nothing prevents war. Or, at the least, conflict. In US history, has there been a single generation that did not face some kind of grievous conflict? War is a defining aspect of civilization, like it or not. It's one of the few devices that can rapidly accelerate the development of technologies (and not just weaponry, but medicine and defensive tech as well). No civilization on the planet has ever moved forward without being periodically at war.

That's just the way it is. Sorry if it offends some people, but war is necessary for technological, societal, economic and probably even philosophical advancement.

At least until something at least as severe and challenging comes along.

 

[amicus]

Nothing prevents war. Or, at the least, conflict. In US history, has there been a single generation that did not face some kind of grievous conflict? War is a defining aspect of civilization, like it or not. It's one of the few devices that can rapidly accelerate the development of technologies (and not just weaponry, but medicine and defensive tech as well). No civilization on the planet has ever moved forward without being periodically at war.

That's just the way it is. Sorry if it offends some people, but war is necessary for technological, societal, economic and probably even philosophical advancement.

At least until something at least as severe and challenging comes along.[/QUOTE]

~~~~

'Ello there Cap'n Crash; I beg to differ with your conclusion, although you word it in such a way as to be difficult to refute.

Winging it on this one, but 'steam power', seems to me mine owners were the impetus for the utilization of steam engines to pump out coal mines in England and then, as motive power for boats on canals in the US. Please correct me if I am in error...that part was pretty much from memory.

I would offer up electricity as my second refutation of your theme. The good old free market fight between Edison Electric and Westinghouse over who could supply safe and ample electricity to the masses. Conflict, other than industrial spying, had little to do with it.

Next on my list would be the combustion engine, the 'Tin Lizzie', as the early Fords were called, was not used for purposes of war until long after its' invention and utility.

I could perhaps add Gallileo or Copernicus or Brahe, maybe even Pasteur and the Curie's.

It is not that I wish to enter into disagreement, but your conclusion, that war is necessary for progress, is so widespread and cynical, that I had to speak up.

If anything, the emergence of free market capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, may be the only extended period of time in human history that war took a back seat.

On a philosophical level, man is an animal, a mammal at that, and peace, the absence of conflict, suits his survival best; a definition by the law of nature, not ideology.

You may counter with the aggressive nature of the Alpha Male and the apparent desire to accumulate wealth, but even in tribal situations, there were rules to be followed.

Now...what was this thread all about? I had to scroll back, ah, yes, 9/11 and Obama at the Pentagon.

Trust you and yours are well as autumn approaches...

regards...

Amicus

 

[Dragonlipz]

Nothing prevents war. Or, at the least, conflict. In US history, has there been a single generation that did not face some kind of grievous conflict? War is a defining aspect of civilization, like it or not. It's one of the few devices that can rapidly accelerate the development of technologies (and not just weaponry, but medicine and defensive tech as well). No civilization on the planet has ever moved forward without being periodically at war.

That's just the way it is. Sorry if it offends some people, but war is necessary for technological, societal, economic and probably even philosophical advancement.

At least until something at least as severe and challenging comes along.[/QUOTE]

~~~~

'Ello there Cap'n Crash; I beg to differ with your conclusion, although you word it in such a way as to be difficult to refute.

Winging it on this one, but 'steam power', seems to me mine owners were the impetus for the utilization of steam engines to pump out coal mines in England and then, as motive power for boats on canals in the US. Please correct me if I am in error...that part was pretty much from memory.

I would offer up electricity as my second refutation of your theme. The good old free market fight between Edison Electric and Westinghouse over who could supply safe and ample electricity to the masses. Conflict, other than industrial spying, had little to do with it.

Next on my list would be the combustion engine, the 'Tin Lizzie', as the early Fords were called, was not used for purposes of war until long after its' invention and utility.

I could perhaps add Gallileo or Copernicus or Brahe, maybe even Pasteur and the Curie's.

It is not that I wish to enter into disagreement, but your conclusion, that war is necessary for progress, is so widespread and cynical, that I had to speak up.

If anything, the emergence of free market capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, may be the only extended period of time in human history that war took a back seat.

On a philosophical level, man is an animal, a mammal at that, and peace, the absence of conflict, suits his survival best; a definition by the law of nature, not ideology.

You may counter with the aggressive nature of the Alpha Male and the apparent desire to accumulate wealth, but even in tribal situations, there were rules to be followed.

Now...what was this thread all about? I had to scroll back, ah, yes, 9/11 and Obama at the Pentagon.

Trust you and yours are well as autumn approaches...

regards...

Amicus

Mon Ami:
War is not necessary for technological progress, but it is the most influential factor in the adaptation and utilization of technology......you are still the genius; the self-described Glen Beck of his times - albiet a Glen Beck with a nehru jacket sporting a peace symbol on a gold chain hitting on surfer chicks, but a Glen Beck all the same......Why doncha stick with nonsense that you know about: Ann Rand, for instance - who wrote crap that all but the most retarded conservative outgrew after their freshman year in college?
Jeez, you are good......the hits just keep coming.......

A real man would apologize to the Slick one, but as the Glen Beck of the Sixties you probably had and continue to experience gender issues......nuff said...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nothing prevents war. Or, at the least, conflict. In US history, has there been a single generation that did not face some kind of grievous conflict? War is a defining aspect of civilization, like it or not. It's one of the few devices that can rapidly accelerate the development of technologies (and not just weaponry, but medicine and defensive tech as well). No civilization on the planet has ever moved forward without being periodically at war.

That's just the way it is. Sorry if it offends some people, but war is necessary for technological, societal, economic and probably even philosophical advancement.

At least until something at least as severe and challenging comes along.

Yes, there was. Between the end of the Civil War, 1865, and the US entry into World War 2 in 1917. That was 52 years. During that period, there were almost constant wars of aggression against various Native Americans and the war against Spain. These were all wars intended to expand the territory of the US. Since 1898, however, there have been no wars of conquest, although the US has been called on to defend against aggressors several times.

 

[slyc_willie]

It is not that I wish to enter into disagreement, but your conclusion, that war is necessary for progress, is so widespread and cynical, that I had to speak up.

Widespread and cynical, sure, but that don't make it any less true. Not that it is the only thing that leads to progress, but it certainly does escalate things. You're right about automobiles not being necessarily inspired by warfare, but they certainly advanced quickly with the First World War. The Airplane, too. Hell, they even had submarines. Now tell me the speed at which those three pieces of technology advanced would have been just as swift without a military need to use them.

 

[slyc_willie]

Yes, there was. Between the end of the Civil War, 1865, and the US entry into World War 2 in 1917. That was 52 years. During that period, there were almost constant wars of aggression against various Native Americans and the war against Spain. These were all wars intended to expand the territory of the US. Since 1898, however, there have been no wars of conquest, although the US has been called on to defend against aggressors several times.

Which still defends my position. Even when there wasn't war, there were still conflicts, and at least a state of readiness all around.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]The man had no place being at the Pentagon to commemorate this new day of ‘infamy’; to do so is an injustice imposed on the victims of 9/11 and an obscenity visited upon the American people.

Amicus

You know, he is Commander-in-Chief, whatever you (or anyone else) think about it.

The cranks and crackpots skipping behind Glenn Beck's pied piper tune couldn't tell a unifying American idea from a Bazooka comic.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Widespread and cynical, sure, but that don't make it any less true. Not that it is the only thing that leads to progress, but it certainly does escalate things. You're right about automobiles not being necessarily inspired by warfare, but they certainly advanced quickly with the First World War. The Airplane, too. Hell, they even had submarines. Now tell me the speed at which those three pieces of technology advanced would have been just as swift without a military need to use them.

Capt Crash:
It is a truly sad (but true) observation on our species that you offer: War or Conflict being the harbinger of technological innovation.....
I will take this opportunity to comment that the submarine was in use during the revolutionary war with England - at least one 'turtle' was used to sabotage English Warships - and accounts of submarines go back to rescuing Napolean from Elba and before that......
Note also how quickly the principles of automobiles and locomotives were adapted to produce tanks........(although, in truth, the concept was first recorded by Leonardo da Vinci who developed the breech loading cannon in order to make the 'tank' feasible).......

 

[slyc_willie]

Capt Crash:
It is a truly sad (but true) observation on our species that you offer: War or Conflict being the harbinger of technological innovation.....
I will take this opportunity to comment that the submarine was in use during the revolutionary war with England - at least one 'turtle' was used to sabotage English Warships - and accounts of submarines go back to rescuing Napolean from Elba and before that......
Note also how quickly the principles of automobiles and locomotives were adapted to produce tanks........(although, in truth, the concept was first recorded by Leonardo da Vinci who developed the breech loading cannon in order to make the 'tank' feasible).......

Previous submersibles were extremely unreliable and rickety, and would have stayed that way baring war.

Da Vinci had quite a few revolutionary ideas, but they remained just that for centuries because they were economically unfeasible and not at all practical. But once their value was realized in a warfare setting, the economics of realizing them, and producing him became cheaper because the technology became advanced.

 

[Bianca_Sommerland]

You know, personally, I think the US has the right to defend itself, and any rash decisions to withdraw troups that were originally sent out to find those behind the terrorist attacks could be seen as a weakness many countries could choose to exploit. I haven't read what Obama plans to do about it, nor do I plan to (I pay little enough attention to my own contries politics, never mind getting worked up by another's) but I do know I fully supported the Canadian gouvernments decision to allow our Peacekeepers to finally defend themselves.

The mission against the Islamics was not only about revenge. Many countries were trying to help the people there who were suffering under a corrupt gouvenment. Being gunned down while bringing supplies to starving children warrents a counter strike in my opinion.

In the great words of Metallica 'To secure peace is to prepar for war.' (yes I know others have said it first). To my mind turning your back on the instigator while you've got him in your sights could be a very bad idea.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Previous submersibles were extremely unreliable and rickety, and would have stayed that way baring war.

Da Vinci had quite a few revolutionary ideas, but they remained just that for centuries because they were economically unfeasible and not at all practical. But once their value was realized in a warfare setting, the economics of realizing them, and producing him became cheaper because the technology became advanced.

Are you sure you're not related to Mon Ami? Please reread your last two sentences and parse them for value......