Open Mic Part 20

LOL2Enjoy 🙂

Advertisements

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. @ JAC……the primaries were very strange this year. A lot of Republicans go and vote in the Democratic primary to pick the most conservative Democrat. This year, they stayed home in the down ballot races. The race for Lt. Governor is going to be really nasty. Dewhurst was considered a front runner and had his ass handed to him. I was referring to the down ballot races like Railroad Commissioners, etc. The US Senate races were all incumbent types….There is going to be no contest in the governors race unless Abbott steps on it. He should get over 60% of the vote.

    The Tea Party types in Texas seem to be very far right. Cruz is not very far right….he is right of center to be sure but not an extremist. As I told you Cornyn and Sessions won their races although Cornyn, who usually wins by 70-75% lost support down to 60%. Sessions had a much easier time retaining his seat because he was challenged by a far right Tea Party female…Texas does not want the far religious right. There was no other challenger.

    Ralph Hall and Dewhurst are the biggest losers and will face runoff elections for their first time.

    Take a look at the down ballot races…Even CNN acknowledged that the grassroots conservative movement really hammered the down ballot aces winning the majority of them. Got to start locally before you can take it all….we are trying that.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Good morning Sir. Hope all is well in the Republic this fine rainy and blustery day.

      First, so in Texas the “radical” Tea Party folks are the hard core “evangelical” types I take it. That is not the same in our part of the country. The “Tea Party” is a mix of the “hard core religious” CONSERVATIVES and the “libertarian leaning Republican/old school Democrats”.

      The primary issues that separate them are Gay Marriage and Abortion.

      Second, your last sentence is dead on. That US Senator cut his/her I-teeth sitting on the School Board or the Transit Board or Sewer Commission or some such thing. This is the training ground for FUTURE elected officials.

      This is how the Democrats have done it for decades and one reason the Dem philosophy has dominated the “local” level while Republicans were holding higher offices in places like Montana and Idaho. About 8 years ago the R’s woke up here and started looking LOCALLY to fill the ranks. This was partly in response to the Good Ol’ Boy system failing to produce good candidates once the top tier retired or moved on.

      Besides, IF the State is organized properly, as you describe for Texas, the “local” politicians are doing the truly important work. That is where some real “skills” are needed.

      Third, with all that and even with your concern for the hard right wingers, I sure do wish more of the incumbents had gotten beaten or forced into run offs. Not sure 60% vs. 70% is enough of a drop to get someone’s attention.

      • Our Tea Party is a mixture of evangelical and Libertarian. The dividing issue is the same as up there…..Gay Marriage and abortion and immigration, with immigration being the top issue over abortions and gay marriage.

        The immigration issue is becoming really hot because we have caught the Mexican Government emptying jails and bringing them to the border and turning them loose. It is amazing that the msm, including FOX will not report on this. As a matter of record, in the last three years, 45% of the violent criminal activity is directly related to immigration. And before the bleeding heart left gets their panties in a wad (those that still wear them).it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with prosecuting minorities more than anyone else. The Hispanic population is creating the most violent of crimes. Pure/simple. The biggest war down here is the blacks vs the mexicans. The blacks hate them and vice versa.

        So, immigration is going to be a main issue down here. The other thing that the Texas R’s have finally recognized is the changing demographics. The Texas Republican Party has recruited many Hispanics and is getting them elected into down ticket spots.

        I wish we could have gotten the higher tickets into runoffs….but we have to start somewhere…..the fact that the incumbents lost support in heavy turnout……is an important step. 70-60 may not be much…..but it is a starting point.

        We are trying,sir….we are trying.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          You are doing a fine job. Better than most.

          It is a long hard slog. It requires staying power.

          It will end long after you and I are nothing but memories. Unless of course we can force it to end sooner. 😉

  3. Canine Weapon says:

  4. Texas really has the democratic party in a quandary…..in keeping with its long standing issue of State’s Rights….Texas allows the local municipalities and cities to govern themselves as well.

    Recently, Dallas and Houston city councils have voted to extend benefits and pay to the LGBT crowd. Unhappy with this, the LGBT wants Texas to mandate it to all of Texas. The State said…..no……we will leave it up to the local municipalities to decide how they wish to handle their own area. It is not right for a Federal Government to tell a State what to do and it is, likewise, not right for a State to force thing upon a municipality that they do not wish to do.

    Texas has no state income tax, so there is no need to recognize anything. There is no advantage or disadvantage to the LGBT crowd for living in Texas. Whether or not the Federal Government wishes to grant exemptions to LGBT……that is up to the Federal Government. So, Texas has said…go for it local governments…it is your tax base.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Time for a little Fair and Balanced on the Obama front.

    I watch all these people ripping on the O’ over our lack of “STRONG” response to Russia, Syria, etc.

    Yet what is it that is happening? We are NOT interfering in a meaningful way. We are NOT getting ourselves into something that will be VERY COSTLY in terms of lives and treasure.

    This is exactly what virtually ALL OF US at SUFA and what many “conservatives” have been asking for in a foreign policy. Yet now that they are getting it they howl at the moon over O’s “weakness” and “being schooled by Putin”.

    Could it be that Putin simply picked up on the basic change in philosophy and thus moved ahead? Which means all this BLUSTERING by both sides is just that. A bunch of STRUTTING and PUFFING UP THE CHEST to make folks think O’ is playing some strategic and “brilliant” LONG GAME.

    It appears to me that there is no LONG GAME, except to pull back on our projection and stance of power. Unfortunately the message from the POTUS is MIXED to say the least.

    This is where I agree COMPLETELY with the Colonel’s assessment of the other day. IF we are going to step back and will no longer be taking on these aggressors then STOP all the bluster and chest pounding.

    Tell the damn truth for a change. Let the world leaders know what we are up to. Hell, let the American people know what we are up to.

    Of course, this would first require that POTUS KNOW what he is up to. On that account I am not certain it is true. I do believe that this administration simple rides the wave as best they can and claim success no matter the outcome. There is NO failure and there is NO mistakes in this administration. At least not by Mr. O’ himself.

    Whether there is a plan, or whether he is or is not working some definitive strategy is not the point, however. It is that the AFFECT of his leadership is a withdrawl of direct involvement and intervention. At least on the surface. And that this is what many on the “Right” have been calling for.

    So why do they now criticize him so strongly?? Yes, it is politics. But in my humble opinion this is what makes the “Right” look so STUPID and obviously HYPOCRITICAL.

    This is stupid because it just plays into the left’s narrative of the Barack “black man” syndrome of the Old White Man party.

    footnote: “Right” is used here to describe those voting Republican, whether Libertarian or Conservatives.

    • outragedparentplainlyspoken says:

      You have my agreement on this post, especially concerning all the bluster coming out. I strongly agree that the US should speak up to the world and clearly say “not our problem” to them – as well as to the American people.

      Well said sir.

    • Great comments, JAC……and you better watch out agreeing with me….you might get an urge to wear cowboy boots, hat,and come to Texas.

      If Obama wants a slam dunk in the 2014 elections…….come right out and do what Putin is doing. Tell the world to go to hell. Pull back…be open about it… and quit this blustering around…..and for the sake of all……GET KERRY AND BIDEN TO SHUT THE HELL UP……they are getting more negative attention than Sarah Palin.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13

        Urge?? Sorry Sir, but I already wear cowboy boots and a hat. Come to Texas for a VISIT, sure.

        Not moving to a place where I am the tallest thing for hundreds of miles. 🙂

        Spousal Unit Leader has given her notice of retirement. This will release us from several constraints and should allow us a trip to visit pretty soon. We have some other friends down your way we have not seen for awhile.

        Time for some serious American Sight Seeing.

        I am still saving you a spot in the boat for some Steelhead fishing.

    • Yabut! I still want to make fun of him. He has blurred red lines all over the planet with nothing but Biden and Kerry at his back. I will continue as long as he does.

  6. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    I propose a universal ETHIC for the USA, for you consideration.

    Freedom.

    The ability to exercise one’s free will without coercive interference from others. It carries with it the critical ethical standard that we do not have the right to use Force against others except in defense or retaliation of Force used against us.

    Liberty

    The ability to exercise our freedom without interference from Government. The “Power” and “Authority’ given to Govt. must adhere to the same restrictions on use of Force. Such powers are those ONLY needed to assure that proper restitution is made by those who violate the ethic of Non Initiation of Force.

    Justice

    The EQUAL application of the LAWS constructed under the ethics of freedom and liberty, to ALL CITIZENS of the United States. That the RIGHTS of all people residing in this country as Citizens or Guests shall be protected in accordance with these standards, without prejudice of any kind.

    These are not polished or in final form. Just thought I would offer them up for your consideration.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Interesting

    • I’ll buy all of it. Now we just need to start building our SUFANATION based on these principles. Any arguments pro or con have a to have these principles as a base (once they’re polished). I want to hear some plain English on any constitution or B of R’s we come up with…and NO TWEAKING from any lawyerly types around here!

  7. Just A Citizen says:

    More on the Fair and Balanced front. Republicans exposed for what they really are.

    http://www.redstate.com/2014/03/06/gop-house-passes-big-government-energy-bill/

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    A must read in understanding the dynamics of Ukraine and Russia/Putin’s actions.

    Special note to those criticizing the supposed US/Western interference in Ukraine. Read closely what was going on by Russia/Putin BEFORE the west started making offers. Notice how the Ukrainian Govt was moving toward the EU on their own. And how the “cronies” were behind it, along with those of western Ukraine.

    http://www.redstate.com/diary/thomas/2014/03/05/vladimir-putin-show-weakness-beating-everyone-including-us/

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Another MUST READ on Ukraine. Kissinger gives me severe heart burn most of the time but his analysis here seems pretty solid. He is honest in pointing out how east and west screwed this up from the get go.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/henry-kissinger-to-settle-the-ukraine-crisis-start-at-the-end/2014/03/05/46dad868-a496-11e3-8466-d34c451760b9_story.html

      Oh, and note he does NOT agree that Ukraine should be TWO countries. I share this view, despite the many differences among the eastern and western people. At their heart they are Ukrainian.

      • Good analysis in each article.

        Had anyone asked me in ’91 what should be done, I would have moved to do Marshall type plan for the entire East including Russia. I would have tried creating trade deals instead of any type of military confrontation. Rather than expand NATO, I would have shrunk it. We won! If nothing else could have been learned from the aftermath of the first and second world wars, rubbing your former opponents nose in it only guaranteed an unhappy former foe, itching to get back at you. Lincoln had it right with the “charity towards all and malice towards none” line.

        States bordering Russia should not have been encouraged to join military alliances with the West. A buffer zone is needed until Russia could shake off its non-history of anything democratic. When that time came, there would be no need of any military alliances.

        Always found it funny that the man calling Russia “The evil empire”, the biggest cold warrior of all, could put it behind him and engage in real diplomacy treating his former foe as an equal and offering a marriage (or at least a civil union in both senses) of great states for the future.

        Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the “moderates”, the people like Bush 1 and Bill Clinton who were not going to blow up the world, who would not coin a phrase like “evil empire” who were not “cowboys” who sought “peaceful co-existance” fell right back into their Cold War habits looking for an enemy where there was none.

        I ask one very telling question, where the F— did Putin come from and why? We did it, we can take full credit for it,. We put him there. We did everything we could to embarrass and denigrate a great nation to the point where Reagan’s hand out turned into a slap in the face at every turn. Another major American foreign policy charlie foxtrot.

        I understand anyone who grew up in the ’40’s 50’s 60’s or 70’s fear of the Soviet Union and fear of a resurgence but I ask them, have you ever heard of a self fulfilling prophecy? My Dad used to say if you kick a dog every day, don’t be surprised if some day he bites that leg.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          My only caveat to your comment is over what went wrong in the beginning.

          The Russians themselves had a role in the failure of Glasnost. And for some of their leadership this was just a time to catch their breath before taking a new strategy to become dominate once again.

          The Russian issue was their CORRUPTION and how it permeated Govt and the Private Sector.

          Our problem was assuming that doing “business” in Russia would suddenly look like other less developed places. Where some semblance of law and order existed.

          Much of our initial help, under Reagan, was consumed by the Corrupt Oligarchs controlling the country. The KGB became their new Mafia.

          I bring this up because I think it is often ignored. Many pundits want to blame the USA policy entirely for the failure. The Russians hold as much blame, I believe.

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    Honor is as Honor does. Sempra Fi’

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/major-lee-marines/index.html?hpt=hp_t5

    😉 your way Rebel.

  10. Canine Weapon says:

    Oh, Texas…

    y’all’ll”ll’all’alallala’alllllalallll”””llllllllllllllllll

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    Another thought provoking article. SK and Dale, you should enjoy this one. History in perspective.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/1914__the_west_starts_dying.html

  12. Gman wrote (last week, I guess): You champion labor unions and contracts….will you champion the military and their contracts ( no, not contracts with suppliers….contracts with its personnel ) You are a champion of minimum wage and the downtrodden but you do not champion the very same thing when it comes to the military that have already served and the military currently serving and those that are at poverty or below the ” SO CALLED ” poverty line. You always want the people, the workers, remembered but you neglect the military because it does not serve your cause and you do not view that as a worthy employment. So , I ask you again, tale the time to look at defense budget allocations…….the real allocations and the goddamned pie charts that the Government puts out. That is smoke filled coffee house bullshit….the pie charts and numbers that the government puts out. Why don’t you champion the plights of the 85% of the military that is on food stamps? Why don’t you champion the 100% of the military that is losing their “lifetime, contracted” health benefits.

    Can/does this guy ever get anything right? That’s my question to SUFA.

    For the record: A) I’m for a compulsory draft for EVERYONE (automatic at age 18) At least 1 year of service BEFORE COLLEGE and from that point forward, EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE are free. B) All veterans should have priority (health, living conditions, etc.) upon returning from wars/police actions or any other bullshit name politicians put to these engagements. Those who didn’t serve in combat, they get the same deal as the civilian population. C) For ALL FUTURE WARS, ETC., those politicians who vote for it (or declare it) are to send their immediate family members (sons/daughters) to the front lines first. If there are no kids, then relatives kids … this is an ABSOLUTE MUST. I have to wonder how GWB would’ve felt sending his two lovely daughters to Afghanistan and/or Iraq … same for Obama. No skin in the game, no game.
    You were saying, G?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      I believe it was the Colonel who asked those questions. I think Gman just brought it forward from one post to another. And they were questions, not claims that you did or did not support these. The Colonel was ranting against the proposed Military budget that the left seems to be in love with.

      In your response I noticed that you did NOT support the Contract signed with Military Personnel if they did not serve in combat. I assume that was just an oversight. Because forcing them to have what all Civilians have would not meet their contractual promises.

      Although I also see how you are really Socializing everything in your proposal. EVERYONE must serve then EVERYONE gets the SAME stuff. Is this what you call Freedom?

      • I call it the price to pay for living in America. Yes. I don’t like the current formula that sends kids without jobs running to sign up for wars we have no business fighting (except for defense contractors) … Doesn’t freedom come at a price, JAC? Isn’t that one of your favorite bumper stickers?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Charlie

          Yes, Freedom has a price and sometimes it is the “ultimate price”. However, to FORCE people to pay that price when many don’t even give a rats behind about Freedom is off base.

          If you think Freedom is the ability to impose your will upon others then why should I be forced to defend your view of freedom??

          • So you’re an anarchist now? You’ll have to explain what people should be forced to do, JAC (for me to even consider your latest bumper sticker). Why do we have a social contract at all? Don’t like it, move … 🙂

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              I am NOT an anarchist nor an anarcho Capitalist.

              However, that does not mean I cannot stand behind the concept of voluntary association.

              FORCE should be restricted to prevention or retaliation for crimes. Which is murder, theft, fraud.

              Taxes should be moved to a FEE Based system. Some could be left in the “mandatory” category if they are a Flat Tax that people would willingly accept.

              We DO NOT have a Social Contract in the sense you are proposing. That is a fallacy created by philosophers trying to rationalize Society’s claim on the people living within it. Or worse yet, justifying the claim that one person has on another due to birth or residency.

              We should not be FORCED to do anything if at all possible. There are some things that will become forced, however, as the CITIES continue to expand.

              Sewer and Water for example. I currently have a CHOICE as to whether to accept City water and sewer, along with the fees to pay for them, or to move to the country and pay for my own well and septic.

              But as the Cities expand we rural bumpkins will eventually be FORCED onto the systems. I see this as pretty minor force however, as I ACCEPT the practicality and good such systems provide. I would gladly pay the fees as long as the service and cost is reasonable.

              • Taxes should be moved to a FEE Based system. Some could be left in the “mandatory” category if they are a Flat Tax that people would willingly accept.
                And if people don’t willing accept? What then, you’re going to be okay with FORCING THEM TO PAY?
                We DO NOT have a Social Contract in the sense you are proposing. That is a fallacy created by philosophers trying to rationalize Society’s claim on the people living within it. Or worse yet, justifying the claim that one person has on another due to birth or residency.
                If there’s a government with laws, there’s a social contract (see above answer) … we’re all FORCED TO DO some things whether we like it or not. So, unless you’re an full blown anarchist, you’re kidding yourself.
                We should not be FORCED to do anything if at all possible. There are some things that will become forced, however, as the CITIES continue to expand.
                Now who’s in fantasy land?
                Sewer and Water for example. I currently have a CHOICE as to whether to accept City water and sewer, along with the fees to pay for them, or to move to the country and pay for my own well and septic.
                Good for you. And for the rest of the 330,000,000? And do you also get to ignore speeding laws, littering laws, etc.?
                But as the Cities expand we rural bumpkins will eventually be FORCED onto the systems. I see this as pretty minor force however, as I ACCEPT the practicality and good such systems provide. I would gladly pay the fees as long as the service and cost is reasonable.
                You bumpkins are actually getting more welfare than the cities .. it’s the RED STATES eating the economy. So there … 

        • Welcome back O great Brooklyn sage and noir novelist!

          Draft, good and bad. Bad in that it is involuntary servitude. Good in that the little buggers all get a taste of each other, how the other half lives and learn when to keep their pie holes shut! Oh, and they all get to learn that they ain’t nothing special.

          I often think that it was the Draft of the first and second world wars that set this country on the right path. It is really easy to hate someone for their race, religion, culture, food, whatever until you have to share a foxhole with them. Does not even have to be combat. Just in barracks life one learns a lot about tolerance.

          Great book I have mentioned before, “Lost Battalions” by Slotkin that gets into the peculiar mix that was NY’s 77th Division, specifically the Lost Battalion’s 308th Infantry. A smorgasbord of the lower east Side commanded by a Yalie Lawyer and a Former Rough Rider. The unit was leavened in the peculiar way the military does things by a significant number of Wyoming cowboys and Texans. Wasps, Chinks, Polaks, Kikes, Micks, Hunkies, Spics all thrown together in one of the toughest fights since Little Round Top.

          As my daddy would have said, where else in the world but the military do you get to meet people like that?

          Am reading James Brady’s last book, “Why Marines Fight”. The Corps is mostly volunteer. During WW 2, Korea and Vietnam there were draftee elements. Yet, if you read the book you come to realize the bond that grew between these diverse men. During Korea when the Corps was integrated you now got to add black to the mix I mentioned above. The volunteer marines learned how to cooperate and get the job done the same as their draftee counterparts did. In the end the desire or opposition to a draft pretty much comes down to personal choice and perspective. In the 45 years since I was in the Army I have gone back and forth on the issue time and time again. Looking at the mess out there among the youths I tend to lean toward it. Living where I do, surrounded by these pansy metro sexuals overprotected by helicopter parents, I want to shove their candy assed faces into the mud of the obstacle course at Ft. Polk just to show them what mud looks like.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            SK

            ROTFLMAO………… come on………….stop holding back…………….. my sides are hurting.

            IF our children felt the same about HONOR and DUTY as prior generations a draft would never be necessary.

            I do wonder if the last couple of generations would even stand up if we were invaded. I know some would but I wonder how many would think Russia had finally come to LIBERATE them from Evil Capitalism.

            At the same time, I was amazed and humbled with how many of my son and daughter’s classmates “enlisted” following 9/11.

            To bad their Govt didn’t have the same sense of Honor and Integrity that those kids showed.

            Tip O’ the Hat to you this fine day, Sir.

            • “I do wonder if the last couple of generations would even stand up if we were invaded. I know some would but I wonder how many would think Russia had finally come to LIBERATE them from Evil Capitalism.” Do you ever get tired of this talking point? Why would I even ask …

              • Just A Citizen says:

                What talking point??

                Where do you think I got this supposed “talking point”???

          • Korea had Cpl Klinger. Can you imagine what kind of real trannies would come out of the woodwork if there was a draft?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Anita

              But this is the MODERN age you know.

              They can’t get the Section 8 anymore. EQUAL RIGHTS for ALL..

              I wonder if they considered that????????????

              • There’s a gay defensive lineman about to be drafted into the NFL … imagine having to go to war with him by your side, JAC? What’s so wrong with “trannies” in the military? You really think there hasn’t been any up to this point? Come on, Anita, my love. You know better than this. JAC doesn’t, but he’s a homophobe. 🙂

              • I could go along with gays in the military, but I KNOW I couldn’t deal with a tranny next to me. There was one in the ex’s family… I was very, very uncomfortable around him/her/ whatever. Call me a trannyphobe all day, but I’m sorry, that’s a dealbreaker for me.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Anita,

                Translation: I am uncomfortable, so you should have to be repressed.

                ::channeling Black Flag:: Freedom for me, but not for you.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      Wow…

      A) I’m for a compulsory draft for EVERYONE (automatic at age 18) At least 1 year of service BEFORE COLLEGE

      How do I put this… OH, HELL NO!

      At the risk of sounding like our resident Pirate/nut-case, the draft is literal slavery, but with the added bonus that you might be compelled to kill some other poor schmuck or be killed yourself.

      A draft is pure evil in every sense of the word.

      War, to begin with, is immoral and evil, but committing to shades of gray, I’ll allow that some wars miiiight have some merit to them. That said, if the government can’t round up enough willing recruits, then that probably says something about whether we should be engaged in that war in the first place, now doesn’t it?

      B) All veterans should have priority (health, living conditions, etc.) upon returning from wars/police actions or any other bullshit name politicians put to these engagements. Those who didn’t serve in combat, they get the same deal as the civilian population.

      This one is going to be less popular around here.

      Are you a former solider? Did you get paid? Did you get benefits? Did your family get benefits?

      Congratulations. You did a JOB.

      You might have put your life on the line, but so does a crab fisherman. You did your JOB and I thank you for it, but you are a citizen and you are exactly equal to me. You deserve no special consideration, no special discounts, no special priorities. While you were out getting shot at, I was out paying taxes to pay you to get shot at – they’re two sides of the same coin. What makes you so frickin’ special while I’m chop liver and have to sit in the back of the bus?

      I am SO preeminently sick of this “ooh the troops” mentality. Yes, by all means, thank you for what you do to keep us safe. But, frankly, what the military does to keep us safe is roughly 5% of what the military does. The other 95% is aggressive posturing, a phony war on terrorism, de facto subsidies to military vendors (back-door economic stimulus), and geo-political theater.

      So no. No special cookies for you.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Military service is VOLUNTARY. Although there is a CONTRACT involved in the arrangement.

        Not slavery. Service that is compulsory once you sign the contract. Which means that BOTH sides should adhere to the contract, don’t you think?

        If you wish to alter the contract in the future that is fine. The issue is adhering to its terms as it was written.

        Now as for the difference between those that ELECT to pay taxes and stay home vs. those who ELECT to take a chance being killed.

        If you see no real difference then you are a sad, sad, little doggie. You see there is the same “difference” between the man who tackles the mugger and the man who stands by waiting for his tax dollar supported policeman to show up.

        The difference is COURAGE. And when it is displayed in service of our nation it should be deserving of some special reward.

        Now of course this presumes that said Service is proper in its nature. But I see no reason to punish the Soldier who is used by Politicians to fight stupid wars in stupid places. When that soldier enlisted he/she did not know IF or WHERE they would be sent. Most DID however assume they were enlisting to DEFEND the USA.

        Perhaps an “escape” clause in the Voluntary Contract would be appropriate??

        • Mathius™ says:

          Military service is VOLUNTARY. Although there is a CONTRACT involved in the arrangement.

          Re-read that. I.. err.. Canine.. said: “the draft is literal slavery” (emphasis added).

          He was responding to Charlie’s assertion that he is “for a compulsory draft for EVERYONE.”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            More like “indentured servitude” then. The Govt doesn’t OWN you, but when you register to submit yourself to “servitude” at their whim.

            I agree on the principle. NO DRAFT, except for those who self declare as Progressives or Lawyers.

            • Mathius™ says:

              You’re arguing a different point, but I agree with you here.

              If you sign on the dotted line that you’ll serve, you are morally obligated to fulfill your contract. You signed up. You accepted money in exchange for a service. You have made a contract. Now suck it up and serve.

              But, per my second point, that doesn’t necessarily make you “special.” It makes you cannon fodder until proven otherwise.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I think it makes you BOTH. Just as it might make you both Courageous and Foolish.

        • Mathius™ says:

          If you see no real difference then you are a sad, sad, little doggie. You see there is the same “difference” between the man who tackles the mugger and the man who stands by waiting for his tax dollar supported policeman to show up.

          The difference is COURAGE. And when it is displayed in service of our nation it should be deserving of some special reward.

          Sometimes it’s courage.

          Sometimes it’s bravery.

          Sometimes it’s stupidity.

          Sometimes it’s a sense of duty.

          Sometimes it’s a steady paycheck.

          Sometimes it’s an opportunity to start over.

          Sometimes it’s an opportunity to learn new skills.

          And so forth.

          I’m sorry, but no. The fact that you are willing to go somewhere and be shot at does not make you “special.” 99% of the time, it makes you a cadaver-in-waiting.

          Your mugger analogy is apt.. to a point. But it ignores that the “right stuff” being done by the military is a fraction of what it actually does. All that other stuff – the posturing, the “war on terrorism,” the handouts to the military industrial complex, et cetera accounts for much more.

          I will grant my deference to the man who served a SPECIFIC noble cause out of a sense of personal duty to do so. But that is on a case-by-case basis. Did you throw yourself on top of a grenade to save a child? GREAT! You’re a hero and you should be praised as such.

          But “Uncle Sam told me to stand here and try not to get shot” isn’t meritorious in-and-of-itself.

      • Well, actually, you’d only be compellted to Kill some poor schmuck if we went to war … and we’d only go to war when those who vote for it send their kids ahead of you. So calm your jets.

        But I’m very confused about all this reluctance to be patriotic where it counts of a sudden. Are you all just weenies? 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Are you all just weenies?

          Yes.

          I would sooner move to Canada than go into combat. I would join the seminary. I would go to Leavenworth. I would cut my own leg off with a chain saw. Hell, I would even pull a Ted Nugent.

          Worse than even getting killed myself is the idea that I could wind up killing some other poor kid. And I would have to spend the rest of my life knowing that there might be some poor mother crying over her dead son, or children growing up without their father. I don’t want to carry that around – can you even imagine that on your shoulders?

          No thank you.

          On top, of course, I have my wife and daughter who I would risk leaving widowed / fatherless. And I could never bear that thought either.

          On top of even that, of course, I value my own life a great deal.

          So if that makes me a weenie, then weenie I am.

          —–

          Screw war. Violence only begets more violence.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Is your view the same if we are invaded??

            How about if there is clear and present danger that can only be stopped with military action??

            • Mathius™ says:

              Is your view the same if we are invaded??

              I would do what is necessary if I felt that my family was in danger. However, I would exhaust all other options first – including, but not limited to, fleeing the country.

              How about if there is clear and present danger that can only be stopped with military action??

              I would do what is necessary if I felt that my family was in danger. However, I would exhaust all other options first – including, but not limited to, fleeing the country.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Then I think we need to apply a special Surtax upon you and those like you.

                Since you cannot be counted on to defend the Nation we will need your extra money to pay someone to stand in for you.

                I hope your Refugee status suits your family.

              • Mathius™ says:

                I would rather my daughter grow up in exile with a loving father than in America without.

          • Oy vey … what a whackjob you turned out to be. 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Well, actually, you’d only be compellted to Kill some poor schmuck if we went to war … and we’d only go to war when those who vote for it send their kids ahead of you.

          First of all, that isn’t the world we live in. The politicians would never pass that.

          Second, even if it were the case, the fact that a politician is willing to risk HIS family doesn’t mean that I’m willing to risk mine.

          • Well, look at that … Mathius changed Emperor Charlie’s laws without Charlie’s permission. That is what the draft is predicated on in Charlie World. So, deal with it. 2nd point is better … but an entire boatloast (necessary to pass legislation) … no friggin’ way.

      • Re-read it doggie … if you served in combat … end of that issue.

        And the compulsory draft would provide (i.e., Isreal) the basis of lifetime health and education (free) …

        Why did we get involved in Afghanistan (aside from the self-interest of defense contractors, et al)? Answer: volunteer army … or do you really think we’d still be there (or gotten involved at all) if there was a draft? Sure, send the poor kids over there and let them die and get maimed for you. The % of those on the front lines in the military … something tells me they aren’t future hedge fund managers.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Re-read it doggie … if you served in combat … end of that issue.

          Just serving in combat is not, itself, meritorious.

          Is it praiseworthy that we’re in combat in Iraq? Screw that. We should never have been there in the first place and I’m not going to give someone kudos for helping Uncle Sam kick over ant-hills for no good reason.

          Did you storm the beach at Normandy? Well then, I think you can get some kudos.

          • “Is it praiseworthy that we’re in combat in Iraq?”

            How many times am I going to have to clear this up for you? Exactly, we shouldn’t have been there. Reread again, kid. If we go to war (not the bullshit wars we’re in now). If we go to war under Emperor Stella’s rules for engagement, yes, then the social contract will treat those who served in combat a little more special.

            • Mathius™ says:

              So in Stella’s Fantasy Land™, where the only wars are the Good Wars™, serving in combat in those wars should get you special goodies once you’re back in civvy life?

              Sure, whatever. I don’t even know how to respond to such an absurd abstraction.

              This is not the world I inhabit. It is not a world I can ever imagine happening.

              I assume there will also be fire breathing dragons in this fantasy land of yours?

              • “where the only wars are the Good Wars”

                And who said they were good? You’re still stuck on an assumption of war where I’m saying if the politicians have to send their own first, there just won’t be any. What is absurd, is your clinging to the assumption of war. But make no mistake, kid … if someone serves in combat, they would get some special treatment (priority whatever it is they needed). Difficult for you to comprehend? Wars could only come about via defensive response (we’d have to be attacked or do you really think Mr. Obama et al would send their kids to the front lines)? A defensive war, sorry, is a must war (or good, if you need to cling to that too). You’re cute, but exposing a lot of ignorance here …

        • Mathius™ says:

          Why did we get involved in Afghanistan (aside from the self-interest of defense contractors, et al)? Answer: volunteer army … or do you really think we’d still be there (or gotten involved at all) if there was a draft?

          How long were we stuck in Vietnam with a draft?

          • And what do you think ended that war, altruism? People got pissed off … and people back then were a lot less informed (or less selfish-pick your poison). today, it would never fly. Neither Vietnam or Afghanistan. Have a draft now and the war would never get off the ground.

            • Mathius™ says:

              And what do you think ended that war, altruism? People got pissed off

              Yes… after eighteen years.

              • Times have changed … or do you think that’s a fantasy too? Why do you think Bush was able to sucker the country into Afghanistan first and then Iraq? Because nobody had to fear being pulled into the shit. It wouldn’t take 18 years anymore, kiddo … not with pols having to send theirs to the front lines. No way.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Why do you think Bush was able to sucker the country into Afghanistan first and then Iraq?

                Because… wait for it… wait for it…

                People. Are. Dumb.

              • Mathius™ says:

                It wouldn’t take 18 years anymore, kiddo … not with pols having to send theirs to the front lines.

                I’m not interested in debating the logistics of your fantasy utopia.

                You might as well void the laws of physics and posit unlimited free energy to go along with it. I assume you get from place to place in your empire by means of a steampunk dirigible?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Actually it was more due to Nixon getting caught in the wringer.

                Once the POTUS has lost All respect and support it was easy to pull the plug.

                Oh, and it was also due to the large number of cynical, narcissistic morons flooding the streets after being whipped into a frenzy by their Marxist and Anarchist professors. 😉

        • Mathius™ says:

          Sure, send the poor kids over there and let them die and get maimed for you. The % of those on the front lines in the military … something tells me they aren’t future hedge fund managers.

          Amen.

          They shouldn’t be there either.

          But that’s not going to be improved by rounding up other poor schmucks and forcing them into the line of fire.

          Didn’t your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

          • Did your mother ever teach you to read with comprehension? The point, hedge fund manager, is that there wouldn’t be any wars (for us) if there was a draft (get it yet)?

            • The point of a draft under Emperor Stella is to a) teach some discipline b) help within our own borders (or outside) … whatever the help needed might be (road construction, damn building, you name it). Why is that so hard for you to comprehend. Why do you assume a draft means war? It means the opposite from where I sit (on the throne, MF’er) 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                The point of a draft under Emperor Stella is to a) teach some discipline b) help within our own borders (or outside)

                A) irrelevant for already stated reasons – you’d never get the powers that be to go along.

                B) A draft is still slavery. Sorry.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Did your mother ever teach you to read with comprehension?

              No, she didn’t.

              The point, hedge fund manager

              Is wish.. just a analyst..

              is that there wouldn’t be any wars (for us) if there was a draft (get it yet)

              Right.

              Got it.

              No wars. Just dragons, sorcerers, a sword in a stone, and knights of a round table.

              If you’re going to posit absurd fantasy worlds where there are no wars because you’ve somehow managed to do the single most impossible thing in the history of a republic (convince the representatives to but themselves on the line), the who cares what comes after that. Since there are no wars, who cares how they’re received afterward? We’d just disband the military, spend all that money on health care and education and cancer research – we’d have those hoverboards in time for 2015 and live in a elysian utopia.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Charlie

              Every WAR up until the last three was waged with a DRAFT in place.

              So I don’t understand how you think simply instituting a draft will prevent unwanted war.

              Neither will putting Politician’s kids into service. Beside the idea being impossible to carry out, the reality is that the offspring of many politicians have served, in all the wars including Afghanistan and Iraq.

              Let me also address one point you two seem to be hanging onto. The idea that Afghanistan was not a defensive or retaliatory war. Which is the type of war you are claiming is the Good War. I know there is no good war so need to repeat that. We are talking about “justified”. Afghanistan met the criteria of a “justified” retaliatory response. I covered this yesterday with Plainlyspoken. I am not saying it was a “good” decision. Only that under our rules of “self defense” it would have qualified. HOW to conduct it is a different matter.

              You both seem to forget the lines of volunteers from a pretty broad spectrum of our citizens following 9/11. I don’t think there was a lack of volunteers among political families for that one, and I doubt a Draft would have caused Americans to wince or step back from their desire to exact retribution upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

              Iraq was a different matter.

              • Mathius™ says:

                You both seem to forget the lines of volunteers from a pretty broad spectrum of our citizens following 9/11.

                I have forgotten no such thing.

                I think they were fools. Well intentioned and, dare I say, courageous. But fools none-the-less. Or, at the very least, played for fools.

                There was no cause to go to war – only to engage a task force to arrest a criminal. Everything beyond that was offensive war which they interpreted as justified through the haze of outrage and bloodlust and the incessant thump thumb thumb of our leaders’ war drums.

              • “So I don’t understand how you think simply instituting a draft will prevent unwanted war.

                Neither will putting Politician’s kids into service. Beside the idea being impossible to carry out, the reality is that the offspring of many politicians have served, in all the wars including Afghanistan and Iraq.

                ” How do you know this to be true? You take a poll? I’m telling you if pols had to send theirs first, they wouldn’t happen so freely (like Iraq, for instance). It could be written into law the same way the 13th Amendment was … I’m sure smart analysts like Matthius thought the 13th amendment was something that would never happen. And I’ll guarantee you that the offspring of “many” politicians is not close to the same thing as all politicians in a given war. Not remotely close.

              • “Or, at the very least, played for fools.”

                EXACTLY … now, put up your shields before I zap you with one of my dragons …

      • Chocolate Chip, please.

  13. Interesting 1998 stats on Vietnam that even I was unaware of. Moderate relevance to teh draft debate but interesting nonetheless.

    http://www.deanza.edu/faculty/swensson/essays_mikekelley_myths.html

  14. plainlyspoken says:

    Wow, looks like Charlie (Hi Charlie 🙂 ) stood in for me today to take the beating. 😉 Thanks pal!

    • Hi, Plainly … it’s only in their minds that they gave anyone/anything a beating. Not one of them addressed the issues … one ran for fantasy, the other clung to bumper stickers (with convenient exceptions to the rule) … there’s no social contract, huh? Who’s living in fantasy land? A law requiring those who vote us into war can’t be legislated, huh? “It always seems impossible until it’s done.” Nelson Mandela

    • Mathius™ says:

      You wanna piece of me, Plainly?! I got plenty left for all of y’all!

      • First, we’d have to vote on that war (Matthius v. Plainly) … then we’d have to send our children to fight it … then, once that happened (assuming it did), we’d have to showcase the event … but Matthius already said he’d move to Canada (no doubt for the better healthcare system) … by the way, have you noticed all the traffic that continues to flow south from Canada for healthcare? Somebody said my morning commute was bottled up by an accident on 287, but I just knew they were lying. It had to be the Canadians looking for our healthcare.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Oy vey……….what’d I do? I’ve been busy getting all my weekly college coursework and tests finished. Sheesh, man can even spend time getting edumacated round here with being smacked around. lol

  15. plainlyspoken says:

    G, here’s a story that will give you joy at reading (it crosses to things you so love, government spying and cops).

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/06/are-local-police-conducting-nsa-style-spying/?intcmp=latestnews

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Charlie

    “There’s a gay defensive lineman about to be drafted into the NFL … imagine having to go to war with him by your side, JAC? What’s so wrong with “trannies” in the military? You really think there hasn’t been any up to this point? Come on, Anita, my love. You know better than this. JAC doesn’t, but he’s a homophobe”

    Here you go again. COMPREHENSION is a good thing. Please read my post to Anita again, place it in the context of her comment.

    Good lord…………

  17. Think I will just stay out of this one…..

  18. WTH is going on here??? Yikes! Running away from the crazies on here today!

  19. HEHE! can’t blame me on this mess today. Even when blamed, I was innocent! 🙂

    Just a short note. Military v civilian work benefits. Last I saw, the civilians had a program called “workers comp” to deal with their work related injuries. This fall in line with Vets, who were injured at work. Why is USW and Charlie dissing both? Seems like nothing is really all that different to me. And having fought both,, both are not much different. DUH!

  20. ” He Who Laughs Last, Laughs Best “

  21. @Mathius, What did you do to get Stella to disrespect you so much yesterday? I thought you did a great job and keeping your cool 🙂

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Maybe and maybe not. Seems a little to broad.

      There are several states that have already passed proposed amendments waiting for enough to force a convention. Balanced budget amendment is still sitting on the books, for example.

      • Like you, I don’t have much confidence that a Convention of States will occur, much lass accomplish anything. BUT, I am willing to give it a shot and even support the effort. Having an Article V convention might, in and of itself, send a powerful message to the District of Criminals. At least it’s a peaceful attempt and bringing the feds back down to earth. 🙂

        P.S. Thanks for correcting Stella during my absence 😉

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          I DO have confidence in a convention affecting real change. My concern is WHO is pushing it and WHAT are they really after.

          The vast majority of people have no understanding of the Constitution, including those holding office within the States.

          You have hundreds of groups out there fighting to be the ONE that leads the way. Some are honest, but honestly some are out to sell books, clicks on their sites, etc.

          And of course, the people don’t have the information to make rational decisions and thus direct their elected officials in the right direction.

          This movement is like much of the stuff after the TARP fiasco. People trying to move way to fast. On the other hand, they are trying to at least move. Maybe we would be better off with some fixes just to show people it can be done. We could do it again and again until we get it right.

          As for Stella, let it go. He was fine for the most part yesterday. His style is not that much different than yours when you get on one of your bandwagons. Don’t be so easy to provoke.

          Now how did your Doc visit turn out?

          • His style is not that much different than yours when you get on one of your bandwagons. No truer words ever spoken, LOL I can get somewhat toxic at times and I need to work on that…..a lot 😉

            Pre surgery visit to make sure i’m healthy enough. No problems there, surgery next Friday. They will put in a plate and a couple screws in my right great toe joint and fuse it. Should be good as new in 6 weeks or so, just in time to get the garden going 🙂

            I agree with you on the Convention issue and will be watching closely.

            I thought it strange how veteran’s benefits became a subject of discussion, since I was at The VA hospital in Pittsburgh. I also think there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to VA healthcare and what veterans are qualified to receive. Not all get 100% free total healthcare. There are many levels of qualifications. I’m in a relatively small group who gets 100% total healthcare from the VA (for my age group). I met an 89 year old Gunny Sergeant yesterday and helped him get signed in at the Kiosk. He told me some great stories about WWII and Korea. Now, like myself, he says he wouldn’t fight the stupid wars going on today. He made my day enjoyable, that’s for sure. 🙂

  22. Don’t get sick, especially when you get old:

    And fourth, there are provisions “allowing Washington bureaucrats to prevent [senior citizens] from making up the Medicare shortfall with their own funds by limiting their right to spend their own money to obtain insurance less likely to limit treatments that could save their lives.”
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/feds-to-cap-what-citizens-can-spend-on-own-healthcare/#bCbiyodxFeeJjs8v.99

  23. You simply cannot make this up.

    1) The President of Ukraine was on TV lambasting the fact that Russia has tanks, boots on the ground, just scuttled one of their own ships in the only entrance to the harbor blockading the Ukranian navy inside preventing them from moving, tanks moving into the Ukraine, etc. And this guy looks at the TV camera and says ” this is the 21st century, how can someone just unilaterally redraw boundary lines and takeover? How can this happen?”

    2) President Obama on TV this morning saying basically the same thing..” This is the 21st Century and things like this just don’t happen any more.”

    Synopsis on Putin from D13’s perspective:

    1) Good move. Very tactically done. The treaty allowed you to have troops stationed in the Ukraine….a small force. During the Olympics, while the MSM was glued to the winter sports, you very quietly moved 40,000 troops….undetected by US Satellites….into Crimea stating that they were going to be support troops just in case there was trouble with the Olympics.

    2) No one questioned the type of troops. They were not Special Forces troops trained in that type of work. They were combat troops clearly designed for occupation and conquest.

    3) Scuttled a ship blocking the Ukranian navy in the harbor. Now, you do not have to fire a single shot.

    4) Your troops and navy have totally surrounded every single port in the Ukraine and you are inspecting every single ship that arrives in those ports.

    5) You have isolated every single military airbase in the Ukraine and you have uniformed, without insignia, troops at civilian airports.

    6) You have already moved your air defense batteries into the Crimea as well as surface to surface missiles.

    Not to mention:

    1) You have effectively immobilized President Obama to nothing but platitudes and chest beating like a mindless gorilla.

    2) You have immobilized the European Union into inaction out of fear and intimidation.

    3) You did well in the economic front, understanding that capitalist enterprises were the way to increase your domestic standing. You very effectively engineered foreign investment by lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 24%, In addition, you lowered all personal income taxes to a flat rate of 13%, understanding and learning from America that indexed tax rates are counter productive. Seeing the increase in GDP, you further went to help capitalist companies by now giving them a choice…A CHOICE of paying 6% on gross revenues or 15% on profits. WELL DONE, SIR !!! WELL DONE !!!!

    4) In addition, you invited Western Companies into the fold by guaranteeing no competition. You have increased tariffs on imports beyond affordability. You have blocked cheap European and Chinese imports.

    5) In another brilliant and strategic move you have built the Trans Siberia Pipeline to North Korea, China, and Japan.

    6) In another strategic move, you have built underground pipelines that have by passed the Ukranian pipelines to increase and supply Europe. Now, as soon as you take over the Ukraine, you will effectively control oil and gas exports to Europe in such amounts….you can effectively checkmate them politically. BRILLIANT MOVE YET AGAIN.

    7). Additionally, you have increased your nuclear capacity ten fold building nuclear power plants. You temporarily fooled the Green Community by lowering your emissions by increasing your dependence upon nuclear power….yet you are now an energy superpower in supplying fossil fuels outside. COOL !!!

    8) You have administered and built “floating nuclear power stations” in the Arctic circle. Very visionary.

    9) And you have planted a flag on the ocean bottom under the North Pole claiming its resources.

    On the military front…..being an old KGB Lt. Colonel and your stated desire to reunite the old Soviet Union…..you have masterfully changed tactics and economics and energy is an additional weapon in your arsenal. I doubt that not very many have noticed that you have revitalized your defense industry to where now it is second to your energy industry.

    Brilliant , sir,…brilliant.

    Hegemony at its finest. You will fill the vacuum when the US leaves……and Obama and the progressives….do not see it.

  24. http://eaglerising.com/5010/ode-welfare-state/

    Worth a laugh. From the 1940’s

    • Mathius™ says:

      Hell hath no fury..

      • My question is…..how did she get the photos? Surely, the dumb ass was not stupid enough to photograph an affair…..and then leave the photos where she would find them?

        • Mathius™ says:

          If I suspected an affair, the first thing I would do is set up nanny cams so I had hard-proof.

          The second thing.. well, let’s just say I’ve got a big back yard perfect for hiding bodies.

          (pro tip) if you’re hiding a body on your property, bury it deep (6+ feet), kill a deer or some such and bury it shallowly on top. If the police ever bring the dogs in to search for a body, and they search the spot, the police will stop digging once they find the deer, assuming that’s what the dogs were barking at. (/pro tip)

          • Or keep a healthy supply of raptors to consume any and all evidence….not to mention…keeping police and dogs at bay……

            **** I do not miss the reference to pro/tip. We do have a ranch, remember.

            Oh, by the way,I wish to thank all you tax payers for the farm subsidy bill….you increased our allowance to NOT grow corn….from $80K to $90K. Of course being a cow calf operation, we did not grow corn anyway…..and have never grown corn…range fed beef hates it. Oh, and again thank you for not allowing us to DECLINE the subsidy to not grow the corn we do not grow anyway. Yes…..you have it….we CANNOT refuse the subsidy and it is tax free. So……..we donated it to the wounded warriors project for sending kids to college…….and then took a $90k deduction from our taxes for a charitable donation. You gotta love this country…you get $90 k to not grow something you did not grow anyway…it is tax free from the gov…..then you do not allow us to return tax free money to the treasury nor can we decline it….THEN…you allow us to take a $90K deduction of tax free money from our own taxes….and reduce our taxable income……..holy shit. What a country.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Um.. just curious. How does one get in on this free 90k / yr subsidy?

              Not tat I would, but um.. just for purely scientific interest..

              • Really simple…..if you own land…..register it as agricultural….you need only…..are you ready for this, 10 acres,unless it has changed. Once you register it, your benevolent government will send you a packet of stuff requiring you to fill out things like……you will not grow sugar cane nor sugar beets. You will not grow corn, wheat, or asparagus unless you reside within certain counties. For your trouble, they will pay you a subsidy to not grow these things. Now, it does not matter where you live. You can own a 20,000 acre ranch in the Tundra….zone it agricultural…and voila….you will be paid not to grow a variety of things that would not grow there anyway.

                The reason we have registered a cattle ranch agricultural is because we grow alfalfa that we bale for winter food for cattle when the grass stops growing……the US government says, that if you grow alfalfa for any reason…you must be agricultural. So..there you have it.

                Oh,by the way, there are NO checks and balances on how to spend the money. You can buy cars, build swimming pools,buy airplanes……anything you want with it. To date,we have received $1.4 million that we did not ask for, cannot give it back……and donated every single penny to charity.

                I might add that there was an addendum in this bill to pay American land owners in Mexico, subsidies to not grow and ship back to the United States…asparagus,avocados, Spinach, potatoes, corn, wheat, and sugar cane or beets. We do not know the amount yet…but since we have a horse ranch in San Miguel Allende…..I am sure we will get something else that we cannot give back. Gotta love it….

                So, Sir Mathius, for pure scientific interest…there ya go.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Interesting.. and how much per acre? Again, for science..

              • I remember reading about how Major Major Major’s father drew these subsidies in “Catch 22”.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Carefuly Colonel, he sounds like a Congressional Investigating Committee lawyer – he could secretly telling Darrel Issa everything. 😉

            • Nice donation Sir, Kudo’s for your generosity 🙂

  25. @Anita, Have you gotten any emails from Gourmetcooking.com yet? I just spent 11 bucks on 8 items including 5 cookbooks and a dehydrator (they sell promotional items for 99 cents).

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    GMan

    RE: State Conventions.

    Timely article by Mr. Natelson today on American Thinker. It addresses a key point of complaint by those who say we cannot make a difference.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/the_lamp_of_experience_constitutional_amendments_work.html

    • Good article. I’m all for the Amendment process, at least as is being put forth. I hope it works!

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I read this article JAC, and it got me to wondering about the 12th amendment making the president/vice-president vote a “team” vote.

      I wonder, in this modern age if it would be better to go to a system where they are separate votes for these two offices (like most States do). What would be bad about potentially having opposing parties or candidates holding these offices? It may potentially improve the one-sided view of administration actions.

      Thoughts?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Plainly

        I like the idea.

        I don’t think a Unified Party Ticket was what the Founders had in mind, and for good reason.

        The goal is Check and Balance……………NOT consolidating power.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Maybe we should also add the Attorney General to the list to be elected as well.

          But, I’d settle for splitting the president and vice-president off into separate ballots votes.

      • I would disagree that the Veep should be elected separately. His only official function is to preside over the Senate. His unofficial function is as backup to the president in case of incapacity or death. For that he needs to be an integral part of the administration. A Veep of a different party will be cut out of all the strategy sessions and other important meetings. He might even be cut out of cabinet meetings unless there is a law or a future amendment requiring his presence. FDR did not bring Truman into his confidence even though on the same team. It severely hampered HST when he was suddenly thrust into the position of POTUS.

        As for the Attorney General, I would go along with that being an elected post. The AG being independent of POTUS would provide another check and balance against an imperial president.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          18 states separate the election of the Governor and Lt. Governor, while 25 states don’t (and 7 have no Lt. Governor at all).

          To me it seems like having “your man” in the #2 spot isn’t necessarily a positive thing. It’s just an “unelected” position as it stands now since I don’t know of any Presidential candidate losing because of who his running mate was (not saying it hasn’t happened). I think the person standing for the second most important office of the nation should have the people truly decide who that should be.

          I mean, really, would you have wanted Dan Quayle as President?

          As for the Vice President being locked out by the President, then it would seem there is no true voice of an elected member of the administration to speak out against an administration’s actions.

          Makes me wonder what might have changed had GWB had a Vice President who was a Democrat when the country was taking into battle in Afghanistan or Iraq?

          • Mathius™ says:

            I don’t know of any Presidential candidate losing because of who his running mate

            Seriously?

            Palin!

            Maybe she didn’t quite decide it, but she scared the pants off everyone who might have been on the fence about voting for a 70-something year old with a history of heart problems.

            Honestly, the second I got to know who she was, McC lost my vote – and I was honestly up in the air, but there was zero chance I was going to vote to put that lunatic in the #2 seat.

            • Ha! hahahaha! Oh please! She’s the reason McCain got as many votes as he did!

            • So if you could not vote for a 70 yr old…..then who do you cast your vote for in the next election?

            • plainlyspoken says:

              OK, so if the two had to stand separately Palin would not have had an affect on your backing of McCain – correct?

              Which means, and I know this scares you, you could have voted for an R president. 🙂

              • Mathius™ says:

                It doesn’t scare me at all.

                Had I not needed to vote for them as a matched-set, I very well might have voted for McC. It really depends on whether I thought I was getting hard-liner “Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran” McC or John Maverick™ McC.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                There being my point. As it stands now we don’t get the option. How does the VP really stand in areas concerning to the people. If a Pres candidate picks someone to run with them who wasn’t in the primary fight for Pres, we know very little. Plus once a VP team mate is chosen then that “candidate” spouts whatever his Pres partner says since people are looking strongly (or should be – but too many just vote the party line IMHO) at the Pres half of the ticket, not the VP half.

            • While I think it is a foregone conclusion that McGovern would have lost anyway. Him picking Eagleton did not help on two levels. First he did not vet his running mate and second when he backed him “1,000%” and then threw him to the dogs it upset a lot of people and mental health advocates.

          • My dad, bless the dead, thought Quayle got the short end of the stick. Yeah, he bumbled around, but ol’ dad dug deeper and ended up thinking Quayle was ok. I never did any research, but if dad said he was ok, I’ll believe it.

          • I would agree to electing the Veep if he constitutionally has a bigger role. He should be a full member of the cabinet and have some official role in national security. Otherwise he is just a mushroom, kept in the dark and feed s—-. I do like the idea of the Veep having an independent voice but that also must be tempered with the fact that POTUS is the boss. A back stabbing/leaking Veep would not be good.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              Well, why not – let an amendment make him/her a cabinet officer. He/She would already have their Senate position, plus keeping them out of the loop would be a “warning” to the people about what’s going on (or it should). Heck, it would be more than we get – work wise – out of a VP now. VP’s as it currently stands are little more than a mouthpiece for the Pres, so what would we be losing?

              Plus, think of those State of the Union addresses wherein if the VP is not of the same party then the VP could give the response to the speech.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          If historical memory serves me correctly, the US VP used to be the runner up in the presidential election.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            Yes, prior to the 12th Amendment (ratified in 1804)

          • True, the Veep was the man with second highest electoral count. Each elector submitted 2 names.

            The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

            In the election of 1796. Adams was elected president and Jefferson Veep despite being from different parties. Thomas Pickney was supposed to be Adams VP but election shenanigans by A. Hamilton spoiled the vote. In 1800, Jefferson and his VP candidate Burr tied in the electoral vote because someone forgot to not vote for Burr. This threw the election into the house which took 26 ballots to elect Jefferson. Thus was born the 12th amendment to eliminate the conflict.

  27. I will be out of State for business the next 48 hours or so. I’d appreciate it if someone can watch the moderation area 🙂

  28. Interesting question…..I honestly do not know the formula used….but….in the interest of science….I will go to our numbers guy and see if he has the knowledge. I am betting that he does.

    This information can be ransomed for DPM.

  29. I told ya…you cant make this up….2/3 of the USA leading economists…..agree that we have returned to the Carter years….

    I cannot wait……raise the interest rates on the CD’s back to 15% WOO HOO…of course that goes with bank and home loan interest rates back up to 18-22%.

    • Mathius™ says:

      And that, sir, is why I insisted on a 30-year fixed rate on my casa.

      3.125% for 30 years.

      Booya!

      • plainlyspoken says:

        Yep, got mine locked in low too. Perfectly content to stay right where I am at. 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          I hate – HATE – owing money, but frankly, I just cannot in good conscience pay it off early.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            I understand, I hate owing too. But, always have, probably always will to some degree (if they only made cars to last 30 years!), so I have learned to live with it.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I sure hope you are kidding. Your low rate destroys the appreciation you might get.

            Even at 3% you are losing money. Unless you have a much higher rate on the same money you could use to pay off the house.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Unless you have a much higher rate on the same money you could use to pay off the house.

              DINGDINGDINGDING

              And, even if my return today isn’t great (it’s just ok), my return when* rates shoot up is going to be much better by comparison. And it’s not like I’d be able to re-borrow that money at the same 3.125% then.

              *not to be confused with “if”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                So you are losing money today in hopes of making money later.

                You would be better off using extra money to pay off your home and then using the same money later if ROI goes way above your mortgage.

              • So, you are in at three, the shit hits the fan and your bank goes under. Neat!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Well mine isn’t as low as his, but if my bank goes under then there is real trouble in America considering it is a major bank in the U.S. Off course then, if it was going under I am sure the government will give them a bailout loan. 😉

          • You could not possibly hate it more than I……I would rather have dinner with Obama than owe money…….top that!!!!

  30. “I am sure the government will give them a bailout loan.”

    Why wouldn’t it? They’re one in the same. Wouldn’t you give yourself the loan?

    Welcome to the third world! And yo’ll have a good weekend, folks.

  31. Hmmmm……at Charlie……any relation to Charles Stella who wrote Blue Lightning?

  32. No, sir. Never heard of the guy, but I will look him up. My real name is Carmelo Stella (try getting a passport now, Charlie!) … damn near impossible. But here is another conservative flub … or was it? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/07/conservative-leader-caught-on-live-mic-the-jews-are-the-problem/

    • Ok…I saw your other novels as Charlie Stella…..was wondering. Thanks. If you cannot get a passport….I can get you out and in very easily.

  33. Someone needs to explain this reasoning to me….

    It is ok to buy marijuana.

    But there is a move in California to ban energy drinks to those under 18.

    • Chill Bro !

    • It is ok to buy ______.

      But there is a move in ______ to ban ______ to those ______.

      It is ok to buy addictive prescription drugs that cause a multitude of side effects, but there is a move in California to ban energy drinks to those under 18.

      It’s okay to buy and operate a two thousand pound land missile(vehicle) for those who are 16 (…or a flying one), but there is a move in California to ban energy drinks for those under 18.

      It is okay to buy alcohol if you are 21, but not if you are 16 and old enough to operate a land/air missile, but you can buy addictive prescription drugs causing a number of side effects, but not energy drinks if you are under 18,

      …but no one can buy a natural and generally harmless drug that has been a part of human culture for a very long time?

      How many things can you fill in those blanks?

    • In some areas of metro- LA, you cannot smoke cigarettes anywhere because of pollution standards, …but you can have a barbeque pit or drive a big SUV down the street.

      …and you can drive a few minutes to a dispensary to get a bag of weed, …if you have a back problem or headaches, ..or whatever.

      In Colorado Springs, you can buy marijuana legally, but cannot leave your hose connected to your water spicket …for some reason, that, if I remember correctly, has something to do with water conservation.

      What happened to the constitutionally protected natural right to be denied self determination of how to treat your own body and what to put in it? Do you not have a right to be denied this choice? Why did the government ever relax the 18th amendment by allowing alcohol consumption? 😉

  34. plainlyspoken says:

    Seven inches of a nice heavy wet snow fell last night at my place. A nice evening to be at home and getting out of my driveway was the worst part of my drive into town today. 🙂

  35. plainlyspoken says:

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/07/suffocating-pressure-former-center-for-american-progress-writer-describes-white-house-censorship/#ixzz2vJi9rlzI

    Not that I think no other administration wouldn’t behave the same way, but you have to think about the pressure the MSM receives as well?

    Journalism in America use to mean so much more than I think it does now. just my opinon of course.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    There has been an “invasion” of troops into Crimea, which is a “Republic” of Ukraine, who are wearing uniforms WITHOUT insignia.

    Is this not a VIOLATION OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS??

    Can’t these troops be captured and executed summarily as SPIES, since they wear no insignia??

    • plainlyspoken says:

      i believe under the convention spies are still entitled to trial before execution. Now exactly what parameters would constitute trial – I don’t know.

      Also, I believe unless there is a declared state of war between the parties there is no invocation of the Convention.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        plainly

        The Geneva Convention is applied upon the INVASION, whether war is declared or not.

        Thus the US was held to Geneva Standards on the battlefield of Afghanistan and Iraq.

        Notice that the reported violations occurred AWAY from that arena and by NON MILITARY personnel. Still a violation in my view, but not real obvious.

        In fact, I believe the INVASION by Russia itself is a violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as the UN charter to which Russia belongs.

    • There currently is no legal government in Ukraine. The legally democratically elected, democratic government was forced out.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Do you have proof that the parliament could not remove the PM??

        Remember, the VOTE to oust the guy was overwhelming, and included people from his own party.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          To help this discussion between you and SK (though it is only wiki):

          It is unclear if the removal of Yanukovych was legal because Yanukovych had not signed the bills that would restore the Constitution as it was between 2004 and 2010, which under Article 111 would have allowed for a president to be impeached “if he commits treason or other crime.” The constitutional guidelines provide for a review of the case by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by parliament (338 MPs).[2] The decisions to remove Yanukovych was supported by 328 MPs. [3] Yanukovych still claims to be “the legitimate head of the Ukrainian state elected in a free vote by Ukrainian citizens”.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ukraine

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            Take a look at the table near the end showing the last election runoff.

            Notice the guy who just got sent packing wins by a little over 3%. Now go to the bottom of the table as notice that 4% voted NONE OF THE ABOVE and another 1% plus was ruled illegal votes.

            So if that 4% had voted for the number 2 the current fiasco would have had an entirely different set of players.

            Voting does matter. The “utility” depends on one’s perspective of how you measure “success”.

            • Elections aren’t won on if. If the 4% of Republicans who stayed home in 2012 went and voted for the Republican then Obama would not be president and Romney would be. If the majority of eligible voters who never vote including Flag and G-man voted for Rocky Raccoon he would be president. .

              • SK, If the 4% (the actual numbers) were divided into each State based on political demography, The election would have turned out exactly the same. If all eligible voters would have voted, it would have been an Obama landslide. Why? People. Are. Dumb.

  37. plainlyspoken says:

    1. Rightfully, the Convention applies to war. There is no war here (yet) that would invoke the Convention.

    2. The US evaded and ignored the Convention in many ways (redefining combatants the way it did to prevent the Conventions from interfering with detainment and stripping those detained of any official status under the Conventions).

    3. Invasion, what invasion? Invasion is your and many others view. I doubt the Russians see it as an invasion.

    4. As to the Russians invading the Crimea – so all they would have needed was some half-assed legislation authorizing the use of military force and it would be legal?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      An before you get your knickers into a twist:

      1. Should the convention apply – yep, soon as you have armed conflict.
      2. Can the Russians redefine aspects of the conflict if they wish – sure, the US set that precedence in 2001.
      3. Is there an invasion going on in the Crime, yep.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Plainly

      re: #4……… NO!

      Crimea is recognized as part of Ukraine. Ukraine DID NOT invite Russia to enter Crimea to “protect Russians” living there.

      Russia is clearly BREAKING the Laws of Nations as currently constructed.

      They do so because they know they can get away with it.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        I don’t disagree JAC. But, like I said they can pass a half-assed law for invading territory in Ukraine and then it would be ok?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Note the paragraph describing what can be done to troops without identification.

          http://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/mar/06/ukraine-gross-violation-russian-troops

        • Just A Citizen says:

          plainly

          Again, NO.

          Who is going to pass this law? Crimea? After it is invaded and the Russian’s control access to the polling places?? Prohibiting any outside observance?? Sorry, that does not pass the Modern REALITY of law.

          Russia? Absolutely not.

          Ukraine? This would be the ONLY “legal” option. Ukraine would have to VOTE to cede Crimea as an INDEPENDENT NATION. Crimea moving to the Russian Federation would THEN be up to the Crimean citizens.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            sure, ok no law can be passed making it ok in the country that passes it. You know damn well it’s done and who gives a damn about what one thinks about it.

            The Ukrainians are screwed, as were the Taliban, as were the Iraqis. Damned if it matters what the laws says anywhere – international or otherwise. Of course, this isn’t our problem anyway.

            Does it make a damn bit of difference on how those troops CAN be treated. Nope. I never said they had any protections coming to them in the first places under the conventions outside of being declared spies. If the Ukrainians want to shoot them on site – again, there issue, not ours.

            BTW, I remember being ordered to sterilize my uniform sreveral times when in England.

            • The Taliban was screwed??? Aye, aye, aye! Guess they weren’t our problem either. 👿 Sorry twin towers people.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Maybe you should be more aware of what I was saying ma’am? You might read all of the conversation prior to that comment – wherein I was speaking to making a law that says what is happening in the Ukraine makes it legal?

                But, if you don’t want to do that work, then let me say it this way. By the Taliban (or anyone else as well) in any nation being “screwed” it means that one country making a “law” to attack a, or in, another country is ok. That screws the one at the pointed end of the stick.

                Plus, I chose to use the word “Taliban” to prevent the argument over who governed Afghanistan at the time.

              • I doubt the Taliban did 9/11

              • plainlyspoken says:

                They didn’t BL, but I wasn’t going to get into that.

          • plainlyspoken says:

            from the link you provided:

            Brigadier Ben Barry, a land army specialist at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “It is quite clear. The evidence is overwhelming. These are Russian troops. Some have identified themselves as Russian marines from Sevastopol, all are wearing standard Russian uniforms and although number places have beenb blanked out, some of them have lost their covers and are clearly Russian armed forces number plates.

            “There is no requirement about details of uniforms. It simply says you have to fight in uniform. Wearing someone else’s uniform is perfidy…..I do not believe wearing the national flag is a mandatory provision of the Geneva conventions,” Barry said.

            Barry said that another point is that there has not been any fighting in the Crimea so it falls short of a conflict. “It is not a state of armed conflict.,” he said.

  38. plainlyspoken says:

    Man-portable air defense systems could be stolen in Ukraine amid turmoil

    http://rt.com/news/air-defense-missile-systems-626/

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    A very well done historical perspective of how a debate about Hitler’s version of socialism was hijacked by the methodology of Marxist thinking.

    As I have said many times, it was the Communists who declared Fascism to be a Right Wing ideology. Thus forever condemning us to a FALSE choice on the scale of freedom.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/tim_stanley_and_national_socialism.html

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    Words of wisdom from the past, a history lesson and information on ISOLATIONISM for Anita.

    http://mises.org/daily/6685/Robert-Taft-and-His-Forgotten-Isolationism

    • plainlyspoken says:

      Great piece, thanks for posting it over here. I need to spend time wandering through mises.org.

    • I support the idea of isolationism. But when someone starts flying planes into our buildings, that’s my red line. Someone is going to pay. I have no sympathy for any of them. I spent the day viewing photos and commentary of Cpl Kyle Carpenter, who found himself in an abandoned Taliban camp, his home away from home. There were photos of our guys hanging/living among ANA. ..Afghan National Army. There were several photos of the villagers roaming through the camp, goats and all…the Marines befriended some of the kids rolling through. There was one kid they befriended, only for the kid to come through and blast the camp with grenades. Sorry kid,I know it isn’t your fault, but if you get shot, I’ll still sleep easy. Cpl Carpenter threw himself on a (different) grenade and saved several Marines near him. He has since undergone 40 surgeries, but he’s still standing and has been given a Medal of Honor, one of only three given during this war. So…

      planes fly into buildings
      let’s roll
      ANA fights with /on our side
      people die
      kids die
      our guys get blown up
      it’s all sad
      but! I haven’t seen any more planes knocking on buildings
      I can sleep easy because someone stood up for me

      All this other stuff going on, with the USA huffing and puffing? Relax, please!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Anita

        What I hope you and others got from the article, and my posts of the other day, is that “isolationism” was a phrase invented to DENIGRATE and RIDICULE those who simply did not want the “Imperialism” of Teddy Roosevelt to continue.

        Those opposed to IMPERIALISTIC tendencies were not opposed to ENGAGING other nations in diplomacy or even the use of force if needed to ACTUALLY protect American territory. This included embassies and ships.

        So the debate is, as V.H. noted the other day.

        WHAT is our National Interest when it comes to foreign relations?

        Is it really nothing more than trade with all and entanglements with none?

        • I dunno JAC. That question is above my paygrade. There is just so much tangled in together that it’s difficult to sort through it all. Terrorism..I don’t know the answer but we can’t just let them run the planet, so I hold that issue totally separate than other problems.

          Israel is also a no brainer for me. Call me a bible thumper, I don’t care. If they ask we should be there.

          Anything else..I got nothin. I’d be happy with a seat of the pants approach. I’ll trade with you if you’re behaving. Start acting up, I’ll take my business elsewhere. Same with military force. If you’re the underdog and need us, we should be there. Humanitarian aid for all to the extent that we don’t have our own people begging. Otherwise, stay home and smell the roses. …..yes I realize it’s more complicated than that.

          • ” Israel is also a no brainer for me. Call me a bible thumper, I don’t care. If they ask we should be there. ”

            …which I presume is speaking in reference to the tribes of Israel being the ‘chosen ones’ of YHVH.

            Based on that premise…

            If it is about the original tribes as a ethnic group, or bloodlines, then it applies to a LOT of people because the bloodlines have been spread all over the place. If it is about a belief system, then anyone can choose to be God’s chosen simply by learning and choosing Judaism.

            My point; “Jews” aren’t really that special when you think about it.

            Go digging. You can see for yourself that bloodlines from the original tribes of Israel reach far and wide. White northern Europeans as well as dark skinned Africans, as well as Asians, etc… all have that DNA.

            In all likelihood, you have a little bit of it too. I suspect I have a Jewish great great grandmother…like 6-8 generations back or something. ..maybe more than one line. Who knows?

            If you were to dig far back enough, you would likely find that you and I share more than one set of grandparents…which could range from any number of ethnic groups, perhaps some Jew blood included.

            I think Flag did the math once and came up with a figure of around 70 billion people born and died of Jewish blood since the tribes split up. There is a LOT of mixing that is apparent once you start to go digging into genetic and history based migratory studies of humans over the last couple of thousand years.

            We are all family.

            Don’t get me wrong. I can certainly appreciate Jewish culture, but to suggest that Jewish blood is somehow ‘special’ above others sounds kind of odd to me.

      • Anita, If you ever want to get a true sense of the insanity of it all, watch “A Face Of War”. It is on the internet (link attached) unfortunately it is in 10 minute installments. It is impossible to find on CD or even VHS anymore yet remains one of the truest looks at Vietnam from a Marine Rifle Company’s perspective.

        It was filmed in the earlier days of the war by a documentarian who was a WW 2 Marine. he himself was wounded while making the documentary. Poor copy, but it grabbed me some 40 plus years ago and says an awful lot about this type of warfare.

        http://www.ovguide.com/a-face-of-war-9202a8c04000641f800000000f139ab4

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    BL and Plainly

    The Taliban and Al Qaida were PARTNERS and mutually supportive of each others actions.

    The Taliban most certainly knew of bin Laden’s efforts and the pending attacks on the US. As well as those before 9/11.

    That these two were allies and complicit in each others reign of terror should not be argued. What is questionable is why we did not attack their OTHER partner……..Pakistan.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      We could make arguments all day about who was or wasn’t a partner of AQ and what those partner’s knew or didn’t know. As you said to SK in his comment – do you have proof?

      Further – we didn’t hit Pakistan because we “liked” them and I am sure their possession of nukes helped protect them.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        It was not because we “liked” them. The second part is closer to the truth.

        As for proof Plainly, it is in the records. You can find all the evidence across the internet.

        Al Qaida supplied the Troops that allowed the Taliban to come to power.

        There is nothing to argue about the connections.

        The only argument worth having is the Strategy and Tactics employed to deal with the problem.

        I disagree that it was purely a “law enforcement” issue. Violations of law were involved. However, we needed to employ resources beyond the FBI and Interpol.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          JAC, I do not dispute the fact that AQ aided the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan, but I believe it wasn’t proved – at the time – that the Taliban power structure had any knowledge of or part in the attack on the towers. The basis for the attack into Afghanistan was the refusal to hand over bin Laden.

          Further, if I suspected any country of having knowledge before it would have been Pakistan.

          Plus, all this attack into Afghanistan did was to mire the US into a war which will bring no lasting success in the region.

          I disagree that the issue was a military one, there was no attack upon the US by another nation. So we agree to disagree.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

          How can you – in any way – support such open ended authorization? This provides unrestricted power to the President to attack whom he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants. Or the next President, or the one after that…..it is ludicrous. There is no check on his authority – all he has to do is claim he is “preventing acts of international terrorism.”

          Hell, under this authorization he could attack Great Britain tomorrow militarily to go after any organization or individual in that country. Just because he won’t doesn’t negate the unbridled authority handed over to one person.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            plainly

            WHEN have I ever said I supported such an “open ended” authorization? Let me help you ……… NEVER.

            As for the Taliban’s knowledge. I have never seen any information that anyone knew SPECIFICALLY what was going to happen.

            There is much evidence that they knew something BIG was going to happen. And we know for certain that much MONEY flowed from several places through Al Qaida to the participants. And this money flowed through Afghanistan.

            We KNOW that the LEADER of the Northern Alliance mentioned a pending major attack against the US just BEFORE 9/11 and he was assassinated shortly after that.

            This by the way is a further nail in the coffin of the USA Intelligence FAILURE and the Bush Administration’s FAILURE to deal with the KNOWN threat.

            We were attacked by a group of people who were the foot soldiers of those who controlled 80% of Afghanistan. Those who some claimed were the Govt of either Afghanistan or a NEW Nation State that they “declared”.

            Sorry, but Law Enforcement is not equipped to handle this type of war. And since THEY declared the WAR against the USA I think we should take them at their word.

            Again, this does not mean that our use of military has to consist of invading and holding and/or establishing new Govt in other Nations. It simply means we need to focus ALL resources on the bad guys in order to hopefully eliminate them and/or their support.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              First JAC, it was a question – not a statement of fact that you did. One of your normal habits, accuse people of making a claim about you when they aren’t.

              Second – To your statement of specific knowledge and you not saying they had it – BS when JAC says, “The Taliban most certainly knew of bin Laden’s efforts and the pending attacks on the US. As well as those before 9/11.”

              Third – You have absolutely ZERO evidence in law that would bring truth to the statement, We were attacked by a group of people who were the foot soldiers of those who controlled 80% of Afghanistan”.

              Ergo “they”, if you mean AQ, didn’t declare war since they are not a nation. They committed a criminal act – period. “They,” if you mean the Taliban government of the large majority of the country of Afghanistan, declared no war on the US as the men who committed the attack can not be shown to legally be “foot soldiers” of the Taliban. Your getting as far fetched as Gman does at times.

              • “Your getting as far fetched as Gman does at times.”

                I love Plainly … even when we disagree …

              • Plainly, REALLY? What did I do to you? 😉

              • Just A Citizen says:

                plainly

                Your question was “leading” and “presumptuous”. Sorry but I don’t play those rhetorical games if I see them. So is it my “normal habit” to respond to questions that are either deliberately or erroneously constructed to infer I have some believe when I do not? Damn straight it is. That way there can be NO CONFUSION over my position.

                Why do you claim I am accusing you of anything? I simply ANSWERED your question.

                Now lets try another version of your question:

                “How can you – in any way – support beating women for having their head exposed in public?”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                plainly

                Second

                Those in direct conflict with the Taliban had knowledge before had of a major attack in the US. I guess they must have just made it up or gotten it from somewhere else.

                Why is it you seem to be trying to ignore the known connection between the Taliban and al Qaida??

                Is it because it threatens the popular anarchist view that the Taliban were just a bunch of INNOCENT people who were ILLEGALLY attacked by the US??

                Like I said, I have no problem debating the strategy or tactics used to deal with the threats. But I find it baffling how hard people try to deny the connections that were well known before we invaded Afghanistan.

                I find it equally baffling that folks like Mathius might have supported such an invasion on “humanitarian” grounds, due to the Taliban’s brutality, but not to take out the symbiotic relationship between the Taliban and al Qaida.

              • outragedparent says:

                So you say. You use reading comprehension most of the time. Yet, there are times when you choose to play silly words games and it – also at times – gets tiring.

                So, I’ll pass on playing them with you today. Have fun with that.

                I also noticed you partially responded to my last comment as well.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                plainly

                Third

                I do not need a “legal” interpretation or support to claim that al Qaida supported the foot soldiers for the Taliban. That is NOT an issue of LAW.

                It is simply a fact that was known at the time. You can still find discussions about it on the internet that were published back at the time. Even Wikipedia has some citations in the articles on al Qaida and the Taliban.

                Are you trying to claim these connections DID NOT exist? If so then why? What is your basis for this argument?

    • My guess; It was a black ops project supported by entities within governments and/or $pecial interests, …of both foreign and domestic origins.

      The official narrative is full of holes.

  42. Funny…..I wonder why the msm is not reporting the two Russian tank divisions that have suddenly been moved to the border of Estonia? Well, I am sure that it is just coincidence…perhaps a war game.

    Oh….it is a Baltic State that is on the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea…..southern border is Latvia.

    Funny…. I wonder why the msm is not reporting the movement of a Russian mech infantry division to the border of Belarus..another coincidence…perhaps part of an on going war game…….

    Belarus borders Lithuania and Poland…….and the Ukraine. Interesting.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmm….looking at the Eastern Europe chess board….two tank divisions could easily take Estonia and Latvia….linking the Baltics once again…..a mech infantry division takes Belarus and Lituania…..surrounding the Ukraine and putting troops on the Polish border……..

    But what the hell……………I am sure it is nothing.

    • Don’t know that it matters but aren’t some of those members of NATO, wouldn’t that mean NATO would be obligated to help them? Do you think this is just to surround Ukraine or are they branching out?

      • At VH……NATO is crap….there should not even be a NATO….If the US did not fund it….it would cease to exist.

        At Plainly…..from a source that is not internet related. ( The internet news reporting cannot be trusted ) and WIKI is unreliable at best. It is from an unclassified briefing and this information has been released by the CIA, or I would not put it on here. This is actually old news as it happened two days ago. All of this has been released to the msm including Fox news. I suppose it is considered not news worthy.

        Now the synopsis is all mine. Hypothetical to be sure…but I watch these things very closely. If I were Putin, I would immediately form a trilateral alliance with China and Iran….(oops, already done)…tell the Chinese to move quickly into Taiwan, Iran to move quickly into Iraq and Kuwait, as Putin move into the Baltic States…bold but very easily done. No one could stop this.

        Remember, one of my jobs on the border is to take current intelligence and develop scenarios off that intelligence as it pertains to the border areas…however, I do extend it, on my own, to the intelligence briefings that I am allowed to attend….providing there is no classified information.

        • plainlyspoken says:

          Okie dokie. Was wondering since I have scoured the net (not the MSM) looking for information not based on anything the MSM has covered.

          • I do have a source that I could send to you but I want to make sure I can do that….let me ask my boss…( a major general ) and see if he is ok with it. If you monitor that source, it will keep you up on troop unclassified troop movements by all countries in implements larger than Battalion size.

            • Oops…scratch that….Brigade Size

            • plainlyspoken says:

              I would appreciate that if possible. While I am a “stay out of it” guy, I am (and have always been) interested in the military actions of other nations.

              If you can do so my email address is: oneoutragedparent@gmail.com

            • Keep in mind, that every country plays this game, including the US. Everyone does troop movements all the time. War games, training, deployments, etc. This is nothing new. Sometimes, these movements are done in conjunction with already publicized war games….however, the catch is….after the games are over…which troops remain.

              It gets very suspicious when large Divisions are moved not in conjunction with previously announced movements…..something to watch and part of the game that countries with armies play.

              Gamesmanship is what it is called. A very dangerous game to be sure. All countries report war games and troop movements and the reasons for them…so they are not going to be misinterpreted as war footing. But all countries also move units not previously mentioned for two reasons…..to see who is watching and to see how the reaction is. Nothing has changed over the years.

              • plainlyspoken says:

                Yep, fully understood.

                When the US opened our base in Egypt back in the 80’s we did so under the guise of a military exercise we were conducting with the Egyptians. It was sold that way to the other Middle East nations.

                We were able to put in an airbase that we just stayed on after the military exercise ended. I was under PCS orders at the time so I wasn’t allowed to volunteer for a spot in the 6 month mission rotation to Cairo West AB (as it was initially named). To bad really, I was interested in getting a chance to visit the pyramids.

              • Interesting! Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, if I am Putin I start doing this to let the west know exactly what THEIR meddling can lead to. Dum-dum sends F-15’s and 16’s to the border, why? Like they could do something.

                Putin is thinking that he wants to keep Obama irrelevant. yes, we know that he is but Putin is not taking any chances. This Russian gamesmanship will assure that Obama never can develop options short of the big one.

                In the long run I don’t think the Russians want the Baltics nor the rest of the Ukraine nor Georgia nor Belarus.More trouble than they are worth. What the Russian do want are these states neutralized and unaligned. we have done everything we can to woo them. Big mistake. We have at our doorstep the perfect example (Cuba) of what it means to have a hostile, foreign supported enemy at your doorstep. The Russians are not fools enough to allow us to do the same to them, time and time again without reacting.

                The altruistic west, currently offering financial aid packages to the Ukraine to counterbalance Russia’s military shadow is actually quite laughable. Russia ups the natural gas price. the Ukraine has to pay it or freeze and we wind up contributing to Mother Russia.
                .

              • I just don’t know-I keep wrestling with the question of is this our business. I’m told Nato is unimportant-and maybe it isn’t-and we can prevaricate all we want to-we have made commitments to these countries-we took away there ability to protect themselves but Now it isn’t any of our business if they are taken over by force. Does our word mean nothing?

              • VH, Do politicians have any integrity? Look at the bum in the Whitehouse now, a compulsive liar of the worst kind.

              • outragedparent says:

                VH, NATO was established as a military alliance, meaning all nations contributed to the alliance of mutual self-defense. We did not taken “away their ability to protect themselves.”

                The US certainly supplied the military backbone after WW2 when the occupied countries couldn’t protect themselves on their own and to be a counter to the massive Soviet armies holding Eastern Europe. But, 65 years later the nations of the original alliance have had more than enough time to make their own defense their responsibility. I think “we” kept our word quite well.

                NATO serves no purpose now other than to be an excuse to drag multiple countries into military operations – some of which have been in clear violation of NATO’s defensive policy.

                The United States needs to sever itself from this hook it maintains into the affairs of Europe.

              • Obama doesn’t get serious until he sends in the drones.

              • Why do you use ww2-the Soviet Union broke up 20 years ago?

    • plainlyspoken says:

      And where would you be getting these tidbits from?

  43. CPAC and the GOPs hypocritical demand for more saber rattling over the Ukraine … and allowing Sarah Palin to show her face again … the guarantee for Hillary in 2016 … way to go!

  44. @ Plainly…..the pyramids are awesome…Got a chance to go…almost did not because why did I want to see something like that….but when I got there…the complexity of the structure…simple from pictures…but in person was awesome. Then I thought of the ten thousands of slaves that built those things….amazing.

    ( For the record, I am not a believer that they were built by space travelers and designed in connection with Easter island, the markings on the Andes,nor crop designs and used as navigational aids for inter-celestial travel. )

  45. @ Plainly….got a chance to visit the Pryamids. Almost did not take it because my outlook was why do I want to go see a big pile of rocks. Glad that I went, however. The tens of thousands of slaves that it took to build it…plus the architectural design on it up close. Awesome.

    ( No, I do not believe that they were put there by interstellar travelers as a navigational aid…nor do I believe that they are connected to Easter Island, nor the Andes, nor the Bermuda Triangle.)

  46. Anita, Picked up 90 packages of organic veggy seeds (Burpee) yesterday for free. Vacuum sealed and put in storage, minus what I will use this year. Also picked up a 5th of Everclear 190 proof. Making Apple Pie Moonshine as I type this 🙂

    • 90 packages? How long do you think they will last? Easy on that moonshine. I’ve seen what that does to people. 🙂

      • Yes, like the kind at the store for 2.39 a pack. Got beans, peas, radishes, cucumbers, peppers (hot and sweet), several kinds of melons, carrots, beats and some okra. They will keep for years in their current packaging. We will use about 10 packs this year.

        Apple Pie is awesome, and yes, caution must be used 🙂 Put up 9 5ths, will be doing another batch in a few weeks. I have about 5 cases of bottles to fill. I still have about 96 bottles of homemade brandy, never know when a trading partner comes along 😉

  47. outragedparent says:

    Down here JAC,

    First I said zero evidence that the AQ attackers of the towers were Taliban foot soldiers (meaning operating at the behest and orders of the Taliban. Reading is fundamental.

    I also do not claim that the AQ had/has ties with the Taliban. Never have and won’t be in your lifetime. My discussion points are that attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan – the “government” in control – was not lawful NO MATTER H0OW MANY LAWS THE US PASSED TO MAKE IT “LAWFUL” (not yelling – just making it clear).

    You want to justify the attack on Afghanistan (but not the continued presences we have their – see, reading comprehension) and I find it to be unjustified. We will boh likely not budge from our respective positions on this.

  48. plainlyspoken says:

    VH – I go to the origin of NATO (1949) and it’s stated purpose. If that has changed then they forgot to amend the treaty.

    • “Article 5

      The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

      Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .”

      http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

      obviously, I’m not talking solely about the Treaty under NATO. I’m talking about our actions and other agreements based on when we made them. So the stance that we have done enough is questionable. Have we done enough-do our agreements and words not matter. Are we fixing our past mistakes by allowing others to take the fall? Are we justified? I can’t answer that question-but the morality of the answer bothers me.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        VH –

        Article 3

        In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

        Article 5

        The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America……

        This last article should be invoked immediately IMHO”

        Article 13

        After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    From the 9/11 Report:

    It does not appear that any government other than the Taliban financially
    supported al Qaeda before 9/11, although some governments may have contained
    al Qaeda sympathizers who turned a blind eye to al Qaeda’s fundraising
    activities.121 Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source
    of al Qaeda funding, but we have found no evidence that the Saudi government
    as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization.
    (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with
    significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)122

    • http://www.truthandaction.org/cia-document-saudis-helped-911-hijackers/

      Seems that there is plenty of evidence that disproves the Taliban had anything to do with 9-11.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        I did not claim that the Taliban organized or ordered the 9/11 attack.

        My argument is that the Taliban knew about the pending attack. The Taliban in this context means “someone of leadership”.

        My argument is that the Taliban and al Qaida were integrally linked up to 9/11. The Taliban supported them financially and allowed them to run camps and other operations within Afghanistan. All with the full knowledge of what al Qaida was up to in the world.

        So how do you separate them when it comes to the outcome??

        This argument that the Taliban was not involved because the individuals hailed from Saudi Arabia is deliberately misleading. I say deliberately because why else would the FACT that these people TRAINED IN AFGHANISTAN always be left out? That they were also funded by al Qaida,,,,,,,,,,FROM AFGHANISTAN is also left out. Why?

        • ” The Taliban supported them financially and allowed them to run camps and other operations within Afghanistan. All with the full knowledge of what al Qaida was up to in the world. ”

          Would you try to stop/impede your patsy?

          ” My argument is that the Taliban and al Qaida were integrally linked up to 9/11.”

          Plausibility – Get them involved, …blame it all on them?

          ” That they were also funded by al Qaida,,,,,,,,,,FROM AFGHANISTAN is also left out. Why? ”

          My guess… a loose end. Something doesn’t fit that someone does not want to draw attention to.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Who are you claiming is a patsy for who?

            • …All who were involved, …whoever that may be.

              It is like a team of people defrauding a bank, and setting it up so that a disgruntled corporate adversary gets blamed.

              What did the Taliban have to gain?

              They hate us for our freedom? …Bullshit.

              Maybe send in an operative to muster support, raise hell and make it LOOK like it was all them, …or at least enough to bullshit a couple of billion people?

              I cannot say for sure, but something just doesn’t fit right.

        • Most of the Arab world knew something was gonna happen. Maybe we should go back a little further in time, when the CIA was funding Al Qeida when the Russians were there. There is 28 pages of the 9-11 report that is still classified. Based on reports that have leaked, the main financiers were Saudi’s, not the Taliban. Not that it matters, because it’s already done with and we control the Poppy fields. Maybe this is one of those cases where the ends justify the means.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            gman

            Since you raise the question of CIA funding, the evidence was that CIA financial support to Pakistan was then being funneled to AQ in Afghanistan as well as to Taliban.

            One of the standard arguments is that the US created the AQ and that this was just about pipelines. As usual there are “multiple” things going on. Here is a good example of how TWO of these coincide. Explicit support of AQ by the Taliban and the US laying off because of the pipeline. Thinking they can work with the Taliban. And ignoring evidence to the contrary.

            “Julie Sirrs, a military analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), travels to Afghanistan. Fluent in local languages and knowledgeable about the culture, she made a previous undercover trip there in October 1997. She is surprised that the CIA was not interested in sending in agents after the failed missile attack on Osama bin Laden in August 1998, so she returns at this time. Traveling undercover, she meets with Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud. She sees a terrorist training center in Taliban-controlled territory. Sirrs will later claim: “The Taliban’s brutal regime was being kept in power significantly by bin Laden’s money, plus the narcotics trade, while [Massoud’s] resistance was surviving on a shoestring. With even a little aid to the Afghan resistance, we could have pushed the Taliban out of power. But there was great reluctance by the State Department and the CIA to undertake that.” She partly blames the interest of the US government and the oil company Unocal to see the Taliban achieve political stability to enable a trans-Afghanistan pipeline (see May 1996 and September 27, 1996). She claims, “Massoud told me he had proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul.” She also states, “The State Department didn’t want to have anything to do with Afghan resistance, or even, politically, to reveal that there was any viable option to the Taliban.” After two weeks, Sirrs returns with a treasure trove of maps, photographs, and interviews. [ABC News, 2/18/2002; ABC News, 2/18/2002; New York Observer, 3/11/2004] By interviewing captured al-Qaeda operatives, she learns that the official Afghanistan airline, Ariana Airlines, is being used to ferry weapons and drugs, and learns that bin Laden goes hunting with “rich Saudis and top Taliban officials” (see Mid-1996-October 2001 and 1995-2001). [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/2001] When Sirrs returns from Afghanistan, her material is confiscated and she is accused of being a spy. Says one senior colleague, “She had gotten the proper clearances to go, and she came back with valuable information,” but high level officials “were so intent on getting rid of her, the last thing they wanted to pay attention to was any information she had.” Sirrs is cleared of wrongdoing, but her security clearance is pulled. She eventually quits the DIA in frustration in 1999. [ABC News, 2/18/2002; New York Observer, 3/11/2004] Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) will claim that the main DIA official behind the punishment of Sirrs is Lieutenant General Patrick Hughes, who later becomes “one of the top officials running the Department of Homeland Security.” [Dana Rohrabacher, 6/21/2004] “

        • . I say deliberately because why else would the FACT that these people TRAINED IN AFGHANISTAN always be left out? That they were also funded by al Qaida,,,,,,,,,,FROM AFGHANISTAN is also left out. Why?

          A few things, the hijackers also trained in the United States 😉 Just curious, but is it not possible that they also trained in Saudi, or in Morocco? Where is this evidence coming from, the 9-11 report? I ask because I haven’t been much concerned with this subject, but ya’ll got my curiosity up. Is it possible that the Taliban did funnel some money? Sure is. It’s also possible that Achmed down at the local 7-11 did as well.

          • Interesting, AQ funded the Taliban, not the other way around. That is what I always thought. Another little tidbit about Bin Laden being responsible, which at first he denied, is that his sect of Islam would not allow the killing of innocent women and children. That has been mostly overlooked and very under reported. Not that it matters at this point, he’s dead. Nice find Anita 🙂

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Interesting. While your second reference supports the connections it claims one of my findings about bin Ladens relation being married to the Taliban leader is FALSE.

            Which means that my source information on that predates 9/11 and the subsequent investigations.

            By the way, on the first source references about the masterminds of 9/11.

            Per KSM’s confessions it was primarily his idea and he got bin Laden to sign off on it and then to fund the operations. Bin Laden also supplied other people to help and the “group” coordinated the entire operation. Which starts in SE Asia.

            • Can we conclude that the Taliban did NOT fund AQ for the 9-11 attacks? Since it’s been made clear that AQ was funding the Taliban ❗

              • Just A Citizen says:

                gman

                The claim that AQ was propping up the Taliban is being made about the period following them chasing the Northern Alliance out of control.

                I never claimed that the Taliban “specifically” funded 9/11. In fact it would be impossible to show “which funding by source” was tied to the 9/11 operation. Some has been identified but for the most part it was funding to AQ which bin Laden then “allocated” to various operations.

                I said that the Taliban provided financial, logistical and diplomatic support to AQ. AQ had provided money and “foot soldiers” to the Taliban in their Civil War. Some claim that without AQ the Taliban might not have prevailed. The Taliban then provides support, including financial support, to AQ once they get control of most of the country.

                So this issue of funding was TWO WAY. WHICH WAS MY POINT. The two were PARTNERS.

                So now address the key question. HOW do you separate the two partners when one of them commits the crime? Both tied in funding, logistics, personnel and ideology. One operating under the support and protection of the other.

              • While I’m no lawyer, when one commits a crime and another helps, that would be “conspiracy to commit…..” But, it seems to me that AQ was paying the Taliban to be allowed to work from Afghanistan. AQ’s money was a key in the Taliban taking power and keeping it. But to claim that the Taliban was funding AQ doesn’t fir the circumstances. The Taliban needed AQ’s money to maintain control over the government of Afghanistan. In return AQ trained within the countries borders. The rest of the assumption makes little sense at all. Why would the Taliban want to piss off the USA and endanger their position in Afghanistan? That dog don’t hunt in my mind. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Taliban had any knowledge at all about the plans to attack the WTC and DC. If they did it was likely within days of the attack.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                gman

                You are taking one source from one time and projecting that as the ONLY correct piece of information.

                The Taliban had many sources of money once they gained control. Poppies for one. Pakistan, Saudi and UAE supporters for another. Some of which were also supporting AQ, both directly and indirectly.

                So claiming that the Taliban was providing funding to AQ DOES fit the circumstances. You just need to expand your perspective of the entire relationship.

                Since the head of the Taliban and bin Laden visited frequently, I think it reasonable to assume he knew of “something”. I have never claimed he knew of precisely what was planned. Only that something big was pending.

                By 9/11 why would the Taliban care what the US thought? They knew we would focus on AQ only based on our prior response and complicity in dealing with them over the pipeline.

                All is EQUALLY plausible or maybe more so than your scenario.

                Did you know that AQ ran a passport office where they doctored documents for operatives moving to other places?? The office was located in the Govt (Taliban) controlled “international” air port. Let me clarify, allegedly operated an office, per KSM’s testimony.

              • I think it reasonable to assume he knew of “something”.

                He who? Bin Laden?

                Bin Laden wished to send this message to Bill Clinton: that he would avenge this attack in a spectacular way and would deal a blow to America that would shake it to its foundations…this revenge was delivered by means of the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and shows that preparations for Sept 11 may well have been underway at the time the two US embassies in Africa were bombed.

                Bin Laden knew.

              • He who? The Leader of the Taliban. Something else to consider. The names and pictures of the alleged hijackers were know , I believe, within weeks. But today, the same government can’t get the truth on the IRS issue, the Benghazi issue and a few other so called scandals. So I’m more than skeptical when it comes to the speed of which the decisions were made after 9-11.

  50. JAC, What was the disagreement that led to this discussion?

    I’ve read quite a lot on the relationship between the Taliban and AQ. The Taliban provided support in many ways, no doubt there. But I believe their involvement in 9-11 was negligible at best and they had ZERO knowledge of the actual operation and what was planned. This is backed up by also knowing that even the hijackers were kept from that info until it was near the time to act. I would agree that the Taliban’s support of AQ made them a conspirator in the crime, as would any entity that gave AQ support.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      gman

      The relationship goes to the question of whether the US was “justified” under normal rules of retaliation to invade Afghanistan. And in doing so, to include Taliban in the targeting of Al Qaida.

      The Colonel expressed his view they were one in the same for military purposes. I happen to agree. That just because they did not fit the clean lines of Nation State like we WESTERNERS like to think of the world, did not make the Taliban immune to our action.

      It would be like having one of our branches of Govt, or a State attack another country and then having our Govt say nothing or do nothing. Except of course to “claim” we will turn over the culprits but ONLY if they stand trial under OUR laws and in OUR courts, and by the way those laws do not preclude such attacks as “illegal”.

      I happen to believe the US was justified under the accepted rules of retaliating against the attack of 9/11. I believe that due to how close and symbiotic the relationship was between the two. Unlike the remote connection between Sadam Hussein and AQ which was later trotted out to get people to think Iraq also had something to do with 9/11.

      Now “justification” is not the same as “actual action”. I have stated that I think the initial attacks were on solid ground, TACTICALLY and STRATEGICALLY. And that our “invasion” was JUSTIFIED.

      Changing the Mission from Knocking out the ability to operate from Afghanistan to NATION BUILDING was a serious MISTAKE and should have never happened.

      But taking out the Taliban and AQ WAS JUSTIFIED AND APPROPRIATE in MY OPINION.

      It is also my claim that the argument that this was nothing but a law enforcement matter is hugely naïve. There is no way that we could have displaced AQ from Afghanistan using LE methods. Bush was correct when he argued that ALL resources must be brought to bear against the AQ and its affiliates.

      LE alone could not even deal with the Global AQ network.

      This does not mean we should go around invading other countries, as in military invasions. That included “drone” attacks made without “permission” of Nations where we might want to operate.

      And I doubt we actually do, by the way. I admit I could be wrong but I suspect there are more than a few winks and nods that have been made that allow this to continue.

      Does that clear it up?

      • Thanks, cleared up. Plainly believes it was not something we should have invaded over and you say invasion was the correct response. I do not think that either of you will win this debate, just my opinion. You both have strong cases for your respective positions. I don’t have any faith in what the government says about anything. I will remain neutral in this debate.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          gman

          It is more than whether we should have or should not have.

          It is on the issue of whether it was JUSTIFIED under a defense/retaliation standard.

          This is where the difference lies and thus it is significant.

          We have to find the solution to this in a world where State status may be “fuzzy”. A world where the operations of the bad guys cannot be handled with LE agencies alone.

          • There is much to resolve. When we start dropping bombs on a country, because of a few hundred or so criminals, we begin to kill innocent people. This is a very slippery slope. Like I said, I’m undecided on the issue for the most part.

            • plainlyspoken says:

              G, it is justified as collateral damage in lawful attacks – at least we shall be told that. Or in other words – “oh well”.

              I guess it is a damn good thing the Europeans didn’t run off to war at every turn when the PFLP groups with support of certain Middle East countries over the decades made terrorist attacks in their countries.

              The US has justified it’s attacks and that justification – full of assumption – will continue to be used to argue for military action. Bush set the precedence, Obama continued it, and future presidents can now follow it with clear consciences.

      • plainlyspoken says:

        That included “drone” attacks made without “permission” of Nations where we might want to operate.

        And I doubt we actually do, by the way. I admit I could be wrong but I suspect there are more than a few winks and nods that have been made that allow this to continue.

        Assumption – plain and simple. You make assumption as to what the Taliban knew or had to know to justify the US initial military response and you ease your feelings over drone attacks with assumption there may have been “a few winks and nods” letting the attacks occur.

        What crap.

  51. I found this interesting-It also identifies a big who-Matt keeps asking for.

    http://staging.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/011/166carzu.asp?page=1

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    Anita

    He knew, who knew?

    Re your question.

    I was referring to the Taliban leadership. Their top guy was buddies with bin Laden.

    Hell yes Bin Laden knew. Anyone claiming otherwise has an agenda or is trying to rationalize their “blame America for everything view”, in my “humble opinion”.

  53. I don’t know about the one week after claim-but what’s up with this? Is it just me or does Obama Hate Israel.

    One Week After Russia’s Crimean Invasion, US Imposes Travel Sanctions…Against Israelis
    249
    10
    835
    7

    Email Article Print article Send a Tip
    by Thomas Rose 9 Mar 2014, 5:01 AM PDT 548 post a comment
    At the same time the US State Department is relaxing entry requirements to visa applicants with Islamist terrorist connections, and reassuring President Putin of Russia that any sanctions against travel to the US placed upon those responsible for Russia’s invasion Ukraine will be limited to no more than a “few dozen” named individuals, it is dramatically increasing its rejection rate of Israelis seeking visas to visit the US.
    While the State Department denies it, Israeli officials now suspect their country is being deliberately sanctioned as part of an unannounced administration policy to punish the Jewish state. This week their fears were publicly shared by none other than administration ally NY Senator Charles Schumer, who, in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, demanded an end to the “State Department policy of categorically denying young Israelis tourist visas that makes it nearly impossible for any young Israeli to visit the U.S.”

    The harsh and unexplained crackdown against Israeli tourists, first felt in 2009 has been tightening ever since, particularly, say those familiar with the matter, within the last year. When first imposed, the travel bans were extended to all young Israelis seeking to visit the US after completing their compulsory military service. Israeli reports examining such records show that, starting in 2012, rejections of Israeli visa requests were applied preemptively and categorically to all Israeli nationals of student age.

    The State Department confirms there has been a 400% increase in the visa refusal rate for Israeli citizens since 2007, when only 2.5% of all Israeli visa requests were denied, as compared to 2013 when 9.7% were. In fact, rejection rates for Israeli visa applicants were so high in 2013, that Israel was expelled from the State Department’s visa waiver program. Some of the countries whose citizens are eligible to participate the US visa waiver program, in addition to traditional and treaty allies like Canada and the UK, include Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/08/One-Week-After-Russia-s-Crimean-Invasion-US-Imposes-Travel-Sanctions-Against-Israelis

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I don’t think Obama “HATES” Israel.

      I do think he views them as a large PART OF THE PROBLEM and a royal pain.

      Isn’t it interesting how so many of those groups bashing Obama on other issues SHARE this view of Israel. You know, those right wingers who blame the “Jews for running the world”.

      You would think someone in the media would point out these “similarities” and ask some questions!! Ah never mind…………… Insert sound of CRICKETS here……

      🙂

  54. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting

    Day after the Malaysian airliner disappears we find TWO passports stolen two yrs ago or more were used by SOMEBODY. May or may not be meaningful.

    But today there are reports that Interpol and Malaysian and Chinese officials are now looking at some “other” passports which are “suspicious”.

    Also we now hear the airliner was shown reversing course on the radar. YET there was NO message from the pilots. A violation of normal procedure.

  55. VH….you asked “Why do you use ww2-the Soviet Union broke up 20 years ago?” The Soviet Union broke up but alliances remained….AND…..history repeats itself.Putin is an old guard KGB Lt. Colonel. He wants the old established type of authoritarianism back but not the economics. He borrows a page from our playbook on capitalism and mercantilism. Creates private companies and invites western companies in to Russia and utilizes protectionist policies combined with very low taxes. He also dropped the graduated income tax and went to flat rates. All of this has created in an increasing GNP. The problem that he has right now, is that the USD is such a mainstay that everybody wants it as a reserve currency.

    Now, he tightens his grip on the government and is installing old KGB types…however,is hiring and bringing in very smart, USA trained economists that understand the market place. He can scare Europe into submission ( ala old cold war days but he does not have to do it with fences and mine fields…..he uses economics and intimidation which only works if you have a big stick. He is energy independent,unlike the United States. He is a cool customer. We have not heard the last of him.

  56. @ the Devil’s Advocate, Stephen. Precisely…..he ups the ante….and we send F15/16 to Poland……typical cold war response that we did 30 years ago. The only real country that he probably wants is Belarus….and that is because it is infested with Russians. And its borders……Lat and Lith are powerless.

%d bloggers like this: