I don't think this quote refers to ignoring a threat...
Posted By: gt alias on 2005-07-20
In Reply to: Perhaps. But to ignore the Islamic threat would mean sm - OMG
I think it speaks about creating and justifying a war, and in the Iraq war's case, a hasty and simple-minded war. I don't know what Goering's thoughts were, but my own are that war should be a last resort and that seems like common sense. This is in no sense to be construed as downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism. I would like to mention there that a big complaint about the Iraq war was that Bush ignored or didn't wish to consider the advice of folks who had a solid background in the Middle East. The insurgency and threatening civil war were all predicted when we went to war but the advice was ignored. Bush, it seems, reversed the usual order in which a country is forced to go to war: He decided FIRST that he would go to war, then created justification, then ignored all the sage advice that Iraq was a potential powderkeg, and then he did what Goering prescribed to get the U.S. to rally around his cause (or at least some of the U.S.). That's how it appears anyway. I hope I am wrong about this but with the mounting well-documented evidence to the contrary I believe this will become the ultimate truth of the matter.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I think it refers to the . . .
nose up the buttocks comments
Ummm...my analogy refers to
I have looked beyond the pretty face. Problem is, I don't see a whole lot there, unless she is trying for her old position as PTA chairman. The depth of your analysis, as you insist on trying to deflect this away from the issue of her paper-thin resume and toward some sort of cat fight over "looks" demonstrates exactly what kind of follower she will attract. Do you think that slam about envy and being unattractive has any bearing on anything of substance? Trust me. These are not some isolated ramblings from an envious, malcontent, ugly, what's-her-name/Cindy McCain wannabe. You and she will have to be answering some really tough challenges from all those groups named in the previous post. Guess you missed that as your post disintegrated into name-calling that has absolutely nothing to do with the very serious issues at hand. In terms of her preparedness to lead this nation, she strikes me and many, many others as being a Bobo. My little post
.just the tip of the iceberg. You'd better find some bigger guns than lipstick and nail files.
Make that "my analogy refers to
nm
I believe that it refers to the work ethic basically...
not everyone is born rich, and we all have choices in life. We can "pull ourselves up with our bootstraps," work hard and try to get head, and it has worked for generation after generation of Americans. It worked for Barack Obama. He is someone who pulled himself up by his bootstraps, came from a very middle class family, worked through school, worked for scholarships, borrowed money, got an education and he is running for President of the United States.
Sarah Palin grew up as a child of two teachers in Alaska. She worked her way up, eventually worked as a sportscaster, then decided to work in public service because she wanted to serve. She started as a community advisor (same way Obama did), moved up to City council, to Mayor, then to governor, and now she is running for Vice President of the United States.
That is pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and succeeding, working hard for everything you got and not expecting someone to hand it to you.
That is what bootstrapping means to me.
Dear Miss Thang. If you dont like it, dont watch.
nm
rational to one is irrational to another..dont like it, dont read it
Rational posts? Well, maybe you would think that, however, I disagree..but, what the heck, from your continual posts attacking me over the past few months, it is obvious that we dont agree on anything. Gotta tell ya, no one chases a person from a chat board..that is a lame excuse for someone who obviously was not able to hold his/her own with the smart liberals who post on this liberal board. So gt chased her/him away. On please! If a poster is getting to you, you just ignore their posts..dont click on them..Viola! It is that easy! Or dont come on the liberal board if you do not like liberal ideology! Viola! It is that easy! So, Im here all the time am I? Well, punkin, I see your handle always on both this board and the dinosaur board..er..I mean conservative board. Is this what your debating has gotten down to? Lets count and see who is here more often? How ridiculous, how childish, how so....republican. **BIG HUG**
I dont hate Obama. I just dont see him as qualified
nm
You dont get it. Most dont want O to fail, they feel
nm
Thought you were ignoring us
but that's too boring isn't it...
I TRIED ignoring them, but my taxes won't go away!
And shame on you for ignoring the
fact that while, yes, while these groups are based in hatred and bigotry, don't be so naive to think they won't ingest all the viciousness and hate-mongering coming from a previously admired government official running for the highest office in the land as an excuse to rise to, what they perceive as their cause, and plot the assassination of someone who has been protrayed as an enemy of the state. Get real and get off that high horse of yours, cause its going to be a long fall.
If you are ignoring them, why do you continually post about them?
Iim ignoring all the negative dem psychobabble....
...doesn't change anything for me.
Sam = I'm ready for her to hit a home run tonight. It's the most important speech of her life. Can hardly wait....
Watched Romney talk earlier today, and he is such a class act. Looking forward to his speech tonight, too.
and to anyone thinking it....no, I won't read any negative posts after mine, so don't bother....
I'm not ignoring Sally. She can hold her own,
meticlously discredit endless barrages of pub bash, misconceptions, misprentations and misinformation. I for one am preparing to bury the garbage under piles and piles of irrefutable fact by ensuring the focus stays on issues rather than personalities and that pub/NeoCon values are contrasted with O Vision in terms that will expose them for exactly what the pretend they are not...4 more years of same old poop without a change in sight. I suspect other O supporters know exactly what they are up against and what then need to be doing about it...and are doing it as we speak. For me, the quality of my life in the next 4 years depends ensuring Pub defeat in November and I am confident that other dems are similarly motived to do the same.
If I were ignoring them, I wouldn't have a worry
Obama's motto is tax, tax, tax, and of course, he knows he will pull so many in who will follow him because soooo many of them live off the government as it is; he's betting on them. But, of course, there are dems who woke up a long time ago to him, me included. When it smells fishy and looks fishy, it's fishy....and that's putting it mildly.
Ignoring the question is no answer.
Jobs creation. Access to training. A level playing field with wealth distribution. We shall see. It's worked well in the past.
Got anything to say in defense of W's latest blow to the economy and slap in the face to hard-working Amricans?
I am ignoring the hatred below. I agree with you.
nm
Noticed Fox covering mostly, others ignoring
for the most part. From what I noticed on Fox the crowd seems to be extremely small. Some talk on Huffingtonpost about tea bags not being able to be dumped where they wanted them to go and now truck driving around with all those bags. I think this was mostly a big to do about nothing really.
Why do you insist on ignoring the facts?..(sm)
They are not trying to "teach our children that homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle." They are trying to teach our children how not to beat the crap out of someone who is different, including homosexuals. How hard is that to understand? If people were teaching this at home, they wouldn't have to teach it at school.
Its called TOLERANCE, not acceptance.
you keep ignoring the fact that 90% of the tortured
Abu Ghraib detainees were proved to be innocent, therefore NOT terrorists.
I do not recall that Clinton was involved in any torture, or was he?
and you keep ignoring the fact that you are trying to distract
your post is old news. Go back and then you might as well start drudging up all the stuff on prior presidents that you fell they did something wrong.
We've got enough trouble going on with the current admin to last us a lifetime.
ignoring the neocons is..a good thing!
It works, Lilly. Its a breath of fresh air to ignore the neocons that frequent the liberal board just to vent their anger, LOL. After ignoring them a few times, you dont even realize they are here anymore. Now when I read posts, I totally zone in on liberal posts.
Condi Rice, OMG. I cant stand that woman!
And ignoring posters who ask intelligent questions (below) because you don't know the answers
I live very happily with myself by ignoring the gnats of society and all of their
self-righteous, superior, ignorant, totally irrelevant and insignificant DISDAIN.
Have a happy day. 
People are ignoring Sally, and for good reason.
nm
I dont WANT war. Dont judge me!
nm
Threat?
GT explained what she meant in the post afterwards, which you conveniently ignored. She said: Yes, as in prove you are a bigoted fool, FRYE your butt.
Any reasonably intelligent person can see she was challenging this poster to be civil and honest and to debate instead of attack, as she herself explained in her above post. Obviously, the poster wasn't up for that challenge.
So much for the threat. SM
This is what *I* consider a serious threat...sm
Not discounting whatever went on this weekend, but I thought this was of interest.
By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:11 a.m. EST
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Complains of Right Wing Death Threats
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining that she's getting death threats from detractors who belong to the irrational fringe of society - people she says who have been egged on by mainstream conservatives who have been critical of the High Court.
In quotes picked up by The Associated Press Wednesday, Ginsburg told the Constitutional Court of South Africa last month that somebody in an Internet chat room had issued a death threat against herself and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Ginsburg, the chat room perpetrator declared:
OK commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.
In a follow-up speech earlier this month, the Clinton-appointed justice said the whole experience had been disquieting for her.
The AP cited Ann Coulter as an example of a conservative who may have inadvertently encouraged radicals to threaten members of the court by joking during a recent speech that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.
Democrat: It goes on to say that Ginsberg did not speak up when a liberal commentator made a *wish him an early death* about Clarence Thomas, but was that Ginsberg's place to do so? And if so, did Clarence Thomas speak out for her?
Nothing like the threat of a
brisk IRS proctological exam to get a politician's mind right.
*Islamic Threat*
The *Islamic threat* grew over the past 50 years of our foreign policy. This did not happen just because as Bush says, they are jealous of our freedom. OMG, their ideology and ours are totally different and frankly, I dont think we will ever get a functioning democracy set up in the Middle East. Instead of doing what Blair is doing now, setting up meetings with Islamic organizations to try to defuse the situation, we went head strong into Iraq..Oh, we are America, we are gonna kick butt, and what happened, we are now fighting a world wide terrorist war with it's breeding ground Iraq and to a minimum Afghanistan. This was such an error in judgment and we will pay for it for decades to come. Bush and his administration dont have to worry. If we get attacked, they have bunkers, they have secret service that will be with them even after the term ends. It is us, who ride the subways, rail roads, buses, shop at the malls..we are the ones..the poor slobs on the farms, who are fighting Bush's war and will die in terrorist attacks. Thank you, Bush!
chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez. That most certainly is a crime. You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has.
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying. Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically. ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII.
American is clearly a threat to some
America is clearly a threat to many countries, especially seeing what we have been doing for the past four plus years and how we have fueled the hatred and terrorism around the world by chosing to invade and kill instead of holding diplomatic sessions..the thinking mans way of handling a disagreement/problem..no not cowboy Bush, he thinks nothing of sending over our loved ones to fight his illegal, immoral so wrong war, just as long as his daughters and the children of the lawmakers dont have to go.
She is a threat to Obama. and they will do
nm
Approaching threat.s are......
Israel and Aghanistan, not Iraq.
It all started in Afghanistan.
Was there a threat made?
I'm afraid that this is what is going to happen everywhere. Anytime ANYTHING is said that sounds bad somebody is going to be reporting it to the FBI. We are slowly going to lose freedom of speech at this rate.
Obama threat already.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/?iref=mpstoryview
Perhaps. But to ignore the Islamic threat would mean sm
the end of life as we know it and we don't even want to imagine what the "new" life would be like. Be careful what you wish for.
Sounds like a threat to me. And hey, I am being nice here. SM
How about trying to be nice in return. This sounds like a threat:
Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..
The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm
That sums it up.
Thinly veiled threat
It was a thinly veiled threat. Like someone stating..if you are interested in my punching you in the nose, keep up the baloney. It was stated to make other countries shiver in their boots, however, what it does is make other countries race faster to make the nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the country they perceive as a terrorist country, the USA...you know the country that pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them.
IED threat was known before war but troops not protected
I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this. Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.
Report: IED threat known before war |
By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.
The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.
The report is to be made public today.
Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.
Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.
The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.
When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.
The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.
Two U.S. senators Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.
"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."
USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.
Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.
The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.
MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm
threat to national security
and YOU have undisputed proof of this?
No threat to national security?
We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk. OMG! What a bunch of flipping morons!!!
P.S. I don't recall anyone posting a near death threat to the
remote to that.
Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?
If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.
Why are you so angry? Your guy won.
Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you. Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU. They complained about Bush. Are you BUSH??
Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.
If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.
If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them. I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.
I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board. Looks like that isn't the case.
And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one. I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.
I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??
Bye bye freedom of speech.
FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.
dorky song threat realized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBxmrWqI-g&feature=related
Right! Beck is a threat to the left so as usual,
nm
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
Yeah, there was no threat made. It was a sick thing
nm
|
