| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Alias wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Preparing for natural disasters - necessary
War on terror - also necessary
Paying for South Korea's defense - not necessary. |
I agree. Bring home troops from South Korea.
However, Iraq was not necessary. |
Who knows?
Question can the security services of mideast regimes destroy Al Qaida within their own nations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
flakfizer
Joined: 12 Nov 2004
Location: scaling the Cliffs of Insanity with a frayed rope.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When did my country get like this?
Everything has become politicized. A natural disaster hits and some people use it as a chance to protest the War in Iraq. Some people use it to help demonstrate that global warming blah blah blah. Others use it to inidict the country on charges of racism. Others use it as another opportunity to call Bush a dolt or point out that Rice bought shoes.
I think democracy is the only way to go and I believe that free speech is absolutely necessary, however, even good things have their down sides. And the down side these days is that everybody and their uncle spouts off so much policitcally charged nonsense whenever anything happens. We may not vote as much as we should, but we all know how to interpret politically any event that happens. We all know what is really going on in the inner workings of government and inner workings of people's minds. We know that if New Orleans was mostly white, those levees would have been built to withstand a level 5 hurricaine. We know that if the US had signed the Kyoto dealie, that Katrina would have been no more than a sneeze. Blah, blah, blah.
Will a storm ever be just a storm again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: Re: Terror war may have hurt storm response |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| could just as easily say , paying to keep US forces in South Korea may have hurt storm response. |
Lord... what a plie, and totally lacking in any logic whatsoever. Korea and Iraq could not be more different. I know of very few people who would consider our involvement in Korea to be, or to have been, unnecessary and without merit. Our involvement in Iraq was unnecessary and our partidicpation was acheived through lies.
How do you equate the two? Ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Stilll if the US wasn't keeping forces in South Korea (which provides almost no utility to the US ) then the US would have had plenty of cash to prepare for national disasters. |
Which is ALSO under Bush's umbrella as Commander-in-Chief. When did he make the call for that? Your point is that money spent on anything else could be said to be responsible. This is nothing but argumentative, thus, pointless. If you ahve nothing useful to add to the debate, pro or con, why post? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Teufelswacht wrote: |
However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn��t handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.
��I don��t see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case,�� said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. ��Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place.��
Strock also denied that escalating costs from the war in Iraq contributed to reductions in funding for hurricane projects in Louisiana, as some critics have suggested. Records show that corps funding for the Louisiana projects has generally decreased in recent years. |
[/quote]
Lord, talk about BS.... I think the General definitely got his talking points. One, the levies that DO exist have subsided by as much as four feet by one report. The storm surge in N.O. is thought to have been around 18 ft last I heard. I understand the levies were designed at around 20ft. Given four foot of subsidence.... and the cut in funding that was to include shoring up and fixing the subsidence....
As for the funding, what the heck does he know of the whys?? And, given the disaster, why isn't he at least questioning whether or not it ws an issue so that he can work to properly fund his department in the future by protecting important projects from budget cuts? Do they give all government employees lobotomies when they are hired?
And, just how long has the war on terror been going on? Oh, yeah, four RECENT years. What a coincidence.
Let's all wake up, people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just read your other post and repeat here what I wrote there: this is criminally negligent cronyism. And how typical of Bush to say FEMA is lacking, but not the director.... scumbag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| this is criminally negligent cronyism... |
Negligence, per se, is not a crime but a civil issue. But I've never heard of "criminally negligent cronyism." Perhaps you know something that we don't?
What are the elements of "criminally negligent cronyism"?
Or is this just more antiBush drama/hyperbole? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| this is criminally negligent cronyism... |
Negligence, per se, is not a crime but a civil issue. But I've never heard of "criminally negligent cronyism." Perhaps you know something that we don't?
What are the elements of "criminally negligent cronyism"?
Or is this just more antiBush drama/hyperbole? |
In the United States, at least, there are laws about "criminal negligence". If your negligence causes the death of another person, or even harm, it can be deemed criminal negligence.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject: Re: Terror war may have hurt storm response |
|
|
| Quote: |
Lord... what a plie, and totally lacking in any logic whatsoever |
.
so you say . that doesn't mean much.
| Quote: |
Korea and Iraq could not be more different. I |
You are right, Korea is not strategically important to the US. The mideast is.
| Quote: |
know of very few people who would consider our involvement in Korea to be, or to have been, unnecessary and without merit |
.
Oh but it is Korea can pay for its own defense.
In 1950 of couse US support was needed but now Korea is rich. They have 30x the GDP of NK and 2x the population. They can defend themselves if their pull their own weight
I think the US should sell Korea any weapons they want and share intel with them and support them at the UN if needed but it is time for the two nations to go their seperate ways. Korea is a terrific country, I respect what they have done. However they don't give the US enough support in the world nor do they pull their own weight when it comes to their own defense
by the way Saddam was a threat to Kuwaitis, Kurds . he never gave up his war. Which made it ok to take him out.
| Quote: |
| Our involvement in Iraq was unnecessary |
Saddam was contained but sanctions killed like a war and made the US hated. Containing Saddam also required the US to maintain no flyzones and keep US forces in Saddam's face forever.
What was the event that caused Bin Laden to start his war against the US ? US forces in Saudi.
Besides there was 9-11. Iraq is a strategic prize that the US can use in the mideast to force mideast regimes in particular Saudi Arabia to stop Al Qadia.
Besides a the US need to make an example of someone in the mideast after 9-11 to show that suicide bombing and the teaching of hate wasn't going to level the playing field.
| Quote: |
| and our partidicpation was acheived through lies. |
The most important thing is to win. Beisdes Bush thought that IRaq had WMD
| Quote: |
| How do you equate the two? Ridiculous. |
Again You are right , South Korea isn't strategically important to the US any more the mideast is.
Plus the mideast the way it is is a threat to the US.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:06 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Desultude: Your example refers to "manslaughter," a specific crime.
You have accused (or supported the accusation) Bush of "criminally negligent cronyism" and I'm waiting for a listing of the elements of this crime or an admission that is was just hyperbole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Which is ALSO under Bush's umbrella as Commander-in-Chief. When did he make the call for that? Your point is that money spent on anything else could be said to be responsible. This is nothing but argumentative, thus, pointless. If you ahve nothing useful to add to the debate, pro or con, why post?[/quote]
Well Bush to his credit wants to cut back US forces in South Korea.
But yes the US should remove all forces from South Korea as soon as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| this is criminally negligent cronyism... |
Negligence, per se, is not a crime but a civil issue. But I've never heard of "criminally negligent cronyism." Perhaps you know something that we don't?
What are the elements of "criminally negligent cronyism"?
Or is this just more antiBush drama/hyperbole? |
Petty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| this is criminally negligent cronyism... |
Negligence, per se, is not a crime but a civil issue. But I've never heard of "criminally negligent cronyism." Perhaps you know something that we don't?
What are the elements of "criminally negligent cronyism"?
Or is this just more antiBush drama/hyperbole? |
Petty. |
I'll take that as an admission: great. More antiBush hyperbole. Just what we needed on this board to help us exchange views in a productive environment... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
[quote="Gopher
| Quote: |
"]
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| this is criminally negligent cronyism... |
Negligence, per se, is not a crime but a civil issue. But I've never heard of "criminally negligent cronyism." Perhaps you know something that we don't?
What are the elements of "criminally negligent cronyism"?
Or is this just more antiBush drama/hyperbole? |
Petty. |
I'll take that as an admission: great. More antiBush hyperbole. Just what we needed on this board to help us exchange views in a productive environment... |
[/quote]
Dude, take a rest. You're descending into pure BS. Your sole reason for posting seems to have morphed into insulting me. Like I said, petty.
Look up the term "criminally negligent", as in homicide, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
