Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 144
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Since it is all about me anyways (so it seems), join the debate on the AFLAC thread. You might even get a front row, normally reserved for liberals
    Thanx for the invite, and really I'd be honored to join. But at over 8,200 posts, I'd feel like I'm too late for the party
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Well, how do you know? My theory is 95% of all "females" who hang out online are really 50 year old fat bald (aside from the plethora of hairs on their back and chest) men, sitting nude, (or in a pair of Speedo's) in front of a computer.

    Personally, I prefer Chick as an Ostrich.
    Thanks.... Thanks A lot!
  3.    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    EDIT: I forgot to ask specifically, but I will now, knowing 1911sforever likes questions and answers:

    - Do you believe those satellite data exist, and that they reliably show that the car was driving at high speed?
    - If yes, why was this crucial information omitted in the official report, both in the public version, as well as the classified one which was accidentally published (blacked-out sections visible when pdf text copied into Word document)?
    Yes I do.

    The highest classification contained within the report that DA linked to is "S/NF". That stands for "Secret, No Foreign", i.e. no dissemination to foreign countries. Anything that has to do with "NTM" or "National Technical Means" , i.e. satellite imagery and some other cool stuff that we do will be classified "TS/SCI", which is "Top Secret, Special Compartmented Information". It will probably also be stamped "WNINTEL", or "Warning Notice: IIntelligence Methods and Sources Involved". That means that a source or technique will be compromised if that data leaks out.

    I also note a lot of references to various appendices which are not contained in that document. It is a common practice for supporting appendices to be classified TS/SCI and other portion of the document, which will be disseminated to a much wider audience to be classified S/NF. (That's where the "Comparmented" in "Compartmented Information" comes from.) Or, there are two versions of the report, one TS/SCI and the other S/NF.

    The absence of any reference to the overhead imagery in this report does not mean it doesn't exist.

    Also, I just ran across this:

    DAVID MARTIN reporting:

    Pentagon sources tell CBS News an American satellite recorded the incident, enabling investigators to reconstruct the event without having to rely on conflicting eyewitness accounts about how fast the car was going. The soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards a way. That all happened in less than three seconds, which means the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour, even though Giuliana Sgrena, the just-released hostage who was wounded in the shooting, has insisted the car was going no more than 30.

    It is entirely likely that a Pentagon source told CBS news about the existence of the satellite data that is not referenced in the S/NF version of the report.

    As far as the technical feasibility of an overhead asset, either NTM or air breathing, to collect this footage, I assure you it is entirely possible on the darkest and cloudiest nights. And there are plenty of assets up over Iraq right now. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that we have assets allocated to conduct surveillance over these checkpoints in order to collect information on how attacks are conducted. Unfortunately this data is very hard to interpret in real time, so there is no way you can warn the guys of what is coming. But you can establish patterns and MAYBE follow the attackers back to where they originated their operation.

    The point still stands, and don't give me that space constraints stuff. One sentence added to the Times story would have made it complete. "Pentagon sources, as reported by CBS, have stated that satellite imagery exists indicating the vehicle was travelling at 60 mph." They instead chose to run with the eye witness account of a recently released hostage with a serious anti-US record.

    Finally, this. Either those soldiers has 3 seconds (60 mph) or 6 seconds (30 mph) to make a life or death decision. That is not a lot of time in either scenario. Either way, it was a very poor move on the part of the Italians to be approaching a US Army checkpoint at night without escort. It was an uncoordinated cowboy operation which fits right in with the way I saw the Italians operate in Somalia.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Yes I do.

    The highest classification contained within the report that DA linked to is "S/NF". That stands for "Secret, No Foreign", ...
    The secrecy story is not convincing if you ask me. It seems highly unlikely that a Pentagon source tells CBS something that the Pentagon will not even mention to their ally, the Italians, in a situation as bad as this, concerning the mutal relations. Nobody would expect technical details of how the images were made, how they look, etc., but just mentioning that they exist would be more than obvious.

    After all, it is certainly not a secret that US overhead imagery is capable of spotting a car with its lights on, on the main road to the main airport in Iraq.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. hsk
    hsk is offline
    hsk's Avatar
    Posts
    262 Posts
    Global Posts
    284 Global Posts
    #85  
    Sorry, I wasn't following this in the news, so maybe this is a dumb question.

    Was it a known checkpoint or are these randomly set up? I can see why a recently released hostage would speed to get to the airport out of there, but I can't see why they wouldn't stop for an American checkpoint. Maybe they thought it was more hostage-takers pretending to be American?
  6.    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by hsk
    Sorry, I wasn't following this in the news, so maybe this is a dumb question.

    Was it a known checkpoint or are these randomly set up? I can see why a recently released hostage would speed to get to the airport out of there, but I can't see why they wouldn't stop for an American checkpoint. Maybe they thought it was more hostage-takers pretending to be American?
    They run both roving and fixed check points along route Irish...encountering American forces should have been part of the Italian's plan since it was inevitable If this is anything like my dealings with them in Somalia, they didn't want us to know they had paid ransom and cut a deal.
  7.    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The secrecy story is not convincing if you ask me. It seems highly unlikely that a Pentagon source tells CBS something that the Pentagon will not even mention to their ally, the Italians, in a situation as bad as this, concerning the mutal relations. Nobody would expect technical details of how the images were made, how they look, etc., but just mentioning that they exist would be more than obvious.

    After all, it is certainly not a secret that US overhead imagery is capable of spotting a car with its lights on, on the main road to the main airport in Iraq.
    Where did you read this information wasn't disclosed to the Italians?

    It was a dark and cloudy night. It is not likely that electro-optical sensors were used to record this event.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    encountering American forces should have been part of the Italian's plan since it was inevitable If this is anything like my dealings with them in Somalia, they didn't want us to know they had paid ransom and cut a deal.
    That's fairly possible, a bit like the Reagan administration who did not want congress and the public to know about the deal with the Iranians for the US hostages, you know, what was later called Iran/Contra.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9.    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    And I asked you (politely, of course ), why are the NYT and the LAT commies?
    OK, the budget thing: First a sidenote: Clinton has managed to reduce the budget to nil while Bush has brought it back into a giant balloon. What's wrong with this picture?
    Secondly, I said "our" money, as in my husband and I, but IF I had to budget the NATIONAL deficit I'd try this:
    1. Lower taxes further (hike tax on the top 2% however) to induce spending (the more iBooks and iPods and Treos sold -- the better ). Hence, this creates a dilemma because I also believe that a government should not spend more money in a given year than it has collected in taxes, but I am not going to write a book here...
    2. Holding discretionary spending growth at 1 percent. Bush promised but can he deliver?...
    3. The Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act of 2003.
    4. The House Deficit Reduction Safeguard Resolution.
    5. How much of this debt is being purchased by foreign governments, and whether having other nations as our creditors is a dangerous thing: Open debate needs to be addressed.
    6. Two items that concern me with Bush's proposal: a. The prez proposed budget drops the ratio of total federal spending of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 16 percent, meaning that the federal budget would be 16 percent of the nation's GDP, and b. Bush's budget plan also seeks to pay off $2 trillion of the national debt over the next 10 years.
    Reasons for concern: a. During George Bush's presidency, the federal budget deficit hit a record high (according to the Office of Management and Budget), and b. According to FactCheck.org, discretionary spending has risen over the past three years by 36 percent. While 20 percent of the increase was due to military spending and homeland security, that still leaves a 16 percent increase in funding for other discretionary programs. This spending has increased twice as fast as it did under Clinton.
    Phew....
    Chick, I replied to this last night...lengthy and painful...and got an error message. From now on I will copy every post before submitting.

    I agree with many of your ideas on budgetary goals and spending, and how you plan on getting there...except taxing the top 2% more. They already pay too much...you're going after the investor class with this move.

    As far as Clinton's budget, let's not forget that he had huge tax revenues coming in from the "irrational exuberance" of the dot com stock market, and a Republican congress that was bent up on checking his spending. Plus, he did slash the BEJEEZ out of military and intelligence funding, and look how much that cost us.
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's fairly possible, a bit like the Reagan administration who did not want congress and the public to know about the deal with the Iranians for the US hostages, you know, what was later called Iran/Contra.
    Yep. Submitting to public pressure to deal with terrorists, even with the best of intentions, is just not a good idea. (Even if it does result in democratic elections. Who'da thunk that all those Sandalistas we sent down there from Berkeley couldn't get Danny Ortega elected?)
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    It was a dark and cloudy night. It is not likely that electro-optical sensors were used to record this event.
    Even if it was too cloudy: car engines produce a lot of heat, and IR imaging is certainly not something new, it has been around for long. Sorry, but I don't find secrecy convinving at all. It seems far, far more likely that the whole satellite imaging story simply is not true, it is just a rumour planted by god knows who.

    Besides, since when do you put so much trust in CBS? As far as I know, they are the only ones who brought this up - certainly a highly doubious story at best. You would be jumping up and down because of it, if it would not be in favour of your views, and a confirmation of how bad, bad, bad and biased the LA Times is. I mean, you started a thread because the LA Times edited out an unconfirmed rumour from a single news source, a rumour that seems unlikely to be true at best, given the overall situation...
    Last edited by clulup; 05/03/2005 at 10:40 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12.    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Even if it was too cloudy: car engines produce a lot of heat, and IR imaging is certainly not something new, it has been around for long. Sorry, but I don't find secrecy convinving at all. It seems far, far more likely that the whole satellite imaging story simply is not true, it is just a rumour planted by god knows who.

    Besides, since when do you put so much trust in CBS? As far as I know, they are the only ones who brought this up - certainly a highly doubious story at best. You would be jumping up and down because of it, if it would not be in favour of your views (and a confirmation of how bad, bad, bad and biased the LA Times is).
    There are other technologies than electro-optical and IR that most people have no clue about.

    As far as this coming from CBS, well, let's look at that. Here they attribute the source of the source, as opposed to hiding the fact that they're using a well-known anti-Bush nut job that was using MicroSoft Word in the 70's to create his documents. The producer didn't have a six year history of working this one story in order to smear the President. And oh, the election isn't a week away.

    Could it be a a Pentagon BS story...possible, but think of the ramifications to the Pentagon if they're outed.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Either those soldiers has 3 seconds (60 mph) or 6 seconds (30 mph) to make a life or death decision. That is not a lot of time in either scenario. Either way, it was a very poor move on the part of the Italians to be approaching a US Army checkpoint at night without escort. It was an uncoordinated cowboy operation
    Agreed. There is simply not enough time either way.

    I know that this question has already been up but its worth repeating..."How the heck do you approach a US checkpoint at night and not do so with caution? There is no doubt in mind that I would be doing 5 miles an hour for the last 400 yards

    First off, if you have ever stood a post at night...it sucks. Your cold, tired and on edge. You literally start hearing things after a while. Its eery. Add on top of that when you are in a hostile country and you probably know someone who has lost their life over there. Add on top of that the fact that no one really knows when they are coming home. Finally you know that there are a history of attacks on troops by crashing checkpoints. Im not trying to make excuses...just trying to add a perspective to our understanding from here in the states.

    Is what happened unfortunate? Absolutely.

    Ok, now that I have ranted . I am not totally convinced on the story behind this thread. Could the LAT have edited the story for the reasons you suggest 1911...yes. But it is difficult to show. I'd like to think that the news media serve as 'watchdogs' for the people. That is one of the reasons that we give them additional 1st amendment protections. Have they misled us? Absolutely.
  14.    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Another detour from the topic, pardon me.
    Since you agree with (most) of my economical assertions, would you reconsider you previous comment that being liberal socially and conservative fiscally is an oxymoronic platitude (my own words)?
    And, to my earlier question to you: What make the NYT and LAT “commie rags”?
    Yes. I replied to that question in the the post that got whacked. My response was that each of those papers advocate higher taxes, income redistrubtion, the politics of racial division and numerous other "liberal" causes. Liberal=socialist. Socialism was seen as Marx as the transitory state of government to communism. Perhaps I should use the term, "Leftist propaganda sheets"? Would that pass your review?

    Here is how you described those papers, "I’d say that some newspapers (including the NYT and LAT) have humanitarian, altruisms, mutual self-interests elements in them."

    I commented that, "Each term you use, "humanitarian", "altrusim" and "mutual self-interest" are synonyms for modern liberalism. (Mutual self-interest, sort of like, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"?)

    Also, how can a "social liberal", meaning centralized health care, a maxium welfare state, etc. be "fiscally conserative". Tell me, where would you trim the federal government?

    As far as my defining a Socialist-Capitalist, well, that's largely a dichotomy. Maybe someone that is trying to grow markets and services faster than they can be redistributed by the government."

    I think being "socially liberal" is likely directly opposed to being a fiscal conservative. What socially liberal programs do you advocate? Do they require federal tax dollars to perform? Or is it that you are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, against the war on drugs and a budget hawk that would cut social security, medicare and any other number of liberal programs? (I think that would make you a "South Park Republican", but who am I to label someone ) You mentioned your goals in reducing federal spending, but you neglected to provide which programs would you cut, or at least grow at a slower pace.
  15. #95  
    South Park Republican...heh...sweeet. Guess I'm moving to Colorado!

    Maybe Claire will put me up for a night...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  16. hsk
    hsk is offline
    hsk's Avatar
    Posts
    262 Posts
    Global Posts
    284 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I think being "socially liberal" is likely directly opposed to being a fiscal conservative.
    No, I think a lot of social conservatives think fiscal conservative means fiscal nazi. Most of us in Canada are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. It's all about balance and where you generally agree to spend money as a society.
  17.    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by hsk
    No, I think a lot of social conservatives think fiscal conservative means fiscal nazi. Most of us in Canada are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. It's all about balance and where you generally agree to spend money as a society.
    What is a fiscal Nazi? Someone that thinks federal government spending should be constrained to its constiutional mandate?
  18.    #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Hardly. A newspaper (NYT, for instance) might have liberal tendencies, but a good chunk of its reporting is on Sports, Entertainment, Cooking, Lifestyle, etc. Perhaps what you refer to is the papers’ (liberal) editorials, but even then I find myself in disagreements with the paper on occasion. Mighty as I try I can’t picture the NYT and LAT as communist publications. There are plenty of European (omitting Russian newspapers) publications that are far more liberal than the NYT and LAT and as such they’d be what: Ultra liberal? Ultra Communist? And would you call the WSJ: Compassionate Conservative? Oye.
    Yes. The NYT has "liberal tendencies" on it's editorial pages, which is fine. Unforunately everyone on that staff wants to be a player. You'll find Bush and conservative bashing in the sports pages, and the style, travel and science sections as well.

    Here's an admission from the NYT: "Is the NYT a Liberal Paper? Of Course it is" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A9629C8B63

    I would call the WSJ reporting "straight and maybe slightly left". I would call their OpEd page "to the right". They do a much better job of keeping their views out of the news part of their paper than does the LAT, WAPO and NYT.

    Again I'll state that liberal=socialist=communist. Explain to me how the liberal idea of the welfare state isn't a socialist confiscation and redistribution of wealth, and then explain to me how that isn't Marxist theory put into practice. These liberal papers advocate higher taxes, more social spending, abrogation of property rights, gun confiscation, etc. etc. etc. You will be hard pressed to separate those policies from even modern socialist states. (Try to own a gun or start a business in England, for instance. You will go to jail there if you are caught paying a doctor for his services.) Socialism is where the government smiles and puts their hand into your pocket before they put the gun in your face.

    For decades the NYT, and to a lesser extent the WAPO have set the agenda for the network tv broadcasts. That is changing. New technologies are allowing for debate, and with the information filter removed things are changing. Those papers find themselves increasingly irrelevant and with shrinking subscription bases. (The newspaper industry has its own scandal where papers were falsifying circulation in order to keep ad rates high. Some how that didn't inspire an Enron style self-examination.)
    Last edited by 1911sforever; 05/03/2005 at 04:35 PM. Reason: added content Second Edit: Damn, forgot to add the links!
  19.    #99  
    The NYT has been enormously influential in shaping political debates in this country by setting the mainstream media's agenda. Thankfully those days are gradually coming to an end.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    You will be hard pressed to separate those policies from even modern socialist states. (Try to own a gun or start a business in England, for instance. You will go to jail there if you are caught paying a doctor for his services.)
    I think the bad view of "socialist" states you have stems mostly from ignorance about life there. You seem to think life in the conservative US is the coolest thing on earth, ignoring the fact that (as discussed before) the US have the highest homicide, assault, rape, divorce, traffic death rate of the Western world, the highest health costs, but still a low life expectancy, a high infant death rate when compared to other devoloped countries, etc. (always per capita). I am afraid quite a few of those factors can be attributed to many European countries (and also e.g. Canada) being more "socialist". Switzerland never had a socialist/left majority, but still the left has influence (about 40%), which I do not consider a bad thing altogether.

    You specifically mention how difficult it is to own a gun Great Britain, apparently a sign of bad socialist influence? However, what do you think, why do the US have about 4 or 5 times the homicide rate of Great Britain?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions