The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/11/2005 09:56:33 PM · #251

I take it you disagree with the policy views expressed by the majority of the San Francisco electorate. That is your right. It does not, however, give you or anyone else the right to call for the death and destruction of those people.

Talk about your inciteful rhetoric -- Mr. O'Reilly started this train of the discussion, not me. That you seem to support his proposal tells me all I need to know about how much attention I should pay to your opinions.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/11/2005 10:26:22 PM · #252

Here's a fuller version of O'Reilly's rant:

"You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

For the record, Coit Tower was erected to honor the firefighters who fought the flames unleashed upon San Francisco in the '06 quake.

Sorry, there I go posting incendiary rhetoric again ...

11/11/2005 11:13:08 PM · #253

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
And what kind of action has the Bush administration taken to remedy the situation in Darfur?

We gave 400 million dollars. We prodded the UN into "some" action when they were stalled on "discussing" the problem. We continue to push the UN into more defined "action". We helped coordinate the military pressence that is there (although largely ineffective).

What has anyone member of the left done? Hillary, Shummer, Kennedy, Sharpton, Jackson, Pelosi........? Voted to send them some money. What about troops? NO NO NO.

So who really is the group withholding aid from the victims. The Left pummeled this administration after Katrina for the perception of a "different" standard for those in New Orleans. Meaning blacks. The truth is that the corruption in New Orleans is so rampant that even other state citizens see it as a "hole". Corporations have left, rather than pay the "graft tax", which in turn took away jobs, which in turn removed opportunity, which in turn maintained poverty. So who's fault is it? The right leaning corporations/administration or the liberal corrupted officials?

Same with Darfur. The right is trying to get things done while the left simply stands in the way. Keeping the status quo, so that they have more stuff to complain about tomorrow, while all along it is their own doing that is the problem. Just like the post above. San Franciscan's CHOOSING (and I believe in choice), to remove the military and firearms, then will likely complain because my tax dollars are not providing enough support for their twisted sense of "freedom".

Freedom is not Free!

At some point one has to be responsible for their own actions and choices. I say that point has come.

*********

The 400 million dollars you refer to above went to the rebels and many, including former President Jimmy Carter, severly criticized the Bush administration and complained that was the wrong thing to do because it fueled the restarting of the civil war that had been going on for so long when the peace process was just getting going. The SPLM/SPLA are not without guilt for atrocities that have been carried out in the region as they have contributed their fair share, and are indirectly supported by the Bush administration. Interesting in the article that you posted was that it was the Rebels that had attacked and raided first and then the Sudanese government followed by the Janjaweed.

At best, the Bush administration policy towards the Sudan can be said to be hypocritical and confused, and at worst they are trying to keep the conflict going, and playing the victims of the atrocities as pawns in an attempt to overthrow the government there, like they are trying to do in other regions of the world. Despite the Bush administration's outward show of support for the victims, at the same time they are normalizing relations with a government that is committing atrocities.

Also interesting, for all your complaints about lack of action by Democrats, it was Bill Clinton that initiated the sanctions against Sudan.

11/12/2005 07:17:41 AM · #254

[That is your right. It does not, however, give you or anyone else the right to call for the death and destruction of those people.]

[And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up,]

GeneralE,

This is exactly what I've been talking about. Here I have copied 2 partial sentences from your above posts. In the first sentence you state "It does not, however, give you or anyone else the right to call for....". In the second sentence you quote O'Reily as saying "...if Al Queda....".

Please explian to me how the word "if" becomes a "call" for the destruction of anyone. You clearly have chosen inciteful language when you define the statement "if" as being a "call for". This is a false and mis-leading statement. This is the very kind of rhetoric that I keep reading and hearing from those bent on presenting a version far different than the actual facts. The fact is that O'Reily did not call for the destruction of anything. He said "if" as you have quoted. He also said "if Al Queda..." AFTER the interviewee positioned themselves as against the military. This was a logical deduction. As I have stated, when one CHOOSES to be in a position of easy victimization (no military, no recruitment of future soldiers, and no personal menas of defense), then the "if" is entirely possible.

The word "if" is not a "call".

11/12/2005 07:39:12 AM · #255

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

At best, the Bush administration policy towards the Sudan can be said to be hypocritical and confused, and at worst they are trying to keep the conflict going, and playing the victims of the atrocities as pawns in an attempt to overthrow the government there, like they are trying to do in other regions of the world. Despite the Bush administration's outward show of support for the victims, at the same time they are normalizing relations with a government that is committing atrocities.

It sould not surprise me that you would make this statement, but it does. Although I believe you have a skewed view of things and typically mis-interpret the right, I have consistently felt that you meant well. Here I'm not so sure. It appears to me that you are intentionally not trying to get the picture, due to the total disdain you feel towards this administration. What bothers me is that you have allowed your disdain to willingly place you into a position of defending the actions of the Janjaweed due to the fact that the rebels attacked first or that Bush administration is working both sides, therefore hypocritical. Although we disagree on almost everything, I did not expect that position from you. I do not believe in your heart that you meant it the way it was written.

Have disdain if you choose to, but action that has a chance to bring an end to the raping and abuse, whether it is money for the rebels or relations with the govenment, is ultimately a good thing.

BTW, can you explain why members of congress would not authorize the arming of the rebels so that they could at least defend themselves? Another example of a dis-armed group being victimized. And to think that San Franciscan's voluntarily choose to do so. Simply amazing.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/12/2005 11:47:19 AM · #256

O'Reilly's statement is a "call for" in the sense of it being an invitation -- if there was no "call" he wouldn't have said anything about it at all.

"If you want to ... go ahead" sounds like an invitation to action to me, and I think would be viewed as encouraging the named actions by any reasonable person.

If you want to quibble over semantic technicalities, instead of expressing outrage that a national commentator would would suggest that the destruction of an American city would be a good thing, go ahead. I've already expressed my opinion to the FCC.

11/12/2005 01:20:57 PM · #257

Originally posted by GeneralE:

There is no semantic technicality. The word if is not a call for. The continued application of meaning to words not spoken (on your part) does not make it so. The disapointment I have is towards a portion of the public that truly has their head in the sand.

11/12/2005 01:40:54 PM · #258

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
At best, the Bush administration policy towards the Sudan can be said to be hypocritical and confused, and at worst they are trying to keep the conflict going, and playing the victims of the atrocities as pawns in an attempt to overthrow the government there, like they are trying to do in other regions of the world. Despite the Bush administration's outward show of support for the victims, at the same time they are normalizing relations with a government that is committing atrocities.

It sould not surprise me that you would make this statement, but it does. Although I believe you have a skewed view of things and typically mis-interpret the right, I have consistently felt that you meant well. Here I'm not so sure. It appears to me that you are intentionally not trying to get the picture, due to the total disdain you feel towards this administration. What bothers me is that you have allowed your disdain to willingly place you into a position of defending the actions of the Janjaweed due to the fact that the rebels attacked first or that Bush administration is working both sides, therefore hypocritical. Although we disagree on almost everything, I did not expect that position from you. I do not believe in your heart that you meant it the way it was written.

Have disdain if you choose to, but action that has a chance to bring an end to the raping and abuse, whether it is money for the rebels or relations with the govenment, is ultimately a good thing.

BTW, can you explain why members of congress would not authorize the arming of the rebels so that they could at least defend themselves? Another example of a dis-armed group being victimized. And to think that San Franciscan's voluntarily choose to do so. Simply amazing.

********

I never said anything to defend the actions of the Janjaweed, and I condemn their actions completely. I was merely pointing out that the peace agreement is not being supported by the Bush administration because of their new, and current, stance towards normalizing relations with Khartoum and their intelligence community. It's the Sudanese intelligence community that has control of the Janjaweed and now our ability and willingness to criticize the human rights atrocities may be compromised because of our normalizing relations with them. Statments and actions by the Bush state department has suggest this to be true in that they are minimzing the horrific violence going on in the region.

Jimmy Carter and others have criticized the funding of the Rebels as adding fuel to the fire and have used the words hypocritical and confused to describe Bush policy. This could possibly be your answer to your question above as to why Congress is not funding the rebels. What is the name of the act that you are refering to?

Currently before Congress is the Darfur Peace and Accountibility Act, which was put forth by John Corzine, DEMOCRAT of NJ. A mix of both dems and repubs are supporting the bill, but from what I have read so far the Bush administration is opposed to this bill. I'm having trouble finding out exactly why, but maybe you could shed some light on that? Among other things, I would speculate to say that it's because the bill strongly urges the use of the International Criminal Court for punishing the crimes committed by those perpetrating the atrocities in Sudan. The Bush administration has a hostile attitude towards the ICC.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/12/2005 01:53:34 PM · #259

Originally posted by Flash:

The disapointment I have is towards a portion of the public that truly has their head in the sand.

As opposed to that portion which have hidden their heads in another part of their anatomy?

"If you want to enter this contest, send your entry to ..."

is typically referred to as a "Call for entries." If you don't mind ...

"If you want to blow up Coit Tower ... go ahead" sounds like an invitation to action to me ... I don't think you've said exactly what you think it does mean -- how about you say in your own words what you think his words mean.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/12/2005 02:52:16 PM · #260

Before Judith Miller worked for the NY Times, she worked for ... NPR.

I just heard a news clip from 1976 -- Judith Miller reporting live from Washington on ... leaks at the CIA.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/14/2005 09:44:41 AM · #261

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:
The disapointment I have is towards a portion of the public that truly has their head in the sand.

As opposed to that portion which have hidden their heads in another part of their anatomy?

\"If you want to enter this contest, send your entry to ...\"

is typically referred to as a \"Call for entries.\" If you don\'t mind ...

\"If you want to blow up Coit Tower ... go ahead\" sounds like an invitation to action to me ... I don\'t think you\'ve said exactly what you think it does mean -- how about you say in your own words what you think his words mean.

[If you don\'t mind ...}] - I do mind. I mind that you continue to misuse words and present meanings that false.

[\"If you want to enter this contest, send your entry to ...\" ] this sentence that you present as an example of the word \"if\" being a call for action is another example of the twisted use of word meanings that you continue to believe is factual, when it is not. The word \"send\" is the action word, not the word \"if\". The word \"if\" is a conjunction and defined as \"on condition that, in case that, supposing that,...\". The word \"call\" (alluding to your previous accusation) is a transitive verb and per your use of it, is defined as \"to command or ask to come. Summons.\". The word \"if\" is used \"to introduce an exclamation expressing .....surprise, annoyance, etc.\" {quoted from Webster\'s New World Dictionaty 2nd edition}.

You continue to confuse words of \"action\" with the principle word in O\'Reily\'s statement, the word \"if\".

[I don\'t think you\'ve said exactly what you think it does mean -- how about you say in your own words what you think his words mean.]-- Not sure how many more times you need me to repeat myself. His words meant, being predicated on the word \"IF\", the he was appalled, surprised, and annoyed that the interviewee could \"reasonably\" believe that by taking positions against the recruitment of future soldiers, the position of removing military ships form the bay that had been there for decades, and by embracing the ban on personal weapons for lawful defense, the folks of San Francisco are placing themselves in jeopardy of being easy victims of those who would like to do them harm. Now this is the 3rd or 4th time I have stated this. Do you need me to keep repeating it?

You continue to zero in on the action words of \"go ahead\" without giving full measure to the qualifier of \"if\". If you San Francisco, continue on the wayward path of removing the military ships from your bay - AND - you prevent the military form recruiting - AND - you disarm your own populace, then, IF a predator chooses to blow up an important American Historical site, then you brought it on yourselves. By your arrogance and self deceit. That is what I heard O\'Reily say.

President Clinton gave the multitudes an English lesson. I am surprised that you missed it. You should have payed closer attention. It was in my opinion one of his finest moments. Afterall, it does matter what the definition of the word \"is\" is. And because it matters, you cannot skip over a qualifier like \"if\", just because you want to attack a commentator of politician.

Regarding [As opposed to that portion which have hidden their heads in another part of their anatomy?], I felt my version was much more appropriate. I could have used this much cruder allusion, however.....

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/14/2005 10:10:22 AM · #262

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Mr. O'Reilly's line that struck me was "If you want to blow up Coit tower, go right ahead."

I think that fits within the definition of "fatwah" as we've come to understand it in the US.

And why should the use of incendiary rhetoric be limited to the zealots of the right?

Still catching up on the weekend activity, but...

Once again, I'll depend on that pesky dictionary:

fatwah n : (Islam) a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar; "bin Laden issued three fatwahs calling upon Muslims to take up arms against the United States"

Since Mr. O'Reilly's comments were not of a legal nature, and he most certainly doesn't qualify as an Islamic scholar, then labeling anything he says as a "fatwah" is, at best, highly inacurate.

Should the use of incendiary rhetoric be limited to zealots on the right? You are proving by your own words (or are those your own words?) that it most certainly is not - zeolots on the left empoly it very freely indeed.

11/14/2005 10:19:01 AM · #263

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I never said anything to defend the actions of the Janjaweed, and I condemn their actions completely. I was merely pointing out that the peace agreement is not being supported by the Bush administration because of their new, and current, stance towards normalizing relations with Khartoum and their intelligence community. It's the Sudanese intelligence community that has control of the Janjaweed and now our ability and willingness to criticize the human rights atrocities may be compromised because of our normalizing relations with them. Statments and actions by the Bush state department has suggest this to be true in that they are minimzing the horrific violence going on in the region.

Jimmy Carter and others have criticized the funding of the Rebels as adding fuel to the fire and have used the words hypocritical and confused to describe Bush policy. This could possibly be your answer to your question above as to why Congress is not funding the rebels. What is the name of the act that you are refering to?

Currently before Congress is the Darfur Peace and Accountibility Act, which was put forth by John Corzine, DEMOCRAT of NJ. A mix of both dems and repubs are supporting the bill, but from what I have read so far the Bush administration is opposed to this bill. I'm having trouble finding out exactly why, but maybe you could shed some light on that? Among other things, I would speculate to say that it's because the bill strongly urges the use of the International Criminal Court for punishing the crimes committed by those perpetrating the atrocities in Sudan. The Bush administration has a hostile attitude towards the ICC.

[I never said anything to defend the actions of the Janjaweed, and I condemn their actions completely.] I felt fairly confident that you truly felt this way and appreciate your condemnation.

[This could possibly be your answer to your question above as to why Congress is not funding the rebels. What is the name of the act that you are refering to?] I believe you have mis-understood my question. The funding (dollars) was appropriated (400 million I believe). My question was one of arms. A defenseless people are at the mercy of those with arms. One either needs to be an ally of those with arms, or have them yourself. In the case of the above post with GeneralE, we have an example of San Franciscan's who choose not to be an ally of america and also choose not to be armed. This is a very precarious position to be in. Thumb your nose at the protector and then choose not to arm yourself. Actually it borders on stupidity. After weighing all the facts, one can rightfully choose to ignore all the evidence. One can rightfully choose to be misled and misguided. However that is not the case with the rebels. They want to be armed, so as to defend themselves and their families against the atrocities befalling them. The left, however, truly believes in dis-armament. To the point of removing any and all personal means of defense. This mindset, unfortunately is affecting those truly in need of those arms, namely the victims in Darfur.

But this again, is another contentious point between the right and the left. A reason that forces centrists to choose between party platforms and not the individuals on the ticket. History can be a great teacher. Please honestly ponder the fate of any society, that was dis-armed and not allied with an armed nation.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/14/2005 11:01:02 AM · #264

What military ships are being banned in San Francisco that O'Reilly is referring to? Are these ships currently in active use or are they relics to be used as a museum?

Message edited by author 2005-11-14 11:07:43.

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

11/14/2005 12:07:31 PM · #265

Originally posted by bcoble:

All I can say about the wasted monies on this matter is that it is President Bush! not Mr Bush or just Bush. At least have respect to the title.

Why??? Respect is earned not demanded and blind acceptance of a person due to a title is just plain crazy.

Should a Doctor be considered above commiting a crime because of respect for the title?

What about a judge?

Why should "president" be so special?

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/14/2005 12:27:42 PM · #266

No-one and I mean NO-ONE in the UK refers to our Prime Minister as Prime Minister Blair. He's lucky to be called Mr Blair except on TV or in a face to face interview. He is often called "Blair" or "Tony" or delightfully in a recent drama he was called "Toblerone" ( a chocolate bar) by Carole Caplin who is Cherie's bosom pal!
Note Cherie is also rarely called Mrs Blair and quite often less complimentary names!

The less respect a leader earns, the less he is given and Blair has done nothing to deserve respect. I'm afraid your leader is given equally little respect in the UK and is usually referred to as "Bush"
P

11/14/2005 12:41:53 PM · #267

Bush has been referred to by some as Shrub...but only in the most endearing of ways.

11/14/2005 02:57:17 PM · #268

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

What military ships are being banned in San Francisco that O'Reilly is referring to? Are these ships currently in active use or are they relics to be used as a museum?

I do not know all of the particulars, however this is my understanding of the situation. In San Francisco, there is a Naval Docking Pier. Ships have been there for decades, as part of a coastal placement of various ships. The folks in San Francisco, due to their anti-war feelings, attempted (and maybe succeeded) in getting these ships moved elsewhere. There was quite a scuttlebutt about it as it was a political statement from this community. I do not know if it actually came about, only that it was wanted. The point is that we have further illustration of a group of people who feel strongly about the war. Fine. They feel strongly about military recuitment for the war. Fine. They feel strongly about personal defensive firearms. Fine. So who do they think is going to protect them if they choose not to protect themselves and are successful in getting the military removed? Do they think that the almighty is just going to put a "restricted space" around the Bay. Even the almighty requires you to participate on your own behalf.

There comes a point where making a political statement against the war, puts those making the statement at risk of being a victim of the very thing they are against. It is frustrating to say the least, to have grown adults, educated adults, adults responsible for the upbringing of their children to so recklessly endanger their safety and security, over a political statement. That was the catalyst behind the statement from O'Reily, in my opinion. A group just can't be that irresponsible in their decision making without there being (at some point), potentially serious consequences. Believe it or not, O'Reily was attempting to get them to see the error of their ways. NOT call for an action against San Francisco. O'Reily's statement was an attempt to reveal the utter stupidity of their position, and the risk to which they were voluntarily placing themselves. It was an attempt to help them, not hurt them. That's how I see it.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/14/2005 03:15:13 PM · #269

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What military ships are being banned in San Francisco that O'Reilly is referring to? Are these ships currently in active use or are they relics to be used as a museum?

I do not know all of the particulars, however this is my understanding of the situation. In San Francisco, there is a Naval Docking Pier. Ships have been there for decades, as part of a coastal placement of various ships. The folks in San Francisco, due to their anti-war feelings, attempted (and maybe succeeded) in getting these ships moved elsewhere. There was quite a scuttlebutt about it as it was a political statement from this community. I do not know if it actually came about, only that it was wanted. The point is that we have further illustration of a group of people who feel strongly about the war. Fine. They feel strongly about military recuitment for the war. Fine. They feel strongly about personal defensive firearms. Fine. So who do they think is going to protect them if they choose not to protect themselves and are successful in getting the military removed? Do they think that the almighty is just going to put a "restricted space" around the Bay. Even the almighty requires you to participate on your own behalf.

There comes a point where making a political statement against the war, puts those making the statement at risk of being a victim of the very thing they are against. It is frustrating to say the least, to have grown adults, educated adults, adults responsible for the upbringing of their children to so recklessly endanger their safety and security, over a political statement. That was the catalyst behind the statement from O'Reily, in my opinion. A group just can't be that irresponsible in their decision making without there being (at some point), potentially serious consequences. Believe it or not, O'Reily was attempting to get them to see the error of their ways. NOT call for an action against San Francisco. O'Reily's statement was an attempt to reveal the utter stupidity of their position, and the risk to which they were voluntarily placing themselves. It was an attempt to help them, not hurt them. That's how I see it.

So if there was terrorist action similar to 9/11 in San Francisco, thenavy would be defending SF? I thought the police dealt with such incidents? If not what consequences would there be if there was such an attack? No battleships to help them?
And if they didn't have guns and only the police had them, could it be possible that the police would deal with the terrorists or do Americans still have possees going out to track down miscreants. Or are you expecting the terrorists to attack individuals one by one so that eachndividual can protect him/herself?

Personally I can see why parents wouldn't want military recruiters in schools talking to highly impressionable youngsters about the glory of war and fighting for your country when the body bag total increases daily from a war the majority of USA citizens ( accordingly to recent polls reported over here) don't agree with and want their soldiers out of.

Interestingly it was also reported that Congress would probably stop funding next year after the elections and so troops would be withdrawn next summer (along with uk troops).

p

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/14/2005 03:25:52 PM · #270

The people of San Francisco have no say over whether the Navy berths ships at Federal facilities there ... I have no idea what you're talking about there. I know that they're kinda P-O'd that the Navy has yet to clean up the now-closed (by Congress) Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard -- a toxic wasteland which has been affecting the health of neighbors for years. The redevelopment of the former Treasure Island base is proceeding with the usual political scandals, but lately there's emerged what sounds like a more viable plan.

There were about a half-million people at Crissy Field a few weeks ago to watch the Blue Angels fly and to visit the ships docked during the annual Fleet Week festivities.

As far as I know, the Navy and San Francisco get along fine as long as they're not trying to recruit schoolkids without the parents' explicit permission (an opt-in program, rather than the opt-out option favored by the Feds).

11/14/2005 03:39:00 PM · #271

Originally posted by Riponlady:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
What military ships are being banned in San Francisco that O'Reilly is referring to? Are these ships currently in active use or are they relics to be used as a museum?

I do not know all of the particulars, however this is my understanding of the situation. In San Francisco, there is a Naval Docking Pier. Ships have been there for decades, as part of a coastal placement of various ships. The folks in San Francisco, due to their anti-war feelings, attempted (and maybe succeeded) in getting these ships moved elsewhere. There was quite a scuttlebutt about it as it was a political statement from this community. I do not know if it actually came about, only that it was wanted. The point is that we have further illustration of a group of people who feel strongly about the war. Fine. They feel strongly about military recuitment for the war. Fine. They feel strongly about personal defensive firearms. Fine. So who do they think is going to protect them if they choose not to protect themselves and are successful in getting the military removed? Do they think that the almighty is just going to put a "restricted space" around the Bay. Even the almighty requires you to participate on your own behalf.

There comes a point where making a political statement against the war, puts those making the statement at risk of being a victim of the very thing they are against. It is frustrating to say the least, to have grown adults, educated adults, adults responsible for the upbringing of their children to so recklessly endanger their safety and security, over a political statement. That was the catalyst behind the statement from O'Reily, in my opinion. A group just can't be that irresponsible in their decision making without there being (at some point), potentially serious consequences. Believe it or not, O'Reily was attempting to get them to see the error of their ways. NOT call for an action against San Francisco. O'Reily's statement was an attempt to reveal the utter stupidity of their position, and the risk to which they were voluntarily placing themselves. It was an attempt to help them, not hurt them. That's how I see it.

So if there was terrorist action similar to 9/11 in San Francisco, thenavy would be defending SF? I thought the police dealt with such incidents? If not what consequences would there be if there was such an attack? No battleships to help them?
And if they didn't have guns and only the police had them, could it be possible that the police would deal with the terrorists or do Americans still have possees going out to track down miscreants. Or are you expecting the terrorists to attack individuals one by one so that eachndividual can protect him/herself?

Personally I can see why parents wouldn't want military recruiters in schools talking to highly impressionable youngsters about the glory of war and fighting for your country when the body bag total increases daily from a war the majority of USA citizens ( accordingly to recent polls reported over here) don't agree with and want their soldiers out of.

Interestingly it was also reported that Congress would probably stop funding next year after the elections and so troops would be withdrawn next summer (along with uk troops).

p

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/14/2005 03:52:53 PM · #272

Originally posted by Flash:

Where is this place? It's not San Francisco. While the voters did recently pass a new gun-control ordinance (yet to take effect -- subject to years of litigation), the rest of your description is off-base (pun intended). Please spout off when you do have some details.

BTW: Chicago Washington DC and New York have all had strict gun control for years, so by your logic I guess those folks at Ground Zero were just asking for it too ...

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/14/2005 04:05:21 PM · #273

Originally posted by Flash:

Riponlady,

My questions are simple; would you personally feel safe in a community where the military was dispised, asked to leave, prevented from recruiting their future soldiers and the populace was dis-armed? Do you think that this community would be a potential target for a predator? If this community was a target, who would be responsible to respond?

[/quote]

I do not see any indication that the military are despised from the info I have read. The people were indicating their disillusionment with the govt. Also I do not see that this community would be any more a target than any other in the USA or anywhere else. Is a city without naval presence (like Kansas City) more likely to be attacked? I do not think that Leeds (our nearest city) is more at danger from "predators" than New York because our people are not armed.

As a parent I would be horrified if military recruiters were allowed to come into my childrens' schools to glorify life in the services. Young men in particular are easily swayed by uniforms, guns, "derring-do", and the thought of "being a man" and fighting for their country. They will not be told of the horrors of war, the facts about casualties, the hate many people in the invaded country feel against their invaders. It is not in the interests of recruiters to do so. I am not against the military as a career, my own son would have been in the RAF if colour-blindness had not put that direction out of the question, but a non-biased approach is needed with all the facts laid out before any young person before such life/death decisions are made, particularly when a country is at war.

To answr your final question, if this wonderful city of SF was a target, I would assume it would be dealt with in the way that all cities London, New York are dealing with the threat of terrorist action- but not necessarily by the army/navy. If the USA as a whole was atacked by another country then the military would respond as in any country but I don't think anyone will start a war with SF alone!

My thoughts.

Message edited by author 2005-11-14 16:28:39.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

11/14/2005 05:05:29 PM · #274

Has this rant gone cold? No response for nearly an hour?
OK I'll concentrate on the other rants to vent my spleen!!!
:))))
P