Bye-bye INF treaty?

On 21 Feb 2007 04:16:27 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote:

We don't have the option of waging war as the Romans did.

....Ah, for the good old days.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:41:05 -0600, in a place far, far away, OM
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:02:03 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

but once the US Cavalry figured out the right tactics, the Apaches etc. were eventually forced to give up

...Yeah, but I don't think giving the Taliban blankets laced with
smallpox will do the trick these days.

It might. Not that there's any precedent for it (at least by USians).

On 21 Feb 2007 04:12:48 -0800, "Quadibloc" wrote:

The best way to achieve this is to remove the "supporters of radical
Islam" within Iran from any position of political power as swiftly as
possible,

....Step 1: take each and every one of those ****wit, camel-raping,
unwashed, psychotic clerics out and hang them, making it clear to the
Iraqi people that they a) perverted the word of Allah b) did so
because they crazy and/or c) wanted to keep the faithful dumb and
retarded so they could maintain their power, and that d) any cleric
who perverts and distorts the Word of Allah again will wind up with
the same fate. No trial, no appeal, no nuthin, Mullah - you frack up,
you die. Simple as that.

....And yeah, to be fair, I'm also in favor of that for Catholic
priests who molest altar boys as well.

Bottom Line: I'm not against religion, I'm against frauds, kooks,
nutjobs, psychotics and megalomaniacs using it simply to gain power
and wealth.


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 03:27:14 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Back in the Golden days of Marvel, when Lee, Kirby, and Steranko were
going full tilt, nobody could lay a finger on the stuff they could turn
out. You'd sit around turning the pages as a kid, and get your mind
blown with the genius of it all - super storylines, superb character
development, and art that would knock your ever-lovin' socks off. ;-)

....Yeah, but Lee became a jerk towards The King, Jack picked up his
toys and went over to create some newer Gods for DC - and got screwed
by Carmine Infantino - while Steranko gave up what he did best and
tried to become a magazine publisher. This set up a chain of events
that allowed Marvel to get ruined by some big fat Jabba the Hut clone
from Brooklyn and a bunch of lazy Limey ******s who think killing off
heroes and upsetting the status quo will save the comic book industry.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:34:36 GMT, Alan Jones
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:52:50 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I just had this berserk vision...Washington DC gets nuked... the country
needs a new capital city.
Where should it be?

There is probably already provision for that. In the long term, it
would probably be best to locate it deep in the center of the county,
but near a major metropolitan area such as St. Louis, MO.

....A lot of SciFi writers tend to joke that it'll be Des Moines -
probably because it's one of the most mispronounced city names in the
US - but from what we were told in Les Kurtz' "Sociology of Nuclear
Warfare" course in 1985, Denver is the most likely candidate due to
its proximity to NORAD, providing NORAD isn't hit itself. Other
candidates include Kansas City, St. Louis - the real one, not the East
one that the world wishes didn't exist, and Dallas(*). And even then,
those cities would only be expected to fill in until a new city was
built for the purpose of hosting the Federal Government.

(*) Dallas might be a surprise to some, but it's not as deep in the
South as one might expect due to the sheer size of Texas. That's why
they get snow every year while most of Texas does not. It's also a
major hub for what's left of the railway system, and has one of the
largest airports in the US. Oh, and it has a football team owned by a
****head.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:41:05 -0600, OM wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:02:03 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

but once the US Cavalry figured out the right tactics, the Apaches etc.
were eventually forced to give up

...Yeah, but I don't think giving the Taliban blankets laced with
smallpox will do the trick these days.

Or letting them have massive quantities of alcohol . . .

There are a LOT of differences between the Apaches of the 19th century and
the Iraqi insurgency of today and merely increasing troop counts won't do a
damn bit of good. Period.

OM




--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:31:52 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:41:05 -0600, OM wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 15:02:03 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

but once the US Cavalry figured out the right tactics, the Apaches etc.
were eventually forced to give up

...Yeah, but I don't think giving the Taliban blankets laced with
smallpox will do the trick these days.

Or letting them have massive quantities of alcohol . . .

There are a LOT of differences between the Apaches of the 19th century and
the Iraqi insurgency of today and merely increasing troop counts won't do a
damn bit of good. Period.

And since we aren't "merely increasing troop counts," your statement
is irrelevant. Period.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:23:31 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Alan Jones wrote:

There is probably already provision for that. In the long term, it
would probably be best to locate it deep in the center of the county,
but near a major metropolitan area such as St. Louis, MO.


I always thought Kansas City would be perfect...far from foreign
influences, easy to attack from all sides if they got up to anything
funny down there.
Besides, the two parties could take up housing on the far sides of the
Mississippi river to show the wide gulf that separates them.

Pat

I think you meant the Missouri river. But now that you mention it,
East St. Louis could probably benefit mote from the "capitol"
improvement.

Alan

"OM" wrote in message
...
Bottom Line: I'm not against religion, I'm against frauds, kooks,
nutjobs, psychotics and megalomaniacs using it simply to gain power
and wealth.

Well, then, I guess that means you won't be worshipping DJM...

Quadibloc wrote:

Amadinejad would never have won the *national* elections if it wasn't
for the fact that the clerics didn't allow the candidates of a more
progressive bent to stand for election.

Rafsanjani might have won if it weren't for the fact that our
administration, in another one of its typically Brainiac moves, decided
to let it be loudly known that he was the candidate that they wanted to
win, which made him look like a potential U.S. puppet.
I wonder who Ahmadinejad will back for the U.S. presidency next year,
and what his endorsement will do for that candidate's chances of being
elected?
I wish we could have a presidential race with seven people running for
the office on a equal footing, with a run-off between the two that got
the most votes. I might actually be able to find someone I actually
liked in a case like that.

Iran is effectively ruled, therefore, not by the wishes of its
electorate, but by unelected clerics.


With over a thousand initial candidates running for the office,
obviously some sort of pairing down had to occur before election day -
otherwise you might end up with the winner of the initial election
getting less than 1% of the vote, not to mention the longest election
ballot in the history of the world.
(cut to Iranian voter staring at the ten-foot-long ballot: "Was it Abu
Ibn Mohammad....or _Abdul_ Ibn Mohammad?")
In the U.S. it's whose got the money instead of the Guardian Council who
decides whose going to be on the ballot, and indeed in on the
debates...because you wouldn't want to see the wrong sort of person get
in on _those_, or the American public might actually realize that there
really could be an alternative to the same ol'-same ol' of the
Republicans and Democrats.
All hell might break loose then. That's how revolutions get started.
Better to have just a choice between two "safe" candidates.
Democracy can go way too far at times.

Steps should be taken to ensu

that no innocent people get killed by an Iranian missile getting
anywhere *in the first place*, and

that the broad masses of the Iranian people, innocent of the crimes of
their warmongering leadership, are not placed in a situation where
they will unavoidably suffer for these crimes.


The best way to achieve this is to remove the "supporters of radical
Islam" within Iran from any position of political power as swiftly as
possible, *before* anything bad can happen. Iran is not a democracy,
therefore invading it any time we feel like does not constitute
aggression; as it is written,

That sounds vaguely Islamic.
Are you sure you're not a Islamic Agent Provocateur?
"Look, Yosef! Once again I shall lure the Great Satan into a foolish and
pointless war!
Am I not like the very penis of the Prophet, ever upright, and capable
of getting into all sorts of tight places with no one suspecting my
presence?"
"You are indeed like unto the manhood of Mohamed - may his testicles be
ever hairy - and capable of as sly of tricks as a skilled courtesan's
tongue!"


"governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed", therefore, any government that is
not democratic is really only just a gang of thugs, and the country in
question _has_ no legitimate government.


You're right, we must certainly invade to bring them peace and freedom
like we've brought to Iraq.
Here, read a happy missive from a freed Iraqi:
http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archi.../20/61060.aspx
The Iranians are just dying for us to bring them freedom also.
I think they should vote on whether they want us to invade them.
I'd bet the measure would carry in a landslide, particularly if the
polling station is under a mountainside where one of our bombs hit.


We must not make the mistakes that have been made in Iraq, however.

Yup, this time we'll win... I'm keen to read your detailed plan; also
where you're going to get the 200,000 or so troops this is going to
take, and the 500 billion or so dollars it's going to cost.
I take it you have a magic lamp with a genie in it to aid you in your cause.

We
can stop making these mistakes in Iraq now, too.


The Iraqi people do not have at their command the same level of
military force that the United States does. If the United States can't
crush terrorism in Iraq, the new government of Iraq will not be able
to do so. Instead of making threats and setting deadlines, to give
Iraq the peace it needs to build up its own political and military
strength, we should be acting in sufficient force to end conclusively
the current violence in Iraq.


Okay, we carpet bomb the whole place and then declare the war won and
the corpses freed.
They want a long-lasting peace?
We'll give them eternal peace.

This does not mean the generals who oppose the current troop surge
proposal are wrong; perhaps G. W. Bush's proposal is too modest, and
only a much larger troop surge will be sufficient to provide benefits
instead of giving the enemy more targets to shoot at.


That's two wishes now...be careful, you only have one left. :-)

Pat