lostfan

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:17 AM) did you see where I said someone got a blowdart into the dick lol yes. Did it still work at least

Right now I'm reading Leaderless Jihad by Marc Sageman, for my last class. Awesome book.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 11:57 PM) That's good to know. I haven't read on the CIA before, but that book did have the tone as a bitter dude who got fired. It looks like a couple of the negative reviews were just America fanboys (and the positive ones had some people that just like to read about America f***ing up) but there are a lot of bad reviews and they go after the author really hard on the merits. It looks like he isn't too big on fact-checking. Just based on that I wouldn't waste my time reading it. There were periods where the CIA really was clown shoes but you really have to get a historian to tell the story for you, someone who doesn't get into politics. This book is much better: http://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Eyes-Only...9040&sr=8-2 (he is talking about Bush 41) John Prados is another good author but he is really, really boring.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 10:39 PM) f*** that, i'm not building anything for free, dude. Where's that great American spirit of innovation and enterpreneurship? Don't be a quitter dude.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 09:14 PM) Have you read this before? It makes it sound like we were the biggest idiots on the planet in our intelligence agencies during the cold war. http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-CIA-J...o/dp/0761525629 I haven't read that book but I've read a couple similar ones. If it makes you feel any better the KGB f***ed up a lot too. They would do stuff like select a target for assassination, then go hire an assassin and not properly vet him, only to have the guy get cold feet and confess to the target what he was supposed to be doing. Then shrug that off, and have the exact same thing happen on the very next mission.

What's up with "don't put this on Dye?" Nobody is saying Dye is the reason the Sox have faded away. But you're delusional if you don't think he shouldn't get a big piece of the blame pie.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 07:05 PM) And the reality of that is not very high, despite what the libs want to paint. (generalization warning) Liberals tend to act like the intelligence community has a bunch of rogues in it that are allowed to do whatever they want like in the movies and that Bush authorized it. Conservatives also think this is true to some extent, but they think it's all good and that all you have to do to get a terrorist to talk is to treat him like s***, and that by disallowing this to happen that national security is being compromised.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 07:14 PM) I've gotten the impression that the Aegis system and the short range interceptors actually do a fairly good job. Yes against missiles that actually exist.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 06:31 PM) It's because CT policies can't be that much different if you want to be effective. However, the soundbytes phenomenon has created a situation that he has to sound all left-wing "we won't do what BushCo did" or he gets his balls hung. Or that our intelligence services are all staffed by Jack Bauer clones, etc.

I would say Harris is the most overrated player in the NFL but I think enough people are catching on to the fact that he's been in a steady decline so that he can't be overrated anymore.

I said this before in the Dem thread, but on substance Obama's CT policies aren't much different from Bush's. To believe this you would have to think Bush was wrong on everything and Obama came through like some holy crusader to reverse everything. In reality a lot of these things are cookie-cutter.

Oh and speaking of the need for better missile defense I remember a few months back when Palin flipped a s*** about the Obama administration cutting back on the ABM sites in Alaska and making it sound like Obama offered Alaska back to Russia. They weren't removed like she seemed to think, there are still 30. Which is more than enough to do something about North Korean missiles, and irrelevant concerning Russia since, as I said, they have thousands of missiles.

I'm a little surprised this didn't generate more discussion last week so I'm bringing it up now. The amount of snake oil that has been accumulated/bought/sold over the past few years is staggering, there are so many non-facts floating around and the subject in general is just so dishonest and incoherent. To see my point just look at the official line being fed as a justification for it - to protect European countries from Iranian missiles. Then look at the primary criticisms - "it's a gift to Putin" or "Obama is leaving Israel out to dry." See how these don't add up? They have nothing to do with each other. First off, the system hasn't been shown to work which is why the date projected by the Bush admin. is so far in the future (like 2018) - they hope that they can get it to work by then. It's been 20 years though. Second, Iran does not have long-range missiles or ICBMs. Don't assume they do because someone on TV makes it sound like they do. They do not, and they aren't close to it either, don't buy the hype. Assuming they're working on the technology, it'll be at least 8-10 years by the time they have it ready to work, and if that happens it won't be a surprise because our intelligence will have known about it. These first 2 points actually make the whole discussion moot but for the sake of addressing everything I'll keep going. Third, Iran DOES pose a threat to nearby countries (contrary to some assumptions, they do not get along that will with their Arab neighbors) with its short and medium-range missiles. Conversely, the US has actual existing technology to counter this, either on ships or through other measures Obama ordered the DoD to look into. Fourth, as far as this being a "gift to Putin" since when is openly doing things soley for the purpose of irritating adversaries a valid basis on which to conduct foreign policy? This is not supposed to be about Russia, remember? Even if it was, and even if the systems actually worked, we were going to build 10 sites. Russia has SEVERAL THOUSAND ballistic missiles. There was no benefit whatsoever, except to give Russia a reason to upset the status quo. Building the sites (as opposed to not building them) would've been the real gift - Putin et. al. were probably wondering what the f*** Bush was thinking. Think about Israel and Iran for more than 5 seconds and then you realize having missiles to intercept them from eastern Europe doesn't make any sense at all. Iran doesn't even need ICBMs to do this anyway, they already HAVE missiles that can hit Israel, and we ALREADY HAVE ways to intercept them (and so do the Israelis). Iran may be working on nuclear bombs, but right now they don't have any. If they did, and actually used them against Israel pre-emptively while ignoring the fact that Israel contains one of the holiest sites in Islam, it would be the end of their nation as they know it. Iran might have 3 or 4 nuclear warheads 5 years from now (total guess), Israel has a couple hundred along with 3 major allies with nukes and wearheads that can reach Iran. Iran's leaders might be offensive, authoritarian, and confrontational, but they aren't stupid. So what it all boils down to is basically nothing - spending several billion dollars (when the United States is already out of cash) just to maintain the appearance of American global military dominance, even if there is no tangible benefit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) None of the 3 things you cite were 100% guaranteed responses to 9/11, since you made the word "War" plural. "War" was pretty much a guarantee. "Wars" plural didn't have to be. That was a choice. And a very, very bad one.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 05:27 PM) Those are two entirely different animals you just lumped together. Don't tell John McCain that

Well that and the UN/allied nations didn't want him to. Bush knew strategy and understood long-term plans, he was a former CIA professional/diplomat. Reading about his decision-making it didn't seem like he was the type of president who would be led around by advisors all the time.

Bush 41 probably would've been the best if he hadn't backed himself into a corner and ran out of gas against Clinton. As it stands, total net positive effect, has to be Clinton. For those who still insist that "Reagan won the Cold War" if you grant him this then you need to acknowledge the severe blowback the U.S. support in the Soviet-Afghan war caused (this was Carter's guy Zbigniew Brzezinski's idea though). It's pure irony that we wanted to prolong the Soviet presence in Afghanistan and we are going to end up there even longer.

I agree with both Balta and NSS. The Mass. Democrats were being hypocrites but I really don't like it when governors can appoint a permanent replacement.

I would like to propose a truce. We left-leaners will pretend to give a s*** about ACORN. The right-leaners will pretend to give a s*** about the DoJ firings. Or, alternatively, we will all STFU. Either way is better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 03:32 PM) Really, this got moved? lol that was my thought too.

Yeah Sanford's story was just bizarre which is what made it interesting, but Edwards's situation just makes him look like such a lowlife.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 22, 2009 -> 09:43 AM) That's why it was a shame Netanyahu found his way back in. I've said it before but I'm really pissed that Barak got himself in scandals because negotiations really would be better served under him. The negotiations were dead before they ever started. Netanyahu just doesn't get it. http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/0...on_of_the_hawks This guy explains it better than I can. Basically Netanyahu sees the world in such a way that his policies actually makes things worse. People outside Israel can see this. People inside Israel (specifically Likud) can't.

Netanyahu needs his arm twisted some more though. The terms he's offering for "peace" are unacceptable, and he fully knows it. It's by design.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) I got "surprise gayed" by one of my college friends recently. It’s a weird feeling, because it makes you reexamine every conversation you ever had with the guy. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything homophobic to him, but I was pretty open about talking to him about getting girls, essentially, I talked to him like a straight guy would talk to another straight guy. I know this shouldn’t bother me, because I never even suspected he was gay, but I do wonder if I ever seemed like an asshole in any of our conversations. Openly talking about getting girls doesn't bother any of the gay people I know. I mean in logical terms it really wouldnt be any different than talking to a girl about the same thing, which I do all the time.

Just stopping in here to chuckle that Bradley was actually being defended.