Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think.....
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71728 is a reply to message #71727] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 08:02   |
![Deej [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "Deej [1] is currently offline")
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
o an ally. That certainly
had nothing to do with Clinton's administration.The general consensus on the
part of most reasonable folk is that Iraq was a dead-center target for Bush,
et al, looooong before he got elected.
Frankly, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the invasion occurred. I
said to myself, maybe they're right. Maybe we win, things shift in the
Mid-East, we're all happier. Didn't work out that way.
We didn't have to do it. Fact is, certain now-powerful neo-cons had been
fantasizing about it for a decade or more when Bush took office, and they
seized the opportunity and made it happen. And because of that, we're up to
our necks in a global firestorm of hate and civil war and over-extension and
tactical weakness.
Any attempt to lay all of this at the feet of anybody other than the
current administration seems awfully wrong-headed to me. Just seems like
desperation, ideological desperation.
God help us if we find ourselves routinely torturing people in order to
preserve our way of life. God help us. That's not who I want to be. I'll
leave this country before that becomes commonplace. I won't be party to the
torture of other humans in order to preserve for ourselves cheap gas and
relative safety from those who have learned to hate us at least PARTLY
because we have been manipulating their governments, their history, their
economies and their lives for decades solely to keep a steady flow of cheap
oil.
I despise the destruction of innocent lives. Be clear on that. And I love my
country above all else. But I will not be a hypocrite, and I will not be
bullied into hard-partisan faux-patriotism. I fear we are losing our grip,
as a nation, on what it means to be an American. It is a fear that seizes my
heart like a clammy premonition of impending doom. I hope I am wrong.....
BTW, if we want to
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71729 is a reply to message #71728] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 08:10 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
win this war on conservative terms, we need to show
everybody right now how we will deal with those who harbor non-traditional
combatants in their midsts, whether it's Lebanon or Pakistan or Syria or
Iran: we nuke them. Just the major cities. Warn folks a gew days before we
drop the hammer, give 'em time to get out.
That's how we won WWII, more or less. Anything less isn't going to work.
Anything less is the worst sort of wishy-washy hypocricy. War is hell, and
anything less than hell isn't war. End of discussion.
Over and out.
Jimmy
"Deej" <animixx@animass.net> wrote in message news:4510cf27$1@linux...
>
> Hi Jimmy,
>
> No offense taken here. My point is that we are finishing a war that was
> started by Sadaam, not Bush. It was never brought to any conclusion
be3cause
> the sanctions that were put in place to do this were circumvented and this
> was during Clinton's administration. Clinton also instituted a policy
> wherein our CIA couldn't work with anyone who had any taint of human
rights
> abuses and also did everything they could to keep the various intelligence
> service and the domestic intelligence services from sharing information.
> All
> of these things played a huge part in what happened on 9-11 and the crappy
> intelligence was what we based the decision on to go in and finish the
gulf
> war that Sadaam started. Had we accurate intelligence, I'll bet things
would
> have been handled much differently. You may not agree with this and that's
> OK. I'm not going to flog it anymore or Kim's gonna get pissed off at me
> and
> I might die.
>
> I've said my piece here. If you want to discuss this off the group it's
> animix@animas.net.
>
> Regards,
>
> Deej
>
>
> "Deej" <animix@animass.netttt> wrote:
> >
> >"Uptown Jimmy" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71730 is a reply to message #71727] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 08:29 |
brandon[2]
Messages: 380
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
h.net" target="_blank">johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>Man.
> >>
> >>I'm sorry, DJ. You've been good to me, and I don't mean to offend you,
> but
> >I
> >>don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
> >>
> >>Not that I don't pay attention to things, usually....
> >>
> >>I just think people ought to have to take responsibility for their own
> >>actions.
> >>
> >>And I don't recall Slick Willy invading Iraq.
> >>
> >>Guess I'm just ignernt.
> >>
> >>Jimmy
> >>
> >>
> >>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> >>news:45109ebf@linux...
> >>> No. I think the situation in Iraq, as it stands right now, is a result
> >of
> >>> the left undercutting the administration at every turn and thereby
giving
> >>> aid and encouragement to our enemies who, when they see the country so
> >>> divided, can take it to the bank that the left will do their fair
share
> >to
> >>> defeat our efforts. I'm just blaming the intelligence deficit and the
> >lack
> >>> of leadership that led to the UN sanctions being undercut at every
turn
> >on
> >>> Clinton, otherwise the war that started in 1991, would not still be
> >>> happening. Thius is a war that never stopped. It could have if Clinton
> >>would
> >>> have had his eye on the ball and exercised some of the great
> >>*international
> >>> leadership* that his supporters fantisize so much about.........but he
> >>> didn't. He allowed the sanctions to be undercut by *our allies*.
> >>>
> >>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71742 is a reply to message #71738] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 12:00 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ading if any of you are
> >>> > interested.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Have a great Monday!
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Unholy Alliance Rolls Over the Pope
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> By Andrew Walden
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In what has suddenly been made into a highly
> >>controversial
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria's
> >>> University
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief
> >in
> >>a
> >>> > God
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and
> >the
> >>> law
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with
Islamic
> >>> > > belief
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in a God not bound by anything-including his own
words.
> >>> > > > > Benedict
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> further contrasts Christian belief with that of
secular
> >>> > > > > humanists
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> In response, both Islamists and secularists have
> >>demanded
> >>> > the
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Pope apologize. Benedict's speech is a work of
> >>enlightened
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> genius. He has clearly laid out the differences
between
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis
> >of
> >>the
> >>> > > clash
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of civilizations we now experience as the War on
Terror.
> >>> His
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> analysis also explains the underlying cause of the
> >>> alliance
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> between the western Left and the Islamofascist
Right.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the
speech.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine
Emperor
> >>> > > Manuel
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was
new,
> >>and
> >>> > > there
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as
> >his
> >>> > > command
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's
> >>legislature
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's
> top
> >>> > Shiite
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the
ruling
> >>> party
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71743 is a reply to message #71742] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 12:31 |
Nil
Messages: 245
Registered: March 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
to Hitler and Mussolini and
accused
> >>> him
> >>> > of
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks
> >on
> >>> > Islam
> >>> > > > > and
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of
> >rage
> >>> > that
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like
those
> >>> that
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet
> >>> > Muhammad."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for
the
> >>> Pope's
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's
600-year-old
> >>> point.
> >>> > > > > The
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated
attempt
> >to
> >>> > force
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam
> >>need
> >>> > not
> >>> > > be
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason,
> >>it's
> >>> > only
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is
> >so
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If
man
> >is
> >>> > > created
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not
> >>bound
> >>> by
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the
part
> >>of
> >>> > some
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any
> >>> > 'offense'
> >>> > > > > to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the
> >>only
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 'morality' they have-the will to power.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's
> >>> > > > > philosophy-hence
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the
> >>Western
> >>> > > "Left'
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist
> >>> thought
> >>> > > > > than
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought-hence the alliance between the
> >>Western
> >>> > > "Left"
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist 'Right.'
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing
precisely
> >>> what
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the
> >>chief
> >>> > > cleric
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest
> >>> mosque,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to 'respond in a manner which
forces
> >>the
> >>> > Pope
> >>> > > > > to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> apologize.'" Note they intend to use "force" not
> >>reason.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the
> >Pope
> >>> > was,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "calling a spade a spade".
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York
Times,editorializes,
> >>> > "Pope
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims.." This is false.
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71746 is a reply to message #71738] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 13:50 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;> > globalization
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout
> the
> >>> > world,
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and
> >>> > secularist
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke
> >>their
> >>> > > pact
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after
> >the
> >>> > > collapse
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear
> >is
> >>> > having
> >>> > > to
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope's key point, borrowed from the
> >>Byzantine
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: "'Not to act reasonably, not to act with
> logos
> >>> > (word
> >>> > > > > or
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,'.. It is
> >to
> >>> this
> >>> > > > > great
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our
> >>> > partners
> >>> > > in
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures."
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to
> >>disaster.
> >>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>> > > > >>>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>well, this is really more of a plug in thing IMO, though there are similar
things happening in audio data feeds called buffers. Sonar does this, and
I'm sure most native apps do. More buffers, more delay for processing and
playback but the stability of the system is much improved.
I guess you could say all native DAWs in that respect do it.
AA
"Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:4511d78f@linux...
> So the point of lookahead is to give the digital math time to process the
> audio data?
>
> Are there any examples of this sort of thing in other DAWs?
>
> Jimmy
>
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> news:45109336$1@linux...
>> It essentially splits the signal into two paths.. one for the detector
>> and
>> one that is the audio throughput. By NOT delaying the detector and
> delaying
>> the audio by, let's say, 1 mS the detector actually gets a 1 mS
> 'lookahead'
>> time to better process the signal/transients.
>> The price is that now your audio will be 1 mS later than it was. This can
> be
>> a real bite in the rear on multimic'd stuff like drum kits unless you
>> intentionally delay the other tracks by the same amount (and the next
>> step
>> is to move them all back/to the left 1mS in the editor).
>>
>> AA
>>
>> "Uptown Jimmy" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71748 is a reply to message #71743] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 15:50 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;c@c.om> wrote in message news:4510872c$1@linux...
>> >>
>> >> Depending on lookahead of course :-)
>> >>
>> >> "Rod Lincoln" <rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah, 2 samples of latency (at 44.1) for eds plugs
>> >> >Rod
>> >> >Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>> >> >>Hi Jimmy,
>> >> >>As far as I've ever seen the EDS plugins have little or no latency
>> >> >>as
>> >> >>they exist in the hardware just like on a Pro Tools HD system.
>> >> >>Chris
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Uptown Jimmy wrote:
>> >> >>> Wait a minute: Paris atuo-compenstaes for EDS plugins?!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm very surprised, if true.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Jimmy
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>> news:450ff34f$1@linux...
>> >> >>>> HI,
>> >> >>>> It only matters under 2 scenarios.
>> >> >>>> 1. Playing VST INstruments in real time.
>> >> >>>> 2. Processing native effects on a live input.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Otherwise you can set the buffer high to free up resources.
>> >> >>>> When using Direct monitoring the software monitor inputs at the
>> > hardware
>> >> >>>> level so no latency.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ADC becomes more useful in the mixing stage Cubase will keep all
> the
>> >> >>>> plug ins including external plug ins sample accurate. Paris will
> do
>> >> this
>> >> >>>> only with its EDS effects not with native. Actually most programs
>> > didn't
>> >> >>>> only had this type of compensation on inserts only forever.
>> > Steinberg
>> >> >>>> were the first to figure out how to do it across the whole path.
>> >> >>>> I
>> > wish
>> >> >>>> Steinberg would stop with all the innovation stuff so I wouldn't
>> >> >>>> have
>> >> >to
>> >> >>>> keep track of all the new features the competitors have in their
>> >> >>>> programs. :0
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Chris
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Uptown Jimmy wrote:
>> >> >>>>> What do buffer and latency matter for anymore, what with ADC on
>> > native
>> >> >>>>> systems?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I seriously have no idea, being a Paris junkie since the
> beginning.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Jimmy
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>>>> news:450f2d33@linux...
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> HI Mike,
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Mike R. wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Hope it's ok to post this question here.
>> >> >>>>>>> A friend of mine is going to buy a new Mac laptop. She is
>> >> >>>>>>> running
>> >> >>>>> Cubase SE
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> on her current
>> >> >>>>>> No Universal Binary yet for Cubase not till 4.0 comes out so I
>> > don't
>> >> >>>>>> think it will work if it is a Intel based one.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> 'pute and wants a bigger faster, but portable, machine.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I'm
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> most interested in your thoughts regarding both an audio card
> and
>> >> >what
>> >> >>>>> sort
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> of external audio drive she could/should use.
>> >> >>>>>> On a budget the Presonus Firebox is a great unit. If she want
>> > quality
>> >> >>>>>> Mic-Pres and AD/DA, etc then the RME Fireface 400.
>> >> >>>>>> Also the Mackie Spike or Onyx 400f might be a good option sense
>> > they
>> >> >>>>>> come with the Tracktion software already.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> If she is only recording 2 tracks or so then there is no need
> for
>> >> an
>> >> >>>>>> external drive. It would only be needed fore backs ups but the
>> > projects
>> >> >>>>>> would more than likely be small enough to easily fit on DVDRW.
>> >> >>>>>> Using an internal 80 or 100 gig drive on the PC would easily
> allow
>> >> >for
>> >> >>>>>> 32 tracks of 2
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71752 is a reply to message #71745] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 16:18 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
blank">1@linux...
> This might be about the best news I've heard re the borders in my
> lifetime.
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/200326 6715_boeing20.html
>Will report back....
"Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:4511e65c@linux...
> Probably so, at least for this little exercise.
> AA
>
> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:451172cd@linux...
> > On this morning's boot-up, I didn't even see the screen in question.
> >
> > Should I disable "quick boot-up" in the BIOS?
> >
> > Jimmy
> >
> > "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> > news:4510c140$1@linux...
> >> dat's the one
> >> AA
> >>
> >> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4510babe@linux...
> >> > Ummm.....I'm too poor to afford a video cam.
> >> >
> >> > To be honest, EMU discontinuing Paris was one of the best things that
> > ever
> >> > happened to me. Cheap parts, ya know....
> >> >
> >> > By "pause key", you mean the key that says "pause" & "break"?
> >> >
> >> > I know I seem ignernt. I'm sorry.
> >> >
> >> > Jimmy
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> >> > news:451090ed@linux...
> >> >> er.. do you know you can hit the pause key on the keyboard and stop
> >> >> it?
> >> > Just
> >> >> hit the spacebar when you're ready to go again.
> >> >> Sorry I didn't mention that before. Or alternately you could point a
> >> >> video
> >> >> cam at it.
> >> >>
> >> >> AA
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Uptown Jimmy" <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:45107fd4$1@linux...
> >> >> > Like I said before, that particular screen flashes by almost
> >> > subliminally.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I had great success today with one EDS card, trying it in one PCI
> > slot
> >> > at
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > time, all four PCI slots, no problems. I'll throw all four in
there
> > and
> >> >> > see
> >> >> > what happens. I'll check the msinfo thingie befoe I boot up Paris.
> >> >> > It
> >> > will
> >&
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71755 is a reply to message #71752] |
Fri, 25 August 2006 20:40 |
Rod Lincoln
Messages: 883
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt; wrote in message
news:4511e40a@linux...
> Sorry, brother. There's too much evidence that Bush and Co. were really,
> really, really eager to invade Iraq, even in the face of well-documented
> evidence that they were barking up the wrong tree, even that they knew
they
> were barking up the wrong tree. It's a matter of record that the CIA was
> skeptical about the "slam-dunk" theory of WMDs, as espoused unequivocally
by
> Cheney over and over again before the invasion.
>
> There are documents dating from the mid-'90s showing key Bush
administration
> officials and advisors making concrete, detailed plans to make an example
of
> Iraq by invading it and "nation building" it into an ally. That certainly
> had nothing to do with Clinton's administration.The general consensus on
the
> part of most reasonable folk is that Iraq was a dead-center target for
Bush,
> et al, looooong before he got elected.
>
> Frankly, I gave them the benefit of the doubt as the invasion occurred. I
> said to myself, maybe they're right. Maybe we win, things shift in the
> Mid-East, we're all happier. Didn't work out that way.
>
> We didn't have to do it. Fact is, certain now-powerful neo-cons had been
> fantasizing about it for a decade or more when Bush took office, and they
> seized the opportunity and made it happen. And because of that, we're up
to
> our necks in a global firestorm of hate and civil war and over-extension
and
> tactical weakness.
>
> Any attempt to lay all of this at the feet of anybody other than the
> current administration seems awfully wrong-headed to me. Just seems like
> desperation, ideological desperation.
>
> God help us if we find ourselves routinely torturing people in order to
> preserve our way of life. God help us. That's not who I want to be. I'll
> leave this country before that becomes commonplace. I won't be party to
the
> torture of other humans in order to preserve for ourselves cheap gas and
> relative safety from those who have learned to hate us at least PARTLY
> because we have been manipulating their governments, their history, their
> economies and their lives for decades solely to keep a steady flow of
cheap
> oil.
>
> I despise the destruction of innocent lives. Be clear on that. And I love
my
> country above all else. But I will not be a hypocrite, and I will not be
> bullied into hard-partisan faux-patriotism. I fear we are losing our grip,
> as a nation, on what it means to be an American. It is a fear that seizes
my
> heart like a clammy premonition of impending doom. I hope I am wrong.....
>
> BTW, if we want to win this war on conservative terms, we need to show
> everybody right now how we will deal with those who harbor non-traditional
> combatants in their midsts, whether it's Lebanon or Pakistan or Syria or
> Iran: we nuke them. Just the major cities. Warn folks a gew days before we
> drop the hammer, give 'em time to get out.
>
> That's how we won WWII, more or less. Anything less isn't going to work.
> Anything less is the worst sort of wishy-washy hypocricy. War is hell, and
> anything less than hell isn't war. End of discussion.
>
> Over and out.
>
> Jimmy
>
>
> "Deej" <animixx@animass.net> wrote in message news:4510cf27$1@linux...
> >
> > Hi Jimmy,
> >
> > No offense taken here. My point is that we are finishing a war that was
> > started by Sadaam, not Bush. It was never brought to any conclusion
> be3cause
> > the sanctions that were put in place to do this were circumvented and
this
> > was during Clinton's administration. Clinton also instituted a policy
> > wherein our CIA couldn't work with anyone who had any taint of human
> rights
> > abuses and also did everything they could to keep the various
intelligence
> > service and the domestic intelligence services from sharing information.
> > All
> > of these things playe
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: How much force in "pounds" do you think..... [message #71768 is a reply to message #71748] |
Sat, 26 August 2006 19:54 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>> > > office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and
> > >>> > yes.......it
> > >>> > > could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the
national
> > >>> > > legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton
in
> > >the
> > >>> > white
> > >>> > > House.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:451035a7@linux...
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided
> > >>between
> > >>> > > > both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go
> > >>around.
> > >>> > > > It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous
> > >>administration
> > >>> > > > on a number of counts.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush
with
> > >that
> > >>> > > > vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are
> > >>> controlled
> > >>> > > > by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame
at
> > >>some
> > >>> of
> > >>> > > > the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers
> > >>> backwards
> > >>> > > > in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current
> > >>government.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the
> previous
> > >>> > > > government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell
flat
> > >>> > > > overall, domestically and internationally.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do
> better.
> > >>> > > > At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck
stops
> > >with
> > >>> > > > those in charge now.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Cheers,
> > >>> > > > -Jamie
> > >>> > > > http://www.JamieKrutz.com
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > DJ wrote:
> > >>> > > > > The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on
Iraq
> > >as a
> > >>> > last
> > >>> > > > > resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done
as
> > >>such.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service
> > that
> > >>> they
> > >>> > > > > created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to
> slag
> > >>and
> > >>> > > blame
> > >>> > > > > for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before
they
> > >vote
> > >>> > > against
> > >>> > > > > it.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> > >>> > news:450f8aec@linux...
> > >>> > > > >> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt
> > >>specific
> > >>> > > > >> things could have been handled better under the previous
> > >>> government.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> The transition of power between the previous and current
> > >>> governments
> > >>> > > was
> > >>> > > > >> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have
> doomed
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > >> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in
progress.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the
> previous
> > >>> > > > >> government. The current government, for example, failed to
> follow
> > >>> > > > >> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11
and
> > >>failed
> > >>> > to
> > >>> > > > >> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in
> > >>Afghanistan;
> > >>> > > > >> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of
> Afghanistan;
> > >>> > > > >> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there;
> > >>failed
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > > >> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own
> > state
> > >>> > > > >> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on
> > >>> > terrorism"
> > >>> > > > >> for domestic political ends.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief
> inspector,
> > >>and
> > >>> > > Bush
> > >>> > > > >> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff.
> One
> > >of
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > >> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our
> > >>> > government,
> > >>> > > > >> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a
> position
> > >>of
> > >>> > > > >> power in Iraq after the invasion.
> > >>> > > > >>
> > >>> > > > >> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on
Iraq
> > >as
> > >>a
> > >>> > last
> > >>> > > > >&
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 08 08:43:17 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05813 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
