RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 3:31:07 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

there is no sovereignty in international law...
statement and now Ron will justify statement with:
here is a case cut out with Japan but it is the precedent worldwide, we enjoy some special privileges at our missions and embassies and whatnot but.........they are not guarenteed:

Huh?

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426

Court:

INTERNATIONAL LAW

The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the
sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.
....

Wake the fuck up and read it in (and leave it in) context. There is none in terms of embassies and missions and whatnot as is commonly supposed.

Any dumbass can clip a sentence and paste a fucking dictionary entry about royalty. Don't be one of those dumbasses.

Ron

yeh ok Ron but that is not what you said.

So now by the same device you use, I can say you are claiming that I did not say what I just quoted myself saying. Context is immaterial.

You are not good at semantic arguements buddy, english being a second language for you, don't try to make them you will only further weaken your case.

Ron

Ron in green was referring to your bold black underlined.

You had a stand alone statement that is incorrect and neither did you justification support your claim.....sorry.

Do we really have to do this?

forget it I am done with this.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 1/4/2010 3:35:05 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 41

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 3:45:05 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

As to your ranting about an embassy closure and all the attendant saber rattling I have noticed that those most interested in a military solution are not the least interested in being part of that military solution.
This is an observation by one who has, on numerous occasions, been part of that "military solution".

Good for you - Congratulations - and a sincere thanks for your service!

Now - what's any of that have to do with my position and how is it in contradiction to yours?

Going beyond the relativity to the Dunkirk retreat being appropriate or not; such astute insight and experience should enable you to educate me of the strategy being employed by surrendering the Embassy and how employing it there is different or compares to other present day examples of US intervention, occupation and/or police actions being conducted in the rest of the world. Why is the security risk too great there as compared to other middle east embassy locations?

You assume I advocate a "military solution"? It couldn't be further from the truth. That isn't my focus. We have some kind of national policy for US security; yet the most recent perpetrator of an enemy attack is not being militarily interrogated. He's being protected under and by the current policy of this Administration to not identify him, or those who supported and assisted him in his mission, as terrorists or enemies. He is an "isolated extremist", yet a few days later enough information comes forth which results in the closing of the US Yemen embassy.

This makes sense to you? My lack of being part of any "military solution" disqualifies me to point out the inconsistency of actions?

I seek military, and political philosophy consistency. If we surrendered every embassy under threat - no problem. If we had a policy of never getting involved in any situation putting military and/or civilian personal at risk - no problem. If we had a consistent policy of presenting a clear and strong stance for the so inclined to be influenced 'hearts & minds' of "isolated extremists" - no problem.

Reconciling the actions and the rhetoric to date from this Administration, with this surrender - problem.

You've cited my admitted formal education time waste twice - I assume it's relevant to your argument - you don't see the comparison to other examples of surrendering now for an ultimately better future result; but you miss providing any other knowledge or perspective to consider. Other than disclosing your being part of a "military solution" I've learned nothing and, to me, that is an example of a worse case exchange of dialog. I await your insight to be enlightened.

BTW - If, to you, being part of a "military solution" is a requirement to contribute or comment on a military solution do you also disqualify any position taken by the current President or did he gain instant credibility the moment he became 'Commander-in-Chief'?

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 42

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 4:15:39 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Good for you - Congratulations - and a sincere thanks for your service!

Since I have mentioned on more than one occasion that my military service did nothing to protect my country and that all I did was to make rich people richer and poor people dead.
Why on earth would anyone thank me for doing that?

T.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 43

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 4:20:50 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

I say this

quote:

As to your ranting about an embassy closure and all the attendant saber rattling I have noticed that those most interested in a military solution are not the least interested in being part of that military solution.
This is an observation by one who has, on numerous occasions, been part of that "military solution".

and you say this

quote:

My lack of being part of any "military solution" disqualifies me to point out the inconsistency of actions?

How do you make such jumps in logic.
Lack of military experience does not disqualify you from having an opinion it simply makes your opinion uninformed on maters military.

T.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 1/4/2010 4:25:02 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 44

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 4:28:01 PM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I seek military, and political philosophy consistency.

...in a combat situation that's bad tactics. Try it out next time you play chess. Always make the same ten opening moves and see where that gets you against a half decent player.

You say you do not advocate a military solution; however who, other than the military, gets to defend embassies? Now i know a little earlier i praised inconsistency as a worthwhile tactic in combat......but who are you actually fighting here?

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 45

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 4:51:16 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Lack of military experience does not disqualify you from having an opinion it simply makes your opinion uninformed on maters military

You just disqualified most people from giving an opinion on most matters discussed on CM. Or is that only directed toward me and the President regarding our similar military background?

Is your knowledge on the matter, still as of yet undisclosed, below my security clearance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Good for you - Congratulations - and a sincere thanks for your service!

Since I have mentioned on more than one occasion that my military service did nothing to protect my country and that all I did was to make rich people richer and poor people dead.
Why on earth would anyone thank me for doing that?
T.

I cite the reason as my general appreciation for those who have and are serving in the military combined with not tracking you and your posts. On the other hand, obviously, you have been tracking mine.

Your lack of response, intelligent or other, to any direct question or position points to me not having missed out on learning anything.

However - THANKS again! One question though - how can you be sure that everyone you or the military you claim to be part, only made "poor people dead"? Not everyone carries their wallet into battle. I'm sure even the subsequently determined rich Mr. Abdulmutallab didn't bring all his money and assets onto the airliner he was planning on blowing up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

in a combat situation that's bad tactics. Try it out next time you play chess. Always make the same ten opening moves and see where that gets you against a half decent player.

My goal in chess, as it should be in war, is to win. The consistency I reference is in the goal, not how you got there and certainly not a uncompromising 10 play game plan. In both chess and war there are causalities incurred even in winning; which is why I believe the Dunkirk reference appropriate. I thought it gave a historic reference where retreat and/or surrender affected an eventual victory.

Keeping in the same game reference perhaps you have stumbled onto the goal, not only of this Administration but of all who have their similar failures compared. Perhaps the goal isn't to win, or lose; maybe what is being sought is what been achieved - 'stalemate'. Too representative of the 'tin-foil' hat club?

Edited to Add:

quote:

You say you do not advocate a military solution; however who, other than the military, gets to defend embassies?

I realized this wasn't clear after hitting the post button.

I don't advocate a preemptive military solution to any and all threats; but similar to defending and applying all necessary and available resources to the US border, I advocate ratcheting up the military defense of the US embassy. I do not consider those positions in opposition unless it is now US policy for marines at any US embassy to throw down their arms and surrender anytime someone comes in with a note telling them the security of their embassy is in question.

quote:

who are you actually fighting here?

Good question - add to it, why Yemen, why now? I bring up the "hearts & minds" reference for just that reason.

I love chess! Permit me to use the reference one more time!

Who got the better in the exchange of the 'pawn' on board that flight for the 'castle' embassy in Yemen?

Happy 2010 to you Philo!

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 1/4/2010 5:09:58 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 46

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 4:59:23 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I thought it was played en passant.

Ruy Lopez

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 47

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 5:41:37 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

Lack of military experience does not disqualify you from having an opinion it simply makes your opinion uninformed on maters military

quote:

You just disqualified most people from giving an opinion on most matters discussed on CM. Or is that only directed toward me and the President regarding our similar military background?

The fact that you are uninformed has never stopped you or any other fool from commenting on things you know nothing about.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 48

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/4/2010 5:58:19 PM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Good for you - Congratulations - and a sincere thanks for your service!

quote:

Since I have mentioned on more than one occasion that my military service did nothing to protect my country and that all I did was to make rich people richer and poor people dead.
Why on earth would anyone thank me for doing that?
T.

quote:

I cite the reason as my general appreciation for those who have and are serving in the military combined with not tracking you and your posts. On the other hand, obviously, you have been tracking mine.

So now it is your position that all of our wars have been for national defense and none have been for the agrandisement of the rich and powerful?...thus your knee jerk response to "those who have served"
That $2.00 made in china "support the troops" bumper sticker and your "kind words" ...I am sure the vets all appreciate that but when was the last time you went down to the VA hospital and took one of those derilects out to lunch or got one of them laid?
Now Merc you are quite aware of tracking my posts as you and I have exchanged hundreds of posts back and forth over the years and that does not begin to address the many C/mail exchanges we have had so why do you act so disingenuous?

T.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 49

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 8:36:17 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

However - THANKS again! One question though - how can you be sure that everyone you or the military you claim to be part, only made "poor people dead"? Not everyone carries their wallet into battle. I'm sure even the subsequently determined rich Mr. Abdulmutallab didn't bring all his money and assets onto the airliner he was planning on blowing up

Your ignorance of things military is showing again.
Whether you wish to accept it or not the sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not become enlisted grunts. Yes there are the exceptions, which by their very derth proves rather than disproves the rule.

T.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 50

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 8:48:47 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

I love chess! Permit me to use the reference one more time!

Who got the better in the exchange of the 'pawn' on board that flight for the 'castle' embassy in Yemen?

The article that you posted in the OP does not make that connection.
Here is what it did say

quote:

Another senior administration official told CNN late Sunday that the closing of the U.S. Embassy was because of a specific, credible and ongoing threat. No additional details were provided.

So it would appear that there was no "pawn swap" but rather a reaction to a "specific, credible and ongoing threat"
You may love chess but I hope you don't try playing for money.

T.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 51

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 9:05:52 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Now Merc you are quite aware of tracking my posts as you and have exchanged hundreds of posts back and forth over the years and that does not begin to address the many C/mail exchanges we have had so why do you act so disingenuous?

Thompson, no - I still do not associate your posts on this thread with any prior correspondence. Nor do I instantly associate your icon and name to the identity of a disenfranchised military veteran. If I did, I would not change a word. I have many email and cmail exchanges on a variety of subjects. I'm not being "disingenuous", I'm being honest. If we had any long exchange of email I'm sure I said to you, as I say to all regarding any subject; disagreement on issues and/or philosophy does not eliminate the possibility of friendship. Indeed having good arguments and counterpoints especially in disagreement, would facilitate that relationship and exchange.

However, at least in this exchange, you've done neither. Every example of fact I give is an "exception"; yet no contrary broad resource confirmed arguments. If its important, the last time went down to a VA hospital was before moving to LA. I don't make a habit of taking "derelicts out to lunch"; however no man or woman in uniform has every paid for a drink or their meal at any restaurant where I happen to see them. I also try my best to leave or at worse not let them know it was me who did that. Your point?

Today you start the day with another; "your ignorance of things military is showing again." I'll take it that's your stance on anything - I have no idea why and under what circumstances I would have "exchanged hundred of posts" and ""many C/mail exchanges" with someone resorting to that level of debate. I'll take your word for it, but again - your point?

Having insight to offer regarding this situation and its comparison, or lack of, to prior military retreats and/or surrenders from a military background - I'd love to hear it; as I would hearing similar socio-economic statistics regarding our military. That doesn't change the facts regarding this case - a rich, labeled by our President, "isolated extremist" succeeding in the US surrendering its embassy in Yemen.

Want to talk about that?

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 52

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 9:26:54 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Thompson, no - I still do not associate your posts on this thread with any prior correspondence. Nor do I instantly associate your icon and name to the identity of a disenfranchised military veteran.

How did you get "disenfranchised military vereran from anything I have posted?

As for our posting history just avail yourself of the search function.

quote:

Today you start the day with another; "your ignorance of things military is showing again." I'll take it that's your stance on anything - I have no idea why and under what circumstances I would have "exchanged hundred of posts" and ""many C/mail exchanges" with someone resorting to that level of debate. I'll take your word for it, but again - your point?

Perhaps the problem here is that you do not understand what the word ignornat means.
It simply means you do not know some particular thing. I do not speak Cantonese therefore I am ignorant of Cantonese.
That you are ignorant of things military does not mean that you stupid it means only that you not aware of how things work in the military. So stop getting your knickers in a twist when I point out that you are unaware of something.
I have told you many times I am not interested in debate. I am interested in discussion.
T.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 53

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 9:42:17 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

That you are ignorant of things military does not mean that you stupid it means only that you not aware of how things work in the military.

I am ignorant about more things than I am knowledgable. That doesn't preclude me from giving an opinoin based upon my level of ignorace. I can only get less ignorant when those opinions are reponsed to with facts and resources that I didn't previous have in my knowledge base. Want to provide some?

quote:

Perhaps the problem here is that you do not understand what the word ignornat means.

No - I don't know what "ignornat" means. I'll look that one up while you do the same with "disenfranchised".

quote:

I am interested in discussion.

Were that the case you would have posted something to discuss.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 54

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 10:10:58 AM

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

No - I don't know what "ignornat" means. I'll look that one up while you do the same with "disenfranchised".

It would appear that your concept of discussion is pointing out spelling errors. Which is an indicator of a lack of ability to discuss the topic.

T.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 55

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 10:43:59 AM

LadyEllen

Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline

So Mercnbeth, in summary then, Obama is a cowardly idiot kow-towing to terrorists because he makes a decision, based on far more information than we have, not to allow a few dozen citizens to be at risk of attack for no good reason.

I'm afraid Thompson is quite correct in his verdict.

Obstinately attempting to hold a position which is under immediate threat leads to the loss of the position and of your personnel and materiel. It may be "glorious" to recount if you like the "old lie" but it achieves nothing. This was the great mistake made by Adolf Hitler with his policy of never retreating one step.

Withdrawing from the position, should opportunity be available, not only frustrates the threat and wastes the enemy resources in mounting it, but also safeguards your personnel and materiel for more useful application later. The position is still lost we note, but lost with no significant damage to our resources, except perhaps our retinue of after dinner war stories. This was the more minor mistake made by Adolf Hitler, to allow the BEF to embark for England rather than destroying it at Dunkerque; the BEF took the opportunity presented rather than fight to the last man.

Now if the position is of vital strategic importance, the argument may be reversed somewhat. Depending on its importance it may be unconscionable to risk its loss and every attempt may have to be made to maintain it against all attack. This is a matter of judgment for the commander based on experience and knowledge of the greater strategy; it appears he has made his decision.

My judgment, based on the experience of history and an impression of the greater strategy, is that the Embassies in Yemen do not justify the losses that may be anticipated from defending them as if they were strategically important positions, for quite simply they are not. We have very little to gain from defending them and potentially a great deal to lose if we do, especially if they are overrun and military intelligence is thereby compromised.

By withdrawing we can assess the situation, take any action available to us to deal with the threat and then return later if it is worthwhile to do so. By staying put, we achieve nothing but "glory", and "glory" does not win wars.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 56

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 11:38:41 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

I'm afraid Thompson is quite correct in his verdict.

Of course he is! His intellectual discourse, facts provided, contradictory evidence, and general irrelevance ranging from my military service to dining with derelicts, getting veterans laid, and my personal last visit to a VA clinic, was overwhelming!

I happy to let the exchanges between us stand for exactly what they represent.

quote:

Mercnbeth, in summary then, Obama is a cowardly idiot kow-towing to terrorists because he makes a decision, based on far more information than we have, not to allow a few dozen citizens to be at risk of attack for no good reason.

I appreciate your opinion if you feel that way.

On the other hand, I don't think an "isolated extremists", to quote President Obama, is consistent with the actions. Either this is the result of an organized enemy or it isn't. There was a point of disconnected reality often pointed to in the Bush administration; his "Mission Accomplished" 'victory' aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Was there a similar proclamation made by Obama that I missed?

There must have been since there is no longer any 'war' being fought against 'Terrorists' or 'Terror'. There must not be a war, because if there was, Mr. Adbulmutallab would be considered a enemy from the other side wouldn't he? Based upon his known history, actions, and affiliations; if he isn't he's at minimum an ally to our enemy. But he's not being treated as such. He is not being held and interrogated by the military. He's being treated as if he turned off the smoke detector in the lavatory; given all the benefits of the US court system. That is what is happening to him.

How do you reconcile this in your mind? Mr. Adbulmatallab is only an "isolated extremist"? There is no organized enemy of the US? He's only another misunderstood, poor (well in his case rich), religious middle east male who took in with a bad crowd?

I guess the consequential actions taken, with more to come, are an overreaction? Help me understand why if that is the case, we have on the other hand the TSA release acceptable profiling standards; full body scans are being put in place and pissing during the last hour of flights - prohibited. Oh yeah - and we abandoned, closed, surrendered, (you pick) the Yemen embassy.

At best those actions are inconsistent with the President's label of "isolated extremist".

At worst it points to the "transparency" curtain promised by this Administration being lead lined.

quote:

My judgment, based on the experience of history and an impression of the greater strategy, is that the Embassies in Yemen do not justify the losses that may be anticipated from defending them as if they were strategically important positions, for quite simply they are not. We have very little to gain from defending them and potentially a great deal to lose if we do, especially if they are overrun and military intelligence is thereby compromised.

Then you must not feel one of the cornerstones of President Obama's position toward radical Islam, converting the "hearts and minds", is a battle worth fighting.

Who won "hearts & minds" considering that Mr. Adbulmutallab is a hero who achieved closing an embassy? Whether he did so or not doesn't change the propaganda opportunity won for al Qaeda, lost in my opinion, by this Administration.

It's your opinion that we are "withdrawing" to "assess the situation"; with nothing other than the achievement of "glory" which" does not win wars". What does? Once appropriately 'assessed', how and what will be implemented to turn around the perception of those unfriendly (avoiding the use of enemy like my President) "isolated extremists" wanting to blow up our jets like Mr. Adbulmatallab; and see 'victory' in the closing of an embassy?

Again - appreciating the difference of opinion.

(in reply to LadyEllen)

Post #: 57

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 11:55:36 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

Meanwhile....
The U.S. Embassy reopened Tuesday after Yemeni security forces conducted what it called "successful counter-terrorism operations" north of the capital Monday that "addressed a specific area of concern." The embassy's statement referred to a reported Yemeni attack on militants of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in the mountainous Arhab area. Two militants were killed in the fighting, two others were wounded, and other members of the group, including its leader, were forced to flee, the Interior Ministry reported.

Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi warned that the United States "should learn from its experiences in Pakistan and Afghanistan and not repeat the mistakes in Yemen, both in dealing with the government of Yemen and confronting al-Qaeda." The United States and other Western powers, he said, need to provide long-term economic development to reduce poverty and raise educational standards, which he said can help combat terrorism "in a more effective fashion than just using military force." Back in the day that was called extortion - now it's politics as usual.

All is well once again! YEAH!

< Message edited by Mercnbeth -- 1/5/2010 11:57:48 AM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 58

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 12:00:03 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
your concept of discussion...an indicator of a lack of ability to discuss the topic.

T.

I see I wasn't the first to recognize Mercland.

I'm starting to like this guy.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Post #: 59

RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender - 1/5/2010 12:12:15 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Merc,

now that the situation is resolved, don't you feel a little less than pragmatic, or even a little sheepish about this sky is falling shit?

LOL.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The US Administration: Another Day - Another Surrender

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094