|
Post by Mink on Apr 14, 2009 21:32:58 GMT -5
Joe, if my kid was in international waters in that area, I would have to realize he/she has entered a danger zone. Please read the link I posted above. here it is again: www.asil.org/insights090206.cfmBesides, how do we know ? The pres. may have authorized early on and the admiral in charge waited until the right moment?
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 15, 2009 0:02:43 GMT -5
please tell me what the hell "international waters" has to do with anything?
why do you keep repeating that as a qualifier in your responses?
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 15, 2009 0:19:41 GMT -5
I think that people who support the idea that Obama was hands-on in the decision to rescue the American captain have been watching too much "24." What would Jack Bauer do?
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Apr 15, 2009 9:25:31 GMT -5
I don't watch "24" but it sounds like maybe I should start! Instead I watch the news and I did search the net and read link, after link claiming Obama supported the Navy's intended operation, too many to post, and in fact if I did choose one of them to make a subtle point I am sure I would choose the wrong one. I would be accused of taking a liberal stance, and be ripped to shreds for being ignorant...
To address the point about my child being in danger, well I would hope that the party in charge of rescuing him would use strategy, intelligence, and precision.
Just ignore my previous attempt at making a positive point since I am not a government insider with privileged information, but instead a bystander that hopes we can find a shred of good with our current administration instead of ALL doom and gloom. Life is too short to perpetuate a self fulfilling prophecy of seeing our country collapse just so we can be proven "right."
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 15, 2009 12:09:47 GMT -5
I don't watch "24" but it sounds like maybe I should start! Instead I watch the news and I did search the net and read link, after link claiming Obama supported the Navy's intended operation, too many to post, and in fact if I did choose one of them to make a subtle point I am sure I would choose the wrong one. I would be accused of taking a liberal stance, and be ripped to shreds for being ignorant... To address the point about my child being in danger, well I would hope that the party in charge of rescuing him would use strategy, intelligence, and precision. Just ignore my previous attempt at making a positive point since I am not a government insider with privileged information, but instead a bystander that hopes we can find a shred of good with our current administration instead of ALL doom and gloom. Life is too short to perpetuate a self fulfilling prophecy of seeing our country collapse just so we can be proven "right." Sorry I guess I am being mis-interpreted here which is easy enough in a virtual world. I don’t want to see anyone or anything fail, for anyone on any side of the aisle in America to be “right”. What I would like to see is actual unbiased equal reporting on matters that pertain to the Presidency of the USA. The media and Obamaites have made it out to be a “Jack Bauer 24” situation where BHO “Made the tough call”, but in reality he was nearly too little too late. And furthermore to that I am sure that had GWB done the EXACT same thing, I mean to the second. The media and talking heads from the left would have painted him as a “rogue cowboy” who should have waited for “Negotiations”.. This upsets me from any angle , I wish reporting could go back to REPORTING and not opinionating…which is what we get. A gutted pick and choose telling of any and every event, sad really.
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 15, 2009 12:34:38 GMT -5
“This upsets me from any angle , I wish reporting could go back to REPORTING and not opinionating…which is what we get. A gutted pick and choose telling of any and every event, sad really. The actual pure reporting that so many of us long for was really a pretty short lived thing that really didn't start until WWII. Before that most papers were pretty opinionated. See this: query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9902E5D7143EEE34BC4051DFB166838F679FDEThat is pretty typical of reporting until at least the 1920s, and it carried on in many papers until the 1940s. Then we had a few decades of pretty much straight reporting. Now it seems we are going back to the more traditional form.
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 20, 2009 0:38:37 GMT -5
Back on track here..... Over the weekend, we saw why the Somali pirates will continue to raid ships until the US does something about it. This is from Google News: Unbelievable! They had them and they let them go! Maybe the Canucks made the pirates promise to "go forth and sin no more." I can hear it now: "I will" (snicker, snicker). What will it take for the nations of the free world to acknowledge that Somali piratism is just another form of terrorism? Is America the only one that can get serious about this?
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Apr 20, 2009 0:53:01 GMT -5
Should have given them a few seconds worth of 20 mike mike.
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Apr 25, 2009 0:28:20 GMT -5
Anti-pirate defense system:
And, you wonder why brass is getting expensive?
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 25, 2009 1:06:32 GMT -5
one on the bow, one on the stern.
pirate problem solved.
|
|