Missile Defense - Fuck in the arse or good defense strategy?

[Stormbringer]

And what evidence do you have that Col. Patterson is lying? He's not a political commentator but a former USAF Officer. Simply dimissing a senior officer like that simply because of the publisher doesn't address the point at all.

It looks very interesting, but could you provide a specific example of an action Clinton took that prevented the capture or death of Bin Laden? And the Jordanian back-door thing doesn't count.

As Nathan F actually pointed out already, delayed giving the orders to take out bin Laden so he could finish his game of golf.

[Iceberg]

And what evidence do you have that Col. Patterson is lying? He's not a political commentator but a former USAF Officer. Simply dimissing a senior officer like that simply because of the publisher doesn't address the point at all.

It looks very interesting, but could you provide a specific example of an action Clinton took that prevented the capture or death of Bin Laden? And the Jordanian back-door thing doesn't count.

As Nathan F actually pointed out already, delayed giving the orders to take out bin Laden so he could finish his game of golf.

An incident that Sandy Berger flatly refused ever happened.

[The Kernel]

Quoth GS.org

How the hell did I miss this one...

Anyways, you're right and that is increadibly fucked up.

[Stormbringer]

agree that we need to stem the tide of nuclear prolifiration, I just don't think that SDI is the way to do it. Economic incentives for countries that agree to weapons inspections might be a decent approach and has been fielded by several administrations.

The problem isn't so much proliferation, it's the nations that it's already been proliferated to. And even then that hasn't worked with nations like North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran. All of them have refused deals of that sort.

In the case of North Korea in particular, I think that they are just blowing smoke while looking for us to relax trade sanctions. It might be worth exploring if they agree to certain provisions including full nuclear disarmerment.

Again, the problem isn't dealing with them while they're in power, it's when they're on the way out that's the problem.

Even if we grant that, do you really think it will go that far? Do you think he would rather destroy his country then relax his totalitarian policies and agree to disarm?

Given that he's driven his country into a starving ruin already, yes. If we pushed him he would do it simply out of spite, with out a doubt.

[The Kernel]

And what evidence do you have that Col. Patterson is lying? He's not a political commentator but a former USAF Officer. Simply dimissing a senior officer like that simply because of the publisher doesn't address the point at all.

It looks very interesting, but could you provide a specific example of an action Clinton took that prevented the capture or death of Bin Laden? And the Jordanian back-door thing doesn't count.

As Nathan F actually pointed out already, delayed giving the orders to take out bin Laden so he could finish his game of golf.

I meant describe the incident beyone just "had the opportunity to take him out but had to finish golf". Got a link with a description of this particular event? I will get the book from the library if necessary, but I was hoping for a synopsis.

[Stormbringer]

It looks very interesting, but could you provide a specific example of an action Clinton took that prevented the capture or death of Bin Laden? And the Jordanian back-door thing doesn't count.

As Nathan F actually pointed out already, delayed giving the orders to take out bin Laden so he could finish his game of golf.

An incident that Sandy Berger flatly refused ever happened.

So? It's a Clinton official's word versus that of a respectable officer. Tough call.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
I agree that we need to stem the tide of nuclear prolifiration, I just don't think that SDI is the way to do it. Economic incentives for countries that agree to weapons inspections might be a decent approach and has been fielded by several administrations.

In the case of North Korea in particular, I think that they are just blowing smoke while looking for us to relax trade sanctions. It might be worth exploring if they agree to certain provisions including full nuclear disarmerment.

These nations have seen what happned in Iraq, India and Pakisatan. They all know, as does the rest of the world that if you want to have your favored anti US forign policy you have to have a credible nulear deterrance. Kims Dong is Small has demonstrated a willingness to starve his own people to get his deterrance because he knows that the US will not attack him if he has it. When he has it he will be in a position to relax some of his more extreme policies in saftey.

[The Kernel]

So? It's a Clinton official's word versus that of a respectable officer. Tough call.

Indeed, but past political scandels have shown us that you always should have more then one person providing evidence, especially if that person was merely a witness to the actions, not a player.

[Iceberg]

As Nathan F actually pointed out already, delayed giving the orders to take out bin Laden so he could finish his game of golf.

An incident that Sandy Berger flatly refused ever happened.

So? It's a Clinton official's word versus that of a respectable officer. Tough call.[/quote]
Nice poisoning-the-well fallacy, there.

We have a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force claiming that Clinton couldn't be bothered to confirm Sandy Berger's order to take out Al Qaeda. We have Sandy Berger himself saying that this is false.

This being the same Sandy Berger whose detailed strategy for destroying Al Qaeda sat, unopened and unread, on Condoleezza Rice's desk for nine months from January 20 to September 12, 2001.

You're right, that's a tough call indeed.

[The Kernel]

These nations have seen what happned in Iraq, India and Pakisatan. They all know, as does the rest of the world that if you want to have your favored anti US forign policy you have to have a credible nulear deterrance. Kims Dong is Small has demonstrated a willingness to starve his own people to get his deterrance because he knows that the US will not attack him if he has it. When he has it he will be in a position to relax some of his more extreme policies in saftey.

Are you suggesting that we just sit back and let him do that? I'm not so much concerned about his nuclear weapons as his ability to prolong the existance of his evil regime.

[Stormbringer]

So? It's a Clinton official's word versus that of a respectable officer. Tough call.

Indeed, but past political scandels have shown us that you always should have more then one person providing evidence, especially if that person was merely a witness to the actions, not a player.

The problem is that in those cases it comes down to Clinton's people vs Patterson. I know who I trust.

[Stormbringer]

Nice poisoning-the-well fallacy, there.

We have a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force claiming that Clinton couldn't be bothered to confirm Sandy Berger's order to take out Al Qaeda. We have Sandy Berger himself saying that this is false.

Well, jeez, given the reputation of the Clinton administration for playing with the truth one does have to wonder.

[The Kernel]

So? It's a Clinton official's word versus that of a respectable officer. Tough call.

Indeed, but past political scandels have shown us that you always should have more then one person providing evidence, especially if that person was merely a witness to the actions, not a player.

The problem is that in those cases it comes down to Clinton's people vs Patterson. I know who I trust.

This isn't about trust. It's about interpretation. Patterson wasn't privy to the events around him, he was a bystander. He may not have always understood the implications of what was going on.

I trust that HE believes he is telling the truth, but like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[Iceberg]

So? It's a Clinton official's word versus that of a respectable officer. Tough call.

Indeed, but past political scandels have shown us that you always should have more then one person providing evidence, especially if that person was merely a witness to the actions, not a player.

The problem is that in those cases it comes down to Clinton's people vs Patterson. I know who I trust.

Awful convenient when you ignore the voices of anybody contradicting your chosen sources, isn't it?

[Stormbringer]

This isn't about trust. It's about interpretation. Patterson wasn't privy to the events around him, he was a bystander. He may not have always understood the implications of what was going on.

I trust that HE believes he is telling the truth, but like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Exactly how can you misinterperate that stuff? Please, I'd like to hear it.

[Stormbringer]

Indeed, but past political scandels have shown us that you always should have more then one person providing evidence, especially if that person was merely a witness to the actions, not a player.

The problem is that in those cases it comes down to Clinton's people vs Patterson. I know who I trust.

Awful convenient when you ignore the voices of anybody contradicting your chosen sources, isn't it?

Funny how you've given nothing to discredit him or his reputationr. Just produced a Clinton offical that said: "nugh uh." That doesn't do much to counter the word of a respectable and impartial officer.

[Iceberg]

The problem is that in those cases it comes down to Clinton's people vs Patterson. I know who I trust.

Awful convenient when you ignore the voices of anybody contradicting your chosen sources, isn't it?

Funny how you've given nothing to discredit him or his reputationr. Just produced a Clinton offical that said: "nugh uh." That doesn't do much to counter the word of a respectable and impartial officer.

Funny how you assume "respectable and impartial" of a man who wrote what is essentially a kiss-and-tell biography of Clinton.

[The Kernel]

This isn't about trust. It's about interpretation. Patterson wasn't privy to the events around him, he was a bystander. He may not have always understood the implications of what was going on.

I trust that HE believes he is telling the truth, but like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Exactly how can you misinterperate that stuff? Please, I'd like to hear it.

Since I can't seem to find the synopsis of the events, I'll have to get back to you on that until I get a chance to read the book (which certainly sounds interesting) unless someone can provide a link to this specific event. But from the sound of things, Patterson was a nuclear football carrier, not an analyst, nor was he privy to the intelligence reports the president was getting.

Hell, I don't even know from the information you guys have given me that there even WAS a real chance of taking out Bin Laden in that situation. The only one I am personally familiar with was the backdoor negotiation with the Jordinian business man which was entirely bullshit to begin with. If there was another event, I'll be more then willing to read and come to a conclusion, so I'll hold off on judgement till then.

[Nathan F]

Awful convenient when you ignore the voices of anybody contradicting your chosen sources, isn't it?

Funny how you've given nothing to discredit him or his reputationr. Just produced a Clinton offical that said: "nugh uh." That doesn't do much to counter the word of a respectable and impartial officer.

Funny how you assume "respectable and impartial" of a man who wrote what is essentially a kiss-and-tell biography of Clinton.

Have you actually read the book? The jist of the book is that he actually felt sorry he had to do it, not only does he say it first off (and that he actually liked Clinton as a person), and from the style of writing. Everything is matter of fact, and I didn't catch any purely political jabs at him.

Read the book before automatically dismissing what is said.

[Stormbringer]

Since I can't seem to find the synopsis of the events, I'll have to get back to you on that until I get a chance to read the book (which certainly sounds interesting) unless someone can provide a link to this specific event. But from the sound of things, Patterson was a nuclear football carrier, not an analyst, nor was he privy to the intelligence reports the president was getting.

It doesn't take an intelligence analyst to know Clinton blew off a chance to take out Bin Laden to play golf. That could easily by verified by a bystander (which Patterson as football carrier is).

[Iceberg]

Just out of curiosity, is there ANY condition that would convince you that Berger is telling the truth?

[Stuart Mackey]

These nations have seen what happned in Iraq, India and Pakisatan. They all know, as does the rest of the world that if you want to have your favored anti US forign policy you have to have a credible nulear deterrance. Kims Dong is Small has demonstrated a willingness to starve his own people to get his deterrance because he knows that the US will not attack him if he has it. When he has it he will be in a position to relax some of his more extreme policies in saftey.

Are you suggesting that we just sit back and let him do that? I'm not so much concerned about his nuclear weapons as his ability to prolong the existance of his evil regime.

Well how do you think anyone can stop him short of all out war?.

America/Japan/S Korea are in a really shitty position: Go to war and possibly take large amounts of casualties to stop a fuck head from getting nukes. Such casualties are soldiers however.
Let said fuck head get nukes and live in fear that he may use them on one of your cities, causeing the loss of untold innocent civvies, as opposed to soldiers. He could do this for no apparent reason other than he had a hangover one morning.

He might use nukes, he might not, you just dont know. But one thing is certain, sanctions will not work in this case.

[The Kernel]

Since I can't seem to find the synopsis of the events, I'll have to get back to you on that until I get a chance to read the book (which certainly sounds interesting) unless someone can provide a link to this specific event. But from the sound of things, Patterson was a nuclear football carrier, not an analyst, nor was he privy to the intelligence reports the president was getting.

It doesn't take an intelligence analyst to know Clinton blew off a chance to take out Bin Laden to play golf. That could easily by verified by a bystander (which Patterson as football carrier is).

Oh, really? This man assumes that it was because Clinton was watching Golf on TV that he didn't order the airstrike on IRAQ. Did it occur to him that it might be because the intelligence just wasn't good enough to substantiat an attack on a foreign nation because there was a terrorist suspected to be there? Don't bullshit me, this guy couldn't have know all the variables involved, nor Clinton's motives in not ordering an airstrike. After all, it wouldn't have looked good if the intelligence turned up another Asprin factory would it?

As for his impartiality, look at these quotes:

"In my humble opinion Bill Clinton should have been impeached for losing the nuclear codes. It was a spectacular violation of our national security laws and a cavalier betrayal of the public trust." --Do I need to tell you what's wrong with this statement?

"Lying was just second nature to Clinton. His lies were so smooth, so carefully crafted and so larger than life."

These don't sound like the quotes of an impartial, regretful man to me.

[MKSheppard]

"In my humble opinion Bill Clinton should have been impeached for losing the nuclear codes. It was a spectacular violation of our national security laws and a cavalier betrayal of the public trust." --Do I need to tell you what's wrong with this statement?

Then you're a fucking moron. The President MUST have access to the
nuclear launch codes, at all times, it is a matter of national security,
or why the fuck do you think you have people walking around with
the god damn football chained to their fucking wrists wherever the
president goes? If he goes jogging, the football carrier goes jogging
behind him, no matter what the weather.

[MKSheppard]

Not to mention it is fucking depressing to the people who are ordered to
defend said football with their LIVES if necessary, to see their CINC
fucking losing the god damn launch codes.