A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes - Page 193

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
no, I haven't.

Wow. That's surprising. I see them all the time -- within my office, in getting discovery, etc. From my experience questioning people about documents they authored, or received, once the memo is initialed by the author/sender, it's a pretty safe bet that it was final and sent. It's unclear to me what else the initials could possibly mean.

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Out of curiousity, why do you need 2 black belts. Does the first make you a bad enough ass?

Any number of reasons -- you decide to change instructors, you move and have to come up through the ranks in a different school/style, or you decide to learn a new style or system. For me it was a combination of these factors.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-11-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Was the Clinton Administration aware of it? Yes. Was the Bush Administration? Yes. But, I think both Administrations failed to sufficiently address the threat. What do you think the Clinton Admin did?

I think they did the many things discussed in Richard Clarke's book and The Age of Sacred Terror. I recommend both.

If you're not going to read them, you could try the 9/11 Commission's report. Check out page 174 (President Clinton "deeply concerned" about Al Qaeda), page 101 (Clinton makes chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism a priority), page 109 (Clinton establishes the "bin Laden unit"), page 358 (Clinton's management of the last weeks of December 1999), page 487 (Clinton Administration successful in arresting Al Qaeda members), or page 457 (Clarke runs mission where terrorists use a plane for a suicide mission).

Then look at page 202 (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz argued against retaliation for the bombing of the USS Cole, saying the issue was "stale"), page 208 (Bush neglected to fill the key counterterrorism policy office in the Pentagon after the former official departed January 20), page 201 (Clarke submits memo to Condisaying "we urgently need... a Principals level review on the al Qida network" -- you've seen this memo now), page 201 (no Principals Committee meeting on al Qaeda held until September 4, 2001), page 203 (Principals Committee meetings on Iraq and Sudan held before one on al Qaeda), page 509 (32 Principals Committee meetings held on subjects other than al Qaeda before 9/11), page 200 (Rice downgrades the Counterterrorism Security Group), page 197 (12/00 "Blue Sky" memo on terrorism urges increased support to Northern Alliance and Uzbeks to fight Taliban and al Qaeda), or page 202 (White House postpones aid to Northern Alliance and Uzbeks).

Could they have done more? Both books acknowledge as much.

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
makes him look taller.

Just out of curiousity -- if I were short, what would that prove in your, um, mind?

Or is this just Detroit-style lawyering? "Yes, Your Honor, he has the facts and the law on his side, but I'm taller."

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that's why I can't engage here anymore.

From the 75 posts you've made today, that line makes the most sense.

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think both Administrations failed to sufficiently address the threat.

You may be the first Repub to say this. Certainly the first I've seen on this Board, and probably in any context. It would seem obvious -- 3000 people died at the hands of someone who effectively declared war on the US in the 90s, does anyone think that either the guy who was President when the declaration was made or the guy who was elected nearly a year before the attacks "sufficiently address[ed]" the problem? -- yet I don't think any of your cohorts have been willing to suggest that Bush shares the slightest shred of blame.

sgtclub · 02-11-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You may be the first Repub to say this. Certainly the first I've seen on this Board, and probably in any context. It would seem obvious -- 3000 people died at the hands of someone who effectively declared war on the US in the 90s, does anyone think that either the guy who was President when the declaration was made or the guy who was elected nearly a year before the attacks "sufficiently address[ed]" the problem? -- yet I don't think any of your cohorts have been willing to suggest that Bush shares the slightest shred of blame.

It's fucking obvious. There were failures all around.

What do you mean by cohorts? I don't think I'm breaking new ground here, but maybe you just mean on this board.

Ty - when Sidd and I, sworn mortal enemies, agree, it must be true.

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
What do you mean by cohorts? I don't think I'm breaking new ground here, but maybe you just mean on this board.

I mean on this board.

Replaced_Texan · 02-11-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty - when Sidd and I, sworn mortal enemies, agree, it must be true.

What sort of belts do you wear when you and Sidd rumble? Are there duels? Do you have a second?

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
What sort of belts do you wear when you and Sidd rumble? Are there duels? Do you have a second?

It hasn't happened yet but we're discussing naked oil-wrestling. You want to be my training partner?

[confidential to club]No, I'm not serious, but work with me on this -- and pick your desired "training partner" too.[/confidential to club]

Sidd Finch · 02-11-2005, 07:17 PM

Anyone care to guess what NK actually wants? I'm not suggesting NK should get anything, but I'm wondering if there is a motivation here, or is Kim just an utter whack-job.

For awhile NK said it didn't want 6-party talks, but direct talks with the US. One has to wonder -- for what purpose?

If I lived in Seoul, I'd be thinking about relocating now.

Replaced_Texan · 02-11-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It hasn't happened yet but we're discussing naked oil-wrestling. You want to be my training partner?

[confidential to club]No, I'm not serious, but work with me on this -- and pick your desired "training partner" too.[/confidential to club]

Ah, so you only wear the belt. No other support garmets? I may bounce around a bit.

Bad_Rich_Chic · 02-11-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Anyone care to guess what NK actually wants? I'm not suggesting NK should get anything, but I'm wondering if there is a motivation here, or is Kim just an utter whack-job.

For awhile NK said it didn't want 6-party talks, but direct talks with the US. One has to wonder -- for what purpose?

If I lived in Seoul, I'd be thinking about relocating now.

NK wants formal recognition by the US and a formal end to the Korean war (techinically, we are still at war with NK). They're obsessed with regime survival, and they think that formal recognition fromthe US will protect them from anyone else (or the US) fucking with them or acting to destabilize them further. They also think it would end their pariah status, enabling them to get foreign aid and support, which will help entrench the regime.

They don't want 6-party talks, because it gives the US-side additional pressure to apply (e.g.: China, which switched off Korea's gas & electricity supply some months ago to force it back into 6 party talks). If the US brings the locals into the talks, there is much more to bargain against their nukes other than formal recognition & non-aggression pacts (like food, refusing asylum for escapees, fuel, not ordering troups to the border as Russia has done in the last few days, etc.).

Honestly, SK notwithstanding, both Russia and China have a far, far greater interest in disarming NK than we do. If NK goes nuclear, both Japan and Taiwan will be pretty sure to follow suit in short order. SK quite likely, as well. No one wants that, but China and Russia want it a lot less than the US does.

On a related topic, I'm surprised that no one mentioned when it came out a week or two ago that the nuclear material Lybia turned over to the UN has been demonstrated to have been N. Korean.

eta: you know, Sidd, I now have an indelible picture of you in my mind running at Hank to give him a karate chop yelling "Hiiii-yah!" just like Miss Piggy. You look funny in the blonde wig.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-11-2005, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Ty - when Sidd and I, sworn mortal enemies, agree, it must be true.

Richard Clarke says in his book that the Administration could have done more, and in retrospect that seems clear. But they were trying, which is more than one can say for Bush's first nine months. They demoted Clarke and didn't listen to him, and nothing happened.

The sloppy "Clinton did it too" defense of Bush is intellectually lazy and bankrupt. Particulary when it comes from those who complained when Clinton launched cruise missiles at AQ in Sudan and Afghanistan that he was just diverting attention from their attacks on him.

Now, you said before that it wouldn't have made a difference. And maybe that's right.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-11-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Anyone care to guess what NK actually wants? I'm not suggesting NK should get anything, but I'm wondering if there is a motivation here, or is Kim just an utter whack-job.

For awhile NK said it didn't want 6-party talks, but direct talks with the US. One has to wonder -- for what purpose?

If I lived in Seoul, I'd be thinking about relocating now.

If I were Kim, I'd want nuclear weapons to deter someone like Bush from invading my country, forcing me to hide in a hole in a backyard, and then trying me for war crimes.