Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Penske_Account]

Lots of good topics, but I am too tired to engage all of all y'all.


The best I can do is work as AttiCee's wingman on the parents with kids board.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Query: How many scuds have been shot down by Patriot missiles? I expect a recent cite.

What am I - your reseracher? Look it up yourself. What is the point anyway?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
What am I - your reseracher? Look it up yourself. What is the point anyway?

That you may have been overestimating when you said that Patriots shot down a few scuds.*

*Sorry, dtb, for the sentence fragment.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That you may have been overestimating when you said that Patriots shot down a few scuds.*

*Sorry, dtb, for the sentence fragment.

Are you saying that during the gulf war the Patriot missiles in Israel and Saudi Arabia shot down less than three SCUDS? Otherwise I was not overestimating.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you saying that during the gulf war the Patriot missiles in Israel and Saudi Arabia shot down less than three SCUDS? Otherwise I was not overestimating.

We may have shot down 3. It's equally likely that we shot down zero.

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

(success rates of 40% - 60% have been claimed by the military and our good friends at Raytheon)

From the official House Report on the performance of the Patriot Missile in the 1st Gulf War:

"The Army assessment did not contain conclusive proof that any Patriot missile had destroyed a Scud warhead."

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/n...er.pdf#search='patriot%20missile%20scud'

I don't think anybody is against the concept of missile defense. The "liberals" who oppose pouring money into SDI are actually conservative: they're trying to eliminate huge goverment spending on things that don't work. Show us a reasonable budget with realistic estimates of what we get for our money. Reagan has nothing to do with it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
What exactly does that term mean? What these terrorists are striving for does not seem to me fascist as far as I understand the word.

These people are religious fanactics. Religious fundamentalists that want to create a muslim theocratic state. I think many conservatives, that feel that there is a threat to religion in this country, don't want to be associated with these terrorists, hence the term islamofascist. The reality is that these terrorists are motivately solely by religion so the term does not make sense.

Term that are appropriate: Terrorist (which, by the way, the attack on the Cole was not a terroist attack), fundamentalist, religious, theocratic, muslim, and islamist. But I don't think Fascist is an appropriate term.

Clinton used to try and spin terms like this. Instead of tax cut, he called it a tax "scheme". Calling someone an islamorfascist strikes me as the same sort of spin.

These people are primarily about 1 thing and 1 thing only - power. Religion is just their rallying cry, much like nationalism/anti-jews/catholics/superior race was Hitlers rallying cry.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter


I don't think anybody is against the concept of missile defense. The "liberals" who oppose pouring money into SDI are actually conservative: they're trying to eliminate huge goverment spending on things that don't work. Show us a reasonable budget with realistic estimates of what we get for our money. Reagan has nothing to do with it.

The liberals were against SDI since day one. There reasons for opposing it have changed but it has been the same politicians and these politicians are usually on the liberal side of the column. For antimissile defense the government should spend tons of money on it even if there is only a ten percent chance that it might ever work. This conservative angle is total BS. The number one responsiblity of the Federal Government is national secuirty, and there is no more immediate and real threat to national security that nuclear missiles. It is just a matter of time before a rogue state develops the capability to launch a nuclear weapon, or some other WMD, at the United States. North Korea my have that capability. If North Korea decided right now to say that the United State give it a hundred billion dollars or they will launch we would be in a really screwed situation. There is no question that eventually a system could be made to work. It is just a matter of resources and effort. Can you really put a price tag on Los Angeles, San Diego or San Francisco? Every proposal for research and spending on missile defense should get 100 percent vote of the house and senate. Anyone that is against spending on SDI, or wants to reduce, is a moron. Plain and simple.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Every proposal for research and spending on missile defense should get 100 percent vote of the house and senate. Anyone that is against spending on SDI, or wants to reduce, is a moron. Plain and simple.

I am 100% behind the concept of missle defense, but this position is ridiculous. Unless you are willing to see 100% of the budget go to missle defense, you are implicitly acknowledging that there are limits on the amount we can spend on this. Unfortunately, those seeking funds are not always doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. There are some programs that deserve to continue to be funded. There are others that do not, but they are so entrenched in the DC scene that it becomes very difficult to stop, so we end up throwing good money after bad.

By the same token, those on the left the chide the concept each and every time that there is a failed test are extremely short sided. We will have the technology at some point, probably fairly soon, and that will be a good thing for all of us.

That said, missle defense is not the be all end all, especially in an era of nonconventional warfare. At the present point in time, I am far more concerned about bio and techno warfare than I am about nuclear. NK is not going to bomb us, because that is not in their interest. Neither is Iran. They have developed nukes as a defensive measure because mutual assured destruction is still a valid theory.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
These people are primarily about 1 thing and 1 thing only - power. Religion is just their rallying cry, much like nationalism/anti-jews/catholics/superior race was Hitlers rallying cry.

2. Islamofascist is meant to draw attention to their use of religion as the foundation of a fascist-like rule that they are seeking to impose upon the world.

Frankly, at this point, I would just assume let them have Western Europe. They could rename it the People's Islamic Republic of Palestine and settle the big issue in the Mid-east. Maybe we could ship our liberals over there too since they seem to have such an affinity for the pali-fascist terrorists.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
These people are primarily about 1 thing and 1 thing only - power. Religion is just their rallying cry, much like nationalism/anti-jews/catholics/superior race was Hitlers rallying cry.

Your statement just convinced me that not only is it incorrect to use the term Islamofascist but it is dangerous because it can lead people to reach the ridiculous and stupid conclusion you just stated up above.

Someone who just wants power is not nearly as dangerous as someone who is fighting for a cause they believe in. Hitler was not just about power. Neither are these religious fanatics and that is what makes them so dangerous. If Hitler were just about power he would not have put so many resources into the final solution. It seriously hampered the war effort. And when it was clear the war was lost more resources were put into the final solution even though it brought the demise of the third Reich that much closer. Hitler believed in everything he was doing. It was his conviction, and his follower’s conviction, that they were doing the right thing that made WWII so destructive and awful.

Osama Bin Laden and many of his associates have completely sacrifices a good life for this cause. Osama is running from cave to cave and he is a multi millionaire. He gave up a life of luxury to live in Sudan and then Afghanistan. He risked his life in Afghanistan. How many multimillionaires do you know that volunteer to be in the front lines of a guerilla war? Especially one against a superpower.

This is why the term Islamofacist and "Homicide" bomber are so dangerous. These terms lead people to believe that the perpetrators are just greedy and selfish and they don't really believe in what they are doing.

What makes them so dangerous is they really believe in what they are doing, and believe in it so much they are willing to sacrifice everything for the cause.

There is nothing more dangerous than an opponent who believes God is on their side. Only religious conviction brings this about. Religion is the only thing that explains how these guys think and operate. Their religious belief is at the core of what they are doing and to dismiss their religious belief it beyond ignorant.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


There is nothing more dangerous than an opponent who believes God is on their side. Only religious conviction brings this about.

In the fight fire with fire category, we have W, who actually does have God on his side.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am 100% behind the concept of missle defense, but this position is ridiculous. Unless you are willing to see 100% of the budget go to missle defense, you are implicitly acknowledging that there are limits on the amount we can spend on this. Unfortunately, those seeking funds are not always doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. There are some programs that deserve to continue to be funded. There are others that do not, but they are so entrenched in the DC scene that it becomes very difficult to stop, so we end up throwing good money after bad.

By the same token, those on the left the chide the concept each and every time that there is a failed test are extremely short sided. We will have the technology at some point, probably fairly soon, and that will be a good thing for all of us.

That said, missle defense is not the be all end all, especially in an era of nonconventional warfare. At the present point in time, I am far more concerned about bio and techno warfare than I am about nuclear. NK is not going to bomb us, because that is not in their interest. Neither is Iran. They have developed nukes as a defensive measure because mutual assured destruction is still a valid theory.

I am not for 100% of the budget going to SDI. But a hell of lot more resources than are dedicated to it now. In any defense appropriation there are troubles with wasted money and badly directed funds based on who has the best lobbyist. But this has nothing to do with the logic behind SDI research.

A rational leadership of a country may not nuke us. But an irrational leader might. Delivering WMDs to the United states, contrary to popular belive, is not that easy. That is why it has not been done yet. But lobbing a missile with a nuke or some other WMD is a very real threat.

If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, I believe there is a strong chance NK will launch a missile at us.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2. Islamofascist is meant to draw attention to their use of religion as the foundation of a fascist-like rule that they are seeking to impose upon the world.

Frankly, at this point, I would just assume let them have Western Europe. They could rename it the People's Islamic Republic of Palestine and settle the big issue in the Mid-east. Maybe we could ship our liberals over there too since they seem to have such an affinity for the pali-fascist terrorists.

The term theocratic is much more appropriate than fascist. What the Taliban had in Afghanistan was much more similar to what Geneva had under Calvin, Salem had under the Puritans, or Iran under the Imams immediately after the revolution, than what Mussolini's had in Italy or Franco had in Spain.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The term theocratic is much more appropriate than fascist. What the Taliban had in Afghanistan was much more similar to what Geneva had under Calvin, Salem had under the Puritans, or Iran under the Imams immediately after the revolution, than what Mussolini's had in Italy or Franco had in Spain.

How about the Caliphate? Isn't that the endgame? Which is why I say let's give them Western Europe, especially Spain, France, the Benelux and Germany.

Speaking of which, the below is a gratuitous anti-France picture for your enjoyment.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
How about the Caliphate? Isn't that the endgame? Which is why I say let's give them Western Europe, especially Spain, France, the Benelux and Germany.

Speaking of which, the below is a gratuitous anti-France picture for your enjoyment.

Oh, being anti-France is so yesterday. We're drinking good wine again, and it's okay.