Posts Made By: Tom Rodstrom

Rumsfeld didn't listen to the top brass, now our soldiers are paying with their lives and we are paying with our National reputation.

Iraq War Woes Deepen Internal Pentagon Tensions

>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=17&u=/nm/iraq_rumsfeld_pentagon_dc

I just finished watching 800 faces on 60 minutes. They were the 800 who have given their lives in Iraq so far. This was a moving experience for me. They were Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines just doing their job for their country. Each one, a tragedy and at the same time a triumph of spirit and dedication. This moved me much more than the brutal slaying of someone who was dumb enough to wander around a war zone unescorted. These men were there to do a job, a very difficult job.

This was doubly painful for me because I am absolutely convinced that many, if not most, of them did not need to die. They were simply victims of unrealistic goals and poor planning from an arrogant, uncompromising administration.

>>> Evidence of the links between Saddam and the radical Islamic extremists continues to grow

I'd be quite interested in seeing that evidence (from a credible source).

>>> President Bush and his Administration have been doing a good job even as the left and their friends in the media slam them. President Bush understands that his job is to defend the country. The left has continued to speak about the poor innocents that are being held as enemy combatants. Here is the story about one of them. It is unfortunate that this information has had to be released. I can only hope and trust that by doing so we have not endangered any source or method of gaining intelligence.

Bu$h caught this one, but he has created thousands and thousands with his poorly planned operations in Iraq.

>>> You can expect the Bush haters to say that this is a made up story, question its timing, say something about the upbringing of his guy as a defense, or some other typically wacky leftist response. Anyway you cut it, President Bush deserves credit for saving the many innocent lives here on our soil that this person was attempting to take with WMD. If he was successful, more American lives would have been taken through his action, than have been lost in Iraq.

You must be smoking some of those natural weeds in the Midwest, or getting your opinions of the left from some soap opera. If he is PROVEN guilty of the acts for which he is accused, hang the S.-.B.

>>> The other expected lib response is that this has nothing to do with Iraq.

It it is the response of all sentient observers because it is the truth. The home grown terrorist had no connection to Iraq whatsoever.


>>> Do they really think that Saddam would not have done the same if he were given the chance. Evidence of the links between Saddam and the radical Islamic extremists continues to grow.

Saddam did not need to be given the chance. He was contained and did not have significant connections to Al Qaeda. "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

>>> If the libs had it their way, then he would be free and we would likely have a lot of dead civilians on our hands.

That statement is more than POPPYCOCK, it is a BOLD FACED LIE.

>>> But as one has said here before, then many more Americans would know what war is all about. As if that were a good thing.

I imagine that this is yet another of your lies of half truth's. I'd be really surprised if you could point out the pose that you refer to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/international/middleeast/11POWE.html?ei=5062&en=91e713e937349805&ex=1087531200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

Jim, I must admit that I am not one that looks forward to reading your posts, but it wold be easer if you did not put your link to an article at the beginning of a post. When you do that, the Astromart software does not create the necessary code for a reader to just click on the line to read it. I will give four examples.

The Politics forum has returned. Thank you Herb.

This forum is on the forum list again so it appears we have been given one more chance. There are a lot of people who enjoy a lively exchange of views on controversial subjects. This forum seems to have a pool of smarter than average people who enjoy doing just that.

The problem arises when people attack a person not an idea. Just because someone disagrees with me (or you) doesn't make him an idiot and does not mean that he does not deserve the respect that we normally give to fellow astronomers. I don't think that any real dummy could actually become a serious amateur astronomer anyway and, as a group, the astronomers I have met have been some of the most generous, helpful people I have seen anywhere.

In my opinion, we need to attack ideas that we do not like, not the people who have them. The statement "That seems like a bad idea to me." is much different that "You are an idiot." If we keep this in mind and try to police ourselves, this forum will be a lot more interesting. It is easy to call someone a name, but it takes some work to explain the flaws in his logic.

I am guilty myself. Recently, I started calling one poster Jim Poppycock. That was wrong and I apologize, Jim. I still think many of your ideas are poppycock and I'm sure that you feel the same about many of mine.

Given the polarization of this country and the millions of dollars politicians spend on name calling, there will always be angry people who only know how to lash out with vile, slanderous rhetoric. We cannot do anything about them except to explain that kind of trash is not welcome here. The next time Herb throws more money at this site, perhaps he could ask his programmers to find a way to block a user forum using forums, or a specific forum. This would make the policeman's job a bit easier since the only choice to silence an abuser now amounts to capital punishment.

Lets remember:

Disagree with the idea, don't just attack the person who has it.

>>> "All sorts of alarm bells should have gone off" when the data were being compiled, Powell said, but he denied that the figures were skewed for political purposes.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.report/index.html

I never did think Bu$h's policies will make us any safer in the long run anyway.

>>> Spy Work in Iraq Riddled by Failures

>>> U.S. analysts also erred in their analysis of high-altitude satellite photos, repeatedly confusing Scud missile storage places with the short, half-cylindrical sheds typically used to house poultry in Iraq. As a result, as the war neared, two teams of U.N. weapons experts acting on U.S. intelligence scrambled to search chicken coops for missiles that were not there.

>>> "We inspected a lot of chicken farms," said a former inspector who asked not to be identified because he now works with U.S. intelligence. His U.N. team printed "Ballistic Chicken Farm Inspection Team" on 20 gray T-shirts to mark the futile hunt.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040617/ts_latimes/spyworkiniraqriddledbyfailures&e=4

I don't agree with everything, but it makes some good points.

Think Again: Al Qaeda By Jason Burke

>>> “The West Is Winning the War on Terror”

>>> Unfortunately, no. The military component of the war on terrorism has had some significant success. A high proportion of those who associated with bin Laden between 1996 and 2001 are now either dead or in prison. Bin Laden's own ability to commission and instigate terror attacks has been severely curtailed. Enhanced cooperation between intelligence organizations around the world and increased security budgets have made it much harder for terrorists to move their funds across borders or to successfully organize and execute attacks.

>>> However, if countries are to win the war on terror, they must eradicate enemies without creating new ones. They also need to deny those militants with whom negotiation is impossible the support of local populations. Such support assists and, in the minds of the militants, morally legitimizes their actions. If Western countries are to succeed, they must marry the hard component of military force to the soft component of cultural appeal. There is nothing weak about this approach. As any senior military officer with experience in counterinsurgency warfare will tell you, it makes good sense. The invasion of Iraq, though entirely justifiable from a humanitarian perspective, has made this task more pressing.

>>> Bin Laden is a propagandist, directing his efforts at attracting those Muslims who have hitherto shunned his extremist message. He knows that only through mass participation in his project will he have any chance of success. His worldview is receiving immeasurably more support around the globe than it was two years ago, let alone 15 years ago when he began serious campaigning. The objective of Western countries is to eliminate the threat of terror, or at least to manage it in a way that does not seriously impinge on the daily lives of its citizens. Bin Laden's aim is to radicalize and mobilize. He is closer to achieving his goals than the West is to deterring him.

>>> Jason Burke is chief reporter for Britain's Observer and author of Al-Qaeda: Casting a Shadow of Terror (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003).

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2536&page=1&PHPSESSID=4dfbad5241ddb9a4199ced07d9b4a93e

It looks like Bush will not even live up to the questionable standards of MoveOn.org. Months ago they had used images of Hitler, but then pulled them from their web site because they were in "poor taste". The Bush campaign will not pull them. It appears that there is no limit to DEPTH OF DEPRAVITY that Karl Rove and the Bush machine will sink in order to stay in power.