Rupert_Baehr Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 In much the same way that Boston and it's ilk sheltered, fundraised and provided weapons for the IRA? There are lots of shades of grey in this sort of thing. Indeed, but whereas HMG (and the British people) could merely wring their hands [and bemoan the fact that every time they bought a wormburger, Ray Kroc sent money to the IRA] both the US government and that of the UK do have an answer. Put your taxpayers' money back in your taypayers' pockets and let the government of Pakistan sort out their own problems. 'But if we did that then India - another nuclear power - might gain an advantage over Pakistan!' Indeed. - They'd gain an even bigger advantage if the money we (US or UK) sent the money we used to send them to India. Send the money to your friends. If the people you send it to don't behave like friends (or don't behave in the way you want them too) send it somewhere else or put it back in your own pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 In much the same way that Boston and it's ilk sheltered, fundraised and provided weapons for the IRA? There are lots of shades of grey in this sort of thing. You cannot compare the two. Pakistan has carried out a policy of protecting known terrorist leaders while outwardly appearing to co-operate with NATO forces in Afgahnistan. Surely it was known that Bin Laden had been there for years. The man had built his private compound in a town where there was a significant military presence. What was the reason? Corruption in the form of big pay offs to the Intelligence Service or the Pakistan Government playing their usual two sided game? Had to be either one or the other. No wonder they kicked up a fuss when Bin Laden was whacked. Must have been very embarrassing and they even arrested the Pakistani doctor who had provided the CIA the information on exactly where B.L was On the other hand the activities of NORAID which provided funding for the IRA was nothing to do with any policy on North Ireland by the US Government. I believe however that the FBI should have put a stop to NORAID's activities. That's always been a mystery to me why they didn't. No one with half a brain could ever see the IRA as some kind of "heroic group of freedom fighters" instead of the murderous and cowardly thugs that they really were. Another mystery is why the SAS were not deployed to wipe out the IRA training facilities in Libya. It could have been done easily enough by such a highly trained elite outfit and would have demonstrated to the IRA leaders that such places where they could train in secret was no longer an option. Gun running from Malta to the Irish Republic could have been efffectively curbed by the Royal Navy operating outside Irish Republic territorial waters. Any ships suspected of carrying weapons could have been stopped and searched at will. Since neither of the above was ever done, why not? Diplomatic sensitivities? Concern over censorship by the UN? The safety and well being of the citizens always, or should be the prime concern of any leader and to hell with sensitivities and the UN if need be. Fast forward to today and the use of drones to take out wanted terrorist leaders who would otherwise be planning and financing future operations aimed at the US and very likely the UK also....... perfectly legitimate. Sorry about the unfortunates who get killed but whoever said war was a noble pastime? If Pakistan were to do the right thing, co-operate like an ally and arrest and turn over the wanted terrorist leaders who they know are hiding inside the country then things might start to get better and less innocents being killed. I'm not a fan of Romney's but I think he's got something going for him when he says it's time to stop molly coddling the Pakistan Government and start facing them with some hard facts on where this supposed alliance is going or not going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The middle east is already in a mess thanks to the so called Arab Spring. That's a part of the word where only strong leadership in the form of dictatorship, rather than a democratic system will work because it amounts to keeping squabbling tribes apart by whatever means necessary and eliminating the extremist religious factions. The only chance of Iran getting into a shooting war is if it launches an attack against Israel which wont happen[/quote] Thats conjecture on your part, I prefer the the situation now, as to how it could be if the US attacks Iran after pressure from the jews.Of course you cant see the Israeli influence in congress can you and the way they always get what they want,see my signature.wise up. You obviously know nothing of how Jewish Americans feel on the subject of an attack on Iran. I may not know that much either since I'm not a Jewish American but I would be completely gobsmacked if any Jewish group in this country were ever to try and pressure their President into carrying out an attack on Iran. This theory that the Jews are "behind everything" to me is nothing more than a legacy of the clap trap spread around by long gone hate mongers such as Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Why? Because his company owns and runs all the electronic counting machines in the USA! So it will be palyed out like with the Bush elections as a very close race, in fact neck and neck, and we all know surely how simple it is to fix the results. The software required can be undetectable, and anyway we need much more war. Africa is ready for complete exploitation, therefore full of terrorists, as is Iran, and syria, who all deserve to be taken into protective care, and their resources managed for them, by responsible government's. The last lurch at empire building by the corrupt, debt riven USA. Bush didn't own the counting machines when he was elected and subsequently won with a larger majority on his second election. Obama will win, the Americans are not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 And they're about the same size. It's anybody's guess who will win. If Romney wins about half the voters will be upset initially. If Obama wins about half the voters will be upset initially. But in either case, how many will be upset in 2 or 3 years time? If you look back to the end of WWll Truman D 2 terms Eisenhower R 2 terms Kennedy D Half a term Johnson D 1 and a bit Nixon R 1 term Ford R 1 term Carter D 1 term Reagan R 2 terms GHW Bush R 2 terms Clinton D 2 terms GW Bush R 2 terms Obama D 1 term. They're a bit of a mixed bunch. It seems that sitting Presidents tend to have an advantage over their challengers - but Democrats don't seem to do so well. Harry Truman (who, from what I've read about him, was an extremely rare animal ... an honest, incorruptible politician) did 2 terms. Clinton - who was, perhaps, hardly a role model - was pretty good at his job. But why did the rest only get one term? Why were democrats not elected more often? - Were people so disillusioned with their performance? Given that the average American is not fabulously wealthy and given that some say the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the 'working man', I wonder what there is about the Democrats which make them: (a) electable infrequently and (b) rarely re-electable? Are the Democrats the 'kiss of death' for the middle classes? Truman was predicted to be beaten by Republican candidate Thomas Dewey in Truman's run for a second term. There's a famous photo of Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune with the headline 'Dewey defeats Truman" on the morning after Truman's election victory It was a very close run thing anyway. Truman did most everything right. The Marshall Plan and the decison to repel the Communist invasion of South Korea were two. Eisenhower couldn't go wrong on getting a second term. Big war hero Johnson was destroyed by Vietnam and his health probably so bad that just for that reason alone running for a second term was not an option. Vietnam aside Lyndon Jihnson in his own right was one of the most effective Presidents in history. He knew Congress inside and out, knew all the people in both parties on a close basis and was a wheeler dealer who could achieve results that very few other presidents could have done Nixon. Watergate. Nixon did however bring the Vietnam war to an end, bring the troops home and establish diplomatic relationships with China which went a long way to easing cold war tensions Ford. Blew it by pardoning Nixon. But in retrospect he had very little choice but to do otherwise Carter. Thoroughly decent man. Brought about the lasting peace settlement between Egypt and Israel. The economy however was lousy, mortgage interest rates going sky high, the Iranian hostage crisis, the bungled attempt to free the hostages. Perceived to be somewhat weak in domestic and foreign affairs which was unfair but there's no such thing as fair in politics Reagan. Took credit for seeing the demise of the Soviet Union but the Soviets were already on their last legs. Suffered a severe attack of amnesia when it came to remembering the Iran-Contra affair Let Olly North take the blame instead George Bush senior Common sense and a far better prospect than his Democrat challenger. I voted for Bush BTW. Had the good sense to go no further in a war with Saddam than just kicking his army out of Kuwait Clinton. One of the best presidents we ever had. Was liked the world over, never got into a war and he and his administration genuinely knew a thing or two about economics. Voted for him also Bush Jnr. Slashed taxes across the board then spent money like a drunken sailor on two wars which drained the treasury. You or I couldnt handle our finances that way or we'd be out in the street living out of a shopping cart Left the country in a mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The popular votes don't count much, it's the electoral votes that's important, whoever gets Ohios electoral vote wins all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 The popular votes don't count much, it's the electoral votes that's important, whoever gets Ohios electoral vote wins all... If Romney can get extra votes in Wisconsin, Iowa and Colorado he could still win anyway even if he loses in Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 You cannot compare the two. Pakistan has carried out a policy of protecting known terrorist leaders while outwardly appearing to co-operate with NATO forces in Afgahnistan. Surely it was known that Bin Laden had been there for years. I'm not so sure, history is replete with people managing to live under peoples noses without being spotted for a long time. Radovan Karadic is one such obvious example, there are many more. The man had built his private compound in a town where there was a significant military presence. What was the reason? Corruption in the form of big pay offs to the Intelligence Service or the Pakistan Government playing their usual two sided game? Had to be either one or the other. No wonder they kicked up a fuss when Bin Laden was whacked. Must have been very embarrassing and they even arrested the Pakistani doctor who had provided the CIA the information on exactly where B.L was On the other hand the activities of NORAID which provided funding for the IRA was nothing to do with any policy on North Ireland by the US Government. I believe however that the FBI should have put a stop to NORAID's activities. That's always been a mystery to me why they didn't. No one with half a brain could ever see the IRA as some kind of "heroic group of freedom fighters" instead of the murderous and cowardly thugs that they really were. The point is, that the lack of action from the USA authorities could easily be seen to be them protecting NORAID. Regardless of how true or not that may be, that could be the perception, and I'd be surprised if some of the Irish-American precinct captains, and so forth were not helping them, or at least telling them where not to be in case they were found. Ultimatly, it comes down to a famous Chinese proverb - "Do not stoop to tie your laces in your neighbours melon patch." I reckon that the Pakistani Govt is at least guilty of this, but of actually pinching the melons? I still remain to be convinced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bladesman Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Whilst the last bit of that post is drivel, there are issues with voting machine companies having close links to political candidates. (See here for an example related to Romney.) Problems with electronic voting machines in the past (see non Romney related example) has lead to repeated calls for the source code for electronic voting machines to be released so it can be examined to make sure it doesn't attempt to fix the results. It reminds me of this clip off the simpsons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 And they're about the same size. It's anybody's guess who will win. If Romney wins about half the voters will be upset initially. If Obama wins about half the voters will be upset initially. But in either case, how many will be upset in 2 or 3 years time? If you look back to the end of WWll Truman D 2 terms Eisenhower R 2 terms Kennedy D Half a term Johnson D 1 and a bit Nixon R 1 term Ford R 1 term Carter D 1 term Reagan R 2 terms GHW Bush R 2 terms Clinton D 2 terms GW Bush R 2 terms Obama D 1 term. They're a bit of a mixed bunch. It seems that sitting Presidents tend to have an advantage over their challengers - but Democrats don't seem to do so well. Harry Truman (who, from what I've read about him, was an extremely rare animal ... an honest, incorruptible politician) did 2 terms. Clinton - who was, perhaps, hardly a role model - was pretty good at his job. But why did the rest only get one term? Why were democrats not elected more often? - Were people so disillusioned with their performance? Given that the average American is not fabulously wealthy and given that some say the Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats are the party of the 'working man', I wonder what there is about the Democrats which make them: (a) electable infrequently and (b) rarely re-electable? Are the Democrats the 'kiss of death' for the middle classes? Bush senior only had one term, not two that you've shown. Harleyman missed it too !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.