PDA

View Full Version : Very Special



road kill
02-05-2011, 07:41 AM
WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No one is safe with this group in the White House.

We have turned our backs on;
Israel
Egypt
UK

WE have embraced;
North Korea
Venezuela
Cuba
Iran



RK

Steve Hester
02-05-2011, 08:49 AM
Yep, stupid is as stupid does....

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 09:14 AM
If that story was true don't you think the BBC would be carrying the story????????????????;-)

Just more of your right wing propaganda. Chicken little
regards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 09:31 AM
Isn't the Telegraph one of the 2-3 newspapers that WikiLeaks provided advance copies. The BBC will get the story shortly. Of course, they may not carry it due to their decidedly left-leaning editorial stance and the fact that the Obama administation is involved.

Eric

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 09:34 AM
No Roger. The Telegraph is one of the 2-3 newspapers that WikiLeaks gave advance copies. The BBC will get the story shortly. They may not carry it due to their decidedly left-leaning editorial stance and the fact that the Obama administation is involved.

Eric

So the BBC has a bunch of daft people working for it???????????? Why hasn't Faux news come up with the story or are they leaning too far to the left also???????????????:confused:

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 09:43 AM
They have. Can't you type crap and watch TV at the same time?

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 10:18 AM
It's early. Wait 'til next week. Who on earth called the employees of the BBC "daft"?

BTW, are you impugning the reputation and integrity of the Daily Telegraph?

Eric

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 12:04 PM
It's early. Wait 'til next week. Who on earth called the employees of the BBC "daft"?



BTW, are you impugning the reputation and integrity of the Daily Telegraph?

Eric

Here is a link to the Daily Telegraph, care to point out the story, or was that yesterday's news because it is the 6th of February 2011 there today? And if it is tomorrow there today why hasen't the news hit here yet????
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/

luvmylabs23139
02-05-2011, 12:07 PM
So the BBC has a bunch of daft people working for it???????????? Why hasn't Faux news come up with the story or are they leaning too far to the left also???????????????:confused:

BBC is gov't TV. If the british gov't wants this kept off of BBC they can.
It is gov't funded by annual TV licenses. It has been that way forever.

luvmylabs23139
02-05-2011, 12:12 PM
Also Roger, Fox was carrying this today. I had fox news on all morning and it was discussed numerous times.

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 12:25 PM
Also Roger, Fox was carrying this today. I had fox news on all morning and it was discussed numerous times.

Here is what Faux news has on the new start treaty with Russia with no mention of any of British nuclear secrets revieled***
US and Russia formally conclude New START nuclear arms treaty


Published February 05, 2011
| Associated Press

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/071510_medved.jpgAP
July 12: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev speaks in the Russian Foreign Ministry headquarters in Moscow (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/05/russia-formally-conclude-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/#).

MUNICH – The U.S. and Russia have finalized a nuclear arms treaty that limits the number of atomic warheads the two former Cold War foes are allowed to possess.
The New START treaty went into effect Saturday when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton exchanged the ratification papers with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich.
The treaty limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. The pact also re-establishes a monitoring system that ended in December 2009 with the expiration of an earlier arms deal.
The treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate in December after President Barack Obama pressed strongly for its passage. Russia ratified the deal last month.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/05/russia-formally-conclude-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 12:42 PM
It's early. Wait 'til next week. Who on earth called the employees of the BBC "daft"?

BTW, are you impugning the reputation and integrity of the Daily Telegraph?

Eric

Why do we need to wait until next week, is the news coming over on a slow boat from China --- errr Australia?

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 12:43 PM
Could it be that we are all lying to you? I've heard it twice and I really wasn't paying much attention.

TxHillHunter
02-05-2011, 12:46 PM
Here is what Faux news has on the new start treaty with Russia with no mention of any of British nuclear secrets revieled***
US and Russia formally conclude New START nuclear arms treaty


Published February 05, 2011
| Associated Press

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/071510_medved.jpgAP
July 12: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev speaks in the Russian Foreign Ministry headquarters in Moscow (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/05/russia-formally-conclude-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/#).

MUNICH Ė The U.S. and Russia have finalized a nuclear arms treaty that limits the number of atomic warheads the two former Cold War foes are allowed to possess.
The New START treaty went into effect Saturday when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton exchanged the ratification papers with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich.
The treaty limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. The pact also re-establishes a monitoring system that ended in December 2009 with the expiration of an earlier arms deal.
The treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate in December after President Barack Obama pressed strongly for its passage. Russia ratified the deal last month.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/05/russia-formally-conclude-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/

Here you go:

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/04/us-agrees-tell-russia-uks-nukes-secrets

luvmylabs23139
02-05-2011, 01:44 PM
Here is what Faux news has on the new start treaty with Russia with no mention of any of British nuclear secrets revieled***
US and Russia formally conclude New START nuclear arms treaty


Published February 05, 2011
| Associated Press

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/397/224/071510_medved.jpgAP
July 12: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev speaks in the Russian Foreign Ministry headquarters in Moscow (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/05/russia-formally-conclude-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/#).

MUNICH Ė The U.S. and Russia have finalized a nuclear arms treaty that limits the number of atomic warheads the two former Cold War foes are allowed to possess.
The New START treaty went into effect Saturday when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton exchanged the ratification papers with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of a security conference in Munich.
The treaty limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. The pact also re-establishes a monitoring system that ended in December 2009 with the expiration of an earlier arms deal.
The treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate in December after President Barack Obama pressed strongly for its passage. Russia ratified the deal last month.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/05/russia-formally-conclude-new-start-nuclear-arms-treaty/

NO idea what they had on the web. I was watching the actual TV this morning. It was mentioned numerous times.:rolleyes:

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 01:46 PM
Here you go:

http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/02/04/us-agrees-tell-russia-uks-nukes-secrets

Of course they took headlines from around the web. Didn't you know everthing you see on the internet is true.;-)


<H3>Fox Nation - Hot headlines, opinions, and video from around the web (http://nation.foxnews.com/)




(http://www.bing.com/search?q=fox+nation&form=MSNH14&qs=AS&sk=&pq=fox+nation&sp=1&sc=8-10#)




</H3>

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 01:58 PM
Here is a link to the Daily Telegraph, care to point out the story, or was that yesterday's news because it is the 6th of February 2011 there today? And if it is tomorrow there today why hasen't the news hit here yet????
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/

Wrong "Daily Telegraph". You cited one from Australia, not the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

http://tinyurl.com/6375wlu

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets

By Matthew Moore, Gordon Rayner and Christopher Hope 9:25PM GMT 04 Feb 2011

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britainís policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

-more-

TxHillHunter
02-05-2011, 03:17 PM
Of course they took headlines from around the web. Didn't you know everthing you see on the internet is true.;-)


<H3>Fox Nation - Hot headlines, opinions, and video from around the web (http://nation.foxnews.com/)







</H3>



I never said it was true Roger......merely pointing out the error of you stating that not even Fox was mentioning it.

But you may want to check the news feeds, as there are many sources picking up the story from around the globe. Time will tell if it's true. Why don't you go ahead and form/state an opinion just in case it turns out to be an accurate report.

For me, if it's accurate.....we should be ashamed.

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 03:21 PM
I never said it was true Roger......merely pointing out the error of you stating that not even Fox was mentioning it.

But you may want to check the news feeds, as there are many sources picking up the story from around the globe. Time will tell if it's true. Why don't you go ahead and form/state an opinion just in case it turns out to be an accurate report.

For me, if it's accurate.....we should be ashamed.

I will reserve my opinions for if and when the story proves to be true.

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 03:30 PM
Wait just a minute Roger. I just did a search and you've posted a few times using Wikileaks as an authoritative source.

Tell us. Are Wikileaks always, sometimes, or never to be believed?

Eric

TxHillHunter
02-05-2011, 03:49 PM
I will reserve my opinions for if and when the story proves to be true.

Of course, that way you can support the Obama regardless. Way to ride the fence.

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 03:52 PM
Of course, that way you can support the Obama regardless. Way to ride the fence.

Why comment on a fairy tail???????????

TxHillHunter
02-05-2011, 04:07 PM
Why comment on a fairy tail???????????

First, you nor I know it's a "fairy tale," it IS news, and all I am asking is for you to comment on the news.

Second, regardless of the report's veracity, why worry about having an opinion on a hypothetical, seriously, what's the harm? This is a great opportunity for those of us here who enjoy the banter with you to understand what YOU think, not your party affiliation, not your president...but YOU!

If it turns out to be inaccurate reporting, then no harm no fowl...you have merely stated your opinion.

Come on Roger, exercise that First Amendment muscle!!

dnf777
02-05-2011, 04:12 PM
Everyone is jumping to conclusions like Mexican jumping beans!

I won't try to discredit any news source, but instead lets ask "what information" about trident missiles? Are we even going to give any trident missiles to Britian? There are three generations of tridents (that we know of), four if you include the tactical warhead only version.

While this sounds grandiose and damaging...its really only a tiny snippet of what may or may not be a hill of beans.


:2c: regards

TxHillHunter
02-05-2011, 04:17 PM
Everyone is jumping to conclusions like Mexican jumping beans!

I won't try to discredit any news source, but instead lets ask "what information" about trident missiles? Are we even going to give any trident missiles to Britian? There are three generations of tridents (that we know of), four if you include the tactical warhead only version.

While this sounds grandiose and damaging...its really only a tiny snippet of what may or may not be a hill of beans.


:2c: regards

I have already stated I don't know whether it's true or not, so while I live awfully close to mexico, there is no jumping of my bean! :p Who knows, if this report turns out to be accurate, perhaps the Brits agreed to allow this concession....but again, there is NO harm in exploring the opinions on the news story.

BTW DNF - good luck to your boys in Dallas tomm

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 05:01 PM
Everyone is jumping to conclusions like Mexican jumping beans!

I won't try to discredit any news source, but instead lets ask "what information" about trident missiles? Are we even going to give any trident missiles to Britian? There are three generations of tridents (that we know of), four if you include the tactical warhead only version.

While this sounds grandiose and damaging...its really only a tiny snippet of what may or may not be a hill of beans.


:2c: regards

Don't be silly. Of course we've sold Tridents to the UK. We have ever since the Trident first came out under an agreement to sell them the Polaris in the late 1960's. I think they got their first Trident in the late 80's...maybe it was 1990.

The British submarines that are Trident capable are based on the west coast of Scotland.

Both we and the UK had a posture of neither denying or admitting that missiles were equipped with nuclear warheads. About a year ago, we dropped that policy and admitted to it. It appears that we have dropped the policy for the Brits too.

Eric

dnf777
02-05-2011, 05:59 PM
Both we and the UK had a posture of neither denying or admitting that missiles were equipped with nuclear warheads. About a year ago, we dropped that policy and admitted to it.

Eric


That sounds like straight out of the Blue Collar comedy tour! :D

....If you have a multi-billion dollar intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload to your enemy's back yard, and don't admit you put a nuke on it.........you might be a redneck!!

Julie R.
02-05-2011, 06:12 PM
Why comment on a fairy tail???????????


The truth, or lack thereof, about stuff you read online certainly hasn't deterred you in any of your previous posts. Why break a trend? Or is it that an original thought in your head would get lonesome?

Buzz
02-05-2011, 06:49 PM
Why let any facts stand in Faux's way when it comes to a good SMEAR on Obama.

Fair and balanced my arse.


State Dept. spokesman calls report on sharing U.K. nuke secrets 'bunk'
By Bridget Johnson - 02/05/11 04:12 PM ET
A State Department spokesman called a British newspaper's report that the U.S. offered to disclose British nuclear secrets in order to secure support for the New START treaty "bunk."

The Telegraph reported Saturday that WikiLeaks cables showed the administration agreed to give Russia information about every Trident missile the U.S. supplies to the United Kingdom.

The story claims that Russia used the talks over the treaty, which faced opposition from suspicious Republicans in the Senate before its 11th-hour lame-duck approval, to win agreement for more information about the missile supplies.

"Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles," the Telegraph reports. "The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain."

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issued a "one word response" to the report on Twitter Saturday:

@TelegraphNews claims the U.S. betrayed #UK nuclear secrets as part of the negotiation of the #NewSTART treaty. One word response: Bunk!

Crowley then tweeted:

Contrary to @TelegraphNews claim, we carried forward requirement to notify #Russia about U.S.-UK nuclear cooperation from the 1991 treaty.

The New START treaty went into effect Saturday, with U.S. and Russian officials hailing the pact and impending inspections of each other's nuclear arsenals at the Munich Security Conference.


This is the text from the document released from Wikileaks:


13. (S) The second was an agreed statement on the transfer of Tridents II SLBMs to the United Kingdom. Begin text: Document of the Russian side February 9, 2010 Agreed Statement On the movement of SLBM "Trident-II" missiles, transferred by the US to equip the Navy of Great Britain The Parties agree that, in order to increase transparency in relation to the use of "Trident-II" SLBMs, transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America shall provide notification to the Russian Federation about the time of such transfer, as well as the unique identifier and the location of each of the transferred missiles. The Parties agree that, upon conclusion of the life cycle of "Trident-II" SLBMs transferred by the United States of America to equip the Navy of Great Britain, the United States of America will send notification to the Russian Federation about the time and method of elimination, as well as the unique identifier for each of the transferred missiles. End text.

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 07:07 PM
Wait just a minute Roger. I just did a search and you've posted a few times using Wikileaks as an authoritative source.

Tell us. Are Wikileaks always, sometimes, or never to be believed?

Eric

Well, I am ready to give my opinion----------- Your news source if full of bullsh!t.

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 07:20 PM
Well, I am ready to give my opinion----------- Your news source if full of bullsh!t.

As are you.

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 07:47 PM
That sounds like straight out of the Blue Collar comedy tour! :D

....If you have a multi-billion dollar intercontinental ballistic missile, capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload to your enemy's back yard, and don't admit you put a nuke on it.........you might be a redneck!!

You can make light ot it but that was the official policy....neither confirm nor deny the presence of nukes on board the missiles...or any where else for that matter. It was part of the whole mystique of MAD. Clearly you didn't have an assignment at a SIOP base.

In fact at Whiteman AFB, we had at least two Minuteman II that didn't have a warhead. They had a payload. The payload was a part of another system that I don't know that I can talk about. But, at Whiteman saying that we could neither confirm nor deny whether there was or was not a warhead on board really was the truth.

However, we've gotten away from the issue of Wikileaks revealing that President Obama rather cavalierly gave away an ally's strategy for a treaty that benefits us.

Eric

Roger Perry
02-05-2011, 07:56 PM
As are you.

And I am guessing you were were on pins and needles today wishing that was true.

Eric Johnson
02-05-2011, 07:56 PM
Why let any facts stand in Faux's way when it comes to a good SMEAR on Obama.

Fair and balanced my arse.

This is the text from the document released from Wikileaks:

Buzz-

How do the text of the Wikileaks document and the telling of the story in the paper differ?
It requires no stretch of the imagination to read "serial number" for "unique identifier."

Eric

dnf777
02-05-2011, 08:17 PM
You can make light ot it but that was the official policy....neither confirm nor deny the presence of nukes on board the missiles...or any where else for that matter. It was part of the whole mystique of MAD. Clearly you didn't have an assignment at a SIOP base.

In fact at Whiteman AFB, we had at least two Minuteman II that didn't have a warhead. They had a payload. The payload was a part of another system that I don't know that I can talk about. But, at Whiteman saying that we could neither confirm nor deny whether there was or was not a warhead on board really was the truth.

However, we've gotten away from the issue of Wikileaks revealing that President Obama rather cavalierly gave away an ally's strategy for a treaty that benefits us.

Eric

I believe you totally. While I never served at a silo site, our CO at Ft. Bliss went on to become chief of the Space Command. I understand the policy perfectly. In military parlance, its called a "force multiplier". By not knowing which tubes and subs harbor the real deal, we force the Ruskies to allocate resources and dollars to defend and track ALL our sites...even the decoys.

The flip side, of course, is that we spent billions tracking their empty gunner stations as well.

M&K's Retrievers
02-05-2011, 09:04 PM
And I am guessing you were were on pins and needles today wishing that was true.

No. Just tired of your ramblings and hatred. I don't know what happened to make you so bitter but I'm sure your are not the only one who has had a bad time lately.

Give it a rest regards,

DominicRet
02-06-2011, 05:54 AM
Lol Lol Lol

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 08:11 AM
No. Just tired of your ramblings and hatred. I don't know what happened to make you so bitter but I'm sure your are not the only one who has had a bad time lately.

Give it a rest regards,

I did not start this bogus thread. And Faux news spreads the BS. Is it a wonder I do not choose to watch Faux news or that I changed my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????

As far as my dislike of the Bush Administration, it is not unfounded.
1. Started Iraq War on a lie of WMD
2. Over 4,000 of our military personnel killed in Iraq and thousands maimed and wounded.
3. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children killed or wounded because of the invasion.
4. After knowing Bin Laden could not be killed or captured we did not get out of Afghanistan instead kept up war with Taliban who was not our primary target--- Bin Laden and al Queda leaders were.
5. Illegal wire taps that after the fact had a law passed to make them legal.
6. Putting his whole staff on Executive Previledge so they were not allowed to testify before a Congressional hearing.
7. Leading our Country into the worst recession since the great depression of the 30's.
8. Turning our Country from a balanced budget to trillions in debt.

The righties here dislike the Obama Administration because:
1. He got elected and their guy didn't.

dnf777
02-06-2011, 10:02 AM
I did not start this bogus thread. And Faux news spreads the BS. Is it a wonder I do not choose to watch Faux news or to change my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????

As far as my dislike of the Bush Administration, it is not unfounded.
1. Started Iraq War on a lie of WMD
2. Over 4,000 of our military personnel killed in Iraq and thousands maimed and wounded.
3. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children killed or wounded because of the invasion.
4. After knowing Bin Laden could not be killed or captured we did not get out of Afghanistan instead kept up war with Taliban who was not our primary target--- Bin Laden and al Queda leaders were.
5. Illegal wire taps that after the fact had a law passed to make them legal.
6. Putting his whole staff on Executive Previledge so they were not allowed to testify before a Congressional hearing.
7. Leading our Country into the worst recession since the great depression of the 30's.
8. Turning our Country from a balanced budget to trillions in debt.

The righties here dislike the Obama Administration because:
1. He got elected and their guy didn't.

Nice summary.

Funny thing though....if republicans were true to their beliefs, they would be outraged at the first list you enumerated even moreso than democrats, wouldn't they? ;) Second part was funny, but probably true with ALL presidential elections and parties to a certain extent.

BrianW
02-06-2011, 10:39 AM
I did not start this bogus thread. And Faux news spreads the BS. Is it a wonder I do not choose to... change my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????. :confused:

Steve Hester
02-06-2011, 10:47 AM
I did not start this bogus thread. And Faux news spreads the BS. Is it a wonder I do not choose to watch Faux news or to change my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????

As far as my dislike of the Bush Administration, it is not unfounded.
1. Started Iraq War on a lie of WMD
2. Over 4,000 of our military personnel killed in Iraq and thousands maimed and wounded.
3. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children killed or wounded because of the invasion.
4. After knowing Bin Laden could not be killed or captured we did not get out of Afghanistan instead kept up war with Taliban who was not our primary target--- Bin Laden and al Queda leaders were.
5. Illegal wire taps that after the fact had a law passed to make them legal.
6. Putting his whole staff on Executive Previledge so they were not allowed to testify before a Congressional hearing.
7. Leading our Country into the worst recession since the great depression of the 30's.
8. Turning our Country from a balanced budget to trillions in debt.

The righties here dislike the Obama Administration because:
1. He got elected and their guy didn't.

NO, we dislike the Obama Administration because it is the worst administration America has EVER seen. We dislike the administration because it panders to illegal aliens, welfare recipients, and people who don't give a damn about what is right or wrong as long as there is something in it for them. We dislike the administration because they are attempting to to make this a Socialist nation. We dislike the administration because they talk about the "horrible" deficit, "created by Bush", then increase it dramatically in their first term in office. We dislike the administration because they shoved ObamaCare down our throats, even though the majority of Americans didn't want it. We dislike the administration because when one or more of the Southern border states attempts to do something about ILLEGAL (that means against the law Roger) aliens, the administration condemns them and even sues them only because they want to pander to the Hispanic vote. As Ronald Reagan said, "government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem".

TxHillHunter
02-06-2011, 10:48 AM
Nice summary.

Funny thing though....if republicans were true to their beliefs, they would be outraged at the first list you enumerated even moreso than democrats, wouldn't they? ;) Second part was funny, but probably true with ALL presidential elections and parties to a certain extent.

Don't make the typical mistake of generalization....NO-ONE was more disappointed than I in some of the things Bush did; especially the spending.....the only thing worse than a "tax and spend" government is a "spend and spend" government with mounting debt!

As for the war decisions, I think it is awfully easy to Monday morning quarterback his decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan with 4-8 years of hindsight instead....especially when we have no idea what information the "security experts" were feeding him when the decisions were being made. Ultimately, it's the president's job (crappy as it may be) to sort through all that crap and make the best decision, so Bush still gets the knock IMO.

But I find it awfully hypocritical for someone like Roger to blast Bush (right, wrong or indifferent) for his decision to continue the war in Afghanistan.....and then to NOT take Obama to task for NOT pulling them out.

I quote Roger: "4. After knowing Bin Laden could not be killed or captured we did not get out of Afghanistan instead kept up war with Taliban who was not our primary target--- Bin Laden and al Queda leaders were."

Did the current administration somehow forget "knowing Bin Laden could not be killed or captured"? It's pretty clear they both screwed the pooch on Afghanistan.

I just got finished watching "Restropo: Afghan Outpost" on NGC.....should be required viewing for all Americans to see what our boys are going through over there, and has me pretty fired up on the topic. Oh yeah, our British allies have lost some boys there too.....the fact that it cost's BILLIONS is truly secondary to the sacrifices being made by our young soldiers and their families. It's one thing to wage war and achieve your objectives.....I fear all we have achieved in Afghanistan is death and debt....and the current policy is more of the same.

M&K's Retrievers
02-06-2011, 11:14 AM
I did not start this bogus thread. And Faux news spreads the BS. Is it a wonder I do not choose to watch Faux news or to change my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????



:confused:

Boy, no kidding!! :confused::confused:

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 11:29 AM
Boy, no kidding!! :confused::confused:
"Is it a wonder I do not choose to watch Faux news or that I changed my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????"



There, I changed so both of you can understand it now.

M&K's Retrievers
02-06-2011, 11:34 AM
As far as my dislike of the Bush Administration, it is not unfounded.
1. Started Iraq War on a lie of WMD
2. Over 4,000 of our military personnel killed in Iraq and thousands maimed and wounded.
3. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children killed or wounded because of the invasion.
4. After knowing Bin Laden could not be killed or captured we did not get out of Afghanistan instead kept up war with Taliban who was not our primary target--- Bin Laden and al Queda leaders were.
5. Illegal wire taps that after the fact had a law passed to make them legal.
6. Putting his whole staff on Executive Previledge so they were not allowed to testify before a Congressional hearing.
7. Leading our Country into the worst recession since the great depression of the 30's.
8. Turning our Country from a balanced budget to trillions in debt.

The righties here dislike the Obama Administration because:
1. He got elected and their guy didn't.

Steve and THH beat me to the punch.

It's your hatred that's truly amazing. Even if what you spout were true, you refuse to admit that your Dems in control of Congress are responsible for much of what you blame Bush for while turning a deaf ear to the harm the current administration is doing to our country..

Your continued Bush bashing in almost wearing me out more than this crappy weather. Almost....

That dnf agrees with you speaks volumes.

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 11:35 AM
NO, we dislike the Obama Administration because it is the worst administration America has EVER seen. We dislike the administration because it panders to illegal aliens, welfare recipients, and people who don't give a damn about what is right or wrong as long as there is something in it for them. We dislike the administration because they are attempting to to make this a Socialist nation. We dislike the administration because they talk about the "horrible" deficit, "created by Bush", then increase it dramatically in their first term in office. We dislike the administration because they shoved ObamaCare down our throats, even though the majority of Americans didn't want it. We dislike the administration because when one or more of the Southern border states attempts to do something about ILLEGAL (that means against the law Roger) aliens, the administration condemns them and even sues them only because they want to pander to the Hispanic vote. As Ronald Reagan said, "government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem".

The righties here started their "hate Obama" threads even before he took office so don't tell me that "now" you do not like him. Please spare me.

BrianW
02-06-2011, 11:39 AM
"Is it a wonder I do not choose to watch Faux news or that I changed my political party affiliation from Republican to Independent??????"



There, I changed so both of you can understand it now.

Oh, I "interpreted" what you posted just fine.
I was wondering if you understood what you had put up? :oops:

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 12:07 PM
Steve and THH beat me to the punch.

It's your hatred that's truly amazing. Even if what you spout were true, you refuse to admit that your Dems in control of Congress are responsible for much of what you blame Bush for while turning a deaf ear to the harm the current administration is doing to our country..

Your continued Bush bashing in almost wearing me out more than this crappy weather. Almost....

That dnf agrees with you speaks volumes.

So items 1-6 are the fault of the Dems come on even you do not believe that.

7&8 yea the Dems had controll of Congress but they passed everything that Bush asked for in a very bi-partisan way unlike what the Republicans are doing now that they have control of the House.;-)

BrianW
02-06-2011, 12:08 PM
The righties here started their "hate Obama" threads even before he took office so don't tell me that "now" you do not like him. Please spare me.

Yes, you're right Roger. Except that I, & some others, posted against BHO even before the election.
So that "now" I do not like him even more. :-P

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2011, 12:19 PM
The righties here started their "hate Obama" threads even before he took office so don't tell me that "now" you do not like him. Please spare me.

Maybe we oposed the policies he said he would inact when elected president.
Yes I depised him efore he was elected based on his idea of the ideal USA.
Just look at his comment to Joe the plumber. That alone was enough for me to say this guy is and always will be a socialist if not outright communist.
So yeah, I will be honest and say I HATE HIM.

Roger Perry
02-06-2011, 12:22 PM
Yes, you're right Roger. Except that I, & some others, posted against BHO even before the election.
So that "now" I do not like him even more. :-P

And the reason you posted your buddies here posted the I hate obama messages before he even took office was because your guy did not win.

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2011, 01:50 PM
And the reason you posted your buddies here posted the I hate obama messages before he even took office was because your guy did not win.

HE sucked and still does.
I don't agree with anything he says. I darn well did not want his fat ASS wife as first lady. That woman is a disgrace. Fat ASS wife is a good enough reason to not want him. His mistress has a lot more class than his wife. BY the way why are taxpayers paying for CPD to watch her condo while he has her in excile?:confused:

dnf777
02-06-2011, 02:39 PM
HE sucked and still does.
I don't agree with anything he says. I darn well did not want his fat ASS wife as first lady. That woman is a disgrace. Fat ASS wife is a good enough reason to not want him. His mistress has a lot more class than his wife. BY the way why are taxpayers paying for CPD to watch her condo while he has her in excile?:confused:


Well, there's your true colors.
Thanks for showing them.

M&K's Retrievers
02-06-2011, 03:10 PM
Well, there's your true colors.
Thanks for showing them.

At least he shows his.

paul young
02-06-2011, 03:15 PM
this is perhaps the most useless information concerning nuclear submarines that could be leaked. i guarantee that the russians already know how many trident capable subs Great Britain has, and how many missile tubes are on each boat. further, they most certainly have each sub's acoustic signature recorded, so they know when they're on patrol and when they're in port.

if those weapons are ever used, those boats WON'T be returning to port to be re-armed. the moment they launch, they'll be under attack. they'll be lucky to get 1/2 their payload into the air.

and by the way, we'll ALL be toast. there won't be a winner if strategic nuclear weapons are deployed. that's why they are such an effective deterrent.-Paul

road kill
02-06-2011, 03:20 PM
this is perhaps the most useless information concerning nuclear submarines that could be leaked. i guarantee that the russians already know how many trident capable subs Great Britain has, and how many missile tubes are on each boat. further, they most certainly have each sub's acoustic signature recorded, so they know when they're on patrol and when they're in port.

if those weapons are ever used, those boats WON'T be returning to port to be re-armed. the moment they launch, they'll be under attack. they'll be lucky to get 1/2 their payload into the air.

and by the way, we'll ALL be toast. there won't be a winner if strategic nuclear weapons are deployed. that's why they are such an effective deterrent.-Paul

UHHHHHHH........as soon as the launching mechanisms are activated those mechanisms will be under fire!!!!!:cool:



Just sayin'.......


RK

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2011, 06:47 PM
Well, there's your true colors.
Thanks for showing them.

Her ASS is huge. Are you going to deny that fact?:rolleyes:
Besides the real reason I can't stand her is that during the campaign she said something to the effect of "This is the first time in my life I'm proud to be an American"

paul young
02-06-2011, 08:28 PM
Her ASS is huge. Are you going to deny that fact?:rolleyes:
Besides the real reason I can't stand her is that during the campaign she said something to the effect of "This is the first time in my life I'm proud to be an American"

perhaps some day you'll be able to say that...........God save the Queen regards...-Paul

Blackstone
02-06-2011, 08:29 PM
HE sucked and still does.
I don't agree with anything he says. I darn well did not want his fat ASS wife as first lady. That woman is a disgrace. Fat ASS wife is a good enough reason to not want him. His mistress has a lot more class than his wife. BY the way why are taxpayers paying for CPD to watch her condo while he has her in excile?:confused:

Why are you so fixated on Michelle Obamaís butt? This isnít the first time you have brought up her butt. Like most black women, she has a round butt, so I donít see anything outrageous about it. The type of posterior you prefer is a matter of personal preference. But, you comment on Michelleís butt with so much venom, itís got me wondering if you arenít lacking back there yourself, and a bit jealous of what Michelle has. You can always get implants, you know?

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2011, 08:46 PM
Why are you so fixated on Michelle Obamaís butt? This isnít the first time you have brought up her butt. Like most black women, she has a round butt, so I donít see anything outrageous about it. The type of posterior you prefer is a matter of personal preference. But, you comment on Michelleís butt with so much venom, itís got me wondering if you arenít lacking back there yourself, and a bit jealous of what Michelle has. You can always get implants, you know?

Round, it is the size of a house! She probably has more fat in the can than I have on my whole body.

JDogger
02-06-2011, 10:29 PM
Round, it is the size of a house! She probably has more fat in the can than I have on my whole body.

I find it interesting that the posts Roger has brought to the forefront recently, contain such a wide and varied spectrum of posters. Lately the spread seems to have diminished somewhat.
We have the ever present Roger, RK, and a few others.
The above post may be a reason....
We used to debate, talk, disagree, and most importantly poke a little fun now and again.
Now, we just insult and belittle. Humor has gone out the window.
Two years after the election of the POTUS, and ten years after the election of Bush, we still poke the same old sticks at one another.
The time has maybe come, to look forward, rather than back...
Who? who? ...is going to come to our future?
Is there a PRESIDENT waiting in the wings? We surely need one now.

Is it going to take a devastating attack to bring us together...?

JD

road kill
02-06-2011, 10:47 PM
I find it interesting that the posts Roger has brought to the forefront recently, contain such a wide and varied spectrum of posters. Lately the spread seems to have diminished somewhat.
We have the ever present Roger, RK, and a few others.
The above post may be a reason....
We used to debate, talk, disagree, and most importantly poke a little fun now and again.
Now, we just insult and belittle. Humor has gone out the window.
Two years after the election of the POTUS, and ten years after the election of Bush, we still poke the same old sticks at one another.
The time has maybe come, to look forward, rather than back...
Who? who? ...is going to come to our future?
Is there a PRESIDENT waiting in the wings? We surely need one now.

Is it going to take a devastating attack to bring us together...?

JD

I am not real fond of making fun of peoples names, calling people names or making fun of peoples appearance.

Yes, I have probably called a couple people a couple names over the few years I have been here, but very seldom.
And I don't like it.

Ain't much fun right now is it JD???



RK

mjh345
02-06-2011, 11:08 PM
Round, it is the size of a house! She probably has more fat in the can than I have on my whole body.Thanks for adding a little clASS to the forum
The Queen must be proud!!

JDogger
02-06-2011, 11:22 PM
Ain't much fun right now is it JD???



RK

No, it's not Stan. JD

How did the game come out? I'm sure I'll hear, but I spent most of the day with the dogs. Our little group was getting ready for Copper State. Me...? I'm getting ready for LVHRC. First test of the season. Me 'n Rif are startin' to click. Ain't always perfect...but we both try really hard...watcha gonna do??

And consider, for just a moment, that 'dedicated' may be a euphemism for obsession, a trait shared here, ya know?

luvmylabs23139
02-06-2011, 11:23 PM
Thanks for adding a little clASS to the forum
The Queen must be proud!!

I've been taking lessons from Roger!
Besides it is massive.

road kill
02-07-2011, 06:46 AM
No, it's not Stan. JD

How did the game come out? I'm sure I'll hear, but I spent most of the day with the dogs. Our little group was getting ready for Copper State. Me...? I'm getting ready for LVHRC. First test of the season. Me 'n Rif are startin' to click. Ain't always perfect...but we both try really hard...watcha gonna do??

And consider, for just a moment, that 'dedicated' may be a euphemism for obsession, a trait shared here, ya know?



Me & Elvis were training for HRC Upland yesterday morning.
It was snowing (beautiful) and no wind.
It almost seemed warm.

I think we are ready!!

The Lombardi trophy is home!!!!;)


RK

paul young
02-07-2011, 07:04 AM
when are the tests, Stan?

are you ready to run in a brace if they do that?

upland tests are a great way to start the HT season! and you can probably bring home the makings of a great meal, which is a nice bonus.-Paul

road kill
02-07-2011, 07:19 AM
when are the tests, Stan?

are you ready to run in a brace if they do that?

upland tests are a great way to start the HT season! and you can probably bring home the makings of a great meal, which is a nice bonus.-Paul

The first one is at Hustisford (WI) Rod & Gun Club. (HMRC)
The next one will be at WISAM training grounds in Horicon WI.(BSRC)

A bunch of us may also run one in March in IA.

I may only run 1 per day.

stan b

M&K's Retrievers
02-07-2011, 09:16 AM
The first one is at Hustisford (WI) Rod & Gun Club. (HMRC)
The next one will be at WISAM training grounds in Horicon WI.(BSRC)

A bunch of us may also run one in March in IA.

I may only run 1 per day.

stan b

Stan, I'd run both. It will be fun for you both and a title in one weekend!

road kill
02-07-2011, 09:19 AM
I find it interesting that the posts Roger has brought to the forefront recently, contain such a wide and varied spectrum of posters. Lately the spread seems to have diminished somewhat.
We have the ever present Roger, RK, and a few others.
The above post may be a reason....
We used to debate, talk, disagree, and most importantly poke a little fun now and again.
Now, we just insult and belittle. Humor has gone out the window.
Two years after the election of the POTUS, and ten years after the election of Bush, we still poke the same old sticks at one another.
The time has maybe come, to look forward, rather than back...
Who? who? ...is going to come to our future?
Is there a PRESIDENT waiting in the wings? We surely need one now.

Is it going to take a devastating attack to bring us together...?

JD

Someone pm'd me about this post.

I guess if you don't like what's going on here there ARE options!!!!:D

BTW--Have you EVER posted ANYTHING of a positive nature?
If so, I missed it.

RK

BrianW
02-07-2011, 09:33 AM
And the reason you posted your buddies here posted the I hate obama messages before he even took office was because your guy did not win.

Don't think I've ever posted that I "hate" the Bama. :confused:
But technically you're right, I posted "anti-PBO" before he took office because "my" lesser of 2 evils didn't win. And nothing has happened to change my mind about the reasons that I didn't vote for BHO the candidiate. But I'd probably be posting against McCain now if things had worked out differently last year, as apparently there's not much difference between the two. (Which I knew before 11/2 also).

This British sub issue (or non-issue as the case may be to some) is just another example why BHO shouldn't have become the prez in my view.
The means is always justified by the end. Find out the details later, after the bill/treaty has been signed.
The point of this thread to me is not that "the Russians know this stuff about the Brit missles/warheads already" but that we've undercut a long time ally's position for short term political expediency with an adversary .
And to me this is a visible sign about PBO's true position, a deep rooted animosity towards the "colonialists that exploited his forefathers."
What is best for the country/ally took a back seat to his personal vendetta of payback.
Chicago style politics being refined to (almost) an art.

TxHillHunter
02-07-2011, 09:52 AM
Don't think I've ever posted that I "hate" the Bama. :confused:
But technically you're right, I posted "anti-PBO" before he took office because "my" lesser of 2 evils didn't win. And nothing has happened to change my mind about the reasons that I didn't vote for BHO the candidiate. But I'd probably be posting against McCain now if things had worked out differently last year, as apparently there's not much difference between the two. (Which I knew before 11/2 also).

This British sub issue (or non-issue as the case may be to some) is just another example why BHO shouldn't have become the prez in my view.
The means is always justified by the end. Find out the details later, after the bill/treaty has been signed.
The point of this thread to me is not that "the Russians know this stuff about the Brit missles/warheads already" but that we've undercut a long time ally's position for short term political expediency with an adversary .
And to me this is a visible sign about PBO's true position, a deep rooted animosity towards the "colonialists that exploited his forefathers."
What is best for the country/ally took a back seat to his personal vendetta of payback.
Chicago style politics being refined to (almost) an art.

NAIL ON HEAD!!

BTW - The point of my rant on Afghanistan was (whether it actually happened or not) that we should not dishonor the sacrifice of an ally by providing ANY sensitive information to ANYONE, whether they likely have the intelligence or not. Few nations have stood by us during the good, bad and ugly like the UK.

And honestly...I've never looked at Michelle's butt and it has no place in these discussions, IMO.