Well God is obviously not talking to Obama or else Obama would be
saying the same things they are. He also wouldn't be so foreign and,
you know, "different". Duh.
If God talks to you and someone else says something different, you can
be sure they are delusional. It's the only logical answer.
Jud
Just for laughs, Obama should declare in a speech that he feels he's on a
mission from God to bring health care to every American.
That would make for a lot of fun. Lot's of people love God when he tells
THEIR president what to doI wonder what they'd think of God when he told
the OTHER guy's
Your a jackass.
I'm done here.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> You do realize that Gates is an Obama advisor too, right Sam? And you
> know that arms control means trying to prevent proliferation which is
> the point behind the missile shield, right?
>
> In the NYT ar
You do realize that Gates is an Obama advisor too, right Sam? And you
know that arms control means trying to prevent proliferation which is
the point behind the missile shield, right?
In the NYT article you linked to, Gates quotes the President of Poland
as being happy with the move. I'm not sure
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>> They are both extremely biased and extremely wrong.
>
> What makes you say that?
One is an Obama adviser and the other is the center for Arms CONTROL.
The missiles are still being built, they just aren't going to live in Poland.
> At fir
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>>
>> It really isn't the same system. Take a look at the two articles I
>> linked to. They are specialized in this area and give you details that
>> get confused in main stream reports.
>
> T
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> It really isn't the same system. Take a look at the two articles I
> linked to. They are specialized in this area and give you details that
> get confused in main stream reports.
They are both extremely biased and extremely wrong.
> You
It really isn't the same system. Take a look at the two articles I
linked to. They are specialized in this area and give you details that
get confused in main stream reports. You could also believe Bruce
since I wouldn't presume to ask you to believe me :)
Different missile systems, different tec
> Obama made the announcement on Sept 17, not Sept 1st.
ah. my bad. carry on then. conspiracy theorize away.
:-)
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~~
Obama made the announcement on Sept 17, not Sept 1st.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:21 AM, William Bowen wrote:
>
>> Why on the 70th anniversary? Coincidence?
>
> Why is the 70th anniversary of *Germany* invading Poland important to
> this discussion?
>
> I mean other than to bolster what seems t
> Why on the 70th anniversary? Coincidence?
Why is the 70th anniversary of *Germany* invading Poland important to
this discussion?
I mean other than to bolster what seems to be a specious argument
about appeasement of Russia which started when you said that it was
the anniversary of the "Soviet
It looks like the same system.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm
They added Poland and Czech... to fill the gap in the defense.
So what I'm getting here is we dissed Poland to please Russia on the
belief Iran doesn't and won't have long range missiles.
Why on the 70th anniversary? C
That is referring to the system in Alaska. The decision yesterday
doesn't seem to change anything about the development of the system in
Alaska which is designed to combat long range missiles from Russia.
The new system is ostensibly about defending Europe from missiles from
Iran and N. Korea, wh
That's why I keep asking, the article made no sense.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> Well last time I checked the Prez overrides generals. He is their boss.
> But if they do continue to develop it, then we have a problem because we
> have a president who says one thing bu
Well last time I checked the Prez overrides generals. He is their boss.
But if they do continue to develop it, then we have a problem because we
have a president who says one thing but means another. Business as
usual. We will wait and see. Personally I think it is a waste of money
and just ir
2nd to last paragraph:
In an interview, the Pentagon's point-man on missile defense, Marine
Gen. James Cartwright, stressed that development of the old
ground-based interceptor system would not stop.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFus
No, yesterday Obama said he was scrapping it for a ship based system, a
system we already have. I was just throwing in the Patriot missile
system as an example of the fact that we already have a short and medium
system in place, we don't need something else.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/2009091
We're still building the Bush system that cost billions, we just are
planting them in Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Patriots already exist
so nothing changed there.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> The Patriot system is one that has been around for close to 20 years. It
The Patriot system is one that has been around for close to 20 years. It was
originally designed to shoot down enemy aircraft by launching into the
general area of the aircraft, then exploding in front of it, showering the
aircraft, and most importantly the engines with shrapnel. During Desert
Sto
I'm a bit confused about which systems you are referring to. The
system that Bush started in Alaska isn't covered by this decision as
far as I know. I'm not sure if any determination has been made on that
matter. The system under discussion is in Eastern Europe and had been
proposed but not implem
Teach me ;)
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Michael Grant wrote:
>
>>
>> Did I get this right?
>>
> Probably not. ;p
>
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion
>
> Did I get this right?
>
Probably not. ;p
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/mess
The Army suffers too. I remember all to well the Clinton days in the mid
90's. #41 started the draw down of the military, and Clinton took it to
the extreme. Equipment maintenance suffered due to lack of parts, morale
was down because of the Qualitative Management Program (QMP), training
was w
So, we won't stop building the new system, we just won't put it in Poland.
The new system is just the existing system with a new name?
So this was just a favor to Putin with nothing in return?
Did I get this right?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, sor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> As long as the Pa
Pretty much, and remember, i have said before i am not a bushie.
-Original Message-
Date: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:38:39 am
To: "cf-community"
From: "G Money"
Subject: Re: Obama does good
That's interesting Bruce...so are you basically admitting that
> I thought Patriot only worked against long range. Meaning the new plan
> is just having Patriot missiles on ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
Some systems provide coverage for "nearly" long-range (my words) but
the PAC-3 system (most recent) is only for short to medium range
> And why, pray tell, would you believe that reducing military budgets
> prevent the use of the Navy as a missile deterrent? The military, even
> with modest budget decreases, has a metric ass ton of money. The
> question is not whether they have the money but rather what they
> prioritize to use
ot;cf-community"
From: "Sam"
Subject: Re: Obama does good
I thought Patriot only worked against long range. Meaning the new plan
is just having Patriot missiles on ships.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, sor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My thinking on this is that Russia is not
I thought Patriot only worked against long range. Meaning the new plan
is just having Patriot missiles on ships.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, sor...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My thinking on this is that Russia is not the threat it once was and thus a
> land based system is not needed. As i said,
Odd article. The system does work and they're still building it. Just
not in Eastern Europe.
Strange that it was announced 70 years to day day of Soviet invasion of Poland.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Here's a pretty good analysis from Foreign Policy magazine that I
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
> With lasers this isn't an issue since the most at the speed of light
> so altitude isn't as much of an issue.
The physics is still quite daunting. Consider the size of a missile,
its speed and the arc it is taking for basic flight patte
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, sor...@gmail.com wrote:
> My thinking on this is that Russia is not the threat it once was and thus
> a land based system is not needed. As i said, we have Patriot systems
> all over the world and a new system is overkill.
My understanding of the problem with lo
eat it once was and thus a
> land based system is not needed. As i said, we have Patriot systems all over
> the world and a new system is overkill.
> -Original Message-
> Date: Friday, September 18, 2009 10:18:46 am
> To: "cf-community"
> From: "Sam"
From: "Sam"
Subject: Re: Obama does good
So the "old" system is still being built. The new system is the old
system but on ships.
So what happened? Did we just hand Russia a carrot while Poland an
Czech Rep got the stick?
Did anything really change or is this political maneuve
Here's a pretty good analysis from Foreign Policy magazine that I read
yesterday.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/17/the_new_defense_realism?page=0,1
Basic run down is that Bush admin wanted to use the missile defense
systems they've been trying to get to work in Alaska. Three
fund
And why, pray tell, would you believe that reducing military budgets
prevent the use of the Navy as a missile deterrent? The military, even
with modest budget decreases, has a metric ass ton of money. The
question is not whether they have the money but rather what they
prioritize to use it on.
Wi
So the "old" system is still being built. The new system is the old
system but on ships.
So what happened? Did we just hand Russia a carrot while Poland an
Czech Rep got the stick?
Did anything really change or is this political maneuvering.
I'm asking because I can seem to find details about what
My only problem with using the Navy as a missile deterrent is the fact
that there is also talk of reducing military budgets... as there
always is with a Democrat administration.
Hatton
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community w
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM, G Money wrote:
> Didn't the US Navy spend some time researching the possibility of
> weaponizing dolphins as well?
They may have. I think more along the lines of mine detection than as
a weapons platform, but I am not certain.
~
Didn't the US Navy spend some time researching the possibility of
weaponizing dolphins as well?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
> > Wasn't that on some b-movie, sharks or dolphins having weapons on them?
>
> Aus
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM, G Money wrote:
> Or until it's used to fill William Atherton's house with popcorn.
Now that's a good one! I think they tried that on Mythbusters recently...
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
> Wasn't that on some b-movie, sharks or dolphins having weapons on them?
Austin Powers
Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have
sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now
evidently my cyclopti
Or until it's used to fill William Atherton's house with popcorn.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Cameron Childress wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Casey Dougall
> wrote:
> > Boeings Airborne Laser completes first flight test against target
> missile
>
> How long till they f
Wasn't that on some b-movie, sharks or dolphins having weapons on them?
Cameron Childress wrote:
>
>
> How long till they figure out how to mount them on sharks?
>
> -Camero
>
>
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community wit
Darn, no pics.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Casey Dougall <
ca...@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> >
> > As much as I do not like Obama and over 90% of his policies, I have to
> > admit that yesterdays speech about scrapping the
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
> Boeings Airborne Laser completes first flight test against target missile
How long till they figure out how to mount them on sharks?
-Camero
~|
Want to reach the ColdFu
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> As much as I do not like Obama and over 90% of his policies, I have to
> admit that yesterdays speech about scrapping the missile defense shield
> in Europe is a smart move. I was never really a big fan of this system
> as I thought it was
I agreewell, except for your last sentence :)
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> As much as I do not like Obama and over 90% of his policies, I have to
> admit that yesterdays speech about scrapping the missile defense shield
> in Europe is a smart move. I was never re
As much as I do not like Obama and over 90% of his policies, I have to
admit that yesterdays speech about scrapping the missile defense shield
in Europe is a smart move. I was never really a big fan of this system
as I thought it was unnecessary. His current plan of using ships for
potential t
49 matches
Mail list logo
