Future President Sarah Palin Pals Around with Operating Thetan

[Don Quixote]

I was a 3C2. Tech control beeyotches. Trained at Keesler, went to Altus, then they sent me to OTS and Barksdale. Now an Army chaplain. We're slated for a year's deployment. A year is long enough. (Another example of poor planning on the military's part -- nothing new there. You should read about the logistical issues during WW2!) But I never said I endorse everything our gummint, or Bush, or the GOP do. I support freedom, conservative values, and whatever advances those.

Lucky dog, getting Hickam. There's actually Tech Control work there. Altus had nothing. And it's Hawaii!

[Don Quixote]

Agreed. However, I think it's much more effective to spread the idea of America CULTURALLY than through military means. I see them as a last resort.


True enough that, and certainly it does suck. But again, America can't fix all the world problems. It's the fine line of figuring out how much we can and SHOULD help.

Yeah. I think we were hoping that Europe would join us. But ... with these countries facing declining populations, crippling welfare states, a real lack of belief in Western democracy, and above all, surging Islamic populations, I don't think they're going to be of much use. Obviously, no one can do it all by themselves, be it by war or anything else. I'm not sure who else will be able and willing to fight to advance freedom.

[LnGrrrR]

I was a 3C2. Tech control beeyotches. Trained at Keesler, went to Altus, then they sent me to OTS and Barksdale. Now an Army chaplain. We're slated for a year's deployment. A year is long enough. (Another example of poor planning on the military's part -- nothing new there. You should read about the logistical issues during WW2!) But I never said I endorse everything our gummint, or Bush, or the GOP do. I support freedom, conservative values, and whatever advances those.

Lucky dog, getting Hickam. There's actually Tech Control work there. Altus had nothing. And it's Hawaii!

Ha! I doubt I'll actually do Tech Control. I think I'm getting stationed up at the NOSC Det. Blah. I was trying to work a special duty for an Intel/Surveil/Recon squadron at England, but a coworker whose wife is also pregnant and due around the same time as my wife is going as well, and my wife would kill me if I tried to change these orders. Plus, like you said... it's Hawaii.

At least I've done actual tech control in my deployments. Got back from Al Dhafra in UAE last year... was a fun deployment. I'm hoping I'll go for about 6 mos every 2 years at Hickam (I've gone about 4 1/2 every 3 years since I've been in, 1999.)

[Don Quixote]

You came in around the time I came in, in 99.

When you're in Hawaii (lucky), visit Obama's birthplace for me. I'm sure it's a holy site. I live in New Orleans, which is the birthplace of .. Lee Harvey Oswald. That counts for something, right?

Anyway ... I agree that everyone would much rather spread freedom through peace, all that. But my pacifist friends (and some liberals -- Jimmy Carter leaps prominently to mind) forget that much of the world does not operate that way. The murderous thugs who run places like Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq before the invasion, Gaza, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa can only be dealt with by force. You give them food aid, they give it to their warlords. You develop their nuclear energy, they build bombs. You give them $$, and there is a corresponding swelling in certain Swiss bank accounts. And it's wrong. It sucks. But that's reality. And sometimes you just have to fight these thugs.

So, no, I'm not angry we went into Iraq in 03. I'm disappointed in the execution, certainly in the administration's handling of some aspects of it, their communication with the media. But I'm glad that it was not in vain. These people are on the road to freedom now.

[ChumpDumper]

The murderous thugs who run places like Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq before the invasion, Gaza, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa can only be dealt with by force.

We didn't deal with Libya by force. Ask our ambassador.

[LnGrrrR]

You came in around the time I came in, in 99.

When you're in Hawaii (lucky), visit Obama's birthplace for me. I'm sure it's a holy site. I live in New Orleans, which is the birthplace of .. Lee Harvey Oswald. That counts for something, right?

Anyway ... I agree that everyone would much rather spread freedom through peace, all that. But my pacifist friends (and some liberals -- Jimmy Carter leaps prominently to mind) forget that much of the world does not operate that way. The murderous thugs who run places like Sudan, North Korea, Iran, Iraq before the invasion, Gaza, Libya, and much of sub-Saharan Africa can only be dealt with by force. You give them food aid, they give it to their warlords. You develop their nuclear energy, they build bombs. You give them $$, and there is a corresponding swelling in certain Swiss bank accounts. And it's wrong. It sucks. But that's reality. And sometimes you just have to fight these thugs.

So, no, I'm not angry we went into Iraq in 03. I'm disappointed in the execution, certainly in the administration's handling of some aspects of it, their communication with the media. But I'm glad that it was not in vain. These people are on the road to freedom now.

Ah... I'll miss New Orleans. Biloxi hasn't had anyplace good to go (if you don't like casinos) since Katrina, so I end up visiting N'awlins once every three months or so. (What's the point of visiting Mobile?)

I agree with you that warlords and whatnot suck. Where I differ is in the need to reform those countries with our own resources. Call me cynical, but if the country does not pose a risk to us, then I'm willing to let it go through turmoil. (There are some exceptions... for instance, if the local populace is being slaughtered wholesale.)

Where our difference lies, I think, is that you recognize the fact that there are these warlords, evil people, etc etc, but you don't think it will fall back into that same pattern of corruption when we leave. Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I usually don't think America should be policing the world without a sufficient force helping us.

[Winehole23]

I agree with you that warlords and whatnot suck. Where I differ is in the need to reform those countries with our own resources. Call me cynical, but if the country does not pose a risk to us, then I'm willing to let it go through turmoil.

(There are some exceptions... for instance, if the local populace is being slaughtered wholesale.)

Pick one.

Where our difference lies, I think, is that you recognize the fact that there are these warlords, evil people, etc etc, but you don't think it will fall back into that same pattern of corruption when we leave. Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I usually don't think America should be policing the world without a sufficient force helping us.

A great power in decline looks inward. It's age appropriate behavior.

*What's a sufficient home force?* and *what should it do?*would be the politically sensitive questions apart from the continuing international projection of power.

[LnGrrrR]

Pick one.

A great power in decline looks inward. It's age appropriate behavior.

*What's a sufficient home force?* and *what should it do?*would be the politically sensitive questions apart from the continuing international projection of power.

Pick a country that wouldn't be a threat? Logistically, we can probably leave out any countries that can't reach us without an intercontinental ballistic missile, and don't have the technology to do so.

Allies that are friendly to us can be left out as well.

I'm for the "attack only if you've been attacked, or are about to be" group.

A sufficient home force? I'm not sure what that would cons ute that we don't already have. Police, national guard, coast guard, FBI/CIA etc etc should be enough I would think.

[Don Quixote]

I'm for the "attack only if you've been attacked, or are about to be" group.

Hmm. I think most of us would LOVE to be in that group. I just don't think that is a philosophy that would work in the real world. ... Saddam wasn't attacking us in 1990. He invaded Kuwait. And the U.S. and other countries, knowing full well what this entailed (for one, despotism in Kuwait, and two, this poop would eventually hit us at home one way or another) went in and stopped him. And now Kuwait is (mostly) free.

Germany did not attack us in 1940. They overran France, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in about two seconds flat, and were knocking on the door of Britain. The U.S. did what it felt was its duty -- to defend freedom.

I can cite more examples. But you get my point. In theory, yeah, I agree with you. I'd love to wait until we had reliable info that we were about to get attacked before we struck. But we can't take that chance. And if we waited around waiting to get hit, alot of people in other countries would be in world of poop. (Not to mention us, eventually.)

[clambake]

every decision i make is based off of something that happened a jillion years ago.

[Don Quixote]

Where our difference lies, I think, is that you recognize the fact that there are these warlords, evil people, etc etc, but you don't think it will fall back into that same pattern of corruption when we leave. Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I usually don't think America should be policing the world without a sufficient force helping us.

I wish we could rely on the "world community" too. But who's going to help us, outside of Israel?

The Western European nations? Their defense forces are too withered/pussy to help much. The U.S. picking up the tab for their defense after WW2 had a lot to do with this. And their state depts are unreliable anyway. Are they for Western democracy? Or will they become Islamic states soon?

Latin America? None of them are powerful enough, and they've got their own problems. Drug cartels and communism are two big ones.

Africa? Tons of people, but riddled with AIDS and thugs.

China? They're happy to trade with us, but they'd just as soon let jihad be our problem as long as possible. (China will eventually have to deal with jihad themselves.)

Russia? They have the trifecta -- a declining male population, AIDS, and a thugocracy. And did I mention they have nukes?

I hate to say it, but this group is unreliable at best and not to be trusted.

[clambake]

what's the KIA count of israeli troops in afghanistan and iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

Don forgot Poland.

[LnGrrrR]

Hmm. I think most of us would LOVE to be in that group. I just don't think that is a philosophy that would work in the real world. ... Saddam wasn't attacking us in 1990. He invaded Kuwait. And the U.S. and other countries, knowing full well what this entailed (for one, despotism in Kuwait, and two, this poop would eventually hit us at home one way or another) went in and stopped him. And now Kuwait is (mostly) free.

See, here's what I don't get. How would "the poop" hit us? If you're talking about saving them for their oil, realpolitik stuff like that, I'm willing to give you some leeway. If you're just saying we should help the Kuwaitis because Saddam is bad... well, there's a lot of bad people out there. Life sucks.

Germany did not attack us in 1940. They overran France, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in about two seconds flat, and were knocking on the door of Britain. The U.S. did what it felt was its duty -- to defend freedom.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. We were fine not entering the war until Japan attacked us. Japan was allied with Germany, and that's why we got involved. If it were the case that you mentioned, why didn't we join the war in 1940?

I can cite more examples. But you get my point. In theory, yeah, I agree with you. I'd love to wait until we had reliable info that we were about to get attacked before we struck. But we can't take that chance. And if we waited around waiting to get hit, alot of people in other countries would be in world of poop. (Not to mention us, eventually.)

If we can't take that chance, why aren't we going to war with N. Korea? Venezuela? Iran?

Obviously, we CAN take chances with countries, otherwise we'd be warring everywhere. We have to decide risk/reward ration. I just think our risk to reward ratio for starting countries in foreign lands is very slim.

[LnGrrrR]

I wish we could rely on the "world community" too. But who's going to help us, outside of Israel?

The Western European nations? Their defense forces are too withered/pussy to help much. The U.S. picking up the tab for their defense after WW2 had a lot to do with this. And their state depts are unreliable anyway. Are they for Western democracy? Or will they become Islamic states soon?

Latin America? None of them are powerful enough, and they've got their own problems. Drug cartels and communism are two big ones.

Africa? Tons of people, but riddled with AIDS and thugs.

China? They're happy to trade with us, but they'd just as soon let jihad be our problem as long as possible. (China will eventually have to deal with jihad themselves.)

Russia? They have the trifecta -- a declining male population, AIDS, and a thugocracy. And did I mention they have nukes?

I hate to say it, but this group is unreliable at best and not to be trusted.

Here's what I don't get. Republicans are totally fine with the free market when it comes to economics. "If people are poor, they need to get off their ass and work!"

But they aren't willing to take that thought process to the international level. Why should we expect poor people to get off their ass to work for a living, but not expect poor countries to band together and defend themselves?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Scientology is a dangerous cult.

So is conservatism.

[ClingingMars]

You need to look at the record to see just how badly Bush dropped the ball on terrorism that was handed to him by the Clinton administration.

Just compare the frequency of cabinet meetings regarding terrorism of the last eight months of the Clinton administration and the first eight months of the bush administration.

Let us all know what you find, and then lol if you can.

it's simple, bill clinton ed things up, reducing the military and dropping the ball on Osama when he had the chance. i don't give a how often he "met with his advisers"

[ClingingMars]

So is conservatism.

not really, and your sig is hilarious.

[ChumpDumper]

it's simple, bill clinton ed things up, reducing the military and dropping the ball on Osama when he had the chance. i don't give a how often he "met with his advisers"

Are you saying Bush did a better job against terrorism before 9/11?

Yes or no.

[Cry Havoc]

Here's what I don't get. Republicans are totally fine with the free market when it comes to economics. "If people are poor, they need to get off their ass and work!"

This comment is utterly hilarious.