I am pleased with that report
 

I feel somewhat reassured that after Iraq we are not fully stymied and with thumbs in mouths merely sitting and waiting for the world to go to hell in a hand basket.

Oh wait... that's me! :smack:

j/k

Kennedy did same. First he attempted diplomacy. But with wackos on both sides striving for war, eventually a Cuban Missile Crisis had to occur. What was learned? A near destruction of the entire world because wackos had too much power. Both Kennedey and Krushchev were at great pains to reign in their wackos. Kennedy did that in a spectaculor confrontation with Gen Curtis LeMay in the Oval Office. And with McNamara literally riding herd on the Joint Chiefs. Less well known were similar confrontations between Krushchev and his wacko extremists.

Great leaders always first talk to the enemy. Only when diplomacy does not work (because the moderates are being subverted by extremsist), then military precautions are deployed.

One major difference between today and 1960. Iran has a massive reform movement that would be devestated again by doing the most stupid thing - George Jr's overt military threats. The axis of evil.

Obama is only deploying defensive weapons. Too many inspired with 'big dic' syndrome view war as the only solution.

A good defense is sometimes the best offense.

A good defense is also an ideal diplomacy tool. Using the military diplomatically is how to solve problems without overt warfare. Haiti. Bosnia and Kosovo. Just a few examples of how open warfare was averted using military power and intelligent leadership.

And let's not forget the Cuban Missile Crisis. Intelligent leadership had to challenge big dic thinking to avoid the end of civilization.

Well, did anyone have any doubt that this was a fact? Ignore the Axis behind the Curtain!

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.c...TheCurtain.jpg

Thais Say North Korea Arms Were Iran-Bound

BANGKOK — A large shipment of North Korean weapons seized here in December was bound for an airport in Iran, according to a Thai government report submitted to the United Nations and leaked to news agencies.

(and in the very next paragraph they retract their statement. It is the NYT or is it fact?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/wo...1plane.html?hp

I am sorry TW. I am not a serious with topical discussions to give feedback like you deserve. I appreciate you trying to engage me though.

I read things like that quote I highlighted and I go off thinking of the Mayans who were intelligent. They disappeared but their intelligence didn't save their civilization from disappearing so I am not so sure if intelligence is the panacea.

That's just to say that if it isn't one thing threatening the planets existence it's another and there aren't any givens but I do agree that wisdom is the best course of action regardless.

My example also serves to say that there are other factions and factors in the world that may succeed in the worlds demise where we have failed. Or did we just open a can of worms in the middle east? I am thinking we destabilized a region when we so called 'liberated a people.' Perhaps defense is our only option these days and in my opinion always should have been.

I love that physicians code. 'do no harm'

:)

Mayans did not have two militaries with nuclear weapons and a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dic' thinking in both militaries believed use of nuclear weapons would solve all problems.

Civilizations die for other reasons. I believe the Mayans built cities adjacent to soils that eventually would no longer grow enough crops. The Spartans simply used war as a solution for all problems - therefore their numbers diminished to maybe 20,000. Rome may have been undermined by using so much lead water pipes and drinking glasses while their enemies learned Roman and other better techniques.

Intelligence alone does not guarantee survival. Nobody said that. But intelligent thinking is necessary for survival.

To overtly encourage and want war with Iran is just dumb. And yet here we are again confronting the same reasons that created "Mission Accomplished". From the same people. Some just never learn the lessons of history.


skysidhe - your quotes are cited only to engage everyone.

history repeats itself .....

This is remarkable to me. And I like it. It's the first time I've seen you post anything that could be construed as an effort to consider the feelings of the person you're responding to. You seems to want skysidhe to know that you're not attacking her. You're being kind to her. It's a little emotional of you, tw. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

I think you are flying to high off the radar glatt for any deducing to occur.

Plain and simple TW. It was a backhanded compliment...sort of strange I thought

It's the second time I got a "I wouldn't have ...only because blah blah....oh and not because of YOU ect ect" type of dismissal"

biotches

Feelings and emotions were never considered. What I read and replied to is nothing more than a logical statement. I saw no emotion or feeling posted. And I replied with same.

Posted was, "I appreciate you trying to engage me though."

Since that (a possible conclusion based only in facts) was not my intent, I posted a logical reply. "your quotes are cited only to engage everyone."

Nobody's emotions were considered, seen to be relevant, or inserted in any of those posts. skysidhe provided 'reasons why' for the scope and context of those replies. To better understand the underlying intent. To better understand what was being posted. That is only what I read.

I don't know why you saw any feelings in those posts. I saw none. I saw logic with reasons to better understand the reply. Nothing more.

Totally confuses me why you saw any emotion in my post. Let me restate that because that is literally the point. I have no idea why you saw emotions when I intended none to exist. I say this often. If you saw any emotion, you have installed your own biases into that post. When I chose to post with intent to hurt, et al, well, you knew it then AND you knew why.

A simple rule. If you perceive emotions, then you may have completely missed the logic. Keep rereading until you understand the text. Too many see emotions only because own biases or emotions were applied. Seek only what is stated. Too many use emotions to discover a hidden agenda.

Well, then I guess I was wrong.

I think you were right, not that it matters.

lol T'dub's channeling Spock again :P

and all is right with the world.