Why can’t Carter just get assassinated? Fox news reported the Saudi Arabian donation but currently can’t find any blogs with the news.
Another great Carter episode.
Why can’t Carter just get assassinated? Fox news reported the Saudi Arabian donation but currently can’t find any blogs with the news.
Another great Carter episode.
Here’s some perspective. It is not just hobby like psychology for people to believe that the Left informs, supports, and provides comfort for dictatorial and tyrannical regimes and empires when it suits their purposes of weakening America.
You see it here now. Instead of supporting the power of the people in Iran, they make the decision that because they don’t want the US invading Iran, this means that the Iranian people have no right to make their own decisions for their own interests. After all, what do the Left care for the interests of the downtrodden, fake liberal propaganda lies aside that is.
As I mentioned before, the Catch 22 they put America in is a rather vicious cycle of violence and abuse of innocent people in this world. If America helps people in Iraq and Afghanistan, they see this as an illegal and wrong action and make up rationales about how it would have been better for the Iraqis had America done something more peaceful, which is simply another description of “something that benefits the Left but not anyone else”. That is what peace, means to the Left. And it is very important for people to understand how their enemies in the Left think, for you cannot accrue liberty for the downtrodden people of the world without realizing who and what the enemies of liberty are. The other side of the Catch 22 is that even if America does nothing, then we are blamed as ignoring and facilitating the violence for the “interests of America” which is taken to mean literally, by the Left, as the evil capitalistic and imperialistic policies of America. Some, like BMC, may not harbor exact enmity towards America, but they don’t need to. They simply have to facilitate the purposes of those who do, Confud and conned and Iranian mullahs, for example. You need not do your own dirty work when you can push a few buttons on a computer, and have someone else do it for you. Is this not the contempt they hold for Zionist and American puppetmasters that pull the strings of the world? People at the keyboards pushing buttons that blow people up? Yet in the end, it is not as if they truly avoid this kind of strategy, because all of their propaganda operates on the principle of pulling strings behind the scenes. Do they really care about the Iraqis fighting for their freedom and a better life, so long as their propaganda hurts American efforts there? Do they really care about the workers in India working at the factories, when they refuse to support free trade because the outsourcing is an example of big business corruption rather than the cowardice politicians show when they fear being unelected by their manufacturing constituency?
Read the first posts in this thread, again. Notice how the first instinct, the first reaction, is to look at things to make America and our allies feel guilty. Is this a way to actually get us to help those other unfortunates that people feel we are ignoring? Not really. It’s just a propaganda prop to misdirect our attention and use guilty to shackle our freedom of action. A pretext. Why shouldn’t it be, obviously people believe neo-cons are using riots in Iran as a pretext for invasion, so why should the Left refuse to do what they obviously think the enemy is already doing (the enemy being neo-cons and not the mullahs). It’s a bunch of mind games fit to demoralize Americans, and to prevent us from liberating people because the Left does not wish to see people feeling any loyalty or compassion towards America. For the oppressors truly cannot withstand it, if the people of this world look towards America as the model for the future, and not the socialistic ideology of the Left. There’s all kinds of people in an ideology, if you recall. They need not be made solely out of one kind of anti-American, hate Bush, mold. But there are some common traits you can see. As you can see it here in this thread, in the behavior of chief representatives. A movement is only as good as the people in them, so I only ask that you judge the behavior of the people representing such ideologies, and not blindly decry socialism or Leftist philosophy. It is after all, the principle reason why people refuse to support communism, because the communists attract very bad people like Mao. And you should not give up this principle solely because the enemy sees neo-conservatism as a hated ideology that should be destroyed at whatever cost to the innocent children of this world. There need be no enmity between two nations just because they are competitors or even mortal enemies. There was no none after MacArthur occupied Japan, for example. And there were no more fanatic and crazy enemies than the Japanese in America’s Second World War. It is people that matter, not ideology. Which I think, is important to remember.
In conclusion, people will defend Iran, mullahs and hanging rape victims aside, just to spite America because they want to stop us from invading Iran. Is this a moral and conscientious decision? One befitting a human being? Is this what the Left calls tough love? Destroying the village to save it? You tell me.
It is tough to remain on the path of righteousness and liberty, when you have people trying to pull you off and throw you under a train. They did this to George Washington, you know. They tried to make him take Philly because it was the capital of the US at the time. Washington refused. As refuse to invade Darfur. The interests of the capital and the politicians, the Left in other words, are not the same as the interests of world freedom or human rights. Let alone AMerican interests.
I just finished watching Washington the Warrior on the History Channel. Memorial day release, of course. It’s a good synopsis of a rare individual, who fought for a set of ideals and never got corrupted by the power he required to secure those ideals. Which is very rare, even if you just notice current events and not historical ones.
The Left considers the insurgents freedom fighters not because they chop off people’s heads, intimidate shop keepers, or declare Arabic independence but simply because they fight against America. Washington defined what a freedom fighter was. It is the choice of everyone else in the world, not to model themselves after American history and individuals. We can’t make them, just as we can’t fight their wars for them. They succede or they fail, based upon their own merits. So why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan helping them to succede? I guess it was a quirk of history. Just as it was a quirk of destiny and luck that Washington kept leading from the front and never got wounded at all.
Some people are just more lucky than others. Unfair, but that is how it is. Darfur would be in a much better situation had they switched places with Iraq, but nations and people can’t just switch places in the path of history. And that is sad, but the Left isn’t the one you should count upon to solve the problem however.
I’m watching Future Weapons on the discovery channel, hosted by a man who spent 10 years in the SEALs. I suppose he just couldn’t give up completely on the military and weapons, so he does a show about weapons ; ) This way, he can still get to test new stuff out even if he can’t get into combat anymore.
There were a couple of the featured weapons systems that civilians have perhaps only heard about peripherally.
Predator UAVs. Metalstorm weapons systems. M-107 Barret semi-automatic (Army probably calling it the X(8)(7) something) Thermobaric warheads. I think the last two were indirect artillery pieces. The MRSCI, Mercy, multiple rocket system. And the Indirect Line of Sight artillery piece.
The Mrsci fires a high explosive rocket over 65 kilometers (numbers are from memory, error included) at pinpoint precision. A smart bomb basically fired from a rocket system. You know those rocket systems, where you have like a truck bed with a 6 pack silo based rectangular box on the back, and it raises itself up and then there’s all kinds of dust and smoke when it fires. It looks like the crappy rockets used by Saddam in Gulf War 1, but this stuff is a lot more deadly because it is GPS guided. It also adapts such effective options as “delayed arming” which allows it to sink beneath a bunker (wood bunker, not concrete) and blow it up. Then there is the “airburst function”. Always the most lethal function against infantry.
So basically, if there’s an insurgent firing a mortar at your base, you can immediately fire a counter-battery shot at the location of the insurgent firing the mortars (trajectories calculated by computer models and sensors). This is why the insurgents tend to fire and then move, really really fast.
This precision rocket system is very good at blowing up wooden command bunkers. Where even normal artillery has trouble hitting because they’ve dug a six foot trench line in the ground and people are walking around in it. An artillery barrage would have to hit RIGHt on top of the command post, to blow it up, and even then it will only collapse the top portion. These precision rockets absolutely totaled that command structure. An airburst over an enemy mortar/artillery position totally eviscerates everyone in that general area, cause the shrapnel in the air becomes “englobed” and disperses along a sphere like trajectory. Think of having a big umbrella and anything under the umbrella gets hit by shrapnel that put fist sized holes in you.
This is simply the logical progression of GPS guided bombs. Now you can move a truck sized vehicle and have it blow people up from long distance. Since it ain’t a big 2,000 pound bomb, they can carry more of them and it doesn’t blow an entire neighborhood to kingdom come. So precision combined with limited collateral damage. good for urban terrain, which is why the US troops want them in Iraq.
There are two versions. The A version and the bigger, badder, more expensive B version. The A version looks like an oversized hand held electronic airplane. The B version looks like a freaking miniaturized Cesna. With 2 hellfires on it.
They were talking about how they used the Predator A in Kosovo to do intelligence work, look at the ground faster than a satellite can, get the info the commanders, send the info the pilots, and the target then becomes dead after the mission has launched. Then cause they were getting impatient with not enough kills, they started making these planes bigger so they could fly them around for 30 hours straight on overwatch, along with the fact that they can now carry hellfire munitions or basically anything weighing at 3,000 pounds. Osama’s third and second in command sure got surprised by these weapons systems.
So basically what we have here is the Leftist stereotype of video game warriors, flying multi-million dollar Predators from the safety of their base hundreds of miles away, shooting at people on a television screen (via sat uplink). From the mouths of Leftists, eventually they’ll get lucky and get something right😉
Since the Pred B flies at 30,000 feet, you ain’t never going to see it. Yet it can see YOU with radar and optical imaging cameras. Once the National Guard put these to use on the Southern Border, they will know instantly where the drug dealers are coming from and the smugglers and basically everything else going on at the Southern Border. What did you expect from a multi-million dollar UAV that has been used successfully to blow up hardcore jihadist terroists as well as finding them in the first place? Using them on smugglers and drug dealers in Mexico, is called OverKill. Well, it would be OverKill if you armed with them hellfire missiles that is. But that probably won’t happen. Most likely the NG will use this as a training exercise to give their pilots more “hours” with the gam I mean the plane.
The Metalstorm system
Now the Metalstorm is fun. First heard about it from John Ringo’s Dance with the Devil book. Basically you put like 10 bullets lined up in one gun barrel, and then electronically detonate them all at once, starting with the first bullet. So what basically happens is, you pull the trigger on a Metalstorm weapon, 3 rounds exit the barrel and hit the target BEFORE RECOIL, and then the gun recoils. Talk about railguns. Basically this gives the weapon you are using “recoiless” accuracy. You can fire a burst, and still have that burst hit its target. The American version of the Arab “spray and pray” method. But a lot more efficient and deadly.
More coming up, taking a break.
Now the metalstorm I saw on Future Weapons came in a lot of different sizes. It wasn’t just a huge installation on the ground or mounted on a vehicle. They had 3 barrelred handguns using the metalstorm system. They really emphasized the fact that it won’t jam, that there are no moving parts other than the bulleting firing. With an air cooled assault rifles, you have the loading springs and the bullet casing jaming, the magazine from which the round comes, and so on. More parts, more malfunctions. With the metalstorm, if one bullet doesn’t fire, the bullet behind it pushes the first bullet out. That sounds dangerous, but then again the powder they use isn’t gunpowder, it doesn’t “explode” if you hit it hard enough. They stopped using those awhile ago.
Some ideas they brought up was that you could mount these on rectangular box tubes and lower them from the side of a ship to destroy incoming torpedoes. Or mount it towards the air, to destroy ICBMs or Tomahawk cruise missiles.
What they didn’t mention was the recoil and the ammunition consumption and reloading problem. It fires 1 million rounds a minute, so you’re going to be needing A LOT of ammo. Since there is NO magazine, you are actually carrying around separate barrels with you. That’s fine for a handgun, was they just made the magazine a tube that consists solely of bullets and just breech loads it in, with no magazine using verticle vullets. That is ironic. With the Henry Repeating rifle, they had to load the bullets behind each other, then the Mauser made it more efficient by loading it vertically, bullet on top of bulelt, which allowed pointed bullets to be loaded that were much more lethal than the round bullets the Repeater Gun was using. Those round bullets looks like a .38 special because it is really dangerous pushing a big pointed bullet behind the percussion cap of another bulelt, back in the days when they still used gunpowder and other unsafe derivatives.
The problem with reloading in my view is, for bigger gun arrays, they’re going to have to either use a mechanized system or they are going to have to use hand loading like artillery pieces. This is not even including lugging around the ammo. The weapon works great, the logistics suck😉
I predict that the auto-loading indirect artillery system will be the solution here for anything other than small arms Metalstorm systems.
The regular M-82 Barret was a .50 caliber gun designed to destroy light armored vehicles like humvees. It was bolt action, using either 5 round box magazine or 10 round box magazine, not really sure. Anyways, a regular M-82 barret once fired, pushes you back several feet. Even for a strong man, firing 10 Barret .50 caliber rounds is going to really hurt your shoulder.
When they go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they wanted an semi-automatic .50 caliber gun that could fire “continuously” without having to use the bolt and lose the sight picture. However, recoil was a big problem. Even if you could make the .50 caliber semi-automatic, and that was the easy part, if the freaking gun threw you back several feet after you fired it (based upon your weight) then how are you going to fire it semi-auto? You can’t. So the designer, Barret (I think), totally redesigned the gun in order to have a weird sort of spring like barrel among other things I can’t explain. Anyways, this reduced the recoil down by 75%. So that the Future Weapons host, the former SEAL, was able to fire it one after the other. He commented that there was quite a noticeable difference in the kick of the weapon compared to the M-82 Barrets he had used before.
You should have seen the kind of damage a .50 caliber sniper rifle will do to steel, concrete, and human flesh targets. It is totally amazing and aweinspiring. Include terrifying if someone is shooting at you with it. This thing can reach over 2 miles, and make your body explode. It is an absolute terror weapon on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. The puny little SVD Dragunovs the insurgents used can’t even penetrate US body armor. One time some soldier got shoot in the head, and his kevlar armor stopped the Dragunov round. He thought he got hit by a rock. It was right in the middle of his forehead, or it would have been had he not been wearing the kevlar helmet.
People who talk about our troops not having good body armor cause IEDs blow off their limbs, are either totally bullshitting the american people or they are just plaint ignint.
Some stuff inspired by reading Neo Neo con.
I can’t really say whether this kind of belief system is better termed fanaticism, true belief, or simple religious zealotry. There are differences to those 3, but since nobody really talks about them I’ve found that I have had to make the differences up by myself.
But I will say that anyone who tries to destroy the United States and replace it with their own system, is a potential enemy. However, this differs a bit from how the Left works. True patriots on both sides of a conflict can have a reasonable conversation. Why? Because, even if they are fighting for different countries and putting their faith and belief in different countries, they actually have a lot of common traits. Not all the time, even people on the same side can have different ideas about whether to use violence or not (Malcom X Martin Luther King J) However, the idea of reasonable discourse, a “parley” if you will, between two opposing mortal enemies, is something I accept out of hand.
Yet the Left does not. Why? Is it because the Left has no history of military action, and therefore no history of reasoned conduct with the enemy? Is words and propaganda the only means by which they discourse with the enemy? Is it because the Left are not true patriots talking with true patriots because they don’t believe in a nation at all? Lots of questions, and few if any answers.
The Left, in my view, don’t act like true believers. Because true believers are not crazy, insane, out of control, or anything like that. Fanatics are out of control, true believers have more control than that.
A true believer, like an American patriot, can explain to you exactly why he believes America is good and her enemies are evil. Without any doubt, without any need to resort to anger to bolster their self-confidence or contempt for the enemy. It simply “is”. It exists. For the true believer, reality is as reality is, and if reality is something else and that conflicts with his true beliefs, then he will change reality to his true beliefs. Nothing else matters.
The Left doesn’t act like true believers, since I tend to believe if they were truly confident in their beliefs, they would go off like a steam engine every once in awhile. The Left spends little to no time considering the consistency of their beliefs. They also don’t spend a lot of time considering how to best effect their beliefs.
For example. If they believe Hitler is bad because he killed people, then they should think about how to stop people from being killed in the same manner (Iran). People like Neo have heartfelt and true beliefs in certain things like human rights, and that is one reason why she refused to stay with the Left.
The psychology behind that is interesting. Because a true patriot, a true believer in America for example, would actually do armed insurrection if they believed the government of america was corrupt and taken over by the enemies of America, foreign or domestic.
If a person is loyal to the government and always the government, bar nothing, then that person is a fanatic, he is a feudal retainer.
In conclusion, a person with inconsistent beliefs and bad self-esteem, bolstered by the reassurance and warmth of rage and anger, cannot be said to truely believe in the things that they state as their beliefs.
It doesn’t what the beliefs are. It only matters at what level do they hold their own beliefs in confidence. If someone fears even hearing the opposition, just how strong is that person’s mind anyways? And can a person truly be said to be a true believer, if he is so weak mentally that anything can pass through and grip him in a righteous rage?
Fanaticism applies more readily to enraged beserkers. And the Left, are if anything, kind of beserk right now.
This is some really funny stuff
Two Black Panthers came onto O’Reilly’s show. One of them said that Malcom X recommended that “you kill any good white people you will find, before they go bad”. Or “we are going to do to you, what the white people did to us when they killed our women and our children.
“Why don’t you kill anyone right now?”
Response-“You’re the biggest killer around O’Reilly.”
“Why don’t you do armed insurrection?”
Response-“Because we believe peace is better than violence”
I can’t find the video clip anywhere for this segment, but it is very chilling because one fanatic knows another as they say. One true believer recognizes another, and he was a true believer.
The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.
Saddam=WMD=been used before.
Saddam was NOT provided with enough food to feed the population.
Oh Saddam had food, he just only fed his loyalists.
On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?
The amount that the United States has directly killed in Iraq, without resorting to semantical arguments of guilt without trial, is a lot lower than 40,000.