Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:36 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 10:20 am, BAR wrote:
The negotiations should go like this.
USA: Our terms are you have 2 hours to return the Captain of the US ship
or you will all die.
I agree with this post....
-------------------------
Are you both willing to honor the implied contract that if they release
the captain, they won't die?
Are you willing to knowingly and willingly sacrifice the hostage?
Eisboch
Put the additional item in there that we will go into your home towns and
kill your families also. Not legal, but they understand that part about
killing the relatives as it is done by themselves.
t
You've all missed the point. Bush exuded the impression that if you
mess with the USA, that he was crazy enough to stomp you regardless of
consequences.


What Bush exuded was stupidity...that if you were terrorists and
attacked the United States, Bush would make war against the wrong
country, sacrifice thousands more American lives and ga-zillions of
dollars and in the process allow the economy to be destroyed.

The terrorists continue to laugh at us.

--
Palin & Bachmann in 2012 -
All Stupidity All the Time

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
For GOD's sake, send reinforcements quick. A billion dollar destroyer
that could single handedly defeat Japan in WW2 is stymied by three
thugs in a lifeboat and Obama panics and sends reinforcements when he
hears they may be joined by another unarmed merchant vessel with a
dozen or so pirates.
Obama sends a stern warning, "I'm not kidding, unless they reduce
their demands to $1 million, this time I'll not only bow, I'll pucker
up too" sure put the fear of something into those pirates.

Meanwhile, those awful brits at the UK Telegraph are calling Obama a
"Pantywaist surrender monkey". When a euro type calls you that, its
gotta hurt.

It should. And it is true. Maybe Obama has to learn being president isn't
all about pork-corruption-debt spend.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 1:36 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





wrote in message
...

On Apr 11, 10:20 am, BAR wrote:

The negotiations should go like this.

USA: Our terms are you have 2 hours to return the Captain of the US
ship
or you will all die.

I agree with this post....

-------------------------

Are you both willing to honor the implied contract that if they release
the captain, they won't die?
Are you willing to knowingly and willingly sacrifice the hostage?

Eisboch

Put the additional item in there that we will go into your home towns and
kill your families also. Not legal, but they understand that part about
killing the relatives as it is done by themselves.
t
You've all missed the point. Bush exuded the impression that if you
mess with the USA, that he was crazy enough to stomp you regardless of
consequences.
Obama gives the impression of "Please dont hit me, I'll give you my
lunch money". His bow to the Saudi King was a clear indication of no
action toward pirates.
----
Well the Saudi, Osama Bin Ladden's brother has signifigant investment in
Carlyle and that means GM and GMAC.... with Quayle and Bush too.... brothers
of Harvard on the bailout bonanza. What a web of relationships. I am only
surprised the media does not flaunt these relationships.

"HK" wrote in message
news
Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 11, 1:36 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...





wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 10:20 am, BAR wrote:
The negotiations should go like this.
USA: Our terms are you have 2 hours to return the Captain of the US
ship
or you will all die.
I agree with this post....
-------------------------
Are you both willing to honor the implied contract that if they release
the captain, they won't die?
Are you willing to knowingly and willingly sacrifice the hostage?
Eisboch
Put the additional item in there that we will go into your home towns
and
kill your families also. Not legal, but they understand that part about
killing the relatives as it is done by themselves.
t
You've all missed the point. Bush exuded the impression that if you
mess with the USA, that he was crazy enough to stomp you regardless of
consequences.


What Bush exuded was stupidity...that if you were terrorists and attacked
the United States, Bush would make war against the wrong country,
sacrifice thousands more American lives and ga-zillions of dollars and in
the process allow the economy to be destroyed.

The terrorists continue to laugh at us.

We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a nuke, one
each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...



We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a nuke,
one each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.


Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...



We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a nuke,
one each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.


Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Not officially. But officially we have uranium, mines and partial
refinement capabilities to make them

If we have them, they would be US made and supplied. Some rumours fly
around here and there. My guess is they could be moved from the Dakota's to
Cold Lake in no time.... if they already are not there.

On Apr 11, 5:41*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...



"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

We need to get tougher to deal with this. *Should have just been a nuke,
one each for Iraq and Afganistan. *Over in 30 minutes.

Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. * I don't know the answer.

Not officially. *But officially we have uranium, mines and partial
refinement capabilities to make them

If we have them, they would be US made and supplied. *Some rumours fly
around here and there. *My guess is they could be moved from the Dakota's to
Cold Lake in no time.... if they already are not there.

The question is what is a desireable outcome here.

If you say freeing the hostages.......WRONG. A desireable outcome is
to minimize future occurences. This may be entirely different from
saving the hostages and not recognizing this fact will result in many
more deaths. Obama is not capable of understanding this. Paying
ransom is morally wrong because it results in more hostages being
taken. Thus, the actiuons of the rest of the world to this point have
been both morally and logically wrong and have brought us to this
point.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...



We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a nuke,
one each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.


Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Eisboch

We could have been an early member of the nuclear club...in the 1950s... but
official policy is against them now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...ss_destruction

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...

The question is what is a desireable outcome here.

If you say freeing the hostages.......WRONG. A desireable outcome is
to minimize future occurences. This may be entirely different from
saving the hostages and not recognizing this fact will result in many
more deaths. Obama is not capable of understanding this. Paying
ransom is morally wrong because it results in more hostages being
taken. Thus, the actiuons of the rest of the world to this point have
been both morally and logically wrong and have brought us to this
point.

--------------------------

I would say that certainly a desirable outcome is to minimize future
occurrences, however......

Our culture values life. The purpose of law enforcement and the military is
to protect and secure civilian life. There have been many examples of
police, firefighters and military sacrificing more than one casualty or
fatality in the effort to save one civilian life.

The primary objective right now is to save the civilian hostage if at all
possible.
Once accomplished, it will be time to minimize future occurrences.

Eisboch

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...



We need to get tougher to deal with this. Should have just been a nuke,
one each for Iraq and Afganistan. Over in 30 minutes.


Does Canada have nukes?

Serious question. I don't know the answer.

Eisboch

We could have been an early member of the nuclear club...in the 1950s...
but official policy is against them now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...ss_destruction


I did some reading on the subject. Canada isn't an "official" nuke member,
but played a significant role in the development of the first bomb. The
Canadian prime minister knew about the existence of the first bomb before
Truman did when he took office after FDR's death.

Eisboch