SureFire Torchlights
-
okay point taken,sorry that i was wrong..just out of curiosity are u some analyst working for some thinktank or financial analyst ?Originally posted by John Ching:On what bases can you provide that GWB did not stand by his country?
Its Bill Clinton that didn't stand by his troops or his country thats why Bin Ladin is still alive. Its Bill Clinton thats why Bill Gates is the riches & powerful man.
When Bill Clinton became 42nd President of United States of America, one of his imediate task was the down sizing of the U.S military & its spendings. If he hadn't done that, today the U.S military could've clear Iraq's militants in a blink of an eye.
CIA had no resources in areas that matter most is because when Bill Clinton was President, CIA resources were diverted to focus on economic espionage thats why it had to rely on the Brits intel to sell its war on Iraq.
43rd President GWB, as you've name him, didn't even blame Clinton & his administration for the mess instead he accepted the mess & set about working on it.
If watching Farenheit 9/11 is how you derive your opinion of BUSH then its very sad.
-
Uh - I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. I Don't think any army, however huge, can clear the militants "ina blink of an eye". The only way to do that , and even then its more like couple of weeks, is to level iraq.Originally posted by John Ching:When Bill Clinton became 42nd President of United States of America, one of his imediate task was the down sizing of the U.S military & its spendings. If he hadn't done that, today the U.S military could've clear Iraq's militants in a blink of an eye.
24 hour Media coverage and notions of fairness is more to blame i believe.
^
1
1
any way i think you said that only in a fit of anger and i dun think you really meant the above.
As for the rest of your post, i have no beef simply coz i dunno much abt GWB. -
Well, John, that's one way of putting it, but you know as well as I do that it isn't the entire picture.Originally posted by John Ching:On what bases can you provide that GWB did not stand by his country?
Its Bill Clinton that didn't stand by his troops or his country thats why Bin Ladin is still alive. Its Bill Clinton thats why Bill Gates is the riches & powerful man.
When Bill Clinton became 42nd President of United States of America, one of his imediate task was the down sizing of the U.S military & its spendings. If he hadn't done that, today the U.S military could've clear Iraq's militants in a blink of an eye.
The push to downsize of the US military began during the GHW Bush's term. Once the USSR collapsed, there was no longer any organ ised enemy of millions to fight, and we weren't going to see T-72s rolling across the German plains. While there was nothing wrong with downsizing per se, the US military did need to retool to fight a different kind of war, and they failed to do that. The mess in Somalia highlighted that need, but the military was slow to adapt. To put it simply, would the US military in 1989 be equipped to fight the current war in Iraq by virtue of its size?
Clinton, being a Democrat, focussed more on domestic issues, and say what you like of him, he handled the ecenomy well and did a good job with national debt (okay, maybe you could argue that Sir Alan was a big part of that as well, but Clinton was at the wheel). That's not something that Michael Moore harps on about in his rabid rantings.
That's inaccurate. The CIA formed a Bin Laden desk in 1996, under Clinton's instructions. This desk worked constantly to get Bin Laden, planning missile strikes and a capture operation in conjunction with Afghan dissident groups. The problem was Pakistan, which sympathised with the Taliban government and got in the way of a number of those operations. Also, because of the nuclear testing situation between India and Pakistan, the US government could not lean on the Pakistanis too hard.Originally posted by John Ching:CIA had no resources in areas that matter most is because when Bill Clinton was President, CIA resources were diverted to focus on economic espionage thats why it had to rely on the Brits intel to sell its war on Iraq.
Aw, come on. Do you think that a president, despite his strongest sentiments, would be allowed to make such a politically-explosive statement to blame his predecessor? Besides, he had the 9/11 Commission to rake Clinton over the coals for him.Originally posted by John Ching:43rd President GWB, as you've name him, didn't even blame Clinton & his administration for the mess instead he accepted the mess & set about working on it. -
hmm okay you ppl win, sadly i was enlisted during this turmoil period of 9/11 and things never became the same again. i remember my fren telling me over the handphone that fateful nite that some hijackers hijacked a airliner and suddenly he went beserk shouting WTF WTF WTF !! telling 1st hand that one of the airliner crashed into the WTC ....Originally posted by Gedanken:Aw, come on. Do you think that a president, despite his strongest sentiments, would be allowed to make such a politically-explosive statement to blame his predecessor? Besides, he had the 9/11 Commission to rake Clinton over the coals for him.
Well john maybe right, he maybe wrong.but i still belived the war in iraq was not necessary...where are the WMD ? now the US are facing another guerilla war in Iraq...coupled by the fact its not communist idelogy they are fighting but a religion that seems hell bent on exterminating US ... -
Uh, I don't get you, one-niner. What did we win?
-
i see we have a Bush supporter here. *snort*Originally posted by John Ching:On what bases can you provide that GWB did not stand by his country?
Its Bill Clinton that didn't stand by his troops or his country thats why Bin Ladin is still alive. Its Bill Clinton thats why Bill Gates is the riches & powerful man.
When Bill Clinton became 42nd President of United States of America, one of his imediate task was the down sizing of the U.S military & its spendings. If he hadn't done that, today the U.S military could've clear Iraq's militants in a blink of an eye.
CIA had no resources in areas that matter most is because when Bill Clinton was President, CIA resources were diverted to focus on economic espionage thats why it had to rely on the Brits intel to sell its war on Iraq.
43rd President GWB, as you've name him, didn't even blame Clinton & his administration for the mess instead he accepted the mess & set about working on it.
If watching Farenheit 9/11 is how you derive your opinion of BUSH then its very sad. -
ahhhhh okay.............Originally posted by palmerised:not that big lah..
-
i agree with one thing. Bush started the damn war claiming there were WMDs, but that was purely a lie used for him to start a war for oil.Originally posted by one-niner:Well john maybe right, he maybe wrong.but i still belived the war in iraq was not necessary...where are the WMD ? now the US are facing another guerilla war in Iraq...coupled by the fact its not communist idelogy they are fighting but a religion that seems hell bent on exterminating US ... -
nah jus that what John Ching argue abt his feelings towards GWB is pretty valid and surreal, maybe i was blinded by Farenheit 9/11.Originally posted by Gedanken:Uh, I don't get you, one-niner. What did we win?
To me, i think its a chain of events that lead up to these mess,a very big snowball of events here and there. i remember reading abt Osama bin Laden and his merry men in Reader's Digest way back in 1996 or 1997.in that era when terroism was still restricted to those airplane bombing by those middle east ppl and ppl in IRA and not by those Al Queada.In the article, it also wrote abt Osama's family fortune and his fight against the soviet invasion etc ..and he chose a life of a terroist to straighten things up...
I remember vaguely the CIA was trying to track Mr Osama down due to his terroist activities, but he wasn't some Ace of Spades card, maybe the CIA procrestinated or what ...fast forward to 2001 when Mr Osama decided to wage a holy war against the infidels, USA...
If anyone read The Godfather by Murio Puzo, the book cover began by, "Behind every great fortune, there is always a crime, Balzac" -
Ok, it was too dramatic to state that the U.S military can end the conflict in Iraq in a blink of an eye. But it would definatly made things easier compared to the current sit.Originally posted by lwflee:Uh - I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that. I Don't think any army, however huge, can clear the militants "ina blink of an eye". The only way to do that , and even then its more like couple of weeks, is to level iraq.
24 hour Media coverage and notions of fairness is more to blame i believe.
^
1
1
any way i think you said that only in a fit of anger and i dun think you really meant the above.
As for the rest of your post, i have no beef simply coz i dunno much abt GWB.
Hmm! What was it that I stated that made you assume I was in a fit of anger?
Theres really not much you need to know about Bush, seriously. Other then the fact that he's handling things a step at a time. -
Honestly, everyone saw the ideal of down sizing the U.S military as a s ign that the world would be a safer place for all. GHW Bush's plan was that the military be down size over the next few years in a slow & controlled manner. Clinton's admin tool power & downsize the military like they were throwing out old furnitures. As it is public knowledge, so you should know, that Clinton never liked anything to do with the military. Somolia was not the only mistake, what about Bosnia?Originally posted by Gedanken:Aw, come on. Do you think that a president, despite his strongest sentiments, would be allowed to make such a politically-explosive statement to blame his predecessor? Besides, he had the 9/11 Commission to rake Clinton over the coals for him.
Its true Clinton handled the economy well but don't mistake that for domestic issues, Wilco- Texas, Oklahoma's bombing, et cetra. In fact, domestic terrorism was at an all time high during Clinton's administration.
The so-called "CIA's Bin Ladin desk" was just a front thats all. The focus for the CIA had shifted greatly to economic issues because Clinton don't like to hear words like danger, kill, eliminate, war, military, et cetra. Time & again plans to send U.S SpecOps to get OBL or others were rejected by Clinton. In fact, currently in Hague, Slobodan Milosevic, former Yugoslavia ex-leader, could've been captured by U.S SpecOps but Clinton pressured Blair to send his SAS to do the job.
If CIA during Clinton's admin was focus on serious issues, India & Pakistan would never have completed their nuke programe & for that matter, neither would Iran. But CIA knew nothing about it because they were working to please Clinton's agenda.
Clinton tried to do serious work, with his pants-up, during the last days of his Presidency by trying to settle the Israel & Palestin issue. We all know where that has ended, the start of the long conflict between Israel & Palestin. -
Hahaha! I never claimed to be a supporter of Bush.Originally posted by HENG@:i see we have a Bush supporter here. *snort*
I just felt that people were much quicker to the gun with regards to how Bush is working then they are at themselves. Every man needs a break every now & then, so does Bush. Bush was sworn in as the 43rd U.S President on Jan 20, 2001. From that 1st day as President till Sep 11, 2001, everywhere you turn you'll be able to hear a joke about Bush. How he spoke, how he walks, et cetra. Has anyone made a joke about Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long since he took office or the Indonesian President?
See the good & the bad about America is the "FREEDOM" to this & that. So its not wrong for anyone to make a joke about the President but its wrong when that joke becomes the stigma of the man. He is doing his best to defend America but sadly, even though he was elected again, Americans are not defending him. -
Officially the war has already ended. So if your claims that Bush's war in Iraq was purely for the purpose of oil then why is the U.S dollar dropping faster then the rising of oil per barrel?Originally posted by HENG@:i agree with one thing. Bush started the damn war claiming there were WMDs, but that was purely a lie used for him to start a war for oil. -
OF COURSE! have u not seen me commenting on how talented our dear PM is, so talented that b4 he becomes the PM, he offends China, after he becomes the PM, he offends Taiwan? way to go! How talented he must be to be able to piss both sides off!Originally posted by John Ching:Hahaha! I never claimed to be a supporter of Bush.
I just felt that people were much quicker to the gun with regards to how Bush is working then they are at themselves. Every man needs a break every now & then, so does Bush. Bush was sworn in as the 43rd U.S President on Jan 20, 2001. From that 1st day as President till Sep 11, 2001, everywhere you turn you'll be able to hear a joke about Bush. How he spoke, how he walks, et cetra. Has anyone made a joke about Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long since he took office or the Indonesian President?
See the good & the bad about America is the "FREEDOM" to this & that. So its not wrong for anyone to make a joke about the President but its wrong when that joke becomes the stigma of the man. He is doing his best to defend America but sadly, even though he was elected again, Americans are not defending him. -
Yes, I think it's public knowledge to the world that Slick Wille skipped the draft, dropped his pants and didn't inhale. I'm not his biggest fan either, but if we're trying to understand the current situation, those are red herrings.Originally posted by John Ching:Honestly, everyone saw the ideal of down sizing the U.S military as a s ign that the world would be a safer place for all. GHW Bush's plan was that the military be down size over the next few years in a slow & controlled manner. Clinton's admin tool power & downsize the military like they were throwing out old furnitures. As it is public knowledge, so you should know, that Clinton never liked anything to do with the military. Somolia was not the only mistake, what about Bosnia?
Its true Clinton handled the economy well but don't mistake that for domestic issues, Wilco- Texas, Oklahoma's bombing, et cetra. In fact, domestic terrorism was at an all time high during Clinton's administration.
I'd say that a more crucial factor was the intelligence community's high degree of reliance on Sigint instead of Humint, which is a carry-over from the Cold War days. Al Qaeda's finances were channeled through hawala, and funds were also illicitly funneled from various unrelated sources. No amount of electronic surveillance could have tracked any of that, and we're talking about US$30 million a year. You can't dismantle a Cold-War intelligence machine and retool a new one overnight, and which president is running the show isn't going to make a whole lot of difference.
Not quite right - the cancellations were mainly the work of Richard Clarke (a Republican), Sandy Berger and George Tenet. Few, if any, of those decisions reached the Oval Office.Originally posted by John Ching:The so-called "CIA's Bin Ladin desk" was just a front thats all. The focus for the CIA had shifted greatly to economic issues because Clinton don't like to hear words like danger, kill, eliminate, war, military, et cetra. Time & again plans to send U.S SpecOps to get OBL or others were rejected by Clinton. In fact, currently in Hague, Slobodan Milosevic, former Yugoslavia ex-leader, could've been captured by U.S SpecOps but Clinton pressured Blair to send his SAS to do the job.
If CIA during Clinton's admin was focus on serious issues, India & Pakistan would never have completed their nuke programe & for that matter, neither would Iran. But CIA knew nothing about it because they were working to please Clinton's agenda.
As for the India-Pakistan issue, India had built a nuclear weapon and tested it by 1974, and Pakistan had enough fissile material for a weapon by 1986. Your point about the CIA being serious during the Clinton administration therefore does not hold.
I disagree. If Yitzhak Rabin had not been assasinated (by an Israeli) in 1996, leaving Netanyahu and Sharon in charge, the peace process would have been along a lot further than it is now.Originally posted by John Ching:Clinton tried to do serious work, with his pants-up, during the last days of his Presidency by trying to settle the Israel & Palestin issue. We all know where that has ended, the start of the long conflict between Israel & Palestin.
Besides, if you want to look at the short version of Israel and Palestine, you would have to go back to 1967, when Israel took the West Bank and Gaza Strip (we all have Egypt and Syria to thank for that mess). You could also go back to 1948, when the state of Israel was fromed at Palestine's expense. In 1945, when the Stern Gang was carrying out terrorist activities to push for a Zionist state, Clinton was little more than an itch in his daddy's crotch. Sure, he couldn't sort out the mess, but neither could anybody in the last 56 years. -
And to imagine this all started out from a discussion about torchlights! Stone soup, anyone?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:And to imagine this all started out from a discussion about torchlights! Stone soup, anyone?
yes please!
we can count on good 'ol Ged to tell it like it is. It's all down pat now. -
LOL! Talk about thread drift!
-
lets contiune farther ...is there still any gd bah kut teh in singapore ??Originally posted by patriot:LOL! Talk about thread drift!
i miss laksa and chicken lice ..wahhaha -
On the issue of HUMINT, it was the result of downsizing & the change of agenda by the Clinton admin which resulted in the CIA relying on SIGINT. But CIA has no control of SIGINT, so they can't really was it to their advantage. On the issue of U.S$30 mil, how sure are you that no one had information on it? The FBI has experience agents that spent their career time tracing moneys all over the world. Besides, everyone knows when U.S$30 mil is moving around the world, even the Singapore Intelligents would know about it.Originally posted by Gedanken:I disagree. If Yitzhak Rabin had not been assasinated (by an Israeli) in 1996, leaving Netanyahu and Sharon in charge, the peace process would have been along a lot further than it is now.
Besides, if you want to look at the short version of Israel and Palestine, you would have to go back to 1967, when Israel took the West Bank and Gaza Strip (we all have Egypt and Syria to thank for that mess). You could also go back to 1948, when the state of Israel was fromed at Palestine's expense. In 1945, when the Stern Gang was carrying out terrorist activities to push for a Zionist state, Clinton was little more than an itch in his daddy's crotch. Sure, he couldn't sort out the mess, but neither could anybody in the last 56 years.
Richard Clark, Sandy Berger, George Tenet &, you missed out, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed to shelved the operations to get OBL & the likes on behalf of the President of the United States as it did not agree with the political position of the Clinton's agenda. Clinton signed a "No assasination exacutive order", which means that OBL & the likes cannot be shot on sight by U.S armed assets. Theres a rumour that because of the no assasination order, OBL was warned of the missile strike that could've sent him to Allah inadvance of the 9/11. So in the end who's the MAN?
Clinton might not have been able to end the conflict 8 years in office but he should've at least had abit of progress. Seriously, Clinton wasn't concern about the Israel & Palestine issue until towards the end of his Presidency. He was hopping that he could end his term in history as the President who brought peace to the M.E instead of the President with his pants down. By the way Yitzhak Rabin's assasination itself is evident that neither he could end the conflict between Israel & Palestine.
Bush knows that he too can't settle the problems between Israel & Palestine but unlike previous U.S Presidents, who just enjoy hosting the 2 leaders of Israel & Palestine for publicity photos to act as if their working on a peace plan, Bush did give a very hush word to Sharon to put his hatre aside & get on with a working peace plan with Palestine.
India tested a nuke device in 1974, Pakistan started a nuke programe in 1972. Both parties had no accurate missile capable to carry the nuke to its target. However, India's 1st operational nuke missile, Prithvi, was in 1995. The question then should be why the CIA couldn't prevent India from getting the parts to build its Prithvi missile? -
Talking about laksa, I had a great bowl of laksa at the Changi airport when I arrived back in Singapore.Originally posted by one-niner:lets contiune farther ...is there still any gd bah kut teh in singapore ??
i miss laksa and chicken lice ..wahhaha 
-
damn Shit. now that u mention it, I miss Laksa.Originally posted by John Ching:Talking about laksa, I had a great bowl of laksa at the Changi airport when I arrived back in Singapore. -
SIGINT was a carry-over from the Reagan days, and while they had HUMINT at the same time, I doubt that someone who could blend in at St Petersburg would blend in at Tora Bora. Since 1989 there's been a huge shift in the requirements placed on both the military and intelligence services, and they're still struggling to catch up with it - I don't see any significant changes in HUMINT now that we're in GWB's second term - do you?Originally posted by John Ching:On the issue of HUMINT, it was the result of downsizing & the change of agenda by the Clinton admin which resulted in the CIA relying on SIGINT. But CIA has no control of SIGINT, so they can't really was it to their advantage. On the issue of U.S$30 mil, how sure are you that no one had information on it? The FBI has experience agents that spent their career time tracing moneys all over the world. Besides, everyone knows when U.S$30 mil is moving around the world, even the Singapore Intelligents would know about it.
You are aware of what hawala is, aren't you? Perhaps now that we know that the $30 million was moved around by a bunch of labourers under the pretext of taking money home to their families, the FBI might be able to do something about it, but even so I doubt it. As it is, stopping OBL's inheritance of $300 million from the old man, and later the $1 million per year stipend, took enough doing. With no electronic trail, and cash (not transfers) moving in small amounts in all forms of currencies, please explain how you would trace it for starters - stopping it is another matter alotgether.
Wrong on two counts. First, while there was indeed a "no execution" order, the orders to capture OBL included a clause that allowed for the possibility of OBL getting killed during a capture operation - gee, how would that work out to someone on ground zero? I disagree with you about Albright's role in shelving operations. Perhaps it was Janet Reno's objection to the operations on constitutional grounds you were thinking about?Originally posted by John Ching:Richard Clark, Sandy Berger, George Tenet &, you missed out, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright agreed to shelved the operations to get OBL & the likes on behalf of the President of the United States as it did not agree with the political position of the Clinton's agenda. Clinton signed a "No assasination exacutive order", which means that OBL & the likes cannot be shot on sight by U.S armed assets. Theres a rumour that because of the no assasination order, OBL was warned of the missile strike that could've sent him to Allah inadvance of the 9/11. So in the end who's the MAN?
Second, check your maps. A cruise missile strike would have to overfly Pakistan to hit OBL. Given Pakistan's sympathy towards the Taliban government during the late 90's, and the need to assure the Pakistanis that the missile over their heads was not of Indian origin, there was never much chance of a missile landing on OBL's doorstep without warning. Even after Musharraf deposed Sharif, he didn't yet have the political muscle to overcome pro-Taliban sentiment in Pakistan until 9/11.
Gee, really? I wonder why Yigal Amir, Rabin's assassin, said in his defence, "a Palestinian state is starting to be established". I'm sure that as a law student, Amir would not have been able to see that Rabin's plan had a good chance of working.Originally posted by John Ching:Clinton might not have been able to end the conflict 8 years in office but he should've at least had abit of progress. Seriously, Clinton wasn't concern about the Israel & Palestine issue until towards the end of his Presidency. He was hopping that he could end his term in history as the President who brought peace to the M.E instead of the President with his pants down. By the way Yitzhak Rabin's assasination itself is evident that neither he could end the conflict between Israel & Palestine.
Bush knows that he too can't settle the problems between Israel & Palestine but unlike previous U.S Presidents, who just enjoy hosting the 2 leaders of Israel & Palestine for publicity photos to act as if their working on a peace plan, Bush did give a very hush word to Sharon to put his hatre aside & get on with a working peace plan with Palestine.
There are too many parallels between the assassinations of Rabin and Sadat for comfort, and we can all see that Sadat was in fact assassinated for a peace plan that ultimately worked. Are you going to say that Sadat went to the White House for photo opps with Jimmy Carter too?
If anything, Bush is doing exactly what you're saying Clinton did. That's because he's too busy being stuck in Iraq to worry about Israel and Palestine.
Clinton took over in 1993 - do you think it takes two years to completely develop a missile? Even if the US wasn't having a major post-Cold-War restructure, it would have been too late for Clinton to have done anything about it. If there was any president who could have done anything about it in time, it would have been Reagan.Originally posted by John Ching:India tested a nuke device in 1974, Pakistan started a nuke programe in 1972. Both parties had no accurate missile capable to carry the nuke to its target. However, India's 1st operational nuke missile, Prithvi, was in 1995. The question then should be why the CIA couldn't prevent India from getting the parts to build its Prithvi missile?
Now, who's for laksa? -
Laksa? me.
-
Hmm - perhaps I should have Katong Laksa - it's only a few minutes' walk away.