100 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
does seem a outrageous, even without a debate over
how the cuts are being handled.
Just seems too much given our own situation, besides the drama play over the cuts.
sold at a profit?
Or for pennies on the dollar?
It was 'sold' to them
using the money WE give them, so all we did was reduce that first check. AND we gave that equipment to a leader who hates Israel. Good job? This is the same crap we got from BO about how GM was saved and repaid the bailout (when it still isn't repaid and they used a SECOND bailout to make that first payment)....taking money from one pocket to pay the other pocket. Great shell game.......Now dispute my gasket blowing, Josh.
Here's an article from FOX NEWS......
......that explains the logic behind going through with this deal, which was made with Egypt before the Mubarak government was overthrown. Being Fox, you have to scroll down a bit to get to this part:
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment about the pending delivery. But earlier this month, a spokesperson said the Obama administration seeks to "maintain a strategic partnership with Egypt that enhances the security and peace of the region."
But Anthony H. Cordesman, who has served as a consultant for the State and Defense departments and who holds the Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the administration is right to send the planes.
"If you were to suddenly end this partnership with Egypt -- if you were to make Egypt feel that somehow it were not trusted or second-best, what would the security implications be? It certainly would justify or encourage all of the extremist elements that are trying to push Egypt away from both the peace process and the security partnership with the U.S.," he told FoxNews.com.
He said that the cost of providing the weapons is worth it.
"We need to remember that Egypt isn't just important to Israel. It is critical to us, because it controls the Suez Canal. It has been a vital staging point for U.S. operations in the gulf."
Cordesman argued that the F-16 fighter jets are unlikely to be turned against us or our allies, as they are too complex to be used effectively without U.S. maintenance.
Ask yourself this
Why does Egypt feel the need of these high power weapons? Who do they fear will attack them? Or do they want to have attack capability? If so, then who would they attack?
One could ask the same questions of homeowners with AR-15s.
Good thing you don't need an answer to your
AR-15's are more for personal 'fun' than for protection to be honest. They are a really cool, easy to fire weapon, and most are used on personal land as 'entertainment'....you will get that kind of response from just about any military or ex-military person who has owned or fired one......and totally LEGAL.
Now reverse your question......why do you think it is so important to politicians to have them taken away from law-abiding citizens who legally own them? I'll give you a clue......because it's POLITICALLY a good thing. As for their 'word' that you can keep what you already own (remember those famous last words from BO regarding Obamacare), don't bet on that either....Colorado's governor is already trying to pass a law that says that although you can keep what you already own, the new laws he wants in place will make it impossible for you to hand down your firearm to your son or daughter and if it breaks and needs repairs, you won't be able to find a gun dealer anywhere in their state will be legally allowed to fix it or find parts for it. Another way of doing away with weapons they don't want you to have anymore.
Paranoia runs deep.
They're ALL against you, nobody loves you, you're all alone, why bother getting out of bed.
So you have no problem with Egypt having those planes and weapons. Good for you.
I absolutely have a problem
with Egypt under THIS regime having those plans, tanks, weapons, AND cash.
Egypt isn't the FIRST country America has tried to buy
And Democrats aren't the FIRST to try it.
NOW you have a problem?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Obviously you weren't paying attention
Obama can do no right................
Even if others have done the same thing before and you agreed with them.
Oh, I'm paying attention all right.
So we should put up with 10,000 gun homicides every year....
......and mass shootings of six-year-olds so some people can enjoy "cool" "fun" toys that don't even serve well as personal protection?
We seem willing to release repeat offenders who do most the killing. We are willing to overlook that a 10-12% population group commits half the murders in this country because it's "not proportional" and that might result in "discrimination". Why not coverup the failure to reduce crime by passing a bunch of silly laws aimed at those who obey the laws anyway, then we can pretend we are doing a lot for the cause of law and justice, but "oh jailer, could you let another few out, we need to keep these crime stats up so we can keep fleecing the taxpayers to support our huge industry of courts, jails, police, bondsmen, lawyers, prosecutors, etc."
1 Timothy 1:9
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"
We need to concentrate on laws for the unrighteous instead of trying to take away the "inalienable" rights of the righteous.
You're emotional argument might be valid if,
of those 10K homicides, a significant percentage of the deaths were caused by military assault rifles which had been legally purchased. Otherwise, making a nice pretty law to ban them is more "feel good" than functional. I say let's begin by first putting our money and efforts into clearing the streets of the type of people known to be armed and dangerous.
That's a good goal too
However, let's not forget that most mass shootings are committed by people with no prior criminal history, IOW "law-abiding citizens."
So we round up the law abiding?
You think that a preemptive strike on all because of the sins of a few is where to go first? I hope you didn't mean that. If we know where the non law abiding persons hang out...and we do...I think we worry about them first. I don't know what percentage of the 10K homicides has come from otherwise first time criminals using assault weapons but that number will be a small one. It's sad but it might just be reality that we're losing the battle to the real criminal murderers so we'd rather go after those more likely to cooperate.
RE: so we'd rather go after those more likely to cooperate
Today they might cooperate....tomorrow they may not be so cooperative.
Tomorrow, when they are under stress...from affairs of the heart or work/school stress.
Nothing like emotions to get the trigger finger going. Who knows when emotions are going to rear their ugly head.
Ever listen to a police scanner? Any firearms in the residence is a popular question.
So we run towards where we think
gun shots might possibly be heard in the future rather than where we hear them coming from now? As the old Guinsess beer commercial says, "Brilliant!" ...(not)
RE; So we run towards where we think gun shots
Put down the Guinness...you've had too many.
So we run towards where we think gun shots might possibly be heard in the future rather than where we hear them coming from now?
You ARE more likely to hear gunshots from a place that has a firearm, than a place without a firearm. NOW if you could run fast enough to travel into the future, your plan would work.
So don't give driver's licenses or sell cars
to anyone with an otherwise impeccable record because who knows when they might feel under stress and go have a few too many and mow down a bunch of pedestrians in a crosswalk...or maybe get angry and do it deliberately. I'm sorry but, if I'm understanding your logic, it's a bit faulty. I do feel that, if a gun ban was called for and citizens required to hand over their weapons, you'd get far more cooperation in some neighborhoods than others.
The question about firearms in residence is simply so the cops can know in advance whether it's likely there is someone armed in the residence they're about to enter. That's one good reason for registration -- the cops can get a list beforehand of what guns might be in a house before they go in.
and how many resident's homes do the police enter where they would need to know ahead of time that they MIGHT be in danger vs the homes/apartments they break down doors to get into knowing ALREADY that they are after bad guys who WILL shoot back (with unregistered guns)? Your logic doesn't hold much merit or credibility for that argument, I'm afraid.
I think the police might already have a good idea of the existence of a threat just by their experience and knowing the neighborhood they are in and its past history. I'm not against some sort of registration but I really can't see any reason for police to feel more or less at ease about the situation they're entering just knowing whether a piece of paper does or doesn't exist.
You want gun control over law-abiding citizens on a 'likely' assumption that their weapons will be used to kill in a 'massacre' situation, but find it 'unlikely' that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt will use OUR weapons against US? Come on........
HANDGUN homicides, Josh
You forgot that most important word, didn't you?
Handgun homicides. Meanwhile, twenty first-graders were mowed down by your "fun" "cool" toy in December.
Because of a nut case who STOLE IT
not because he was a law-abiding citizen who owned it anyhow and would normally never even consider killing children with ANY weapon, Josh. So you have A nut case......and your answer is to condemn every law-abiding citizen for owning one? Do you see ANYTHING wrong with that picture? Of course not. Does it matter to you at all that he tried three days before the massacre to BUY a gun and was DENIED because he was a nut case? A nut case will FIND a way............
You still seem to think......
......that your fun, entertaining, cool toy is worth the cost in human lives. Any other toy linked to that many deaths would be pulled from the market very quickly.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 4)