Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
ParticipantMight try Del Cerro too. Much of the area has tree lawns. (though most of the trees were yanked because of the damage they did to the sidewalk.) Most of the homes are ranch style. 2500 square feet might be a little over the average, but there are plenty that are that big and bigger. 1/4 acre lots are rare, but a lot are >8,000 square feet. Good views are pretty common. And the price range is within your limits, maybe even cheaper.
Might be hard to find everything you want, but you can get most of it there.
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=KSMountain]
ucodegen is correct or mostly correct. There are several books written on this subject by U.S. folks who were there at the time, in different branches of service. It is possible to educate oneself on this matter…[/quote]I am a dumb guy so why don’t you educate me… The only accounts of US folks that I can find go like this.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-4494937.html
They all seem to suggest that Delta force presented several plans to take out Bin Laden, but Bush administration/Gen Tommy Franks did not approve any of them and decided to let Afghans do it…
Do you disagree with such a characterization? If yes, then educate me![/quote]
Some people might be surprised at this, but I do disagree with the characterization. Mostly with the framing.
I have no doubt that Bush wanted to get Bin Laden. Same with Franks. I suspect he was presented with a number of options, including letting the Afghans do it. I don’t know exactly what all those options were, but I suspect they included most of them listed by many sources. Between he and his advisors, it was (apparently) decided that “letting the Afghans do it” was the best choice. Not because he didn’t have the balls to do it. But because based on the facts he was given, it was the best choice.
Those are the kinds of choices commanders have to make. Sometimes they’re the right decision, sometimes the wrong one. Bottom line, he DID approve of one of the choices he was given. None of us will probably ever know the details of how and why he came to that decision, but of the thousands of decisions he made as president, I can’t fault him for this one. He did make a decision, one that appeared to him at the time to be the best available.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Also how do you conclude Mitts foreign policy to match GWBs?[/quote]17 of Romney’s 24 foreign policy advisors served in the Bush Administration.
And Russia too. Also.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Actually the lack of media coverage is very consistent.
Ask yourself, and be very honest here, if this happens on Bush’s watch is the media behavior the same?
[/quote]
Bush was a different time. He had the NY Times behind him for the first half of his presidency. If this had been Bush, we would have waited a few months and attacked someone who had nothing to do with it. And most of the press would have supported him.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]So that is what is peculiar to me. What is clear is that support was requested, at least 3 times.
Two former seals did go assist those who were under attack. They did so against orders to stand down and in doing so ended up saving lives.
What is not clear is who gave the direct orders to not do anything at all. The closest explanation matches what you said and was given by Panetta who said,
“The basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place, and as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”
General Ham is head of US Africa command. Dempsey is Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet Panetta did not say that specific requests for help were denied. Patraeus also has taken a stance of no requests were denied from him or anyone in his organization.
I understand special ops missions take planning and such. By the same token, I cannot comprehend the strategy of not doing a damn thing. Not a fly by? Not anything?
Ty Woods was one of the guys that went to rescue the operatives. What also does not make sense is that one of the most often quoted creeds of the military is no man is left behind. To have all of the technology and not to do anything, anything at all, simply seems very odd to me. There are 3 bases within 2 hours, Sigonella Italy, (an hour away) as well as Aviano and Suda Bay, both within 2 hours.
So again, what you said about the military chain of command makes sense yet nobody is saying the buck stops here, I am the one that said no.
Here we are 45 days after the event.
What I do believe to be true is that the White House, Panetta and others did have a feed of what was going on and were very abreast of the situation however they did not have any intelligence of it beforehand. Rightfully they were confused yet I cannot believe that they did not present options to the president.
I believe that they presented those options with a proper risk assessment. I believe one of the options was also to prod they Libyans to take action and hope that they would rescue the Americans. This was probably the most palatable decision to the president which is obviously the one he selected. We don’t know if the rescue would have worked, we don’t know if more lives would have been lost, we don’t know how the Libyan govt would have reacted.
However I guess this is what troubles me the most, that when faced with these what ifs the decision made was to stand down. Now instead of facing the music we are getting a stall tactic until after the election which I guess is understandable. However by nature Obama is not a risk taker. I think that there is a tangible point to be made and that is, an unsuccessful rescue attempt in Benghazi would have been quite damaging given the upcoming election.[/quote]
I would suggest you ignore the political.
What is the logical conclusion if you do that?
The military wants to do this shit. It’s what they live for. This kind of situation is like handing a scalpel to a surgeon and telling him not to cut. The only reason they wouldn’t is that they had no path to success. How many troops? What kind? What skills? How do we get them in country? Once they’re in country, how do they get to the site?
I don’t have training in this kind of shit. But i can’t imagine planning it is simple. And if there was any way for them to succeed, I have no doubt they would have done it.
I don’t think it has anything to do with politics. Politics just makes no sense.
ParticipantThere was a report of real-time video being viewed in the white house. Unconfirmed, it’s a claim made by a retired lt. col., based on what he says he was told. There has been no corroboration, nor has the source, if he does in fact exist, been identified.
Pentagon has denied it. As has the CIA.
The requests for support being denied seems more possible. But before jumping to any conclusions, consider why this might be. The requests for support would not go to the White House. They would go to up the chain of command in the CIA and Africa centcom. That is where they were likely denied.
I think what I’ve read is that the two that did respond were former seals, working for the CIA, responding from an agency safe-house in the vicinity of the consulate.
Support being an hour or hours away (a couple hours is what I’ve read) does not by itself create a feasible plan to deploy. They weren’t in country. If there was a plan that would have a high likelihood of success, without further casualties, it would have gone up the chain of command, and it would have been approved. The Pentagon reported that based on intel at the time, the guy in charge of Africa centcom agreed that no such plan existed. So it wasn’t that they didn’t want to provide support, they couldn’t figure out how to do it and succeed. They had almost no time for planning, no time for training, no time for a walk through. Special ops takes time. There was none.
Participant[quote=XBoxBoy]
While I threw out the question without much detail, curious to see what people would say, I think this is the situation. The only provision in the CC&R that allows the Architectural Jury to do anything is to record a document with the City Recorder stating that the owners are in violation of the CC&R by building without Jury approval. From what I can make of the wording of this section, (Good grief why do lawyers have to write in this style!) the only thing accomplished by this recorded document is it gives someone some ammo if they want to sue the offending homeowner.In the end I think the case basically comes down to the homeowner saying, “hey I want to do this, I’ve got money, and if you want to litigate I’ll bury you in costs.” Since it’s unlikely the community will pony up the cash to fight this, my hunch is it’s a done deal.
The interesting thing is that for 50 some years no one has ever done this. They moved in knowing the rules and they worked with the Architectural Jury to find a solution. Now, this is all going to get thrown out the window. While I don’t really care too much about these things, it does seem to me as well… how do I put this…. uncivilized? What happened to old fashioned decorum? Does one really just tell your neighbors, “oh piss off.” I guess so.
XBoxBoy[/quote]
I lived in a neighborhood in Poway that had similar CC&R’s. I think it was about 25 years old when I moved in, just as they were expiring. Dues were like $25 a year, mostly spent on an annual block party, and a “monthly newsletter” that was sent out once or twice a year. I never paid the dues and never went to the block party, so they were pretty much optional.
Just after I moved in, the CC&R’s were renewed. I don’t remember the process, maybe there was a vote. I asked neighbors about it, and there were some pretty stringent rules about getting things approved through the architectural committee, but after about the first 10 years, nobody paid any attention to it and it dissolved.
My point is, if this community is old, it’s possible that the CC&R’s have expired anyway. And just like in some condo HOA’s, it could be some old farts that just want to exercise power because they can. If it was me, and I wasn’t making any changes that any reasonable person could object to, i’d say screw em. The uncivilized ones are those making the demands.
Participant[quote=Navydoc]My brother closed on the home he bought in Rehoboth Beach on Friday. Talk about timing.[/quote]
CNN was just reporting from there. Nasty.
Participant[quote=flu]What am I going to do today and tomorrow? The stock market is closed for two days!!!!!!
Two days!!!![/quote]
Forex is open 🙂
I swear that euro wants to go down a nickel.
Participant[quote=UCGal]Here are my thoughts.
– Does your bright son have a plan, a major, an area of interest yet?
I would not go the 4 year route, right out of the gate, if he doesn’t even know his course of study… what if he goes to a school that isn’t strong in that field.
I broke my parents hearts by NOT going to UC Berkeley straight out of high school. I was accepted – but had no clue what I wanted to major in. Instead I got a job, moved out, and started taking courses at the community college. I ended up, a few years later, transferring to SDSU and getting a BSEE. I’ve been happy as an enginerd… and who knows how much time/money would have been spent for something else at UCB.
But – if your son is the type he’s know exactly what he wants to do – then facilitate that. A nephew of ours knew he wanted to go to Wharton. The family couldn’t afford it – but knew he should go – and he was accepted with a partial scholarship. He was driven, and there was little risk he’d flounder.
If your son has a plan and you’re confident he has the wherewithal to follow through with his plan – go for the 4 year school (if that’s his plan).
If your son is still figuring out his plan – the JC is the perfect place to figure it out.
Keep your powder dry (money) for when the plan forms.[/quote]This makes a lot of sense. And it was exactly how both my kids made their decisions. Daughter knew since she was 7 she wanted to be a doctor. She went straight to UCSD, graduated in 4 years and continued on with her dream. Son had no clue. Took 7 years to finally graduate (with 3 majors), but more than half of that was at a JC. (They kicked him out when he’d taken just about every class they offer.) As it turns out, they both ended up costing about the same.
Participant[quote=spdrun]If he lives at home, aren’t the UC schools closer to $13k/yr? Community college degrees get no respect.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that’s still the case. It’s not a whole lot higher than that. Outside of the tuition (or fees, as the case may be), the costs should be roughly the same. Similar books. Still gotta eat and have a roof over their heads. Might save a little bit on hoodies. (Do kids really want a sweatshirt that says “MESA COLLEGE”?)
You’re right that community college degrees don’t get any respect, but that’s moot if the kid continues on and gets a 4 year degree. The degree is identical to the kids that went to the more expensive school for all 4 years.
But there is something to be said for the college experience. Can you really justify telling your kid to be $25 to $40K more in debt at the end of their college life in order for them to have 2 years that might be better at a UC or CSU school than at a community college?
One of my kids went the community college route, and then to UC, the other went to directly to UC. I was fortunate enough (or I guess they were) to be able to pay for it. And they both ended up with pretty good experiences. I’d be hard pressed to say which one made the better choice. But I know which one was cheaper.
October 24, 2012 at 12:46 PM in reply to: OT- If you find a rattlesnake in your back yard-do you kill it? #753120Participant[quote=Blogstar]I relocate them after killing them first,about 1/2 dozen per year or more.
[/quote]If you’re going to kill them first, why don’t you just relocate them to your trash can?
Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
SK: There was considerable intel and in the MONTHS leading up to the Benghazi attack and this intel came from US, Western (largely British) and Libyan sources.[/quote]
I hope that this “intel” about imminent attack in Bengazhi did not come from the same sources as those who provided intel about Iraq WMD! I ask because the same people who belived in Iraq WMD are the people who are hyping up this “intel”.[/quote]
Of course there’s a logical absurdity to the claim of this intel. Chris Stevens was an ambassador. And a career diplomat. The latter is the more important piece of information. He wasn’t the Larry Lawrence type of ambassador, who got his first job at the state department when he was 62 years old. Chris Stevens had worked for the US foreign service for more than 20 years. Whether or not he really was a spook, we’ll probably never know. But he was privy to the intel. Every bit of it concerning what was going on in Libya. And if the intel said there was going to be an attack on that day, he wouldn’t have been there. It really is that simple.
Participant[quote=squat250]im not sure if i really needa couch. the last few years ive been too lazy to use it. me and my kids kind of collapse on the floor. we call ourselves “floor people”. we can save a lot of money by using the floor as furniture — table, couch, storage.[/quote]
scaredy and his family of groundlings 🙂
-
AuthorPosts
