• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PissingIntoTheWind

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    That's me in the picture above, doing what I do best.
  1. When the leader is a madman and/or the regime has attacked Americans, the policy should be open season. Three down or almost down. The big question now becomes what do we do with Iran and Pakistan? Sitting back and watching Iran, and pouring money into Pakistan will likely provide diminishing results.
  2. Eghemmm.... I have it on good authority that Dory Dude has a direct line to Baghdad Bob. That Bob says the darndest things in time of war, doesn't he?
  3. I'm relishing the moment that's likely approaching when Obama and Mrs. Clinton must explain the goal of regime change without actually saying those words. Also relishing the list of war-related items that Obama backtracked on from the 2007-8 campaign trail leading up to the 2012 election. Some lessons from Slick Willy himself are in order.
  4. The Arab League speaks for the Arab street? Seems to me most their streets are filling with people who are seeking leadership change. Great comment. Outstanding illustration of reality.
  5. Anyone else notice how this is going down? The French and the British are supposedly taking the lead. However, it turns out that only the US has the systems to run the operation and carry out most of the missions. The Brits have flown 4 sorties and the French - about a dozen (this may have changed in the last few hours). I'll be interested to see how our allies lead the operation... and will follow No Drama Obama's explanation with great interest. Very curious how our Nobel Laureate Peacenik-in-Chief talks his way out of this. How do you Obama fanboys feel about the duplicity and contradictions our Prez just walked into?
  6. Interventionist foreign policy is definitely a slippery slope, and unfortunately, there is always a price to pay for messing in the affairs of other countries. One of the consequences is blowback from our well-intentioned deeds. Witness my discussion above about our direct role in the creation of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and what often happens when we support "freedom fighters". All things considered, I think it's better to take action when necessary. How "necessary" is defined is certainly a question which demands a vigorous debate. I see your point of view and will be scratching my head today over the issues.... Thanks for the healthy discussion.
  7. You make some excellent points, and I respect your point of view. It is extremely interesting that our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president did indeed order our armed forces into action without a mandate from Congress, as prescribed by our constitution. From what I read, he consulted with the leaders of Congress, and that's about it. Obama did have a UN Security Council resolution though. Just by itself, this is a remarkable moment in US history. It's astounding that this president, who taught constitutional law and whose ascent to power was built on the unpopularity of GW Bush and the Iraq war, sent our forces into harm's way based on a UN resolution. Regardless, I believe it was the right thing to do. You may have gathered that I'm in favor of an interventionist foreign policy. It's in our vital interests to see the procession of the last century's despots handing power over to their sons STOP NOW. Saddam Hussein -> Uday Hussein - check Hosni Mubarak -> Gamal Mubarak - check Maomar Qaddafi -> Saif Qaddafi - in progress Kim Jong Il -> Kim Jong Un - hopefully the next succession to be spoiled Haffez Assad -> Bashir Assad - too bad the old man didn't hang around longer. Too late here but I'd say he is TOAST. Whatever your politics Tom Ray, you can't deny the tide of history. Despots handing power off to their sons is one more trend headed for the trash heap of history. Tom Ray - would you agree that the world is better off by showing tyrannical leaders the exit sooner rather than later?
  8. Too bad the goddamn rebels arrested and deported the SAS and MI6 gents who dropped in for just that purpose. Talk about a boner move. I would imagine that with pro-Qaddafi tanks and snipers a few blocks from their HQ, the welcome mat is now brightly lit.
  9. We should listen to JBSF on this one, as someone who has risked his life for this cause. From my side, I believe we MUST care because the people of the Middle East will create problems which we cannot ignore, unless there is a dramatic and rapid break from their recent past. I see what you mean about the new boss being the same as the old boss, but at least in Iraq, so far that is absolutely not true. You could also take a look at the history of the 20th century. There are dozens of new bosses who are decidedly better than the old bosses, and many parts of the world are much better off thanks to this fact.
  10. My hunch is that the French see a golden opportunity to prevail in a foreign conflict in the leading role. I also see strong signs of forward-thinking about the absolute necessity of prosperity and freedom of expression spreading throughout the Middle East. Call it a high chance of a brilliant military success, a chance to leap to prominence on the world stage, and put another stake into the heart of the age of Middle-Eastern despots. How delicious is the irony of all the parallels to what Bush and Blair did in Iraq? Anyway, Vive la France! Man, to be a fly on the wall in Bashir Assad's compound...
  11. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. What I had in mind was not AQ, but specifically "the next iteration" of enemies in the Mideast and Central Asia. My hunch is that AQ as a brand will continue to fade, and new, unexpected threats will emerge. I may be fatalistic but it seems that intervention on the side of "freedom fighters" too often blows back in our face years down the road. It's impossible to see, just as the transformation of the mujahedeen into AQ and the Taliban was hard if not impossible to predict back when we poured all that money, training and weapons into their cause against the Soviets. By the same token, a case could be made that we backed the wrong side in Vietnam beginning in the 50's. From what I've read recently, Ho Chi Minh was far from committed to Communism in the years after WWII, and was surprised and dismayed that the US didn't support his fight for liberation from French colonialism. The conflict in Indochina bears only passing resemblance to today's problems in the Middle East and Central Asia, but I would argue that it's very hard to predict how rapidly transforming allies in unstable parts of the world will evolve. The optimist in me believes that the information age and rising levels of education in the Mideast and some parts of Central Asia gives hope to the chance of emergence of peaceful neighbors, but the amateur political historian in me casts a wary eye on the new breed of Middle Eastern rebels. The same fruits of the modern age which provide hope can also serve to deliver the unexpected at speeds we have not previously witnessed. Where enemies have previously emerged gradually over time, there is a strong chance that new and powerful enemies may rise up rapidly and with vengeance towards the US. Thank god our allies are more involved in this conflict. It's your time to shine, Europe. There's two questions I have at the top of my mind as I observe what might be called springtime in the Middle East. Would this be happening at all, and if so, how would it be different, if GW Bush and Tony Blair had not taken the initiative to carve out a slice of democracy in Iraq? If peaceful neighbors emerge from the current mess, I believe the invasion of Iraq will be viewed in the future as the critical first domino to be toppled. If it all goes to hell though, perhaps we'll see another manifestation of blowback in the face of good intentions. Anyway, from an armchair observer to an American aviator JBSF, I'm grateful for what you and the rest of the coalition men and women in uniform did in Iraq. As unpopular as that war has been, I'm convinced that seizing the initiative by toppling Saddam was a brilliant move, and deserves enormous credit for what's happening now throughout the region. I'm both surprised and not surprised at all that I see ZERO mention of this in the news and commentary on current events. I know there must be like-minded people out there but so far don't hear their voices. In time, I think we will. The second question I'm pondering with no answer in sight is what about Pakistan? Among all of the festering sores spread across the Mideast and Central Asia, Pakistan appears to be the one without even a hint of a solution. My hope is that the relative prosperity and power of India will spill over into Pakistan. How long must we wait and at what cost to the world?
  12. I figure it all boils down to what resources the rebels have at their disposal. If they don't have the weapons and the money to take the fight back to Tripoli, then the next steps are already clear: arm and fund the rebels. I just wonder about the blowback we seem to always face after putting guns and money into the hands of Middle-Eastern / Central Asian "freedom fighters." I still shake my head over the billions we spent on the mujahedeen, recognizing that 20+ years later these people are among our worst enemies. What if the next iteration of Al Qaeda / Taliban have control of production and reserves of oil, AND they pulled themselves up using Western money and free weapons??? It seems that each military intervention exacts a terrible cost years later... At least this time, our friends in NATO are stepping up to the plate.
  13. I guess that all changed with the introduction of 110 cruise missiles. Watching with interest to see how significantly this degrades Qaddafi's air defense. Some items of particular note: 1. The Germans - the most war-mongering nation of the last 100 years, are the only cock-blockers opposed to military action in the EU. 2. The French military are taking the lead role... very interested to see how they do. I'm always offended by observers who criticize the courage of the French and their substantial military capabilities. 3. On the other hand, I understand that the start of military action was delayed BY LUNCH MEETINGS in Paris, allowing Qaddafi's forces to enter Benghazi. I appreciate the need to consult with all the participants and the imperative of having Arabs represented in the meetings, but talk about brinksmanship! 4. The Italians have the most to lose out of the foreign powers. Billions invested and more dependent on Libyan petroleum products than any other. Will be very curious to see how their military and their politicians behave as this unfolds.