Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: An example of why our military loves the press ....


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:07:57 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL:SimplyMichael

This would be amusing if it wasn't so utterly tragic.

You do realize that the natives living in America before the arrival of savages lived longer, were healthier, and in general were far more civilized than the savages from Europe? Or that North America supported a far larger population that Europe?

Of course you won't get that in your standard High School history class but education does broaden the mind.


First, I’ve studied History, outside of my High School and College classes as a hobby. When most people watch football, or whatever, I’m reading about something dealing with history. Or watching history documentaries.

I even did a report for one of my college classes about our Revolutionary War, something that the majority of our population, not even my history teacher, knew. Witch is tragic, as this country played a key role that prevented us from losing the Revolutionary War.

I’ve studied history since the early 80s, that’s one of my passion topics.

Second, many of the points you brought up WERE mentioned in high school. (Took high school history in the 80s, don’t know what they’re teaching kids today.)

However, further study, outside of high school and college, shows that some of what you said weren’t quite true.

Yes, the Indians living in the Americas lived better than the European colonials. They even had a freer society.

However, compared to the Europeans living in Europe, not quite. In some aspects, they had a better quality of life than the Europeans living in Europe. In many cases, the Europeans living in Europe lived better than the American Indians, with some exceptions.

They also lived allot better than the colonials. The old phrase that the Europeans were more cultured than those of us in the Americas was reality during the colonial times.

Technologically, the Europeans were more advanced than the Indians. Thus, calling them savages compared to the Indians is in error.

On the population bit, that doesn’t surprise me. The Aztec capital city rivaled, and even surpassed in many instances, the European cities of the time when it came to certain things.

Third, This doesn’t dismiss the fact that had the Europeans never came to the Americas, the Indians would’ve subjected each others to invasions, wars, takeovers, overthrows, etc. The Indians were already doing that prior to the Spaniard’s arrival.

Fourth, the shortening of the Indian life expectancy would’ve happen with or without European invasion and colonization of the Americas.

In many places in the world, people gave up natural ingredients, and native sections of their diets, for less healthier western ones. This would’ve happened as a result of trade. It was bound to happen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Wow, you learned a big word! Can you point to anywhere that this administration has used any of the standard COIN strategies and can you explain why when they finally did so it was only YEARS after the fact? Can you explain why riding in an armored vehicle is directly counter to standard COIN strategy and is in fact one of the GOALS of "terrorists”


You throw a bunch of assumptions in those statements, and questions. Result? You’ve thrown a bunch of loaded questions out that assume that your opinion is the “correct” one.

First, I’ve used asymmetrical warfare to describe this war for years!

I could tell by your “surprise” that it’s YOU that learned a big word that you may have never heard of before.

Second, asymmetrical warfare isn’t something they just came up with. A book written in 1999 scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare. Its title is Unrestricted Warfare, and was written by two Chinese Colonels, here’s the full text:

http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf

I’ve got the hard copy in my library. Read it back in 2002. Very good reading, very applicable to the current war, though it only scratches the surface.

Third, Bush’s speech, post 9/11, describes one aspect of the asymmetrical warfare approach to dealing with our enemies:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

quote:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest.


Riding in an armored vehicle doesn’t go counter to asymmetrical warfare.

Asymmetrical warfare combines both conventional and unconventional, traditional and untraditional, black and white as well as grey, etc into a bigger comprehensive strategy.

You could use one or both tactics.

Our invading Iraq with a conventional force is part of a larger asymmetrical war, where traditional thought erroneously assumes that since Al-Qaeda was in Afghanistan, our war should be “limited” to that country.

The expectation was for us to be limited to Afghanistan, but we entered Iraq and opened a second military beachhead. This supports other aspects of asymmetrical warfare--importing a more liberal form of government, and free market, to a region that normally doesn’t have one.

This also helped us frustrate Al-Qaeda’s strategic goal. Originally, their short term plan was to establish a series of Islamic Caliphates in the Middle East. A couple of years ago, they revised it to just Iraq and surrounding countries. Now? We’ve got Bin Laden criticizing the Insurgents.

Asymmetrical warfare at work.

Look at a map of the Middle East and you’ll see how we’ve already started to change the geopolitical makeup of that region.

I recommend that you do more studying on the subject of asymmetrical warfare, as well as the current geostrategic realities, before you dismiss it as a “coin” phrase.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 261
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:10:47 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

We have ruled the world before

And by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again

The day will come when we will rule America

The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world…


...yup, thats an extremist.....and so's this....

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Anne Coulter

......i don't think any side has a monoploy on extremists......


First, I recommend that you include the link that I got that from, because I was quoting someone else’s words, I didn’t come up with those words.

Here’s the link where those words came from:

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null

Second, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

Ann Coulter made that statement as a “solution” to the threat that we’re facing. However, I don’t see her raising an army, or lobbying congress, to do just that.

Not supporting what she said, but you can’t deny that if people in that region were Christians, and democratic, they wouldn’t be fostering radical Islamic terrorists.

However, the majority of us in the west DON’T support that comment, and that’s evidenced by people in the West condemning her statement.

Now, compare and contrast that to the clip.

Go ahead, watch that video again. Look at the people sitting in the Mosque. None of them are showing shock that this guy is saying these things. None of them are shaking their heads in disapproval. It’s like they’re used to hearing these things.

He’s not the only one making comments like that. There are widespread comments like that throughout the radical Islamic world.

Heck, it even bleeds into mainstream media in that region, where some of these clowns are allowed to preach these on air.

One criticism Bin Laden received for the 9/11 attacks was that he didn’t give us enough time to convert to Islam.

You bring in an apples and oranges comparison, as Ann Coulter isn’t in position to influence the masses into action. Not true in the case of the Imams that say that the world will be united under the banner of Islam one day.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 262
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:13:28 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

But the fact that 9 out of 10 terrorists support Democrats ought to tell you something. 





...yup, tells me that they're much more worried about Democrats.........propaganda is a dark art........


Judging by terrorist, and radical regime gloating over the November 2006 elections, I disagree with that comment.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/10/africa/ME_GEN_Iran_US.php

quote:

Iran’s Supreme Leader statement:

The Republican Party’s losses in the U.S. midterm elections were a victory for Iran and an international defeat for President George W. Bush’s policies.


Let’s not forget the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq gloating after those elections, talking smack about what will happen to the White House. 

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 263
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:19:10 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Yeah, how many Democrats vs. Republican's can you name that were doing business with Nazi Germany? Banking anyone? LOL!

Wasn't it the Muslims who had an empire so large the sun never set on it? Is that why Arabic is spoken widely in South America and Africa?


The first question is an attempt to build on your “guilty by association” approach. I.E. Republican “A” did business with Nazi Germany, therefore, Republican B, 60 + years latter, is associated with white supremacists.

One of my great grandfathers did business with Al Capone, (Sp) as one of his trusted barbers. Using your logic, I’m “associated” with “gangsters” today because of that.

Logic doesn’t support your attempts to tie President Bush with Nazis and with the terrorists. This only amounts to you continuing to introduce red herrings.

Your sarcastic statement about the Arabs and (sun never setting), as well as South America speaking “arabic” is another attempt to fault western civilization for things other civilizations are guilty of doing.

The West gained primacy, and ended up beating everybody else to the punch. Had another civilization, like the Chinese or Japanese, gained maritime primacy, parts of the Americas could very well be speaking Asiatic languages besides - or instead of - English and Spanish.

Now, let’s bring your sarcastic comments about the Arabs into the picture to explain something that your overlooking in your zeal to demonize the west.

Prior to Islam, Northern Africa was predominantly Roman Catholic. They were as “western” as the southern parts of Europe were.

The same could be said about Middle East countries that border the Mediterranean to the East.

Persia? Practiced Zoroastrianism.

Now, let’s look at a non western invasion.

The Muslims gained primacy, took over the Arabian Peninsula, then expanded over the rest of the Middle East, and over Northern Africa.

Then, PRESTO! Half of Christianity gone, and Zoroastiranism going from the dominant, major religion to the brink of extinction. Arabic replaced other languages in Northern Africa as a major language.

Now, check this out.

This would’ve happened to Europe had it not been for the Europeans stopping them, and reclaiming European lands lost to the Muslims.

If the Europeans were weaker, they to could’ve fallen to Arab invasions.

Yet, I don’t hear you arguing up a storm about radical Islamic terror acts, or highlighting their history of fighting the west, and engaging in imperialism, especially the fact that they went on the offensive and attacked the west first.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

And it would be the fault of the protestors that we get pushed out of Afghanistan? Must be why the Russians pulled out, it was those massive protests in Red Square that did them in!


They’d share the blame if we got pushed out of Afghanistan.

If we cave in to wartime dissent, and pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will turn their attention to Afghanistan, and work on pushing us out. Encouraged by their Iraq “success”, they’ll persist against us until we pull out of there to.

Again, go back to the quote about the Vietnam War above.

The Russians pulled out, because they couldn’t sustain a fight in that region. Afghanistan isn’t called the graveyard for Empires for nothing.

We learned from history, and diverted the people who’d normally flood to that country to a country friendlier to our wartime equipment.

Giving the Afghani army time to develop before these guys give up in Iraq and divert back to Afghanistan. By then, they’d be fighting a Muslim army that won’t restrain itself the way a western army does.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 264
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:28:34 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		philosophy: .......ah yes, the fabled domino theory.

Go back and read the post where you pulled that quote from.

My mentioning Vietnam in this debate introduced parallels between wartime dissent back then, and wartime dissent today. In both cases, wartime dissent emboldened the enemy.

And that domino theory wasn’t fabled, but reflected reality, more on that.

philosophy: The reason the US was in Vietnam to begin with.

The domino theory was part of the reason, but not the main or total reason. The domino theory was part of our strategic global approach to dealing with communist expansions.

We were in Vietnam to assist the South Vietnamese government in keeping the North Vietnamese influence out. Our government had a vested interest in Vietnam not becoming communist.

The North Vietnamese were also planning on stepping out of international agreement to use military force to unify the country. Vice what was agreed on.

We weren’t about to let that happen.

philosophy: Did it actually occur? Was there a sudden shift to communism in the region?

Almost. There were communist movements in the surrounding countries. But thanks to our expanding allot of manpower and resources, and our willing to fight, the Soviets and Chinese used a different approach to try to spread communism throughout the region.

But there are elements of violent communist movements in South East Asia. One of them even tried to identify themselves as the “Nice People Around” [New People’s Army] to recruit unwitting new recruits.

And there was eventually an expanded communist influence--in our own backyard. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, we reversed that expansion. Yes, the domino theory matched reality.

philosophy:  Vietnam was a war fought not for any reason except paranoia. Paranoia that history has proven baseless.

LOTFLMFAO!

The main concern in Washington D.C. was that Vietnam would become communist. The North was maneuvering in the back to try to get a forced unification. We jumped in to try to prevent that.

Did it happen? YES.

Vietnam is now unified under communist rule. This against the will of the people living in South Vietnam, who identified the North Vietnamese, not the U.S., as the invaders. [Relayed to me by a Vietnamese American who lived in the Vietnam War’s version of the Green Zone shortly after war broke out.]

No, this wasn’t paranoia, but something based on reality, and something that actually happened.

philosophy:  Much of what you have written in predicated on some form of mass Islamic masterplan. It wont happen.

What I’ve written is based on centuries of Western Civilization dealing with Islamic radicalism. Then, trending that to today, and projecting that into the future pending certain actions happening, or not happening.

Again, Northern Africa was in the West column. After the Muslim invasion, they shifted to the Islamic column.

But it didn’t stop there.

They successfully took the Iberian Peninsula, most of it, and proceeded to conquer France. The French stopped them. Later, the Spaniards reconquered the Iberian Peninsula and pushed the Muslims out.

But they didn’t give up. They worked on taking the Eastern end of Europe. We stopped them there to, but that hasn’t stopped them.

They expanded into Asia. And they continued waging one type of act of hostility or another against the Europeans.

This lead to European nations paying tribute to Caliphates, something that ends once we start getting involved.

But it didn’t stop there.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

quote:

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.


Read what I’ve bolded in red.

That’s a clear indication that his ultimate goal is to unite the world under the banner of Islam--HIS version of Islam.

Nineteen hijackers made that point for him. Their misguided brothers continued making that point in Spain, UK, and elsewhere.

Now, that video that I linked to on this thread earlier--same message, the world ultimately being united under the banner of Islam.

Read Holy War, Incorporated, written by Peter Bergen (sp), who interviewed Osama Bin Laden in the 90s. One of his officers told the author that the ultimate goal was to bring the whole world under the banner of Islam, with Afghanistan being a taste of what they were going to create on a global scale.

And get this--Afghanistan under the Taliban wasn’t to their expectation.

And if that doesn’t convince you, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs

Some of what was said:

“Jihad against European Crusaders”

“Europe you will pay, your annihilation is on its way!!

“Europe, you’ll come crawling when the Mujahideen Come Roaring”

“Annihilate those who insult Islam!!!”

“Jihad in the name of Allah!”

“Death to you, by God!”

“May Allah bomb you!

May Usama Bin Laden bomb you!”

“We love Osama”

“Usama and Zawahiri are heroes!

They are men!”

“They will bomb you!

And Allah will be with them!”

They will take revenge on you!”

“May they bomb Denmark, so we can invade their country!”

“And take their wives as war booty!”

“You have declared war against Allah and his prophet!”

“Take lesson of Theo Van Gogh!”

“Take lesson of the Jews of Khajbar!”

3:06 [Takbir . . . Allahu akbar] (sp) (?)

Background noise - “in the name of free speech” [while they protest an artist’s freedom]

3:32 [Kid watches and learns from the grown ups.]

“Chants calling to bomb different western countries”

5:27 “George Bush go to Hell” (Hey liberals! You have agreement from here!)

5:30 “USA go to Hell” (Hmm, you’re on to something Robertson)

“Denmark watch your back, Bin Laden’s coming back!”

“Kill, kill Denmark!”

“UK, you will pay!”

“7/7 on its way”

“Jihad is on its way!”

“UK, you will pay, Denmark you will pay”

“We want Danish blood!”

“Europe, you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way!”

“Bomb Bomb USA!  Bomb Bomb Denmark”

“Khaibar, Khaibar, O’ Jew! The Army of Mohammed is coming for you!”

10:54, desecration of EU flag. [screams of “God is Great”]

I’ve listen to enough of their Imans, key figures, and others to know that they’re serious of creating a world where everybody is living under Islamic Law.

philosophy:  Just as the domino theory never happened.

Actually, it did happen. The Soviets and Chinese never gave up expanding communist influence. They even succeeding in undermining prior governments and placing their puppets in Latin America.

We reversed those gains in the 80s.

philosophy:  Stop being paranoid,

Telling it like it is doesn’t constitute paranoia.

Don’t mistake common sense mixed with logical reasoning as being “paranoid.”

Go back, and watch that video. ANALYZE what Bin laden is saying. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard these people, on their talk shows, talk about how they could get the West to convert to Islam.

Heck, one guy said that they should’ve waited for the Islamic population in the US to grow, then pull the same stunt they pulled in France. The guy that said this, an Imam, said that they would’ve had the US as an Islamic state before this century is over.

The radicals are using the premise that God promised them the land of the Infidels. [Non Muslim Nations]

philosophy:   just make your own society the best, the most free, the most prosperous that you can.

That’s mainly the Free Market’s job, and we’re already doing that.

philosophy:   Keep your defences up of course, but put them at your own borders. That example by itself will win the war on terror......by making it abundantly clear that peacefully getting on with things is its own reward and that interfering in other countries is a path that only leads to destruction.

That’s PRECISELY what our enemies want us to do, make it easier for them to accomplish THEIR global objectives.

You said that you don’t support appeasing the enemies. But by keeping our defenses at our own borders, we’d be doing one of the things that we need to do to appease our enemies.

You DON’T win a war by taking up defensive positions ONLY.

Especially when you’re dealing with an entity that’s bent on destroying your society.

Now, looking back at history, you’d notice that we’ve already tried this. We tried to mind our own business, when the Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping. We didn’t have an invading army overseas, we didn’t have Israel to support.

We were nowhere near being the superpower--but we were attacked.

If we restrict ourselves to defense, our enemies will see that as a sign of weakness, and will work on attacking us even more.

We won’t have momentum on our side if we take on a mainly defensive position.

Also note, we WEREN’T in Iraq and Afghanistan when Al-Qaeda attacked us in the 1990s.

Understand that our enemies DON’T think like you. They understand one thing, aggression, preferably going on the offensive.

They have a say in what we do here, and it’s NOT something convenient to what you think we should do.

We pull back and just set our defensive up, they’ll be emboldened to attack us more.

They know that they’re not going to successfully unite the World under the banner of Islam using peaceful methods.

To them, uniting the world under Islam would be more beneficial.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 265
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:30:56 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

quote:

Months after the NAZIs surrendered in Europe, we had articles talking about how America was losing the victory in Europe.


Do you know WHY that was being said? Do you know what we did about it?  Do you know why they were right?


This is PRECISELY what FirmhandKY meant when he said this:

“2. Your questions aren't pertinent to the other posters' point, or thread. -FirmhandKY

This argument isn’t about why the Europeans felt that way.

The purpose behind my saying that was to counter your insinuation that we’d have a clearly defined, clear cut victory. As if we’d wake up one day, hear about this victory we scored this morning, and that we could now go home.

I brought that point up to show you that war, or its aftermath, aren’t clean, smooth, and clear cut.

People could look at Germany, and all of Europe today, and see a continent doing well. But they quickly forget the heartaches they went through to get to that point, especially after World War II.

Your insinuation was that Iraq was a “mess” and that it was going to continue to do so. My point, bringing that post up, indicated that just like after World War II, things are a bit rough.

But it won’t be like that permanently.

Two decades from now, we’re going to have an Iraq and Afghanistan well on their way to becoming prosperous and stable democracies.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 266
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:33:37 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

But the fact that 9 out of 10 terrorists support Democrats ought to tell you something. 





...yup, tells me that they're much more worried about Democrats.........propaganda is a dark art........


You're demostrating absurdity by being absurdly funny, right? 

The Democrats whole plan for beating terrorism is... umm... what again?  Being nice and appeasement? 



......sighs....is it so hard to believe that people without your political beliefs are not foolish? Of course appeasement doesn't work......but neither does needless confrontations......i am reminded of something Condoleeza Rice said a while back of US foreign policy in the middle east...."For 60 years, my country, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East -- and we achieved neither"......it seems to me that there is a need for a wide debate on a sensible US foreign policy in the middle east......one that focuses less on a US defined sense of stability and more on self determination for the peoples there. Arguably US support of Israel has distorted the balance of power in the region. A new approach is needed, one that does not breed resentment of US foreign policy.


You tried to bring an apples to oranges comparison between Ann Coulter and the radical Islamists.

You say that appeasement doesn’t work, your suggestion that we just concentrate on our defense amounts to just that. That’s one of the many things that we need to do to appease them.

Also, confrontations don’t work? Last time I checked, it took confrontations to end Germany’s and Japan’s hostilities.

When she said that we tried to achieve stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East, she was talking about us being satisfied with the Status Quo, with all their regimes, vice making a real push for democracy in that region.

Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq mark a departure from going for stability at the expense of democracy.

Our support for Israel is a non issue. Remember, the Barbary States, from Islamic areas, attacked our shipping, at a time when Israel didn’t exist.

They’d hate us whether we supported Israel or not. We didn’t find support in that region for our policy when we were a new nation, we won’t find one now. Converting that region into a Democratic one is in our, their, and the world’s best interest.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 267
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:38:09 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		SimplyMichael: YOU play out the actions without benefit of hindsight or foresight or pretty much any sight.

She was spot on with that assessment. We have a set scenario, and we act what’s in our, and our ally’s, best interest. Her argument, though, reflects someone with the foresight to know the right course of action.

SimplyMichael:  Read the book Bush's father wrote, in it he explains why allowing the Shia to run Iraq was a very bad idea. The problems we are experiencing in Iraq are only news to you and Bush Jr. They aren't news to anyone else.

Again, Bush Jr. didn’t have the convenience his dad had of letting someone like Saddam remain in power.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 woke us up to a new reality. We were just attacked by an asymmetrical means that the vast majority of American’s couldn’t envision until it happened.

Then, we had guy that refused to come clean with his WMD programs.

Again, simple math. On one hand, we have terror organizations capable of striking well into the west, on the other, someone playing cat and mouse with regards to his WMD programs.

All it takes is a member of that martyrdom brigade to poison our waterways, to unleash a chem. attack, or worse, detonate a suite case nuclear bomb on U.S. soil.

That wasn’t a reality when Bush Sr. Was in the White House, and the UN showed more backbone then that it did now.

Note: Bush’s dad currently supports Bush’s move to invade Iraq.

SimplyMichael: Same goes for the strategic and tactical blunders which are all counter to well established counter insurgency strategy and tactics taught to first lieutenants...

The insurgency is getting its hind quarters handed to it. And check this out, they’re fracturing and fighting each other.

Osama has criticized the insurgency, Zarqawi even lamented at how the other Arabs did nothing while THOUSANDS of their sons got slaughtered. This was right after the Battle for Fallujah.

Our enemies seem to not have problems recognizing, directly or indirectly, that they’re getting their hind quarters kicked.

You seem to be more optimistic about their efforts than they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

The fact that you think you need a high level security clearance to have a basic grasp of strategy and tactics for fighting insurgencies is laughable. Most of the best books were written forty years ago before the disaster in Vietnam. Winning generals anticipate the enemies action, as Patton did prior to the Battle of the Bulge and they WIN. Bush's piss poor handling of the post war planning caused the disaster we are debating and the sad thing is, even if he did it perfectly, there is still no "victory" to be had in the US as long as the Shia are the majority in Iraq. It would be like the Pilgrims holding a vote if they should stay in America and asking all the Indians to vote!


First, she challenged your claims. What you say conflicts with what people who have first hand account information about what’s going on over there say about what’s going on.

Second, your Patton example takes one of those examples that were a no brainer. Take the town where the roads converge, and you seriously disrupt your enemy’s logistics. He knew that the German’s were going to try to take that town, it made strategic sense.

However, there were other areas that weren’t as obvious, and where our commanders had to rely on trial and error. Also, our commanders made blunders during World War II.

The president anticipated that we were going to be involved in a protracted war in Iraq. We had a very recent precedent, where the insurgency filtered into Afghanistan from surrounding countries.

Also, we dealt with an insurgency in post World War II Germany, who employed decapitation wires, roadside bombs, and who assassinated German officials that cooperated with the allies.

Also, your definition of Victory doesn’t match the realities for the region.

The Shiite have the majority population in that country. If people are going to vote by religious association, the Shiites are naturally going to have the majority.

Considering that they spent decades under a dictatorship, with no real party competition and influence, it’s going to take time before they start voting by party affiliation, vice religious affiliation.

If anything, the fact that the population voted the Shiites into power speaks volumes about one of the victories we achieved. That’s democracy at work.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 268
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:40:01 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		farglebargle: Nope. Decentralized response. We have a 2nd Amendment, you should have a gun. Stop being a Paranoid Pussy about "Terrorists", and grow a set of balls.

I’d rather we go on the offensive before we get to the point to where we have to utilize our 2nd Amendment rights.

Because should we get to the point to where we utilize those rights, we’ll be seeing car bombs and beheadings on U.S. Soil.

No thanks.

Besides, these guys aren’t going to show up at your door with a gun--until Islam becomes a majority. They’d utilize homicide attacks, roadside bombs, car bombs, and other tactics that they’re using overseas.

farglebargle: "Democracy" didn't work out the way the US wanted when Hamas got themselves elected the LAWFUL GOVERNMENT of Palestine.

No real democracy is going to scream for another real democracy’s liquidation. Notice how we quickly withheld funds from them pending their accepting Israel’s rights to exist.

By the way, just loved the way that “democracy” worked when they started to feel the pinch.

farglebargle: Perhaps Condi Rice JUST ISN'T SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH to handle the complexities of the gig? Hell, she can't even hide the home she owns with her lesbian friend ( Which would get her tossed from the military... )

Again, Condi was talking about a policy we’ve had toward the region for decades. Didn’t matter what administration we had, Republican or Democrat, we went for stability, even if it wasn’t a real democracy.

George Bush’s policy toward that region represents a step away from going for stability instead of democracy.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 269
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:43:43 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

to pink or herchair,

If you were Bin Laudin, why on earth would you publicly come out for the side you truly wanted to win? 


This is a loaded question, which assumes that your opinion about who he was supporting, or wasn’t supporting, has to be the “logical” right answer.

First reason it’s a loaded question:

Osama Bin Laden publically didn’t side with ether party, or either candidate.

Second reason it’s a loaded question:

If you rarely made appearances, you’re going to make the few appearances you make count. You’re NOT going to beat around the bushes, whether to support one side, or the other.

Third reason it’s a loaded question:

He put the ball in our court, telling us that WE controlled our security stateside.

You see, this is where your question misses the point of the argument, and fails to address our pointing out that he wanted Kerry to win.

The years leading to this point, people on your side of the argument claimed that if only we stopped doing things like invading countries, the world wouldn’t hate us, and we wouldn’t be suffering terrorist attacks.

Those showed up as themes in Bin Laden’s pre election speech.

Meanwhile, in the months leading up to this, the terrorists played our media like a fiddle, racking up troop casualties knowing full well that this was going to affect the electorate.

These casualties were a thorn on Bush’s side.

When Osama gave that speech, there was a widespread assumption, fueled by the media, that the vast majority of us didn’t support Bush.

So, Osama did what anybody in his shoes would’ve done--capitalize on a perceived weakness, do it in a way that it’ll appear as a BENEFIT to us, and secure a better strategic environment for his side in the process.

And he did that by saying that security was in our hands. That we should stop doing what we were doing.

His saying that our security was in our hands, vice Bush, Kerry, or Al-Qaeda, was his PLAYING to your side of the argument that if we just minded our own business, the terrorists wouldn’t be attacking us.

He wanted us to stop the status quo--what the Republicans were pushing. How to do that? By voting the Republicans out.

That was CLEARLY a veiled threat against the red states.

NOTE: After the November 2004 elections, radical Islamic websites published terrorist threats against the red states.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 270
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:46:16 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

We won't capitulate


Then why did Bush obey Bin Ladin's 9/11 dictates, and remove the US Troops from Bin Ladin's homeland, Saudi Arabia?

If that ain't capitulation, what is?




We were there throughout the 90s, when Al-Qaeda attacked us, even voiced our presence there as one of their justifications.

However, our moving our operations from Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with Bin laden’s demands, and everything to do with our changing strategic needs.

With the Iraq threat gone, we didn’t need installations in Saudi Arabia. Moving out of there made perfect sense. We’re currently in Kuwait, Iraq, and Bahrain. We have the Navy in the Persian Gulf to address Iran if need be.

So No! That’s NOT capitulation!

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 271
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:48:58 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

questionable ties to Communism.

Oh Jesus,...you gotta be fuck`n kidding. 
 
 Not "that" scare tactic.lol Give us a f`n break.




“We practically midwived the birth of the Anti War movement in the U.S.” Senior ranking KGB agent

For confirmation, I recommend that you read the book, “Through the Eyes of the Enemy,” by Colonel Stanislav Lunev. As of the time he wrote that book, he was the senior ranking GRU agent to defect to the US.

Ronald Reagan even alluded to the fact that the communists had influence in our anti war movements during the cold war, this was as of the 80s.

Not a scare tactic, but pointing realities out.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 272
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 5:54:47 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Guys,

She is going to ignore facts, logic, and anything else and either accuse you of calling her names or use Anne Coulter as a source for facts.  Pointless, you couldn't convince her the world was round if Fox announced it was flat.  I wonder how old she thinks the world is and I bet she thinks evolution is a wacky theory.


ROTFLMFAO! 

The only people I see ignoring facts, logic, or anything else dealing with a reasoned argument are those that my side of the argument argue against.

If anything, she’s providing a reasoned argument against what your side of the argument is giving. And I don’t see biased media reports as constituting facts.

You lambaste Ann Coulter, with regards to facts. Yet, if you look at her book, her sources of information, her source list fill enough pages to form a sizeable chapter.

Don’t mistake your position as the facts, and her refusal to accept your side’s arguments as equivalent to someone refusing to believe that the world was round.

I’ve yet to see your side of the argument prove your arguments with facts, or a reasoned argument.

You have to do that first before assuming that you’re right.  

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 273
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:02:58 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I bet troop withdrawals from Vietnam wasn't an admission of defeat either.


First, our pulling out of Saudi Arabia WASN’T a capitulation, so to throw this at her assumes that she’s denying something that’s “factual” when it isn’t even factual.

Second, your use of Vietnam isn’t adequate as an analogy.

Troop withdrawals from Vietnam took place after the peace treaty, the one we FORCED the North Vietnamese to attend as a result of our rolling our sleeves up and bombing the daylights out of North Vietnam. (Thanks to the action of a Republican President)

The last US combat unit was out of Vietnam MONTHS before the fall of Saigon. By then, the bubble was in South Vietnam’s hands. Unfortunately, the Democrat controlled congress decided to cut necessary funding for South Vietnam, causing us to lose the Vietnam War through incompetence.

Today, the Democrats appear to want to purposely lose the war that we’re in right now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Hell, we Brits let you win the revolutionary war because we had an empire to build and you lot were just too damn stroppy for us to take you along with us.


And here you are trending toward what you insinuate pinkme2 was doing.

No, you Brits didn’t let us win, you had no other choice.

The Spaniards and Americans were giving you guys a hard time east of the Mississippi up to the Appalachians, the French and Americans were giving you a hard time in the East Coast, and you found yourselves facing the navies of the continental European powers.

Especially the combined French, Dutch, and Spanish Navies. I believe that there was a fear in the UK of an invasion from continental Europe, thus you guys stationed allot of your ships in British and surrounding waters.

Assets not used to fight the colonials.

Also, this ended up being a “world war”, which started with the shot heard round the world, and ended with a final shot fired in India.

The UK was simply overwhelmed, but you guys wouldn’t have put so much effort in “The war for America” if the colonies weren’t that valuable to you.

However, having said that, if it weren’t for major blunders on the part of the British, the U.K. would’ve crushed the rebellion early on. Heck, there was one point when one of your generals called the Hetians (sp) off when they had the colonials on the ropes.

In another instance, if they didn’t wait till the next day, but acted that previous night, they would’ve captured George Washington and the core of the continental army.

Prior to other European powers joining us, British blunders were our best allies.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 274
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:06:43 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

No, I'm not saying that at all. I said we haven't pulled troops out of Iraq. Like I said, parsing words. To prove what exactly?


IRAQ?

I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about Bush being a piece-of-shit coward and Terrorist Appeaser.

Why is giving in, again, in Iraq this time any different than Bush giving in to Bin Ladin re: US Troops in Saudi Arabia.

The US has *already* shown it doesn't have any balls standing up to terrorists.

What's the point of pretending differently at this late juncture?




Again, our moving operations out of Saudi Arabia had more to do with shifting our strategy than “caving in” to Bin Laden. Simply put, we didn’t need most our Saudi assets after Saddam fell.

It makes more sense to have our assets in Iraq and Kuwait than to have them in Saudi Arabia. The ones in Saudi Arabia outlived their use, thus we pulled out.

This doesn’t make Bush a terrorist appeaser, or coward. Especially if the man is going to continue with his policies against the enemy despite opposition, both home and abroad.

We have the balls to stand up to terrorists, we’re currently doing it.

The only people that don’t have the balls to stand up to terrorists are those screaming that we should pull back, set up defensive operations, and “not” exuberate the situation by attacking them in their environment.

She’s not pretending anything, just sticking to the facts and to reality, and to the argument. Iraq is a proper comparison in this case, Saudi Arabia isn’t.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 275
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:10:22 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		SimplyMichael: KY, Find someone who has a grasp of syntax and is more familiar with future tense than you are. Also, don't you think it a bit sad hiding behind a woman rather than attempting to match wits with me directly?

I understood what KY said.

As for “matching” wits with you directly? The other side of the argument does that nicely. If KY doesn’t want to repeat what she’s said, then he can chose to support her.

If you want these guys to “match wits” with you, I recommend that you stay on topic, instead of throwing red herrings out left and right.

This isn’t a case where they’re “refusing” to match wits with you. They want to stay on topic.

SimplyMichael: Believe me, it was a bother to read it and I am sure it seems impeccable to you.  However, I see flaws you can drive a Humvee through as could your average college freshman.

I agree with KY, she has a far better grasp of logic than the other side of the argument.

The “flaws” that you see are simply things she’s said that you disagree with. Speaking of which, I see numerous flaws with your arguments, as opposed to a pinkme2’s well thought out and reasoned arguments.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 276
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:16:02 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		SimplyMichael: You can "believe" in fairies all you want but it doesn't make them real. A major tenent of Al Queda is all infidels out of the holy land of Mecca and Saudi Arabia. Google it and educate yourself like the rest of us.

She isn’t believing in fairies in this one, she’s telling it like it is. Al-Qaeda wants us OUT of the MIDDLE EAST.

They don’t just want the US out of Saudi Arabia, they want all of the West out of the Middle East.

Otherwise, we’d see a drastic drop in terrorist attacks around the world as a result of us leaving Saudi Arabia. But we didn’t.

Wanting us out of Saudi Arabia, and other holy areas, was just PART of their overall demand that we leave Arab lands.

SimplyMichael: Clearly it is more difficult than you imagine

Simply put, she doesn’t want to waste her time on BS information.

SimplyMichael: bitchy"? I take it his is you being logical and having an intelligent discussion?

She used that in a question, one she asked after making a well thought out, and reasoned argument. Her mentioning that doesn’t detract from the fact that she’s having an intelligent discussion.

However, if you have issues with her saying that, I recommend that you refrain from similar tactics.

SimplyMichael: Clearly you need to keep looking, why not read something more substantial than that nut Coulter, how about Foreign Affairs or something else vetted by professionals?

You’re assuming that Ann Coulter’s articles, or books, are her only source of information.

I could also tell that you haven’t read Ann Coulter’s books, she’s meticulous about sourcing her data.

You haven’t seen the books she’s pinkme2 has read. You weren’t in the room with her when she talked to the troops, if she talked to them. Or has family members, or she could be a veteran working for the government.

There are allot of variables, and sources of information involved with what she knows.

You don’t know what kind of information she has access to.

Also, looking at something that could possibly be vetted by like minded professionals doesn’t guarantee that you’re going to get the full picture.

Unless you’ve been in the same room, or area, as pinkme2 was when she obtained her information, you don’t have a leg to stand on when assuming where she gets her information from.

SimplyMichael: Bitchy eh? I guess that is the class that KY was refering to.

No, that’s just you cherry picking what she’s saying, while ignoring the rest in order to apply your assumptions on her.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 277
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:27:07 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
SimplyMichael: My values don't include bulldozing people's houses and then standing around bewildered why they might want to kill me. I would take the Israelis over the arabs any day but at the same time the Jews shouldn't look at warsaw ghettos and be shocked that they people want to kill the ones wearing jack boots.

Again, you’re not factoring all the variables, but taking a limited outlook on what’s going on.

No, they don’t want to kill the Jews because of the “bulldozing” incident, here’s the real reason:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/new_signs.php?sign=35

quote:

PLO Charter, Article 15:

The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine.


NOTE: Palestine, to the Palestinians, isn’t just the occupied territories. It’s ALL of Israel.

Arab homeland refers to the Muslim Nation, the list of nations that are predominantly Muslim.

That statement clearly calls for REMOVING Israel from the map.

They see all of Israel as occupied territories, and they encourage violence against the Israelis. They even have children’s programing aimed at desensitizing kids from death so that they’ll do things like throw stones at Israeli tanks, or blow themselves up in a bus.

SimplyMichael: First it was what you "believe" to be true and now it is your "imagination" but most countries DO believe in the ICC. As for "Nations most likely to use inhumane treatment are on the councils overseeing others." the irony is rather funny but is obviously lost on you.

What she says about the ICC is right on mark.

Most countries believing in the ICC doesn’t make it the right thing. It happens that most those countries can’t even get their acts together. The last thing we should do is trust these country’s judgements if they can’t even pull their hind quarters out of the gutter.

Yet, these countries send representatives to the ICC.

Justice in many of these countries is a joke, compared to what we’re used to in the West. The last thing we need is to be judged by someone whose sense of justice doesn’t quite fall under common law.

Especially since that court technically has jurisdiction over the whole globe, including non signatory countries.

As for your implication that our human rights leaves much to be desired, perhaps you could talk to the troops stationed in GITMO, guarding the prisoners. The way we treat those prisoners is cake walk compared to how other countries treat their prisoners. Heck, many troops complained that the prisoners get better treatment than them!

Meaning, the GITMO prisoners are babied.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 278
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:32:11 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Bin Laden was banking on the hope that the anti war crowd represented the majority of the US. He took advantage of that when he threatened the red states, hoping they’d pull a Spain.

It didn’t work.


....we will have to agree to disagree here. From my point of view, AQ has got exactly what it wants from Bush. A western leader willing and able to generate multi-generational dislike and distrust of western values....thus ensuring a new generation of terrorists.


Al-Qaeda would’ve gotten exactly what it wanted had we handed power to the Democrats back in 2004.

The expectation was that they’d walk the walk on their rhetoric, and call for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Improving the strategic environment for the terrorists.

This would’ve been seen as a victory, just as the November 2006 elections were seen as a victory for them.

They would’ve used this “victory” to gain more recruits.

Creating a multi generational dislike for western values wouldn’t serve Al-Qaeda’s immediate needs, and that’s survival. We were kicking their hind quarters then, we’re kicking their hind quarters now.

Their ultimate goal is to unite the world under Islamic Law. Radicals from that region had a dislike for western values ever since Islam’s beginnings.

Our values contradict with strict Islamic Law, period. Their gaol is to replace what we have with Islamic Law.

As for Bush being a western leader that causes a multi generational dislike and distrust of western values, that doesn’t reflect reality.

As far as distrust of western values, that’s been going on for decades, mostly in the West--in the hands of the liberals.

It’s the conservatives that are fighting to preserve western values here at home.

As for the rest of the world, every time I went overseas, I saw evidence of people wanting to westernize, and adopt our philosophy. That’s part of what motivated radical Islam to rear its ugly head again.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 279
RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... - 10/30/2007 6:49:48 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

No, I'm not saying that at all. I said we haven't pulled troops out of Iraq. Like I said, parsing words. To prove what exactly?


IRAQ?

I wasn't talking about Iraq. I was talking about Bush being a piece-of-shit coward and Terrorist Appeaser.

Why is giving in, again, in Iraq this time any different than Bush giving in to Bin Ladin re: US Troops in Saudi Arabia.

The US has *already* shown it doesn't have any balls standing up to terrorists.

What's the point of pretending differently at this late juncture?




Again, our moving operations out of Saudi Arabia had more to do with shifting our strategy than “caving in” to
Bin Laden. Simply put, we didn’t need most our Saudi assets after Saddam fell.




Spin, spin, spin.. You just can't accept the reality of Bush's appeasement of Bin Laden.

Since you don't have the SAUDI TERRORISTS who have caused all the trouble on 9/11, and since then in Iraq in custody, you're hypothesis is simply bullshit.

quote:


It makes more sense to have our assets in Iraq and Kuwait than to have them in Saudi Arabia. The ones in Saudi Arabia outlived their use, thus we pulled out.


It makes more sense to have assets in Iraq and Kuwait, than it does where the Terrorist are doing their planning, Saudi Arabia?

And co-incident with Bin Laden's demands? Wow, that's so.... Convenient? Give it up. No-one's here is buying your brand of Crazy.

quote:


This doesn’t make Bush a terrorist appeaser, or coward. Especially if the man is going to continue with his policies against the enemy despite opposition, both home and abroad.


So, where are the Saudi Terrorists responsible, captured as part of this amazing policy you're dreaming of?

quote:


We have the balls to stand up to terrorists, we’re currently doing it.


They're kicking your ass, like you got your ass kicked in the War on Drugs by dopers and Potheads.

You gonna kill 3 soldiers a day for the next 30 years indulging your fantasy.

Know what's wrong with Bush's Fuckup in Iraq? It fails the "Lincoln Test", Lincoln's statement of the ONLY reason the Republic mobilizes for war. That's why it's doomed to failure.

quote:


The only people that don’t have the balls to stand up to terrorists are those screaming that we should pull back, set up defensive operations, and “not” exuberate the situation by attacking them in their environment


Nah, the Bush Supporters don't have the balls to simply admit they were wrong.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 10/30/2007 6:52:03 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 280
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.139