RE: US may be drawn into South American war

RE: US may be drawn into South American war (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Smith117 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:03:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Excellent observation Ellen. And the crazy thing is that it would be the USA that most would point their finger of blame at. Perhaps like a detective it should be evaluated who actually has motive to instigate things in such a fashion. Bull We're the ones to blame for everything wrong in the world. Some country asks us for help, so we do -- we're blamed for sticking our nose in others' business. Some country asks for help and we DON'T -- we're blamed for turning our backs on a tragedy. We can't win no matter what we do. I say let 'em fight and kill each other. Isn't Columbia a major source of the drugs supposedly 'flooding' our streets? I say hang back and let 'em all go.

LadyEllen -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:05:52 AM)
What interests me is how Mr Chavez knows that the rebels killed in Ecuador were killed whilst sleeping? If the Colombians had killed them, then sleeping or standing the bodies would surely have been brought back to Colombia for publicity purposes - "here, we killed a FARC leader and a bunch of the foot soldiers" If the US had killed them, then the same thing would apply to do one's ally a favour? Seems terribly obtuse to hand a propaganda coup to an enemy by letting the bodies be discovered in bed after going to the trouble of tracking these guys down - mind you, to leave the bodies behind at all seems a bit obtuse unless one wished to stir up some trouble - which one could do so much better if it could be shown they died in their beds at the hands of "cowards". Seems to me that only someone who was there, or has direct testimony from the place could know they were sleeping when killed..... seems to me also that it would be rather difficult to track these guys down at all, when theyre used to hiding out in the jungle..... seems to me that someone who knew where they were did the deed, someone who had the time to either surround and massacre them in their beds or the time to put them in their beds once dead but still warm, someone who maybe owes a favour to someone or seeks a favour from them......or wanted rid of these people but couldnt be seen to do it openly and needed a scapegoat..... My money is on the Ecuadorians. E

mnottertail -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:07:19 AM)
Some country doesn't ask us for help, and we do. (to numerous to enumerate). Some patriots (the Kurds the Hmongs.....et cetera) as us for help (after helping us) and we fuck them. horse apiece. Ron

Smith117 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:09:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Some country doesn't ask us for help, and we do. (to numerous to enumerate). Some patriots (the Kurds the Hmongs.....et cetera) as us for help (after helping us) and we fuck them. horse apiece. Ron I was actually referring to the genocidal goings on in Africa. A place that, to my knowledge, hasn't contributed a finger's worth of energy to helping us with anything, except maybe those nifty money scams from Nigeria.

luckydog1 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:14:58 AM)
So are you saying Clinton had something to do with the WTC bombing not going exactly as planned? That the second part of the bomb did not work and bring down the building is simply incredible luck. Unless you can somehow argue otherwise. The Millenium Bomber was stopped by Racial Profiling by a cracker security guard. Heck, Clinton could not even catch the Abortion Bomber inside America. Bush got him. Didn't he get the Death Penalty? None of them achieved the devastation of 911, by accident. If the WTC had been bombed and dropped in moments, instead of after an hour of evacuation time, the scope would have been far worse. Pure luck. Clinton left Al Queda 10 x stronger than it was, with a string of victories. And some sort of plan, that he didn't execute while in office.....Maybe if he had we would talking about President Gore.

airborne92 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:15:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Clinton prevented terrorist attacks in the US and didnt invade Iraq. Sinergy, That statement is factually incorrect. Under President Clinton the World Trade Center, The bomb that didnt work. quote: the Federal Building in OKC, A non Al Qaeda whacko nutjob American. quote: and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were all bombed or attacked in some manner. Let's not also forget the attack on the USS Cole, or the attempted assassination of former President Bush during a visit to Kuwait. All took place in areas where the US has limited control. Are you willing to concede the point that none of these terrorist attacks comes near the scope and devastation of 9/11? quote: [sarcasm] Yes, President Clinton did wonders protecting the people of this country. [/sarcasm] [sarcasm] At least he didnt destroy the economy being a huge failure like the Dipshit in Chief. [/sarcasm] Sinergy The WTC bomb did dentonate, and so was a successful attack, it just wasn't powerful enough. You never specified that it had to be al-Qaeada or any other known terrorist group, so the OKC attack is still considered a terrorist attack withing the US. The embassies are considered US soil and we have full control over what happens in embassy grounds, or did President Clinton select ambassadors that were incompetant cronies? You never said the attacks had to be on the scale of 9/11 and I never said that they were, so your question about conceding is just a smoke screen to avoid the fact that you are wrong. As far as the economy, that dot com bust under his administration did wonders for the economy didn't it, not to mention that his policies on the economy left the US in bad shape once 9/11 did happen. At no point have I condoned anything by either party, but I can't believe that you are gulible enough to think that Clinton was somehow a great President.

Sinergy -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:18:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 At no point have I condoned anything by either party, but I can't believe that you are gulible enough to think that Clinton was somehow a great President. Well, I never said great president. I think building a military which could conquer Iraq in 10 days, building FEMA into a world class organization, leaving office with a budget surplus, and surviving over 100 attacks from a hostile Congress intending to bring him down, speaks a lot. His support of NAFTA pisses me off. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:20:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I dont see how it is any of our business. --does Columbia have oil? --at the moment we are busy in Iraq- we might be free'd up in 100 years. No but the cia will be really unhappy if they lose part of their beer drinking money from the drug trade. You have no idea how much manoy is laundered from the drug trade in this country by the government, just ask clinton.

HerLord -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:21:56 AM)
Oh shit... i just realised. You people are why I don't talk politics...THANX!

wkdshadow -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:22:28 AM)
The dotcom boom/bust can't be blamed on the administration, as it was the result of people investing in that which they had no idea about. People saw a new technology and thought "oh hey, I can make a million dollars if I pick the right company". Al Gore can be blamed though in part for the successful adoption of the internet as a common communications technology in the US.

airborne92 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:29:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: airborne92 At no point have I condoned anything by either party, but I can't believe that you are gulible enough to think that Clinton was somehow a great President. Well, I never said great president. I think building a military which could conquer Iraq in 10 days, building FEMA into a world class organization, leaving office with a budget surplus, and surviving over 100 attacks from a hostile Congress intending to bring him down, speaks a lot. His support of NAFTA pisses me off. Sinergy The military that he inherited from former President Bush would have been able to do it in less time, and I speak from experience on this since I enlisted when Bush was in office and watched what happened to the military once Clinton took office. FEMA has never been a world class organization, they are nothing more than a logistical support organization. They don't have the manpower to do anything other than help get supplies to where they are needed, and FEMA under President Clinton never faced a natural disaster of the magnitude of Katrina. He may have had a budget surplus, but that is very debateable, especially since I remember the democrats beating their chests over that tidbit when they thought Al Gore was going to be the next President in 2000. As soon as they realized that Bush would win they started saying the surplus wasn't anywhere as big as they had claimed it to be. As far as surving attacks by a hostile Congress, the current President is doing fairly well at that. Nothing for Clinton to brag about.

mnottertail -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:40:00 AM)
So, conquer it in less than 10 days, lets say 3. any better at holding it? I will reserve judgement on your military expertise as I did on your high school physics teaching certification. Ron

airborne92 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 10:55:52 AM)
At what point did I say the outcome of the situation in Iraq would have been any better? The problems in Iraq that have caused it to be dragged out this long have been caused by politicians on both sides. I never claimed anything to the contrary. As for it taking so long, go back to the founding of this country. We declared independence in 1776, we didn't have a Constitution that was ratified by all 13 states or colonies, depending on how you want to look at it, until 1789. That took 13 years with some of the brightest minds in the world at the time working on a government system that everyone would be happy with. Now you want it to happen overnight?

mnottertail -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 11:10:27 AM)
Nowhere did you intimate that, I will stipulate that immediately, shout if from the rooftops if need be, but you intimated some vague but significant deterioration of the military when Clinton was in office, as opposed to when Bush the elder was in office, subjective at best, unless you got some pretty heavy backing. Now the next paragraph recalling to our memory to the halcyon days of the founding of our country, and the fact that it took 13 years to draw up a constitution hardly seems endemic to the military intervention we may or may not take in South America, nor does it seem tangental to any points proffered about my reserving judgement for the present, of your military expertise. Unless; if you, (and in which case color me stupid here) are postulating that the constitution could have been drawn up within a great deal less than 13 years, had we had Bush the elder in office, backed by the might of our current military war machine, and in that case, I would say you were judging everything pretty obviously and indeed quite correctly. Cordially, Ron

airborne92 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 11:26:37 AM)
I appreciate the fact you recgonize some of what I was saying. Now to explain how Clinton degreaded our military under his administration. Under the elder Bush the military began to draw down in size from what it was under Reagan. The military expected what he did and was prepared for it. Approximately half of our ground forces in Europe were either brought home to the the US or were disbanded outright after the first Gulf War. The mission they were doing in Europe was no longer required, and thus no longer needed. Under Clinton the shrinking of the military was continued at an even greater pace, and was not expected by the military. By disbanding units and closing military bases, the military had to spend money that would have been earmarked for equipment upgrades for the troops was instead spent on closing down bases, which requires time and money. The faster the closings are required to happen, the more money is required to make it happen. As for how the founding of the country has to with the topic at hand, you were the one that brought up the problems we face in Iraq now, not me. I was simply explaining why it is taking so long, because you posed the question of not being to hold the country. The bottom line is this; politicians, regardless of the country they are from, are only concerned in obtaining power and keeping it for themselves.

mnottertail -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 12:12:05 PM)
The advance in battlefield technologies (deplored many times prior to this post by myself and others) permitted the slow undoing of our military manpower. Long about 73 (prior to Clinton) the draft was discontinued in favor of an all volunteer army. Then as battlefield technology advanced, the intelligencia (having no real knowledge of war) posited that the bells and the whistles we owned were so far and away from everyone elses, we would just tech the fuck outta everybody and wouldn't need real people. (this amazingly stupid philosophy gained quite a bit of commerce with the applied science gleaned from Star Wars dreaming) and became a policy direction of the DoD during the administration of Bush the elder. http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA232472 (note the date: early in the Bush the elder administration (1990)) Nearly a year prior to Billy Js obtaining office in pursuit of head, the DoD set the schedule for the drawdown: http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA251194 Billy J, either being cognizant of the fact that the military knew a great deal more than he did about it's inner workings (and unfortunately trusting them as having some collective intelligence), or uncaring because of some dog licking peanut butter head from Monica Lewinski, found no reason to discontinue this policy of reducing manpower and resultant base closings, and only rarely giving in to pork barrel sort of stay open for business (because landlocked states absolutely must have a navy base and whatnot). During this continuous 8 year fellatorial tour-de-force, he increasingly funded the DoD beyond inflation or colas for the average joe six-pack. So, I took the time read your anecdote, but I do not accept your characterization that this coincides with in any form. Ron

mnottertail -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 12:27:21 PM)
now separately this is how you wag the dog, hasn't changed since time immemorial, we will be embroiled in small to medium lower tech battles all over the globe, sapping our pocket book and our strength. A little more rarely, into fights the size of Iraq, that we can devastate in 10 days with our techie toys, and not have a goddamn hope of holding and that when WE do decide to go in, should wipe the whole fuck-o-ree of the map, right or wrong, but as a truely gutless lord of nations will never do. LOL, Ron

cyberdude611 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 12:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Some country doesn't ask us for help, and we do. (to numerous to enumerate). Some patriots (the Kurds the Hmongs.....et cetera) as us for help (after helping us) and we fuck them. horse apiece. Ron In this situation, Columbia WOULD ask for our help against Venezuela and would expect our help. Columbia is a US ally. In fact we have Marines in Columbia helping the Columbian military track down left-wing FARC terrorists. Been there for several years now. That's why we would be sucked into any war that springs up. Now I am sure the Pentagon has made it clear to Columbia to keep their troops out of Venezuela. That prevents Chavez from declaring war no matter how much he pounds his chest. Ecuador is what is causing the issue here. Columbian military went into Ecuador and killed a FARC leader (Raul Reyes). In the end, it's a lot of chest pounding from everyone and it will all but certainly calm down. Pretty much nobody really wants a war, at least not right now. But you know when you get armies on high alert and everyone has a gun pointed at someone....just one wrong move could set something off. Venezuela would fall to pieces economically in a such a war. It would be bloody for Columbia. And the US is busy elsewhere. So it's just not the best time for war. But stay tuned.....

airborne92 -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 12:33:06 PM)
Whether you accept the facts as the truth or not is irrelevant. I lived through those times in the military and you did not. So for you to claim any knowledge of what actually happened is a joke. The policy for using advanced technology by the military has been on ongoing policy in every nation, empire, kingdom or what have you for thousands of years. I wouldn't be surprised if you were unaware of this. Slowly both politicians and senior military leadership are coming to understand that you cannot fight the current war with concepts and technology from the last war. The need for newer methods of attacking and defending is constantly ongoing and always has been. What Clinton actually did, and what you claim he did for the DoD are two completely different things. During that time I saw how training and maintenance were affected by his so called "increases". We had less money to allocate to training, supplies, and needed parts. Units were reorganized with inferior equipment because of Clinton's policies towards the military. So much for his expenditures on the military.

meatcleaver -> RE: US may be drawn into South American war (3/3/2008 12:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Europe? Europe has had practically no say in our hemisphere in over a century due to the Monroe doctrine. That wont change. This is the 21st Century, only idiots invade other countries and ruin their economy while doing it to show how macho they are. The smart ones stay at home counting their money and playing the markets.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875