quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I guess you are not a supporter of the party that sent our military into Mesopotamia, have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and unleashed a civil war of epic proportions.

Gotcha,

Sinergy

Iraq would be a lot simpler if there WERE a civil war of epic proportions. 

How so?

Who are you to say such a horrible thing?

What did the Iraqis do to deserve such horrible treatment?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I guess you are not a supporter of the party that sent our military into Mesopotamia, have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and unleashed a civil war of epic proportions.

Gotcha,

Sinergy

Iraq would be a lot simpler if there WERE a civil war of epic proportions. 

How so?

Who are you to say such a horrible thing?

What did the Iraqis do to deserve such horrible treatment?

Blah,blah ,blah...

quote:

God help us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Why do republicans have to cheat and steel in order to win elections?

I don't know - Why do Democrats have to blame someone when they loose elections?

(Posted by someone still hoping to vote for Senator Obama.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I think it is a great concept.    Wish I had been listening

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

What is immoral about voting that way?

Rush's suggestion is merely good tactical politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:


You are probably one of those people who thinks that the 1.5 years that Carter worked to deal with the Iran thing were a waste of time and Reagan got it right within 2 weeks.

There's not a lot of complexity to a hostage situation -- you get the hostages and capture or kill the abductors (in that order of priority).

Carter fucked up by letting the hostages become a political football.  You play games with peoples lives and everybody looses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

You are probably one of those people who thinks that the 1.5 years that Carter worked to deal with the Iran thing were a waste of time and Reagan got it right within 2 weeks.

     2 weeks???  The hostages were in the air about three after he finished his inaugural address.  And yes, Carter's year and a half (444 days to be accurate) of negotiations were not only a waste of time, they are a permanent stain on his legacy.

He got them all home,alive.

That`s called a success in the real world.

No, that is called stupidity in the real world.

He got 8 US military personnel killed in a failed rescure attempt, which he had no business trying to run from Washington, after letting Iran invade our sovereign land.

You sure have some strange ideas on what success is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

I'm a realist.  A civil war would line the population up on one side or the other rather nicely.  Military matters are simplified when there's a clear deliniation between friend and foe.
I could not agree more but seldom does that happen.  Even during WWII when it was ostensibly the axis against the allies... so many times during that conflict not only did countries change sides but also commanders in the field.

War is a horrible business by any measure.
Not for Dupont,Krupp,General Motors,Siemens,Mitsubishi and numerous others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

You are probably one of those people who thinks that the 1.5 years that Carter worked to deal with the Iran thing were a waste of time and Reagan got it right within 2 weeks.

   2 weeks???  The hostages were in the air about three after he finished his inaugural address.  And yes, Carter's year and a half (444 days to be accurate) of negotiations were not only a waste of time, they are a permanent stain on his legacy.

He got them all home,alive.

That`s called a success in the real world.

No, that is called stupidity in the real world.

He got 8 US military personnel killed in a failed rescure attempt, which he had no business trying to run from Washington, after letting Iran invade our sovereign land.

You sure have some strange ideas on what success is.

It had a good chance of working but there was a mid-air crash during a sandstorm in the middle of the night.

That was an accident.A freak accident.

Chill out.

Historical revisionism doesn`t help either.

He got them out alive.What else do you want?

quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

No, that is called stupidity in the real world.

He got 8 US military personnel killed in a failed rescure attempt, which he had no business trying to run from Washington, after letting Iran invade our sovereign land.

You sure have some strange ideas on what success is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

That would be 'effect', but that is not the only thing that you missed out on by a long shot. 

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: airborne92

The facts of history are: The unit assigned to affect the actual hostage rescue was the Army's Delta Force, a unit that had all of the capabilities and equipment needed within its own TO&E. None of the other units participating in the mission where the mishap took place were needed, and were there on Carter's orders. None of the other units present had ever trained with the Delta  Force or trained for a mission such a this. It was not a freak accident, it was a failure of leadership by Carter. The crash did not take place in mid air, but on the ground.
It is possible that you may be misinformed on this point.  Perhaps you might want to read this account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

If you dispute these facts, go read an account of what actually happened by one of the actual survivors of that mission.

By your own comments, you must support every other country's desire to violate the sovereignty of US soil, which by International Law is an act of war.
What is it called when the U.S. does it? Like in Panama,Guatemala,Nicaragua,Haiti,Dominican Republic,Grenada,Cuba and the list goes on and on and on.
 

What I want is a President that will actually do the job he was elected to do and fulfill the oath he swore. Carter did neither.
How so?  How is he any different than any of the rest of them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

nope, you came out here once again with a pontification that is 'felt' but not 'seen'

you do the irrefutable once, I did it last time you astounded us with your military expertise and you said in effect, I don't care what the US military operational plans and forcasts were, I know different, because it is how I feel.

So your turn.

Ron

quote:

The problem with this sort of "tactical politics" is that it dilutes your impact on local politics.
The president in this country is appointed and not elected. On the other hand who is on the school board and who is on the city and county council,judgeships and so forth are elective posts and have a much greater impact on the day to day lives of the citizen.
This sort of thing is counterproductive no matter what party one belongs to.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

The problem with this sort of "tactical politics" is that it dilutes your impact on local politics.
The president in this country is appointed and not elected. On the other hand who is on the school board and who is on the city and county council,judgeships and so forth are elective posts and have a much greater impact on the day to day lives of the citizen.
This sort of thing is counterproductive no matter what party one belongs to.
thompson

There is no problem, and the President is not appointed.  Indirect election is still election.

Is it true that the president is appointed by the electors?
Is it  true that the electors are appointed by the legislature?
Is it  true that there is no law that requires the electors to appoint the person who gets the most votes.
Is it true that the electors have appointed,on more than one occasion, someone to the presidency that did not receive the majority of the popular vote?
I would therefore submit that the president is appointed and not elected.

Strategy and tactics are part and parcel of all elections, local, state, national, as well as organizational.  Successful leaders--and thus successful politicians--play that game to win.
That you reduce the function of elections in our republic to the level of a game is a degree of candor that is seldom seen.
Of course candor is something that I expect from a marine,be he/she former,current or ex.