"Support the Troops"

[pegwinn]

It seems to have worked out for the "Libs" in the past few yers in Northern Ireland,
by simply agreeing to address the issues.
Since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998, many of the major paramilitary or "Terrorist" campaigns have either been on ceasefire or have declared their war to be over.

Why couldnt we work towards that?

In fairness, the BA did not halt the violence, only a large part. Additionally the combatants are/were far closer in both ideology and philosophy than are the ME and the West/Israel.

"if we Cut and Run the Terrorists Win" This is a fundamental truth when fighting a guerrilla war. Call them what you wish, but they have more in common with the VC than most will admit. It is winnable, it just takes willpower.

"You obviously want the Terrorists to win if you're against the war" Fundamental Bullshit. The reality is that this statement is made by those unable to discuss options rationally

"By exposing Government lies you embolden the terrorists" Never heard or said this one

"Do you want us to lose the war on terrorism" See fundamental bullshit above

"We must defeat them there, so we dont have to fight them here" Another truth. Logically if we attract them to Iraq they cannot plan operations within CONUS. If we kill them there, we do not have to declare martial law and kill them here. IF we kill them faster than they can recruit and train them, we will fight a disabled foe who will be progressively weaker.

Insults are the final argument of those whose position is superficial or one dimensional.

 

[Superlative]

In fairness, the BA did not halt the violence, only a large part. Additionally the combatants are/were far closer in both ideology and philosophy than are the ME and the West/Israel.


"By exposing Government lies you embolden the terrorists" Never heard or said this one
This is a jab directed at the handling of the NYT WireTapping.

"Do you want us to lose the war on terrorism" See fundamental bullshit above

"We must defeat them there, so we dont have to fight them here" Another truth. Logically if we attract them to Iraq they cannot plan operations within CONUS. If we kill them there, we do not have to declare martial law and kill them here. IF we kill them faster than they can recruit and train them, we will fight a disabled foe who will be progressively weaker.

Martial Law?
what do you think that all of the sudden every town and city in the US will turn into baghdad? that there will be terrorists appearing out of nowhere committing terrorist acts, blowing everything up? 24 has done a good job.


By killing them, doesnt the US risk drawing more toward the cause against the US?

Insults are the final argument of those whose position is superficial or one dimensional.

I do admit that if the US were to walk away now, whatever hatred and violence is simmering over there will surely come to a boil.
So there isnt much choice, I dont particularly think the US should stay, but it appears to be a lose lose situation if we leave.

 

[Superlative]

".............There is no possible way in which the US and Britain would permit a sovereign democratic Iraq, just think what policies that would follow, just imagine that there were a sovereign democratic Iraq, what would it do?

Well for one thing it would have a Shiite majority, so the first thing they’d probably do is shore up relations with Iran, they don’t like Iran particulary, but they have things in common and they have no particular reason to want hostility, and another major war or anything like that, so they’ll move to, probably, move toward relations with Iran, a Shiite Iran,

It also turns out that there is a very substantial Shiite population in Saudi Arabia in the regions where the oil fields are, Shiite independence, dominated independence in Iraq right next door, is very likely to elicit reactions in the Shiiite regions of Saudi Arabia, which could very well mean that the worlds major energy resources, the core of the world energy resources, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the two biggest ones, Iran one of the other ones, will be in the hands of an independent Shiite Government.

the US is gonna allow that?

Its so unimagainable we can't even talk about it. The next thing that an independent Iraq would do is to try to recover it’s natural place as a leading element, maybe the leading element in the Arab world, you go back to biblical times, and there were conflicts between Syria and Mesopotamia on the one hand, and then egypt on the other, the bible is about these little countries in between, canonite and these palestinian which are always, you know being invaded by one or the other, and the question is how do they balance between them?

Those were the two big power centers they still are, well Iraq, its now called Iraq will and if independent is going to try to restore that position.

What is that gonna mean? Well for one thing they’ll re-arm, and for another they’ll probably develop weapons of mass destruction, just first of all as a deterrent, and secondly to counter the main regional enemy which is the US military base by now virtaully in Isreal.

Is the US gonna sit by and allow that?

We can perceive, but the chances that the US and its British attack dog, er whatever the right word is, will sit by quietly and allow any of these things to happen, that possibility is so remote that you can't even discuss it.

Well you know you cant be certain that thats what an independent democratic Iraq would do, but its not unlikely, in fact its highly likely.

That alone is enough to tell you that US and British planners can't possibly be conceiving of a democratic Iraq its inconceivable you ever see any discussion of this? Is it quantum physics? Do you need a deep insight to figure it out?
Its right on the surface, its on the surface, to see it doesn’t take education, intelligence, insight, and so on.

Education and intelligence and so on are required to prevent you from seeing it. Because its right on the surface, instantly there as soon as you think about the situation, obviously in the minds of every planner.

Can you think of a word ever written about it? Not just in the media but in intellictual journals and so on and so forth, no. its unthinkable.............."

Noam Chomsky

 

[pegwinn]

"By exposing Government lies you embolden the terrorists" Never heard or said this oneThis is a jab directed at the handling of the NYT WireTapping.

Ok. I believe that telling the world doesn't do any good. I really and truly don't understand why they didn't simply follow the rules that are in place and wiretap to thier hearts content. Even if the FISA judge on the third day ruled against them, they still had the info. Nope, I just don't get it.

"We must defeat them there, so we dont have to fight them here" Another truth. Logically if we attract them to Iraq they cannot plan operations within CONUS. If we kill them there, we do not have to declare martial law and kill them here. IF we kill them faster than they can recruit and train them, we will fight a disabled foe who will be progressively weaker. Martial Law? what do you think that all of the sudden every town and city in the US will turn into baghdad? that there will be terrorists appearing out of nowhere committing terrorist acts, blowing everything up? 24 has done a good job.

24 is sensationalistic television. Read the book, The Enemy Within by Larry Bond. It is fiction but when you think of the times that were to come (it's pre-911 if memory serves) the premise is friggin scary. Since you can get it at a public library, I will await your review.

By killing them, doesnt the US risk drawing more toward the cause against the US?

Sure we do. But the ones that come are already predisposed to come ahead in any event. Down the road, the would have fallen under the spell of the Wahhabi Mullahs. By inflaming them now, we get to kill them before they are fully trained. A guerrilla war is winnable provided the will is there to win it.

I do admit that if the US were to walk away now, whatever hatred and violence is simmering over there will surely come to a boil.
So there isnt much choice, I dont particularly think the US should stay, but it appears to be a lose lose situation if we leave.

True dat.

 

[Superlative]

A guerrilla war is winnable provided the will is there to win it.

Tell that to Russia. The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 25, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the high cost and ultimate futility of this conflict for this Cold War superpower, the Soviet war in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War, and now the US - Iraq war.

 

[red states rule]

Tell that to Russia. The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 25, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the high cost and ultimate futility of this conflict for this Cold War superpower, the Soviet war in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War, and now the US - Iraq war.

Didn't libs say the US military would never win in Afghanistan?

What did Carter do in response to the Soviet invasion? Pulled the US out of the Olympics

 

[Superlative]

Didn't libs say the US military would never win in Afghanistan?

What did Carter do in response to the Soviet invasion? Pulled the US out of the Olympics

This is nothing new when it comes to your posts, but,

I don't quite follow what you are saying.

What does a similar previous historic example of a battle faught and lost in the middle east have to do with the US Olympic team?

 

[red states rule]

It shows how Pres Peanut stood up to the Soviets when they invaded another country to expand their power

Also, Pres Peanut did a hell of job when Iran kidnapped Americans. He warned them every day for 444 days he was going to get mad at them if they did not release them at once

 

[Superlative]

It shows how Pres Peanut stood up to the Soviets when they invaded another country to expand their power

Whats your point?
Showing a time in history when a US President decided to Abstain from conflict?

I do believe Reagan was in power between 1979. and 1989.

All he did was train afghan troops to fight the soviets, now theyre the same troops fighting us. How ironic.

 

[red states rule]

Whats your point?
Showing a time in history when a US President decided to Abstain from conflict?

I do believe Reagan was in power between 1979. and 1989.

All he did was train afghan troops to fight the soviets, now theyre the same troops fighting us. How ironic.

Pres Reagan took office 1/20/1981

He took over the mess of Pres Peanut and did an excellent job of cleaning it up. The voters thought so to - since he was reelected in 1984 with 49 states

Pres Peanut was your typical liberal peace nik wimp and Iran knew it

Today, the libs are making the same mistake Pres Peanut did by not standing yup to evil. The terrorists know it as well and are delighted

 

[pegwinn]

Tell that to Russia. The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 25, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the high cost and ultimate futility of this conflict for this Cold War superpower, the Soviet war in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War, and now the US - Iraq war.

The Soviet Union could have won the war if they had not been occupied trying to match $ of $ the US buildup under Reagan. The insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters/guerrillas are just like any other armed foe. You can divide and conquer. The tactics are not the same (often on a personal level they are more brutal) but the end result of winning is still doable. It takes willpower.

Pres Reagan took office 1/20/1981

He took over the mess of Pres Peanut and did an excellent job of cleaning it up. The voters thought so to - since he was reelected in 1984 with 49 states

Pres Peanut was your typical liberal peace nik wimp and Iran knew it

Today, the libs are making the same mistake Pres Peanut did by not standing yup to evil. The terrorists know it as well and are delighted

Take away the labels and insulting language and I must say that RSR has hit it on the head.

It's no secret that our .gov and the people are divided over the war. By any kind of logic you can bring, it demonstrates to the enemy that it is possible to wait it out.

 

[red states rule]

The Soviet Union could have won the war if they had not been occupied trying to match $ of $ the US buildup under Reagan. The insurgents/terrorists/freedom fighters/guerrillas are just like any other armed foe. You can divide and conquer. The tactics are not the same (often on a personal level they are more brutal) but the end result of winning is still doable. It takes willpower.



Take away the labels and insulting language and I must say that RSR has hit it on the head.

It's no secret that our .gov and the people are divided over the war. By any kind of logic you can bring, it demonstrates to the enemy that it is possible to wait it out.

I lived through the years of Pres Peanut. I saw first hand how the libs crippled the economy and made the US a laughing stock overseas

Today, libs rewrite the Pres Peanut years and hold him up as a statemen.

 

[pegwinn]

I lived through the years of Pres Peanut. I saw first hand how the libs crippled the economy and made the US a laughing stock overseas

Today, libs rewrite the Pres Peanut years and hold him up as a statemen.

Yeah I was there in the general vicinity as well. Remember that history is a top and it spins whichever way the kid playing with it wishes it to.

 

[red states rule]

Yeah I was there in the general vicinity as well. Remember that history is a top and it spins whichever way the kid playing with it wishes it to.

The Pres Peanut economy was so bad - the Misery Index was created

Of cousre Pres Peanut sat in the White House wearing a sweater and told Americans to turn down the thermostat while US citizens enjoyed a 444 day vacation in Iran

Not spinning - posting facts

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

Pres Reagan took office 1/20/1981

He took over the mess of Pres Peanut and did an excellent job of cleaning it up. The voters thought so to - since he was reelected in 1984 with 49 states

Pres Peanut was your typical liberal peace nik wimp and Iran knew it

Today, the libs are making the same mistake Pres Peanut did by not standing yup to evil. The terrorists know it as well and are delighted

Is this the same REAGAN WHO GAVE THE IRANIANS ARMS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE HOSTAGES?? OH YEAH!!!!!! REAGAN STOOD UP TO THE TERRORISTS ALL RIGHT!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least Peanut man attempted a failed rescue operation instead of GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANTED ( LIKE PUSSY REAGAN DID).

 

[pegwinn]

Is this the same REAGAN WHO GAVE THE IRANIANS ARMS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE HOSTAGES?? OH YEAH!!!!!! REAGAN STOOD UP TO THE TERRORISTS ALL RIGHT!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least Peanut man attempted a failed rescue operation instead of GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANTED ( LIKE PUSSY REAGAN DID).

Source?

 

[Annie]

Is this the same REAGAN WHO GAVE THE IRANIANS ARMS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE HOSTAGES?? OH YEAH!!!!!! REAGAN STOOD UP TO THE TERRORISTS ALL RIGHT!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least Peanut man attempted a failed rescue operation instead of GIVING THEM WHAT THEY WANTED ( LIKE PUSSY REAGAN DID).

Could you please give some links, other than responses to Ollie North?

 

[pegwinn]

Could you please give some links, other than responses to Ollie North?

I've already asked him for a source. He's offline now looking for a way to back up his mistakes. He has an opportunity to come back and say something like, "I was wrong, here's the real story". Wanna take bets on how he approaches that opportunity?

 

[maineman]

Regardless of how you want to look at the Iran-Contra affair, the fact remains that in the first REAL bloody battle in the United States' war against inslamic extremism - the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut - Ron Reagan sent a clear message to our enemies...when they attacked us, Ron tucked his tail between his legs and ran back home like a fucking coward. How your neocons can worship that sort of cowardice is beyond me.

 

[pegwinn]

Regardless of how you want to look at the Iran-Contra affair, the fact remains that in the first REAL bloody battle in the United States' war against inslamic extremism - the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut - Ron Reagan sent a clear message to our enemies...when they attacked us, Ron tucked his tail between his legs and ran back home like a fucking coward. How your neocons can worship that sort of cowardice is beyond me.

See, we can agree on something. Carter was a coward during the Iranian Hostage Taking and Reagan was on this. The only real difference is that Reagan learned a bit from this mistake. Not perfect, only better.