Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Dems just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory
Author Message
fsquid Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 81,357
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 1835
I Root For: Memphis, Queens (NC)
Location: St Johns, FL

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesMemphis Hall of Fame
Post: #41
 
GGniner Wrote:Rumsfeld served among others in the Administration, also Kerry was a big supporter of the War until the media aided the terrorist in making it unpopular. They tried to have George Washington fired when things got tough, same with Lincoln and Truman......maybe W. Bush is in good company here?



for the record, the FBI beleives the next "9/11" is 8 suitcase nukes going off in the 8 US cities with highest Jew Poplulations. Not sure if Charlotte is on that list or not, Bin Laden's biographer has stated he beleives the cells are here and waiting to be "awakened" on order and had the suitcase nukes here well before 9/11. I hope they are all wrong......regardless, in a Globalized economy and very connected world it affects all of us.

suitcase nukes? They have those on 24 too.
02-20-2007 01:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
 
fsquid Wrote:suitcase nukes? They have those on 24 too.

24 didn't come up with the concept, Squid.
02-20-2007 01:42 PM
Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #43
 
fsquid Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:Rumsfeld served among others in the Administration, also Kerry was a big supporter of the War until the media aided the terrorist in making it unpopular. They tried to have George Washington fired when things got tough, same with Lincoln and Truman......maybe W. Bush is in good company here?



for the record, the FBI beleives the next "9/11" is 8 suitcase nukes going off in the 8 US cities with highest Jew Poplulations. Not sure if Charlotte is on that list or not, Bin Laden's biographer has stated he beleives the cells are here and waiting to be "awakened" on order and had the suitcase nukes here well before 9/11. I hope they are all wrong......regardless, in a Globalized economy and very connected world it affects all of us.

suitcase nukes? They have those on 24 too.

This may be were the writers got their plot line from. there have been alot of stories on it over the last several years, supposedly if they got them it was from the Ukraine.....Russia had/has an arsenal of 250 suitcase tactical nukes I think?
02-20-2007 01:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fsquid Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 81,357
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 1835
I Root For: Memphis, Queens (NC)
Location: St Johns, FL

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesMemphis Hall of Fame
Post: #44
 
RebelKev Wrote:
fsquid Wrote:suitcase nukes? They have those on 24 too.

24 didn't come up with the concept, Squid.

So we don't have a Jack Bauer that is saving us without us knowing?
02-20-2007 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #45
 
RebelKev Wrote:
GGniner Wrote:Rumsfeld served among others in the Administration, also Kerry was a big supporter of the War until the media aided the terrorist in making it unpopular. They tried to have George Washington fired when things got tough, same with Lincoln and Truman......maybe W. Bush is in good company here?



for the record, the FBI beleives the next "9/11" is 8 suitcase nukes going off in the 8 US cities with highest Jew Poplulations. Not sure if Charlotte is on that list or not, Bin Laden's biographer has stated he beleives the cells are here and waiting to be "awakened" on order and had the suitcase nukes here well before 9/11. I hope they are all wrong......regardless, in a Globalized economy and very connected world it affects all of us.

Am I mistaken or weren't the Democrats just bitching a few months back about Bush needing to heed the advice of the Iraqi Study Group? The ISG stated the need for more troops, now they ***** we he tries to implement it?

How in the world can anyone follow a politician(most Democrats and some Republicans fall into this category) who changes their position at the drop of a hat?


Also, OU, I don't know your age, and it's apparent I am not going to get through to you, with all of your "knowledge" about warfare, tactics, etc., so I invite you here:

http://usmilnet.com/smf/index.php

There you can tell those idiots how it should be, how it should have been done, and what needs to be done. Trust me, they aren't as intelligent and experienced as you. I mean, we have some real dolts there. An LTC that was instrumental in the capture of Saddam Hussein, a troop that was on daily patrols hunting IEDs, a few Forward Observers, bunch of grunts, and just about every other job you can offer in the military. We have people that have been, are going, and get this, are actually on the ground. ....but I'm sure they don't hold a candle to your knowledge. [/EXTREME sarcasm]

Yadda yadda. There is no shortage of Iraq war vets and senior officers who will tell you that the Iraq war was a major strategic blunder. I suppose their military experience doesn't count though, huh? Just like Kerrys, Webbs, etc. 8 of the 9 Iraq vets who ran in the 2006 elections ran as Democrats -- the one Republican got slaughtered in Bush's Crawford district in Texas.

Your side does not have a monopoly on military experience, so don't expect me to give you any credibility because of that, especially when you impugn the credibility of others who served.

The fact is, there are two sides to this debate. One side, populated by many liberals and a number of conservatives like Jim Baker, William F. Buckley, Pat Buchannan, Brent Scowcroft, etc have been saying since this war was a mistake all along, and that it would bog us down in a civil conflict we could not win and only empower our enemies in Iran. These people were shouted down by a second group, including the likes of you, who have been time and time again wrong about Iraq -- wrong about weapons of mass destruction stockpiles, wrong about the connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, wrong about the potential of the insurgents (remember "in its last throws"?), wrong about the strengthening of democratic forces in the region (Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, Iran, etc). Wrong about elections being able to stem violence. Wrong that Iraqis would be able to unite behind a shared concept of nationhood. Wrong that oil revenues would "more than pay for the cost of the occupation". This second group, which includes you has been continuously wrong about Iraq. Period.

The question still stands. Why the hell should we listen to you now? You're a joke.

It has to be more than the fact that you were/are in the military. There are military vets and active duty people on both sides of the argument, so that doesn't fly. The facts are the facts. You have no credibility left. The American people no longer support this war when they know that it was started by people who wanted to attack Iraq and Iran before 9/11 even happened, and then use the fear of that event to scare people into believing a threat that was cooked up while our real enemies sat in Afghanistan and Pakistan, growing stronger. To turn around and blame the failure of this war on the people who have been RIGHT about Iraq every step of the way requires an audacity that would be difficult to believe if I didn't see it coming out of the White House press room every day.

But don't take it from me. Take it from Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Reagan administration National Security Agency.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...01917.html
02-20-2007 03:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #46
 
If there is a CTU I surely hope they aren't like the CTU employees on TV. They don't even understand the terminology they use :).
02-20-2007 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
 
OUGwave Wrote:There is no shortage of Iraq war vets and senior officers who will tell you that the Iraq war was a major strategic blunder. I suppose their military experience doesn't count though, huh? Just like Kerrys, Webbs, etc. 8 of the 9 Iraq vets who ran in the 2006 elections ran as Democrats -- the one Republican got slaughtered in Bush's Crawford district in Texas.

They are outnumbered 5/1. As for Kerry, he has no experience in this matter.
02-20-2007 04:02 PM
Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #48
 
RebelKev Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:There is no shortage of Iraq war vets and senior officers who will tell you that the Iraq war was a major strategic blunder. I suppose their military experience doesn't count though, huh? Just like Kerrys, Webbs, etc. 8 of the 9 Iraq vets who ran in the 2006 elections ran as Democrats -- the one Republican got slaughtered in Bush's Crawford district in Texas.

They are outnumbered 5/1. As for Kerry, he has no experience in this matter.

Funny how you consistently avoid the actual argument presented. You have been wrong on everything regarding Iraq, and you have nothing left to say.
02-20-2007 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
 
OUGwave Wrote:Funny how you consistently avoid the actual argument presented. You have been wrong on everything regarding Iraq, and you have nothing left to say.

How have I been wrong? Data has been presented on this forum for months, yet you still have your blinders on. YOU say it's a mess and that it's a civil war. Well, those of us that have been there say different. Where the hell do you get your information? From the f'n news media. .....and I'm wrong? I very seriously doubt that.
02-20-2007 05:39 PM
Quote this message in a reply
niuhuskie84 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,930
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #50
 
RebelKev Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:Funny how you consistently avoid the actual argument presented. You have been wrong on everything regarding Iraq, and you have nothing left to say.

How have I been wrong? Data has been presented on this forum for months, yet you still have your blinders on. YOU say it's a mess and that it's a civil war. Well, those of us that have been there say different. Where the hell do you get your information? From the f'n news media. .....and I'm wrong? I very seriously doubt that.

yea, i guess you're right. everything is going swimmingly.
02-20-2007 06:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #51
 
niuhuskie84 Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:Funny how you consistently avoid the actual argument presented. You have been wrong on everything regarding Iraq, and you have nothing left to say.

How have I been wrong? Data has been presented on this forum for months, yet you still have your blinders on. YOU say it's a mess and that it's a civil war. Well, those of us that have been there say different. Where the hell do you get your information? From the f'n news media. .....and I'm wrong? I very seriously doubt that.

yea, i guess you're right. everything is going swimmingly.

Not saying everything is going swell by any means. It's a combat zone. Show me an aesthetic combat zone and I'll show you a gay Al Qaeda member.

However, what do you think the media is going to focus on, bombings in Baghdad? Or peace in the other regions? Think about that. All media has an agenda. Killing sells. Peace does not. Are there problems? Of course. They're in every war. However, you don't cut and run at the first sign of adversity. The military can handle it IF the politicians allow them to, that I can assure you. However, I don't buy the bureaucracy as being the 4th branch of government. Maybe the 5th. I believe the press, by proxy, is the fourth. The play on the emotions of the people by pushing their agenda, whether intended or not, and this gets back to the politicians. Politicians, and bless their cold-blooded, blood-sucking hearts, they want to get re-elected. So, restraints have been placed on the military. In addition, now we have calls for surrender, and yes, it is a call for surrender when you leave a battlefield before the mission is complete. Either that or a treaty is signed, and I don't remember the insurgency offering any treaty other than we submit to Islam.

That, in a nutshell, is how it is, NIU. We fight'em there, or we fight'em here. It is that simple. Unlike the NVA, this enemy WILL follow us home and many are already here. If the two attacks on the Trade Center weren't enough proof for you, I don't know what will convince you.
02-20-2007 06:37 PM
Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #52
 
RebelKev Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:Funny how you consistently avoid the actual argument presented. You have been wrong on everything regarding Iraq, and you have nothing left to say.

How have I been wrong? Data has been presented on this forum for months, yet you still have your blinders on. YOU say it's a mess and that it's a civil war. Well, those of us that have been there say different. Where the hell do you get your information? From the f'n news media. .....and I'm wrong? I very seriously doubt that.

From the news media?

Man, you are text book with the pejoratives. Without the news media do you think anyone would be doing a damn thing to fix the problems at Walter Reed?

Anyway, the question is put just the same, where do I get my information? Well, it deserves an answer.

Try the National Intelligence Estimate's key judgments released earlier this month, which suggested that violence is likely to continue to spiral downward for the next 12-18 months and that key elements of the violence are reflective of a civil war going on inside the country.

Countless people who have been there and met with key players first hand also describe a similar situation. Read the Iraq Study Group report in full, which repeatedly concludes that there is no military solution to the conflict, and either staying the course or troop increases absent a change in policy will not forestall chaos in Iraq over the next few years.

Thats where I get my information from. And yeah, I'm a pretty voracious reader. I make no apologies for that. Just because a newspaper reports something, doesn't mean it didn't happen, you know. Usually the opposite. Facts are stubborn things when they aren't going your way.

There is a bi-partisan consensus on the Hill that the administration's Iraq Project is a failure. The only disagreement is what to do about it. That you could argue otherwise is stunning, although its becoming less so the more I read from you.
02-20-2007 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #53
 
OUGwave Wrote:Read the Iraq Study Group report in full, which repeatedly concludes that there is no military solution to the conflict, and either staying the course or troop increases absent a change in policy will not forestall chaos in Iraq over the next few years.

You mean this one:

Quote:"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq."

?


Ok, got no problem with it. Or is it that we should pick and choose which verses to follow that follow the liberal agenda? Do you think I want to stay there forever? Hell no. However, I don't want to pull out so soon that nothing's accomplished either. I have lost too many f'n friends there for them to die in vain.

....and whether you like it or not, take it from someone who's been, it's NOT a the ******* hellhole you see on 'da teevee.
02-20-2007 07:54 PM
Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #54
 
RebelKev Wrote:Not saying everything is going swell by any means. It's a combat zone. Show me an aesthetic combat zone and I'll show you a gay Al Qaeda member.

However, what do you think the media is going to focus on, bombings in Baghdad? Or peace in the other regions?

Peace in other regions? Where? Maybe compared to the all-out civil war in Baghdad, but there are major attacks every month in Samarra, Najaf, Hillah, Kirkuk, and daily in Anbar province. I can't believe I'm reading this sometimes. The whole country is in chaos. 3,000 Iraqis and 100 American soldiers are killed every month. You think thats over one city?

Quote:Think about that. All media has an agenda. Killing sells. Peace does not.


To you, its an agenda. To the rest of us they are facts. When 300 people are killed in Najaf, to you this is somehow not newsworthy, and talking about it is propaganda.

Quote:Are there problems? Of course. They're in every war. However, you don't cut and run at the first sign of adversity.


What about after four years? There are retired generals from here to eternity who will tell you that there is nothing left for us to accomplish militarily in Baghdad. Are they cutting and running at the first sign of adversity? Hitler lost 600,000 at Stalingrad for months after it was clear he couldn't win. It cost him the wider war. But I guess he didn't cut and run, so he's got that going for him.

Quote:The military can handle it IF the politicians allow them to, that I can assure you.

This is the one I really love. Your party controlled every branch of government for the entirety of this war until LAST MONTH -- not sending enough troops and not providing them with enough equipment. But NOW its the politicians fault?

Quote: However, I don't buy the bureaucracy as being the 4th branch of government. Maybe the 5th. I believe the press, by proxy, is the fourth. The play on the emotions of the people by pushing their agenda, whether intended or not, and this gets back to the politicians. Politicians, and bless their cold-blooded, blood-sucking hearts, they want to get re-elected. So, restraints have been placed on the military.

More of the same from above. Who are these weak willed politicians that have put us in this position? Your party controlled the White House for the duration of the war. The President is the Commander in Chief and HE and HE ALONE has the authority to set the rules of engagement. Please, detail the restraints he has placed on the military, because I'm curious. I mean, we know he didn't send enough troops, or enough equipment. We know he never asked for another troop for the next four years until after his final midterm, despite the fact that everyone knew the country was slipping away. Maybe you have something to add to this list? Or maybe you meant that congress has placed these restraints? The Republican congress up until they left the leadership last month, held only about a half dozen hearings on oversight on how the war was going? Maybe you have some stuff to add to this list?

Quote:In addition, now we have calls for surrender, and yes, it is a call for surrender when you leave a battlefield before the mission is complete. Either that or a treaty is signed, and I don't remember the insurgency offering any treaty other than we submit to Islam.

We're not surrendering anything if we strategically withdraw our forces -- we've already accomplished as much as we can hope to accomplish. We got rid of Saddam and put a new government in place. The rest is up to the Iraqis and will have to be part of a political process.

Quote:That, in a nutshell, is how it is, NIU. We fight'em there, or we fight'em here. It is that simple.

Cool, when do we get to fight them in Afghanistan? Funny thing is, "they" weren't in Iraq until we showed up. This is double-think of amazing proportions.
Quote:Unlike the NVA, this enemy WILL follow us home and many are already here. If the two attacks on the Trade Center weren't enough proof for you, I don't know what will convince you.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that wealthy middle-class Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden attacked the world trade center. But apparently you have evidence that it was frustrated Sunni Iraqi insurgents and Iraqi shiite militia that did it?

Am I the only one that still wants to commit the bulk of our military power to finding the guy that attacked us and making sure the regime who hosted and assisted him does not come back to power? I mean...call me crazy, it seemed like a good idea after 9/11... but I guess we kind of cut and ran at the first side of adversity, huh?
02-20-2007 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #55
 
RebelKev Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:Read the Iraq Study Group report in full, which repeatedly concludes that there is no military solution to the conflict, and either staying the course or troop increases absent a change in policy will not forestall chaos in Iraq over the next few years.

You mean this one:

Quote:"The Iraqi government should accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army brigades. While this process is under way, and to facilitate it, the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units. As these actions proceed, U.S. combat forces could begin to move out of Iraq."

?


Ok, got no problem with it. Or is it that we should pick and choose which verses to follow that follow the liberal agenda? Do you think I want to stay there forever? Hell no. However, I don't want to pull out so soon that nothing's accomplished either. I have lost too many f'n friends there for them to die in vain.

....and whether you like it or not, take it from someone who's been, it's NOT a the **** hellhole you see on 'da teevee.

I know plenty of people who've been, and "been" at a far higher level than you.

What you omit, my friend, is that I said an increase in troops ABSENT A CHANGE IN POLICY will not forestall chaos in Iraq.

Yes, the ISG calls for a small surge in troops, but ONLY as part of a larger policy change to diplomatically re-engage the rest of the region, which the administration is NOT DOING.

Reading comprehension, buddy. Like I said, read the whole report. And read my whole sentance next time.
02-20-2007 08:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #56
 
OUGwave Wrote:I'm sorry, I was under the impression that wealthy middle-class Saudis who were trained in Afghanistan by Osama bin Laden attacked the world trade center. But apparently you have evidence that it was frustrated Sunni Iraqi insurgents and Iraqi shiite militia that did it?

you would be WRONG, the WTC was attacked with the intent of toppling them twice. First in 1993, by Ramsey Youssef......youssef came to the USA on an Iraqi Passport and bombed the WTC on the 2 Year Anniversary of the Liberation of Kuwait......the other bomber with Youssef, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled that bombing and went back to IRAQ and was reported to be on the government payroll.

Youssef's uncle is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who took his plan to topple the WTC and finished it on 9/11 as the mastermind. they took their idea to Bin Laden and got financial backing.....

as for Iraq after WTC and before 9/11, try learning about Salman Pak for starters. It is absolutely idiotic to assert Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq before we got there.

Why did the Lib media run stories like this in 1999?

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Quote:Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.
they probably ran stories like this then because the Lib politicians were saying the same thing about iraq! and Why the Clinton State Dept. listed Iraq as a state sponsor of Terror
02-20-2007 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #57
 
I might have to tackle this one tomorrow, Ggniner. I'm trying to search for templates for my military site and trying to build the frontpage.

I'm sending some reinforcements over since he doesn't have the balls to say it there, to other vets.

Also, Wave, you don't know what I do and if you did, you'd retract that **** about you knowing more people in "higher" places.
02-20-2007 09:01 PM
Quote this message in a reply
BlazerUnit Offline
Yeah, I Just Did That
*

Posts: 8,810
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 64
I Root For: Key & Peele
Location:
Post: #58
 
OUGwave Wrote:Your side does not have a monopoly on military experience, so don't expect me to give you any credibility because of that, especially when you impugn the credibility of others who served.

Flip-flopper, thy name is RebelKev. :owned:
02-22-2007 11:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #59
 
BlazerUnit Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:Your side does not have a monopoly on military experience, so don't expect me to give you any credibility because of that, especially when you impugn the credibility of others who served.

Flip-flopper, thy name is RebelKev. :owned:

So says an idiot. Name one thing "I" have flip-flopped on. Don't be a little *****, name it.
02-23-2007 12:02 AM
Quote this message in a reply
Ninerballin Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 614
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 15
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Halton Arena
Post: #60
 
fsquid Wrote:
RebelKev Wrote:
fsquid Wrote:suitcase nukes? They have those on 24 too.

24 didn't come up with the concept, Squid.

So we don't have a Jack Bauer that is saving us without us knowing?

If there was a Jack Bauer then I hope he would just leave the dumb assess laying. Yea that includes you.
02-23-2007 02:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.