Who cares if you're a vet?

Suburbanite · #51 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Just right, what did Reagen do?

FDR didn't manage the military either. He just turned them lose, under Churchill's control. What guidance did he give MacArthur and Nimitz? In the Pacific, FDR did nothing.

and yet you don't realize you just unmade your own point... gg

Tileman · #52 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 07:22 AM

Those without knowledge of history nor foresight of the future have always been completely lost when it requires logic...

If it were not the pressure and influence of Human Rights and prevention of dictators and communists where would this world be today? With no doubt more countries would force their people to live in conditions you couldn't imagine. If you really did care about another human being you'd be proud that your country helped free a persecuted society from tyrany...

Still Dizzy · #53 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

I thought you went to war in Desert Storm. Does that deem you as a con man or terminally retarded?

No. NYOB is just another 'wantabee.'

oceanbreeze · #54 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

Those without knowledge of history nor foresight of the future have always been completely lost when it requires logic...

If it were not the pressure and influence of Human Rights and prevention of dictators and communists where would this world be today? With no doubt more countries would force their people to live in conditions you couldn't imagine. If you really did care about another human being you'd be proud that your country helped free a persecuted society from tyrany...

We/they would be in the same sad circumstances as Burma.

Teak · #55 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

and yet you don't realize you just unmade your own point... gg

Not unless you consider those fools effective Presidents, which I don't. They, just like Clintoon, abdicated their roles as Commander in Chief. Doesn't justify electing another who will do the same.

areyoushittin'me? · #56 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

Those without knowledge of history nor foresight of the future have always been completely lost when it requires logic...

Which is all the more reason it was sad we had Bush in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

If it were not the pressure and influence of Human Rights and prevention of dictators and communists where would this world be today? With no doubt more countries would force their people to live in conditions you couldn't imagine. If you really did care about another human being you'd be proud that your country helped free a persecuted society from tyrany...

That sounds quite true, unfortunately, if we go back to the first part of your statement that I quoted...you are apparently clueless of the history of the region.

Suburbanite · #57 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Not unless you consider those fools effective Presidents, which I don't. They, just like Clintoon, abdicated their roles as Commander in Chief. Doesn't justify electing another who will do the same.

maybe they abdicated their roles, but it didn't increase American casualties. i think your criteria for president is ludacris, we aren't fucking Klingons or something, we aren't a race of warriors. First scientist who runs for president gets my vote, thats for damn sure. As if military strategy was all that hard anyways, you probably don't know shit about what you're talking about anyways

Teak · #58 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburbanite

maybe they abdicated their roles, but it didn't increase American casualties. i think your criteria for president is ludacris, we aren't fucking Klingons or something, we aren't a race of warriors. First scientist who runs for president gets my vote, thats for damn sure. As if military strategy was all that hard anyways, you probably don't know shit about what you're talking about anyways

Well, son, since the only specific job give to the President, by the Constitution is Commander in Chief, of the Army and Navy, I find his knowledge of such to be very important. But thats just me.

As for a scientist ever running for President, good luck getting one away from the test tubes long enough.

areyoushittin'me? · #59 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

Those without knowledge of history nor foresight of the future have always been completely lost when it requires logic...

If it were not the pressure and influence of Human Rights and prevention of dictators and communists where would this world be today? With no doubt more countries would force their people to live in conditions you couldn't imagine. If you really did care about another human being you'd be proud that your country helped free a persecuted society from tyrany...

Since I do care about other human beings...at least a little bit...I'm gonna try and help you out.

If you took an in depth look at the region, you would understand that Saddam actually provided for a great deal of stability but hey, we screwed that up so lets move on...

Here is an article that might help you understand a simple concept...

Hasty truce with Moqtada al-Sadr tests his sway in Baghdad stronghold - Yahoo! News

Quote:

Members of the Sadrist movement say the government's campaign against the Mahdi Army is a distraction from Maliki's true motivations: to stop the Sadrists' participation in provincial elections set for October, and to weaken Iraq's "nationalist forces" at a time when the government is negotiating a set of agreements on a long-term US military presence in Iraq.

"We are the last, the only resistance now to the occupation of Iraq," says Nassar al-Rubaie, leader of the Sadrist bloc in Iraq's parliament, the largest group in the 270-member body. "We want an Iraq free of all outside control, and an end to Iraqis fighting Iraqis."

Mr. Rubaie says Maliki launched what he calls "the siege of Sadr City" to weaken the Sadrists politically by creating a crisis and trying to turn their supporters against them. "He knows that forces loyal to our beliefs would sweep to power, so he's acting now to try to break our movement before these provincial elections."

The Sadrists say their principle objective remains a sovereign Iraq that is free from the "vicious circle" they say has made their country the battlefield in the American war on terror. "The Americans are here fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism and to make America more secure, while Al Qaeda is here to fight the infidels," says Liqaa al-Yaseen, a member of the Sadrist parliamentary bloc. "The result is terror for the Iraqi people caught in the middle of this war."

Dr. Yaseen says the only negotiation Iraq should have with the US is one setting a timetable for withdrawal. "Maliki wants to empty the field of any nationalist movement that opposes these long-term agreements."

And speaking of studying history...it's also too bad that Junior has some serious psychological problems in his relationship with his daddy or he might have freakin' listened to him...

Quote:

Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

toxic · #60 (**permalink**) 05-12-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oceanbreeze

I believe he was Lt. Commander. He was brass, a fighter pilot, to boot.
In order to go into combat you have to understand combat.
Do you really want someone in command who has no first knowledge of war?
War has been ongoing since the beginning of time and will probably be the destruction of man, there will always be war.

Come-on OB

McCain was never in combat. He flew over 15,000 ft over the battlefields and pushed a button to release bombs. He has NO EXPERIENCE.

His awards for VALOR, say that he dropped bombs accurately. That is video game quality experience.

Sure military experience is very useful for a Commander-In-Chief, but don't mistake any of the BIG TALKERS at this forum for experienced.

Surbanite, you mistake the pantywaste at this forum for "Military Men". They are not. They are big talkers that barely saw any action, but think they sound BIG if they promote war. They are weak little boys telling stories that they heard others tell at the O/NCO clubs.