Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 320

Thread: Fahrenheit 9/11

  1. #251
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    We didnt have to fight Germany. We were pulled in by the international community to do something. But my post was referring to postwar Germany and Japan. There was alot of resistance after the war in both countries. I was mearly stating that even though we freed them, we will continue to see resistance just like after WWII.
    Half-assed? We systematically destroyed their forces! It was a well, thought out and victorious action. History books will say that it was one of the most decisive victories in the history of warfare. The combat deaths sustained were comparatively small due to the remarkable planning. My post was speaking of post-war. You can't judge them the same way.

    Just remember that the UN agreed to the gazillion resolutions about the threat of Iraq. They agreed to the wording of everything and when the US goes by what is agreed to, then they start questioning everything. And while we are on the UN, why smear the US for not going to E. Africa? Why are you not saying that about the UN? That seems like an issue tailor-made for the UN. Wait, they are too busy opposing ANYTHING the US does, so they must be too busy to do their real job. Or is it because they allow a country like Lybia to head up the human rights council?

    Saying Bush had his eyes on Iraq before he was elected is as bad as saying that he knew about 9/11 beforehand.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  2. #252
    Proud Father Maki Riddington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    5,323
    Half-assed? We systematically destroyed their forces! It was a well, thought out and victorious action. History books will say that it was one of the most decisive victories in the history of warfare.
    *** Are you referring to the Japanese?
    Maki Fit Blog

    At Large: Optimize Your Body | Dynamic Conditioning |
    My articles on Wannabebig

    "Soli Deo Gloria"
    "Test all things; hold fast what is good.": 1 Thessalonians 5:21

    "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
    So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
    Romans 7:14-25

    "Judo is not about strength. Yet in the learning curve, all Judokas get strong. Only with time do you learn where to apply that strength."
    The Art of Judo

  3. #253
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    Half-assed? We systematically destroyed their forces! It was a well, thought out and victorious action. History books will say that it was one of the most decisive victories in the history of warfare. The combat deaths sustained were comparatively small due to the remarkable planning. My post was speaking of post-war. You can't judge them the same way.

    ...

    Saying Bush had his eyes on Iraq before he was elected is as bad as saying that he knew about 9/11 beforehand.
    For starters, yes, I agree that the U.N. is a joke right now. Which means that the U.S. has to step up to the plate and do things right, which we are NOT doing right now.

    I think history will regard the invasion as one of the most bungled in history from a strategic standpoint. Our military, on the tactical level, is so far superior to any other in the history of the world, and so it is no surprise that we rolled over the Iraqis. More importantly, the Iraqi army basically just gave up, and fighting was limited compared to other conflicts. However, Rumsfeld's insistence on fighting the war on the cheap, with too few soldiers, set the stage for the looting, resistance, and the majority of the American deaths that have come after the invasion.

    As for your last point, it's extremely well documented that most members of the administration had the overthrow of Saddam on their mind for the past decade or more. Project for A New American Century (what a horribly facist name) has had this goal as a cornerstone of their agenda for foreign policy, to the exclusion of most other threats.

    Ha! On hardball right now, Chris Matthews just said "Did we go to war with the wrong country?" Sure did. Iran should have been the target. Unlike most liberals, I have no problem with raining down hellfire and Hellfires on these corrupt, evil regiemes in the Middle East. But we went after the WRONG COUNTRY.

  4. #254
    I want some crack! TBone4Eva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Greenbelt, MD
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    Try this one:

    statistically you have a better chance of being shot to death in Washington, D.C., than you do in Baghdad. So, the next time your local daily or nightly TV news trumpets the number of US battle casualties in Iraq, you should probably give some thought to wearing a bulletproof vest if you plan to visit the Lincoln Memorial.
    Aww, see you had to use DC as an example. Now I have to call you on it .

    The problem with statistics is that they often don't take human behavior into account. Of course statistically that would be true since Baghdad has a population in the millions and DC's population is tad over 600,000. Do you really believe that an American walking through the streets of Baghdad is not more at risk of being shot to death, blown up, or kidnapped and beheaded than if he/she walked in downtown DC?

    Come on, let's be realistic here.
    The half-million citizens of the District of Columbia, like citizens of the fifty states, bear all of the obligations of American citizenship: they are required to obey the laws passed by Congress; they pay federal taxes; they serve in the military; and they fight and die in our wars. Yet they lack the most basic right that should accompany American citizenship—the right to full voting representation in Congress. This makes the United States the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies citizens of its capital representation in the national legislature. In fact, no fewer than 183 nations provide their citizens the type of representation citizens of Washington, DC are denied.

  5. #255
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    We didnt have to fight Germany. We were pulled in by the international community to do something. But my post was referring to postwar Germany and Japan. There was alot of resistance after the war in both countries. I was mearly stating that even though we freed them, we will continue to see resistance just like after WWII.
    I would like to point out that this is simply false. There was very little resistance to our occupations after WWII. Virtually no American soldiers were killed in Germany or Japan after the war. Italy welcomed us. France obviously welcomed the us. The only countries we had major problems with post war were our former allies.

    Why? Well, we got both militaries to formally surrender. The Germans were quite happy to be surrendering to the Brits or the U.S. rather than Russia. The Japanese were ready to fight, possibly to their own total destruction, but we were able to create a solution that allowed them to save face by retaining the emperor.

  6. #256
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by MixmasterNash
    I would like to point out that this is simply false. There was very little resistance to our occupations after WWII. Virtually no American soldiers were killed in Germany or Japan after the war. Italy welcomed us. France obviously welcomed the us. The only countries we had major problems with post war were our former allies.

    Why? Well, we got both militaries to formally surrender. The Germans were quite happy to be surrendering to the Brits or the U.S. rather than Russia. The Japanese were ready to fight, possibly to their own total destruction, but we were able to create a solution that allowed them to save face by retaining the emperor.
    And I would like to point out that what you are pointing out is false. After the defeat of Germany, the country was divided into 4 areas of occupation - the U.S., British, French and Russian. During that time, they dealt with daily sabotage of trains, buildings and other key areas. Nazi guerillas made repeated attempts to oust their occupiers. They made attacks from 1944-1946. While we were the most humane in dealing with resistance, the other areas of occupation did not fare as well. The French beheaded insurgents, while the Russians would kill 100 males in a village for every guerilla they caught.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  7. #257
    Proud Father Maki Riddington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    5,323
    What about in Japan?
    Maki Fit Blog

    At Large: Optimize Your Body | Dynamic Conditioning |
    My articles on Wannabebig

    "Soli Deo Gloria"
    "Test all things; hold fast what is good.": 1 Thessalonians 5:21

    "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
    So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
    Romans 7:14-25

    "Judo is not about strength. Yet in the learning curve, all Judokas get strong. Only with time do you learn where to apply that strength."
    The Art of Judo

  8. #258
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Saying Bush had his eyes on Iraq before he was elected is as bad as saying that he knew about 9/11 beforehand.

    While this was not before Bush was elected, Richard Clarke did testify that on Sept 12, Bush told him to find a link to Saddam even though Clarke told him it was Al Qaeda. Kinda sends the message Bush was preoccupied with something else, eh?

    Oh, and this won't prove much, but I knew some intel guys who got drunk one night and started telling us about the investigation they were assigned to and how the US knew about the attacks beforehand. Also, that memo Bush received that said "Bin Laden determined to strike US with airplanes" should have rung a bell.

    Then again, much of this has been reported by the media.
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 07-19-2004 at 06:10 PM.

  9. #259
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by MixmasterNash
    Ha! On hardball right now, Chris Matthews just said "Did we go to war with the wrong country?" Sure did. Iran should have been the target. Unlike most liberals, I have no problem with raining down hellfire and Hellfires on these corrupt, evil regiemes in the Middle East. But we went after the WRONG COUNTRY.
    couldn't agree with you more. i hope someone invades iran, before they blow some countries up. those bastards just keep giving a big **** you to weapons inspectors and keep getting caught red handed developing weapons.

  10. #260
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    201
    what's hardball?

  11. #261
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Maki - Japan went a little easier. The US had more problems dealing with gangs in Japan than they did with insurgents. While the reaoning I have read differs, it seems to be a cultural reason why the occupation went easier. Since there Emperor was allowed to stay in power (if only as a puppet leader), the people listened to what he said. Since he was told by the US what to do, the people complied.

    Slim - the report that said that gave no more specifics than what you just said. It didnt have a time frame at all. This isn't The Minority Report where a specific time and place can be determined. What could we have done? Shut down all air travel for months? Maybe round up everyone in the US of Middle Eastern descent? An Intelligence Report is much like the National Enquirer - while some of it may be true, it is mostly educated theories and a summary of small bits of intel gathered through many sources - both reliable and questionable. As far as Richard Clark goes - He was a left-over from the Clinton administration that got mad when he was demoted by Bush. Read about him and notice his ramblings even during the clinton administration!
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  12. #262
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Jaz - I agree that Iran needs to go away! I just think that diplomatic tactics are still being used (just like N. Korea). If that breaks down, I am sure that we will see something in the way of Military action in other countries. One thing to point out though - Clinton dessimated the military forces after taking office. It will be some time before we are built up again to engage in more conflicts at one time.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  13. #263
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    Jaz - I agree that Iran needs to go away! I just think that diplomatic tactics are still being used (just like N. Korea). If that breaks down, I am sure that we will see something in the way of Military action in other countries. One thing to point out though - Clinton dessimated the military forces after taking office. It will be some time before we are built up again to engage in more conflicts at one time.
    Last time I checked, Congress was the branch of government in charge of appropriations, and therefore, military funding. If you say Clinton is responsible for decimating the military, then so are most of the Republicans in Congress.

    Anyway, the Clinton military did just fine, indeed superbly, under hard conditions, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the failures of the civilian leadership in post war planning, diplomacy, and underestimating requirements. Shinseki correctly stated that we would need 200,000+ troops to run the occupation correctly and he got fired. The Bush administration knew that they could not afford the up front costs of a larger invasion, and so they did it on the cheap. The result? It's costing more, and we have more dead, because Douglas Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney were just dead wrong. The military men, Shinseki, Powell, Zinni, all knew what a disaster this would be.

    The one good thing Rumsfeld has done is push through some much needed reforms, such as killing Crusader. However, there's still an obsession with missile defense, which is a pipe dream, and some bloated programs, especially aircraft.

  14. #264
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by MixmasterNash
    Last time I checked, Congress was the branch of government in charge of appropriations, and therefore, military funding. If you say Clinton is responsible for decimating the military, then so are most of the Republicans in Congress.

    Anyway, the Clinton military did just fine, indeed superbly, under hard conditions, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the failures of the civilian leadership in post war planning, diplomacy, and underestimating requirements. Shinseki correctly stated that we would need 200,000+ troops to run the occupation correctly and he got fired. The Bush administration knew that they could not afford the up front costs of a larger invasion, and so they did it on the cheap. The result? It's costing more, and we have more dead, because Douglas Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney were just dead wrong. The military men, Shinseki, Powell, Zinni, all knew what a disaster this would be.

    The one good thing Rumsfeld has done is push through some much needed reforms, such as killing Crusader. However, there's still an obsession with missile defense, which is a pipe dream, and some bloated programs, especially aircraft.
    You are getting into semantics again. The Clinton Administartion had a huge impact on the US forces. I won't even get into the fact that he used the military on the dawn of his impeachment to divert attention.

    The U.S. military continues to be haunted by Clinton-era policies, including low pay for military personnel, a severely reduced fighting force, and a curtailed research and development program.

    Clinton "inherited the world's strongest fighting force," but reduced its size "by a third to a half, depending upon the branch of the service.
    This is not me saying this, but documented fact.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  15. #265
    Go Heels! MixmasterNash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    You are getting into semantics again. The Clinton Administartion had a huge impact on the US forces. I won't even get into the fact that he used the military on the dawn of his impeachment to divert attention.

    The U.S. military continues to be haunted by Clinton-era policies, including low pay for military personnel, a severely reduced fighting force, and a curtailed research and development program.

    Clinton "inherited the world's strongest fighting force," but reduced its size "by a third to a half, depending upon the branch of the service.
    This is not me saying this, but documented fact.
    Wait wait wait. CONGRESS APPROPRIATES. It was Congress that set the budget, and therefore the size of the military. Clinton signed off on it. I agree that Clinton wasn't great for military morale, but it was the Republicans that are responsible for reducing its size.

    And of course the military was reduced in size. The post cold war reduction was in effect, and it made perfect sense. It was post gulf war, which was a temporary spike in military size, but of course the size of military was reduced after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Finally, the military is still the world's strongest fighting force, by far. Funding is an order of magnitude greater than any competition. It's larger than the next 25 countries combined. However, the end goal is not to have a big military. The end goal is to secure the country at the lowest reasonable cost and not throw money at a pork program for congressmen.

  16. #266
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Democrats held control of Congress for the first 2 years of Clinton's first term. I was in the military at that time and also got out in that time because of what they did to the military. The reductions took place while Dems where in control
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  17. #267
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    Furthermore:

    The Facts About Readiness. In the early 1990s, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the U.S. military so that it would be consistent with post-Cold War threats. Under the Clinton Administration, however, these reductions in forces escalated rapidly, with too little defense spending, while U.S. forces were deployed more often.

    And:

    Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  18. #268
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    As far as Richard Clark goes - He was a left-over from the Clinton administration that got mad when he was demoted by Bush.

    This may be, but if what Bush told him is true, isn't that a wee bit messed up and implies that he was looking for a way to sight in on Iraq.

    Or are you just saying Clarke is lying?
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 07-19-2004 at 08:17 PM.

  19. #269
    I want some crack! TBone4Eva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Greenbelt, MD
    Posts
    986
    Umm... I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but doesn't our current defense secretary want a smaller, lighter, more lethal military as well. The reductions made perfect sense. Why do you need to maintain a huge strategic defense against an enemy that no longer exist? Were we supposed to just keep hundreds of planes sitting on the tarmac attempting to keep them from rusting out? Were we supposed to continue to dig ourselves into more and more national debt? I think sometimes people forget that money doesn't fall out of trees and the debt has to be repaid. You know, if the military didn't spend billions of dollars on stuff like Star Wars and the Osprey that don't work, the reductions might not have been that bad GulfVet.
    The half-million citizens of the District of Columbia, like citizens of the fifty states, bear all of the obligations of American citizenship: they are required to obey the laws passed by Congress; they pay federal taxes; they serve in the military; and they fight and die in our wars. Yet they lack the most basic right that should accompany American citizenship—the right to full voting representation in Congress. This makes the United States the only nation in the world with a representative, democratic constitution that denies citizens of its capital representation in the national legislature. In fact, no fewer than 183 nations provide their citizens the type of representation citizens of Washington, DC are denied.

  20. #270
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    My post says that a reduction was in effect but the Clinton Admin speeded it up and took it too far by deploying more forces while decreasing spending. Tecnology dictates force size. Out of date weapon platforms cost more to maintain. The problem was that he was cutting forces without replacing anything. The spending that the military does helps in the long run. I would say compare the bombings during WWII and our latest conflict, but I can say that all you have to do is look as far back as the 1st Gulf War. If Clinton really wanted to reduce forces, he should not have committed more troops to more places througout the world more times than any other president!

    This is fun, isn't it?!
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  21. #271
    Simply Devious Rastaman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by GulfVet91
    Under the Clinton Administration, the U.S military has suffered under a dangerous combination of reduced budgets, diminished forces, and increased missions. The result has been a steep decline in readiness and an overall decline in U.S. military strength. Nearly a decade of misdirected policy coupled with a myopic modernization strategy has rendered America's armed forces years away from top form.

    Please do not cut and paste something you read elsewhere and then post it as if you wrote it. The next time you want to share someone else's opinion, please just link, or at least credit the source. GulfVet took this from:

    Heritage Foundation

    The Heritage Foundation is an extreme right wing conservative think tank that is strongly supported and funded by hard-line republicans like Rush Limbaugh.
    Last edited by Rastaman; 07-19-2004 at 11:04 PM.
    "The only sin which we never forgive in each other is difference of opinion."
    -Ralph Waldo Emerson


    Word.

  22. #272
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    I wasnt claiming that I wrote it. That's why I posted it in the format that I did. The information that I did post can be found elsewhere. I dont see a reason to link it. I am sure that everything that is said can be attributed to some newspaper, internet or news story.
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  23. #273
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    This is all I have to say
    Attached Images Attached Images

  24. #274
    Wannabebig Member GulfVet91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa
    Posts
    55
    ???
    Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.
    - General George Patton Jr

  25. #275
    Banned Slim Schaedle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    1,722
    Just trying to add a little humor, and keep everything good spirited.
    (that sticker was on a Saudi truck)
    Carry on, as you were...
    Last edited by Slim Schaedle; 07-19-2004 at 11:39 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •