![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I watched pieces of this video. It is clearly, obviously, and amateurly stolen/edited/dubbed differently than what the actors are saying. it's a total hatchet job of the work the actors did, after the fact, to make an appallingly bad cheesy straight to youtube piece of moviemaking. the references to religion were all overdubbed, and those are the ones that when translated into arabic are the most offfensive. It's just meant to offend. To provoke. To pick a fight.
some people WANT TO FIGHT. sometimes, I wish they would, and just neutralize each other. but it's never that neat. other people get hurt and killed. what a fucking waste. |
|
Quote:
|
wow. That is one bad movie. I could do better blindfolded and on crack.
I only watched a bit of it b/c it was just ...so...bad. Worse than Sophie Coppola's Marie Antoinette - which, honey, was bad. |
Great news: Libyans fight back!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/wo...-benghazi.html Quote:
|
Wow!
|
How many dead this time?
|
one
|
The Lybians went one better, they ran the fuckers out of town.
Quote:
|
I've been thinking about my and others' reaction to this whole thing. My view of Islam and its adherents is complicated. Having been inside, I have little love for organized religion. Like any ideology, be it fascism, progressivism, conservatism, liberalism, or libertarianism taken and embraced it gives a false clarity to the workings of the world. The blind spots created are defended relentlessly.
My own blind spot is in the department of perpetual war. I can't see the value in helping to topple dictators when the most obvious power to fill the vacuum is the religious nutter who will be even more oppressive than someone not speaking for god. I'm glad a more moderate Libya is standing up, but I'd be lying if I said I expected good government types to have the staying power of religious nuts. As far as Moslems in the West are concerned, they must be more open as people to choose emigration. Those I've worked with basically match the other religious in the US, who interestingly, are condemned for their beliefs by militant liberalism at about the same level as Islam is defended by the same. The bottom line to me is that organized religion, which seeks to alter society rather than the individual is a great enemy of liberty and should be acknowledged as such. |
Congrats Libyans.
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you're interested in *what happened*, follow the investigations. Here is a good link for you to read. It includes a couple **hypothetical** situations that accommodates the statements of all parties. Quote:
|
It seems that Bengazhi was due to a breakdown of communication somewhere down the line and probably not to due to incompetence of an entire group. I don't think anyone knows what actually happened yet.
|
No, it's Obama's fault. Romney would have grabbed his bayonet, jumped on his horse, and rescued the ambassador.
|
Quote:
|
I believe Romney would have used force to save American lifes. Our current administration is too apologetic to the Muslim world. An example is allowing the Iraqi government to decide whether or not we withdrew our forces. Seems like I remember we won that war
|
Yeah we won, in 2003, "mission accomplished", remember?
Oh wait, we "won", when Gen Petraeus convinced the natives that if they helped us whup the insurgents streaming into the country, we would go home. You see, most of us don't want Iraq to be a state, not even a possession, because if that happens, nobody will ever trust us again. Well then what the fuck are we still there for, nine years later? Oh that's right, we're doing that "nation building" we don't do. Hmm, how do you know when you're done? I guess you ask the nation you built, if they are ready to go it alone. But I'm sure Romney would give you better job security, at least until you're dead. |
Quote:
Bosnia. Let's see. Once we decided the Europeans could not solve their own problem, then we had Milosevik negotiate himself right out of his job. 100,000 American soldiers and $1trillion spent to fight our way in? Oh. Intelligent leaders solved the whole thing by expensing near zero munitions. Great leaders find solutions without wasting American solders uselessly (ie Mission Accomplished, VietNam, Lebanon). That was 5000 American soldiers massacred because a president was so dumb stupid as to "use force to save American lifes". To even protect America from mythical weapons. Weak and demented leaders, such as George Jr and Nixon, even lied to themself. And therefore massacred Americans for no purpose. Because inferior leaders only see solutions in military crusades. |
Quote:
Also, last I remember, Iraq is still its own country and we had turned sovereignty over to them back in 2004. That being the case, and as long as we're not contractually obliged by their government, such as it is, to remain, they have every right to tell us GTFO and we need to honor that if we're not at war with them. Gratitude has no currency value in this case, not if we can't keep the promises made way back when to rebuild the infrastructure. |
How long did we occupy the Phillipines, Germany, and Japan?? Did we leave because they told us to go? Also, I believe strongly we should have seized the oil to pay our debts.
Mythical weapons in Iraq??? Re-check your facts. Open Source reporting acknowledges there were chemical weapons recovered. I personally know 2 soldiers injured by them. Also, Open Source reporting has revealed the insurgents were using chlorine gas bombs. Chemical weapons are a Weapon of Mass Destruction. BTW, don't blame Vietnam on the Republicans. That was a mess created by Democrats and it was a Republican who got us out. I just can't see a Republican President watching real time uas footage and not sending troops to rescue them. Remember, that consulate was considered US Soil. |
Quote:
Quote:
Or do you mean Kennedy (D) who didn't immediately send troops to clean up the mess when the skirmishes started, but did go on the indirect offense with missions like Operation Ranch Hand? Or Johnson (D) who was president when Tonkin happened and the battles really ramped up? Or Nixon (R) with his Vietnamization, Christmas Bombing and the signing of a peace treaty that ended the war for the US but not for Eisenhower's pet nation South Vietnam, effectively abandoning it and allowing it to get taken over by the North? Lots of failures for both sides of the aisle there. |
Quote:
In that draft, the Officer said they would do everything possible to keep us all out of the Army. 150 went in. Only 13 were physically fit for the Army. That President was more concerned for his legacy than the nation, a solution, or American soldiers. Even Army officers knew better. Why was Alexander so Great? He also did what informed and intelligent leaders do. He negotiated so that his soldiers would not be wasted in battle. He also did not foolishly do the equivalent of "seizing oil to pay debts". Only dumb stupid leaders do that. Romney would have to use "force to save American lifes". Because his people have a long history of getting Americans in trouble. Unilaterally attacking others even for no reason. Talking belligerently. And putting more Americans at risk. Informed leaders and military know the best way to save lives is to not make military force necessary. History demonstrates only the informed avert a need for military force. So many examples posted previously. Why did Colin Powell avert a military conflict with China? Again, the informed solve problems without military force. By silencing wackos in George Jr's administration. And by negotiating to solve an otherwise simple problem. Those wackos that so wanted a China war are the baggage that Romney would bring to the White House. Wackos routinely see conflict as a solution. Especially when it created a bogeyman. Mythical weapons of mass destruction: some gas (which is routinely found even in semiconductor fabs) is not a WMD. But wackos harm American soldiers by solving all problems with a military adventure. By even inventing mythical threats. Smart leaders would have heard what every nation, adjacent to Iraq, said. He was a threat to no one. 'Big dic' thinking would routinely massacre American soldiers for greater glory. To even steal oil and treasure to pay for it. America does not need leaders who find solutions in military crusades. America is still suffering (ie this recession) from that stupidity. 'Big dic' thinking is the last thing we want in the White House. History says why. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
for losing one helicopter and several lives in an unsuccessful raid to free hostages in Iran in Operation Eagle Claw (1980). Caveat: Be careful to whom you attribute blame for the aborting of this mission. |
Quote:
I don't know anything much about the Philipines, but as far as I am aware America went to war with Germany and Japan because of an attack on American territory. Iraq was supposedly 'liberated' from an oppressive dictator. Time and again we were told that we were not at war with the Iraqi people. So why are we now talking in terms of winners and losers, defeated and victorious? Not leaving until you decide, regardless of the desires of the nation you are occupying sounds a lot like imperialism to me. |
If Obama gets reelected, I'd like to see him offer Romney an appointment as Ambassador to Libya (in the spirit of bipartisanship of course).
|
Cyber Wolf - The truth is the first US troops were sent into French Indochina by President Truman in 1950 to train the Vietnamese and support the French. At the end of Eisenhower's term, there were 796 US troops in country. You should also note that Eisenhower vetoed a plan to use tactical nukes.
Kennedy increased the US presence to 16,000 troops. Johnson was the one that turned it into a full blown war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964 gave Johnson the power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. This resolution allowed the President unilateral power to launch a full scale war if the President deemed necessary. It has since come to light that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated by the Johnson administration in order to gain power to wage war. The Democrats were responsible for Vietnam |
Quote:
Do you remember "Chemical Ali"? Anyway, in 2006 Rick Santorum claimed that "we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons", citing a declassified June 6 letter to Pete Hoekstra saying that since the 2003 invasion, a total of "approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent" had been found scattered throughout the country. Also, the Iraq Government sold over 500 tons of "yellowcake", the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, to Canada. We even had US casualties due to detonation of chemical munitions. Even the New York Post reported: There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all. The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported. The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War. In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site. Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city. |
And the claims that they could be launched within 45 minutes? Or that theyhad restarted their nuclear programme, had been buying enriched uranium, etc etc?
The simple fact that Hussein's regime possessed some battlefield chemical weapons would never have been enough to go to war. It was only coupled with shameful lies about his intentions and capabilities along with the repeated suggestion that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks that allowed that war to happen. You and other soldiers were lied to by politicians, who saw fit to send serving men to fight and die for political expediency and outright deceit. |
Quote:
|
The Philippines asked us to GTFO and we did.
"And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are." -Colin Powell 2002 |
You know, alongside all my horror at what was done to the ordinary people of Iraq, and the terrible assault on Baghdad, it breaks my heart a little whenever I think about the several lads from my region who died for the lie. And who died in Afghanistan because the initial mission to go after Bin Laden took second place to the Iraq venture.
They deserved better than that. They deserved at the least some honesty. And maybe decent equipment, and not to be abandoned to market forces on their return. |
Quote:
I really don't like that 'we won, why are we letting them tell us when to leave?' attitude. It sits ill on an American. And all this fear of appearing weak on the international stage. It's ludicrous. Nobody thinks America is weak. Nobody. There isn't a country on the planet that wouldn't feel intimidated at the prospect of a war with the US. The threat doesn't need to constantly be made. The aggressive posturing some people seem to favour does not make you look stronger. Looking down from the high ground with calm demeanour does. |
Quote:
Identify the informed who best represent servicemen. Praise to the few who actually created victories without massive deployments. Praise the few who also understood phase four planning. Amazing are so many with a military mentality who so strongly wanted disasters such as Vietnam and Misson Accomplish. Even a 'smoking gun' concept is foreign to 'big dic' thinkers. Most servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan were victims of dumb leaders in America. And their followers. They don't come dumber than George Jr and his adminstration. Citizens who failed to see impending obvious disasters are also guilty. Everyone in the Cellar learned, in advance, why those disasters would happen. And still, some gleefully approved of the resulting and unnecessary massacre of servicemen. Why was the US building the world's largest embassy in Iraq? We intended to stay. More 'big dic' thinking complete with denial. Those who love 'big dic' concepts and lies (ie Axis of Evil) did not intend to leave. So that we can protect "our" oil. Another 'empire building' fiasco. Big dics now say the American military is smallest since before WWI. Enemy of every American serviceman is the fool who would vote for such liars. Who say our military is too small. As if George Jr did not prove how stupid those people are. How many so stupidly did not learn from the disasters in Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan? Deja Vue Nam. |
Quote:
[IMHO]This is why it's easy for others to attack any Americans anytime and anywhere. In a country where the general population elects its leaders, all are responsible for their government's actions making all who can vote legitimate targets. It's a good reason to vote and make it an informed vote since you'll be held accountable for the ramifications of election outcomes anyway. In countries with dictatorships, the general population may not have that influence on their leaders; so, we've decided that other governments can be segregated from their general populations and targeted separately. We didn't win a war with Iraq, just with its government. Post Vietnam, our active duty military was downsized by shifting the function of many support units and some combat units to be held in reserve to the Reserves and National Guard. It was towards the end of the transition that Iraq invaded Kuwait and we weren't prepared to go into Iraq to conquer just the government which takes more ground forces than simply annihilating a country from the air. George Sr. just pushed them back and stopped. Many considered it unfinished business. The events of 9/11 unfolded and George Jr. saw an opportunity to finish daddy's work. It was also payback time for the Iraqi leader who tried to have daddy assassinated so: 1.) We were told his government had WMD; but, we already knew that. The significance was bloated and exposed as such. 2.) Then we were told his government had terrorist connections. Again, the significance was bloated and exposed as such. 3.) Finally, we were told that we were saving the Iraqi people. This, in contradiction to our existing military intervention policy requiring 3 conditions (all 3 to be met) before intervening: 1. The indigenous population has to want us there (we weren't invited). 2. They have to be willing to fight for themselves (they weren't willing enough to fight to begin a revolt against dictatorship) and 3. They have to be able to continue what we've helped them accomplish after we leave (not likely wherever there's infighting among major religious factions). The Iraqi leader and his government were toppled for daddy and son and their posterity while their cronies reaped benefits from war. We might have stayed longer; but, the new elected government representing those people we were supposedly there to save, who didn't invite us, who weren't inclined to start their own Arab Spring, and who are still fighting among themselves wanted to make all Americans (including the military under country SOFA) subject to their laws. How rude, it's like they didn't trust Americans to conduct themselves responsibly and exercise good judgment. :rolleyes:[/IMHO] Well the first thing you know, Obama's in the chair His constituency says "Prez, get us outta there." Said "Afghanistan is where the buildup oughta be" So we do it all again in the land of poppy seed. Leaving unfinished business that is Relax, leave your wallets out Don't look back now, ya hear. |
Quote:
We would have been out of Afghanistan. But Generals (ie Petraus, et al) proposed a solution that began with a surge. And ended with a complete pullout. Obama went with their plan. But Obama keep saying some Generals don't get it. They kept sneaking in plans for another 10 year occupation (warfare) in Afghanistan. Obama told them bluntly. We are leaving when the plan is done. That is when we discover if George Jr's mistake (Mission Accomplished) cost us a victory in Afghanistan. Of course, Romney's people openly advocate more war. Playing politics rather then deal with, for example, why 5000 American soldiers (and other nation's troops) were killled uselessly. They see all solutions in increasing military budgets. A 'soundbyte' solution advocated by Fox News, Limbaugh, Tea Party, et al. Romney recites what extremists want to hear rather than what is best for America and American allies. Many Generals still assume Americans will gladly increase military spending over 4% of GDP. Such numbers historically result in economic stagnation or destruction. Generals had unlimited funds for too long. Those generals are encouraged by 'big dic' civilians who would solve all problems with more military adventures. Would even remain in Afghanistan for another decade. Shameful how many Americans still did not learn the lessons from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Only better educated Americans would have learned that lesson. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a response to the attack in the Gulf of Tonkin days earlier, where a North Vietnamese boat fired on a US destroyer. Seeing how it was a direct attack, and considering the US was already over there fighting and conducting war missions, it's not surprising the resolution was passed, more like a formality than a peace-to-war escalation. An "Oh, you done it now, son!" moment, if you will. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I lay the War ® at Johnson's feet, but CyberWolf was digging into the roots of the conflict which was us re-arming the previous Vichy French occupiers after Japan went belly up.
|
There was only one attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson fabricated the second incident in order to obtain the power to wage war without the approval of Congress.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Kind of like suggesting Obama fucked up the economy and broke the democracy.
|
Quote:
|
Of course you did.
|
Quote:
The report stated regarding August 2: At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first. Regarding August 4: It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2 |
Quote:
Not defending a fabrication, but the first night's issue was enough to warrant an escalation. The North was already an enemy at that point and what good commander lets an enemy ship during active fighting get within firing range? Do the released secrets say if the enemy ship knew we were there before fighting? Did they know to back the eff up? |
Quote:
Back in Washington doubt about that second night. Did not matter. The powers that be were looking for any excuse to escalate. Later confirmed is what happened. Did not matter. Saddam had WMDs. An exact same attitude needed any excuse to escalate ever since Johnson visited Vietnam saying those were yellow skinned American boys who needed our help. Big dics in the millitary (including Gen LeMay) wanted any excuse for war. Johnson eventually realized his mistake. Even Johnson apparently learned the war was not winnable. When Walter Cronkite said so, Johnson was looking for a way out. Even sent Vietnam a promise for massive aid if we and they only ended the conflict. But Vietnam was not interested. Vietnam knew they had won. Nixon and Kissenger also knew Vietnam had already won. But one difference existed. Nixon could not have America's first military defeat on his watch. So Nixon massacred more American soldier than all other presidents combined to only protect his legacy. The worse and most destructive parts of that war (that also causes a recession) were what Nixon did starting 1968. The massacre of American soldiers for the greater glory of one leader. |
Quote:
According to Wikipedia Civil War dead: 625K WWII dead: 405K WWI dead: 117K Vietnam dead: 58K |
Quote:
|
Quote:
He we surrendered and returned to the 1954 Geneva Convention, how many would not have been massacred? But Nixon's legacy would be harmed. We had to burn the village to save it. And then there was the massacre at Alice's Restaurant. |
Can't we all agree that "war" is just good ole fun???
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.