Bush goes out his with usual class - Page 10

TheMercenary · 02-09-2009, 10:04 PM

Well if we go back into the post ww2 era the list would have been much longer. I was trying to stay within the last 2 presidents times in office which included some of my servcie time.

TGRR · 02-09-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well if we go back into the post ww2 era the list would have been much longer. I was trying to stay within the last 2 presidents times in office which included some of my servcie time.

???

The post WWII era was a series of unimaginable embarrassments for the CIA. Hell, the late 50s is when they got the nickname "Criminally Insane Activities" by the FBI.

TheMercenary · 02-09-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR

???

The post WWII era was a series of unimaginable embarrassments for the CIA. Hell, the late 50s is when they got the nickname "Criminally Insane Activities" by the FBI.

There was no CIA in the immediate post WWII era. It was not formed until 47 and had no teeth till 48. The FBI called it that because it was based on inter-service rivalry and crossed into areas that were previously only handled by the FBI. In short they were jealous. For every major bungle there were 100's of successful operations.

TGRR · 02-09-2009, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

There was no CIA in the immediate post WWII era. It was not formed until 47 and had no teeth till 48. The FBI called it that because it was based on inter-service rivalry and crossed into areas that were previously only handled by the FBI. In short they were jealous. For every major bungle there were 100's of successful operations.

So, what assassinations are we feeling proud of, between 1945 and 1948?

TheMercenary · 02-10-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR

So, what assassinations are we feeling proud of, between 1945 and 1948?

What assassinanations should we feel proud of under any conditions. You think the CIA was/is nothing more than an assassination squad? I assume this is a rehtorical question so you can bring up the point that the CIA, under the direction of the President, attempted or carried out an assissination or two. BFD. It was the time in history for that thing, like it or not, agree with it or not. What's your point?

TheMercenary · 02-12-2009, 08:14 AM

Why Dana?

Urbane Guerrilla · 02-15-2009, 11:24 PM

Go get 'em Merc. TGRR has no idea how shitheaded totalitarians are -- it's an occupational disease -- and the CIA has an intimate knowledge of just that very thing. As do the more honest sorts in State.

A hypothetical that TGRR cannot answer: just how fucked up would Laos have gotten without the presence of any communists within its borders? Would Cambodia have even risked loss of a fifth of its population if there were no communists there? Could the CIA have ruined either country?

TGRR · 02-16-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Go get 'em Merc. TGRR has no idea how shitheaded totalitarians are -- it's an occupational disease -- and the CIA has an intimate knowledge of just that very thing. As do the more honest sorts in State.

A hypothetical that TGRR cannot answer: just how fucked up would Laos have gotten without the presence of any communists within its borders? Would Cambodia have even risked loss of a fifth of its population if there were no communists there? Could the CIA have ruined either country?

Who gives a fuck about Laos? Why was that our responsibility in the first fucking place? We basically charged in, made an ass out of ourselves, got caught, and looked even worse than we did for just the Vietnam thing.

And the gain for America was...what, again?

Urbane Guerrilla · 02-16-2009, 10:23 PM

What would the gain have been had we won? For instance, right off the bat, a Communist International with a crippled morale as well as an impoverished, underperforming economy? Would not communism and its attendant monstrous consequences have fallen the faster? It's nice to think so.

I see you cannot answer the question I posed, or that so far you have made no cogent response to it. If you're going to pretend to answer, couldn't you do a better job? Or is my take on it really that much better than yours? It is my contention that no communists in either country would have allowed much more peace and prosperity to prevail in both Cambodia and Laos. Any disagreement there?

TGRR · 02-17-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

What would the gain have been had we won? For instance, right off the bat, a Communist International with a crippled morale as well as an impoverished, underperforming economy? Would not communism and its attendant monstrous consequences have fallen the faster? It's nice to think so.

And I care...why? I'm not particularly concerned about how idiots in other nations care to screw themselves, or the speed at which they do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I see you cannot answer the question I posed, or that so far you have made no cogent response to it. If you're going to pretend to answer, couldn't you do a better job? Or is my take on it really that much better than yours? It is my contention that no communists in either country would have allowed much more peace and prosperity to prevail in both Cambodia and Laos. Any disagreement there?

No disagreement, because I really don't care enough about either nation to have an opinion on the subject. Both of them could burn down and slide into the ocean, for all I care. In any case, neither of them was worth a single American life, or a single American dollar...or the embarrassment of utter failure (again) by the CIA. Really, I have no idea how we ever showed our face around the Brits and the Russians.

Kaliayev · 02-19-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TGRR

I have no idea how we ever showed our face around the Brits and the Russians.

Because, as stupid as the CIA are, they probably didn't actively try to put Al-Qaeda linked groups in charge of a country running a secret WMD program. Qaddafi has long been our own little Castro, only much more amusing, I'm not even sure why we'd want to kill him. Listening to him babble about "Greater Libya" is almost worth it on its own.

TheMercenary · 02-19-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Because, as stupid as the CIA are,

That statement alone is worth a

TGRR · 02-19-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That statement alone is worth a

Dude, they really are morons. They're basically Harvard prettyboys that couldn't get hired in the real world.

TGRR · 02-19-2009, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Because, as stupid as the CIA are, they probably didn't actively try to put Al-Qaeda linked groups in charge of a country running a secret WMD program. Qaddafi has long been our own little Castro, only much more amusing, I'm not even sure why we'd want to kill him. Listening to him babble about "Greater Libya" is almost worth it on its own.

Khaddafy was the funniest enemy we ever had.

Why can't he go totally apeshit, like he did back in the Reagan days?

xoxoxoBruce · 01-11-2009, 06:21 PM

Life is full of uncertainty.

02-09-2009, 10:04 PM	#1
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Well if we go back into the post ww2 era the list would have been much longer. I was trying to stay within the last 2 presidents times in office which included some of my servcie time. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

02-12-2009, 08:14 AM	#6
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Why Dana? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

02-15-2009, 11:24 PM	#7
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Go get 'em Merc. TGRR has no idea how shitheaded totalitarians are -- it's an occupational disease -- and the CIA has an intimate knowledge of just that very thing. As do the more honest sorts in State. A hypothetical that TGRR cannot answer: just how fucked up would Laos have gotten without the presence of any communists within its borders? Would Cambodia have even risked loss of a fifth of its population if there were no communists there? Could the CIA have ruined either country? __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

02-16-2009, 10:23 PM	#9
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	What would the gain have been had we won? For instance, right off the bat, a Communist International with a crippled morale as well as an impoverished, underperforming economy? Would not communism and its attendant monstrous consequences have fallen the faster? It's nice to think so. I see you cannot answer the question I posed, or that so far you have made no cogent response to it. If you're going to pretend to answer, couldn't you do a better job? Or is my take on it really that much better than yours? It is my contention that no communists in either country would have allowed much more peace and prosperity to prevail in both Cambodia and Laos. Any disagreement there? __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

01-11-2009, 06:21 PM	#15
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Life is full of uncertainty. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)