This will start some

[scottmcneal]

Chit, whats up with this?

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii318/phaeton05/obama.jpg

So what do we say to this? I know i'm starting it up again... But it is from the news paper, aren't they the truth of the world? LOL :moon:

[tbburg]

He had to,... "Change" ..., it because the American Flag was alienating hes base.(you know the French, Germans, and The Daily Kos)

[alex22]

Maybe it was for his foriegn campain? If they don't like America then why not just hide the fact that you are one. Just like going on stage next to a potted plant or two between acts at a hippi concert in Germany with no American flag anywhere to be seen.

~Alex

[Boatwrench]

Isn't that his campaign symbol?

Well that would be it, simple advertizing just like the Nike swoosh, easily recognized and stands for his campaign.

Why should we care what symbol he uses for his campaign? :dunno:

[tbburg]

Boatwrench: That would be a logical explanation. We will now have to ignore your post, and every other post you ever make here. How dare you!


...... I know i'm starting it up again...
If you didn't START nuthin', there wouldn't BE nuthin'

[Darky]

McCain doesn't have it anywhere on his plane. Or so I've been told on the Marine forum I frequent

[rocknxj]

Vote for me. I don't mind flying the colors. :us:

[Mudderoy]

American flag,
pledge of allegiance,
prayer in schools,
and Christmas damn it!

[ECKSJAY]

McCain doesn't have it anywhere on his plane. Or so I've been told on the Marine forum I frequent

Marines ALWAYS tell the truth and NEVER embellish stories. :roll:












:laugh2: :roflmao:

[scottmcneal]

American flag,
pledge of allegiance,
prayer in schools,
and Christmas damn it!


You get my vote party1:

[scottmcneal]

Like i said, just having fun with it... The crap part.... I can't wait for the new prez, give us some thing to bitch about... Right ? We will start with why GAS is still so high.. How come he lied.. So on an so on.. We all know the drill... LOL

[alex22]

McCain doesn't have it anywhere on his plane. Or so I've been told on the Marine forum I frequent
McCain's last plane had the proper markings declairing it as an American aircraft.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/5039/f4phantomiiinflyingci2.jpg

~Alex

[Darky]

McCain's last plane had the proper markings declairing it as an American aircraft.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/5039/f4phantomiiinflyingci2.jpg

~Alex
Don't get all twisted up...I plan on voting for McCain :D...He has my deepest respect for his service to this country and suffering for this country. Plus, I think he'd do a better job than Obama

[alex22]

Don't get all twisted up...I plan on voting for McCain :D...He has my deepest respect for his service to this country and suffering for this country. Plus, I think he'd do a better job than Obama

X2 I'm pointing it out to the Obama puppet supporters. For me the choise is easy, An Idealistic, ultra liberal one term senator or an experienced multi term senator who has been around long enough to know how to get the job done and he has served his country.

~Alex

[Ecomike]

What worries me is the press interviewed a North Korean jailer the other day, the one that held McCain captive during the Korean war. In that interview the North Korean said if it was his choice to make he would vote for McCain.

[scottmcneal]

Hey now, Obama is young, can lie better than clinton any day of the week..Mc Cain is old, smart. Loves The USA.. Always has been PROUD to be a american.. Hell his wife too.. Liers ass wife is now starting to be proudTo be one.. Oh but wait, she won't be after he doesn't get voted in too office.. More wood on the fire please.... GOD BLESS US

[Fred]

Dude,

It was Vietnam, not Korea, that McCain fought in.

Fred

[Matthew Currie]

Aren't there any actual issues out there? Why do people stoop to this kind of crap?

I have one question about the photo caption in the original post: it says the flag "no longer" appears on Obama's plane. This language suggests that there had been a flag, or that there was supposed to have been a flag, and it was removed. Was there? Is a flag the default on an airplane tail?

I suppose if I wanted to play dirty, I'd point out that our current president is an expert at putting flags on an airplane: http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/photo-flag-draped-coffins-airplane.jpg

[scottmcneal]

What worries me is the press interviewed a North Korean jailer the other day, the one that held McCain captive during the Korean war. In that interview the North Korean said if it was his choice to make he would vote for McCain.



WHY? Because he was strong when they BEAT the chit out of him.. Because he would not give names like JANE did? Dude the coffee is calling you.... WAKE up:wave:

[Mudderoy]

Dude,

It was Vietnam, not Korea, that McCain fought in.

Fred

Wrong! It was the Spanish American war. :laugh3:

[alex22]

Aren't there any actual issues out there? Why do people stoop to this kind of crap?

At this point in the campain they're still pussyfooting around the big issues, yanno being politicians. But since McCain has been around a while people can view the trend and get a rough idea of the president he would be.

~Alex

[tbburg]

Hey now, Obama is young, can lie better than clinton any day of the week..Sorry, are you refering to the Mr. or the Ms?
Hate his guts, but to give credit(?) where credit is due, ol' Billy could deliver any speech, on any topic, anywhere, any time, make you believe it, make you believe HE believed it, and make you believe he cared; even if you just listened to him say the exact opposite 5 minutes before.

A consummate politician. The politicians politician.(<--No, that is not a compliment)

[scottmcneal]

Sorry, are you refering to the Mr. or the Ms?
Hate his guts, but to give credit(?) where credit is due, ol' Billy could deliver any speech, on any topic, anywhere, any time, make you believe it, make you believe HE believed it, and make you believe he cared; even if you just listened to him say the exact opposite 5 minutes before.

A consummate politician. The politicians politician.(<--No, that is not a compliment)




Why yes i am:wow:

[alex22]

Obama's not nearly as good as ol slick willy in an open debate, but his pre-written speaches are on par with Bills. I wonder who is writing his speaches.

[tbburg]

Let Obama deliver one of his set pieces to the crowd of his choice. Then let Slick get on stage right behind him and go off the cuff for 20 minutes. Then everyone would see what a lightweight Obama is.

[GSequoia]

Isn't that his campaign symbol?

Well that would be it, simple advertizing just like the Nike swoosh, easily recognized and stands for his campaign.

Why should we care what symbol he uses for his campaign? :dunno:

Actually if you want to take it a step further they removed one corporate logo with imagery of the Flag of the United States (The NorthWest Airlines logo) and replaced it with another corporate logo with imagery of the Flag of the United States...


Seems like a push to me.

[Ecomike]

Dude,

It was Vietnam, not Korea, that McCain fought in.

Fred

I stand corrected. It was Vietnam, not Korea, Thanks.

[ECKSJAY]

What worries me is the press interviewed a North Korean jailer the other day, the one that held McCain captive during the Korean war. In that interview the North Korean said if it was his choice to make he would vote for McCain.

Wow...epic fail.

[Ray H]

Wow...epic fail.
I believe that would be "OWNED by the facts"

[Tenny]

http://www.roflshirts.com/images/obama-NOPE.gif

[8Mud]

Obama seems smart and articulate, his being African American is a big handicap. If he spends too much time on social programs (appeasement), he will be slammed by the conservatives, if he doesn't, he will be slammed by his own party. I doubt he is savvy enough to navigate the mine field he will find himself in and actually accomplish very much. He is likely to be scrutinized by both parties and the voters to a degree never before seen in America. IMO if he wins he will be hammered from day one (with little or no honeymoon) and the pressure will just get worse. And with people like Pelosi filling his ear with advice, he will stand little chance of success.
McCain is an old hand at Washington infighting. He has battled as much with his own party, as with the Democrats and survived to become a Presidential candidate. I think he is the man to get things done.

[Bent]

I suppose if I wanted to play dirty, I'd point out that our current president is an expert at putting flags on an airplane:
Historically speaking, you're full of it.
:dunce:

[JNickel101]

Aren't there any actual issues out there? Why do people stoop to this kind of crap?

I have one question about the photo caption in the original post: it says the flag "no longer" appears on Obama's plane. This language suggests that there had been a flag, or that there was supposed to have been a flag, and it was removed. Was there? Is a flag the default on an airplane tail?

I suppose if I wanted to play dirty, I'd point out that our current president is an expert at putting flags on an airplane: http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/photo-flag-draped-coffins-airplane.jpg

You're an asshole....

I can't even think of the words to say to you right now. I just hope we never meet. Words won't fail me then, I can promise you that.

It's disgraceful that you would use that picture the way you used it. You're pathetic.

[KingOfTheHill]

can i vote for elvis? or will there be a "None of the above" spot to vote?

IMO either way your voting for the VP....McCain is too old and out of touch, and obama is the wrong color.

if you dont like my post, get over it... its the truth and you know it. A Good ol' boy (possibly from this form, LOL) will take care of that.

JOe

[Matthew Currie]

You're an asshole....

I can't even think of the words to say to you right now. I just hope we never meet. Words won't fail me then, I can promise you that.

It's disgraceful that you would use that picture the way you used it. You're pathetic.It was meant to be inflammatory. I'm glad you got the point.

This whole thread is based on a piece of crap, that reflects the pathetic decline in rational and civil discourse in politics today. There are big and important issues here, and many good and interesting reasons why one can oppose one or the other candidate. If you can't find some real and honest reasons to be wary of Obama, or to disagree with him, then you're not looking very hard.

But what are we getting instead? Stupid manipulations of people's names, lies and innuendo, and, for this thread, the ridiculous insinuation that the emblem on Obama's plane is unamerican because it isn't a flag, phrased in the purposefully misleading way that suggests that a flag was removed and replaced.

If some other candidate decided to wear red white and blue jockey shorts, would Obama have to do it too to prove he's not a foreign terrorist?

Obama is a Democrat, and in many areas at least, a liberal. As such, every idea he has is subject to scrutiny and argument by people who hold contrary views. He may also be a liar and it's a lead pipe cinch he's an opportunist. Can you find the instances of that and debate them? Hint: flags aren't involved.

[JNickel101]

Regardless of the "point you were trying to make" - you could have stated what you just said above and achieved the same result.

Instead, you decided to disgrace a photo of men and/or women who died for your right to be a prick.

Congratulations. You made your point.

[ECKSJAY]

Regardless of the "point you were trying to make" - you could have stated what you just said above and achieved the same result.

Instead, you decided to disgrace a photo of men and/or women who died for your right to be a prick.

Congratulations. You made your point.

Lighten up, Francis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate

[JNickel101]

No, thanks though....

[Bent]

Why should we care what symbol he uses for his campaign? :dunno:
Let's worry about the one he'll use if elected.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a90/TBentley/Obomaflag.jpg

[Matthew Currie]

Regardless of the "point you were trying to make" - you could have stated what you just said above and achieved the same result.

Instead, you decided to disgrace a photo of men and/or women who died for your right to be a prick.

Congratulations. You made your point.In what way do you think I "disgraced" the photo of those soldiers by hinting that President Bush is responsible for the war that killed them? I have a high regard for these people, but I also happen to think that the war they're dying in is a mistake based on lies. Their loyalty and bravery were wasted by a callous and dishonest leadership which talks a lot of patriotic hoopla but when it comes right down to it, puts a lower value on either their lives or their loyalty than on their own ideological agenda. Disagree if you want. Call me a prick if you think it will help. But while that knee is jerking, don't forget to keep your brain turned on too, or you'll fall down and hurt yourself.

[ECKSJAY]

In what way do you think I "disgraced" the photo of those soldiers by hinting that President Bush is responsible for the war that killed them? I have a high regard for these people, but I also happen to think that the war they're dying in is a mistake based on lies. Their loyalty and bravery were wasted by a callous and dishonest leadership which talks a lot of patriotic hoopla but when it comes right down to it, puts a lower value on either their lives or their loyalty than on their own ideological agenda. Disagree if you want. Call me a prick if you think it will help. But while that knee is jerking, don't forget to keep your brain turned on too, or you'll fall down and hurt yourself.

Don't worry about him, he's just spouting self-importance and wanting you to kiss his ass. :) If he were all he claims to be, he wouldn't be hinting INFOSEC and OPSEC all over the Internets...at least I wouldn't think so anyway. ;)

:chef:

[JNickel101]

Ah yes, I almost forgot you're one of those who wants to point the finger at Bush...its all his fault....riiight. Because we're a dictatorship here in the US. Blah blah blah leftist rhetoric blah blah blah....

Save your breath, it will just cost you more carbon credits.

I'm going to resist making a Red Foreman comment regarding my knee and what I wish it was doing.

[JNickel101]

Don't worry about him, he's just spouting self-importance and wanting you to kiss his ass. :) If he were all he claims to be, he wouldn't be hinting INFOSEC and OPSEC all over the Internets...at least I wouldn't think so anyway. ;)

:chef:

Give me an example. I'd love to hear this.

I know exactly where I am and where I've been. I can even have another member verify where I am, because we're on the same base.

BTW, My location is an inside joke about where I'm at, because we "pretend" that no one knows we're here, even though the entire world already knows.

[fscrig75]

Don't worry about him, he's just spouting self-importance and wanting you to kiss his ass. :) If he were all he claims to be, he wouldn't be hinting INFOSEC and OPSEC all over the Internets...at least I wouldn't think so anyway. ;)

:chef:

OPSEC? I don't see any OPSEC!

I can't see the pictures, so I can't comment on them. You can't just blame Bush for the war, Congress approved it, and they believed the same intel that Bush believed. Everyone is a great MMQB but at the time, IMO, it was the right decision.
Oh and I still support the decision.

[fscrig75]

But what are we getting instead? Stupid manipulations of people's names, lies and innuendo, and, for this thread, the ridiculous insinuation that the emblem on Obama's plane is unamerican because it isn't a flag, phrased in the purposefully misleading way that suggests that a flag was removed and replaced.

But its so much fun to make fun of Barry, and that white haired guy.

[buschwhaked]

It was meant to be inflammatory. I'm glad you got the point.

This whole thread is based on a piece of crap, that reflects the pathetic decline in rational and civil discourse in politics today. There are big and important issues here, and many good and interesting reasons why one can oppose one or the other candidate. If you can't find some real and honest reasons to be wary of Obama, or to disagree with him, then you're not looking very hard.

But what are we getting instead? Stupid manipulations of people's names, lies and innuendo, and, for this thread, the ridiculous insinuation that the emblem on Obama's plane is unamerican because it isn't a flag, phrased in the purposefully misleading way that suggests that a flag was removed and replaced.

If some other candidate decided to wear red white and blue jockey shorts, would Obama have to do it too to prove he's not a foreign terrorist?

Obama is a Democrat, and in many areas at least, a liberal. As such, every idea he has is subject to scrutiny and argument by people who hold contrary views. He may also be a liar and it's a lead pipe cinch he's an opportunist. Can you find the instances of that and debate them? Hint: flags aren't involved.

I'm a Soldier and I wasn't offended.

Republican's use shock imagery all the time to try and elicit the most base of emotions from the populace. JNICKEL, you're a prime example of that, no offense.

The Founding Fathers would be sad and ashamed to see how low the roll of reason and logic has sunk to amongst the "informed citizenry."

Quit using your emotions to lead your brain around.

[JNickel101]

Don't worry about him, he's just spouting self-importance and wanting you to kiss his ass. :) If he were all he claims to be, he wouldn't be hinting INFOSEC and OPSEC all over the Internets...at least I wouldn't think so anyway. ;)

:chef:

Say what you want - my point is that he's a prick for using a picture like that to make his point. I actually agree with his point, HOWEVER, his method of going about it was incredibly disrespectful.

I could care less about what Obama puts on his plane. How about we discuss real issues instead of petty bullshit?

Using Bush hating rhetoric as a backer for why he used the pic makes it even worse. Get off your horse and quit blaming Bush for everything that you think is wrong. I neither want nor need anyone's ass kissing. I'm simply speaking for those who can no longer speak, because they gave the ultimate sacrifice for me and you. If you can't see that....then wow.

[fscrig75]

I'm a Soldier and I wasn't offended.

Offended, not really, but I believe it to be in bad taste. I'm just not a big fan of our fallen brother as a political tool. Kinda right up there w/ those wacko religious freaks that go to veterans funerals and scream about these soldiers dying because of fags and AIDS.
But thats just me.

[JNickel101]

I'm a Soldier and I wasn't offended.

Republican's use shock imagery all the time to try and elicit the most base of emotions from the populace. JNICKEL, you're a prime example of that, no offense.

The Founding Fathers would be sad and ashamed to see how low the roll of reason and logic has sunk to amongst the "informed citizenry."

Quit using your emotions to lead your brain around.

You're a unique one - I'll say that. You have views and opinions unlike any I've ever seen from a military member. I have yet to figure you out and doubt I ever will. Conscientious objector?

Sometimes you have to use emotion and your "gut" - if you hesitate, its too late. You should understand that. I agree with the point he was trying to make - that's the sad part - he should have just used better judgement regarding making that point.

[JNickel101]

and x2, I never used the word offended. Actually, I've never used that word. I'm pretty damn sure you couldn't "offend" me. But piss me off....well, yeah, that's pretty evident.

[Ecomike]

It was meant to be inflammatory. I'm glad you got the point.

This whole thread is based on a piece of crap, that reflects the pathetic decline in rational and civil discourse in politics today. There are big and important issues here, and many good and interesting reasons why one can oppose one or the other candidate. If you can't find some real and honest reasons to be wary of Obama, or to disagree with him, then you're not looking very hard.

But what are we getting instead? Stupid manipulations of people's names, lies and innuendo, and, for this thread, the ridiculous insinuation that the emblem on Obama's plane is unamerican because it isn't a flag, phrased in the purposefully misleading way that suggests that a flag was removed and replaced.

If some other candidate decided to wear red white and blue jockey shorts, would Obama have to do it too to prove he's not a foreign terrorist?

Obama is a Democrat, and in many areas at least, a liberal. As such, every idea he has is subject to scrutiny and argument by people who hold contrary views. He may also be a liar and it's a lead pipe cinch he's an opportunist. Can you find the instances of that and debate them? Hint: flags aren't involved.


:yelclap:

Finally! Something I can agree with has been posted here!

Maybe there is hope for us afterall!

[buschwhaked]

You're a unique one - I'll say that. You have views and opinions unlike any I've ever seen from a military member. I have yet to figure you out and doubt I ever will. Conscientious objector?

Sometimes you have to use emotion and your "gut" - if you hesitate, its too late. You should understand that. I agree with the point he was trying to make - that's the sad part - he should have just used better judgement regarding making that point.

Not that unique actually, and definitly not an objector. But what I experienced in Iraq caused my black and white views go very grey. You're right in that trusting your gut is important, but not in politics.

I was really tempted to go off on you, and frankly your remarks pissed me off. But flying off the handle on the internet is pointless. You're in the AF and it is highly unlikely that you've even stepped off a base in Iraq unless it was in a plane. I was as arrogant and sure of my convictions pre-deployment as you are now, but real combat, not just sucking air in the Middle East changed the way I look at things, and to be quite honest I don't know where I stand on a lot of issues anymore. All I know I want from politics anymore is a reasonable and well thought out decisions.

Making decisions on a candidate based on what sticker he slaps on the tail of his airplane, or e-slapping someone around because he used an emotional image to draw a reaction in the opposite direction gets us nowhere.

[JNickel101]

Not that unique actually, and definitly not an objector. But what I experienced in Iraq caused my black and white views go very grey. You're right in that trusting your gut is important, but not in politics.

I was really tempted to go off on you, and frankly your remarks pissed me off. But flying off the handle on the internet is pointless. You're in the AF and it is highly unlikely that you've even stepped off a base in Iraq unless it was in a plane. I was as arrogant and sure of my convictions pre-deployment as you are now, but real combat, not just sucking air in the Middle East changed the way I look at things, and to be quite honest I don't know where I stand on a lot of issues anymore. All I know I want from politics anymore is a reasonable and well thought out decisions.

Making decisions on a candidate based on what sticker he slaps on the tail of his airplane, or slapping someone around because he used an emotional image to draw a reaction in the opposite direction gets us nowhere.

I'll say it again - I agree with the point he was trying to make - that I could care less how Obama paints his plane - and that shouldn't be an issue at all. Instead, someone made it an issue. But proving your point the way he did, I disagreed with.

I made my choice of service just as you did. Go ahead and go off on me - and make your assumptions - you're right, I didn't go door to door in Baghdad this past year - but if you want we can talk offline about the time on the ground I did in Afghanistan in 05, or any other deployment I've done in the past. You can stereotype me based on my branch - but you won't catch me doing that with you because I respect every other service. Just as I respect the men and women in that photo. Some apparently do not.

So...I'll ask you to go off on me - but for what reason? Because I respect them? Your move.

[fscrig75]

Everyone chill. We need all branchs of the service.

[Ecomike]

Not that unique actually, and definitly not an objector. But what I experienced in Iraq caused my black and white views go very grey. You're right in that trusting your gut is important, but not in politics.

I was really tempted to go off on you, and frankly your remarks pissed me off. But flying off the handle on the internet is pointless. You're in the AF and it is highly unlikely that you've even stepped off a base in Iraq unless it was in a plane. I was as arrogant and sure of my convictions pre-deployment as you are now, but real combat, not just sucking air in the Middle East changed the way I look at things, and to be quite honest I don't know where I stand on a lot of issues anymore. All I know I want from politics anymore is a reasonable and well thought out decisions.

Making decisions on a candidate based on what sticker he slaps on the tail of his airplane, or e-slapping someone around because he used an emotional image to draw a reaction in the opposite direction gets us nowhere.

OMG, another post I can agree with!

:cheers:

Especially the part about realizing that many issues are shades of grey, and not simple black and white, meaning right and wrong.

The new Batman movie, the Dark Knight (SP?) deals with that grey area quite extensively, and quite well, artisically I might add! It will make you question any ideas or preconcieved notions you may have of everything being black and white, right or wrong. And I suspect serving on the ground in Iraq or Afganistan would do the same thing to most.

[Trail-Axe]

Matthew Currie wrote: Aren't there any actual issues out there? Why do people stoop to this kind of crap?

I have one question about the photo caption in the original post: it says the flag "no longer" appears on Obama's plane. This language suggests that there had been a flag, or that there was supposed to have been a flag, and it was removed. Was there? Is a flag the default on an airplane tail?

I suppose if I wanted to play dirty, I'd point out that our current president is an expert at putting flags on an airplane:

It's not playing dirty, it just shows the rest of us how ignorant you are. Last time I checked, the soldiers coming back from Iraq were killed by terrorists. You know the type, the cowards that hide behind women and children, then shoot at us, or stab our boys in the back with their IED's. Any "boy" that uses the death of our soldiers to poke at our current commander and chief is a coward! These MEN died serving America. They took the fight to the fight and deserve better then having their coffins show up in a post to support your liberal views. If my son was in one of those boxes, and you said something like that to my face.... Let's just say you are very fortunate I fear God more then I hate cowards like you!

[FlexdXJ]

X2 I'm pointing it out to the Obama puppet supporters. For me the choise is easy, An Idealistic, ultra liberal one term senator or an experienced multi term senator who has been around long enough to know how to get the job done and he has served his country.

~Alex

Amen! hmm.. should i vote for a guy who spent time locked in a cage for our country or Obama who i never heard of until this campaign started. hard choice. I don't care about the republican or democrat shit. People always tell me Oh, well, McCain will just start another war blah blah all that shit but do you really think someone who spent like 5 years locked in a cage as a POW wants to start a war?

[Ecomike]

Amen! hmm.. should i vote for a guy who spent time locked in a cage for our country or Obama who i never heard of until this campaign started. hard choice. I don't care about the republican or democrat shit. People always tell me Oh, well, McCain will just start another war blah blah all that shit but do you really think someone who spent like 5 years locked in a cage as a POW wants to start a war?

Are you saying that being locked in cage is a credible credential for being president of the USA?

OK, cheap shot maybe, but seriously, are you suggesting that McCain will be less likely to start a new war than Obama? One thing I am sure of is McCain would just asume stay in Iraq for another 50 years (pretty much his own words recorded on TV recently) and keep that war going, so maybe your right, he may be less likely to start a new war, just keep this one going on forever. :wantyou:

But back to reality again, I think the real issue for voters this year is the economy, and on that issue McCain is a lost puppy, he hasn't a clue what to do or how to do it, and he has sort of admitted that. Not to mention that McCain is past his prime.

[Ray H]

Are you saying that being locked in cage is a credible credential for being president of the USA?

OK, cheap shot maybe, but seriously, are you suggesting that McCain will be less likely to start a new war than Obama? One thing I am sure of is McCain would just asume stay in Iraq for another 50 years (pretty much his own words recorded on TV recently) and keep that war going, so maybe your right, he may be less likely to start a new war, just keep this one going on forever. :wantyou:

But back to reality again, I think the real issue for voters this year is the economy, and on that issue McCain is a lost puppy, he hasn't a clue what to do or how to do it, and he has sort of admitted that. Not to mention that McCain is past his prime.

You make valid points but something to think about. It doesnt matter who is president, we will either be in another war in the middle east or stay in this one. Obama can speech all he wants about how he wont send our boys over there, but I know its all crap. That place has been fighting forever, they will continue fighting whether we are there or not. We have a vested interest in what happens there. I assure you, we will be involved in everything that happens there, it doesnt matter who is pres. At least McCain is honest about that.
On the economy issue. I wish McCain was stronger on it. I will vote for him either way because I trust him alot further than I do Obama, but it sure would be easier to vote for him if he had a better plan. My hope is he surrounds himself with people who do know the economy. At least thats a fixible problem. Integrety and honesty arent fixible.

[JNickel101]

Are you saying that being locked in cage is a credible credential for being president of the USA?

OK, cheap shot maybe, but seriously, are you suggesting that McCain will be less likely to start a new war than Obama? One thing I am sure of is McCain would just asume stay in Iraq for another 50 years (pretty much his own words recorded on TV recently) and keep that war going, so maybe your right, he may be less likely to start a new war, just keep this one going on forever. :wantyou:

But back to reality again, I think the real issue for voters this year is the economy, and on that issue McCain is a lost puppy, he hasn't a clue what to do or how to do it, and he has sort of admitted that. Not to mention that McCain is past his prime.

Getting an A+ in speech class isn't a credible credential for being POTUS either, but...

Neither man has outstanding, overwhelming credentials - that is a fact. Both have some ok points, but as has been stated many times before, this is truely an election of "which is the lesser of the two evils". Obama may have some upside, but the safe bet is with McCain. I can't say I'd trust Obama any further than I could punt him with my bum knee.

And IN MY OPINION Ray H is 100% correct in everything he said. Good post Ray!

[ECKSJAY]

And Ray H is 100% correct in everything he said. Good post Ray!

Is he correct or are you just in agreement with him? Have you got a source to validate his claims? :)

[JNickel101]

Getting an A+ in speech class isn't a credible credential for being POTUS either, but...

Neither man has outstanding, overwhelming credentials - that is a fact. Both have some ok points, but as has been stated many times before, this is truely an election of "which is the lesser of the two evils". Obama may have some upside, but the safe bet is with McCain. I can't say I'd trust Obama any further than I could punt him with my bum knee.

And IN MY OPINION Ray H is 100% correct in everything he said. Good post Ray!

Fixed it just for you :kissyou:

[Ray H]

Another point I forgot to make. If it is inevitable that we will be in conflicts at various times and places around the globe (which I believe it is) who would be the better commander and chief? I think the answer to that is pretty clear to even Obama supporters.

[Matthew Currie]

These MEN died serving America. They took the fight to the fight and deserve better then having their coffins show up in a post to support your liberal views.

It's not about liberal views. If you think it is, you're missing a point, and if you just say it is, you're obscuring it. These men (and women) took their oaths seriously and went where they were sent and did their best to do what they were assigned to do. But there's a bargain there. They do what they're told with some faith that what they're doing is honestly necessary, and that their loyalty is not being squandered. I don't think that was the case, and that the sin of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others is very great. I'll leave it at that.

In fact, I think I've said enough on all fronts here. If my post which was admittedly in poor taste offended anyone, I apologize, but you should search your own self honestly to try to figure out what is really offensive, and why.

[Bent]

One thing I am sure of is McCain would just asume stay in Iraq for another 50 years (pretty much his own words recorded on TV recently) and keep that war going.
Are you really that stupid? Really? Can you be and still breath? The remark you quote out of context was referring to a military presence similar to what we now have in Germany or Japan for example. THOSE are 50+ years. Dump the sound byte mentality and listen to the interview.
:looser:

[BonesBrosChris]

Aren't there any actual issues out there? Why do people stoop to this kind of crap?

I have one question about the photo caption in the original post: it says the flag "no longer" appears on Obama's plane. This language suggests that there had been a flag, or that there was supposed to have been a flag, and it was removed. Was there? Is a flag the default on an airplane tail?

I suppose if I wanted to play dirty, I'd point out that our current president is an expert at putting flags on an airplane: http://dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/photo-flag-draped-coffins-airplane.jpg


Wow dude you are truly an a-hole for twisting a picture of our fallen sons, fathers, mothers and daughters that made it possible for you to make that ignorant post......... way to go hero.

[Ray H]

They do what they're told with some faith that what they're doing is honestly necessary, and that their loyalty is not being squandered. I don't think that was the case, and that the sin of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others is very great. I'll leave it at that.

.

I think you will find that most of the men and women in our armed forces defend the decision to be there. Now, unless its your assumption that you somehow know more about this war than the people who are actually involved in it day to day, maybe you need to take a look around to see who support what. I think you will also find that most of the military supports McCain over Obama also. So when you set out to help save those poor ignorant military people who are being taken advantage of, maybe you should consider that they probably arent as ignorant as you are about this war because while you are sitting at home living it on TV, they are on the ground living it.
Not to be a dick, Im just trying to interject some reality here.

[Tom R.]

I think you will find that most of the men and women in our armed forces defend the decision to be there. Now, unless its your assumption that you somehow know more about this war than the people who are actually involved in it day to day, maybe you need to take a look around to see who support what. I think you will also find that most of the military supports McCain over Obama also. So when you set out to help save those poor ignorant military people who are being taken advantage of, maybe you should consider that they probably arent as ignorant as you are about this war because while you are sitting at home living it on TV, they are on the ground living it.
Not to be a dick, Im just trying to interject some reality here.
Bingo! We have a winner!

I've run across my fair share of people who were obnoxiously righteous in their stance on a topic such as this or similar, but had no first-hand experience. It's amazing how sharply divided people can be in their political views, despite all of the facts.

[Mudderoy]

In what way do you think I "disgraced" the photo of those soldiers by hinting that President Bush is responsible for the war that killed them? I have a high regard for these people, but I also happen to think that the war they're dying in is a mistake based on lies. Their loyalty and bravery were wasted by a callous and dishonest leadership which talks a lot of patriotic hoopla but when it comes right down to it, puts a lower value on either their lives or their loyalty than on their own ideological agenda. Disagree if you want. Call me a prick if you think it will help. But while that knee is jerking, don't forget to keep your brain turned on too, or you'll fall down and hurt yourself.

I disagree. Bin Laden is responsible for the war. Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war. People that disrespect our president "IN A TIME OF WAR" and scream so loudly about how wrong this war is, make the war last longer, and KEEP our soldiers in danger.

Personally I think the same law that allows the government to prosecute people for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should be used to prosecute people that protest a war. The results are the same. Good people die.

[ECKSJAY]

I disagree. Bin Laden is responsible for the war. Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war.

Carter started it.

[Mudderoy]

Carter started it.

lol

[Trail-Axe]

If my post which was admittedly in poor taste offended anyone, I apologize, but you should search your own self honestly to try to figure out what is really offensive, and why.

I don't need to search myself boy; and I don't need a psychobabble lecture from a boy to assist me in knowing what is truly offensive and why. But I do accept your apology.

[Ecomike]

That place has been fighting forever, they will continue fighting whether we are there or not.

So why not pack up and get the hell out of there and let them go back to finishing their fight if it is futile like you say it is?

We have a vested interest in what happens there. I assure you, we will be involved in everything that happens there, it doesnt matter who is pres.

Unfortunately you may be right on that point.

On the economy issue. I wish McCain was stronger on it. I will vote for him either way because I trust him alot further than I do Obama, but it sure would be easier to vote for him if he had a better plan. My hope is he surrounds himself with people who do know the economy. At least thats a fixible problem.

I am not so sure the economy is that fixable now. I am afraid we are heading for real disaster here like the 1930's Great Depression, or like a freight train headed for a missing bridge over a very deep gorge. And if I am right I sure as hell don't want the Republicans and their laizefare economic policies waiting for the economy to fix itself.

[Ray H]

So why not pack up and get the hell out of there and let them go back to finishing their fight if it is futile like you say it is?

Because we have a vested interest in the area. Our economy depends alot on what goes on there. I think we are all seeing that right now.
To tell the truth, I wouldnt mind seeing us cut all ties with that region and never go back. I dont see that ever happening so my second choice is in for a dime, in for a dollar.





I am not so sure the economy is that fixable now. I am afraid we are heading for real disaster here like the 1930's Great Depression, or like a freight train headed for a missing bridge over a very deep gorge. And if I am right I sure as hell don't want the Republicans and their laizefare economic policies waiting for the economy to fix itself.

I didnt mean the "economy" is fixable. I think, like you, its definately going to be an up hill road. What I meant was that McCains lack of knowledge on the subject is fixable if he surrounds himself with good people and listens to them. I guess the same thing could be said for Obamas lack of foreign affairs and military experience. Im not sure he will listen to anyone though.

[scottmcneal]

Hey mike The sky is falling... Dude i see more people buying shit today than LAST year... Hell look at me, Land, then put my home on it.. You keep beating this bush thing to the ground.. Next your going to say he started the global warming.. My god, does he do every thing thats wrong today? Go an spend some cash on your jeeps, then go off road.. Chit do some thing

[Ray H]

How did we get in this economic mess anyway. I know its easy to blame one party or another, or one POTUS or another but it seems to me oil prices are to blame. I admittedly dont know the ins and outs of oil barrel pricing except that when it goes up, prices at the pump go up. When that happens the price everything goes up and the market goes down as people lose confidence and buying power. Then the dollar loses value and the cycle starts all over.
im not sure I see a correlation between oil prices and what political party is in the white house, congress or the senate.
Doesnt OPEC set barrel prices? We arent in OPEC anymore are we?

[Boatwrench]

Personally I think the same law that allows the government to prosecute people for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should be used to prosecute people that protest a war.

I strongly disagree. New thread coming.

[Ray H]

I strongly disagree. New thread coming.

Noooo, not another thread. Damit, Im going to have to hire a secretary to keep track of this stuff.

[scottmcneal]

Hey i didn't start this one

[Ecomike]

Are you really that stupid? Really? Can you be and still breath? The remark you quote out of context was referring to a military presence similar to what we now have in Germany or Japan for example. THOSE are 50+ years. Dump the sound byte mentality and listen to the interview.
:looser:

I guess I must be. :rolleyes:

So you want us to stay there for 50 more years too? I suspect many in the Middle East will have major objections to that plan. Explosive objections at that.

Personally I think we should have US troops in every country on the planet. It would make US rule over our dominion so much easier. :rolleyes:

Now as far as the "stupid" remark you made goes, I will try and be nice and ignor it.

The fact of the matter is this thread and others are loaded with equally silly sound bite mentality pieces attacking Obama that are just as rediculous, so why should I play any nicer?

But the real point here is that McCain is saying he will pull out of Iraq when the war is won, and only then, and then later he says he wants to stay there for 50 years. You can't have it both ways, unless he plans on fighting the war for 50 years while we stay there, which is just as rediculous.

[Ecomike]

I disagree. Bin Laden is responsible for the war. Saddam Hussein is responsible for the war.

But you forget, our people trained and helped put Saddam Hussein in power. He was our dictator to counter the Soviet threat. Then he turned on us. If he was responsible for the war, we were responsible for putting him power, which makes us responsible for the war anyway.

People that disrespect our president "IN A TIME OF WAR" and scream so loudly about how wrong this war is, make the war last longer, and KEEP our soldiers in danger.

If we don't scream load enough and put a stop to it, they will have no incentive to end the war, and even more will die. Until we get serious about packing up our toys and leaving Iraq, the Iraqies will have no incentive to reach a political settlement between the various factions there, which by the way has yet to happen! The surge was suppose to give them time to reach a settlement. They have not, and probably will not as long we keep hanging around.

Personally I think the same law that allows the government to prosecute people for yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should be used to prosecute people that protest a war. The results are the same. Good people die.

Wow, even President Bush would not go there. I don't think he ever challenged our right to say the war is wrong. It's called freedom of speech, one of the things we are supposed to be fighting to protect!

More good people die in fighting a civil war that can not be won by unwanted outsiders.

[Ecomike]

I didnt mean the "economy" is fixable. I think, like you, its definately going to be a huge downhill slide followed by an up hill road.

I think you made a mistake in your post, I fixed it for you!:D

[Ecomike]

Hey mike The sky is falling... Dude i see more people buying shit today than LAST year... Hell look at me, Land, then put my home on it.. You keep beating this bush thing to the ground.. Next your going to say he started the global warming.. My god, does he do every thing thats wrong today? Go an spend some cash on your jeeps, then go off road.. Chit do some thing

Well at least I am not beating around the bush. :laugh3:

The reason you see all that spending is because Houston is the Energy capital of the USA, and was the energy capital of the world, but Dubai has taken that from us already. The rest of the USA is in deep shit already, and the energy bubble is about burst again and take Houston with it again. Been there done that.

Can't spend money on my jeep, it already broke me, besides I'm saving for gas so I can get to work, so I can make some money, so I can buy some gas again......

[Ecomike]

How did we get in this economic mess anyway. I know its easy to blame one party or another, or one POTUS or another but it seems to me oil prices are to blame. I admittedly dont know the ins and outs of oil barrel pricing except that when it goes up, prices at the pump go up. When that happens the price everything goes up and the market goes down as people lose confidence and buying power. Then the dollar loses value and the cycle starts all over.
im not sure I see a correlation between oil prices and what political party is in the white house, congress or the senate.
Doesnt OPEC set barrel prices? We arent in OPEC anymore are we?
Personally I think the Saudis and Iranians, and maye Dubai, UAE...., who control the bulk of the worlds oil exports, all Arab countries, slowly boosted the oil futures prices to teach President Bush and his crew a lesson for not listening to them when they told Bush not to invade Iraq. They told Bush that invading Iraq would lead to a civil war, that it would increase terrorism in the Middle east, and that it might spill over into the rest of the Middle East, along with increasing world demand that was kicked into high gear by too much cheap US money floating all over the world (US Budget deficit, printing huge amounts of money, caused by the IRAQ war plus record low interest rates at FED which have been slowly feeding world wide inflation with too many US dollars in circulation). Eventually too many dollars in circulation led to a drop in the value of the dollar, and oil is priced and sold worldwide only in US Dollars, so the recent drop in the value of the dollar led to an instant increase the price of oil.

No we are no longer in OPEC as we do not export oil. OPEC tries to set and control the supply of oil, by setting pumping and exporting limits for OPEC members. The price is set by commodities Futures contracts and by demand. When oil inventories increase the price drops, when oil inventories drop the price drops, unless there is some geo-political trouble brewing like Israel and Iran rattling their sabers at each other vocally!

[scottmcneal]

I see your glass is half empty, i'm so sorry.. Mine is half FULL.. Every 4 years we all scream the same crap.. Bad or good doesn't matter to some, they will never be happy..


As for me i'm always poking fun at some one, thats just me.. So sorry if i made you upset, i'll try to do better next time :moon: ..

[Ray H]

Personally I think the Saudis and Iranians, and maye Dubai, UAE...., who control the bulk of the worlds oil exports, all Arab countries, slowly boosted the oil futures prices to teach President Bush and his crew a lesson for not listening to them when they told Bush not to invade Iraq. They told Bush that invading Iraq would lead to a civil war, that it would increase terrorism in the Middle east, and that it might spill over into the rest of the Middle East, along with increasing world demand that was kicked into high gear by too much cheap US money floating all over the world (US Budget deficit, printing huge amounts of money, caused by the IRAQ war plus record low interest rates at FED which have been slowly feeding world wide inflation with too many US dollars in circulation). Eventually too many dollars in circulation led to a drop in the value of the dollar, and oil is priced and sold worldwide only in US Dollars, so the recent drop in the value of the dollar led to an instant increase the price of oil

You really think they artificially raised oil prices to spite Bush for being in Iraq? Im not sure I believe that. Both the Saudis and Iran hate Iraq. Granted, they hate us more, but they still hate Iraq. I dont see them jumping in to stop us from being there. I dont see them cutting off our supply of oil. That would be a killer for us. If they really wanted us gone, they could cut our oil supply off for a week and we would do one of two things, wave the white flag or bomb them back to the middle ages.

[Ecomike]

You really think they artificially raised oil prices to spite Bush for being in Iraq? Im not sure I believe that. Both the Saudis and Iran hate Iraq. Granted, they hate us more, but they still hate Iraq. I dont see them jumping in to stop us from being there. I dont see them cutting off our supply of oil. That would be a killer for us. If they really wanted us gone, they could cut our oil supply off for a week and we would do one of two things, wave the white flag or bomb them back to the middle ages.


They tried cutting off our oil supplies twice in 1972-73 and 1978 IIRC. The oil embargos of the 1970s. Partly because we jumped in to save Israel at the last minute, as Egypt was knocking on the Israeli front doors. Nixon sent the Israilis better weapons just as Israel was about to collapse, and just a short while later Israel nearly took over Egypt. There were several Israeli - Egypt wars back then, IIRC. I don't recall the exact dates, years, (69 and 72 come to mind) etc, but every time we sided with Israel, the Arabs cut off our oil supply. Nowdays, they are more sophisticated about how they punish us.

You don't kill a neighborhood bully, or castrate him, not if he is a real good customer :D with enough nukes to burn ya bad, you just punish him where it hurts until he changes his ways.

Our Achilies heal is Oil. We used up all our cheap domestic oil between 1930 and 1970. We need to wean ourselves off of oil, and convert to renewable energy sources that do not promote global warming.

The only reason the Saudis recently, finally agreed to pump and sell more oil is they are afraid the US ecconomy is about to go into a freefall collapse, with oil prices being one of the driving forces, and the Saudis own too much of major US companies to let the whole system collapse.

[Ecomike]

I see your glass is half empty, i'm so sorry.. Mine is half FULL.. Every 4 years we all scream the same crap.. Bad or good doesn't matter to some, they will never be happy..


As for me i'm always poking fun at some one, thats just me.. So sorry if i made you upset, i'll try to do better next time :moon: ..

DUDE! Poke away, I enjoy poking back!:laugh3:

My problem with the half full, half empty glass theory is many people no longer have a GLASS! Or a pot to piss in anymore!

I have not been one of the sky is falling crowd for a very long time, not since the stock market crash of 1987, which hurt me bad along with my livelyhood being outlawed that same year.

Me, I am doing fine, I am more concerned about 250 million begars lining up at my front door if things totally collapse because the government was in political gridlock and failed to act in time, or because the government wanted to wait and let the market correct itself.

[scottmcneal]

government was in political gridlock and failed to act in time, They wouldn't do this.. Come on, can't we just fire all of them an start over..

[Ray H]

They tried cutting off our oil supplies twice in 1972-73 and 1978 IIRC. The oil embargos of the 1970s. Partly because we jumped in to save Israel at the last minute, as Egypt was knocking on the Israeli front doors. .

I'll give you that. You may be on to something. During the embargo of the 70s they didnt shut us off completely though, they just cut us back, possibly because they didnt want us to go into a full out depression. I suppose what is happening now could be considered an embargo then. Hmmm, youve got me thinking a little now.

[Mudderoy]

I strongly disagree. New thread coming.

I understand, but you have to admit all the "public" complaining about the war doesn't help us win the war. I just emboldens the enemy. Of course the enemy in this case are the countries sending fighters into Iraq.

[Mudderoy]

But you forget, our people trained and helped put Saddam Hussein in power. He was our dictator to counter the Soviet threat. Then he turned on us. If he was responsible for the war, we were responsible for putting him power, which makes us responsible for the war anyway.



If we don't scream load enough and put a stop to it, they will have no incentive to end the war, and even more will die. Until we get serious about packing up our toys and leaving Iraq, the Iraqis will have no incentive to reach a political settlement between the various factions there, which by the way has yet to happen! The surge was suppose to give them time to reach a settlement. They have not, and probably will not as long we keep hanging around.



Wow, even President Bush would not go there. I don't think he ever challenged our right to say the war is wrong. It's called freedom of speech, one of the things we are supposed to be fighting to protect!

More good people die in fighting a civil war that can not be won by unwanted outsiders.

Good points Mike, but just because we made a mistake with Saddam isn't a good reason for us to allow it to continue. The Iraqis do need to stand up, but leaving that country defenseless would cause thousands more lives, put the region in control of Iran, and show the rest of the world that America may not be able to be bested militarily, but politically we're an easy target. Just like in Viet Nam.

Oh and one more thing. Personally I think having a couple of hundred thousand American troops on the border of Iran is a good thing.

I think protest, freedom of speech, is a good thing, however when it gets people killed something has to happen. People should have the good sense to understand that their protest should be less public so that Americans that are protecting this country are less of a target.

[GSequoia]

Alright everybody, at six o'clock tonight I want you to go into your basemets, close the blinds, shut the doors, turn out the lights, then say, quietly, "I do not want this war." Yeah! Then our message will totally be heard!

[Bent]

...maybe you should consider that they probably arent as ignorant as you are about this war because while you are sitting at home living it on TV, they are on the ground living it.
Not to be a dick, Im just trying to interject some reality here.
I think you're wating your breath. What is on TV is nowhere near what's going on. Can anybody think the military is that stupid? Doesn't anybody remember what Bush said when we started this war?! Now they're all crying because it's taking more than bombs and cruise missles. We need to finish what we started and that includes other targets. Now sack up or shut up! Sadly, though, I think the best you'll ever be able to do is the later.
:rattle:

[Bent]

I guess I must be. :rolleyes:


But the real point here is that McCain is saying he will pull out of Iraq when the war is won, and only then, and then later he says he wants to stay there for 50 years. You can't have it both ways, unless he plans on fighting the war for 50 years while we stay there, which is just as rediculous.
You didn't listen; did you? Will you ever?
:conceited

[fscrig75]

OK, cheap shot maybe, but seriously, are you suggesting that McCain will be less likely to start a new war than Obama? One thing I am sure of is McCain would just asume stay in Iraq for another 50 years (pretty much his own words recorded on TV recently) and keep that war going, so maybe your right, he may be less likely to start a new war, just keep this one going on forever.

Didn't Barry say he was willing to go into Pakistan to get Osama? I'm pretty sure that would start a new war.

[Bent]

But you forget, our people trained and helped put Saddam Hussein in power. He was our dictator to counter the Soviet threat. Then he turned on us. If he was responsible for the war, we were responsible for putting him power, which makes us responsible for the war anyway.

ROTFLMFAO!
:confused1

[Ecomike]

Alright everybody, at six o'clock tonight I want you to go into your basements, close the blinds, shut the doors, turn out the lights, then say, quietly, "I do not want this war." Yeah! Then our message will totally be heard!

:roflmao:

[Ecomike]

I think you're wating your breath. What is on TV is nowhere near what's going on. Can anybody think the military is that stupid? Doesn't anybody remember what Bush said when we started this war?! Now they're all crying because it's taking more than bombs and cruise missles. We need to finish what we started and that includes other targets. Now sack up or shut up! Sadly, though, I think the best you'll ever be able to do is the later.
:rattle:

I recall when President Bush stood on the Deck of an aircraft carrier and announced proudly to the world "Mission accomplished"!

Shortly after that all hell broke loose in Iraq.:o

[Bent]

proudly to the world "Mission accomplished"!


Yeah, that was pretty stupid right thar, I don't care who you are.

[Darky]

Are you saying that being locked in cage is a credible credential for being president of the USA?


If you read his post in its entirety, you might figure out that he isn't claiming its a credential. but more an experience that would color McCain's outlook, possibly in the direction of avoiding war whenever possible.


OK, cheap shot maybe, but seriously, are you suggesting that McCain will be less likely to start a new war than Obama? One thing I am sure of is McCain would just asume stay in Iraq for another 50 years (pretty much his own words recorded on TV recently) and keep that war going, so maybe your right, he may be less likely to start a new war, just keep this one going on forever. :wantyou:

Again, taken in context, I believe what he actually said was that he'll stay in Iraq another 50 yrs if that's what it takes to finish it.

That's a favorite "trick" I've seen, quote someone only partly, take their words out of context so that it means something different and use it to claim he believes such and such and that's why he's stupid...

[RichP]

I'll give you that. You may be on to something. During the embargo of the 70s they didnt shut us off completely though, they just cut us back, possibly because they didnt want us to go into a full out depression. I suppose what is happening now could be considered an embargo then. Hmmm, youve got me thinking a little now.

They really did not cut us off, the domestic oil companies took advantage of the 'shortage', during that shortage I saw dozens of FULL tankers from Mobil, Exxon, Shell sitting anchored 100 miles off the coast from NY to Florida for a week waiting for the price of a barrel to go up $4-5 bucks. Then the tankers would up anchor and pull in to ports to unload. When you are carrying 100's of thousands of barrels that you bought out of the aramco complex for $20, then can 'sell' it to the refinery for $25 thats quite a killing even though you have to pay each crew member an extra $500 for the added week sitting at anchor, that might come to an extra $5,000 bucks for an extra million or two profit. I would not be surprised if that was going on today.

[Darky]

If we don't scream load enough and put a stop to it, they will have no incentive to end the war, and even more will die. Until we get serious about packing up our toys and leaving Iraq, the Iraqies will have no incentive to reach a political settlement between the various factions there, which by the way has yet to happen! The surge was suppose to give them time to reach a settlement. They have not, and probably will not as long we keep hanging around.
Right...just like Vietnam where their generals admitted that the fighting and protesting at home motviated them to carry on.

[Trail-Axe]

Right...just like Vietnam where their generals admitted that the fighting and protesting at home motivated them to carry on.

Hit the head on the nail there. So we pulled out of Vietnam to appease a bunch of yellow bellied war protesters, which then allowed the NVA to slaughter the south Vietnamese people. Imagine how it would feel to have fought in a war like that, then find out it was all for nothing, and that because of political pressure from a bunch of socialist war protesters masquerading as American citizens.

This would be the same if we were to pull out of Iraq, and this is why J. McCain has said we will stay in Iraq till the job is done. Congress approved this war, and we should stand behind our commander and chief until Iraq can stand on their own. It's interesting to note that Iraq is now doing much better, and may actually be on its way to peace without US troops supporting it.

Funny how so many kids go to college these days and get their heads brain washed by some yellow bellied liberal professor, then go around repeating the same garbage they heard like it actually means something.

[Bent]

Funny how so many kids go to college these days and get their heads brain washed by some yellow bellied liberal professor, then go around repeating the same garbage they heard like it actually means something.

If I've said that once, I've said it a million times!
:banghead:

[Darky]

All this protesting about how many are dying (American and Iraqi) tells the terrorists that all they have to do is find ways to kill more people. Kill enough to break our will and we'll leave and they can take over Iraq. Much like Israel negotiating with the terrorists for the return of two dead soldiers. They gave back a bunch of terrorists who they had taken captive and kept alive (plus a bunch of dead ones) in exchange for 2 dead soldiers. Now the terrorists know all they have to do is kidnap an Israeli soldier and they can get whatever they want and they don't even have to keep him alive, saving a lot of hassle with feeding and securing him.

[fscrig75]

What blows my mind is the insurgents are blowing up civilians more than the troops and yet the locals keep supporting them.

[Trail-Axe]

What blows my mind is the insurgents are blowing up civilians more than the troops and yet the locals keep supporting them.

Yep, and you won't find any liberal yellow bellied American war protesters traveling to Iraq to protest that.

[Bent]

Yep, and you won't find any pinko liberal yellow bellied American war protesters traveling to Iraq to protest that.
There, fixed for ya.

[Matthew Currie]

Drifting a little to the subject of making protest illegal.

Basically, aren't you saying that any president, any time, could start a war for any reason, and then exercise the power of martial law to prevent protests?

Now for the purpose of this subject, since it's not relevant, let us stipulate if you wish that the current war was truthfully represented, wisely entered, well planned, and thoroughly justified. Of course, if you believe that, then you're well justified in resenting protest, criticizing it vigorously, and doing your best to counteract it.

Nonetheless, are you sure you want to sign off on your right to protest the next one? What if it's President Obama? Do you trust President Obama? I don't. And you don't have to be even within a mile of the aisle between liberal and conservative to shudder at the thought of giving that kind of power to President Hillary Clinton! Just think a few years down the road, how about President Nancy Pelosi? Be careful what you wish for.

Whenever you think to yourself "there oughtta be a law," think about how that law will look in the hands of the least responsible, least intelligent person who might use it.

[Darky]

I believe it was truthfully represented, wisely entered, poorly planned, and thoroughly justified. However I also understand and recognize that Bush isn't necessarily responsible for the plans. That's what he has the Joint Chiefs, SecDef, Generals, etc for.

[buschwhaked]

What blows my mind is the insurgents are blowing up civilians more than the troops and yet the locals keep supporting them.

Not anymore. Sunni insurgents are coming around and working with us against Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias don't regularly target civilians so that concept doesn't apply.

[Trail-Axe]

I believe it was truthfully represented, wisely entered, poorly planned, and thoroughly justified. However I also understand and recognize that Bush isn't necessarily responsible for the plans. That's what he has the Joint Chiefs, SecDef, Generals, etc for.

X2, but I think the plan was fine. We did what we said we were going to do, and Iraq is getting better because we have a leader with a back bone. Did we make mistakes, absolutely, no way to plan for everything come game-day. But we did make changes as they were needed. Once congress approves sending troops over seas, all public protests while troops are in harms way should be considered treason.
:us:

[Mudderoy]

Drifting a little to the subject of making protest illegal.

Basically, aren't you saying that any president, any time, could start a war for any reason, and then exercise the power of martial law to prevent protests?

Now for the purpose of this subject, since it's not relevant, let us stipulate if you wish that the current war was truthfully represented, wisely entered, well planned, and thoroughly justified. Of course, if you believe that, then you're well justified in resenting protest, criticizing it vigorously, and doing your best to counteract it.

Nonetheless, are you sure you want to sign off on your right to protest the next one? What if it's President Obama? Do you trust President Obama? I don't. And you don't have to be even within a mile of the aisle between liberal and conservative to shudder at the thought of giving that kind of power to President Hillary Clinton! Just think a few years down the road, how about President Nancy Pelosi? Be careful what you wish for.

Whenever you think to yourself "there oughtta be a law," think about how that law will look in the hands of the least responsible, least intelligent person who might use it.

I'll use my yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater analogy.

If you saw a fire, you wouldn't want to yell fire as this would cause people to be injured or even killed. You would try to alert people and stay as calm as possible to get the most people out. If panic started you would try to calm everyone and keep the order. This way you, and many, if not all would stay alive.

This is what I am talking about when it comes to protesting the war. Calling our President stupid, an idiot is like yelling FIRE because it puts our soldier in more danger than they are already in.

I am not saying that YOU are calling our president an idiot, just an example of what some people are doing.

I think, my opinion, that Americans should have the good manners/sense not to speak ill of our commander in chief, or our soldiers. Doing so puts the SOLDIERS in more danger.

A united front to the world says we are going to stay the course. We have the resources and the WILL to win. I firmly believe that if this had been the overwhelming message that we had sent to the rest of the world we would have lost far fewer troops and I think there would be a good chance we would be drawing down the troop levels, or moving the to Afghanistan.

If you were an Iraqi and you saw the protests in America you'd be a little concerned that the whiners in America were going to force the president to pull out, just like we did in Viet Nam, and to a degree in Kuwait.

So no it wouldn't be martial law it would use do prosecute people that were harming American citizens. Just like a seat belt law, DWI, or yelling fire in a crowded theater.

[fscrig75]

Not anymore. Sunni insurgents are coming around and working with us against Al Qaeda and the Shiite militias don't regularly target civilians so that concept doesn't apply.

Doesn't apply? Tell that to the 12 people who got killed on Sunday(3Aug). Yes it has slowed down a bit but it is still going on.

[JNickel101]

Doesn't apply? Tell that to the 12 people who got killed on Sunday(3Aug). Yes it has slowed down a bit but it is still going on.

x2. There are some places better than others, but still lots of :explosion going on. The big thing lately seems to be recruiting women and/or mentally handicapped people to do their dirty work.

But now the bigger problem is AFG...

[Ecomike]

What blows my mind is the insurgents are blowing up civilians more than the troops and yet the locals keep supporting them.

Why does that blow your mind?

[fscrig75]

Why does that blow your mind?
I guess I just don't understand it.

[Ecomike]

Hit the head on the nail there. So we pulled out of Vietnam to appease a bunch of yellow bellied war protesters, which then allowed the NVA to slaughter the south Vietnamese people. Imagine how it would feel to have fought in a war like that, then find out it was all for nothing, and that because of political pressure from a bunch of socialist war protesters masquerading as American citizens.

This would be the same if we were to pull out of Iraq, and this is why J. McCain has said we will stay in Iraq till the job is done. Congress approved this war, and we should stand behind our commander and chief until Iraq can stand on their own. It's interesting to note that Iraq is now doing much better, and may actually be on its way to peace without US troops supporting it.

Funny how so many kids go to college these days and get their heads brain washed by some yellow bellied liberal professor, then go around repeating the same garbage they heard like it actually means something.


This aimed at several of you: Please Stop posting BS and lies.

We partially left Vietnam because the war ended, and North Vietnam signed a peace treaty. In fact we still had some advisory troops their when the SV government fell. It fell because it was corrupt and gutless. It only survived as long as it did becuase we proped it up for so long. It's fall had nothing to do with the protests here, it had to do with Preisdent Gerald Ford doing nothing to go back and help when NV violated the peace treaty. The NVs saw an opportunity when Nixon screwed up and got impeached for his screw up, and shortly after Nixon resigned the NVs reinvaded Vietnam. President Ford who took Nixon's place did nothing to stop it. By the way, they were both Republicans.

We can't fight every one elses civil wars in the world, Though it would be a noble goal, we don't have the resources to do that, a hard lesson we learned at great expense in Vietnam. In case you are not aware of it, the Vietnam war nearly resulted in a civil war here.

Just because Congress gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, does not mean they approved of his final decision to invade, or the way he and Rumsfeld managed the war. By the way Rumsfeld (sp?) and Dick Chaney (sp?) were two of the idiots that missmanaged the Vietnam war under Nixon, as well! Congress never declared war on Iraq, they gave the President authority to do that in the hopes that Hussien would get the message and finally stop stonewalling the UN. They also assumed that Bush would get more UN and NATO allie support before invading, if it came to that. I don't think Congress approved an ongoing occupation of Iraq, nore did they approve an ill concieved plan to sit it out in Iraq during an insuing civil war after we removed Saddam Hussien.

I suspect more people have died in Iraq since we invaded Iraq, than died under Hussien, not counting the Iran / Iraq war. If I am correct, it says little about our executive branch's ability to handle this kind of war.

Just like wellfare receipients will stay on wellfare as long as they can, Iraq will never truely stand on its own as long as we stay there.

Funny but during the Iran / Iraq war no one was concerned about invading either country, or stopping that war with US troops while millions died, in fact we were too busy selling both sides arms to kill each other with, while we traded arms for oil with both sides. The only show of force we made then (8 years!) was to threaten both sides if they tried to expand the war in the Gulf, as we did not want the oil flow to stop through the gulf. That war happened during the Reagan Bush Republican administration. That war ran for 8 years and durring that entire 8 years our oil interests, and flow of oil from the middle east, including Iran and Iraq's oil, never once stopped flowing to us!

By the way, many of the war protesters during the Vietnam war were Vietnam war vets returing from the war. Would you all also accuse them of treason for protesting the war that they had already served their country fighting?

[fscrig75]

We can't fight every one elses civil wars in the world, Though it would be a noble goal, we don't have the resources to do that, a hard lesson we learned at great expense in Vietnam. In case you are not aware of it, the Vietnam war nearly resulted in a civil war here.

Really, was it ok when Clinton sent the Army into Bosnia and Kosovo? Those were civil wars.


Just because Congress gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq, does not mean they approved of his final decision to invade, or the way he and Rumsfeld managed the war. By the way Rumsfeld (sp?) and Dick Chaney (sp?) were two of the idiots that missmanaged the Vietnam war under Nixon, as well! Congress never declared war on Iraq, they gave the President authority to do that in the hopes that Hussien would get the message and finally stop stonewalling the UN. They also assumed that Bush would get more UN and NATO allie support before invading, if it came to that. I don't think Congress approved an ongoing occupation of Iraq, nore did they approve an ill concieved plan to sit it out in Iraq during an insuing civil war after we removed Saddam Hussien.

Actually it did authorize him to go to war;
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

I suspect more people have died in Iraq since we invaded Iraq, than died under Hussien, not counting the Iran / Iraq war. If I am correct, it says little about our executive branch's ability to handle this kind of war.

That is true Saddam killed between 250,000 to 290,000. Some estimates have civilian deaths as high as 600,000, though it is said that most of those are caused by insurgents, terrorists and sectarian violence. Basically they are killing each other off.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-zIkhR7ZgGRS2_Bz9LXSKJsg43vQ_20071010.html

Just like wellfare receipients will stay on wellfare as long as they can, Iraq will never truely stand on its own as long as we stay there.

If we leave before they can take of themselves we will be back enventually, except the next time it might be Iran that has control of Iraq.

Funny but during the Iran / Iraq war no one was concerned about invading either country, or stopping that war with US troops while millions died, in fact we were too busy selling both sides arms to kill each other with, while we traded arms for oil with both sides. The only show of force we made then (8 years!) was to threaten both sides if they tried to expand the war in the Gulf, as we did not want the oil flow to stop through the gulf. That war happened during the Reagan Bush Republican administration. That war ran for 8 years and durring that entire 8 years our oil interests, and flow of oil from the middle east, including Iran and Iraq's oil, never once stopped flowing to us!

Actually that war started in September 1980, I think Jimmy Carter was at the helm then.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.html

[98XJSport]

Something that tends to happen in a region torn apart by war. Fighting continues for a long time, until the strongest finally wins. Sick of war with themselves, they usually unite under a common banner, in this case religion.

Think they will sit there content, or will we be fighting a religious war with the whole middle east?

[Darky]

EcoMike:
What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!
From his memoirs where he spoke of the Vietnam war. Straight from the mouth of the opponent.
EDIT: possible BS. Snopes claims it is a false attribution. However they do go on to note a Colonel Bui Tin who put forth his opinions which basically echoed those allegedly expressed by Gen Giap.



It's possible that the apparently apocryphal General Giap statement is based upon a misattribution of somewhat similar sentiments expressed by other political or military figures involved in the Vietnam War. For example, in 1995 the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, that included the following exchange:
Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

[Bent]

This aimed at several of you(except me): Please Stop posting BS and lies.


:rolleyes:

[JNickel101]

:rolleyes: This aimed at several of you: Please Stop posting BS and lies.

By the way Rumsfeld (sp?) and Dick Chaney (sp?) were two of the idiots that missmanaged the Vietnam war under Nixon, as well!

LOL...really? Crappy staff positions are war fighter/planner/decision maker positions?

Cheney never really served under Nixon, he served under Ford as White House Chief of Staff, after the war was pretty much over. He served under Rumsfeld in some staff positions, starting in 1969 or 1970.

Rumsfeld never served any positions of importance under Nixon. He was a "counselor" and director of some office of economic opportunity before leaving to become a NATO ambassador. He never became SecDef til late 1975, after the war was definitely over.

How do you claim either had any sort of hand in screwing up Vietnam?

:rolleyes: indeed....

[Darky]

:rolleyes:

LOL...really? Crappy staff positions are war fighter/planner/decision maker positions?

Cheney never really served under Nixon, he served under Ford as White House Chief of Staff, after the war was pretty much over. He served under Rumsfeld in some staff positions, starting in 1969 or 1970.

Rumsfeld never served any positions of importance under Nixon. He was a "counselor" and director of some office of economic opportunity before leaving to become a NATO ambassador. He never became SecDef til late 1975, after the war was definitely over.

How do you claim either had any sort of hand in screwing up Vietnam?

:rolleyes: indeed....
Oh snap!

[scottmcneal]

WOW, Thats going to leave a BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Mark...

[Ecomike]

They really did not cut us off, the domestic oil companies took advantage of the 'shortage', during that shortage I saw dozens of FULL tankers from Mobil, Exxon, Shell sitting anchored 100 miles off the coast from NY to Florida for a week waiting for the price of a barrel to go up $4-5 bucks. Then the tankers would up anchor and pull in to ports to unload. When you are carrying 100's of thousands of barrels that you bought out of the aramco complex for $20, then can 'sell' it to the refinery for $25 thats quite a killing even though you have to pay each crew member an extra $500 for the added week sitting at anchor, that might come to an extra $5,000 bucks for an extra million or two profit. I would not be surprised if that was going on today.
I remember hearing some of that, IIRC the real problem with ships parked offshore filled with oil was not that they were waiting for better oil prices before delivery, but that there were not enough port facilities available to meet PEAK demand or peak ship off loading needs. In fact it was a major port of Houston Issue, getting bond approval back then to expand the port(s) ability to unload and dock more supertankers at the same time. I don't think Houston was the only Port that needed to expand capacity for the supertankers, and more oil was imported by ship as less was produced domestically, thus creating a bottle neck. We also needed more onshore tanks and more refining capacity. Nowdays the price is set and paid way ahead of time via the oil futures market, before it is ever loaded on ship, I think?

But you do bring up an interesting topic, as I recall hearing that ships were sitting out there lined up at the time.

I decided to look up some history on the period:

This Day In History OPEC ENACTS OIL EMBARGO:October 17, 1973 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504102/posts)
historychannel.com ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=leadstory) | Oct. 17, 2005 | history channel.com
Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 03:07:25 PM by mdittmar (http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Emdittmar/)
The Arab-dominated Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announces a decision to cut oil exports to the United States and other nations that provided military aid to Israel in the Yom Kippur War of October 1973. According to OPEC, exports were to be reduced by 5 percent every month until Israel evacuated the territories occupied in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. In December, a full oil embargo was imposed against the United States and several other countries, prompting a serious energy crisis in the United States and other nations dependent on foreign oil.

OPEC was founded in 1960 by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuela with the principle objective of raising the price of oil. Other Arab nations and Third World oil producers joined in the 1960s and early 1970s. For the first decade of its existence, OPEC had little impact on the price of oil, but by the early 1970s an increase in demand and the decline of U.S. oil production gave it more clout.

In October 1973, OPEC ministers were meeting in Vienna when Egypt and Syria (non-OPEC nations) launched a joint attack on Israel. After initial losses in the so-called Yom Kippur War, Israel began beating back the Arab gains with the help of a U.S. airlift of arms and other military assistance from the Netherlands and Denmark. By October 17, the tide had turned decisively against Egypt and Syria, and OPEC decided to use oil price increases as a political weapon against Israel and its allies. Israel, as expected, refused to withdraw from the occupied territories, and the price of oil increased by 70 percent. At OPEC's Tehran conference in December, oil prices were raised another 130 percent, and a total oil embargo was imposed on the United States, the Netherlands, and Denmark. Eventually, the price of oil quadrupled, causing a major energy crisis in the United States and Europe that included price gouging, gas shortages, and rationing.
In March 1974, the embargo against the United States was lifted after U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger succeeded in negotiating a military disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel. Oil prices, however, remained considerably higher than their mid-1973 level. OPEC cut production several more times in the 1970s, and by 1980 the price of crude oil was 10 times what it had been in 1973. By the early 1980s, however, the influence of OPEC on world oil prices began to decline; Western nations were successfully exploiting alternate sources of energy such as coal and nuclear power, and large, new oil fields had been tapped in the United States and other non-OPEC oil-producing nations.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1504102/posts

Here is an interesting history of war & Oil prices!

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC

http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2002/arab.html

"In 1973, the U.S. and the Western world were in the midst of an inflationary spiral. The world had become highly vulnerable to commodity cartels, as twenty years of prosperity and accelerating population growth had created heavy demand for raw materials. In the U.S., consumer prices were rising at an 8.5% clip, while inflation rates in other nations were often much higher. The demand for Middle Eastern oil had been increasing throughout the industrialized world and the needs of these countries grew far faster than production. OPEC was growing stronger and it was determined to increase its share of the profits.

President Nixon, as part of his ill-fated price control program, had slapped controls on oil in March 1973. The U.S., which had been self-sufficient in energy as recently as 1950, was now importing some 35% of its energy needs. U.S. petroleum reserves were nearly gone. Governments, corporations and individuals were entirely unprepared for what would happen next.

On October 6, 1973, the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, Egyptian forces attacked Israel from across the Suez Canal, while at the same time Syrian troops were flooding the Golan Heights in a surprise offensive. After early losses, Israeli counterattacks quickly pushed into Syrian territory in the north, as troops outflanked the Egyptian army in the south. Israel, with help from the U.S., succeeded in reversing the Arab gains and a cease-fire was concluded in November. But on October 17, OPEC struck back against the West by imposing an oil embargo on the U.S., while increasing prices by 70% to America's Western European allies. Overnight, the price of a barrel of oil to these nations rose from $3 to $5.11. [In January 1974, they raised it further to $11.65.] The U.S. and the Netherlands, in particular, were singled out for their support of Israel in the war.

When OPEC announced the sharp price rise, the shock waves were immediate. Industrial democracies, accustomed to uninterrupted sources of cheap, imported oil, were suddenly at the mercy of a modern Arab nationalism, standing up to American oil companies that had once held their countries in a vise grip. Many of these "new" Arabs were Harvard educated and familiar with the ways of the West, and to many Americans it was impossible to understand how their standard of living was now being held hostage to obscure border clashes in strange parts of the world.

The embargo in the U.S. came at a time when 85% of American workers drove to their places of employment each day. Suddenly, President Nixon had to set the nation on a course of voluntary rationing. He called upon homeowners to turn down their thermostats and for companies to trim work hours. Gas stations were asked to hold their sales to a max of ten gallons per customer.

In the month of November 1973, Nixon proposed an extension of Daylight Savings Time and a total ban on the sale of gasoline on Sunday's. [Both were later approved by Congress.] But the biggest legislative initiative was the approval by Congress on November 13 of a Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline, designed to supply 2,000,000 barrels of oil a day. [This was completed in 1977. See any parallels to today's fight over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?]

A severe recession hit much of the Western world, including the U.S., and as gasoline lines snaked their way around city blocks and tempers flared (the price at the pump had risen from 30 cents a gallon to about $1.20 at the height of the crisis), conspiracy theories abounded. The rumor with the widest circulation had the whole crisis as being contrived by the major oil importers who were supposedly secretly raking in the profits. New York Harbor was really full of tankers loaded with oil, in no hurry to dock, according to the Oliver Stone types. Sorry, folks, it was just our own stupidity that allowed us to be so used and abused.

How did Wall Street respond? Well, as you might imagine shares in oil stocks performed well as profits soared, but the rest of the market swooned 15% between 10/17/73 and the end of November. [The Dow Jones fell from 962 to 822.] This ended up being the middle of the great bear market that would see the Dow go from its 1/11/73 high of 1051 to 577 by 12/6/74, a whopping 45% decline over nearly two years.

As for the embargo, the Arabs lifted it against the U.S. on March 18, 1974. The Dow then stood at 874."

I had forgoten that the Iran-Iraq war started in the late 70's, I was thinking it was closer 1982, but turns out the Iran-Iraq war initially pushed oil prices higher adding to the economic colapse of the early 80s, and added to the inflationary run up in the late 70's, but eventually broke the back of the OPEC control of oil production and prices.

[fscrig75]

How do you claim either had any sort of hand in screwing up Vietnam?

Its easy;

1965-1967: 295 Dems, 140 Rep in the House
1967-1969: 249 Dems, 187 Rep
1969-1971: 243 Dems, 192 Rep
1971-1973: 255 Dems, 180 Rep
1973-1975: 242 Dems, 192 Rep

We couldn't possibly blame the Democrats for failures during that war.

[JNickel101]

Oh snap!

Its easy;

1965-1967: 295 Dems, 140 Rep in the House
1967-1969: 249 Dems, 187 Rep
1969-1971: 243 Dems, 192 Rep
1971-1973: 255 Dems, 180 Rep
1973-1975: 242 Dems, 192 Rep

We couldn't possibly blame the Democrats for failures during that war.

...double snap...LOL :rolleyes:

[Ecomike]

Wow, nice to see someone posting links to back up their claims! Nice work!

Really, was it ok when Clinton sent the Army into Bosnia and Kosovo? Those were civil wars.

Good point, but I don't think I said we could not selectively, with UN and NATO backing try to stop a civil war, I just said we could not be the entire worlds police force.

Actually it did authorize him to go to war;
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/)

If I said other wise, I appologize, but I think what I said is the Congress pasted the buck, did not actually declare war as an Act of Congress on Iraq directly, but instead did the politically expedient thing, and gave Bush authorization to declare war, when and if HE decided there was no other choice left. In other words if the decision was wrong, Congress made sure they could lay most of the blame on him and on his decision, partly because many in Congress and in the USA believed that the president had hard facts and not just made up BS, for believing that SH was a serious terrorist threat to the USA, but the admistration would not reveal all the so called facts they claimed to have. I still think the invasion of Iraq was premature, as do a majority of Americans, and I beleive that the evidence supports my position that the invasion was premature, and not necessary at the time.


That is true Saddam killed between 250,000 to 290,000. Some estimates have civilian deaths as high as 600,000, though it is said that most of those are caused by insurgents, terrorists and sectarian violence. Basically they are killing each other off.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-zIkhR7ZgGRS2_Bz9LXSKJsg43vQ_20071010.html



Let me add, that most of those so called insurgents and terrorists were Iraqi citizens in one of 3 (or is 4) sects that have been killing each other for centuries over there. In other words, as bad as things were with SH in power, the people have suffered more since we moved in and took over. What does that say about our decision to invade and planning for the aftermath?


If we leave before they can take of themselves we will be back enventually, except the next time it might be Iran that has control of Iraq.


True, or Iraq might be in control of Iran.


Actually that war started in September 1980, I think Jimmy Carter was at the helm then.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jc39.html

That is correct. I guess the election news at that time trumped that war news, or I forgot the details. I do recall the Iran hostage crisis news seeming to be the only thing on TV at the time.

[Ecomike]

Something that tends to happen in a region torn apart by war. Fighting continues for a long time, until the strongest finally wins. Sick of war with themselves, they usually unite under a common banner, in this case religion.

Think they will sit there content, or will we be fighting a religious war with the whole middle east?

We are more likely to end up in a religeous war with the Middle East if we stay in Iraq! It makes us easy targets. Reagan knew that and had sense enough to get the hell out of there after a brief time when terrorists starting using our troops as targets.

We fought the cold war with the USSR and mainland China for nearly 50 years, with out invading either one, and they both had, and have Nukes. We won the cold war, with both, but we also used carrots at various times that helped end the misstrust that in part caused the cold war with both.

[RichP]

I remember hearing some of that, IIRC the real problem with ships parked offshore filled with oil was not that they were waiting for better oil prices before delivery, but that there were not enough port facilities available to meet PEAK demand or peak ship off loading needs. In fact it was a major port of Houston Issue, getting bond approval back then to expand the port(s) ability to unload and dock more supertankers at the same time. I don't think Houston was the only Port that needed to expand capacity for the supertankers, and more oil was imported by ship as less was produced domestically, thus creating a bottle neck. We also needed more onshore tanks and more refining capacity. Nowdays the price is set and paid way ahead of time via the oil futures market, before it is ever loaded on ship, I think?



Hmm, not to my knowledge, We would take off from Willow Grove Naval Airstation, fly south over Philly then gradually turn east which would bring us over the oil termnials on the lower Delaware or we would turn earlier and go over bayonne and that area in NJ. The port would be empty, then we'd head out towards the 50 fathom curve [about 75+ miles out] and head either north towards Brunswick Maine or south to jacksonville where we would refuel, depended on the patrol we were on. About the time we would turn the pilot, co pilot and radio operator [me] would start counting tankers at anchor and reporting them back to command at the end of the count as we passed different port areas.
Lets be a little creative here, you own a bunch of tankers and you fly a flag of convenience [there are no more US flagged tankers by the way], you sail into an oil port in almost any country with oil wells, you buy it on the spot market for a few bucks a barrel under what the stock exchange says it's trading for and head for the US, in the mean time the price goes up, so far you have not sold the oil you bought, you gamble it will go up again, remember you are carrying a hundred thousand + barrels so a $5 increase is half a million, your tanker has a 15 man crew at say $1,000 per person a day, do you pull into port and sell it or anchor off shore as the price climbs. Me, I'd sit on it, pay the crew and sell it at a nice profit. On the other side the price is dropping so you presell it at an agreed upon price. Remember your ship is registered in Liberia or other flag so your transactions are not under the watchful eye of the IRS or the US govt. They can examine your logs but not your bank book...
My FiL was a master mariner and super tanker captain before he started running Mobils fleet and safety division, he was with them for over 30 years, he was also the head of the Liberian shipping council for a few years. I used to hear all the good stuff :D :D :D

[JNickel101]

Iraq in control of Iran? You have to be joking....

Right now, the Iraqi's barely have an Air Force. We're teaching them to fly all over again...with what compares to basically a prop driven Cessna....they only recently started flying very small cargo planes and maybe some choppers...but the have no air defense, no fighters, no bombers.....no missile defense....

Oh and Iraq has no Navy....

[Ecomike]

Will researching and reading today, in part to find citations in answer to some questions and clanges to my prior comments I ran across the following, which sort of sums up part of my possition or take on some of the topic here:

My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight [in
Iraq] was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results.[1]

—Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, USMC, 2007
Ignorance of war is killing Americans. The lack of will of the American people and their government to develop a comprehensive understanding of war and the limitation of American military power, and some respect for non-Western peoples and cultures, is killing Americans in foreign lands, wasting enormous national resources, alienating traditional and potential allies, creating new enemy states, growing new terrorists, and causing the decline of the United States.
Consider these basic tenets of war. Before starting war nation-states should: 1. Have well defined, legitimate political objectives. 2. Know its enemies, the types of war they are most likely to fight, and their ability to generate combat power. 3. Have sufficient forces to fight the war, and the right types and mix of forces—force structure. 4. Develop a comprehensive strategy. 5. Use tested operational and tactical doctrines adapted to the specific political, economic, cultural, and geographic environment. 6. Secure the support of legitimate allies to share the costs and sacrifices of war. 7. Make the war a national effort, gain and maintain the support of the people. 8. Listen to the advice of professional military leaders, and know the capabilities and limitations of one’s forces. These are common sense tenets and principles of war, yet the Administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney failed in every instance repeating past behaviors. Consider the words of former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara: “We failed to ask the five most basic questions: Was it true that the fall of South Vietnam would trigger the fall of all Southeast Asia? Would that constitute a grave threat to the West’s security? What kind of war—conventional or guerrilla—might develop? Could we win it with
U.S. troops fighting alongside the South Vietnamese? Should we not know the answers to all these questions before deciding whether to commit troops…?” The questions that needed to be asked were known, and the right answers were available. In reference to the Bush-Cheney War in Iraq,



General Newbold wrote:
I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of
Iraq—an unnecessary war…. What we are living with now are the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in more robust ways to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department.[2]

The lessons of the Vietnam War were not forgotten, and there was no lack of knowledge or information. This was voluntary ignorance, willful neglect, caused in part by cultural blindness. This is not a problem unique to this administration. Since World War II, it has become a chronic, American problem. These repeated failures in strategic vision and military thinking requires explanations that go beyond reason, logic, and common sense. There were men in the Pentagon who understood war and endeavored to explain the costs and nature of war in
Iraq. There were professional soldiers and marines in the Pentagon who well understood the resources required for war, and the chain of actions that produce the highest probability of success. To be sure, there were disagreements between the services; however, this does not explain the manifold failures of the Bush-Cheney Administration. Hence, the larger questions are not, what were the lessons of the Vietnam War and what questions needed to be asked, but why did American political leadership continuously ignore its most knowledgeable people, and why didn’t they ignore the information and intelligence available?



http://blogs.informa.com/american-culture-of-war/


Does anyone here want to call this guy a yellow bellied pinko communist? I sure as hell dont!



Still think we should have blindly followed the Presidents lead and never stopped along the way to ask why we are still fighting in a war that we were lead to believe would last no more than days, weeks or at most "five months"?

[scottmcneal]

Hey mike, read my sig... Just for you sir... LOL Just like to get you going

[Trail-Axe]

It's fall (Vietnam) had nothing to do with the protests here, it had to do with President Gerald Ford doing nothing to go back and help when NV violated the peace treaty.

Thanks for the good laugh. The very reason president Ford did nothing was because of the political pressure from a bunch of yellow bellied hippy pot smoking war protesters. It would have been political suicide. He would have been treated the same way president Bush has been treated, he was a coward and people died. We left Vietnam too soon, and many people there were slaughtered as a result. Their blood is on the heads of every single war protester that ever slithered.

A similar thing happened in Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent. Our troops went in harms way without the support of AC130 gunships, and heavy armor on the ground because then president Clinton did not want to draw the attention of the press, and reap the negative attention from his fellow anti-war protesters.

[Trail-Axe]

Hey mike, read my sig... Just for you sir... LOL Just like to get you going

ROFLMAO!!!! X2

[scottmcneal]

Chit chiton again, ( political pressure from a bunch of yellow bellied hippy pot smoking war protesters )



Sorry for the type-o :moon:

[scottmcneal]

ROFLMAO!!!! X2



I'll let mike see this an change it later... Maybe not, it is funny:peace:

[fscrig75]

Still think we should have blindly followed the Presidents lead and never stopped along the way to ask why we are still fighting in a war that we were lead to believe would last no more than days, weeks or at most "five months"?


Yes it was the Presidents who took us into this war, but Congress approved his actions. Everyone can run around blaming Bush all they want but the simple basic fact is still the same. Congress gave him the approval to do that, Republicans and Democrats alike. In fact the margin to approve these actions won by a larger margin than the votes to authorized Desert Shield/Storm.

OIF Senate: 77-23
OIF House: 296-133

Desert Shield/Storm Senate: 52-47
Desert Shield/Storm House: 250-183

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


As far as what Gen Newbold wrote, he is completely entitled to his opinion. Some of the 8 things he listed before starting a war, didn't happen,some did happen. I would like to point out that Gen Newbold retired in OCT 2002, we did not invade until MAR 2003. While I am sure the General was privy to the war plans and intel prior to his retirement, but after his retirement he was no longer in the loop, so to say.

[Ecomike]

Iraq in control of Iran? You have to be joking....

Right now, the Iraqi's barely have an Air Force. We're teaching them to fly all over again...with what compares to basically a prop driven Cessna....they only recently started flying very small cargo planes and maybe some choppers...but the have no air defense, no fighters, no bombers.....no missile defense....

Oh and Iraq has no Navy....

Not sure what Iraq would need a navy for, but you have a point on the defense issues.

But I just an interesting thought. What if we pulled out of Iraq, freeing up our troops to handle Afganistan, then let Iran deal with the problems in Iraq. Even if Iran took over Iraq, or Syria and Iran, it would keep them busy trying to deal with the civil war, sectarian violence, for quite some time. You know, the saying, something about idle hands......Then Iran would be too busy cleaning our mess in Iraq to start any new trouble for a while.:D

[Ecomike]

Hmm, not to my knowledge, We would take off from Willow Grove Naval Airstation, fly south over Philly then gradually turn east which would bring us over the oil termnials on the lower Delaware or we would turn earlier and go over bayonne and that area in NJ. The port would be empty, then we'd head out towards the 50 fathom curve [about 75+ miles out] and head either north towards Brunswick Maine or south to jacksonville where we would refuel, depended on the patrol we were on. About the time we would turn the pilot, co pilot and radio operator [me] would start counting tankers at anchor and reporting them back to command at the end of the count as we passed different port areas.
Lets be a little creative here, you own a bunch of tankers and you fly a flag of convenience [there are no more US flagged tankers by the way], you sail into an oil port in almost any country with oil wells, you buy it on the spot market for a few bucks a barrel under what the stock exchange says it's trading for and head for the US, in the mean time the price goes up, so far you have not sold the oil you bought, you gamble it will go up again, remember you are carrying a hundred thousand + barrels so a $5 increase is half a million, your tanker has a 15 man crew at say $1,000 per person a day, do you pull into port and sell it or anchor off shore as the price climbs. Me, I'd sit on it, pay the crew and sell it at a nice profit. On the other side the price is dropping so you presell it at an agreed upon price. Remember your ship is registered in Liberia or other flag so your transactions are not under the watchful eye of the IRS or the US govt. They can examine your logs but not your bank book...
My FiL was a master mariner and super tanker captain before he started running Mobils fleet and safety division, he was with them for over 30 years, he was also the head of the Liberian shipping council for a few years. I used to hear all the good stuff :D :D :D

Was that in 73 or 79? If it was in 73 the parked tankers could have been part of the OPEC oil embargo, yes? OPEC flaged ships, dangling oil offshore at us as a way to make their point :twak: to us? But it sounds like you are saying Exxon-Mobil took advantage of the OPEC oil embargo to cut supply further and boost prices.

Were any of those supertankers back then? Where they anchored offshore and pumping the oil to the shore via a pipeline? I don't know or recall enough about the supertankers historical timelines, but I recall plans early on to set up the supertankers to anchore way offshore and have them pump the oil to shore.
Anyway, intersting postes, story and hands on history there, just digging for the rest of the story, the good stuff as you put it! :D

[Ecomike]

Its easy;

1965-1967: 295 Dems, 140 Rep in the House
1967-1969: 249 Dems, 187 Rep
1969-1971: 243 Dems, 192 Rep
1971-1973: 255 Dems, 180 Rep
1973-1975: 242 Dems, 192 Rep

We couldn't possibly blame the Democrats for failures during that war.

Back then the US Senate and US Congress had little power or authority over the war. The President and US Military advisers are the ones I blame. I have no problem blaming JFK and especially LBJ for getting us over involved in and over committed in the Vietnam war. After the VNW ended Congress pasted the War Powers Act to try and stop another Vietnam from happing again, but 9/11 and the the Bush neo conservatives used 9/11 to put Congress in an untenable position that forced them to vote the authority back over to the President, or risk looking unpatriotic. Obama was one of the few with enough balls to vote his conscious and buck the trend, rather than take the easy politically expediant route. I was also opposed to the invasion from day one.

In fact back then in the early days of the Vietnam war everyone was too patriotic and too wrapped up in flag waving and the cold war ideology, remnants of the McCarthy Era when we were lead to believe there was a pinko commi spy hiding underneath every chair, to even consider asking the questions that should have been asked back in 1960 or even earlier under Eisenhower. China was not about to let the west control a critical food supply in SEA that they needed, and had we ever invaded NV the Chinese army would have moved into NV, which could have led to WWIII, so we were left fighting a defensive civil war, someone elses civil war, with our hands tied behind our backs.

[JNickel101]

Not sure what Iraq would need a navy for, but you have a point on the defense issues.

But I just an interesting thought. What if we pulled out of Iraq, freeing up our troops to handle Afganistan, then let Iran deal with the problems in Iraq. Even if Iran took over Iraq, or Syria and Iran, it would keep them busy trying to deal with the civil war, sectarian violence, for quite some time. You know, the saying, something about idle hands......Then Iran would be too busy cleaning our mess in Iraq to start any new trouble for a while.:D

Navy, because Iran has lots of boats....and if we'd pull ours out of the Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf as the towel-heads insist on calling it), they'd create havoc on everyone else's oil platforms, ships and the like....

But...

I'd be worried that Iran has an itchy trigger finger with its surface launched missiles....

I'd also be pissed that Iran would probably hit Iraq's newly US-built oil infrastructure....taking about 2.9 million barrels of oil off of the market....

overnight, oil would be up over $200/barrel...and it would be 50 years before we could repair the damage done by Iran's atomic weapons....

[fscrig75]

But I just an interesting thought. What if we pulled out of Iraq, freeing up our troops to handle Afganistan, then let Iran deal with the problems in Iraq. Even if Iran took over Iraq, or Syria and Iran, it would keep them busy trying to deal with the civil war, sectarian violence, for quite some time. You know, the saying, something about idle hands......Then Iran would be too busy cleaning our mess in Iraq to start any new trouble for a while.:D

But thats exactly what we don't want. Iran is 90% Shia muslims, Iraq is 60-65% Shia, this is the same people that Saddam slaughtered for years. They all follow the same religious leader, who is living in Iran. So now Iran has Iraq, they are one big happy Shia family, about 97 million people. Just remember they are Persians and there biggest gripe with the world today is that they are not important enough.
Lets take this to the next step; Iran/Iraq want Kuwait, Kuwait is 70% Sunni and 30% Shia. Shia and Sunni just don't get along some big split in who is supposed to be the religious leader, blah blah blah, regardless they don't like each other. So now Iran/Iraq rolled into Kuwait and has that country. Now they are up to about 100 million people.
Oh the "world" would never let that happen. Well when was the last time France/Russia/China every said a bad thing about Iran? Even if France comes over to oru side, Russia never will! That would put troops right on their border!
But why should Iran/Iraq/Kuwait stop there, Saudi Arabia has next to no military and again their Shia brother are the minority. Remember religion drives everything about these people.

But more important is the fact that Iran now controls all that oil in that region. Thats about 619 BILLION barrels of oil, around 48% of the worlds oil supply.

So everyone can say what ever they want about thats why we need to break our dependency, which I agree with, but we still need oil. We are not going to break our dependency in the amount of time it would take Iran to conquere the middle east, again.
Then we will be in an even bigger war, because 1) We need oil. 2) We will go over there to protect Israel.

Ok yea I reached on some of that, ha ha. But it is something that world leaders are worried about. I got all my info off of WIKI, search Demographics of all the countries mentioned, and then world oil supply.

Have fun beating me up.:cheers:

[JNickel101]

Obama was one of the few with enough balls to vote his conscious and buck the trend, rather than take the easy politically expediant route. I was also opposed to the invasion from day one.


There you go again...:bs:

Obama didn't take a seat in the Senate until January 2005...so whatever "vote" you (or he seems to, for that matter) think he had in our initial "invasion" of Iraq, he never had.

I'll say it again....

Obama Had No Vote In Our Decision To Go Into Iraq

[JNickel101]

But thats exactly what we don't want. Iran is 90% Shia muslims, Iraq is 60-65% Shia, this is the same people that Saddam slaughtered for years. They all follow the same religious leader, who is living in Iran. So now Iran has Iraq, they are one big happy Shia family, about 97 million people. Just remember they are Persians and there biggest gripe with the world today is that they are not important enough.
Lets take this to the next step; Iran/Iraq want Kuwait, Kuwait is 70% Sunni and 30% Shia. Shia and Sunni just don't get along some big split in who is supposed to be the religious leader, blah blah blah, regardless they don't like each other. So now Iran/Iraq rolled into Kuwait and has that country. Now they are up to about 100 million people.
Oh the "world" would never let that happen. Well when was the last time France/Russia/China every said a bad thing about Iran? Even if France comes over to oru side, Russia never will! That would put troops right on their border!
But why should Iran/Iraq/Kuwait stop there, Saudi Arabia has next to no military and again their Shia brother are the minority. Remember religion drives everything about these people.

But more important is the fact that Iran now controls all that oil in that region. Thats about 619 BILLION barrels of oil, around 48% of the worlds oil supply.

So everyone can say what ever they want about thats why we need to break our dependency, which I agree with, but we still need oil. We are not going to break our dependency in the amount of time it would take Iran to conquere the middle east, again.
Then we will be in an even bigger war, because 1) We need oil. 2) We will go over there to protect Israel.

Ok yea I reached on some of that, ha ha. But it is something that world leaders are worried about. I got all my info off of WIKI, search Demographics of all the countries mentioned, and then world oil supply.

Have fun beating me up.:cheers:

Good post :cheers:

[fscrig75]

........ but 9/11 and the the Bush neo conservatives used 9/11 to put Congress in an untenable position that forced them to vote the authority back over to the President, or risk looking unpatriotic. Obama was one of the few with enough balls to vote his conscious and buck the trend, rather than take the easy politically expediant route. I was also opposed to the invasion from day one.

I'm glad Obama had the balls to vote what he thought was right. My whole point here is that a lot of Democrats didn't. Whether they voted because they thought the war was right, they were scared of back lash, whatever, they DID vote to authorize President Bush to use the military. Everyone needs to stop blaming one man, and start holding everyone that voted YES accountable. Republician & Democrats alike!

Didn't the military have to submit requests, to congress, of what targets they wanted to bomb in Vietnam? I might be wrong just what I seem to remember.

[Ecomike]

Thanks for the good laugh. The very reason president Ford did nothing was because of the political pressure from a bunch of yellow bellied hippy pot smoking war protesters. It would have been political suicide. He would have been treated the same way president Bush has been treated, he was a coward and people died. We left Vietnam too soon, and many people there were slaughtered as a result. Their blood is on the heads of every single war protester that ever slithered.

A similar thing happened in Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent. Our troops went in harms way without the support of AC130 gunships, and heavy armor on the ground because then president Clinton did not want to draw the attention of the press, and reap the negative attention from his fellow anti-war protesters.

So the moral of this story is don't start a war we can not win. Don't start a war that will drag out forever and loose American citizen support along the way, resulting in loosing the war. Don't start a war that will kill far more people than not starting the war will kill. But you can start a war that in the long run saves lives, without taken more lives than it saves in the process, and that does not bankrupt the USA or start a civil war in the USA in the process, and so on.

By the way some of those pot smoking yellow bellied pinko commi skum bags as you all like call them did die for what they believed in. They stood up to the National Guard at Ohio State and got shot for protesting the draft and the war, so I don't know just how yellow belied that really makes them. Takes balls to stand up against your own governments guns for what you believe in. Makes them maryters in my book. It was also the turning point when the rest of America finally woke up and realized somethng was terribly wrong here.

[fscrig75]

I'm all for people being allowed to protest. Its one of the reason I joined the military, so every can still have their rights as free Americans.

But my question to everyone who says the war is illegal, does that make us criminals? Yes you will say we are just following orders, but so were the Nazis. We are trained not to follow illegal orders.
Probably opening a whole new can of worms but oh well I'm bored. ha ha

[JNickel101]

So the moral of this story is don't start a war we can not win. Don't start a war that will drag out forever and loose American citizen support along the way, resulting in loosing the war. Don't start a war that will kill far more people than not starting the war will kill. But you can start a war that in the long run saves lives, without taken more lives than it saves in the process, and that does not bankrupt the USA or start a civil war in the USA in the process, and so on.

By the way some of those pot smoking yellow bellied pinko commi skum bags as you all like call them did die for what they believed in. They stood up to the National Guard at Ohio State and got shot for protesting the draft and the war, so I don't know just how yellow belied that really makes them. Takes balls to stand up against your own governments guns for what you believe in. Makes them maryters in my book. It was also the turning point when the rest of America finally woke up and realized somethng was terribly wrong here.

I think a lot of us would love to go in and fight a war, like WWII, where we could just annihilate everything. Unfortunately, today, we have to fight the PC war. No "innocent lives" lost (regardless of the fact that the enemy we are fighting doesn't play by this rule) and no weapons of mass destruction.

I guarantee if we'd drop one nuke up in the "tribal region" of Pakistan and Afghanistan, it would scare the living shit out of everyone - including Iran - but everyone knows that we'll never be the first to use a nuke in conflict - hell, I'm not even sure we'd have the balls to retaliate with a nuke if one was used against us.

Welcome to the Age of Politically Correct Warfighting.

And as for the guys in Ohio...not sure I'd call them martyrs (or however you spell it). I'd call them something else.....

[8Mud]

I'm glad Obama had the balls to vote what he thought was right. My whole point here is that a lot of Democrats didn't. Whether they voted because they thought the war was right, they were scared of back lash, whatever, they DID vote to authorize President Bush to use the military. Everyone needs to stop blaming one man, and start holding everyone that voted YES accountable. Republician & Democrats alike!

Didn't the military have to submit requests, to congress, of what targets they wanted to bomb in Vietnam? I might be wrong just what I seem to remember.

Henry Kissinger was the brains behind that fiasco. The White House micro managed the war, he was the brains and conductor of that train wreck.
Detente was also his brainchild, French term meaning to relax, in Russian it means discharge (gonorrhea).

[tbburg]

So the moral of this story is don't start a war we can not win. Don't start a war that will drag out forever and loose American citizen support along the way, resulting in loosing the war. .....Where to start? Any war we fight will almost immediately loose support. Any war we fight by modern civilized standards will drag out forever.
Don't start a war that will kill far more people than not starting the war will kill. But you can start a war that in the long run saves lives, without taken more lives than it saves in the process, .....About the only way to fight a war like this would be to fight a conventional war to avoid a nuclear war.
By the way some of those pot smoking yellow bellied pinko commi skum bags as you all like call them did die for what they believed in. They stood up to the National Guard at Ohio State and got shot for protesting the draft and the war, so I don't know just how yellow belied that really makes them.....The "National Guard" at Kent state consisted of the ROCT cadets. They were mustered to prevent the protesters from occupying and burning the ROTC building on the Kent state campus. So those noble, brave "pot smoking yellow bellied pinko commi skum bags" were standing up to the Jack Booted Thugs who were bent on,...

Allowing any form of protest that did not involve violence or the destruction of state property.

One of the reasons the protesters were as provocative as they were at Kent was because they knew they weren't facing "real troops" or police.

[Darky]

So the moral of this story is don't start a war we can not win. Don't start a war that will drag out forever and loose American citizen support along the way, resulting in loosing the war. Don't start a war that will kill far more people than not starting the war will kill. But you can start a war that in the long run saves lives, without taken more lives than it saves in the process, and that does not bankrupt the USA or start a civil war in the USA in the process, and so on.

By the way some of those pot smoking yellow bellied pinko commi skum bags as you all like call them did die for what they believed in. They stood up to the National Guard at Ohio State and got shot for protesting the draft and the war, so I don't know just how yellow belied that really makes them. Takes balls to stand up against your own governments guns for what you believe in. Makes them maryters in my book. It was also the turning point when the rest of America finally woke up and realized somethng was terribly wrong here.
Weren't they throwing rocks at the National Guardsmen? Not exactly "innocent" protesters. Protesting is one thing, assaulting a federal agent is another.

[tbburg]

..., assaulting a federal agent is another.Sorry, but how about "assaulting ANYONE is another" Intentionally injuring or killing anyone during a peaceful protest is kind of,... I don't know, against the grain? Doesn't matter who they work for.

[Ecomike]

There you go again...:bs:

Obama didn't take a seat in the Senate until January 2005...so whatever "vote" you (or he seems to, for that matter) think he had in our initial "invasion" of Iraq, he never had.

I'll say it again....

Obama Had No Vote In Our Decision To Go Into Iraq

OK, you win that round, Obama was an Illinois State Senator in 2002, not a US senator at the time, so he did not have a vote in the US Congress, but he did make a public speech where he came out in opposition to the Iraq War "at least as early as October 2, 2002, when he gave a speech against the war at an anti-war rally in Chicago. He gave the speech nine days before the the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joint_Resolution_to_authorize_the_ use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_against_Iraq) (H.J.114), commonly known as the AUMF, which was passed October 11, 2002"

Here is a link to the text of his original speech. Whether you are Dem, Rep or independent, this speech is worth reading.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[JNickel101]

LOL....I just like busting the myth on that....

Obama has run his mouth before about how he "has been against the war from the beginning" and "never voted to send troops into Iraq"....

Which is true....

However, he also never voted AGAINST sending troops to Iraq....because he didn't HAVE a vote in the decision! :roflmao:

politicians make me laugh...

[tbburg]

politicians make me :puke: ...
Fixed it for ya.

[Ecomike]

Thanks for the good laugh. The very reason president Ford did nothing was because of the political pressure from a bunch of yellow bellied hippy pot smoking war protesters. It would have been political suicide. He would have been treated the same way president Bush has been treated, he was a coward and people died. We left Vietnam too soon, and many people there were slaughtered as a result. Their blood is on the heads of every single war protester that ever slithered.

A similar thing happened in Somalia during Operation Gothic Serpent. Our troops went in harms way without the support of AC130 gunships, and heavy armor on the ground because then president Clinton did not want to draw the attention of the press, and reap the negative attention from his fellow anti-war protesters.

For the sake of argument, let's suppose we continued the VN war, that Ford sent us back in, and that we went back in force to stop the NVs. How many North & South Vietnamise and Americans would have died if we had continued fighting the war, how many died (slaughtered) after we left versus the number that died while we fought an unwinable war. Yes, I know you think the war was winable, so humor me on that point, and do the body count math.

[Ecomike]

Navy, because Iran has lots of boats....and if we'd pull ours out of the Persian Gulf (or Arabian Gulf as the towel-heads insist on calling it), they'd create havoc on everyone else's oil platforms, ships and the like....

But...

I'd be worried that Iran has an itchy trigger finger with its surface launched missiles....

I'd also be pissed that Iran would probably hit Iraq's newly US-built oil infrastructure....taking about 2.9 million barrels of oil off of the market....

overnight, oil would be up over $200/barrel...and it would be 50 years before we could repair the damage done by Iran's atomic weapons....

I am pretty sure the Middle East will be glowing in the dark before we pulled our Navy out of the Persian Gulf, no matter who won the next election. So I don't see the Iraq lack of a Navy as an issue. The rest of what you said is the real reason we are in Iraq, OIL! Always has been!

[fscrig75]

...... The rest of what you said is the real reason we are in Iraq, OIL! Always has been!

Yep your right, get used to it. You need oil just as much as everyone else. Just think what its going to be like when the supplies really start to run out. Lets see what Russia, China, India start to do then. All that wonderful oil just off our coasts, is that still territorial water? All that oil in Alaska, that Russia is still pissed about selling it to us so cheap.

[fscrig75]

Detente was also his brainchild, French term meaning to relax, in Russian it means discharge (gonorrhea).

Honestly I don't really know many of the ins and outs of Nam. But doing a little reading on Detente, seems like it worked fairly well. Some good treatys came out of, SALT I & II, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Outer Space, Biological Weapons Convention and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Shit the guy even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Those are pretty important aren't they? Big Al and Jimmy both have one.

[Ecomike]

I am not saying that Iran is not a danger in the Middle East, especially a Nuke armed Iran, but let's do a reality check. How many wars has Iran started since the end of WWII, and how many wars other than the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1979 (or was it 80?) has Iran been involved in fighting.

Now, compare that to how many wars have we fought in someone elses back yard since WWII, and how many governments out CIA has helped to topled to push our agenda in the world.

How would we be reacting if we had no nukes, and Iran did, and Iran was occupying Mexico, with a huge Iranian naval fleet parked at our front door? No doubt that would bring out the religeous fanatics here too!

I think Obama is just what we need right now, to bring the international community back together to solve these problems diplomatically. I have no doubt if that fails, meaning real diplomatic efforts by Obama failed, not the BS Bush used and later called diplomacy, that Obama would turn out to be a fierce hawk leading a united USA to fight a truely necessary war, with the rest of the world supporting us this time.

It's a shame Bush Jr. did not have the brains and political know how his father had when it came to foreign affairs.

[tbburg]

Shit the guy even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Those are pretty important aren't they? Big Al and Jimmy both have one.So did Yasser Arafat.

[Ecomike]

LOL....I just like busting the myth on that....

Obama has run his mouth before about how he "has been against the war from the beginning" and "never voted to send troops into Iraq"....

Which is true....

However, he also never voted AGAINST sending troops to Iraq....because he didn't HAVE a vote in the decision! :roflmao:

politicians make me laugh...

:roflmao:

They do have a marvelous way with words, "Like Read My Lips! No new taxes!!!! :roflmao:I am quoting President Bush Sr. I forget the details, but I think he just raised old taxes, thus keeping to his word, LOL. :roflmao:

I remember many times listening to Polis respond (note I did not say answer) to a Journalists questions with a 10,000 word rant that says nothing, commits to nothing, waves the american flag talks about moms apple pie, patriotism, and so on but never came close to answering the question. And then of course the Journalist would rephrase the question and it would start all over again.

I think Obama is one of the few polititians in a long tiome that has bucked that trend since Ronald Reagan. When opens his mouth he actuall says something.

[Darky]

I think Obama is one of the few polititians in a long tiome that has bucked that trend since Ronald Reagan. When opens his mouth he actuall says something.
Yeah like, "Change, Unity, Happy, Love". Nice principles, not sure how great that'd all work out in real life.

[tbburg]

:I think Obama is one of the few politicians in a long time that has bucked that trend.... When opens his mouth he actually says something.O,.....

K,......

What is it he actually says?

[tbburg]

Yeah like, "Change, Unity, Happy, Love". Darky, I think your and my posts got reversed there:confused1

[fscrig75]

I am not saying that Iran is not a danger in the Middle East, especially a Nuke armed Iran, but let's do a reality check. How many wars has Iran started since the end of WWII, and how many wars other than the Iraq invasion of Iran in 1979 (or was it 80?) has Iran been involved in fighting.

Well I guess the answer is zero. So its ok if the UN wants us to do something? Well that would be why we went into Korea. I guess you can't blame that on us, it was the UN asking. What about when Saddam went into Kuwait? I guess we could've let him keep it, then he could just roll through Saudi and taken all their oil too.


I think Obama is just what we need right now, to bring the international community back together to solve these problems diplomatically. I have no doubt if that fails, meaning real diplomatic efforts by Obama failed, not the BS Bush used and later called diplomacy, that Obama would turn out to be a fierce hawk leading a united USA to fight a truely necessary war, with the rest of the world supporting us this time.

For some reason I just can't see Obama being a "Fierce Hawk". What I can see is him not doing a damn thing because the UN Security Counsil didn't give him permission. The world didn't want us going into Iraq mainly because they didn't want their dirty little secret about the oil scam most of the world had going on with Iraq. France, China, Russia, Germany, hmmmm those seem like the biggest name that were against us going in there in the first place.
As for Bush's BS diplomacy I do believe we've had some of the first face to face talks with Iran since the early 70s.
How about Carter's diplomacy that left our Marines in the hands of the Iranians till Ronny Raygun got them out.
Or how about Clinton lack of balls to stand up to the North Koreans allowed them to get the Nuke, that Bush has begun to get rid of. Or how Bill screwed up with allowing our troops to be under foreign command in Somalia(UN), which is the reason the Rangers couldn't get the support they needed. And then our troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, oh but wait thats ok since the EU and the UN said it was ok to go in there. Why did Bill wait till hundredes of thousands people died their before we rolled in?

[fscrig75]

I think Obama is one of the few polititians in a long tiome that has bucked that trend since Ronald Reagan. When opens his mouth he actuall says something.

What is he saying? Inflate my tires.(sorry I had to take a shot):roflmao:

But seriously he isn't saying anything new. He swore up and down that he was going to take our troops our in a 16 month phased with drawl. Now its when the commanders on the ground think it can be done.

He was solidly against drilling. Now he is softening his stance and changing his mind.

And before you start McCain is just as guilty. He was against drilling, now he's for it.

We are all just voting for the lesser of two evils. Neither is better than the other.

[JNickel101]

I am pretty sure the Middle East will be glowing in the dark before we pulled our Navy out of the Persian Gulf, no matter who won the next election. So I don't see the Iraq lack of a Navy as an issue. The rest of what you said is the real reason we are in Iraq, OIL! Always has been!

Well hell, if we were allowed to drill our own, we wouldn't have a reason to be there :D

[8Mud]

Honestly I don't really know many of the ins and outs of Nam. But doing a little reading on Detente, seems like it worked fairly well. Some good treatys came out of, SALT I & II, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Outer Space, Biological Weapons Convention and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Shit the guy even won a Nobel Peace Prize. Those are pretty important aren't they? Big Al and Jimmy both have one.
Regan (and advisors) finally outspent the Russians and all but ruined there economy, that was the end of it for while. Though Russia is back on it's feet now and flexing it's muscle.
If Detente had continued and Russia had the breathing room to regroup, no telling what would have happened. Likely they would have rearmed and reconstituted in half the time.
You're right though, there is still an argument going on, whether he helped or hurt. Regan sure enough saw an opportunity to make detente work for him and seems to have helped the old USSR to implode. It may have been the plan all along or just opportunity knocking.
Funny that Russia invaded Georgia a day after the ceremony closing the base near my house. The draw down in Germany is almost complete.

[Ecomike]

O,.....

K,......

What is it he actually says?

I am so glad you asked. :wave1: After reading this three times, I really wanted a good excuse to post it! This is the speech Delivered on Wednesday, October 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002) by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), Illinois State Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate), at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War) (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kluczynski_Federal_Building) in Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois);

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[8Mud]

For the sake of argument, let's suppose we continued the VN war, that Ford sent us back in, and that we went back in force to stop the NVs. How many North & South Vietnamise and Americans would have died if we had continued fighting the war, how many died (slaughtered) after we left versus the number that died while we fought an unwinable war. Yes, I know you think the war was winable, so humor me on that point, and do the body count math.
The estimate is more people died (as a result of) after our pulling out in 18 months than died in the previous ten years, due to the war (I've heard between 3 1/2 and 6 million). The dieing spread well beyond Vietnam's borders, all sorts of atrocities were perpetrated when the Sheriff was gone. The purges started as the war was winding down and continued for years.

[JNickel101]

I wonder why the guy who wrote that speech isn't running....instead of the guy who got the A+ in performing speeches.

I still think its funny Obama won't do a town hall metting with McCain....he's lost without his teleprompter/podium :roflmao:

[tbburg]

I am so glad you asked. :wave1: After reading this three times, I really wanted a good excuse to post it! This is the speech Delivered on Wednesday, October 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2), 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002) by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), Illinois State Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate), at the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War) (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kluczynski_Federal_Building) in Chicago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago), Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois);


...... I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him......


.....Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, .....
First pass through and these 2 beauties just popped right out at me. I wonder what he had in mind,...

[Tom R.]

He swore up and down that he was going to take our troops out in a 16 month phased withdrawel.
Yep, and he said he would gather the JCS to discuss the plan to do it. Shows how little he knows about military structure and who actually conducts military operations. To my knowledge, only one commentator picked up on this and pointed out Obama's serious blunder.

If you support socialism, then vote for Obama.

[scottmcneal]

So mike, how are you doing today? Just wanted to say hi... :wave:

[JNickel101]

lol....and flaunt your sig block :D

:cheers: i love it....

[RichP]

Was that in 73 or 79? If it was in 73 the parked tankers could have been part of the OPEC oil embargo, yes? OPEC flaged ships, dangling oil offshore at us as a way to make their point :twak: to us? But it sounds like you are saying Exxon-Mobil took advantage of the OPEC oil embargo to cut supply further and boost prices.

Were any of those supertankers back then? Where they anchored offshore and pumping the oil to the shore via a pipeline? I don't know or recall enough about the supertankers historical timelines, but I recall plans early on to set up the supertankers to anchore way offshore and have them pump the oil to shore.
Anyway, intersting postes, story and hands on history there, just digging for the rest of the story, the good stuff as you put it! :D

Super tankers could not get up to the terminals on the delaware till around 84 or thereabouts, not positive of year, my FiL brought the first one up though, the whole family went down to watch and I remember the pilot saying he was sweating bullets the last few miles. No, they were not pumping from underwater lines either. You have to remember too that during that 1st 'shortage' we were still pumping 80% of our own oil domestically. If you research a bit more you will find out that none of the refineries shut down during this period except the normal ones for their yearly maintenance.

[RichP]

Yep your right, get used to it. You need oil just as much as everyone else. Just think what its going to be like when the supplies really start to run out. Lets see what Russia, China, India start to do then. All that wonderful oil just off our coasts, is that still territorial water? All that oil in Alaska, that Russia is still pissed about selling it to us so cheap.
I remember a book I read around 65 or so called 'Under Pressure', it was by Frank Herbert or Asimov, not sure, but that was the world situation in that book. It was an interesting submarine book by the way...

[Tom R.]

If you research a bit more...
There's a novel idea!

I think Mike writes history books for our public school system. Revisionist historian. :D

Now to be fair, he did get a few things right. ;)

[RichP]

There's a novel idea!

I think Mike writes history books for our public school system. Revisionist historian. :D

Now to be fair, he did get a few things right. ;)
No, he's pretty fair, it's tough to say things sometimes as the history revisionists have already started rewriting the history books. The 73 oil thing was fake as all get out, mainly by the oil companies both government and corporation oil companies, the press and media sucked it right down, the media not only plays on fears they also get played, how much you want to bet the Russian invasion causes oil prices to jump on monday :D and EU won't do anything for fear they will get their LPG cut off from the Russians. Revised history only works after all the people who were there and saw it are dead but then history revisionists plan for the long term.
I have to laugh at the number of documents that are still classified from the civil war and WWI, they must have some interesting stuff in them to keep them classified for 200 years.

[Ecomike]

Regan (and advisors) finally outspent the Russians and all but ruined there economy, that was the end of it for while. Though Russia is back on it's feet now and flexing it's muscle.
If Detente had continued and Russia had the breathing room to regroup, no telling what would have happened. Likely they would have rearmed and reconstituted in half the time.
You're right though, there is still an argument going on, whether he helped or hurt. Regan sure enough saw an opportunity to make detente work for him and seems to have helped the old USSR to implode. It may have been the plan all along or just opportunity knocking.

Actually there was another factor involved in the colapse of the USSR. In that factor the USSR out spent us about 100:1 which actualy bankrupted them. In the mean time we funded Star Wars with what we saved and put them at a huge disadvantage. I am speaking of how the Carter & Reagan administration's CIA quitely and off budget destablized Afghanistan, tricked the Russians into moving troops into Afganistan, shipped Russian weapons previously captured from Egypt by Israel during a prior war, shipped from Israel to Pakistan, then from Pakistan to the Afgan mojahedin rebels fighting the Russians in Pakistan. The Saudie's helped finace it, and our CIA trained Bin Lauden who went to Afghanistan to train the Afghans for our CIA. We had no US weapons or troops there, just Arab and Israeli cooperation to help and arm the Afghan rebels with what they needed to bleed the Russian military into a Vietnam style defeat.

The afghans rebels shot down and wasted the Russian tanks and chopers with missles we supplied under the table, and the Russians lost tanks and chopers that cost roughly 100 times what the missles cost us.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-war-in-afghanistan

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

[8Mud]

Actually there was another factor involved in the colapse of the USSR. In that factor the USSR out spent us about 100:1 which actualy bankrupted them. In the mean time we funded Star Wars with what we saved and put them at a huge disadvantage. I am speaking of how the Carter & Reagan administration's CIA quitely and off budget destablized Afghanistan, tricked the Russians into moving troops into Afganistan, shipped Russian weapons previously captured from Egypt by Israel during a prior war, shipped from Israel to Pakistan, then from Pakistan to the Afgan mojahedin rebels fighting the Russians in Pakistan. The Saudie's helped finace it, and our CIA trained Bin Lauden who went to Afghanistan to train the Afghans for our CIA. We had no US weapons or troops there, just Arab and Israeli cooperation to help and arm the Afghan rebels with what they needed to bleed the Russian military into a Vietnam style defeat.

The afghans rebels shot down and wasted the Russian tanks and chopers with missles we supplied under the table, and the Russians lost tanks and chopers that cost roughly 100 times what the missles cost us.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-war-in-afghanistan

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

No argument here, pretty much how I remember it. It seems we spent more wisely than they did, with a little BS (exaggeration) about the effectiveness of the (proposed) missile defense shield thrown in.

I don't know about the part of us sucking the Russians into Afghanistan. Something that didn't get a lot of press in the west was that Iran was exporting Islamic fundamentalism right up the guts of the old USSR. They invaded as a pro active method to stem the tide, threaten Iran and possibly gain some year round ports in that part of the world. Pretty much the same reasons we are there now.
One thing that was never reported is that there was a German presence in the north west of Afghanistan before during and after the Russian invasion. Real politic in action. The Germans have some sort of mining venture in that area. Have had for a very long time. I've never been able to find out exactly what they are mining. But what isn't reported or general knowledge is often more telling than what is reported. Sometimes what isn't said, is more important than what is said. When people say look here and here and here, I have a tendency to look there and there and there.

[Ecomike]

For those of you who like movies, entertainment mixed with some history, Hollywood recently made a humorous fairly historical account of the this called "Charlie Wilsons War" starring Tom Hank and Julia Roberts, it is funny, cynical and sad at the same time. Quite a stirring movie in many ways.

"Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (http://www.answers.com/topic/inter-services-intelligence) (ISI) and Special Service Group (http://www.answers.com/topic/special-service-group) (SSG) were actively involved in the conflict, and in cooperation with the CIA and the United States Army Special Forces (http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-army-special-forces), as well as the British Special Air Service (http://www.answers.com/topic/special-air-service-1), supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets. After Ronald Reagan (http://www.answers.com/topic/ronald-reagan) became the new United States President in 1981 (http://www.answers.com/topic/1981), aid for the Mujahideen through Zia's Pakistan significantly increased, mostly due to the efforts of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-wilson) and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos (http://www.answers.com/topic/gust-avrakotos). In retaliation, the KHAD (http://www.answers.com/topic/khad), under Afghan leader Mohammad Najibullah (http://www.answers.com/topic/mohammad-najibullah), carried out (according to the Mitrokhin (http://www.answers.com/topic/vasili-mitrokhin) archives and other sources) a large number of operations against Pakistan, where a rapid and unprecedented influx of weaponry, drugs and refugees from Afghanistan caused a near total collapse of civil society. Even today, the effects of this war are widely felt in Pakistan."

It also tells the story of how we screwed up Afghanistan by not spending any money to help clean up the remaining economic and social mess and Vacuum left behind when the Soviets left Afghanistan. A mistake we repeated under Bush Jr. when we moved into Iraq and failed to keep our promises of aid to Afghanistan the last 5 years. If we don't clean up the mess permanently in Afghanstan by rebuilding schools to educate the populous and create real economic opportunities for the hoards of unemployed there, it will eventually lead to very serious problems in Pakistan which does have nukes already!

I noticed from one of my last posted links, that even China helped arm the Afghan rebells in the 1980's. Wow, that was eye opener! No wonder China got less friendly with the USSR back then.

[fscrig75]

It also tells the story of how we screwed up Afghanistan by not spending any money to help clean up the remaining economic and social mess and Vacuum left behind when the Soviets left Afghanistan. A mistake we repeated under Bush Jr. when we moved into Iraq and failed to keep our promises of aid to Afghanistan the last 5 years. If we don't clean up the mess permanently in Afghanstan by rebuilding schools to educate the populous and create real economic opportunities for the hoards of unemployed there, it will eventually lead to very serious problems in Pakistan which does have nukes already!


Your statement about what we need to do in Afghanistan is the exact same reason we can't just up and leave Iraq.

Regardless about what anyone thinks, whether we should of went in or not went in, we are there. We can't just up and leave and hope for the best. We messed up with Afghanistan the first time and now we are back correcting our mistake. Is that what we want to do with Iraq?

[Ecomike]

This is from one of my prior posted links. Basically confirms what I have said about our own CIA training the Afghans in modern terrorist :explosion tactics.

"After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zia-ul-Haq) started accepting financial aid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_aid) from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-45) In 1981, following the election of United States President Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan), aid for the mujahideen through Zia's Pakistan significantly increased, mostly due to the efforts of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_%28politician%29) and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gust_Avrakotos).
The United States, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year, with a matching amount coming from the Gulf states."[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-46) The People's Republic of China also sold Type 56 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_56) (AKM) assault rifles and Type 69 RPGs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_69_RPG) to mujahideen in co-operation with the CIA, as did Egypt with assault rifles. Of particular significance was the donation of American-made FIM-92 Stinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger) anti-aircraft missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aircraft_missile) systems, which increased aircraft losses of the Soviet Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Force).[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#cite_note-47)
In March 1985 the U.S. government adopted National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 166, which set a goal of military victory for the mujahideen. After 1985 the CIA and ISI placed greater pressure on the mujahideen to attack regime strongholds. Under direct instructions from Director of Central Intelligence William Casey, the CIA initiated programs for training Afghans in techniques such as car bombs and assassinations and in engaging in cross-border raids into the USSR."

[8Mud]

I noticed from one of my last posted links, that even China helped arm the Afghan rebells in the 1980's. Wow, that was eye opener! No wonder China got less friendly with the USSR back then.

One of the main arguments (Kissinger) for not turning North Vietnam into a parking lot, was the Chinese and North Vietnam were exchanging artillery fire across there own DMZ in the North (with Russian artillery). Kind of like the cure being worse than the sickness type thing. De fang North Vietnam and you may be facing the Chinese.

The Chinese supporting the Afghanistan rebels, sounds like a pay back is a futher mucker type thing and entirely plausible.

What was that quote. "Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it".

[Ecomike]

Your statement about what we need to do in Afghanistan is the exact same reason we can't just up and leave Iraq.

Regardless about what anyone thinks, whether we should of went in or not went in, we are there. We can't just up and leave and hope for the best. We messed up with Afghanistan the first time and now we are back correcting our mistake. Is that what we want to do with Iraq?

That is correct, but staying in Iraq for 50 years, or even suggesting that we might wish to stay in Iraq for 50 years is only going to spawn more middle east terrorist attacks, and further destablize the region and the world, just as it did for the USSR in Afghanistan.

What is needed is a comprehensive UN stategy that involves everyone, including Syria and Iran, rapid retraining and rearming of an Iraqi army, indications to the world that we are willing to withdraw troops ASAP, and replacement of some of our troops if needed with UN security forces, but most of all we need to force the Iraqi people to reach internal political settlements that have dragged out in political stalemate since the invasion.

Otherwise Iraq will eventually turn into another Vietnam or Afghanistan.

[scottmcneal]

What is needed is a comprehensive UN stategy that involves everyone....



Good luck with that..

[Ecomike]

The estimate is more people died (as a result of) after our pulling out in 18 months than died in the previous ten years, due to the war (I've heard between 3 1/2 and 6 million). The dieing spread well beyond Vietnam's borders, all sorts of atrocities were perpetrated when the Sheriff was gone. The purges started as the war was winding down and continued for years.

Is there any proof of that? This is the first I heard of it.

[fscrig75]

That is correct, but staying in Iraq for 50 years, or even suggesting that we might wish to stay in Iraq for 50 years is only going to spawn more middle east terrorist attacks, and further destablize the region and the world, just as it did for the USSR in Afghanistan.

I agree, but I think the problem with the 50 year thing is that people believe thats what McCain wants. I believe he is saying if it takes that long to bring Iraq back around, we will not abandon them. People are taking what he said out of context. Yes it is exactly the same way people miss quote what Obama said about going into Pakistan, I did it too. He really isn't planning on going in there, just showing thats how determined he is about catching Osama.

What is needed is a comprehensive UN stategy that involves everyone, including Syria and Iran, rapid retraining and rearming of an Iraqi army, indications to the world that we are willing to withdraw troops ASAP, and replacement of some of our troops if needed with UN security forces, but most of all we need to force the Iraqi people to reach internal political settlements that have dragged out in political stalemate since the invasion.

Sorry I can't by off on the UN idea. The whole idea of the UN in the begining was a nice idea but it just doesn't work. Almost every place the UN has been involved in has gone to sh*t. They failed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Dafur and don't forget there is a small war going on right now in Georgia.

Gen Petraeus is getting the job done there now. He has recommended that we begin to pull out the surge troops, lets see how that works.

[8Mud]

Is there any proof of that? This is the first I heard of it.
It was fairly widely reported at the time, though the western news outlets of the day were almost universally liberal and underreported it. Pulling out of Vietnam Good, the consequences, well we will just not talk much about that right now. The actually numbers are anybodies guess. The British press reported on it a bit more, because many of the refugees were showing up in Hong Kong.
The boat people that got reported (or noticed), were likely just the tip of the iceberg. If you have that many people becoming refugees it's usually fear, that drives them. Pol Pot was killing off his own people at the time (millions), not a healthy place for South Vietnamese refugees, Laos was in North Vietnamese hands mostly.
I tend to believe it as factual, maybe inflated, maybe not.

[Ecomike]

Funny that Russia invaded Georgia a day after the ceremony closing the base near my house. The draw down in Germany is almost complete.

Just caught this on a re-read. They kept the draw down in Germany quite here. I find it interesting that Bush recently visited Georgia, and that the Russians invaded Georgia shortly before our US elections, and between the changing of the Guard here. They did the same thing timing wise, when they invaded Afghanistan. They invaded Afghanistan shortly before Reagan took office, and while Carter was busy with the Iran Hostage mess.

I did not realize conciously how many years the Iran - Iraq war, and the Afgan-USSR war overlapped each other. We were all so busy with problems with Cuba and SA at the time as well as the outfall of the oil bubble bust here in Texas (unemployment hit something like 70% in parts of Texas in the early 80's under Reagan) followed by the Reaganomics devastation / economic disaster that followed until 1986. I remember it got so bad here that 1000 college students were lined up for interviews for a single job at McDonalds one day in Austin.

[scottmcneal]

1000 college students



What is the key word here?
good morning mike

[8Mud]

Is there any proof of that? This is the first I heard of it.
Wiki
Events resulting from the Vietnam War led many people in Cambodia, Laos, and especially Vietnam to become refugees in the late 1970s and 1980s, after the fall of Saigon. In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.[1] These factors, coupled with poverty, caused hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to flee the country. In 1979, Vietnam was at war (Sino-Vietnamese War) with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and many ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, who felt that the government's policies directly targeted them also became "boat people." On the open seas, the boat people had to confront forces of nature, and elude pirates.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge regime murdered millions of people in the "Killing Fields" massacres, and many attempted to escape.

[fscrig75]

What Kasern did they shut down now?

[Ecomike]

One of the main arguments (Kissinger) for not turning North Vietnam into a parking lot, was the Chinese and North Vietnam were exchanging artillery fire across there own DMZ in the North (with Russian artillery). Kind of like the cure being worse than the sickness type thing. De fang North Vietnam and you may be facing the Chinese.

The Chinese supporting the Afghanistan rebels, sounds like a pay back is a futher mucker type thing and entirely plausible.

What was that quote. "Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it".

VERY Interesting! I thought the Chinese were the major backers of the NV, or at least one of the major backers, at least from 68 to 72. Tell me more! Please!

[8Mud]

What Kasern did they shut down now?
Pioneer (Hanau) and most all of the surrounding Kaserns. They have been drawing down for years.

[fscrig75]

Pioneer (Hanau) and most all of the surrounding Kaserns. They have been drawing down for years.

Yea I know it, my BDE HQ was there, 130th. Nice place. I always like the Frankfurt area.

[8Mud]

VERY Interesting! I thought the Chinese were the major backers of the NV, or at least one of the major backers, at least from 68 to 72. Tell me more! Please!
Russia supplied most of the weapons and know how. Border disputes between China and North Vietnam have been going on forever. Plausible the Chinese supplied arms also, at one time or another, loyalties shift.
One of the reasons given for the Vietnam war was to deny China strategic resources (rubber) to slow down possible Chinese expansionism. They had a rather large standing army, but lacked mobility.

[8Mud]

Yea I know it, my BDE HQ was there, 130th. Nice place. I always like the Frankfurt area.
What was the 130th? I had a few friends out of Pioneer, most were from the 122 Nd. We ran the Mud races, if you were there when they were up and going.

[fscrig75]

130th ENGR BDE. I was at Friedburg from 93-97 and Bamberg from 01-04

[Ecomike]

Wiki
Events resulting from the Vietnam War led many people in Cambodia, Laos, and especially Vietnam to become refugees in the late 1970s and 1980s, after the fall of Saigon. In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.[1] These factors, coupled with poverty, caused hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to flee the country. In 1979, Vietnam was at war (Sino-Vietnamese War) with the People's Republic of China (PRC), and many ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, who felt that the government's policies directly targeted them also became "boat people." On the open seas, the boat people had to confront forces of nature, and elude pirates.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge regime murdered millions of people in the "Killing Fields" massacres, and many attempted to escape.
Not sure its fair to drag Cambodia into the death count with out draging Nixon into the fray for expanding the V war to Laos and Cambodia, which destabilized them as well. Yes I know the NV moved in there first, etc.

Much of the story above about torture was done by the NV and SV both during the war. The South Korean troops who served in SV were also quite skilled at those sorts of torture methods (first hand accounts I heard from US Rangers I knew back in the late 70's).. IIRC we killed more than 1,000,000 NV regulars with Napal alone while were there.

Interesting that Commmunist China got embroiled in war with Vietnam after we left? Hmm.

[8Mud]

130th ENGR BDE. I was at Friedburg from 93-97 and Bamberg from 01-04
I knew the 130 Eng brigade, momentary brain lock. Good bunch of guys. They actually built the mud pit for us and put in the bleachers. We ran it and had some good times.

[Ecomike]

1000 college students



What is the key word here?
good morning mike

Good morning Scott. I take it you have never been a college student?

I recall an old Rice University Bumber sticker from the 70's, it said

"Think!
It may be a new experience."

[8Mud]

Not sure its fair to drag Cambodia into the death count with out draging Nixon into the fray for expanding the V war to Laos and Cambodia, which destabilized them as well. Yes I know the NV moved in there first, etc.

Much of the story above about torture was done by the NV and SV both during the war. The South Korean troops who served in SV were also quite skilled at those sorts of torture methods (first hand accounts I heard from US Rangers I knew back in the late 70's).. IIRC we killed more than 1,000,000 NV regulars with Napal alone while were there.

Interesting that Commmunist China got embroiled in war with Vietnam after we left? Hmm.

Nobody has ever successfully answered the question if our leaving was better or worse for the area. The Domino theory was disproved after a fashion, the rest of South East Asia didn't fall to the Chinese as predicted.
But it seems fairly evident that the whole area turned into hell on earth after we left. And reconstruction was really slow.
Part of the strategy for not completely destroying the NVA was to leave them the means to resist the Chinese, kind of a buffer.

I was stationed with a company of ROC's in Viet Nam. Their encampment had wooden posts with rotting heads on them surrounding their encampment, instead of barbed wire. We used to play combat football with them on occasion and got our butts kicked.
They did mostly night patrols and owned the night. Some places had mercenaries for guards, a whole let less releiable.

[Ecomike]

Russia supplied most of the weapons and know how. Border disputes between China and North Vietnam have been going on forever. Plausible the Chinese supplied arms also, at one time or another, loyalties shift.
One of the reasons given for the Vietnam war was to deny China strategic resources (rubber) to slow down possible Chinese expansionism. They had a rather large standing army, but lacked mobility.

Rubber too, interesting. I had heard South East Asia was the rice bowl of Asia, major source of Rice to feed the Chinese and possibly Russia, USSR too.

And hear I thought we were there to help the poor Vietnamize people.:rolleyes:

I do recall the Dominio theory being one of the major reasons for being in Vietnam!

[8Mud]

Rubber too, interesting. I had heard South East Asia was the rice bowl of Asia, major source of Rice to feed the Chinese and possibly Russia, USSR too.

And hear I thought we were there to help the poor Vietnamize people.:rolleyes:

I do recall the Dominio theory being one of the major reasons for being in Vietnam!

Welcome to the real world. The Michaeline rubber plantations were a major objective of the NVA. Rice was also undoubtedly a factor.

[Ecomike]

Nobody has ever successfully answered the question if our leaving was better or worse for the area. The Domino theory was disproved after a fashion, the rest of South East Asia didn't fall to the Chinese as predicted.
But it seems fairly evident that the whole area turned into hell on earth after we left. And reconstruction was really slow.
Part of the strategy for not completely destroying the NVA was to leave them the means to resist the Chinese, kind of a buffer.
Wow, that one had escaped me, but it seems obvious now that you explain it! We did the same thing at the end of the Gulf War, left Sadam in power with enough military left to hold off Iran. Then we were stupid enough to take him and the Iraqi army down.


I was stationed with a company of ROC's in Viet Nam. There encampment had wooden posts with rotting heads on them surrounding their encampment, instead of barbed wire. We used to play combat football with them on occasion and got out butts kicked.
They did mostly night patrols and owned the night. Some places had mercenaries for guards, a whole let less releiable.

One of my closest business friends and business partners was a US Ranger, he spent time in Laos when we were officially not really there according to Nixon at the time. :eek:

ROC = Republic of China?, Taiwan?

[8Mud]

Wow, that one had escaped me, but it seems obvious now that you explain it! We did the same thing at the end of the Gulf War, left Sadam in power with enough militray left to hold off Iran. The we were stupid enough to take him down.



One of my closest business friends and business partners was a Ranger, he spent time in Laos when we were officially not really there according to Nixon at the time. :eek:

ROC = Republic of China?, Taiwan?
Meant ROK, it's easy to get your "C"s and "K"s crossed up if you speak German. Almost as easy as getting your "I"s and "E"s reversed. :)
The Chinese where also there as mercenaries, (Nungs).
I did BDA in Cambodia (I think) when we officially weren't there. The map sheets were fairly local and didn't have any borders marked.

[Ecomike]

I was just reading about Congressman Charlie Wilson, who I had never heard of till seeing the movie, turns out Hollywoood got this * part of the story right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_(politician)

"Charlie Wilson was born in the small town of Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity,_Texas), Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), where he attended public schools and graduated from Trinity High School in 1951. While a student at Sam Houston State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Houston_State_University) in Huntsville, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntsville,_Texas), he was appointed to the United States Naval Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Academy), where he received a B.S. and graduated eighth from the bottom of his class in 1956.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_%28politician%29#cite_note-0) He received the second-highest number of demerits in the Academy's history.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_%28politician%29#cite_note-1)
Naval career

Between 1956 and 1960, Wilson served in the United States Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy), attaining the rank of lieutenant. Following four years as a surface fleet officer, he was assigned to the Pentagon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon) as part of an intelligence unit that evaluated the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)’s nuclear forces.

Entry into politics

* Wilson first entered politics as a teenager by running a campaign against his next-door neighbor, city council incumbent Charles Hazard. When Wilson was thirteen, his dog entered Hazard's yard. Hazard retaliated by mixing crushed glass into the dog's food, causing fatal internal bleeding. Being a farmer's son, Wilson was able to get a driving permit at age 13, which enabled him to drive 96 voters, mainly blacks from poor neighborhoods, to the polls. As they left the car, he told each of them that he didn't want to influence their vote, but that the incumbent Hazard had purposely killed his dog. After Hazard was defeated by a margin of sixteen votes, Wilson went to his house to tell him he shouldn't poison any more dogs.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wilson_%28politician%29#cite_note-2)




As an adult, Wilson stayed out of politics until he was moved to volunteer for the John F. Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy) presidential campaign. In 1960, after taking 30 days' leave from the Navy, Wilson entered his name into the race for Texas state representative from his home district. This action was against the regulations of the Navy, as service members are prohibited from holding a public office while on active duty. While Wilson was back on duty, his family and friends went door to door campaigning. In 1961, at age 27, he was sworn into office in Austin, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas).
For the next 12 years, Wilson made his reputation in the Texas legislature as the "liberal from Lufkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufkin,_Texas)", viewed with suspicion by business interests. He battled for the regulation of utilities, fought for Medicaid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid), tax exemptions for the elderly, the Equal Rights Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment), and a minimum wage bill. He was also one of the few prominent Texas politicians to be pro-choice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice). Wilson was notorious for his personal life, particularly drinking and womanizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity#Male_promiscuity), and picked up the nickname "Good Time Charlie".
In 1972, Wilson was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the Second District of Texas, taking office the following January. He was re-elected 11 times, but was not a candidate for reelection to the One Hundred Fifth Congress and resigned October 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_8), 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996).

[RichP]

Nobody has ever successfully answered the question if our leaving was better or worse for the area. The Domino theory was disproved after a fashion, the rest of South East Asia didn't fall to the Chinese as predicted.
But it seems fairly evident that the whole area turned into hell on earth after we left. And reconstruction was really slow.
Part of the strategy for not completely destroying the NVA was to leave them the means to resist the Chinese, kind of a buffer.

I was stationed with a company of ROC's in Viet Nam. Their encampment had wooden posts with rotting heads on them surrounding their encampment, instead of barbed wire. We used to play combat football with them on occasion and got our butts kicked.
They did mostly night patrols and owned the night. Some places had mercenaries for guards, a whole let less releiable.

ROK's also ran the 14 day prison portion of the seer school I went thru and they were very good at it without leaving any physical marks.

[Ecomike]

Here is an opposing view of the Charlie Willson CIA story:

http://hnn.us/articles/1491.html

[Ecomike]

Here are the rest of the history details on Indochina, the Sino-Vietnam war, seems China and the Soviets (USSR) were busy fighting each other by backing opposing Indochina forces in Cambodia and Vietnam while we romanced the Chinese communists to help build the mistrust between China and the USSR that started when Krushchev took power in the USSR. It is quite an interesting read!

[scottmcneal]

Just think, this started from a pic of a plane tail with NO flag on it....I think..Right, crap i forgot..

[Ecomike]

Sorry I can't by off on the UN idea. The whole idea of the UN in the begining was a nice idea but it just doesn't work. Almost every place the UN has been involved in has gone to sh*t. They failed in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Dafur and don't forget there is a small war going on right now in Georgia.


I am doing some reading on this, as some of these I don't know a whole lot about, just wasn't able to pay much attention to them at the time, but it appears that it was NATO, not the UN that was involved directly in Bosnia and Kosovo. Granted, NATO had UN approval, but it was NATO that tried to create and enforce a peace in Kosovo according to this.

Also I think we expect too much from the UN, while we are busy, and have been busy trying to shut down the UN. The far right wing republic party has been trying to get rid of the UN since at least the early 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacekeeping

A few quotes from there:

"As of October 2004, there have been 59 UN peacekeeping operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_UN_peacekeeping_missions) since 1948, with sixteen operations ongoing."

"On 20 December 1995, under a UN mandate, a NATO-led force (IFOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFOR)) entered Bosnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina) in order to implement The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In a similar manner, a NATO operation (KFOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Force)) continues in the Serbian province of Kosovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo). The NATO-led mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina has since been replaced by a European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) peacekeeping mission, EUFOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR)."



"Since 1948, close to 130 nations have contributed military and civilian police personnel to peace operations. While detailed records of all personnel who have served in peacekeeping missions since 1948 are not available, it is estimated that up to one million soldiers, police officers and civilians have served under the UN flag in the last 56 years. As of March 2008, 113 countries were contributing a total 88,862 military observers, police, and troops"



Here is an eye opener!



"Despite the large number of contributors, the greatest burden continues to be borne by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan) (10,173), Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh) (9,675), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) (9,471), Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal) (3,626), Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan) (3,564), Uruguay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay) (2,583), Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy) (2,539), Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana), Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria) and France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)"



Seems to me it is NATOs failure in Bosnia and Kosovo, and I suspect most of the slaughter in those four examples happened before the UN and NATO got directly involved and got authorization to take actions and put peace keepers on the ground. It also sounds like Bosnia and Kosovo were not traditional peace keeping force operations, but they were what they refer to as peace "making" operations, which is something new for the UN.




What the UN does seem to have been good at is policing a cease fire with non-combatant, non-beligerant, peace keepers so that a permanent peace could be negoatiated between the waring factions.



One thing I do see today, is a difference between peace keeper requirements for two waring countries with a border that peace keepers can patrol, and a civil war, where the entire country is collapsing or has collapsed into civil war internally. We need a different kind of UN ready to deploy force for civil wars to stop them early in their tracks, if that is even possible. We would also need a UN policy for fixing the politics in a civil war torn country that all the major and minor powers would agree to and abide by, including our own CIA!




Anyway, I think we need to start reintroducing the UN into Iraq, and slowly replace our troops with UN troops partly from the arab countries that are willing to help keep the peace there long enough for the Iraqis to come to a political solution to their own problems. Perhaps that is too idealistic, but it has taken those kinds of idealistic attitudes to get us where we are today.




Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and President Carter who brokered the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt which has endured to this very day, are and were dreamers too, but they succeded!

[fscrig75]

I am doing some reading on this, as some of these I don't know a whole lot about, just wasn't able to pay much attention to them at the time, but it appears that it was NATO, not the UN that was involved directly in Bosnia and Kosovo. Granted, NATO had UN approval, but it was NATO that tried to create and enforce a peace in Kosovo according to this.

Seems to me it is NATOs failure in Bosnia and Kosovo, and I suspect most of the slaughter in those four examples happened before the UN and NATO got directly involved and got authorization to take actions and put peace keepers on the ground. It also sounds like Bosnia and Kosovo were not traditional peace keeping force operations, but they were what they refer to as peace "making" operations, which is something new for the UN.

The slaughter occured during the UNs watch. They were in Bosnia about 4 years prior to NATO forces rolling into the country. One of the things we were waiting on was the UN to leave so we could go in.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E7DA1439F933A15751C1A9639582 60

Well we were both kinda wrong on Kosovo. The UN passed resolution 1244, which placed Kosovo under UNMIK, and at the same time authorized the NATO lead peace keeping force, KFOR. UN/NATO were there at the same time, they both dragged their feet going into the country to stop the genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Interim_Administration_Mission_in_K osovo




Anyway, I think we need to start reintroducing the UN into Iraq, and slowly replace our troops with UN troops partly from the arab countries that are willing to help keep the peace there long enough for the Iraqis to come to a political solution to their own problems. Perhaps that is too idealistic, but it has taken those kinds of idealistic attitudes to get us where we are today.

Bring in other Arab troops may or may not work. These people are not like you and I. I wouldn't hate because your 7th cousin killed my 8th cousin, twice removed. They on the hand carry grudges that are hundreds of years old. I'm just not sure it would work. You would have to try and match up religious beliefs with areas, but then you still have to worry about how much they, the peace keepers, will be willing to protect the religious minority in the area. Yes the easy answer is bring in other Arabs, but IMO non-muslims is the only way to go in that area.


Now don't get mad, its just funny; While do research for different things I can across this fairly weird and unknown fact, Obama's grandfather is Dick Chaney's 7th cousin, once removed.(whatever that means) I'm not busting his chops its just funny to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madelyn_and_Stanley_Dunham

[8Mud]

My take on Croatia and Bosnia is both sides of the conflict were arming ten years before it ever happened. It was pretty much ignored, until way past too late. Getting in the middle of a civil war often gets you shot at by both sides.
Kosovo, was Clintons plan to curry favor with the Saudis, show Europe that we were willing to act unilaterally in Europe (no matter how many coalition noises they made) to force Europe to deal with there own problems, to avoid destabilization in Austria and other countries, and the mines in the North Kosovo mountains, another information black hole. I'm guessing some kind of strategic materials and a port to ship them from in Albania. Another side note that I found interesting, a large part of the cruise missile inventory was at the end of it's shelf life, at just about this time.
I'm going to have to figure out exactly what the Austrians roll is in this whole arena some day. They are and have been kind of the third rail of European politics for a very long time. There is almost an information black hole as far as their political influence is concerned, but they often seem to be very influential.
Strategic materials often play a larger roll in conflicts than people let on, either procuring them for yourself or denying them to others.
The politicians tend to stress the humanitarian part of the whole thing and play down the strategic parts.
NATO/UN had hill top outposts scattered all over the old Yugoslavia way before actual serious hostilities started. They did limited patrolling.

[fscrig75]

Strategic materials I have no idea.
But also with that was the whole concern about the domino effect again. Countries start to fall allies come in to help out bigger allies come in and then it all goes to hell. Plus everyone was still worried about Russia's loose nukes floating around out there.
I don't really lay any blame on NATO, its more of a combat operations group. The UN I do blame. This is what they are supposed to be stopping. If the UN would allow its peace keepers to defend the people they are supposed to be protecting then their units might work. But if I'm not mistaken the UN is only allowed to us it weapons to defend themselves, they are not allowed to intervene in a domestic matter, they have to wait for the local police, who are usually worthless.

[8Mud]

Strategic materials I have no idea.
But also with that was the whole concern about the domino effect again. Countries start to fall allies come in to help out bigger allies come in and then it all goes to hell. Plus everyone was still worried about Russia's loose nukes floating around out there.
I don't really lay any blame on NATO, its more of a combat operations group. The UN I do blame. This is what they are supposed to be stopping. If the UN would allow its peace keepers to defend the people they are supposed to be protecting then their units might work. But if I'm not mistaken the UN is only allowed to us it weapons to defend themselves, they are not allowed to intervene in a domestic matter, they have to wait for the local police, who are usually worthless.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/trep-j28.shtml Kind of a slanted view, but some is likely valid.
http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/nato_kosovo/msg00011.html

[Ecomike]

From everything I have read it seems like our pull out from Vietnam was in the long run a strategic victory that ended up pitting the mainland Chinese and the Soviets against each other in a surrogate battle against each other in Indochina (Cambodia against Vietnam) that moved the Mainland Chinese towards friendly relations with the USA which hurt the Soviets and further aiIded the final collapse of the USSR. I think the people in Indochina would have suffered just as much if we had stayed, and if we had stayed it might have been the USA that collapsed instead of the USSR.

Another point, is we need to make sure we never fall into our own Afghanistan trap like the Soviets did. Iraq and Afghanistan both have the potential to bring us down just like it did the Soviets. Only the Soviets were not strung out between the two, fighting on 2 fronts. Were not even fighting two fronts, were split up in two different countries that are not even connected, with their own civil wars going on internally.

Like 8Mud said below, you get in the middle of a civil war, your gonna get shot at by both sides!
What did 8Mud just post earlier, something about "those who fail to learn from History, are doomed to repeat it".

:peace:

[RichP]

My take on Croatia and Bosnia is both sides of the conflict were arming ten years before it ever happened. It was pretty much ignored, until way past too late. Getting in the middle of a civil war often gets you shot at by both sides.
Kosovo, was Clintons plan to curry favor with the Saudis, show Europe that we were willing to act unilaterally in Europe (no matter how many coalition noises they made) to force Europe to deal with there own problems, to avoid destabilization in Austria and other countries, and the mines in the North Kosovo mountains, another information black hole. I'm guessing some kind of strategic materials and a port to ship them from in Albania. Another side note that I found interesting, a large part of the cruise missile inventory was at the end of it's shelf life, at just about this time.
I'm going to have to figure out exactly what the Austrians roll is in this whole arena some day. They are and have been kind of the third rail of European politics for a very long time. There is almost an information black hole as far as their political influence is concerned, but they often seem to be very influential.
Strategic materials often play a larger roll in conflicts than people let on, either procuring them for yourself or denying them to others.
The politicians tend to stress the humanitarian part of the whole thing and play down the strategic parts.
NATO/UN had hill top outposts scattered all over the old Yugoslavia way before actual serious hostilities started. They did limited patrolling.

Ever wonder why the north south korea thing ended up where it did ? south of that parallel were and are tungsten mines, at that time we needed that tungsten for jet engines. There were also some rumors floating around when I was in vietnam that the oil companies suspected very large oil reserves off the coast of south vietnam coupled with the US not wanting the soviets to get a deep water ice free port in the pacific, cam rahn bay.
All strategic stuff reasons, the domino theory was for civilian consumption. The US government learned alot from both the Nazi's and Japan in WWII, mainly that it is OK to lie to your citizens and it's getting worse as time goes on.

[RichP]

Strategic materials I have no idea.
But also with that was the whole concern about the domino effect again. Countries start to fall allies come in to help out bigger allies come in and then it all goes to hell. Plus everyone was still worried about Russia's loose nukes floating around out there.
I don't really lay any blame on NATO, its more of a combat operations group. The UN I do blame. This is what they are supposed to be stopping. If the UN would allow its peace keepers to defend the people they are supposed to be protecting then their units might work. But if I'm not mistaken the UN is only allowed to us it weapons to defend themselves, they are not allowed to intervene in a domestic matter, they have to wait for the local police, who are usually worthless.

UN troops are armed, only the officers have live ammo and that was the case in Bosnia. The French had a 'safety zone' camp, it had several thousand refugees, when it came to an armed confrontation they walked away and left those people to their own devices, most of the men and older children were killed or vanished only to turn up in mass graves later on.

[RichP]

From everything I have read it seems like our pull out from Vietnam was in the long run a strategic victory that ended up pitting the mainland Chinese and the Soviets against each other in a surrogate battle against each other in Indochina (Cambodia against Vietnam) that moved the Mainland Chinese towards friendly relations with the USA which hurt the Soviets and further aiIded the final collapse of the USSR. I think the people in Indochina would have suffered just as much if we had stayed, and if we had stayed it might have been the USA that collapsed instead of the USSR.

Another point, is we need to make sure we never fall into our own Afghanistan trap like the Soviets did. Iraq and Afghanistan both have the potential to bring us down just like it did the Soviets. Only the Soviets were not strung out between the two, fighting on 2 fronts. Were not even fighting two fronts, were split up in two different countries that are not even connected, with their own civil wars going on internally.

Like 8Mud said below, you get in the middle of a civil war, your gonna get shot at by both sides!
What did 8Mud just post earlier, something about "those who fail to learn from History, are doomed to repeat it".

:peace:

Georgia should be interesting, we transported what 3,000 combat hardened urban combat Georgian soldiers in from Iraq, they have been there since the beginning when we invaded. I got a feeling the Russians are about to realize they started something thats going to get nasty. We'll see how the soviets deal with IED's I'm thinking and that 3,000+ core training 50,000+ civilians in urban resistance methods. The Russians are good with tank warefare, we'll see how good their conscripted ground forces are where you have infantry companies and battalions that don't even speak a common language.

[Ecomike]

Interesting recent and moden history in Georgia.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107564.html

Seems not too long ago Russia had military bases there, and Georgia was threatening to force the Russians out if they did get the muslim terrorist problem under control.

"With little progress in resolving the Abkhazia situation, however, parliament in April 1997 voted overwhelmingly to threaten Russia with loss of its military bases, should it fail to extend Russian military control over the separatist region. In 1998, the U.S. and Britain began an operation to remove nuclear material from Georgia, dangerous remains from its Soviet years. A darling of the West since his days as the Soviet Union's foreign minister, Shevardnadze was viewed far less favorably by his own people, who were frustrated by unemployment, poverty, cronyism, and rampant corruption. In the 2000 presidential elections, Shevardnadze was reelected with 80% of the vote, though international observers determined the election was marred by irregularities. In 2002, U.S. troops trained Georgia's military in antiterrorism measures in the hopes that Georgian troops would subdue Muslim rebels fighting in the country. Tensions between Georgia and Russia were strained over the Pankisi Gorge, a lawless region of Georgia that Russia said had become a haven for Islamic militants and Chechen rebels.
In May 2003, work began on the Georgian section of the enormously ambitious Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which runs from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey. The pipeline opened in July 2006."



Interesting indeed!

[fscrig75]

What should be even more interesting is if the other former Soviet states decide to join up with Georgia and start attacking Russia on multiple fronts. Add to that, that some of the states are now NATO allies. Should Russia strike against a NATO ally then where will that leave the rest of the EU and us since we have vocal said that we support Georgia.

[fscrig75]

UN troops are armed, only the officers have live ammo and that was the case in Bosnia. The French had a 'safety zone' camp, it had several thousand refugees, when it came to an armed confrontation they walked away and left those people to their own devices, most of the men and older children were killed or vanished only to turn up in mass graves later on.

Yes you are correct they are armed, but as I saw first hand in Kosovo they will not use their weapons unless they are directly threatened. Where ever the UN is sent, no one respects them. They have no real authority and everyone knows that they won't do sh*t. So what good are they?

[red91]

Yes you are correct they are armed, but as I saw first hand in Kosovo they will not use their weapons unless they are directly threatened. Where ever the UN is sent, no one respects them. They have no real authority and everyone knows that they won't do sh*t. So what good are they?


Those are the old actors that had their SAG cards rescinded.

I'm pretty sure most of them are old, washed up child tv stars that are working for a heroin fix.

[8Mud]

Ever wonder why the north south korea thing ended up where it did ? south of that parallel were and are tungsten mines, at that time we needed that tungsten for jet engines. There were also some rumors floating around when I was in vietnam that the oil companies suspected very large oil reserves off the coast of south vietnam coupled with the US not wanting the soviets to get a deep water ice free port in the pacific, cam rahn bay.
All strategic stuff reasons, the domino theory was for civilian consumption. The US government learned alot from both the Nazi's and Japan in WWII, mainly that it is OK to lie to your citizens and it's getting worse as time goes on.

There was a quote by a Newspaper reporter that stuck with me.
"We Americans are the ultimate optimists, we are forever desperate to believe that this time the government is telling us the truth."
But just because they are lying to us doesn't make them wrong, it just makes them manipulators. And most everybody resents being manipulated.
Strategic materials are often a larger part of any conflict than the government lets on. It's not only acquiring strategic materials for ourselves, it's denying them to our competition (enemies).
Georgia is something like %97 Greek or Russian Orthodox, so the Muslim insurgent stronghold argument for invasion really doesn't seem plausible. Or the excuse of protecting there citizens, sorry to say the Russians sure don't have much of a history of protecting their citizens.
It's more likely the Georgian pipelines and Russia increasing control of the Caspian oil fields. Much like the gas pipelines thriugh the Ukrain to europe.
Turkey has been putting pressure on northern Iraq, there excuse is they are attacking Kurdish strongholds and insurgents. A whole lot more Kurds in Turkey and Iran than Iraq. The Kurdish insurgency in Turkey is decades, if not centuries old (the center of the insurgency is in Turkey). And don't forget that Turkey turned around a whole American armored Division at there port and screwed up years of planning during the Iraqi invasion. Payback is a futher mucker.
It's rarely just one reason, it's often much more Machiavellian. Just something to think about, Russia is threatening Turkey in the north, which is likely to take the pressure off of northern Iraq.
Georgia is likely just a pawn in a much larger game. Turkey may just be much of the object to the whole operation.
Russias timing is sure enough beneficial to American goals.
Just an opinion, but look to see if the Georgians show up with Tow's and Stingers, if not, we are likely in cahoots with Russians.
The Russians get the Georgian pipelines and we get a nervous Turkey and get some of the pressure taken off of northern Iraq.
And the whole time the Americans and Russian's will be screaming about the poor people of Georgia and how they both have the best interests of the Georgian people at heart.

[fscrig75]

Also this little push of Russia also gives them a clear easy shot into Iran, should they need to protect their only Arab ally.