mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
peace through victory..
Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'
- Thread starter CheapyD
- Start date
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.
Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.
The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.
You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.
How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.[/quote]
One more thing: Do you think troops sent into a fire fight deserve to have raises, or to have those raises "slowed"? I would think you'd want to pay them as much as possible, to keep them happy in intolerable circumstances.
This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.
Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.
The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.
You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.
How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.[/quote]
One more thing: Do you think troops sent into a fire fight deserve to have raises, or to have those raises "slowed"? I would think you'd want to pay them as much as possible, to keep them happy in intolerable circumstances.
mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='MrBadExample']He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.[/quote]
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
[/quote]
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.
magilacudy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 16 (100%)
Yeah, I agree with mcwilliams on that. There's nothing he could've done in that 7 minutes or so that would've made a difference.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
Hey, PAafterD, I just read up a little on Clausewitz. Can the idea of war as a political tool apply anymore outside of dicatorial/oligarchal governments? It seems to me that if it's to work like he says you have to be able to force a pure concensus on making war from your populace, an ability that we don't have and will never have in America (not to mention that I don't think we'd ever allow anything other than a limited war anymore.)
[quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='MrBadExample']He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.[/quote]
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
[/quote]
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.
In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.
If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.
The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.
In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.
If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.
The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.
Lootr2Core
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Of course Lootr2Core takes "you have no idea" as a slam on debating style when he is able to accurately contrast U.S. Army troop morale under Clinton versus under Bush. Go ahead, I'm all ears. Tell me how you think morale in the armed forces compares from 1996 to today.[/quote]
I don't believe I am in a place to make a comparision as 1) in 1996 we were not at war, 2) I have not not been overseas during a deployment, 3) the number of people that I have talked to are limited.
In 92-94 I was going to college in North Dakota where there is a large air force base, I worked with several airman (single guys who often took on a small part time job) and their morale seemed very good, well to be honest I never asked 'how is morale?' but they never complained about the state of affairs or the like. My sister in law is in the Navy, (not currently deployed in any hostile waters) and she says the people she hangs with (I have asked her "whats the mood of your friends) don't really say the mood is great, or bad (so ambivilant or content would have to describe it.
I have had many conversations with returning Guardsman (North Dakota has the hightest per capita I believe) the majority that I have visited with are very proud to be serving overseas in Iraq. They have a good sense that they have been paid to train for a purpose for many years and they see their deployment as a way to 'pay back' what was invested in them. While they are very proud of being deployed, I have heard a greater amount of questioning as to whether it was worth it, or whether the 12-18 months that they spent over there accomplished much.
Well thats how I think morale compares now with then, does that answer your question?
I don't believe I am in a place to make a comparision as 1) in 1996 we were not at war, 2) I have not not been overseas during a deployment, 3) the number of people that I have talked to are limited.
In 92-94 I was going to college in North Dakota where there is a large air force base, I worked with several airman (single guys who often took on a small part time job) and their morale seemed very good, well to be honest I never asked 'how is morale?' but they never complained about the state of affairs or the like. My sister in law is in the Navy, (not currently deployed in any hostile waters) and she says the people she hangs with (I have asked her "whats the mood of your friends) don't really say the mood is great, or bad (so ambivilant or content would have to describe it.
I have had many conversations with returning Guardsman (North Dakota has the hightest per capita I believe) the majority that I have visited with are very proud to be serving overseas in Iraq. They have a good sense that they have been paid to train for a purpose for many years and they see their deployment as a way to 'pay back' what was invested in them. While they are very proud of being deployed, I have heard a greater amount of questioning as to whether it was worth it, or whether the 12-18 months that they spent over there accomplished much.
Well thats how I think morale compares now with then, does that answer your question?
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Minot AFB right? Don't they have a lot of BUFF's (Big ugly fat shaq'fuers or B-52's.) up there? The one thing about North Dakota if the Cold War had ever gone nuclear your state would have been glowing for decades. Have they shut down the MX missile fields up there?
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.
In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.
If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.
The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.[/quote]
I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor
I also feel that North Korea is a very real problem. Again, I'm not against war. I'm also in favor of supporting our military. The problem I have is needlessly starting a war.
In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.
If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.
The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.[/quote]
I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor
I also feel that North Korea is a very real problem. Again, I'm not against war. I'm also in favor of supporting our military. The problem I have is needlessly starting a war.
Mookyjooky
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 42 (100%)
[quote name='ingotheranchhand']Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.
I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.
Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.[/quote]
I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.
Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.[/quote]
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.
In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.
If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.
The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.[/quote]
Thanks for explaining the distinction in combat vs. stateside pay. I'll have to say that in wartime I'd rather ALL of our troops get good pay, but I'm glad that the guys on the front are getting the combat bonus w/o taxes.
Re: the level of insurgency, as far as I know the State Department predicted months before the war that troops would encounter a high and continuing level of resistance, and their research was rejected and ignored by the Bush Administration. Now it seems that research was correct, but I don't see any mea culpas or resignations from the people who pooh-poohed that information.
In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.
If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.
The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.[/quote]
Thanks for explaining the distinction in combat vs. stateside pay. I'll have to say that in wartime I'd rather ALL of our troops get good pay, but I'm glad that the guys on the front are getting the combat bonus w/o taxes.
Re: the level of insurgency, as far as I know the State Department predicted months before the war that troops would encounter a high and continuing level of resistance, and their research was rejected and ignored by the Bush Administration. Now it seems that research was correct, but I don't see any mea culpas or resignations from the people who pooh-poohed that information.
ingotheranchhand
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
Question...
If you saw an old lady getting robbed/rapped/murdered across the street and had the means and the know-how to stop the perpetrators so that they wouldn't do this again in the future, what would you do?
The Iraqi people were that old lady and the thugs (Saddaum and his merry-men) are gone now. The thugs cannot harrass and kill innocent people anymore. They do not have the opportunity to develop/use WMD in the future.
War has its costs. Unfortonatly the good guys many times pay a high or higher price. But that doesn't change the fact that the good guys were right. What we did in Irag was the right thing to do, even if the right thing isn't always pretty or politiclly correct. Our troops gave their lives to save other. It seems to me that many Americans are selfish in wanting us to stand by and watch the world get torn to bits without even TRYING to do something about it, just so that "our boys" don't get hurt.
Sure the leaders of North Korea and Iran need to be taken out. But you have to start somewhere. We started in Afganistan and then went to Iraq. I sure hope that something is done about North Korea and Iran in the future. The person we elect as president will, more than likely, ultimatley decide if we do that.
With that, I feel like have said enough and more than likely will not post on this thread again. Good luck sorting out your political discussion.
If you saw an old lady getting robbed/rapped/murdered across the street and had the means and the know-how to stop the perpetrators so that they wouldn't do this again in the future, what would you do?
The Iraqi people were that old lady and the thugs (Saddaum and his merry-men) are gone now. The thugs cannot harrass and kill innocent people anymore. They do not have the opportunity to develop/use WMD in the future.
War has its costs. Unfortonatly the good guys many times pay a high or higher price. But that doesn't change the fact that the good guys were right. What we did in Irag was the right thing to do, even if the right thing isn't always pretty or politiclly correct. Our troops gave their lives to save other. It seems to me that many Americans are selfish in wanting us to stand by and watch the world get torn to bits without even TRYING to do something about it, just so that "our boys" don't get hurt.
Sure the leaders of North Korea and Iran need to be taken out. But you have to start somewhere. We started in Afganistan and then went to Iraq. I sure hope that something is done about North Korea and Iran in the future. The person we elect as president will, more than likely, ultimatley decide if we do that.
With that, I feel like have said enough and more than likely will not post on this thread again. Good luck sorting out your political discussion.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.[/quote]
In afganistan, home of the Taliban, civilian targets were flagged as "primary objectives" and all convoys were considered targets of opportunity, even if they had red crosses and crescents painted on top of the vehicles.
Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Again civilian targets were flagged to raise the Iraqi casualty count, which the media never questioned.
Neither did Iran, but Bush is trying to start something with them as we speak. He is trying to START A WAR WITH IRAN.
In afganistan, home of the Taliban, civilian targets were flagged as "primary objectives" and all convoys were considered targets of opportunity, even if they had red crosses and crescents painted on top of the vehicles.
Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Again civilian targets were flagged to raise the Iraqi casualty count, which the media never questioned.
Neither did Iran, but Bush is trying to start something with them as we speak. He is trying to START A WAR WITH IRAN.
Lootr2Core
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Minot AFB right? Don't they have a lot of BUFF's (Big ugly fat shaq'fuers or B-52's.) up there? The one thing about North Dakota if the Cold War had ever gone nuclear your state would have been glowing for decades. Have they shut down the MX missile fields up there?[/quote]
Grand Forks actually. Minot still has the b-52s GFAFB has kc-111 refuelling wing. ALl the missles are gone now, the last 4 years they demolished them, they are just starting to clean up. There have been these rubble piles years, something in a treaty that had to 'prove' that they were not in use for russian sats to see.
I think at one time if ND seceeded from the union it would have been the 3rd most nuclear armed power in the world.
Grand Forks actually. Minot still has the b-52s GFAFB has kc-111 refuelling wing. ALl the missles are gone now, the last 4 years they demolished them, they are just starting to clean up. There have been these rubble piles years, something in a treaty that had to 'prove' that they were not in use for russian sats to see.
I think at one time if ND seceeded from the union it would have been the 3rd most nuclear armed power in the world.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor
A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.
Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.
If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.
B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.
The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.
If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.
[/quote]
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor
A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.
Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.
If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.
B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.
The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.
If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.
[/quote]
Lootr2Core
CAGiversary!
A good link that I read frequently and use the many links within the site is
http://www.intel-dump.com/
It is pretty thought provoking, balanced, and just generally intesting. He writes many articles on the the 'smaller' stories of the military. It is worth checking out.
http://www.intel-dump.com/
It is pretty thought provoking, balanced, and just generally intesting. He writes many articles on the the 'smaller' stories of the military. It is worth checking out.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor
A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.
Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.
If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.
B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.
The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.
If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.
[/quote][/quote]
Well, I still disagree with you on the first point.
And on the second. Yes, the U.S. is the dominant power in the Middle East, but we cannot remain that way for too much longer, let alone indefinitely.
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor
A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.
Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.
If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.
B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.
The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.
If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.
[/quote][/quote]
Well, I still disagree with you on the first point.
And on the second. Yes, the U.S. is the dominant power in the Middle East, but we cannot remain that way for too much longer, let alone indefinitely.
Lootr2Core
CAGiversary!
(an example from intel-dump related a bit to the morale issue.. talks about how in the long run even IF morale is down now...the armed forces will be stronger in the future.)
Bloodied, but better
U.S. Army emerges more combat ready from the crucible of combat in Iraq
The Washington Monthly has posted my new article on the Army, and how it has been affected by the war on terrorism. Clearly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have stretched the Army. But contrary to conventional wisdom, I think the net effect of these wars may prove to be positive. Metaphorically, it's as if the Army went to the gym to do a hard workout — it's sore right now, and in need of some rest, but the Army has emerged from these wars stronger than when it began. Here's a brief excerpt from the story, available on the TWM website:
Since September 11, the U.S. military has expended an enormous amount of spirit, blood, and treasure on battlefields halfway around the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 979 of our soldiers have been killed; and another 5,600 wounded. More than a quarter of a million young men and women have been exposed to the horrors of combat. The abuses at Abu Ghraib have damaged America's moral credibility, and that of our armed forces, around the world, hampering our ability to win hearts and minds in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration's foreign policy decisions have been expensive both in dollars--$149 billion in taxpayer money to date, with billions more yet to be spent--and in material, having all but depleted the Pentagon's stocks of pre-positioned vehicles, equipment, and ordnance. Our enormous commitment of resources to Iraq has emboldened our enemies, including North Korea, and has forced us to neglect other crisis spots such as Haiti and the Sudan. And it has pushed American soldiers to the breaking point. Even when our commitment in Iraq ends, it will be several years before our forces have recovered enough to take on a military venture of similar size.
But the stresses of war--and in particular the aftermath of defeat or failure--have historically spurred the most profound and lasting revolutions in military affairs. During World War II, Gen. George Patton used the Army's trouncing at the Kasserine Pass as an excuse to whip our poorly-disciplined, poorly-trained, and poorly-led forces into shape. Out of the ashes of defeat in Vietnam, a cadre of officers, including Colin Powell and Anthony Zinni, turned a dispirited draft force into a volunteer body that became the most powerful military the world had ever seen. And only after the debacle of Desert One--the failed 1980 Delta Force raid to rescue American hostages from Iran--did the military get serious about special operations and joint warfare.
Today, the pattern appears set to repeat itself. Though we don't yet know whether historians will judge the second Gulf War to have been a victory or a defeat--America decisively won the battle of tanks and artillery, but has yet to win the peace--the searing experience of Iraq is already inspiring the U.S. military to reshape itself for the better.
One area of combat-related development deserves special
Bloodied, but better
U.S. Army emerges more combat ready from the crucible of combat in Iraq
The Washington Monthly has posted my new article on the Army, and how it has been affected by the war on terrorism. Clearly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have stretched the Army. But contrary to conventional wisdom, I think the net effect of these wars may prove to be positive. Metaphorically, it's as if the Army went to the gym to do a hard workout — it's sore right now, and in need of some rest, but the Army has emerged from these wars stronger than when it began. Here's a brief excerpt from the story, available on the TWM website:
Since September 11, the U.S. military has expended an enormous amount of spirit, blood, and treasure on battlefields halfway around the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 979 of our soldiers have been killed; and another 5,600 wounded. More than a quarter of a million young men and women have been exposed to the horrors of combat. The abuses at Abu Ghraib have damaged America's moral credibility, and that of our armed forces, around the world, hampering our ability to win hearts and minds in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration's foreign policy decisions have been expensive both in dollars--$149 billion in taxpayer money to date, with billions more yet to be spent--and in material, having all but depleted the Pentagon's stocks of pre-positioned vehicles, equipment, and ordnance. Our enormous commitment of resources to Iraq has emboldened our enemies, including North Korea, and has forced us to neglect other crisis spots such as Haiti and the Sudan. And it has pushed American soldiers to the breaking point. Even when our commitment in Iraq ends, it will be several years before our forces have recovered enough to take on a military venture of similar size.
But the stresses of war--and in particular the aftermath of defeat or failure--have historically spurred the most profound and lasting revolutions in military affairs. During World War II, Gen. George Patton used the Army's trouncing at the Kasserine Pass as an excuse to whip our poorly-disciplined, poorly-trained, and poorly-led forces into shape. Out of the ashes of defeat in Vietnam, a cadre of officers, including Colin Powell and Anthony Zinni, turned a dispirited draft force into a volunteer body that became the most powerful military the world had ever seen. And only after the debacle of Desert One--the failed 1980 Delta Force raid to rescue American hostages from Iran--did the military get serious about special operations and joint warfare.
Today, the pattern appears set to repeat itself. Though we don't yet know whether historians will judge the second Gulf War to have been a victory or a defeat--America decisively won the battle of tanks and artillery, but has yet to win the peace--the searing experience of Iraq is already inspiring the U.S. military to reshape itself for the better.
One area of combat-related development deserves special
Lootr2Core
CAGiversary!
[quote name='int80h']
My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.
I win.[/quote]
I have played Civ 3 for mange years now..haven't played AoE which has the better diplomacy?
My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.
I win.[/quote]
I have played Civ 3 for mange years now..haven't played AoE which has the better diplomacy?
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
You're free to disagree, it's actually a capability and debating point I wouldn't want to see happen because hundreds of thousands would die, be wounded or homeless to prove us right or wrong.
On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.
On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're free to disagree, it's actually a capability and debating point I wouldn't want to see happen because hundreds of thousands would die, be wounded or homeless to prove us right or wrong.
On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.[/quote]
www.goarmy.com/
Prove it.
If you beleive in these wars so much than prove it by joining the army.
10 out of 10 war mongers back down or start flinging insulsts when asked this.
If the war is so just that you would have your fellow countrymen sacrifice everything than why don't you follow them?
And don't use the "family", "job", or "priorities" excuse. According to you the war is a top priority.
On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.[/quote]
www.goarmy.com/
Prove it.
If you beleive in these wars so much than prove it by joining the army.
10 out of 10 war mongers back down or start flinging insulsts when asked this.
If the war is so just that you would have your fellow countrymen sacrifice everything than why don't you follow them?
And don't use the "family", "job", or "priorities" excuse. According to you the war is a top priority.
mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='MrBadExample']He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.[/quote]
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
[/quote]
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I would have preferred that he excuse himself and go start talking to his cabinet members to formulate a plan of action rather than sit there for seven minutes waiting for Dick Cheney to tell him what to do.
Lootr2Core
CAGiversary!
Hey, It might have been a good book. Besides did you read the sign behind him.. "Reading makes a country great!'
[quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='MrBadExample']He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.[/quote]
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
[/quote]
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...[/quote]
I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.
And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...[/quote]
I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.
And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.
Pylis
CAGiversary!
Actually, Mcwilliams DID make a valid point. You just took the irrelevant "firey death" part of it and then dismissed everything else he said.
I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.
I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.
I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.[/quote]
Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!
The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...
Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.
I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.[/quote]
Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!
The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
I think it's funny to come back to a thread and see responses that prove the people posting replies to your messages have not read everything you've written and like to jump on one sentence or paragraph in an attempt to make themselves look like they've "won" and proven someone else wrong.
Since you missed it.... HERE I'll post it for you again.
What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?
I did 4 years reserves and 4 years active duty. What were you saying? I probably had a hand in training about a quarter of tank commanders on active duty. That percentage drops every year.
So Quackzilla, what are your qualifications?
Since you missed it.... HERE I'll post it for you again.
What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?
I did 4 years reserves and 4 years active duty. What were you saying? I probably had a hand in training about a quarter of tank commanders on active duty. That percentage drops every year.
So Quackzilla, what are your qualifications?
mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='MrBadExample']He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.[/quote]
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
[/quote]
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...[/quote]
I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.
And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.[/quote]
I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....
Hindsight baby!
I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.
And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...[/quote]
I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.
And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.[/quote]
I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....
Hindsight baby!
I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.
And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.
mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='gkargreen'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.
I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.[/quote]
Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!
The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...[/quote]
"Why we support Israel?"
You have to ask that question?
They are the only democracy in the middle east.
The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.
That's why we defend Israel.
Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.
I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.[/quote]
Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!
The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...[/quote]
"Why we support Israel?"
You have to ask that question?
They are the only democracy in the middle east.
The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.
That's why we defend Israel.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
You served Clinton, he didn't put any troops on the ground besides Socom units.
You never got shot at.
What I meant is would you be wiling to go into Iraq and fight and die even though there is no reason for you to be there.
I am not a soldier, I have no military experience.
I will not join an army that is fighting a war I don't beleive in. I will not serve Bush, I will not attack civilians, and I will not guard stolen oil.
I would only join if the fate of the free world depended on the outcome of the war, like in WW2, which is not the case in Iraq.
You never got shot at.
What I meant is would you be wiling to go into Iraq and fight and die even though there is no reason for you to be there.
I am not a soldier, I have no military experience.
I will not join an army that is fighting a war I don't beleive in. I will not serve Bush, I will not attack civilians, and I will not guard stolen oil.
I would only join if the fate of the free world depended on the outcome of the war, like in WW2, which is not the case in Iraq.
[quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='MrBadExample']He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.[/quote]
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
[/quote]
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...[/quote]
I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.
And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.[/quote]
I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....
Hindsight baby!
I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.
And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.[/quote]
I don't think it's absurd to expect immediate action from the President when our nation is under attack. In fact, I think it's more absurd to hide behind those children and say he didn't want to scare them. Since when does the presence of a classroom of children hamper the President's ability to react quickly?
As far as what he could have done -- VP Dick Cheney ended up being the person giving the go-ahead to shoot down any passenger aircraft that approached Washington without authorization. It was an illegal order, since Cheney is not the Commander-in-Chief and has no standing in the military, but guess what -- Bush wasn't available at the time. Maybe if he'd calmly hustled out of that classroom 7 minutes earlier, our air forces would have actually been getting orders from the person authorized to hand them down.
One last point: No Appeasement? Do a little bit of reading about how we're handling North Korea. Bush is appeasing Kim Jong Il at every turn. He's caved completely there because his tough-guy rhetoric impressed no one, and North Korea continued with its nuclear arms program.
And a quick news flash: toppling Saddam did nothing to help in the War on Terror, because he was not collaborating with any terrorists. There are any number of government investigations that now agree on that point. In fact, they've proven that al-Queda asked Saddam for help and he basically ignored them.
Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
What would you have done?
Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?
What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.[/quote]
Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?
What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?
More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness[/quote]
There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...
There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.
Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.
No president could have done any bettter...[/quote]
I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.
And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.[/quote]
I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....
Hindsight baby!
I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.
And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.[/quote]
I don't think it's absurd to expect immediate action from the President when our nation is under attack. In fact, I think it's more absurd to hide behind those children and say he didn't want to scare them. Since when does the presence of a classroom of children hamper the President's ability to react quickly?
As far as what he could have done -- VP Dick Cheney ended up being the person giving the go-ahead to shoot down any passenger aircraft that approached Washington without authorization. It was an illegal order, since Cheney is not the Commander-in-Chief and has no standing in the military, but guess what -- Bush wasn't available at the time. Maybe if he'd calmly hustled out of that classroom 7 minutes earlier, our air forces would have actually been getting orders from the person authorized to hand them down.
One last point: No Appeasement? Do a little bit of reading about how we're handling North Korea. Bush is appeasing Kim Jong Il at every turn. He's caved completely there because his tough-guy rhetoric impressed no one, and North Korea continued with its nuclear arms program.
And a quick news flash: toppling Saddam did nothing to help in the War on Terror, because he was not collaborating with any terrorists. There are any number of government investigations that now agree on that point. In fact, they've proven that al-Queda asked Saddam for help and he basically ignored them.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Think about this in terms you can understand. 8 years of service.... out in 1996 that would put me in uniform in 1988. What happened in 1990-91? Hmmmm? Anybody? Anybody? Where do you think crew commanders got combat experience to train future combat crews. BUELLER? BUELLER?
I never "served" a President. The only members of the armed services that do are Navy Stewards when they bring him his meals. I served under the NCA of both Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Now, when we did the infamous "left hook" that drove us hundreds of miles into Iraq, cutting off the Kuwaiti occupation forces from resupply and systematically destroyed remaining armor we were never shot at? On the morning of February 26th 1991 we encountered the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard and kindly asked them to exit their vehicles so we could have target practice?
You're right.... nothing meaningful. Never shot at. You can thank God for an all volunteer army that allows you to sit on your ass and criticize anything without consequence while sitting in front of your computer, in your air conditioned home and well stocked refrigerator. You're welcome, I was happy to sit in an overpressured hull of Chobham armor firing depleted uranium shells at an enemy that according to you "never shot back".
Keep digging, that hole will be up to your neck soon and some other nice poster will come along, throw you in your hole and bury you.
I never "served" a President. The only members of the armed services that do are Navy Stewards when they bring him his meals. I served under the NCA of both Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Now, when we did the infamous "left hook" that drove us hundreds of miles into Iraq, cutting off the Kuwaiti occupation forces from resupply and systematically destroyed remaining armor we were never shot at? On the morning of February 26th 1991 we encountered the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard and kindly asked them to exit their vehicles so we could have target practice?
You're right.... nothing meaningful. Never shot at. You can thank God for an all volunteer army that allows you to sit on your ass and criticize anything without consequence while sitting in front of your computer, in your air conditioned home and well stocked refrigerator. You're welcome, I was happy to sit in an overpressured hull of Chobham armor firing depleted uranium shells at an enemy that according to you "never shot back".
Keep digging, that hole will be up to your neck soon and some other nice poster will come along, throw you in your hole and bury you.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='mcwilliams132']The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.
That's why we defend Israel.[/quote]
Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.
The people you are basing your stereotype on are "religious fanatics". Crazy people. Christians have them also, just look at Jerry Falwell. And don't forget Jewish fundamentalists, they are the main roadblock on the road to peace in the middle east.
---------------
Examples of Fundamentalism
---------------
A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle.
Jewish fundamentalists bulldoze civilian neighborhoods in Palestine out of pure hatred for Muslims.
Muslim fundamentalists flew planes into the Twin Towers, because their leader, Osama bin Ladin, had indoctrinated them.
====================
As you can see, fundamentalists are very stupid people, and thankfully there are not a lot of them, their actions just tend to speak louder than the words of normal people.
Our defense of Israel is wrong and has effectively stopped any progress towards peace and has forced Palestinial "soldiers" to resort to guerilla warefare because they can't fight back against American tanks and helicopters.
That's why we defend Israel.[/quote]
Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.
The people you are basing your stereotype on are "religious fanatics". Crazy people. Christians have them also, just look at Jerry Falwell. And don't forget Jewish fundamentalists, they are the main roadblock on the road to peace in the middle east.
---------------
Examples of Fundamentalism
---------------
A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle.
Jewish fundamentalists bulldoze civilian neighborhoods in Palestine out of pure hatred for Muslims.
Muslim fundamentalists flew planes into the Twin Towers, because their leader, Osama bin Ladin, had indoctrinated them.
====================
As you can see, fundamentalists are very stupid people, and thankfully there are not a lot of them, their actions just tend to speak louder than the words of normal people.
Our defense of Israel is wrong and has effectively stopped any progress towards peace and has forced Palestinial "soldiers" to resort to guerilla warefare because they can't fight back against American tanks and helicopters.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
PittsburgAfterDark:
I concede, you win.
I forgot the timeline because I wasn't paying attention.
I concede, you win.
I forgot the timeline because I wasn't paying attention.
[quote name='Pylis']Actually, Mcwilliams DID make a valid point. You just took the irrelevant "firey death" part of it and then dismissed everything else he said.
I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.[/quote]
Well, Pylis, I think that emotional arguments like that should be countered. They are meant to make a point by appealing to something other than reason, and thus are a cheap tactic.
And I absolutely believe it's an argument that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing, because that goes to the hypocrisy of it all. Clinton struck at al Qaeda during his presidency, and conservatives dismissed it as a "wag-the-dog" maneuver to distract from Whitewater. Would the same criticisms have happened if Bush had been in the same position?
And lastly, I will never agree that inaction for seven minutes during a national crisis is the right thing to do for our President and Commander in Chief. He was a deer caught in the headlights, and you can't accept that. You need to come up with some rationale to explain away the fact that he completely blanked when faced with a true emergency.
I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.[/quote]
Well, Pylis, I think that emotional arguments like that should be countered. They are meant to make a point by appealing to something other than reason, and thus are a cheap tactic.
And I absolutely believe it's an argument that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing, because that goes to the hypocrisy of it all. Clinton struck at al Qaeda during his presidency, and conservatives dismissed it as a "wag-the-dog" maneuver to distract from Whitewater. Would the same criticisms have happened if Bush had been in the same position?
And lastly, I will never agree that inaction for seven minutes during a national crisis is the right thing to do for our President and Commander in Chief. He was a deer caught in the headlights, and you can't accept that. You need to come up with some rationale to explain away the fact that he completely blanked when faced with a true emergency.
Dragonlordfrodo
Banned
I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...
mcwilliams132
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Quackzilla']
Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.[/quote]
Chapter and verse...
Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?
give me a break...
Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.[/quote]
Chapter and verse...
Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?
give me a break...
Dragonlordfrodo
Banned
"A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle"
Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...
Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
DennisT, 9/11 was a SNAFU. It wasn't in anybody's playbook. When we would wargame with imaginary forces at Carilsle many moves or tactics would be disallowed as "unrealisitic" that were similar to the reality of that date.
The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.
Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.
Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.
Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.
Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.
You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.
GO! The clock is ticking....
The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.
Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.
Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.
Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.
Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.
You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.
GO! The clock is ticking....
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...[/quote]
Are you serious?
You just accused every Muslim in the world of being a terrorist!
Thats like saying because a black person robbed a bank last week all black people are bank robbers!
This whole "Guilty until proven innocent then they are still guilty" system is very flawed.
Are you serious?
You just accused every Muslim in the world of being a terrorist!
Thats like saying because a black person robbed a bank last week all black people are bank robbers!
This whole "Guilty until proven innocent then they are still guilty" system is very flawed.
Dragonlordfrodo
Banned
Are all nazis good people? Now shut up...
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']Are all nazis good people? Now shut up...[/quote]
Most Nazis were just soldiers doing their job. All they knew was what their commanding officers told them.
Many of them were the dirtiest bastards you could imagine, though.
Most Nazis were just soldiers doing their job. All they knew was what their commanding officers told them.
Many of them were the dirtiest bastards you could imagine, though.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']"A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle"
Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...[/quote]
Okay, who let the troll in?
Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...[/quote]
Okay, who let the troll in?
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Most Nazi's weren't soldiers. Very few German soldiers were actually Nazi's. The Waffen SS held the majority of them. The ordinary soldier in the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe were just soliders, not Nazis.
In a historical sense many nations "less desireable" element joined the army or navy to escape something, usually criminal. Soldiering up until the 20th Century was full of the dregs of society outside the officer corps. This being said its been easy for some armies to get their men to commit attrocities.
bread's done