ptah13 wrote:

That's where Somali's dragged our dead troops through the street (in front of 100's of their cheering countrymen) on international tv and Clinton gave us the old "aww shucks" and we did nothing....

Not true! Not True! He did do something! He pulled out and showed the world the most powerful nation in the world could be thwarted by the killing of a few of its soldiers and filming them.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Ew.  I demand storytime!

Well, it took a xanax bar to get me to sleep (for almost 3 hours!). Nothing else could stop the non-stop cop-murder fantasy going through my head....

Just for you (this is seriously the only version of "Pigs" I could find on youtube that had decent audio)

Link to YouTube page

(no, I didn't look very hard.  KITTIES!)

Awww man.. That's great! How appropriate (for me).

Thanks

orangeplus wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

That's where Somali's dragged our dead troops through the street (in front of 100's of their cheering countrymen) on international tv and Clinton gave us the old "aww shucks" and we did nothing....

Not true! Not True! He did do something! He pulled out and showed the world the most powerful nation in the world could be thwarted by the killing of a few of its soldiers and filming them.

And it was the fuckin a right thing to do. There was not a single damn thing in the entire "country" of Somalia that was worth an American getting a splinter for.

I agree we shouldn't have been there in the first place.  But once we put our military there we put our nation's and our military's reputation on the line along with them.  If it isn't worth the risk of going then don't go.  But once you are there you get the job done and you don't wave a white flag as soon as you take a few embarrassing losses.  No doubt the success brought by dragged our soldiers through the streets in front of cameras was inspiring to those who would later on start beheading them on camera.

orangeplus wrote:

I don't see how taking a peacekeeping mission and making a war out of it is worth protecting your ability to make cavemen fear you is a worthwhile goal. Those dudes are going to hate us as long as they have a reason for it, they'll still go out of their way to find a way to hurt us. Fear is of questionable value when your enemies have nothing to lose.

Hence why we have no business sending them food. We send them tons of aid and their warlords hoard the shit to themselves, nobody gets fed and we are still viewed as the "evil empire". Famine is a natural thing. It is the way to keep world overpopulation in check. Yeah, I know this is off-topic but I think it's insane to keep feeding people who in turn try and blow us up...

That is bravado BS Zookeeper. All military action has an equal politcal element. If our political plan for mangaing the conflict in Somalia is fucked no amount of kicking ass is qoing to turn it into a win.

What we tried to implement in Somalia was shown to have little chance of working. Once this is realized we could level cities in retribution with billions of dollars worth of tanks and our blood, but in the end the thugs would return to warlord business as usual. Our plan for managing them was fucked.

It is not a matter of someone discovering in the process and propigating some great secret simple strategy to beat us. If what we are doing is inherently flawed even street thugs in Somalli will find the cracks anyway. I want my military and political leaders to recognise when something is not going to work and be willing to  adjust or even stop before going headlong to our doom. In the big picture of wars and world affairs doing such is the winning strategy.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-08-15 18:33:05)

Oh well since you put it that way, I am sure that Orange Plus and his mates wouldn't have minded reenlisting for a second and third round in Somalia. And you wouldn't mind paying, as needed, the billions upon billions of our taxdollars for a Somalli Provisonal authority and a decade or so of occupation. Shoot, I am sure you would put your money where your mouth is and ship out for 18 months or so to do your part as soon as they raised the limit on age to include you.

Some plans  can be fixed and some need a wholely different approach. At what point do you face up to reality Zoo.

Heck maybe it would be better to not spend  all that mighty but seemingly dwindling American Willpower so profligately. There must be some other stretch of sand in the world with something under it that could at least provide some justification for cranking out no bid contracts to our leader's friends and supporters.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-08-15 20:10:32)

One was too many. Seventeen is absolutely stupid. Any more (and there were more) is criminal. Maybe our enemies learned that we value our people's lives more than we value their shitholes, and maybe, some of us realize that those lives are worth more than those shitholes. If we learn that lesson, maybe we'll stay the fuck out of those shitholes unless it's absolutely necessary. Might keep that in mind when people start talking smack likely to get us to send some of our valuable people to some 5th rate Georgian shithole. It's not like there's a lack of shitholes in the world.

Last edited by orangeplus (2008-08-15 23:34:50)

Zookeeper wrote:

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Some plans  can be fixed and some need a wholely different approach. At what point do you face up to reality Zoo.

Well, I guess the death of 17 American soldiers is the natural threshold.  Especially if some of the bodies are shown on TV being dragged through the street. Once you've reached that point you know the task is impossible.

disclaimer: Please don't read this. (unless you want to be irritated or frustrated)  I'm still pissed at the I.M.P.D. to the point of post-traumatic stress disorder. It's either go on a senseless rant or jar some kittens. Since I fear the PETA minions more than G.O., here I go:

The truth of the matter was that conflict, during said era, was only a tool used to deflect attention away from the fact that the president was conducting world business over the phone while getting some head.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I wager that Clinton waged some form of conflict on more countries than any president in history (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.). Figures.. It's par for the course with those darn war-mongering Democrats. Just look back in history- Kennedy got us in Vietnam, Johnson escalated in Vietnam.. Thank god the Republicans had enough sense to finally pull us out of that crap.

At least in Iraq we had a reason for going. I'm not talking about WMD's, I'm talking about the, what(?), 17 (or more) UN resolution violations. Correct me if I'm wrong but those resolutions are what Iraq agreed to in order to keep us from going to Baghdad after they invaded Kuwait.

Everyone harps on and on about WMDs, which even the inspectors believed were still in abundance in Iraq along with almost every intelligence agency in Europe, not just the US and Britain, but of course we all forget that now, huh? The truth is, there were PLENTY of other resolution violations, any one of which put a virtual end to our cease-fire agreement with Iraq.

Note UNSCR #678:

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Or #688

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq violated nearly everything they agreed to, which gives us every right under the United Nations Resolutions to toss Saddam.

Point being, we had a much more valid excuse to invade Iraq than we did Vietnam (thanks again for that ass fucking, Dems) and how many folks did we lose in that war compared to Iraq? Yep, those Dems sure know how to get us into a conflict and handle it. The Bush administration has been castrated for 4,000 casualties in five years vs 56,000 casualties in Vietnam from '66-'71... way kill some American teens, Kennedy and Johnson!!! Oh and thanks for that draft, forcing just the POOR kids to die, while the rich kids get a pass. (instead of the current 100% voluntary force we sport today). Yep, the left sure is out to help the little guy and keep the rich in check. Back in the day they eliminated a substantial portion of a generation of poor kids. Guess that's one way to be able to say "well there are 56,000 less poor kids now than there were 5 years ago!!!".

One last rant... We were told by the libs that we were only going to Iraq to steal all their oil. Yep, we were going there and going to take all that oil for ourselves. I remember folks on Cruel going on and on about that one. What is worse is people actually BELIEVED that we could go in there, set up our pumps, and ship every ounce of Iraqi oil over here..... and people actually believed this. That somehow we'd cut Opec out and rob the Iraqi people and everyone would just stand by and waive their fingers at us while telling us to shame on ourselves. hahahaha... How gullible the masses are?

Have I earned a scorning from G.O. yet? God I hope so. I've been such a naughty boy.

apologize for the lack of proofreading. It's my m.o., dontcha know?

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-16 00:03:56)

Never mind the fact that only a year or so prior to our entanglement in Somalia, GHWB led us and an actual coalition in a campaign based on an actual, limited goal, that was understood, and whose logical end everyone could foresee.  We lost ~100 servicepeople in that action, and some of our pilots were captured (possibly tortured, probably wind-whipped on ejection, but, hey, it was an A-10, and my Civic can go faster) and put on the tee-vee, and not too much protest or call for withdrawal was heard.  Revisionists can claim widespread complaint, too, over the pace of WWII (there wasn't, according to my grandparents who were there and paid attention), but the fact of the matter is that we had actual goals there, and plenty of footage of the atrocities that fanned us into it to go around.  Hell, our adversaries were proud of what they were doing.  Even in the darkest days in the beginning, when things were not going well, we could at least see that our leadership was learning in the process and adjusting to the reality on the ground.  There were partisan groups and paramilitaries involved on each side, and while some were against us, and others were lousy allies, we had a much better time managing the ones who were our ostensible allies and getting them to contribute to the overall big picture plan.  Nowadays, it doesn't seem like our more advanced intelligence services can find their asses with both hands, much less aid our servicepeople in convincing the partisans that we have anything remotely close to their interests in mind.  Instead, it has become increasingly obvious that the only reason we go anywhere any more is to support the interests of multinational corporations, and the only way to get the US to intervene is to threaten those interests.  Thus, because an international pipeline is involved, there is the very real risk of us getting entangled in yet another part of the world most of us did not know, until last week, is not the archrival of Alabama.  They've had thug rule and vendettas going on there since before the Persians swept through.  The only thing that makes it slightly more sympathetic to our sensibilities is that these are Christians, not dirty Muslims.  The whole thing is a filthy fucking mess that we would be well to be far away from, and as GWB just announced a little while ago that we will not cast them aside, casting aside is exactly what I expect him to do.  Tragic for the Georgians, and once the Ossetians and Abkhazians realize what they've gotten themselves into throwing in their lot with the Russians, it will be tragic for them, too.  But at least it's not like these people haven't known cruelty and privation in their time...

orangeplus wrote:

One was too many. Seventeen is absolutely stupid. Any more (and there were more) is criminal. Maybe our enemies learned that we value our people's lives more than we value their shitholes, and maybe, some of us realize that those lives are worth more than those shitholes. If we learn that lesson, maybe we'll stay the fuck out of those shitholes unless it's absolutely necessary. Might keep that in mind when people start talking smack likely to get us to send some of our valuable people to some 5th rate Georgian shithole. It's not like there's a lack of shitholes in the world.

If one was too many then clearly the mission should never have been undertaken in the first place.  My point is that once we have sent our troops someplace there's more on the line than just that particular mission or even the lives of the soldiers there.  Once we run away with our tails between our legs it makes the next mission harder for the next group of soldiers sent in harm's way.  They go up against people who reason "Shit, they'll give up if we just kill some of them" as opposed to "the last bunch of fools who tried to beat them all failed and died".  I think our troops are far better off with everyone thinking they can't beat them than they are with everyone thinking they can beat them by just bleeding them a while.

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Some plans  can be fixed and some need a wholely different approach. At what point do you face up to reality Zoo.

Well, I guess the death of 17 American soldiers is the natural threshold.  Especially if some of the bodies are shown on TV being dragged through the street. Once you've reached that point you know the task is impossible.

disclaimer: Please don't read this. (unless you want to be irritated or frustrated)  I'm still pissed at the I.M.P.D. to the point of post-traumatic stress disorder. It's either go on a senseless rant or jar some kittens. Since I fear the PETA minions more than G.O., here I go:

The truth of the matter was that conflict, during said era, was only a tool used to deflect attention away from the fact that the president was conducting world business over the phone while getting some head.

Err... no.  You your time table is way off.  Somalia was over and done long before Lewinskigate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I wager that Clinton waged some form of conflict on more countries than any president in history (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.).

Actually, George H. Bush got us into Somalia, not Clinton.  He sent troops after he was defeated by Clinton but before he left office.  It was a lovely parting gift you might say.

Shit like that kept us in Vietnam for 10 years to no purpose. At the end of it our army was spent our people divided and our prestige before the world at it lowest until now.

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Well, I guess the death of 17 American soldiers is the natural threshold.  Especially if some of the bodies are shown on TV being dragged through the street. Once you've reached that point you know the task is impossible.

disclaimer: Please don't read this. (unless you want to be irritated or frustrated)  I'm still pissed at the I.M.P.D. to the point of post-traumatic stress disorder. It's either go on a senseless rant or jar some kittens. Since I fear the PETA minions more than G.O., here I go:

The truth of the matter was that conflict, during said era, was only a tool used to deflect attention away from the fact that the president was conducting world business over the phone while getting some head.

Err... no.  You your time table is way off.  Somalia was over and done long before Lewinskigate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I wager that Clinton waged some form of conflict on more countries than any president in history (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.).

Actually, George H. Bush got us into Somalia, not Clinton.  He sent troops after he was defeated by Clinton but before he left office.  It was a lovely parting gift you might say.

Ok, you're right. Somalia is error in my long list of countries Clinton took action in during his presidency? Any other president take action on more countries than Clinton?

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

disclaimer: Please don't read this. (unless you want to be irritated or frustrated)  I'm still pissed at the I.M.P.D. to the point of post-traumatic stress disorder. It's either go on a senseless rant or jar some kittens. Since I fear the PETA minions more than G.O., here I go:

The truth of the matter was that conflict, during said era, was only a tool used to deflect attention away from the fact that the president was conducting world business over the phone while getting some head.

Err... no.  You your time table is way off.  Somalia was over and done long before Lewinskigate.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I wager that Clinton waged some form of conflict on more countries than any president in history (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.).

Actually, George H. Bush got us into Somalia, not Clinton.  He sent troops after he was defeated by Clinton but before he left office.  It was a lovely parting gift you might say.

Ok, you're right. Somalia is error in my long list of countries Clinton took action in during his presidency? Any other president take action on more countries than Clinton?

I don't know but I'm sure he got more action than any other president when he traveled to other countries.  JFK may have gotten more action at home than Clinton but it's tough to call...

Zookeeper wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

Err... no.  You your time table is way off.  Somalia was over and done long before Lewinskigate.


Actually, George H. Bush got us into Somalia, not Clinton.  He sent troops after he was defeated by Clinton but before he left office.  It was a lovely parting gift you might say.

Ok, you're right. Somalia is error in my long list of countries Clinton took action in during his presidency? Any other president take action on more countries than Clinton?

I don't know but I'm sure he got more action than any other president when he traveled to other countries.  JFK may have gotten more action at home than Clinton but it's tough to call...

C'mon now. You can't even compare Billy C to JFK. JFK fucked women like  Marilyn Monroe, for Christ's sake! Bill had buck-ugly underlings give him blow jobs. Bill was not even in the same realm of player. Comparing the two is like comparing Flavor Flav with Brad Pitt. I bet Hillary gets better looking chicks than Bill does, for that matter.

I'm outtie for the evening. Last night I spent the evening laying in bed gritting my teeth and fantasizing about beating a particular cop to death (to the point of only sleeping for a whopping 2 hours). 

I use to go from Friday to Sunday on no sleep, every weekend, and now I'm ready to pass out...  getting old, I guess.

I look forward to reading the verbal colon-slamming in the morning.

respekt (yeah, I'm old skool, so what?)

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-16 02:26:15)

choad wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

Last night I spent the evening laying in bed gritting my teeth and fantasizing about beating a particular cop to death (to the point of only sleeping for a whopping 2 hours).

Cops get paid to fuck with people and many of them seem to enjoy it. Let it go, dude. Yeah, I do remember your disagreement with Bal'imore's finest four years ago.

Wait, I never had a disagreement with Bal'imore cops?

The last encounter, in the past 10 years, of any sort, that I've had with a cop was in 2002 here in Indy. It wasn't pleasant, either, but mainly because my 4-y-o said something to the effect of, "shouldn't he be looking for donuts?". Well, that and me making him look stupid after he said he got me on radar and then noticed my radar detector (which never went off). I got a ticket then, too, but that one disappeared (thanks to some outside help that no longer is capable of such things).

Those were my only two unpleasant experiences with LEO's since the age of 16.... Never even talked to a cop in B-more.

Last edited by ptah13 (2008-08-16 05:07:26)

tojo2000 wrote:

Tickle Me Ptah wrote:

BUFFER OVERFLOW

The weapons inspectors did not think that there were WMDs in Iraq.  Don't you remember the Republicans publicly deriding them as incompetent for not finding the weapons that "everybody knew" were there?

The truth is that the weapons inspectors were very effective at their jobs.  Anyone that thinks that the fact that 100% of them were not accounted for means that there was a hidden stockpile has never been through a SOX audit.  In addition, it was well-known that almost 100% of the weapons that the inspectors were there to destroy would be wholly ineffective because their shelf-life was up.  The invasion of Iraq was dependent on the insinuation that there were new weapons programs, which there was no evidence of.  There was no clear and present danger from old missiles buried in the sand.

Yeah but you gotta admit that JFK fucked a better class of whore than Clinton did, right?

Zookeeper wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

We've become a nation of hand-wringers and quitters.  Frankly, the American public of today never could have hung on long enough to win WWII (they sure as hell wouldn't have stood up to the beating the Brits took with bombs falling on their heads nightly).  They all would have gotten far too discouraged far too fast and decided it just wasn't winnable (and certainly not worth the loss of life).

Yes, you're right, we're totally different from the Americans in WWII, who immediately jumped at the chance to go to war to help our allies.  Oh, wait, that's right.  We didn't.  We thought spending our money and our lives on a regional European conflict was a bad idea.

Look up the definition of "alliance".  We were not part of an alliance in the years leading up to our entrance to WWII.  But whether we were obligated to get into the war sooner or not the point is that once we were in we went in 100% and there was no tolerance for the pervasive "it can't be done" defeatism of today.

And to add insult to injury it was those Damn Democrats and their feable weak minded FDR, along with his chief wartime negotiator, Russian patsy spy Alger Hiss, who engineered the Western Betrayal and gave away the world to Stalin in Tehran and Yalta.  Had that coward Truman not but the kibosh on Patton, he would have kicked that red butt out of the continent.



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-08-16 23:17:27)

ptah13 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I wager that Clinton waged some form of conflict on more countries than any president in history (Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.). Figures.. It's par for the course with those darn war-mongering Democrats. Just look back in history- Kennedy got us in Vietnam, Johnson escalated in Vietnam.. Thank god the Republicans had enough sense to finally pull us out of that crap.

...

Those Damn Democrats,

Their predecessors came up with the Monroe Doctrine in the first place. Hamstringing our ability to squash the Nazis when it would have been a cakewalk.

And to add insult to injury once that addled appeasing  excuse for a president, Roosevelt, plunked us smack down into the thick of it, he managed to give away both Eastren Europe and Asia to Stalin in the Western Betrayal. If it wasn't for the Democrat surrender monkeys holding back Patton, good men like Ronald Reagan would not have had to restore our honor by invading marxist Grenada.

If those long list of cowardly Democrats hadn't ruined our efforts, the Teflon President wouldn't have had to rock the Rollback upon the Evil Empire.

Regean wouldn't have needed to ramp up the little program to to arm the Anti-Soviet Mujahadeen from $30 million  to $30 billion.  Training and financing the Islamists like Osama bin Laden. Funding the creation of his Jihadists buddies' base in Pakistani tribal areas. From where to this day he wages war on the civilised world.

There would have been no reason to send Rummy to Iraq to shake hands with Saddam in deals to supply him with the materials to gas the Kurds. No hundreds of US miltitary personel working night and day to provide Saddam with battlefield intel and bomb damage assesments of where to drop the Chemical WMDs on Iran.



Reagan wouldn't have had to get messy in Nicaragua let alone train, finance and supply all those death squads holding the last bastion against the godless communists in  Hondorus, El Salvador, Guatamala and Costa Rica (the first 2 got the added honor of deployed US troops)

Let alone have to take over direct control of Argentina's expansion of it's Dirty War, which created the popular enduring phenomon of "Disappearances". And look the other way after Argentina sent Nazi Klaus Barbie and Itallian terrorists to enact the  Cocaine Coup in Bolivia and rake in the drug profits from the brutal regime to finance their US proxy endevours in waging the Dirty war on communists in Central America.

No need to keep our planes constantly in the air for 6 years in a low grade war with Libya.

We wouldn't have had to wage a 2 year campaign as Kuwait's proxy navy including tactical strikes from time to time.

Interventions covert and overt in:


Angola
South Africa ( Reagan might not have had to veto the anti-aprtheid bill in solidarity of the Afrikaners anti-communist efforts. Cheney might not have had to oppose it on the grounds Mandela was a terrorist)
Algeria
Ethiopia
Cambodia
Laos
Peru
and whatever other classified third world nightmare they sent Dhal to. Which we will not find out about till everyone involved is too dead to speak.

Lets not forget the adventure in Lebenon.

And last but not least Iran. Our sworn Enemy except of course when Reagan was selling them weapons to subvert the law of the land and making other secret trades of human life for power in October surprises.

The Reagan Doctrine is more radical than it pretends to be. It pretends that support for democratic rebels is "self-defense" and sanctioned by international law. That case is weak. The real case rests instead on other premises: that to be constrained from supporting freedom by an excessive concern for sovereignty (and a unilateral concern, at that) is neither especially moral nor prudent. The West, of late, has taken to hiding behind parchment barriers as an excuse for inaction when oppressed democrats beg for help. The Reagan Doctrine, while still hiding a bit, announces an end to inaction.

Only a few months ago, a Nicaraguan friend, an exSandinista who still speaks their language, said in near despair that the struggle of democrats around the world was doomed by the absence in the West of what he called "democratic militance." The Reagan Doctrine represents a first step toward its restoration.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-08-16 19:30:00)

Sorry I was so run-on-y earlier.  I teach 5-year-olds to write, and sometimes I forget that just writing a hell of a lot is not always the idea.  Paragraphs are taught in first grade.

Anyway, my point is this:

The American people are not now, nor have we been in our history, whiners or quitters when a conflict actually counts or matters to the population in general. 

However, when it's simply being conducted to preserve a corporation's profits or concessions, or to keep a certain political party from looking "weak" (viz, the Democrats in Vietnam) against the current bogeyman, the public will call bullshit when they become aware of this situation.

The difference between now and forty years ago is the difference between having three networks broadcasting news once or twice a day with footage that had to be hand-carried to broadcast hqs., versus myriad outlets (many of them foreign) with near-instant production and broadcast capability via satellite.

The pointy-head types who read newspapers and other such analytical texts always have a better handle on the reality on the ground, or at least what their particular ideological leaders know, but Joe Sixpack needs more of a digest-form.  Thus, newsreels, posters, radio spots, and now TV and flashy Internet sites to help them get an idea of what's going on.

We've got a problem, in that our enemy has been poorly-defined (an abstract noun), and beyond magnet-ribbons mistaken for Jesus fish on the backs of cars, we don't have a real idea what the hell we are supposed to do to contribute.  We haven't been told to conserve.  We haven't been told to recycle.  We haven't been told to contribute monetarily, either through voluntary War Bonds or mandated tax increases.  Instead we are told to go shopping or the "turrrurists win."

We can't take this war seriously.

It has become apparent that the leadership doesn't, either.

Our troops have been so poorly guided, it's amazing that so few atrocities have occurred.  Our (expensive) war equipment has been damaged, worn out, or destroyed, and for what?  So Defense contractors can make the new best thing, and sell it at a higher price?  So we can blow a bunch of mud huts to hell and convince ourselves that this is making America safe?

I don't buy it.  And daily, more Americans are waking up to the facts and refusing to buy it anymore, either.

I realize that I'm not likely to change minds here, that's not my point.  I'm just trying to spread some basic understanding, and I thank those who disagree with me for sharing their views, too, as much as those with whom I agree.  One day, we may find more of a common ground than just kittehs and tentacle porn.

But still people are continuing to die in a place that STILL means little to the average American.  I just hope we don't get drawn into a real-live pissing contest with the Russians over a scarred little corner of the Caucasus or the Baltic plain.