Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackllotus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
For your first day as a republican, you got your president pardoning his criminal friends who got convicted.. Hope you agree with his "values"!</end quote></div>
I sure do The whole trial was a sham.</end quote></div>
Was the jury rigged or something? Trial by jury except when the outcome disagrees with what I want.</end quote></div>
Well, the Clinton impeachment hearing were a sham too...right?
Touche
Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>
Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.
You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>
and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card?
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>
Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.
You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>
and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>
Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?
What is your agenda for America?
Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackllotus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: shadow9d9
For your first day as a republican, you got your president pardoning his criminal friends who got convicted.. Hope you agree with his "values"!</end quote></div>
I sure do The whole trial was a sham.</end quote></div>
Was the jury rigged or something? Trial by jury except when the outcome disagrees with what I want.</end quote></div>
Well, the Clinton impeachment hearing were a sham too...right?
Touche
Originally posted by: BD2003
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>
Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.
You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>
and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>
Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?
What is your agenda for America?</end quote></div>
WTF, are you the forum Hannity?
"Say you hate America...say it!"
LOL.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BD2003
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
With the exception of illegal immigration reform and spending, I agree with everything the Republicans have done in the last 7 years. </end quote></div>
Thank you for continuing to solidify the proof of your hate for this country.
You've been on quite a roll the last two days.</end quote></div>
and BTW Dave...why is it that when someone stands for something you personally disagree with you bring out the hate America card? </end quote></div>
Now that you've professed your love for what has been done to the Country by your Heror and his supporters...well let's hear it, what do you stand for?
What is your agenda for America?</end quote></div>
WTF, are you the forum Hannity?
"Say you hate America...say it!"
LOL.</end quote></div>
How come you guys can never just come out and say what your agenda is?
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :
"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."
You say 'agree'
and then to this :
"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."
You say 'Good'
So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?
Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :
"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."
You say 'agree'
and then to this :
"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."
You say 'Good'
So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?
Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.</end quote></div>
Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :
"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."
You say 'agree'
and then to this :
"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."
You say 'Good'
So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?
Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.</end quote></div>
Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.
</end quote></div>
Oh, really? You're too much fun, tell us about the placement and strategy, and why this will work when everything else has failed?
Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: blackangst1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Angst, you're sort of screwing yourself on the replies there :
"U.S. soldiers have become "easy targets" in a country that has descended into "absolute anarchy," the Nebraska Republican and Vietnam combat veteran said in an interview with The World-Herald."
You say 'agree'
and then to this :
"Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000."
You say 'Good'
So, if our soldiers are easy targets in a country that has descended into anarchy, WHY say 'good' to adding more troops, putting more lives at risk? Do you honestly think it's going to help anything?
Seriously, your opinions on the Iraq debacle are kind of interesting, in a masochistic way.</end quote></div>
Easy answer. It's all about placement and strategy.
</end quote></div>
Oh, really? You're too much fun, tell us about the placement and strategy, and why this will work when everything else has failed?</end quote></div>
I never implied >> I << had the answer. One thing for sure in this war (that I dont agree with BTW) is control is not giv'n the generals et al on the ground. These guys know how to do it. Let them.
Although I admittedly dont know HOW to do it, I know we have to. Also, the flip-side is true. Just because we are (ahem) failing at this war doesnt mean it cant be won. Like I have always said, I agree it was excecuted sloppily. Unfortunately those who are anti-war just think there are two alternatives-stay and keep doing what were doing, or bail. I propose the answer lies somewhere in between. I also believe the guys on the ground know how to make it happen.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh, and about Hagel, at least he SERVED in Vietnam, and didn't dodge it like Clinton, Bush, or Cheney. It seems this administration has gone out of their way to run this war by civilian committee rather than listen to combat vets and the generals.
...
Yeah, that's right, this administration doesn't give half a shit about the troops, their lives, or their families. By supporting their madness, you align yourself with those despotic ignorant fools. A majority of REPUBLICANS think the Iraq situation is an unforgivable blunder, yet you stick to it like a zombie.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.
The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.
That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.
Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Arkaign
Oh, and about Hagel, at least he SERVED in Vietnam, and didn't dodge it like Clinton, Bush, or Cheney. It seems this administration has gone out of their way to run this war by civilian committee rather than listen to combat vets and the generals.
...
Yeah, that's right, this administration doesn't give half a shit about the troops, their lives, or their families. By supporting their madness, you align yourself with those despotic ignorant fools. A majority of REPUBLICANS think the Iraq situation is an unforgivable blunder, yet you stick to it like a zombie.
</end quote></div>
It is typical of politicians and is reinforced by that the military command structure is UNDER the political command structure. The military can act as advisers - however, the president does not have to take their advice.
Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all ran Vietnam from the civilian side of the house and did not listen to the combat vets and the generals. If they had, the Vietnam conflict would not have existed.
The president puts in advisor's that he feels comfortable with and lets things go from there.
Iraq may have been a blunder in the execution after the attacks.
However, once we were in the quagmire no-one has come up with a way for us to get out and not get drawn back in due to genocide that would happen.
The so called hundred of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed would increase considerably if the place were to be abandoned.
That is the moral dilemma - how to extract ourself without making the situation that we triggered worse.
Now, the current administration has not a clue and stumbles around.
The Democrats chime in by stating, get out - yet they have no plan for the resulting chaos that we will leave behind.
They are just in the dark as how to resolve the problems as the administration.
So just because on does not like that the Democrats are pulling the wool over peoples eyes and burying their heads in the sand, does not mean that the actions of the administration are whole heartedly supported.
Do not be like a McOwen and start smearing tar on everyone due to their political affiliation.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon all ran Vietnam from the civilian side of the house and did not listen to the combat vets and the generals. If they had, the Vietnam conflict would not have existed.
Kennedy never again trusted his generals and espionage chiefs after the 1961 fiasco in Cuba, and he became a master at artfully deflecting their militant counsel. "After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy had contempt for the Joint Chiefs," historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. recalled over drinks in the hushed, stately rooms of New York City's Century Club not long before his death. "I remember going into his office in the spring of 1961, where he waved some cables at me from General Lemnitzer, who was then in Laos on an inspection tour. And Kennedy said, 'If it hadn't been for the Bay of Pigs, I might have been impressed by this.' I think J.F.K.'s war-hero status allowed him to defy the Joint Chiefs. He dismissed them as a bunch of old men. He thought Lemnitzer was a dope."...
Nor did President Kennedy have a firm hand on the Pentagon. "Certainly we did not control the Joint Chiefs of Staff," said Schlesinger, looking back at the Kennedy White House. It was a chilling observation, considering the throbbing nuclear tensions of the period. The former White House aide revealed that J.F.K. was less afraid of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's ordering a surprise attack than he was "that something would go wrong in a Dr. Strangelove kind of way"--with a politically unstable U.S. general snapping and launching World War III.
Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.
Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.
Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right--under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race--Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.
Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it ... We couldn't win the war for them."