Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dago on July 21, 2004, 03:51:43 PM
-
Now they are taking advantage of the lesson the Phillipines has taught them, terrorism works. Of course, Spain was ahead of the Phillipines in rewarding terrorism.
Group Threatens to Behead 6 New Hostages
By RAVI NESSMAN, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Militants took six foreign truck drivers hostage and threatened Wednesday to behead them unless their company ends its business in Iraq (news - web sites), and their countries — India, Egypt and Kenya — pull all their citizens out.
When weak nations let terrorists determine the course of their elections, when weak nations let terrorist determine their militaries strategies, the behavior is rewarded and encouraged, not discouraged and eliminated.
Unbelievable. Pathetic. Cowardly.
dago
-
the bigger mistake was in not requesting, or insisting that the smaller less capable countries withdraw from active coalition service when it became obvious that their political liabilities were larger than their mission contributions. I would prefer the US go it alone at this point rather than having country after country retreat under pressure of terror.
-
Definalty true. The insurgents will attack the invaders in any effective way they can. Once they had success with the philipinos the other small partners were imedialty in increadble danger.
They might be carefull with the Indians though. They play hardball.
Nothing would help the US more then a pissed off India putting 40000 troops in Iraq.
They would do it too.
-
This happened before. The Palestinians used to hijack planes and hold the passengers hostage until some of their friends were released. Eventually it stopped when countries began to use special forces to attack the terrorists. Eventually a line will have to be drawn. When it stops working it will stop. That means hostages must die. A horrible but obvious truth.
-
so instead of leaving in August like they had planned too. They decided why not save some one and leave one month earlier.
a thank you would of been better then your cowardly comment.
then you ask why so many people find you arrogant and ego prone.
-
It's perfectly rational that the Philipinos left. They only had 50 people and were scheduled to leave next month anyway. From a Philipino politician's wiew it was a reasonable exchange to save a man's life and I'm happy he is OK.
However, many others in Iraq will now pay dearly because the terrorists see the reward for their actions and will step up the kidnappings and murders. I'm not happy about that.
-
so instead of leaving in August like they had planned too. They decided why not save some one and leave one month earlier.
Basically you are choosing to put the blinders on aren't you?
The terrorisist see the Phillipinos leaving early as a victory. It is a move that will cost many people dearly in the future, as the 6 now being held are the first to pay.
Your comment was beyond naive, it shows a lack of even the basic ability to comprehend the concept of cause and reaction.
I think Yeager made the best suggestion, ask the smaller contributors to leave, rather than wait for them to be put in the same situation.
dago
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
However, many others in Iraq will now pay dearly because the terrorists see the reward for their actions and will step up the kidnappings and murders. I'm not happy about that.
Agree, still though, its not BECAUSE of the Phillipinos.
they're still gonna kidnap and murder UNTIL you leave, and they will still keep doing it AFTER you leave.
its there mindset Grun. They will need a few centuries before they can fully appreciate what you guys are trying to give them.
someone once posted that it would be faster instilling Demo. in Iraq IF you sent PS2's to every kid there. Wise words in my opinion.
-
Surely you arent saying that these guys just like to chop heads with no real hope of a greater political result? That makes no sense. Of course they will be encouraged by the Philipine pullout... Its their first direct victory with this tactic...
I dont mean to get hung up on your view of the word "because" but simple logic says that the head choppers now have evidence that their tactic works and as rational human beings they will use it more and with more confidence.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Basically you are choosing to put the blinders on aren't you?
The terrorisist see the Phillipinos leaving early as a victory. It is a move that will cost many people dearly in the future, as the 6 now being held are the first to pay.
Your comment was beyond naive, it shows a lack of even the basic ability to comprehend the concept of cause and reaction.
dago
now that would be cause and AFFECT. But nice try anyways.
look Dago, your out to get someone. Have fun in your search. When your ready to discuss and not flame I'll start replyin to your posts.
-
Originally posted by SLO
now that would be cause and AFFECT. But nice try anyways.
look Dago, your out to get someone. Have fun in your search. When your ready to discuss and not flame I'll start replyin to your posts.
you mean EFFECT smart ass.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Surely you arent saying that these guys just like to chop heads with no real hope of a greater political result? That makes no sense. Of course they will be encouraged by the Philipine pullout... Its their first direct victory with this tactic...
I dont mean to get hung up on your view of the word "because" but simple logic says that the head choppers now have evidence that their tactic works and as rational human beings they will use it more and with more confidence.
chopping heads and blowing oneself up, mind telling me the difference.
Grun, its called a SCARE TACTIC, next year it might be something else.
I did say its in there MINDS(hence the mindset comment)
and it really has NOTHING to do with Politics Grun, they just hate you with a passion(thats there excuse for kidnapping)
-
Originally posted by mietla
you mean EFFECT smart ass.
thank you for the correction.
but please refrain from the smart bellybutton comment, really didn't need that one
-
Originally posted by SLO
thank you for the correction.
but please refrain from the smart bellybutton comment, really didn't need that one
smart bellybutton is exactly what I meant.
When you are trying to inflate your own self-image by smugly correcting other people's grammar, spelling and phrases they use, you better work on your language abilities first.
-
All you have to do is read the headlines and you know that the thread poster is correct. The philipines lack of resolve to finish something they got involved with will cost others their lives.
Just because I think its silly that they are there at all doesnt mean that I think they should be so spineless at what will be others expense.
-
Originally posted by SLO
chopping heads and blowing oneself up, mind telling me the difference.
Grun, its called a SCARE TACTIC, next year it might be something else.
I did say its in there MINDS(hence the mindset comment)
and it really has NOTHING to do with Politics Grun, they just hate you with a passion(thats there excuse for kidnapping)
Scare Tactic? Why scare us? So we give up and leave the Mid East? Again you cant be saying they just do it becaise they like scaring us and nothing else..
If they hate us with a passion, which is what you say is the real reason they kidnap people, then why do they make demands direct demands that we leave when they kidnap our people?
Moreover why did they release the philipino hostage after the philipiono army pulled out. Seems to me if they wanted to scare us or wanted to kill people out of hatred that they would kill him anyway. Why honor their agreement?
-
Don't the Philipines have a serious problem with their own, native muslim terrorists?
I doubt their current action will help them to deal with the terror in their own country.
-
and it really has NOTHING to do with Politics Grun, they just hate you with a passion(thats there excuse for kidnapping)
====
you think they dont hate you with a passion slo? just because your a canadian does not give you a PASS on the islamic hatred index of non muslim westerners. they hate you as much as they hate anyone.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Don't the Philipines have a serious problem with their own, native muslism terrorists?
I doubt their current action will help them to deal with a terror in their own country.
Yes their group is called Abu Sayyaf and they are doubtless very happy about this development. I wouldnt be surprised if you see a rise in kidnappings on the islands in the near future. I'm not saying that the govt will fold as in Iraq, which was quite reasonable from a short term political standpoint, but again it does mean that more innocents will suffer.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
and it really has NOTHING to do with Politics Grun, they just hate you with a passion(thats there excuse for kidnapping)
====
you think they dont hate you with a passion slo? just because your a canadian does not give you a PASS on the islamic hatred index of non muslim westerners. they hate you as much as they hate anyone.
I doubt he meant that, I mean you=me=americans as opposed to a canadian like him. Right slo?
-
Dago.re weak nations
You are right, may I add week people? Enough weak and afraid people can make a strong nation falter
Spain was the cause of this pure and simple.We tend to under estimate the enemy sometimes,when it worked for them against spain ,they decided to not attack another supposed strong enemy but the week ones first.
While so very many in America will try to turn a victory into defeat, one small victory for these people will keep them going for years.
Confused about whoever said politics had nothing to do with this but they are so very right. This is a religous war pure and simple .
-
As bush made political coin by concocting his grand alliance so his enemies gain political coin by weakening it. Its not brain surgery.
-
You are correct. The spanish leadership should never have gone against the clearly voiced wishes of thier people to appease the US. They caused this.
-
I don't recall this happening in Afghanistan to get countries to pull out, or is just not reported?
-SW
-
The Philippine government got a little too clever for its own good in ostensibly just expediting the withdrawal of its small force. Spain was a surprise -- looked like it wanted to be a world player again until it folded in election pressure.
Don't underestimate some of the smaller nations who remain in Iraq. Some pretty heartening antiterrorist statements from many of them.
Britain and Italy stand firm too. No negotiating with terrorists who will never quit until they get everything they want, which is everything.
Can't yield to bullies and thugs. Their appetite is insatiable.
-
Americans like 'fair play' and a 'level playing field', so in the interest of 'fair play' and a 'level playing field' the americans should cut off the head of a terriorst every time a car bomb goes off.
In the interest of 'fair play' of course.
-
SW that sig line is not quite long enough, I think it only mildly irritates Creamo at the present. Double it please.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
and it really has NOTHING to do with Politics Grun, they just hate you with a passion(thats there excuse for kidnapping)
====
you think they dont hate you with a passion slo? just because your a canadian does not give you a PASS on the islamic hatred index of non muslim westerners. they hate you as much as they hate anyone.
unless he is a muslim already.
-
Doh! wrong thread
-
Yessuh Massa!
-SW
-
john9001, that's a provocative idea ... head count would take on an entirely new significance ...
but WE of course would be severely criticized because WE cannot be like THEM, who generally do whatever they want with their one-voice rabid media who support THEM,
unlike our news media, who in the alleged interest of fairness and equal time wind up doing the terrorists' publicity work while emphasizing the negative aspects of the positive things WE are trying to do.
-
SW you made the sig bigger?
-
Originally posted by mietla
smart bellybutton is exactly what I meant.
When you are trying to inflate your own self-image by smugly correcting other people's grammar, spelling and phrases they use, you better work on your language abilities first.
1st off I didn't correct his spellin or grammar....
2nd....fug off
and....mange de la merde espece de con
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I doubt he meant that, I mean you=me=americans as opposed to a canadian like him. Right slo?
yup....or non-muslim(guess I should of used that instead)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Surely you arent saying that these guys just like to chop heads with no real hope of a greater political result? That makes no sense. Of course they will be encouraged by the Philipine pullout... Its their first direct victory with this tactic...
I dont mean to get hung up on your view of the word "because" but simple logic says that the head choppers now have evidence that their tactic works and as rational human beings they will use it more and with more confidence.
actually plenty of them chop heads because theyre brutal bastards. chechen terrorists have been recording the torture and killing of russian soldiers for quite some time.
-
Yeah, before it didn't occupy a whole page and then some when scrolling. I forsee it shall grow exponentially until, well, until I no longer have control over it. Then it will burrow into people's minds, and all they shall see at night is an uber long signature of dashes.
-SW
-
Yes, cause and effect, that is what I meant, I stand corrected, the exact term slipped my mind, but I think the principal I was getting at was understood.
Better to have a point and make it, even if not worded just right, then not have a point and only be able to attack grammar.
The point is made, terrorist have now learned they can have an effect on a nations resolve, on a nations fortitude with brutal acts of savegery. More will follow. When the United States was attacked, we stood up, stood together and went after those who would attack us. When Spain was attacked, and now the Phillipines held hostage with the threat of one death, they crumbled.
Two tragedies here. Loss of national pride for some, no matter the "why", and terrorists brutal tactics are rewarded.
Shakespeare said "Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once.".
At least he got it.
dago
-
please get it right, I did not attack your grammar, you posted saying CAUSE and REACTION, in other words CAUSE and AFFECT.
but then I got corrected with CAUSE and AFFECT(don't get me wrong, cause and EFFECT is correct, but so is cause and AFFECT)
one is a Psychological Principal the other is just a term(hmm can't seem too type what I mean...oh well)
yup it is better to have a point and make it, but understanding is much more critical.
-
Originally posted by Dago
"Cowards die a thousand deaths. The valiant taste of death but once.".
dago
sure tell that to the dieing....
'Hey man your a Hero, your only gonna die once'
its poetry Dago, words to embellish the cause
-
Whatever, the other guys "understood" what I was getting at, and since you immediatly referenced the principal I was referring to, I would guess you did to.
Pretty lame SLO.
dago
-
You seem to be unfamiliar with the term "it's the principal of the thing".
Sometimes standing up for principal is not easy, but there are times when it must be done, despite the possible cost. Everytime someone stood up for principal, stood up for liberty, they did so at great risk. The rewards are the freedoms and liberty those of us in the "free world" now enjoy and hold dear.
Any history book and provide many many examples. Like the nations that stood up to Hitler even though they were not under direct attack.
The Minute Men of our nations birth and the Founding Fathers, these men stood up for the principals of liberty. They did so at the risk of death, and with the risk of leaving their families alone without a means of support if they died. They did so out of principal, and to secure a safe and free world for their families.
Sometimes the easy choice isn't the best choice, sometimes standing up for principal isn't the easiest path, but sometimes it is the correct path.
When noting is risked, nothing is gained. Don't need Shakespeare to tell me that.
dago
-
Pongo, you are correct,In 1938 the American leadership should never have begun to prepare for ww2 against the majority of the peoples wish at that time.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Whatever, the other guys "understood" what I was getting at, and since you immediatly referenced the principal I was referring to, I would guess you did to.
Pretty lame SLO.
dago
then don't call me stupid next time, cause that AFFECTED my perception of you.
and I never said I did NOT understand what you were saying either.
quote 'You seem to be unfamiliar with the term "it's the principal of the thing".
spare me the morals Dago, you used your founding fathers as an analogy, fine, then why did CANADIANS and BRITISH troops go and BURN your fine principals.(White House)
you have a tendency to ask for help and when that help decides to stop you call him a coward.
now their is some fine principals.
-
Originally posted by SLO
spare me the morals Dago, you used your founding fathers as an analogy, fine, then why did CANADIANS and BRITISH troops go and BURN your fine principals.(White House)
and after they burned the white house we chased their chicken butts back to canada. run lobsterback run.
-
I didn't call you stupid, but since you choose to ignore the points I was making, I have to wonder.
Why did the Brits and Canadiens burn down the White House?
Let me paste a little background.
The War of 1812
The United States declared war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Although war had been avoided for several years, the continued harassment of U.S. ships and impressment of American sailors by the British pushed the nations to the brink. Despite protests from pro-English Federalists in Congress, President James Madison, at the time of his reelection, had determined that there was no other solution.
For the first two years of the war, the fighting was confined to Canada, the Great Lakes, and the high seas. Great Britain was preoccupied with their simultaneous war against France and did not have the resources to devote attention to both fronts. The war was distant from the people of Washington. But once Great Britain overthrew Napoleon in April 1814, it consolidated its forces against the United States. The fighting moved down the Atlantic coast towards the Chesapeake Bay.
After a disastrous battle at Bladensburg, Maryland, which President Madison witnessed, American forces retreated. The British turned their sights on Washington. Enemy troops marched to Washington and burned the major government buildings, including the White House and Capitol. Although burning the city was primarily in retaliation for the torching of the Canadian capitol, York (now Toronto), the British also hoped to disgrace President Madison and to divide the country once again. Fortunately, the fire did not have the desired effect. After several more months of war, including the needless but successful Battle of New Orleans, the United States declared victory, ratifying the Treaty of Ghent on February 17, 1815.
Why were the Canadiens helping the British? The Canadiens, unlike the Citizens of the United States of America, choose to accept British colonial rule and were fighting as subjects of the British Throne.
Link (http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_b_1812.html)
I'll sum it up for ya, they were screwing with our ships and sailors, we kicked their butts, they said "okay, we have had enough and will stop our screwing with your ships and sailors", and the war ended.
We stood up for ourselves, stood up for principals and when it was all said and done, we won, peace was restored, we protected ourselves and our freedoms.
dago
BTW, what does this have to do with anything anyway?
-
need to "chip" everyone who enters Iraq, both military and non
pay them triple with the understanding that if they are kidnapped, whatever structure the gps gives as their location will be a 30ft deep crater within the hour
-
Good idea, Eagler, but soon as chip plan is discovered, terrorists will just carve chip chunks out of their captives.
-
USA shouldn't been in the first place REQUIRING these unwilling countries to join their wars, which for these unwilling countries had a little support besides their administration.
Was it so silly decision from the french to stay away from the war after all? :p
(Prior to the war Bush during a speech literally called the french decision "silly"!)
-
Didn't Iran take a bunch of American hostages, what happen there?
-
USA shouldn't been in the first place REQUIRING these unwilling countries to join their wars,
I must admit I am not sure how the USA "required" any country to join the war.
I would be interested to hear how that happened. I would assume by your statement that we must have threatened these poor countries with something incredibly terrible to force them to go to war. What did we do, threaten them with nuclear annihilation? What else would be so terrible as to force an unwilling nation to put it's soldiers in mortal danger against the nations will?
Anxious to hear,
dago
-
Originally posted by Torque
Didn't Iran take a bunch of American hostages, what happen there?
Are you talking about the british soldiers who were captured, with their boats and equiptment confiscated, but few days later released?
or you talking of the very old hostage case?
-
Those hostages made Carter look just awful.
Bush Sr., the VP candidate, flew to Paris to meet with Iranian officials. A deal was struck whereby the hostages wouldn't be released under Carter.
The same exact hour that Reagan was getting sworn in, the hostages were released.
-
Quick review for Torque.
1) Iran took hostages
2) A rescue attempt failed due to the collision between a C130 and Helicopter in the desert.
3) A Republican President who it was understood wouldn't put up with any crap was elected, they released the hostages the day of the Inauguration.
4) We should have followed up the release with an attack, but that wouldnt have been PC. Now I don't think we will worry about PC anymore when our citizens are harmed.
dago
-
Originally posted by Nash
Those hostages made Carter look just awful.
Bush Sr., the VP candidate, flew to Paris to meet with Iranian officials. A deal was struck whereby the hostages wouldn't be released under Carter.
The same exact hour that Reagan was getting sworn in, the hostages were released.
I saw an interview with Alexander Haig (Reagan's Sec. of State) in which he said flat out that he (Haig) delivered the message to Iran that if the hostages were not released by the time Reagan took office, there was going to be a new game in town.
He made very clear to the Iranians that the game was over when Reagan took over.
-
Wotev. Negotiated with terrorists. Struck a deal. Both got what they wanted, and I'm sure terrorists took a lesson from it. Relationship further refined and grew into other such transactions such as hostages for arms.
-
Nash what do you mean negotiated with them?
-
I mean the face to face negotiation of terms with Iran regarding American hostages, quite possibly extending their incarceration, in order to gain advantage in a Presidential race, all behind a sitting President's back.
That kind.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Wotev. Negotiated with terrorists. Struck a deal. Both got what they wanted, and I'm sure terrorists took a lesson from it. Relationship further refined and grew into other such transactions such as hostages for arms.
Get outta here!:eek:
-
Originally posted by Torque
Get outta here!:eek:
Better yet, why not tell us what negotiations took place? What deal was struck in order to secure the release of the Americans held by Iran?
-
Been done.... lots.... olden.
Go dig it up, find something wrong with what I'm saying then come back and tell me why.
It'll be a total retread, but I'm feeling charitable.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I mean the face to face negotiation of terms with Iran regarding American hostages, quite possibly extending their incarceration, in order to gain advantage in a Presidential race, all behind a sitting President's back.
That kind.
What do you have to back that up? From what I understand, after Reagan was elected, Haig expressed to Iran that if the hostages were not released, there was going to be real hell to pay, no more games.
What "deal" was made? Here is the deal: "release the hostaged or else" No more to it than that. No "deal"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Been done.... lots.... olden.
Go dig it up, find something wrong with what I'm saying then come back and tell me why.
It'll be a total retread, but I'm feeling charitable.
You are confusing the issue with "Iran Contra"
-
Neg., but it leads there....
-
tell me the basics in your own words, I'll go from there....
-
no
-
Reagan could not represent the USA until after he was elected . Very simple. And what exactly did Reagan use Iran for in order to influence the election?
-
Nuke - go learn about it first then come at me with what you've learned.
I'm not gonna play tit for tat in order that a picture begins to emerge for you. Waste of time.
-
LOL Nash, what a puss out. I'm not playing tit for tat, you are. You answer my questions with "go learn about it" instead of offering anything.
I offer this: Reagan could not legally negotiate with or represent the US in talks with any foreign government while he was running for President.
So I again ask you, what negotiations did Reagan have with Iran regarding the hostages ( or anything) while he was running for President?
You are the one who claims negotiations took place, you are the one who needs to back that up.
-
Jesse Jackson goes to foreign countries to negotiate on behalf of the US....
mkay?
Do you have a prollem with what I said? If so, what exactly is it?
-
oh Nash, what how exactly did Reagan exploit Iran to his advantage during the campaign?
-
You tell me.
Give me just a suspicion that you're versed enough in this to warrant the retread.
-
Originally posted by Nash
You tell me.
Give me just a suspicion that you're versed enough in this to warrant the retread.
That's a dumb comment. I have told you I do not know what you are talking about...isn't that the point of my trying to get you to elaborate?
Just blurt it out in your own words and put me to shame.
-
The Philippines owe little and have no significant allegiance to the US. I don't fault them for pulling out when the going got too tough. Those opposed to US (and coalition) action in Iraq will fight us as long as they are able and I'm pretty sure they realize that at least the US (and likely others) will stay the course regardless of their actions. At least until next January.
-
I already did.
I said everything I wanted to say.
You want to tell me I'm wrong.... but you don't seem to have a single clue about any of it.
So why am I wrong?
Because it makes you feel bad?
I have no idea where you're coming from.
-
Wotev. Negotiated with terrorists. Struck a deal. Both got what they wanted,
And you said this but cant even list one thing that backs it up. What negotiations took place? What did Iran get ?
the face to face negotiation of terms with Iran regarding American hostages, quite possibly extending their incarceration, in order to gain advantage in a Presidential race, all behind a sitting President's back.
and this, yet nothing....not even your own words to back it up
-
I said this as fact. You disagree with it?
I am curious... why do you disagree?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I said this as fact. You disagree with it?
I am curious... why do you disagree?
I'm asking you to back it up.
I do not believe it. I am asking you to back it up or explain why you would believe it. You are the one who said it, not me.
I said I saw Alexander Haig being interviewed on the subject and I offered, in my own words, what he related regarding the hostages. I also followed the crisis during that time as a highschool student very interested in the events.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm asking you to back it up.
And I'm saying no.
Google the thing if that's what you need.
THEN come back and tell me what the prollem is.
As it is... you're challenging me on this merely because it makes you feel bad. I aint yer mom and I can't be held responsible for that.
Someone in another thread said that Duvall is his favorite actor. Nobody is asking him to back that up. But if someone suspected him of being disengenous, they should say why that is.
-
you are completly wrong. What you said does not make me feel bad at all. I simply do not believe it. You are telling me to "google" points for your argument, which is pretty sad.
And the actor comment is out of context by only a few hundred miles. This has nothing to do with opinions...... you stated something as fact and will not elaborate or even argue a point based on what you claimed.
lame.
-
Righto. ciao
-
Carter negotiated with China during his campaign against Ford in order to give away the Panama Canal.
Google it if you dissagree, because I dont have time to back that up. But you better take that as fact..if you don't, it's only because it makes you feel bad. :lol
-
:rolleyes: 30 seconds gone forever, what a waste of time.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I must admit I am not sure how the USA "required" any country to join the war.
I would be interested to hear how that happened. I would assume by your statement that we must have threatened these poor countries with something incredibly terrible to force them to go to war. What did we do, threaten them with nuclear annihilation? What else would be so terrible as to force an unwilling nation to put it's soldiers in mortal danger against the nations will?
Anxious to hear,
dago
Of course not.. the Bush administration for example did not try to force french in any way to join the war. :rolleyes:
*cough*french bashing*cough*admnistration supported*cough*
-
Fishu, you are not coming off well here, you say the USA "required" other nations to join the coalitiion, then you can't offer any information on how that happened, or who was "required". All you can do is allude to the French?????? They were bashed for their efforts to block all US actions in the UN. That is not even in the ballpark as "requiring other nations".
What a pathetic response, I pity you and the sad position you have put yourself in. You are obviously now just regurgitating nonsense you think you saw somewhere without really knowing, or having a single clue what you are talking about.
dago
-
Nuke,
Nash has illustrated that he also has zero clue regarding the ridiculous statements he has been making.
I would say you sure won that arguement. Congrats.
Nash, easy to babble nonsense, it's a little harder to back up your innuendo when it is in fact nonsense, isn't it?
dago
-
It aint nonsense, and if you think it is that's your problem - not mine.
That subject has been talked about lots here, so.... been there, done that already.
You might of missed it, Dago, when you were busy getting outraged by Clinton boating into Vietnam with an upside-down US flag.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Pongo, you are correct,In 1938 the American leadership should never have begun to prepare for ww2 against the majority of the peoples wish at that time.
I think if your going to start comparing the current world situation to 1938 that covert US rearming isnt the relevent hitorical event to study.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
oh Nash, what how exactly did Reagan exploit Iran to his advantage during the campaign?
The same way that Nixon exploited the North Vietnamese
-
Originally posted by Nash
I said this as fact. You disagree with it?
I am curious... why do you disagree?
Just to point out something here...
Former National Security Council member Gary Sick discussed his recent book October Surprise: America's Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan. In his book, Mr. Sick explored the theory that the 1980 Reagan/Bush campaign negotiated with the Iranian government to delay the release of 52 American hostages until after Reagan's 1981 inauguration. He also examined the implications of such an agreement, and its possible effect on the 1992 presidential election. http://www.c-spanstore.com/c-spanstore/23038.html (http://)
You reported a theory, not a fact. As I remember it, the theory says GHWB flew to Paris in an SR-71 too. Wonder what the campaign paid for that.
-
Spain's former president went into Iraq against 90% of the population that opposed using military force. he did not follow the support of the people he represented. he made it worse by spinning the attack on the opposition party which further torpedoed his reelection effort.
So, if there's another terrorist attack in the US, by voting Bush out this would signal to the terrorists that we caved in to them, or would it mean that his administration failed to better protect Americans?
-
Kerry will make it all better Red Tail... :aok
-
Originally posted by Dago
That is not even in the ballpark as "requiring other nations".
Nations were "required" to back the us in order to recieve bribes...I mean aid.
-
Oh, so I guess you think other nations should just sit on their tulips and happily collect cash from the USA and not stand with us when we ask for support?
I hardly would say they were "required" to join us, anymore than they are "required" to accept aid.
If any nation felt the war was wrong and they couldn't support us, I am sure they were free to say so, and keep their troops home. But I hardly think if they choose not to give us aid in this effort, we should not be required (or even expected) to give them aid in any way they want.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Oh, so I guess you think other nations should just sit on their tulips and happily collect cash from the USA and not stand with us when we ask for support?
I hardly would say they were "required" to join us, anymore than they are "required" to accept aid.
If any nation felt the war was wrong and they couldn't support us, I am sure they were free to say so, and keep their troops home. But I hardly think if they choose not to give us aid in this effort, we should not be required (or even expected) to give them aid in any way they want.
dago
"you are either with us, or with the terrorists"
It is a shame that so many countries where bullied and bribed into supporting American aggression in Iraq. But the USA is the most powerful military and economic force on earth. When Bush was accepting any support at all and paying handsomely for it, many were weak and failed thier countrys and history.
-
hahahah :lol
-
Originally posted by Eagler
need to "chip" everyone who enters Iraq, both military and non
pay them triple with the understanding that if they are kidnapped, whatever structure the gps gives as their location will be a 30ft deep crater within the hour
Another graduate from the Hollywood Institute of Technology...
I guess you've no idea how the GPS works...
This is a prime example that when some of you guys will understand that solutions 'as-simple-as-pulling-the-trigger' rarely exist, discussions will be easier.
Now, tell me, what were the terrorist trying to achieve with this kidnapping and beheading threat? Clear Iraq from the presence of 50 filipinos 1 month earlier than planned? They're not stupid...they knew that they were going for a symbolic victory that doesn't change zilch.
-
Pongo re: compare
Comparing it to your post only made it quite relevent
Nash re: find something wrong.
I did nash, hi ranking dems and the news media tried for a year to give this wheels.finally had to admit there was nothing to it.
Are you trying to tell us they found something and didnt use it knowing it would destory reagans term? if so why? Nope they would have shouted it from sea to shineing sea....proof there was nothing to it.