Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hawklore on February 26, 2007, 11:14:54 AM
-
See Rule #7
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Granted the majority of those that protested during the Vietnam War were against the troops, but still.
Wrong
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wrong
They may not of been during the war, but after, to treat the veterans as those of that generation did..
I'm ashamed to know they still live..
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wrong
The Majority of the major "peace ralleys" where organized and sponsored by communist sympothisers.
It's still very much that way just insert your "people's propaganda here_______"
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
What the F()ã$ is up with the stupid support our troops, end the war rallies?
They get out there to try and end the war, but say they support our troops?
I don't get it..
Did these prettythangholes not learn anything from Vietnam?
Granted the majority of those that protested during the Vietnam War were against the troops, but still.
Have you checked to see how the wounded are being treated when they get home? Maybe once you really understand that then you can understand why people want to end the war. First you have to put down the RUSHpipe.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
I don't get it..
What's so hard to understand?
More than half of America see Iraq as a total screwup and they want our troops out.
Twist and turn these fact all you want, bottom line is that this is a democracy. The people are speaking.
-
war ends and less of our soldiers die. that too hard for you to understand?
-
If only Bush had been a great war leader and appointed real warriors in his cabinet. as it is Bush is a simpleton cheezeball who has done more to lose the war in Iraq than the insurgency. Lets get a real leader in there (McCain) and then WIN the damned war.
As it stands I want the changed strategy to have a chance before calling it on this one, plus I think the anti war movement is being led by people I want nothing to do with so theres that too.
-
"The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war". - Douglas MacArthur
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The Majority of the major "peace ralleys" where organized and sponsored by communist sympothisers.
It's still very much that way just insert your "people's propaganda here_______"
And we have a winner!
Lots & lots of these rallies & protests are organized & run by ANSWER, who are hardcore Stalinists. On occasion I drop in on protests as a zombie (though not nearly as well done as http://www.zombietime.com), and almost all have of them have been anti-capitalist messages with a very thin anti-war wrapper. It's even worse at environmental protests.
It's not fair though to say it's all anti-capitalist. Attendees also include:
Anarchists... who hate authority & conformity so much... they all dress the same & are organized enough to arrive at the same time. Their fight against the man includes threatening counter-protesters and cursing at police. Probably the most violent group there... but don't know how to ground fight for **** and are easy victims of a variety of chokes.
Peaceniks... doesn't matter what the conflict. They'll protest it... to the extent I've seen signs that say if somebody is using a human shield, you can't shoot back... at all.
Pro-Hez/Hamas groups... they like to pick fights with the Israeli activists.
The Free Mumia crowd... who thinks its okay to shoot a police officer in the face with a shotgun.
The Anti-Globalization crowd... who tells you mankind & technology are destroying the earth... while talking on a cell phone and driving a 14mpg SUV. Many have signed my petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. :)
The Hardcore Hippies... I'm not sure they actually have a message, but they're fun to smoke with. Tends to roll with the Peaceniks.
Counter-Protesters... sometimes hardcore Bush lovers. Very, very loud bullhorns. Some totally lack fear and/or common sense.
there's even more sub-groups, but I don't have the time to list it all :( Maybe one day...
-
I think more needs to be done to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
http://www.dhmo.org/
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
-
you can not "end the war" by running away, you will end americas involvement in the war but he fighting will go on, there is only one way to "end the war" and that is to make the insurgents stop fighting.
saying you want to pull out the troops will definitely not make the insurgents stop, it will only encourage them to keep on fighting.
-
Everyone knows you can't support the troops unless you want them to be in harm's way. Wanting the troops to be safe at home is just crazy talk.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Have you checked to see how the wounded are being treated when they get home? Maybe once you really understand that then you can understand why people want to end the war. First you have to put down the RUSHpipe.
What does that have to do with the subject? Maybe you mean how some of those who oppose the war denigrate our soldiers and their families?
-
Originally posted by john9001
you can not "end the war" by running away, you will end americas involvement in the war but he fighting will go on, there is only one way to "end the war" and that is to make the insurgents stop fighting.
saying you want to pull out the troops will definitely not make the insurgents stop, it will only encourage them to keep on fighting.
I tend to agree with John9001. We don't have the option to "end the war". We can withdraw our troops, but the war will go on as long as the people there have the will and means to fight each other.
-
This country is caught in an existential trap worthy of Sartre's "No Exit." The U.S. wants to help a people who refuse our help, preferring sectarian vengeance that could continue for decades as it does in Lebanon and Palestine. The United States overthrew a despot, only to reap the fruits of despotism. Saddam used terror and military force to keep a tight lid on religious feuding, and although a section of the Iraqi population was ready for freedom, a huge proportion was not. They have erupted with the anger of the oppressed and the dispossessed. Ultimately, Iraqis aren't fighting over religion but over their history. They have lived in a 'no exit' society in which violence makes sense because nothing else does.
All signs point to the necessity of finding an exit, for them and for us. The election of a Shi'ite government allied to Islamic clerics foreshadowed the future. Iraq, like Iran, wants to be an Islamic state. Some form of civil authority will be paralleled by a much stronger clerical government that stays out of sight but rules with an iron hand. Such an outcome makes no sense to Westerners. Why should the average Iranian struggle while mullahs become billionaires and a puppet civil government pretends to be in charge? But that is the current state of Iranian affairs, and apparently of Iraqi affairs as well.
If we accept this inevitability, there are steps we can take to ease the transition:
1. Go to the world at the U.N. and plead for help in keeping a fragile peace in Iraq, on the model of keeping the peace in Bosnia.
2. Federalize the country so that each sect has its own autonomous region with loose links to a central government.
3. Facilitate the movement of people to their new states, trying to avoid the same bloodbath that took hundreds of thousands of lives when Pakistan was partitioned from India.
4. Form an international agency to restore and run the Iraqi oil industry. This would be temporary until the federal state can divide the spoils without creating deeper rifts between Shia and Sunni.
5. Concentrate on money and jobs. One of the worst fruits of despotism is that the populace remains passive, uneducated, hopeless about the future, and indoctrinated with propaganda. For Iraq to live in peace, all these deficits must be lessened.
These measures would lead to an exit from a no exit situation. They would salvage our moral position and actually help the Iraqi people, who so far have been pawns in a military adventure. It's unfortunate that neither the Bush White House nor their Democratic opponents have the courage to find a new way forward. The US is still rehashing failed policies and playing the blame game. The one thing that could make Iraq different from Vietnam is to consider the well-being of the people whose lives we have thrown into chaos. Everyone now repeats the same slogan: It's up to the Iraqis to solve their own horrendous situation. Actually, that's not true. It's up to us to help heal the chaos we created in the first place.
-
Silly Liberals...Signs are for grown-ups
(http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/7194/colourwesupportourtroopvc4.jpg)
(http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/4813/supporttroopsjpgmidfn4.jpg)
-
(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6968/innocentsxpb6.gif)
-
So True
(http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4239/leftistcamouflagexjb9.gif)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6968/innocentsxpb6.gif)
Which one of those had Iraqis involved again? I forget.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I tend to agree with John9001. We don't have the option to "end the war". We can withdraw our troops, but the war will go on as long as the people there have the will and means to fight each other.
They have been fighting each-other for over 1000 years, yet our incompetent politicians are going to solve this some how? LMAO its abundantly clear neither party has much of a clue about how to end the terrible mess Iraq has devolved into.
Leave now and Iran gets to run a-muck and the stability of the entire region gets put at risk... we were kind enough to take out their traditional enemy after-all.
If we stay, the "insurgents" and waring tribes have nowhere to go, and can keep fighting forever (sound familiar?).
Either way, any US installed gov will be treated just like the Shaw gov, with religious "leaders" from every country (one of the biggest being Saudi) in the area doing what they can to undermine and topple the "Western" puppet in favor of some nutty religious agenda.. and the one thing about the whack-job invisible man worshippers you can count on is persistence.
Its already a lose, lose, lose situation... all that's left now is for the DC crime families is to pollute the air with party agenda rhetoric, point fingers and pass the buck in their efforts to "take charge", again, and screw things up, again.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
They have been fighting each-other for over 1000 years, yet our incompetent politicians are going to solve this some how? LMAO its abundantly clear neither party has much of a clue about how to end the terrible mess Iraq has devolved into.
Leave now and Iran gets to run a-muck and the stability of the entire region gets put at risk... we were kind enough to take out their traditional enemy after-all.
If we stay, the "insurgents" and waring tribes have nowhere to go, and can keep fighting forever (sound familiar?).
Either way, any US installed gov will be treated just like the Shaw gov, with religious "leaders" from every country (one of the biggest being Saudi) in the area doing what they can to undermine and topple the "Western" puppet in favor of some nutty religious agenda.. and the one thing about the whack-job invisible man worshippers you can count on is persistence.
Its already a lose, lose, lose situation... all that's left now is for the DC crime families is to pollute the air with party agenda rhetoric, point fingers and pass the buck in their efforts to "take charge", again, and screw things up, again.
Much he same I said a few posts further up Xmarine.
-
I support the troops, if by doing so I have to support the war, then so be it, I support the war too then.
not a single person that I know of asked to go over there, but they went all but one lieutenant anyway, they did so because they signed an oath, I support them.
Call me a female war monger if you want to, but I really hope we win.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6968/innocentsxpb6.gif)
But Iraq was not involved in any of those incidents...even our President said so.
ack-ack
-
I see the point where you are coming from DMF, I really do, but win what?
let me explain further,
This "War on terrorisim" is quite frankly the wrong term to use INMHO,
--The enemy is stateless, confined mostly to local cells; the movement as a whole crosses national boundaries.
--Stateless terrorism is best fought as a police action, with vigilant policing on the local level.
--Anti-terrorism requires cooperation from every nation, not a limited number of political allies.
--We should not aim at total victory any more than we aim for total victory over crime.
--Keeping the threat down to a manageable danger should be our primary goal.
--Reducing public fear and anticipation of attacks should be a secondary goal
The Bush administration either ignored or underplayed all of these, choosing maximum public fear, unilateral action, and the futile promise of total victory instead. Now that we are coming out of the fog or war--at least outside right-wing circles--we still need to ask if the fight against terrorism is being won or lost
The Fight, not the "war" I belive is being won on a daily basis, but not in Iraq.
There are significant signs that it is being won, but not on the Iraqi front. The war galvanized militants who would otherwise have remained quiet. Invasion raised the specter of a Christian crusade, the most hated aspect of Muslim history. Young dissident males, largely unemployed and lower class, joined the jihadist cause while millions of sympathizers suddenly rethought the issue of al-Qaida. As with Hezbollah after the Israeli invasion, an extremist group like al-Qaida could clothe itself in patriotism and civil defense.
Ultimately the reason terrorism is losing is that it is pointless. Al-Qaida has a negative vision. Short of creating fear, threatening the West, and hating Israel, terrorists offer no future, no productive solutions for the endemic problems across the Middle East. As we have experienced since 9/11, fear subsides, and the few attacks that succeed can be endured. Compared to all-out war, the number of casualties inflicted since 9/11, not counting the Iraq war (which we started voluntarily), has been minimal, and even including Iraq casualties of U.S. troops, the fatalities are meager compared to annual traffic deaths and random crime.
The real harm inflicted by al-Qaida is that it allowed our militarists and reactionaries to ply the American public with unwholesome fear and promises of victory that are illusory. We permitted ourselves to fall, not to al-Qaida's level, but lower than we have ever sunk in terms of torture, secret prisons, total disregard for prisoners' rights, and the unnecessary loss of civil rights and freedoms. Only in that sense can al-Qaida claim success. We didn't have to allow them even this pitiful achievement.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If only Bush had been a great war leader and appointed real warriors in his cabinet. as it is Bush is a simpleton cheezeball who has done more to lose the war in Iraq than the insurgency. Lets get a real leader in there (McCain) and then WIN the damned war. [/B]
Thanks Yeag. Whenever I'm down you always come up with the funniest **** ever.
Ha, McCain.
-
Hawco,
Excellent post.
The only way to make the "terrorists" stop is to kill them all. Which is an insane course of action.
My "guess" is that they will bring about their own destruction while the poor folks in the Mid East continue to kill each other.
What would all this look like if the West used no oil?
Regards,
hap
-
Hap
Lets look at our politicians and see why we can't get answers from them.
Consider the following:
It seems to be unfolding that Democrats will remain timid in actually curbing the current war policy in Iraq, and in the end a bad war will go on indefinitely. As a result, people will grow cynical about politicians to a deeper degree than ever. If a senator can't vote his conscience on an obvious wrong like the Iraq war, what hope is there for the whole breed of Washington politicos?
I'd like to argue against this view, which has been coloring public perception at least since Watergate. "Throw the rascals out" is a time-honored theme in American politics, and it arose again last November over the corrupt Republican Congress. If that election only brought in a new set of rascals, however, the whole system is beyond repair. Instead of jumping to that conclusion, consider why a politician doesn't vote his or her conscience.
--He doesn't have a conscience to begin with
--He is beholden to campaign contributors
--She is afraid of losing her base constituency
--She fears attack from powerful lobbying groups
--He wants to be a party loyalist
--He was told that the leadership needs him to vote a certain way
--She can't really make up her mind
--He's lazy or ill-informed
--He has a view of the issue which has no chance of winning
--She believes compromise is necessary for passing any law
--She weighs conscience in with other ethical factors, like protecting minority rights
--He is solely interested in expediting his own re-election
These dozen factors give a sense of the complexity of serious decision-making, and not just in politics. They expose our shared fallibility, which should not be laid exclusively at the doorstep of the Capitol. In truth, some of these factors working against conscience are onerous, some aren't. Some denote lack of character, others arise from genuine moral conflicts. Obligations shift and splinter all the time.
In any case, to brand these factors as completely negative is a gross oversimplification. We should realize that after walking into Congress clothed in the purity of our principles, every one of us would begin to vote against our conscience, either a little or a lot. We would try to fit into the system and to thrive in it, not only for selfish reasons but to help the people back home. Sometimes it's destructive to vote your conscience, as Sen. McCain may find out in 2008 if he remains a hawk on Iraq, a position that clearly reflects his conscience.
As long as cynicism blocks our view of reality, we won't be able to change what can be changed. As the old saying goes, politics is the art of the possible. Human nature can't be drastically altered, and neither can a closed institution like the U.S. Senate. Yet it's entirely realistic to cut down the power of lobbyists, expose congressmen whose vote is paid for, hold up to criticism anyone who votes out of laziness and ignorance. Fortunately, the American system is set up to make these corrections periodically, if too slowly and with not enough punishment when things go seriously wrong. As for the rest of the list, I believe in a little more tolerance. Politicians aren't a separate, corrupt breed. They are people caught in a decision-making that challenges even the best conscience much of the time.
-
Hawkco,
Will return to your post, but must run to work. I've included a link to a short essay that Pat Buchanan wrote recently.
I sent it to my sister who was much impressed.
In it, he touches on what you also observed.
http://www.theamericancause.org/
All the Best,
hap
-
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2003/1/Iraq-s%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Palestinian%20Terrorist%20Ac
Edit:
I can't get the link to work right.
Iraq's involvement in terrorism in the territories includes extensive financial aid transferred from Iraq to terrorist groups in the territories, and to families of suicide bombers as well as to injured terrorists and those whose homes were destroyed. The funds are given to the families in public and in highly publicized ceremonies, which take place throughout the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria. During these ceremonies funds are distributed on behalf of Saddam Hussein, the President of Iraq. This activity is legitimized by the Palestinian Authority, with the participation of Palestinian ministers, members of the legislative body and mayors in the ceremonies.
This is from a quick google search, because i don't feel like digging through books for quotes.
Iraq did support terrorist groups..
This is a war on terror.
Unilateral action is needed when our safety and freedom has been jeapordized. Our supposed allies from the U.N. with the exception of a few didn't have the balls to commit to action, but when they need something from us there hands sure come out fast.
Winston Churchill was also part of unilateral action when no one believed, or had the balls to stand up to hitler.
I guess he should have listened to Chaimberlin* and tried to give hitler what ever he wanted instead.
-
LOL
or as Monk would say.. "You make me LOL out loud".
-
Originally posted by indy007
And we have a winner!
Lots & lots of these rallies & protests are organized & run by ANSWER, who are hardcore Stalinists.
The Free Mumia crowd... who thinks its okay to shoot a police officer in the face with a shotgun.
there's even more sub-groups, but I don't have the time to list it all :( Maybe one day...
Mumia had a registered .38. Get your facts straight if you're gonna post stuff like this. We need to educate before anything can be looked upon in a clear light.
Why is he still alive? That case is a fustercluck, and there is NO denying the Dept. was Corrupt, and Faulkner (Philly PD who was killed) was named by other cops on the force, that HE WAS a "dirty cop". You have cops on "both sides of the fence on this case", which is why Mumia is still alive. If "some cops" are willing to "break the code", it means something.
Regardless, no "shotgun" was used in the shooting.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
I see the point where you are coming from DMF, I really do, but win what?
let me explain further,
This "War on terrorisim" is quite frankly the wrong term to use INMHO,
--The enemy is stateless, confined mostly to local cells; the movement as a whole crosses national boundaries.
--Stateless terrorism is best fought as a police action, with vigilant policing on the local level.
--Anti-terrorism requires cooperation from every nation, not a limited number of political allies.
--We should not aim at total victory any more than we aim for total victory over crime.
--Keeping the threat down to a manageable danger should be our primary goal.
--Reducing public fear and anticipation of attacks should be a secondary goal
The Bush administration either ignored or underplayed all of these, choosing maximum public fear, unilateral action, and the futile promise of total victory instead. Now that we are coming out of the fog or war--at least outside right-wing circles--we still need to ask if the fight against terrorism is being won or lost
The Fight, not the "war" I belive is being won on a daily basis, but not in Iraq.
There are significant signs that it is being won, but not on the Iraqi front. The war galvanized militants who would otherwise have remained quiet. Invasion raised the specter of a Christian crusade, the most hated aspect of Muslim history. Young dissident males, largely unemployed and lower class, joined the jihadist cause while millions of sympathizers suddenly rethought the issue of al-Qaida. As with Hezbollah after the Israeli invasion, an extremist group like al-Qaida could clothe itself in patriotism and civil defense.
Ultimately the reason terrorism is losing is that it is pointless. Al-Qaida has a negative vision. Short of creating fear, threatening the West, and hating Israel, terrorists offer no future, no productive solutions for the endemic problems across the Middle East. As we have experienced since 9/11, fear subsides, and the few attacks that succeed can be endured. Compared to all-out war, the number of casualties inflicted since 9/11, not counting the Iraq war (which we started voluntarily), has been minimal, and even including Iraq casualties of U.S. troops, the fatalities are meager compared to annual traffic deaths and random crime.
The real harm inflicted by al-Qaida is that it allowed our militarists and reactionaries to ply the American public with unwholesome fear and promises of victory that are illusory. We permitted ourselves to fall, not to al-Qaida's level, but lower than we have ever sunk in terms of torture, secret prisons, total disregard for prisoners' rights, and the unnecessary loss of civil rights and freedoms. Only in that sense can al-Qaida claim success. We didn't have to allow them even this pitiful achievement.
k let me rephrase that : I hope our troops come out of it alive, thats probably about the best I can hope for at this point
-
Just a thought here......
What if the Generals and Soldiers , Marines , Airman and Sailors were left alone to fight the war.
What if the media was told to LEAVE...or better yet...not allowed there to "Report" what they see.
I'm not throwing stones or anything...just wondering....
If the generals were left alone...and the politicans "Input" were left out....think we would have taken a different course? Think the war would be going differently?
-
The military is employed by the leaders who is emplyed by the civilian population that voted for them.
Remove the civilian (you and me) populations control at the top off that chain and you have a military dictatorship.
The media for good and bad is the only control the civilian leadership (you and me) has of the leaders and the military they employ. They are not capable of controlling them selves if left unchecked.
-
How much can the US Army do to stop terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilian soft targets?
Attacks on our forces seem to be a side show these days, the main event is slaughtering as many of the other sides civvies as possible.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
The military is employed by the leaders who is emplyed by the civilian population that voted for them.
Remove the civilian (you and me) populations control at the top off that chain and you have a military dictatorship.
The media for good and bad is the only control the civilian leadership (you and me) has of the leaders and the military they employ. They are not capable of controlling them selves if left unchecked.
^ is me squaddie
Good Point:)
I'll ponder on another question to ask...but right now Im going upstairs in the building I work in....to say so long to a State Trooper that I have struck a friendship up with , who is being sent to Baghdad Iraq.
-
I am a firm beleiver that you cannot support the troops without supporting what they are in fact doing. I am not an arm chair general, I am one of those troops who wears the uniform proudly that does not think the democrats or others has my intrest at heart when they play politics.
Bottom line is we are fighting radicals and AQ in Iraq right now. If we pull out, they win. When we speak of pulling out....they get stronger.
The democrats lost this war for us back in 2004 when they made it a referendum against Bush. Half of them voted for the invasion to begin with now they use our troops, and this war as a pawn in a big chess game against what they see as the real enemy.....Bush and fellow republicans.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
"The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war". - Douglas MacArthur
"The order not to bomb the Yalu bridges was the most indefensible and ill-conceived decision ever forced on a field commander in our nation's history." - Douglas MacArthur
:D
-
Gunslinger,
What do you do with the 42% of troops who now disapprove Bush's handling of the war?
And only 41% of the troops surveyed now believe we should have gone to war in the first place. 13% of them believe we should have NO troops in Iraq.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/)
The Democrats couldn't find their tulips from their elbows in 2004 but now all of the sudden they "lost" this war.
Blame, blame, finger-point and more blame.
-
Originally posted by oboe
And only 41% of the troops surveyed now believe we should have gone to war in the first place. 13% of them believe we should have NO troops in Iraq.
Ike addressing the troops just before D-day:: men do you want to invade france knowing many of you will die on the beaches or do you want to go back home to the USA?
lets see a show of hands.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Have you checked to see how the wounded are being treated when they get home? Maybe once you really understand that then you can understand why people want to end the war. First you have to put down the RUSHpipe.
Do you have first hand knowledge of their treatment? Would you like some first hand knowledge? I'd be happy to supply it.
As far as people pissing and moaning about the war, it's usually people who don't have to fight it, or have loved ones fighting it that scream the most. It never crosses your self rightious minds that all your negativity hurts the efforts of our troops. Then again it's easy to be an idealiest when you or yours are not in harms way.
You want a real perpestive of what the Soldiers, Marines, and their families think? Turn off CNN, go to Walter Reed, or BAMC, look these guys in the eyes, and listen to thier story.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Which one of those had Iraqis involved again? I forget.
They forgot to mention the Barracks in Saudi Arabia
And the attempted assasination of a former president of the United States.
Both linked Directly to Iraq
Or the Support of Hamas who is second only to AlQueda in killing Americans
So what?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
They forgot to mention the Barracks in Saudi Arabia
If you're talking about the Khobar Towers, Iran is actually the suspect with possible assistance from Al-Queda (another example of Iran and Al-Queda working together)
And the attempted assasination of a former president of the United States.
The only thing that can only be really directly linked to Iraq. Clinton dropped the ball on this one and should have taken Saddam out then. But using that as an excuse almost 10 years later to go to war is a tad too late.
Both linked Directly to Iraq
Nope
Or the Support of Hamas who is second only to AlQueda in killing Americans
What terrorist action against the US has Hamas committed? Certain members of Hamas have threatened to attack the US but to date Hamas has never carried out any direct terrorist actions against the United States for our support of Israel.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by oboe
now all of the sudden they "lost" this war.
Oboe, ignore the Dems. Just look at the bi-partisan report or commission or whatever it is called.
No one, I know and take seriously says "the war is lost."
Everyone I take seriously acknowledges mistakes -- no big deal there humans err -- and seeks the best resolution to a knotty problem.
My "beef" is that I think and believe the Bush Admin "over sold" the need for us to go to war, and did so with some qualms that were kept quiet purposely.
There's a ton of things I find more important than the war. Here's 3 leaving out the rest of the "ton."
Manufacturing
Marriage
Abortion
Immigration
There are plenty of "people," who talk lots. In here is no exception. I don't care what political persuasion they are either. Much of the talk is pretty much nonesense. Not all of course.
I look for serious people talking seriously about serious things. Of course, that knocks off many in here, and I would imagine many who are in the "infotainment" business.
Notice I did not say "all."
All the Best,
hap
-
I understand why people want the war to end, atleast some of it..
But, why not just have Support Our Troops, rallies, who gives a **** about mentioning the war, for or against it, show up, and support the troops.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
They forgot to mention the Barracks in Saudi Arabia
How where they attacked and how did Iraq have anything to do with it?
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And the attempted assasination of a former president of the United States.
What attempted assassination are you referring to?
-
Originally posted by john9001
you can not "end the war" by running away, you will end americas involvement in the war but he fighting will go on, there is only one way to "end the war" and that is to make the insurgents stop fighting.
saying you want to pull out the troops will definitely not make the insurgents stop, it will only encourage them to keep on fighting.
Who will they be fighting? And why would we care?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Just a thought here......
What if the Generals and Soldiers , Marines , Airman and Sailors were left alone to fight the war.
What if the media was told to LEAVE...or better yet...not allowed there to "Report" what they see.
I'm not throwing stones or anything...just wondering....
If the generals were left alone...and the politicans "Input" were left out....think we would have taken a different course? Think the war would be going differently?
First of all, keep in mind, this is an occupation. Occupying a foregn land is completely different ball game then warring with one. As history has shown the only way to win an occupation is with brutal oppression, (USSR style KGB, East German Stazi, Nazi Gestapo, Isreal). That is not an option so therefore, the war must end before we go into Iran, which is going to happen within the year. You will see all of the other countries starting to pull out right before the Iran/US war.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The democrats lost this war for us back in 2004 when they made it a referendum against Bush.
:rofl Yep, theyve only been in power for 2 months and theyve already gotten us into an unwinnable war.
-
Originally posted by Viking
What attempted assassination are you referring to?
source (http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html)
In late-April 1993, the United States learned that terrorists had attempted to assassinate Bush during his visit to Kuwait. The Kuwaiti authorities arrested 17 persons suspected in the plot to kill Bush using explosives hidden in a Toyota Landcruiser. The Kuwaitis recovered the Landcruiser, which contained between 80 and 90 kilograms of plastic explosives connected to a detonator ( the Bush device or Bush explosive device ). The Kuwaitis also recovered ten cube-shaped plastic explosive devices with detonators (the cube-bombs ) from the Landcruiser. Some of the suspects reportedly confessed that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS ) was behind the assassination attempt.
....
In early-May 1993, the FBI sent personnel to Kuwait to interview the suspects and examine the physical evidence. FBI Special Agents, along with representatives of the Secret Service and State Department, interviewed 16 suspects, some more than once. Two of the suspects, Wali 'Abd Al-Hadi 'Abd Al-Hasan Al-Ghazali ( Al-Ghazali ) and Ra'd 'Abd Al-Amir 'Abbud Al-Asadi ( Al-Asadi ), admitted during the FBI interviews that they had participated in the plot at the direction of the IIS.
-
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
What terrorist action against the US has Hamas committed? Certain members of Hamas have threatened to attack the US but to date Hamas has never carried out any direct terrorist actions against the United States for our support of Israel.
ack-ack
I just read about this a couple of weeks ago but can find the article now and dont have enough time to do much more then a basic search.
In light of finding this
"The 46-count indictment alleges that all 14 men were members of the Islamic militant group Hezbollah, which federal officials said received support and inspiration from individuals within the Iranian government.
No Iranian officials were named in the indictment."
Which would make that point for you
So
For the moment I withdraw that statement
I may have mistaken Hezbollah for Hamas
Found some interesting info on groups linked to Iraq including including the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Honolulu in 1982 But I will have to read and post on it more later as at the moment I simply do not have the time
Irreguardless. Iraq does have links to and have suppported groups who have conducted attacks on the US.
I am making these statements as a point in arguement But as I am sure you are familiour with my posts on the Iraq war these were by far not the nly reasons I have supported it
-
Originally posted by Hap
There's a ton of things I find more important than the war. Here's 3 leaving out the rest of the "ton."
Manufacturing
Marriage
Abortion
Immigration
hap
Thats 4 but who's counting ;)
Of that 4 there are only two that are of any significant real importance for the nation as a whole
Manufacturing
Illegal immigration
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
First of all, keep in mind, this is an occupation. Occupying a foregn land is completely different ball game then warring with one. As history has shown the only way to win an occupation is with brutal oppression, (USSR style KGB, East German Stazi, Nazi Gestapo, Isreal). That is not an option so therefore, the war must end before we go into Iran, which is going to happen within the year. You will see all of the other countries starting to pull out right before the Iran/US war.
Found this the other day.
Interesting comparison
"On December 10, 1898, the United States and Spain signed the Treaty of Paris, officially ending the Spanish-American War. It had lasted less than 100 days. As a result of what Secretary of State John Hay called "a splendid little war," the United States emerged from the conflict as a world power. Cuba became an American possession until 1903 and Guantanamo remains a U.S. Navy base. The United States also gained control of Puerto Rico and Guam, and both remain affiliated today. The Philippines were purchased from Spain for twenty million dollars. As a direct result of the war, the United States also annexed Hawaii, Wake Island and several of the Samoan Islands.
For the United States, the acquisition of a large colonial empire did not come without additional costs. Filipinos, tired of their colonial rule by Spain and hoping for independence, resented the United States assuming control. An insurrection broke out in the Philippines and on February 4, 1899, the United States set forth on a bloody campaign to suppress the revolt. Casualties in this guerilla war mounted to over four times that of the Spanish-American War. The Philippine Insurrection lasted until July 4, 1902, when President Theodore Roosevelt declared the Philippines pacified. Like Vietnam, Americans were ambivalent about this undeclared war and no parades were held for the returning troops. The Philippines eventually achieved independence shortly after World War II."
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
:rofl Yep, theyve only been in power for 2 months and theyve already gotten us into an unwinnable war.
Wow reading is fundamental. I SAID BACK IN 2004! Not now that they have the congress. Bush caries alot of blaim for the screw ups but the democrats hands aren't exactly clean as they have made the job of fighting this war as difficult as possible for him. They made sure of it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Everyone knows you can't support the troops unless you want them to be in harm's way. Wanting the troops to be safe at home is just crazy talk.
Afghanistan is far more dangerous than Iraq will ever be. Pull out of Iraq, and redeploy them to Afghanistan (where they all should have been sent to in the first place). Iraq was an optional war, and it backfired on all levels. At best, we were misled by fauly intel. At worst, we were deliberately lied to by our government.
Take your pick.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Gunslinger,
What do you do with the 42% of troops who now disapprove Bush's handling of the war?
And only 41% of the troops surveyed now believe we should have gone to war in the first place. 13% of them believe we should have NO troops in Iraq.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/)
The Democrats couldn't find their tulips from their elbows in 2004 but now all of the sudden they "lost" this war.
Blame, blame, finger-point and more blame.
Oboe I'd say that those 41% do not want to just up and leave without finishing the job. I'd say about 98% of them know somone that died doing their job and would feel their death would be completly in vein if that happened. Disapproving of the way the war is fought and wanting to finish the job are two seperate issues and two different things.
As far as me blaiming the democrats NOW.....that is nothing new, I've been saying the same thing since then. They've politicised this war and made it a referendum against Bush. They've been doing it for quite some time now.
It has absolutly nothing to do with them having the congress. They are still doing the same exact thing. They are riding the fence with one foot in the "Support the troops" pond, with the other in the "no war for oil" swamp while they do absolutly nothing but criticise every effort.
-
Wow, just wow.
So a guy screws something up and you blame the people who are pointing out that he screwed something up for the screw up.
That is really screwed up.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow, just wow.
So a guy screws something up and you blame the people who are pointing out that he screwed something up for the screw up.
That is really screwed up.
Why yes of course, if you do things like that you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
shamus
-
One of the things I've noticed about those (in the oclub) who are voracious in their support for war have never actually stepped up and tried the glorius act of warfare themselves.
sure we have come across the tire changers, the guys who were counting blankets in alaska, or changing oil filters in Germany.
I'm speaking to the actual grunts, the guys like me, who wore heavy kit, eat the crap food and know what it means to have yer hands shake loading live rounds into magazines and trying like a bear to listen to what the squad leader is saying while all the time wondering if your girlfriend really does love you or trying not show how much F%%G tired and p88sed of you really are.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " you boys know what I mean, you see it in here all the time.
Hawco
To those of you who come back with the one liners- not going to work this time.
To those who are full of SH**t and come back- F%%k you
I'm aiming this at the guy(s) who are/were just like me, normal,everyday Infantry.
-
this sailor is also amused/tired by the armchair general warhawks.
as to your quote, I thought the point was to make the OTHER bastard die for his country. :D
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
this sailor is also amused/tired by the armchair general warhawks.
as to your quote, I thought the point was to make the OTHER bastard die for his country. :D
Hopefully you'll see the irony in it BS, after reading some of the guff in here, you'll see what I mean
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wow, just wow.
So a guy screws something up and you blame the people who are pointing out that he screwed something up for the screw up.
That is really screwed up.
Ding, ding, ding.
Reality meter went off.
I think many are doing their best impersonation of Sgt. Schultz about now.
Regards,
hap
p.s. Dred, if birthing babies or not, and marriage do not affect significantly ANY nation as a whole and at MANY levels, might as well close shop. Those who cannot see that it is so, if they be thoughtful, will reflect and revise. Pause and reflect. It goes against the "lie" that there is nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so.
-
Originally posted by Hap
My "beef" is that I think and believe the Bush Admin "over sold" the need for us to go to war, and did so with some qualms that were kept quiet purposely.
Hap, Doesn't your "beef" constitute an impeachable offense? I'm hard pressed to think of a higher crime or misdemeanor than intentionally taking a nation to war based on misleading or false information.
I agree the war is not lost-- its just a question of perspective. Saddam is gone, the WMD threat has been disproven, Iraq has a Constitution and an elected government. And as Laura Bush pointed out recently, many parts of Iraq are stable. Things are never going to be perfect. We've given them fledgling democracy but they seem more interested in killing each other right now than rebuilding their country. I'm waiting to see what Patraeus will be able to do, and the kinds of comments he will make about the situation.
Agree also there are many other important issues as well. I would add the Deficit, implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations, healthcare and Social Security to your list.
Gunslinger, you must have more confidence in the effectiveness of democrats than I do. I note you didn't diss the ArmyTimes poll - wasn't sure how that would be perceived.
Hawco, I think I'll reread your posts several times and try to soak up your sensibility and even temperament. Had to look up your Latin reference and found a moving poem about WWI by Wilfried Owen. Is that what you meant?
-
Yes, the 2 Owen poems: It's Fitting and Right to Die for One's Country (hap's on the fly lousy latin translation) and . . . no, it's Randal Jarrell's "Death of a Ball Turret Gunner" I thought of. Not Owen.
I dont' know what to call this other than human nature. At work for instance, something will happen then folks confab up. Well what was minor or insignificance all of a sudden is endowed with an import it did not formerly possess. Primarily, because WE'RE talking about it.
Then it's on to the next thing during the work day. Somewhere in between all the jawing, work gets done.
At the national level its not as straight forward and my comparision is not all that apt.
Infotainment makes things immeasurable more difficult.
I'm happy to be old enough to recall "news." Not the "OMG Marge he's is stuck to that chicken!" It's not news at all.
The 60's were a bum time and we've not gotten beyond them. I think there's no going back to more serious discussion in toto as a nation. Too many lies ingested.
There is good news though: when one finds or can piece together some fairly serious reflection and discussion it stands out. Not unlike in here. You'll see the post and maybe a couple posters doing it then others zap it with clearasil analysis and it's over.
Have a Great Day,
hap
-
Originally posted by oboe
Hap, Doesn't your "beef" constitute an impeachable offense? I'm hard pressed to think of a higher crime or misdemeanor than intentionally taking a nation to war based on misleading or false information.
I agree the war is not lost-- its just a question of perspective. Saddam is gone, the WMD threat has been disproven, Iraq has a Constitution and an elected government. And as Laura Bush pointed out recently, many parts of Iraq are stable. Things are never going to be perfect. We've given them fledgling democracy but they seem more interested in killing each other right now than rebuilding their country. I'm waiting to see what Patraeus will be able to do, and the kinds of comments he will make about the situation.
Agree also there are many other important issues as well. I would add the Deficit, implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations, healthcare and Social Security to your list.
Gunslinger, you must have more confidence in the effectiveness of democrats than I do. I note you didn't diss the ArmyTimes poll - wasn't sure how that would be perceived.
Hawco, I think I'll reread your posts several times and try to soak up your sensibility and even temperament. Had to look up your Latin reference and found a moving poem about WWI by Wilfried Owen. Is that what you meant?
Yup, That's excatly what I mean't Oboe, I was never your all hero, gung ho type guy, I was a guy born to Irish immigrants who needed a Job and joined the Army, I'd always wanted to be a poet. a wrtiter, instead I found myself in a Hell, It was called the Falkland Islands, I had this romantic notion in my head, that it's just like on the TV, sweethearts kissing you goodbye, prmosies of endearing love on your return, instead I found that it was bascically on your own, I was young, Just turned 18, The first thing that got to me was how hard the ground there is to actually walk on, bits of telephone wire, empty bandoliers, Argentinian toothpaste tubes, these big holes with bits of metal sticking out of the sides, Frightened me to death, walking across boggy land in line extended, watching, shaking with fear, seeing these shapes that move like swallows dart in and out of the ridges and then hearing booms and seeing the smoke, Got what's called a "Bluey" down there, it's a free Aerogramme thing that you can send back and forth for free.
I still remember most of the writing:
Dear Graham
I have met Dave, he's a nice guy, we are moving to Dorset together to start a new life" take care etc etc.
Then 2 tours to Northern Ireland - Place called the Ardyone and one called Crossmaglen, Then just as I was getting out of the Army, I got sent to the Gulf, I got hurt, both Pyhsically and mentally.
So yes, Dulce est to me is glorius when it's said from an armchair or keyboard so to speak.
Sorry for the ramble Oboe and hopefully haven't hijacked the thread or whatever you get into trouble for.
-
hawco, you should have never joined the army, armies sometimes go to war and kill people and break things, leave the fighting to the warriors, stay home and write your poems.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Sorry for the ramble Oboe and hopefully haven't hijacked the thread or whatever you get into trouble for.
No worries Hawco, and thanks for sharing. Sorry things didn't work out like you expected. Lots of great writers went through Hell though-- Ernest Hemingway and Kurt Vonnegut come imediately to mind. I think their writing wouldn't have been the same without the experience and scars they carried.
-
Hi john 9001 ( or some thing close)
Whenever we achieve something, or we lose something, we want to tell it immediately to our close ones.
If we achieve something and there is nobody, who is very very close to us, to hear about it, we feel, we have not achieved anything.
A child always wants to tell each and every detail about a picnic etc. to her / his parents.
I always feel good when i tell people my actual position honestly without hiding anything
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Hi john 9001 ( or some thing close)
Whenever we achieve something, or we lose something, we want to tell it immediately to our close ones.
If we achieve something and there is nobody, who is very very close to us, to hear about it, we feel, we have not achieved anything.
A child always wants to tell each and every detail about a picnic etc. to her / his parents.
I always feel good when i tell people my actual position honestly without hiding anything
that was a much more civil reply than I would have made.
-
i understand, i meant no insult.
-
definately a lover, not a fighter :rofl
-
Usually if I support someone, it implies that I wouldn't want them to get killed for no good reason.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
How much can the US Army do to stop terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilian soft targets?
Attacks on our forces seem to be a side show these days, the main event is slaughtering as many of the other sides civvies as possible.
Great question Grunherz, endless answers are possible but one comes to mind, The Army, for all it's blustering, can't stop it, only the Iraqis can stop it.
When I was in Northen Ireland, I asked much the same thing, thing is, on the ground level you are left with 2 choices:
1- Try and work it all out, make a difference and play by the rules
2- Do what your told, stay away from the local cops (RUC) as far as you can as they were the real targets and don't ask any questions.
Then leave dodge.
that's about it, no posturing, surges, flag waving will solve anything until they want to stop killing each other.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So a guy screws something up and you blame the people who are pointing out that he screwed something up for the screw up.
That is really screwed up.
:rofl :cry :rofl :cry That is sig material.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The Majority of the major "peace ralleys" where organized and sponsored by communist sympothisers.
It's still very much that way just insert your "people's propaganda here_______"
It's exactly the same ones organizing these things now.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
It's exactly the same ones organizing these things now.
yeah, 'cause only commies want peace. give me a break...
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Wrong
Must have been the "silent majority" eh Tahgut?
:)
-Sik
-
Right.
Pinko's R Us are behind it ALL!
Maybe in was in the baby formula? :huh
hap
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Must have been the "silent majority" eh Tahgut?
:)
-Sik
punk kid.
-
Hawco, who is your avatar a pic of?
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Great question Grunherz, endless answers are possible but one comes to mind, The Army, for all it's blustering, can't stop it, only the Iraqis can stop it.
When I was in Northen Ireland, I asked much the same thing, thing is, on the ground level you are left with 2 choices:
1- Try and work it all out, make a difference and play by the rules
2- Do what your told, stay away from the local cops (RUC) as far as you can as they were the real targets and don't ask any questions.
Then leave dodge.
that's about it, no posturing, surges, flag waving will solve anything until they want to stop killing each other.
It took them thirty years to stop killing each other in NI, Hawco. Do you think our American friends actually realise just how long they will continue to kill each other in Iraq? It has a lot of parallels, even the sectarianism.
All the gung ho talk is so much hot air. The US military will not resolve the issues in Iraq either by leaving or staying. If America pulls out they lose face. If they stay they lose their kids and their innocence for years to come. Bit of a dilemma?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The US military will not resolve the issues in Iraq either by leaving or staying. If America pulls out they lose face. If they stay, they lose their kids and their innocence for years to come. Bit of a dilemma?
Stop, stop, stop.
Posters' making sense: WARNING WARNING
hap
-
dd
-
This thread is like a chapter out of Catch-22.
I'm just waiting for Milo to come along and explain how he makes a profit selling eggs at four and a quarter cents to the Maltese farmers who he paid 7 cents an egg to in the first place.
Or explain how objecting to troops being unneccessarily in harm's way is being 'unsupportive'.
Frankly, I understand the egg thing more.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
All the gung ho talk is so much hot air. The US military will not resolve the issues in Iraq either by leaving or staying. If America pulls out they lose face. If they stay they lose their kids and their innocence for years to come. Bit of a dilemma?
criticism, but no answers.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Hawco, who is your avatar a pic of?
No idea but it probably looks like some of the keyboard/armchair generals that we are infested with in here.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It took them thirty years to stop killing each other in NI, Hawco. Do you think our American friends actually realise just how long they will continue to kill each other in Iraq? It has a lot of parallels, even the sectarianism.
All the gung ho talk is so much hot air. The US military will not resolve the issues in Iraq either by leaving or staying. If America pulls out they lose face. If they stay they lose their kids and their innocence for years to come. Bit of a dilemma?
No I don't think they can perceive the notion of pulling out as an exit, it's perceived here as a retreat, 3 way dialouge with other countries will not take place as that again is seen as a retreat, It reminds me of "everything or nothing" meanwhile we debate and other people die, 30-40 years from now there will be people going to cemetries visiting loved ones asking the same questions.
Ask anyone who remembers guys like Mícéal Caraher or his brother Fergal or finally the family of Stephen Restorick ( do a google search) what came out of this? nothing, except they got their hands on nice new shiny made American made .50 Sniper rifles to use.
End result
I'm here, so what ?
Bessbrook- Hell on earth
Derek Wood- David Howes ( go ahead and google like crazy, dunno if there's anything on there though)- more names for our Armchair generals to look up, I watched- so near- so far, where did that get them? Was on the day of my Birthday too, had plans for us all that night too.
no need to go on.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Just a thought here......
What if the Generals and Soldiers , Marines , Airman and Sailors were left alone to fight the war.
What if the media was told to LEAVE...or better yet...not allowed there to "Report" what they see.
I'm not throwing stones or anything...just wondering....
If the generals were left alone...and the politicans "Input" were left out....think we would have taken a different course? Think the war would be going differently?
Oh yea I think it would be different, for one Iraq would never have happened till Osama was dead, for two Iraq would have been done and over with a long time ago.
-
But dmf...the green light is so pretty.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
No idea but it probably looks like some of the keyboard/armchair generals that we are infested with in here.
i saw that pic a few years ago at mulletsgalore.com
-
Lucky for us the Soviet Union collapsed when it did. I'm afraid we Americans will never have the resolve to stand up to anything like it ever again. If (more like when really) China ever decides to exert it's influence over the world more forcefully I have serious doubts we'll be able to muster enough testosterone to stand in their way.
-
I don't know Lukster ... If another nation actually attacks you I think you people will cowboy up like you did in '41. However if you attack another nation with questionable casus belli again, I think the result will be much the same as Vietnam/Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Viking
if you attack another nation with questionable casus belli again, I think the result will be much the same as Vietnam/Iraq.
The inability or unwillingess of many to agree Viking without demur astonishes.
It's like a broken record that's so very broken. The arguments and objections are almost "canned." Put in the tape and let it run.
On a more constructive note, my soulution is to get Iraq as stable as possible AND launch some sort of nationwide crusade to be off oil entirely in a decade or less. Less preferably. Then get out of their backyard and focus on our own.
Imagine that. What would China, North Korea, name another trouble spot in the world mean to America if we were not dependent upon them for energy and manufacturing?
The only thing that stands in the way of that is greed. Short term greed at that. There blame aplenty for both parties.
Tis a Pity,
hap
-
Originally posted by lukster
Lucky for us the Soviet Union collapsed when it did. I'm afraid we Americans will never have the resolve to stand up to anything like it ever again. If (more like when really) China ever decides to exert it's influence over the world more forcefully I have serious doubts we'll be able to muster enough testosterone to stand in their way.
We will always have an enemy to fight, and we we will fight until we get defeated economically, Eisenhower pointed that out quit succinctly.
shamus
-
Originally posted by lukster
Lucky for us the Soviet Union collapsed when it did. I'm afraid we Americans will never have the resolve to stand up to anything like it ever again. If (more like when really) China ever decides to exert it's influence over the world more forcefully I have serious doubts we'll be able to muster enough testosterone to stand in their way.
Yea boy howdy!
Lucky for us there weren't a bunch of hippies around and democrats in power during that cold war.
wait a minute....
-
weren't we losing the cold war when the hippies were around and the democrats were in power?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
weren't we losing the cold war when the hippies were around and the democrats were in power?
lazs
(http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g185/s0da72/cartman_hippies_suck.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
weren't we losing the cold war when the hippies were around and the democrats were in power?
lazs
No
-
Ok Hap,
What do you propose to do to eliminate the need for oil? How far are you willing to go?
Please no more sound bites, post something of substance about what you mean.
-
A while back, some banana Democrat from Beantown proposed we go to the moon in a decade and we did it.
Same tactic.
We desire it, devise it, and do it.
Who cares if we have to pay more for fluffy-wuffies at Wal-Mart.
If we discriminate between "won't be done," and "can't be done," then we get closer.
All the Best,
hap
p.s. sorry if the absence of science dissapoints. I'm ignorant generally and specfically when it comes to the sciences.
-
Again Hap,
I asked you for details. I don't need "technical science" for your solutions I just want to see if you have anything of substance to add. You made a statement, do you have anything at all to back it or is it just another troll line thrown out to boost your post count?
-
I'll step in and offer Hap a hand- here's just one possibility.
Hydrogen cars (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/)
The sooner we start the better.
-
Are you saying that hydrogen cars will eliminate the need for oil?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Again Hap,
I asked you for details. I don't need "technical science" for your solutions I just want to see if you have anything of substance to add. You made a statement, do you have anything at all to back it or is it just another troll line thrown out to boost your post count?
Gee Maverick. You're right.
All the Best,
hap
-
We could do something like what Brazil did. They set a goal to eliminate the need for foreign oil and made that goal.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1875850&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
-
Wow. Good for Brazil. It's isn't oil free, but they must be singing a happy tune to out of the maws of the Mid East.
hap
-
Originally posted by Xargos
But dmf...the green light is so pretty.
Are you the stupid arse in front of me in the mornings looking at it with the blank off of "don't eat the paste" on your face?
-
Originally posted by dmf
Are you the stupid arse in front of me in the mornings looking at it with the blank off of "don't eat the paste" on your face?
Hey, it's morning, give me a break...:D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Are you saying that hydrogen cars will eliminate the need for oil?
No, for example, everything mechanical will still need to be lubricated. And plastic is a very useful material. The sooner we stop burning oil for fuel, the better though. And if we can reduce our consumption we can reduce our dependence on imported oil.
This is just one example (though I think its ultimately where we should go). Hydrogen can be produced a number of ways.
It'll be a long effort to stop burning petroleum in our vehicles.
-
Plasma Generators that can provide waste to energy, thus elminating the need to produce energy for this purpose, then moving the excess energy onto the grid for consumer consumption.
Sticking them on to Barges that gets you round zoning/permit issues- you heard it here first.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Hey, it's morning, give me a break...:D
It can't be you, how do I know, it didn't take you 3 days to notice I said something
-
Originally posted by dmf
It can't be you, how do I know, it didn't take you 3 days to notice I said something
That's because I have no life...:(
And I ran out of scotch....:cry
-
Oboe,
I agree it's a step in the right direction. It won't take the place of petroleum since there is far more to it other than mere propulsion uses. To my mind it is a far better "solution" than bio diesel or ethanol. We still need something more to really take the place of oil for movement, electricity and heat.
If all of a sudden we lost all access to foriegn oil, the economy would take a hit that would likely take over a decade or two to recover from.
-
Originally posted by dmf
I support the troops, if by doing so I have to support the war, then so be it, I support the war too then.
not a single person that I know of asked to go over there, but they went all but one lieutenant anyway, they did so because they signed an oath, I support them.
Call me a female war monger if you want to, but I really hope we win.
Wow...I'm impressed.
No kidding.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'll step in and offer Hap a hand- here's just one possibility.
Hydrogen cars (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/)
The sooner we start the better.
Electric Cars
http://www.teslamotors.com
-
Mav,
Complete agreement here. Ethanol has a few good points, but overall I think the corn-based ethanol industry is another farm subsidy program. Its not the best solution but its one with big money behind it.
I don't know that much about biodiesel - though I read a while back about a guy who made a factory that could produce biodiesel from turkey guts.
Heres a sad truth:
Bush Calls For Renewable Energy but cuts funding (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10941792/detail.html)
9 million cut from wind energy research in this year's budget, while the Chinese moving full speed ahead on their research have created a magnetic levitation wind generator:
China announces huge breakthrough in wind power technology (http://www.windtech-international.com/content/view/661/2/)
I hate to point out a how small a sum $9 million is compared to the approximately $2 billion we are spend in Iraq per week.
Padre: cool link. 0-60 in 4 secs with no emissions. wow.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
war ends and less of our soldiers die. that too hard for you to understand?
ya we take our troops home.. every one calls us cowards have more terrorist attacks in the US and then 3000 people die all at once.
we haven't lost even close to as many troops as we did in Vietnam or ww1 and ww2 we cant just leave a war lol. i mean we went to war when they bombed pearl harbor. bombing the trade centers were the same thing but happened a lot faster. i mean we have captured Saddam hussein and hanged him. personally i think we are doing a great thing for those people. if a democrat pulls us out of the war. we will be screwed big time.
-
Demonslayer's response is an excellent example of the kind of prideful thinking that will keep U.S. troops in the thick of it in Iraq for years to come.
It's not a fear of losing the "war" that keeps the U.S. involved, its a fear of losing face - a reluctance to do anything that could be construed as a "retreat".
In my opinion, the U.S.-Iraq War has been won. We deposed Saddam, we worked with the Iraqi's to help them develop a constitution, we helped them hold elections to create a democratic government. The current fighting is a combination of religious-sectarian civil war against Iraq's government and resistance against our occupation.
When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we responded by going to war against Japan. Attacking Iraq as a response to 9/11 makes as much sense as attacking Mexico would have after the attack on Pearl.
Its a worse than a shame we still don't even inspect the majority of packages arriving at our ports, and I don't think most ports have the equipment yet to detect a smuggled nuclear weapon. You'd think that would've been one of the first steps taken, yet still it has not been accomplished.
-
Originally posted by Hap
p.s. Dred, if birthing babies or not, and marriage do not affect significantly ANY nation as a whole and at MANY levels, might as well close shop. Those who cannot see that it is so, if they be thoughtful, will reflect and revise. Pause and reflect. It goes against the "lie" that there is nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so.
Ok what significant effect has either issue had on this country?
If abortion were suddenly the "norm". Or if the entire country were to suddenly become gay ( am assuming you were referring to the gay marriege issue)
then yes I would agree
But other then for each side to slam their fists on the table and yell "I am for/against" this or that. Its not having a significant impact on the country.
While it may be an issue unless one is a religeous zealot they are certainly nothing that should be in the top 10.
There are far more issuues of greater importance then either subject.
As for myself I am pro choice but against calling gay couples "married" (for me its the word married)
But in the lrger picture of issues of importance I wouldnt vote on a candidate reguardless of where he stood on either issue but rather where he stood on other issues.
BTW the saying is "Nothing is truely right or wrong. It is only a common way of thinking that makes it so."
And that statement is true.
Go look at different cultures bother currently and historically and they all have different beleifs. What we see as wrong here and today is may be or have been perfectly acceptable then or there.
And vise verce.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't know Lukster ... If another nation actually attacks you I think you people will cowboy up like you did in '41. However if you attack another nation with questionable casus belli again, I think the result will be much the same as Vietnam/Iraq.
I dont know about that.
in 41 Japan actually attacked us.
Now what Germany was doing to us sinking ships is more akin to what terrorists do to us now.
Yes I know Germany declared war on us.
But So did Saddam.. if I remember correctly. Several times.
Now it seems like so long as no attack happens to us on our soil such as 9/11 there is no need to take the fight someplace else.
I'd have to look it up again but if I remember correctly almost 1,000 americans were killed by terrorists prior to 9/11. Yet we did next to nothing.
It wasnt untill something happened here that it became important.
Was making this very same point of to a friend of mine sometime back mentioning attacks on Americans prior to 9/11.
Her responce was "But it didnt happen here."
Its like if it doesnt actually happen in your backyard. It doesnt matter.
-
Originally posted by Hap
A while back, some banana Democrat from Beantown proposed we go to the moon in a decade and we did it.
Same tactic.
We desire it, devise it, and do it.
Who cares if we have to pay more for fluffy-wuffies at Wal-Mart.
If we discriminate between "won't be done," and "can't be done," then we get closer.
All the Best,
hap
p.s. sorry if the absence of science dissapoints. I'm ignorant generally and specfically when it comes to the sciences.
As I tell my kids.
"No such thing as cant. Only varying degrees of wanna
If you wanna do something bad enough. You find a way to get it done"
-
oboe.. hydrogen cars are not a real solution.. it would help but it would not make us independent so far as even transportation. It takes energy to create the hydrogen.. Also.. no one has made a practical one yet. They will.. just not this year.
Now.. if you burn oil to make the electricity to make the hydrogen... you don't solve much.
Real solutions involve nuke power plants and offshore drilling and exploration and opening up Alaska to drilling.
It also requires some relaxation of junk science EPA rules and regulations on refineries so that more can be built before the glorious hydrogen cars are built. Most likely more hybrids and such will be built before any practical hydrogen car makes an impact on transportation. You can't force this stuff.
What do all these things have in common?
If you vote for democrats none of em will happen. They have been consistent in fighting new nuke plants and new offshore drilling and exploration and for allowing the EPA to run amuck.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DEMONSLAYER
ya we take our troops home.. every one calls us cowards have more terrorist attacks in the US and then 3000 people die all at once.
we haven't lost even close to as many troops as we did in Vietnam or ww1 and ww2 we cant just leave a war lol. i mean we went to war when they bombed pearl harbor. bombing the trade centers were the same thing but happened a lot faster. i mean we have captured Saddam hussein and hanged him. personally i think we are doing a great thing for those people. if a democrat pulls us out of the war. we will be screwed big time.
Lets say we stay until the Iraqi .gov is allegedly strong enough to sustain itself... why wont it be viewed as a 'western US / Israeli installed puppet', just like the Shaw?. Also like the Shaws govt, what is to stop people from all countries in the region (Saudi on 1 religious side, Iran on the other) from lining up by religious loyalties to reject any Western values and support the ousting of the US installed puppet democracy govt.. just like they did to the Shaw?
I have yet to see any reasons why a US installed govt in Iraq will fair better than the failed Iranian adventure.
Keep in mind that today, just like with yester-years Shaw govt fiasco, repubs & dems are still in charge and as inept as ever... more concerned with party agendas, pointing fingers and passing the buck than finding a solution based in reality. As long as 1 party is failing, the other can claim legitimacy for simply pointig it out by producing neat-o commercials.
When half the govt wants there to be disaster for political gain, how is anything supposed to get done right?
-
Did you read the link I provided on hydrogen cars, lazs? I agree, its not a solution by the end of the year. I think it is ulitmately the direction we should start moving, however. Pure electric cars might become practical too. We need to get the ball rolling, and then breakthroughs will start happening.
I agree too, it would be silly to generate hydrogen by buring oil. People are beginning to experiment with wind turbines hooked up to industrial sized electrolysis units. All you need to create hydrogen is electricity and water. There are a number of ways to generate electricity without using oil.
Yes, I think hybrid cars will become bigger in the short term. I picture many plug-in hybrids that run on E85 as the most practical, short term solution. This will probably catapault Toyota to be the number one worldwide auto maker, as they have quite a head start in hybrid technology. Even Ford's Escape hybrid uses technology licensed from Toyota.
-
honda has a prototype hydrogen car and a working refueling station that uses solar cells to create the hydrogen.
-
Wow, Honda is another one to watch.
I wonder how far we would get in a couple of years if we were spending $2 billion per week on advancing this technology instead of dumping it into Iraq.
Even the $9 billion in reconstruction funds that just plain went missing would've made an impact.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
BTW the saying is "Nothing is truely right or wrong. It is only a common way of thinking that makes it so."
And that statement is true.
Go look at different cultures bother currently and historically and they all have different beleifs. What we see as wrong here and today is may be or have been perfectly acceptable then or there.
And vise verce.
We disagree fundamentally. Take solace, I think your side has won the day.
And thanks for replying too. I wasn't picking on you. The notion that thinking contrues reality is just false.
You asked for an example from me to support my statement about "birthing" and it's importance. It's self-evident. So, I'll beg off on that one.
As to the saying, you can find it in Hamlet II, ii, about line 250.
Take Care,
hap
-
oboe.. yes, progress is being made.. every bit of it is being made by private industry using the power of the free market. That is good.
I do believe that the free market will provide solutions as they are needed.
I think it is silly tho to put up roadblocks to current tech while the solutions are being worked out by industry... just as it is silly to mandate things and just throw a monkey wrench into the free market system.
We need to continue to explore for and drill for oil to make us independent as well as build nuke plants until the market comes up with viable alternatives.
key word is viable.. no need to mandate half finished ideas that use half finished tech at enormous cost.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oboe.. hydrogen cars are not a real solution.. it would help but it would not make us independent so far as even transportation. It takes energy to create the hydrogen.. Also.. no one has made a practical one yet. They will.. just not this year.
Now.. if you burn oil to make the electricity to make the hydrogen... you don't solve much.
Real solutions involve nuke power plants and offshore drilling and exploration and opening up Alaska to drilling.
It also requires some relaxation of junk science EPA rules and regulations on refineries so that more can be built before the glorious hydrogen cars are built. Most likely more hybrids and such will be built before any practical hydrogen car makes an impact on transportation. You can't force this stuff.
What do all these things have in common?
If you vote for democrats none of em will happen. They have been consistent in fighting new nuke plants and new offshore drilling and exploration and for allowing the EPA to run amuck.
lazs
Don't want to rain on your parade here, but you are wrong on about 3 of the above,
.1. We have got a product that produces it's own Hydrogen from distilled water.
.2 We we have made one, in fact we have done over 50 million miles in testing them on various engine units.
3. You do not burn oil to produce Hydrogen
4. We have various agencies, both Federal and State doing "proof of concept" as we speak.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oboe.. yes, progress is being made.. every bit of it is being made by private industry using the power of the free market. That is good.
I do believe that the free market will provide solutions as they are needed.
I think it is silly tho to put up roadblocks to current tech while the solutions are being worked out by industry... just as it is silly to mandate things and just throw a monkey wrench into the free market system.
We need to continue to explore for and drill for oil to make us independent as well as build nuke plants until the market comes up with viable alternatives.
key word is viable.. no need to mandate half finished ideas that use half finished tech at enormous cost.
lazs
I don't believe in the free market's power to introduce new technology, not as long as it makes more money by bilking the old.
You better read my link to China's breakthrough in wind power. We are being left in the dust.
-
Originally posted by oboe
You better read my link to China's breakthrough in wind power. We are being left in the dust.
but what will it mean? will china produce so much cheap energy that they will not buy up the worlds supply of oil, thus causing a drop in oil prices? or will china sell us the cheap windmills at one tenth the price we could build them and solve our energy problems?
some people are SO negative.
-
Imagine how the world would be different if China had developed the Pentium chip instead of Intel as a follow-on to the 486. That's sort of what it will be like, within the context of the wind energy industry. It means they will be able to manufacture more economical, more powerful wind turbines. And wind energy/wind turbines is a fast growing industry these days. It means THEY get the jobs instead of us - THEY get the money from sales, instead of us.
I'd like to see us lead the world in more than just military expenditures. I'm concerned we're losing our edge in R&D. Clearly this is an example of that.
-
Originally posted by Hap
We disagree fundamentally. Take solace, I think your side has won the day.
And thanks for replying too. I wasn't picking on you. The notion that thinking contrues reality is just false.
You asked for an example from me to support my statement about "birthing" and it's importance. It's self-evident. So, I'll beg off on that one.
As to the saying, you can find it in Hamlet II, ii, about line 250.
Take Care,
hap
Didnt think for a moment you were picking on me. I enjoy a good debate anyway.
Even if you were it wouldnt matter. I try not to take things too personally anyway.
A week from now I probably would only barely remember it. so what would be the point.
;)
-
Why are there STILL 62 years later, U.S. Troops in Japan?
Germany?
U.K?
Anyone?
-
I fail to see supporting the troops within the context of war or not. War or war, they are still troops.
Let me put it this way, here's. Question for you:
You see a flag fluttering at the top of a pole, is the flag moving or is it the wind moving the flag?
The answer will validate my point. Please think your answer carefully before posting.
-
Originally posted by Padre
Why are there STILL 62 years later, U.S. Troops in Japan?
Germany?
U.K?
Anyone?
because the generals like the perks of serving in germany, UK, and japan?
also members of congress can go on fact finding missions (paid vacations) to foreign countries?
-
oboe.. we have invented and installed some of the best wind generators on the planet... the free market came up with em. Problem is.. the government.. the EPA has shut most of em down because the are a danger to some vulture or other.
The free market will always drive invention. It is not oil companies that control all inventors you know. The government invents nothing. the government only gets in the way of progress.
I predict that the next generational change in solar panels will come from the U.S. Unless, that is.. the government gets involved.
The government likes to both take credit for and destroy new ideas.
We simply need to look at all our options and let the free market do it's thing. We can't "mandate" that everyone drive a hydrogen car next year... we can't mandate that scientists work on this tech or that. I mean, we can but...
What we need to do is get the government restrictions relaxed on oil exploration and nuke power and refineries and such while the free market does it's thing.
Or.. are you afraid that if we find more oil that no one will work on hydrogen cars? that is silly of course since almost all the research and development so far has been during times of extremely cheap oil. The majority of hybrid and electric car work was done during cheap oil prices.
No matter how cheap gas gets.. some people will want to get around cheaper. If we had free or almost free electrical energy... many would still want to get around in an electric car instead of the buck a gallon internal combustion engine.
The government mandated 10% "clean" air vehicles here... it was a costly disaster.. Lots of shysters made a ton of money on half baked vehicles sold to municipalities in order for them to meet state mandates... all of those vehicles are junked at great expense now so far as I know. Hybrids were in the infant stage at the time. You can't force it.
The government has funded research that has been sucessful... the space program and military hardware... They were enormously expensive and more than a few here will argue that they were not worth it. least...not until the free market got involved.
lazs
-
All due respect, its the Danes that came up with the best wind generators on the planet - Vestas and NEG-Micon (now part of Vestas). These companies practically owe their success to the federal and state subsidies provided by the U.S. and California in the 80s. That was a time of the big "wind rush" and I agree, all kinds of crap was put up helter skelter in the windy passes of California, but the money from this allowed companies like Vestas and NEG-Micon to grow and mature their technology into what it is today.
Its very unlikely this would've happened if we had been relying completely on the free market.
The National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO is responsible further R&D in wind energy, and helps companies with designs and testing of blades, gearboxes, etc. That's another thing the pure free market would not provide -- and you can bet other countries are helping their wind turbine manufacturers succeed too.
The free market does not ALWAYS drive invention. How did the free market do anything for the manned spaced program and the moon landing - and think of all the spinoff technology we got from that.
btw, the EPA has not shut most of the wind generators down. If you go to one of the passes like Tehachapi, or near Palm Springs, you will see thousands of wind turbines still spinning away.
I think the difference between our positions is that you prefer ONLY the free market to operate, while I maintain that in some cases the free market fails to operate in our best interest. In these cases then, government aid in the form of research assistance and outright subsidies is helpful to "prime the pump" of what we'd like to see take place.
Where you say government intervention has messed up markets, I would just add we should analyze what went wrong and not make the mistake again. But I wouldn't abandon the principle.
I am not afriad of them finding new oil - I think oil has many important uses so it is foolish to burn it, since it is not renewable. Not to mention the pollution from tailpipe emissions.