Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
While we are quoting quotes, I'll throw in two of my favorite. They aren't really political quotes, but my beer one sums up my position. As a Marine, these two mean alot to me.
You cannot exaggerate about the Marines. They are convinced to the point of arrogance, that they are the most ferocious fighters on earth- and the amusing thing about it is that they are.
Father Kevin Keaney
1st Marine Division Chaplain
Korean War
The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!
Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945
The battle in Iraq is about more than what happens there. This is one part of a larger fight--a global fight--against radical Islamic terrorists who have waged war on the United States and our allies.
This is not a question of fighting for land, for treasure, or for glory--we are fighting to rid the world of a radical and dangerous ideology. We are fighting to defend all that is sacred to our way of life. We are fighting to build a safer and more secure America--one where families can raise their children without the fear of terrorist attacks.
Lincoln famously said in 1858 that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe, as Lincoln did then, that we must choose sides on a critical issue. Then, it was whether we would abolish the evil institution of slavery. Today, it is whether we will defeat the ideology that drives radical Islamic terrorism.
That was said by Rep. John Boehner, Republican of Ohio and House Minority Leader, someone who has been a very staunch supporter of the war from the very beginning. It's just helpful to know that.
And I love how Republicans invoke Lincoln in situations like this, as if he's some sort of hero.
bhallg2k wrote:And I love how Republicans invoke Lincoln in situations like this, as if he's some sort of hero.
I loathe how the democrat Pelosi/Murtha duo are trying to implement a 'Slow Bleed' plan for Iraq so they can lose the war and look like heros. Democrats are losers, plain and simple. They posture and blow hot air for their own benefit - not for the benefit of the troops, the cause, or the American people:
The United States has fought many wars since 1941 but has never again declared one. ... Whatever the reason, today Congress doesn't declare war; it "authorizes" the "use of force."
In October 2002, both houses of Congress did exactly that with open eyes and large majorities. ...
Now, more than four years later, the Democrats want out of the resulting war. ...
Congress has the power to do that by cutting off the funds. ... The House is pursuing a method, developed by [Rep. John] Murtha [D-PA] and deemed "ingenious" by antiwar activist Tom Andrews of Win Without War, to impose a conditional cutoff of funds, ostensibly in the name of protecting the troops. Unless the troops are given the precise equipment, training and amount of rest Murtha stipulates -- no funds.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, Murtha is not disingenuous enough to have concealed the real motive for these ostensibly pro-readiness, pro-troops conditions. He has chosen conditions he knows are impossible to meet -- "We have analyzed this, and we have come to the conclusion that it can't be done," he told MoveCongress.org -- in order to make the continued prosecution of the war difficult, if not impossible, for the commanders in the field.
But think of what that entails. It leaves the existing 130,000 troops out there without the reinforcements and tactical flexibility that the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, says he needs to win.
Of course, the Democrats believe the war cannot be won. But if that's the case, they should order a withdrawal by cutting off funds. They shouldn't micromanage the war in a way that will make winning impossible. That not only endangers the troops remaining in the field, it also makes the Democrats' "the war is lost" mantra a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Murtha's ruse is so transparent that even Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who opposes the war, will not countenance it: "I think that sends the wrong message to our troops."
Levin has a different idea -- change the original October 2002 authorization. "We . . . will be looking at modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission," says Levin. "That is very different from cutting funds."
While this idea is not as perverse as Murtha's, it is totally illogical. There is something exceedingly strange about authorizing the use of force -- except for combat. That is an oxymoron. Changing the language of authorization means -- if it means anything -- that Petraeus will have to surround himself with lawyers who will tell him, every time he wants to deploy a unit, whether he is ordering a legal "support" mission or an illegal "combat" mission.
If Levin wants to withdraw our forces from the civil war in the cities to more secure bases from which we can continue training and launching operations against al-Qaeda, he should present that to the country as an alternative to (or a fallback after) the administration's troop surge. But to force it on our commanders through legalisms is simply to undermine their ability to fight the war occurring on the ground today.
Slowly bleeding our forces by defunding what our commanders think they need to win (the House approach) or rewording the authorization of the use of force so that lawyers decide what operations are to be launched (the Senate approach) is no way to fight a war. It is no way to end a war. It is a way to complicate the war and make it inherently unwinnable -- and to shirk the political responsibility for doing so.
Ray wrote:You know Giancarlo, there is a difference between drawing a line in the sand , and then there is a pissing contest. With this thread, and your 'challenge' you've done exactly the latter. Made a pissing contest over a simple debate over the internet. I don't agree with liberals, republicans, green party members, tree huggers, global warming, that guy Evil Weasel on here, or anyone who talks about what the daily life is in Iraq (I'VE SEEN it). Yet you don't see me walking around beating my chest and challenging everyone on here to a 'duel'. I've said some dumb things and gotten mad a few times, but making a pissing contest out of every disagreement is foolish. Get over it, you disagree. Live life without being so pissed off and immature.
the thing about discussion's is that they are undertaken buy those with an open mind, or at least an understanding that their view is only the sum of there experiences to date.
nobody knows enough to be 'all knowing'
we all need to hear and understand each others experiences to enrich our own
'walk an mile in another man's shoes etc'
to do any less or draw your own line in the sand and demand it is assaulted is only serving to stifle the debate and deny you own education.
war? what do we want it for?
on Aristotle ("We make war that we may live in peace.")
war brings peace only to the aggressor and then only at its core not its warring fringes. IMHO Aristotle is inferring the great irony of an expanding nation's illusions of peace (Britain in the 19th C, Napoleon, Vlad the implayer, et al)
the unsaid is as important as the said. there is no mention of the consequences of peace (non-war) just that with it there is peace. inferring with out war there is only war?
perhaps i really dont know
all I know is US minions out number those 'generals that gather in there masses, just like witches at black masses' and only when we accept it can wars be un-excusable
Is that all you're going to do, Giancarlo? Just copy and paste editorials by Republican leaders and other Bush cronies?
The fact is that Democrats, as spineless as they may be, were lied to, just like everyone else, by the W administration. The reasons for war are nothing but a pack of lies that unfortunately people swallowed hook, line and sinker. What's wrong with getting out of a war that was begun cynically and was doomed to fail from the moment it began?
It upsets me because while those same troops you so endlessly mythologize are serving and dying in an unjust war, you're seeking to continue perpetuating the same lies and bullshit that got us stuck there to begin with. For what?
There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11th. The Iraqi people are not better off under so-called "democratic" rule. The Middle East is not more stable. These are easily verifiable facts.
So why exactly should we leave our soldiers to die? Pride? Selfishness?
And since we're so quote-happy, here's this little gem from Pres. George H.W. Bush:
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability."
bhallg2k wrote:Is that all you're going to do, Giancarlo? Just copy and paste editorials by Republican leaders and other Bush cronies?
The fact is that Democrats, as spineless as they may be, were lied to, just like everyone else, by the W administration. The reasons for war are nothing but a pack of lies that unfortunately people swallowed hook, line and sinker. What's wrong with getting out of a war that was begun cynically and was doomed to fail from the moment it began?
It upsets me because while those same troops you so endlessly mythologize are serving and dying in an unjust war, you're seeking to continue perpetuating the same lies and bullshit that got us stuck there to begin with. For what?
There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11th. The Iraqi people are not better off under so-called "democratic" rule. The Middle East is not more stable. These are easily verifiable facts.
So why exactly should we leave our soldiers to die? Pride? Selfishness?
And since we're so quote-happy, here's this little gem from Pres. George H.W. Bush:
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerrilla war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever greater instability."
I agree with everything you posted 100%. EXCEPT I believe many Democrats actually knew the WMD/Terrorist links thing was bullshit to begin with, but just went along with it because they felt it would hurt them politically if they didn't. I never believed the lies myself. As both an Atheist and a Socialist I find it infuriating how donwnhill this country has gone since W took office....not that things were great beforehand.
"This is a farce!"
-David Hobbs reacting to the 6 car start of the 2005 US Formula One Grand Prix.
Isn't it amazing when a foaming-at-the-mouth rabid Republican mouthpiece enters the room, everything gets very ugly? How they confuse the political issues with fine young people serving their nation? How meaningful dialogue and communication dies and everyone ends up shouting slogans at each other. Or how a dissenter's opinion suddenly is somehow related to poor parentage?
Let's talk about the Republican leadership. They started this "war" in Iraq and invaded and conquered this nation on the flimsiest reasons. They started something they had absolutely no idea of solving, except at the business end of a gun. The USA and their unknowing cohorts have deposed a brutal dictator and wound up replacing it with total civil war.
Nations that once participated in this invasion are bailing out, they have realized they are involved in a mess they definitely were working against.
So now the US leadership has started the "blame" game. They plan a gradual withdrawl to leave internal Iraq forces in charge. If something goes wrong, they can blame them. But it's going to get a lot worse. It's hard to believe things will degenerate, but trust me, it's going to get much worse in Iraq in the next few years. And if and when the oil supply may be in jeapordy, US troops will be sent back in, because behind all the political jibber jabber, that's what this is all about. There are solutions available, but they are being ignored. Personally, what Petraeus advocates makes the most sense to me. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 291624.ece.
US politics is weird, with two opposing factions at odds with each other on all issues, each believing their way is the only correct way. And the general public is pulled back and forth, between these extremes, clouded by BS and disinformation. And the US media are unwilling accomplices. They depend on advertising to survive, and the largest advertiser in the US is the government. Say something they don't like, and it's Dixie Chicks part two for you.
It's a total mess in the middle east. Iraq is in shatters, and the vacuum left by them has elevated Iran into a major powerhouse in that part of the world. That in itself is a whole complete set of problems.
Any realistic solution to this mess won't come from US politics, it has to be resolved by everyone neighbouring Iraq.
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy was fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Are those are lies too?
Ignoring the threat radical islam poses on western civilization is not going to make it go away. Who has a way to deal with this imminent danger better than the US/GB/Australia?
France? Spain? The UN?
Really, someone post a better way to deal with terrorism and cite a source to reinforce your stance. My stance is the 'W' stance - fight 'em on their turf, not ours.
One disagreement Giancarlo. You MUST from now on capitalize the word Marine. We aren't mere soldiers and to not acknowledge that with lowercase letters, is not good. Unless you want me to kick your ass Marine Corps stylie! Just a joke on the kicking ass partm but please capitalize it. Thanks!
naming the stick that is used to beat your enemy's isn't really what i would call debate on the issue,
learn the lore of some of the worlds many so called elite troops and note the methods of indoctrination all resulting in erroneous self belief and what can only be described in as military madness.
having said that it is why they where trained that way, cant have thinking types in the front line now can we.
nobody is going to spend over long researching the specifics in the cases above , as the individual tragedy's and plots would each deserve days of work and doubtless the answers wouldn't satisfy.
it really depends how deep you dig and where you wish to stop the investigations, the actual perpetrator of the attack, his commander ? their financiers? or the funders funders? or the over seeing political commander? or his funder?
very little is know or published in the murky world of covert operations or its funding. but dont doubt that if there was political capital to be had in letting it be know how some XYZ agency saved the world it would be leaked at the very least.
nae wrote:naming the stick that is used to beat your enemy's isn't really what i would call debate on the issue,
learn the lore of some of the worlds many so called elite troops and note the methods of indoctrination all resulting in erroneous self belief and what can only be described in as military madness.
having said that it is why they where trained that way, cant have thinking types in the front line now can we
