|
||
|
Title: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Nov 30th, 2006, 1:06pm Quote:
|
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by vig on Nov 30th, 2006, 1:27pm My guess STILL is that W. wanted personal revenge on Saddam Hussein. He got it. He won, let's go home. my $.02 (we lost though) |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by BarbaraD on Nov 30th, 2006, 2:29pm He got Hussain, but at what COST? And destroyed a country (with thousands of years of history) and killed who knows how many thousands of people. I heard that statement from the Prof seeking impeachment and the reasons. Even Nixon resigned (after Agnew did) and it all worked out well. We had a President who hadn't been elected - I liked Jerry Ford. Right now we've just got a mess and it's getting worse. When grown people argue over what to call the war. I don't care if it's Civil or Revolutionary -- we just need to let them fight each other and bring our guys home. At least Hussain kept things in order. Bet he could get reelected right now.... |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Bob P on Nov 30th, 2006, 2:52pm Dubya still gets to call the shots and do it his way. Whine on! Why would anyone want to identify with a traitor like Kerry? |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Nov 30th, 2006, 3:01pm on 11/30/06 at 14:52:36, Bob P wrote:
I don't think the prof intended to identify with Kerry, but when he said that this was the most foolish war in 2014 years, it seemed to fit with Kerry's statement that if you keep stupid, you do stupid things. The fact that Bush did it his way for eight years won't be forgotten, until it comes time for the conservatives to exonerate him. "Bush tried, but his hands were tied by the liberal something or other..." |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by brewcrew on Nov 30th, 2006, 3:18pm Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..... The one thing Kerry supporters will never answer is, "How do you propose we keep America safe from a pretty sizeable group of radical Muslims who are hell-bent on killing as many of us as they can? When is somebody going to answer that? |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by BarbaraD on Nov 30th, 2006, 4:25pm Streghten the IMMIGRATION laws and KEEP UP with the aliens. America has the loosest immigration people of any country I've been in. Then round up all the ones who's visa's have expired and ship 'em home. But then they'd have to have a committee to "explore" that one and then they'd have to agree on what to call it and I figure about 2010 they MIGHT get around to holding some meetings to call each other names. There's an answer out there. But everyone is too busy calling each other names to try to find it. I'm just disgusted with both dems and reps. The dumbest thing I've heard today is keeping a church group (19 churches) from feeding the homeless because they're kitchens haven't had a health inspection (covered dish from a lot of parishioners). I think that one's gonna be fought. People starving and the GOVERNMENT is trying to tell people how to feed them. Hugs BD |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by brewcrew on Nov 30th, 2006, 5:23pm on 11/30/06 at 16:25:18, BarbaraD wrote:
Can't disagree with a thing you've written, BD. Except that tough immigration legislation and enforcement will be even harder to come by after January. Stalemate can be a VERY GOOD THING - except in matters of national security. This is where a handful of politicians from both sides of the aisle will lead us down a path of pure destruction. And sooner rather than later. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by tanner on Nov 30th, 2006, 5:36pm Sorry Flo, the only parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are all of the catch phrase's that the Libs are using. We "Lost" in Vietnam because of traitors like Kerry and Kennedy and Jane Commie Bit#h Fonda and all of the no brain left wingers that allowed themselves to be convinced that we were fighting an immoral losing battle without just cause. Why did we go there? Wasn't oil. I know we must have wanted their freaking French rubber plantations. When I enlisted I would have sworn that it was to give us a Democratic buffer zone between Communist China and the rest of Southeast Asia. I kinda wish you Libs would have let us win that one then maybe we wouldn't have terrorist groups to worry about in every single one of the country's that we left hanging. We could use an extra friend re: N. Korea right about now too. Quit trying to tie the two together! My answer to Brew's ? above is KILL as many When we can Where we can and How we can! Prop my old ass up and hand me a gun and I will happily go shoot every towelhead that so much as covers his face with a rag for the sake of anonymity. >:(......Tim sorry i have to keep editing but political posting and high Kips just don't seem to go together :( |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by vig on Nov 30th, 2006, 6:55pm What happened to the conflict in Afghanistan? Weren't we there to take out the Taliban? I think we ALL supported taking them out COMPLETELY! but they're back, and they're back because we got distracted and preoccupied by the Iraq mistake.... We had the world's support to go and 'tanner' them and what did W do with that opportunity? (I'm no fan of Kerry, btw) |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by BobG on Nov 30th, 2006, 7:45pm on 11/30/06 at 14:52:36, Bob P wrote:
There, fixed it. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Nov 30th, 2006, 7:47pm on 11/30/06 at 15:18:42, brewcrew wrote:
I am not a Kerry supporter, but I'll answer it anyway, Bill. We should go after the terrorists and kill them and destroy all their shit. Bush just wont do it. He said that he would, but then failed terribly. Iraq is not, nor has it been in decades, even in the top 10 list of terrorist freindly nations. Maybe we should start with the most dangerous of regeimes and keep fucking them up until we fuck them up so bad they CHOOSE to not be terrorists anymore. Thats it in a nutshell. If you want to do something about terrorism, you have to actually address the terrorists. Whether you shoot at them, or whether you just want to talk to them and ask them nicely, you have to address the terrorists, not Iraq. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by JeffB on Nov 30th, 2006, 7:53pm We must get the job done. Do whatever it takes to win. Kill em all and start over! |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Jonny on Nov 30th, 2006, 8:13pm on 11/30/06 at 19:47:59, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
I think this is the first time I agreed with you, Brain.....but, I do on that one! In my mind we have three options...... 1) Bomb every city we find them in killing civlians (Not PC) 2) Pull out altogether. (Then the world loses all around) 3) Getting the folks in Iraq to rat on the insurgents (Which aint happen yet and aint going to) Other than that......we can unleash the 132 battlion strong Iraqi army (i could be wrong on that number)to take our place and watch for awhile as we pull out. WTF do I know....I just own a welding shop ;;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by fubar on Nov 30th, 2006, 8:16pm Saudi Arabia Iran Syria ALL more trouble than Iraq... MOST of them are funding/supporting the fight against the infidels in Iraq. When is the USA going to stop whining and pissing and moaning? We are in A HOLY WAR. Not because we want to be, but because THEY MADE IT A HOLY WAR. This country is so full of traitors that it probably cannot avoid being destroyed by this HOLY WAR. We refuse to accept reality... that these fuckheads are out to KILL each and every one of us. It's time to open up our eyes and fight the war that we have been forced to fight. Instead, we are self-destructing at the hands of a traitorous media and left-wing radicals who want to see our country destroyed. What part of I AM GOING TO KILL YOU is hard to understand? Do you think they just need counseling? You are not fighting reasonable people! You are fighting a DOGMA that REQUIRES your death! Why is that so hard to understand? But, I guess I shouldn't sugar coat it. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Sean_C on Nov 30th, 2006, 8:22pm Britney shaves.........................sorry for the interuption ;;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Shedz on Nov 30th, 2006, 8:25pm LOL [smiley=crackup.gif] |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by vig on Nov 30th, 2006, 8:31pm on 11/30/06 at 20:16:36, fubar wrote:
I disagree with that last statement there Shawn, I think we're losing because George ignored the advice of his generals to go big. We were ALL behind him at the start and his incompetence and slow-wittedness have resulted in the mess we are now in. Should we go at this whole hog? Are we ready to restart the draft? We're running out of soldiers. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Jonny on Nov 30th, 2006, 8:36pm on 11/30/06 at 20:31:38, vig wrote:
That statement is oh so true, we got dudes on their fourth tour of this shit. I have never heard of anyone touring four times in battle! |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Tata on Nov 30th, 2006, 9:41pm "There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them". " Lol.....9 BC? That is remarkable. Isn't this the same dude who said "Obviously, we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons and I don't know if they're developing them, but if they're not developing them, they're crazy." ? |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Charlie on Nov 30th, 2006, 11:34pm Quote:
Thank God. Things are going so well. It's dangerous when those in charge of strategy and the welfare of the country cease to listen to other ideas and advice....even if they don't act on it.....and call everyone not on the same dogeared page: traitors. It's happened before with terrible results. It's nice that Saddam is out of the picture but without him, we have made Iran the big player in the area. He was a horror but he was like Mussolini. While Mussolini made the trains run on time, Saddam was the only thing the kept the fanatics in check. The history-ignoring cult in Washington is also learning that the bizarre idea that these Islamic fanatics would welcome an invasion by a country that spends so much time promoting itself as a Christian-based society, is beyond stupid.....I have my doubts. Until now, we have had a nice big ocean or two between us and those "other" places. Now we have to learn what Europeans have lived with for centuries: We are vulnerable. We have to deal with the rest of the world and it's never going to be as cosy over here as it was. It's hard for us and it's one reason that our response has missed most of the target. We aren't very good at it yet. We are a great people but when we are not wanted, our options are limited. It will take a long time to get around this mess. We are stuck for a long time. Even if we decided to split, it would take months, maybe years. We can't leave it as it is now anyway. Somethings gotta give. Sorry, but Vietnam was lost because the North was fighting a nationalist battle. We were not. They would still be fighting. Stopping the Chinese is something you can't do without nukes and even Nixon knew better. By the way, if you want to be cute: Republican traitors were in charge when the war ended, not patriotic Democrats. We needed Ike. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by tanner on Dec 1st, 2006, 1:41am on 11/30/06 at 23:34:12, Charlie wrote:
Charlie, sorry to chop your post up like this but you will note that I have taken nothing out of context! Since the part I left in as well as your opening shot seem to be aimed directly at me I thought it fair to only respond to this portion. Nationalist battle? hmmm...Spanish American ring a bell? How about our own War of Independence? Weren't we trying to do the same thing as the South Vietnamese and seperate ourselves from what we considered to be a hostile and unfair Government? As to who was in office at the end of the Vietnam conflict....give me a freakin break! Johnson and his ilk had long since taken away our power to win that one! Do you need a timeline of the entire buildup and then downfall of our efforts there. I have already posted it once so it's there in the archives somewhere. Nukes to win? The Chinese had absolutely no long range capabilities at that time and for that matter didn't even possess the weapons! It would have only taken a secure border with a Democratic government in place that had friends (like us) who did possess the power and the will (I wish) to put an end to any further incursions. Keep voting for the Kennedy's Charlie and eventually it will all be fine. Every name I mentioned using the "traitor" tag was and is arguably entitled to the word plus in one case murderer seems to fit. If you want to add every Commander in Chief that has ever bent the rules to achieve his goals it's gonna be a real long list. Always fun to disagree with you my friend ;)...Tim BTW: I used to be cute...now I'm just old ;;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Batch on Dec 1st, 2006, 6:17am Nice try, but sorry, I don’t buy it one bit. Besides that, anyone that agrees with a arrogant jerk like Kerry is in very bad company… The forensics of his track record speak volumes and his recent words clearly show him for what he is… a self-serving traitor. If you want some real history without all the liberal jabberwocky, here are a few facts from far more learned authors that place the situation with radical jihadist ISLAM in Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and the world in perspective. It’s an easy but brutal read even for liberals who’ve suffered from a politically correct education devoid of real fact, and un-revised history. For the rest of us, it’s just plain scary… If the following gives you cause for concern and a desire to read more, please go to the header “ISLAM” at the following URL and read for yourself. http://www.weeks-g.dircon.co.uk/quotes__i.htm There’s so much more to read. What we facing are shades of ISLAM from black to gray, peaceful moderates to rabid suicidal animals, but make no mistake, what we are facing a war of the worlds between ISLAM and the INFIDELS… And WE, here in the US and other western nations, are the INFIDELS! Leon Uris put it best in his book, The Haj – 1984. “So before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel.” Take a look at the history of ISLAM and the bloody facts that “ISLAM rules, it is not ruled.” “Genocide committed in the name of Allah: 3,000,000 Bangladeshi Hindus Killed during the Pakistan-Bangladesh war in 1971. From 1894 to 1896 Abdul Hamid, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, killed 150,000 Armenian Christians. In India, Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur, was burned to death along with his disciples by the Moghul ruler Aurangzeb in 1675. Another Sikh, Bhai Mati Das was sawn into right and left halves while he was still alive. In July 1974, Fahri Koroturk, the president of Turkey and his Islamic army killed 4,000 Christians living in Cyprus. From 1843 to 1846, Muslims massacred 10,000 Assyrian Christians including women and children. From 1915 to 1918 750,000 Assyrians were killed in the name of Islamic Jihad. In 1933 Iraqi soldiers murdered thousands of Assyrian villagers in Northern Iraq. Since 1990 Islamic fundamentalists brutally murdered more than 10,000 Kashmiri Hindus. Since 1960, Islamic dictators have killed over 30,000 Mauritanians. In 1980, 20,000 Syrians were murdered under the rule of Hafez Al-Assad, President of Syria. Since 1992, the Islamic fundamentalist army murdered 120,000 Algerians.” From: http://www.truthtree.com/islam/islam_menu.shtml Take a look at writings in the Qur’an (QURAN). SURAH 9:29, Mark Gabriel makes it very clear by summarizing it in simple English: “Muslims must fight four kinds of people: 1. Those who don't believe in Allah 2. Those who don't believe in the last day 3. Those who do things that Allah and Muhammad have forbidden 4. Those who don't acknowledge Islam as the truth, i.e., "people of the Scripture," who are Jews and Christians.” “If you fall into the 4th category, the followers of Muhammad’s writings give you three options: 1. Accept the message of Islam. (Convert to ISLAM) 2. Retain your Jewish or Christian faiths, but pay a special tax (jizyah), which is traditionally levied once a year. 3. Just Die!" (Islam and Terrorism.Doc. 144 pp.73-74). //http:www.islam.org.au/articles/21/khilafa.htm And, if you think being a liberal atheist will keep you safe, I wouldn't be whistling in the dark... you'll have a lot of serious Allah ass kissing to do and it’s still not going to help. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by vig on Dec 1st, 2006, 8:16am Where would we be today if we had continued pounding the carp out of Afghanistan and left Iraq alone? WAAAAAAAY the 'F" ahead of where we are now, IMHO That's the price we will all be paying for this 'misstep'. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Dec 1st, 2006, 10:13am on 12/01/06 at 06:17:47, Batch wrote:
Funny how none of my Greek relatives that lived through the Turkish invasion of Cyprus describe it as Islamic Genocide. Maybe because they saw it as Turkish imperialism, and it was a secular Turkish Government, not an "Islamic Army." And funny how they put a portion of the blame for the Cyprus crisis on Makarios, the Greek Archbishop who became President of Cyprus, who did nothing to ensure that the rights of the Turkish minority would be protected as Cyprus moved towards independence. What about Christianity's role in the near extermination of the American Indian, slavery and the colonization of the 3rd world? Should we apply your same logic, and note that while there are some Christians that are moderate and some that are not, Christianity on the whole is a bloody, violent religion?? Me, I'm going out to buy the Left Behind video game: time to celebrate the death and eternal destruction of non-Christians. It's like Grand-Theft auto for the born-agains. What better way to spread the Gospel?? |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Dec 1st, 2006, 10:28am on 12/01/06 at 06:17:47, Batch wrote:
Funny how none of my Greek relatives that lived through the Turkish invasion of Cyprus describe it as Islamic Genocide. Maybe because they saw it as Turkish imperialism, and it was a secular Turkish Government, not an "Islamic Army." And funny how they put a portion of the blame for the Cyprus crisis on Makarios, the Greek Archbishop who became President of Cyprus, who did nothing to ensure that the rights of the Turkish minority would be protected as Cyprus moved towards independence. What about Christianity's role in the near extermination of the American Indian, slavery and the colonization of the 3rd world? Should we apply your same logic, and note that while there are some Christians that are moderate and some that are not, Christianity on the whole is a bloody, violent religion?? Me, I'm going out to buy the Left Behind video game: time to celebrate the death and eternal destruction of non-Christians. It's like Grand-Theft auto for the born-agains. What better way to spread the Gospel?? |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by FramCire on Dec 1st, 2006, 10:33am on 11/30/06 at 14:52:36, Bob P wrote:
I don't like John Kerry, I didn't vote for him, and he made a very stupid statement BUT the man did serve his country. He has 3 purple hearts and other citations. Just because you dislike his politics doesn't make him a traitor. It makes him an American who you disagree with. Sometimes it saddens me that we as a country are so politically devided that we consider the other side to be traitors or "hate" them. Anyway, go on debating this all you guys want. I was for the war when it started and I think we do need to change directions but it would be a heck of a lot easier if our esteemed politicians made this an issue of doing what was right and not what is politically right for them. Anyway, Kerry may not be a hero to those who hate him because of his politics, but I never served our military and i never fought for my country so excuse me if I consider those who do to be heros to me. With that said, I still wouldn't vote for him. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Bob P on Dec 1st, 2006, 11:51am Quote:
For one he fragged himself. The other two were scratches and taking a PH for them is a disgrace to the real wounded. He was there for political and personal gain, period. Even got innocent Vietnamese citizens killed because he didn't do his job (see the radar/guardpost account). The man is disgusting! |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Paul98 on Dec 1st, 2006, 12:32pm Kerry and Hanoi Jane were cut from the same cloth. Both are traitors. -P. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by FramCire on Dec 1st, 2006, 3:05pm on 12/01/06 at 11:51:30, Bob P wrote:
Honestly, I have read accounts from people who served with him that said his service was solid. He also volunteered (even if for political gain, he did serve). I have never voted for him and I do not like him politically but every account I have read (both ways) were from politically motivated sources. I guess if you have served this country in war, you can criticize, but I haven't and I wont. PS Do they limit PHs? Otherwise he didn't take one away from anyone. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Kevin_M on Dec 1st, 2006, 5:17pm Quote:
Jon, this is rather long but gives a viewpoint. Excerpts from a book "The One Percent Doctrine", published Aug. 2006, by Ron Susskind, 1993-2000 senior national affairs reporter for the WSJ and Pulitzer Prize winner. 363.325 S George Tenet (CIA director) and his team had evacuated their offices at CIA headquarters by midmorning on September 11, 2001, but they didn't get far. Across a concrete square were vacant offices in the CIA's print shop--a nondescript two-story building on the Langley, Virginia, campus that generates, daily... numerous briefing books over the past year on al Quaeda... Tenet, his deputy John McLaughlin, and a few others... began working a bank of phones, trying to get updates, staus reports, anything... This day brought newfound clarity. At 1:10pm, an analyst burst into the room holding printouts. There were manifests from the four flights, just sent to him from an official at the FAA... Sending passenger lists to CIA for review was among the day's first acts of recollection. "Two names," the analyst said... "These two we know." Everyone crowded around, looking at the printout for AA flight 77, which had left the Pentagon in flames. Staring back were the names of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, men who had appeared on various internal lists as members of al Qaeda... ...Bush assembled principal advisers for a video conference, the first high-level meeting since the attacks. Tenet reported the discovery of known al Qaeda operatives... including al-Mihdhar who, noticed by CIA a year before in Malaysia, had a valid U.S. visa, and seemed to have slipped into the country unnoticed by both CIA and FBI... incoming evidence: al Qaeda. The culprit. Starting points are ever elusive... but this is as close as we will probably get. The facts indisputable. And a war, some sort of war, was bound to begin. con't... |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Kevin_M on Dec 1st, 2006, 5:18pm ...(morning, Sep. 13) Cofer Black, head of the agency's (CIA) Counter-Terrorist center--had given an astonishing performance in the White House Situation room... The president was getting his bearings... Black had laid out a plan that Tenet and and other senior agency officials had swiftly constructed: a campaign led by the CIA, supported by U.S. Special Forces, that would soon invade Afghanistan... On Friday, September 14, when the President of the United States wanted a grant of special powers from Congress, his team arrived on Capital Hill well prepared. It so happened that administration lawyers had for months been incubating theories about how to expand presidential power. The ideas were originally seeded by the Vice President, a believer, since his harrowing days in the death throes of the Nixon administration, the executive power had been dangerously diminished. In both the House and Senate, White House negotiatiors pressed for the broadest possible legislative language, including authorization to engage in wide-ranging activities on U.S. territory. The language of the proposed resolution authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks tyhat occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." ...A resolution passed in the Senate by a vote of 98-0 and in the House by a vote of 420-1. ...At a special meeting on Monday morning, September 17, the President handed out assignments. After a weekend of deliberation with is top officials as Camp David, it was time for action. The mission was to oust al Qaeda from its Afghanistan refuge and, if necessary, destroy the county's ruling Taliban regime. ...President Bush...in his landmark speech of September 20, 2001, declaring before a joint session of Congress that "Our 'war on terror' begins with al Qaeda, but is does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach had been found, stopped, and defeated." ...As the CIA became doers, the traditional doers at the Pentagon got ready for a small, targeted engagement in Afghanistan, with an expected deployment of a maximum 10,000 or so troops, a fraction of the total force and waited for further instructions. This was a particularly bitter pill for the civilian leadership of the Pentagon: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...deputy...Undersecretary for Policy... and their senior nonstaff advisor and now Chairman of the President's Defense Advisory Board... All had been pressing through the Clinton years and first nine months of this administration for two things: transformation fo the military into a leaner, high-tech, twenty-first-century fighting force; and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. ...As to 9/11, the critics' case for CIA incompetence was clouded by the repeated warnings from Tenet and top deputies about the al Qaeda threat, starting with their first briefing to the incoming President. Neither Bush nor the more experienced Cheney had reacted with a plan of action... The primary focus instead--as national security advisor Condoleezza Rice framed it in January 2001 at the NSC meeting of the Bush presidency--was on "how Iraq is destabilizing the region," and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Throughout the spring and summer of 2001, dozens of reports were generated inside the Defense and State Departments about a possible invasion of Iraq, as the CIA increasingly warned about the threat from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda and Iraq were separate entities, with diverent goals, but on September 19, Bush made his first official stab at convergence... He had not been satisfied with an ad hoc exchange with Richard Clarke, the NSC's national coordinator for security and senior advisor on couterterrorism. Bush had asked Clark about Saddam's link to the attack. Clarke had said definitely there'd be no connection found--this was clearly al Qaeda , and al Qaeda and Saddam were natural enemies. Now, in a briefing with George Tenet on Sepember 19, he and the Vice President made a more formal run at the issue. "I want to know more about the links between Saddam and al Qaeda," Bush said to Tenet. "The Vice President knows some things that might be helpul." ...His (Cheney) office had nearly a dozen national security staffers and advisors. One of them, Cheney told Tenet, had picked up a report that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent five months before the attack... (Tenet) "We'll get right on it, Mr. Vice President." ...(Sep 21, Tenet) "Our Prague office is skeptical about the report, It just doesn't add up." He noted, as well, other evidence, including credit card records, and phone records collected by FBI and CIA that seemed to place Atta in northern Virginia all during the period in question--in an apartment, in fact, a few miles from the agency's headquarters. Cheney, staring out from the video, shook his head in doubt. con't... |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Kevin_M on Dec 1st, 2006, 5:19pm ...The Vice President (Cheney) and the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld)... had a long history of working side by side... 1969, Donald Rumsfeld... heading the Office of Economic Opportunity... drafted as his assistant... Dick Cheney. ...in 1975... Rumsfeld was Gerald Ford's chief of staff and Cheney his deputy, with a charge to oversee intelligence matters. The two men orchestrated was was then known as the "Halloween Massacre," a complex series of manuevers that made Rumsfeld Defense Secretary and Cheney chief of staff... ...(among stripping Kissinger of his dual role and marginalizing V.P. Rockefeller, who withdrew from the '76 election) the last in the series of Halloween events was the ouster of CIA director William Colby... replacing him with George W. H. Bush. ...This was thirty years ago... For Cheney, George W. Bush is the son of man he admired, despite his belief that the former President missed history's call by not detroying Saddam Hussein. For Rumsfeld, he was the son of a man... also by the fact that he missed history's call by not destoying Saddam Hussein. Now place this pair in their respective senior positions in the administration of that son, George W. Bush: a President without foreign policy experience of any kind... It's simple math... a hundred years from now, scholars will most probably look at this array of actors and say, clearly, that Saddam Hussein's days were numbered. It was, after all, about the only matter on which all three agreed, and felt passionately... it is... no great surprise that the first National Security Council meeting in January 2001 dealt with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. And so did the second. It was a matter of how, not whether. ...it would be largely a matter of integration... A thorny question remained: How could the ousting of Saddam Hussein be woven into something now called the "war on terror?" (The book goes on another 325 p) ...It was becoming clear by June 2003 that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq. ... The DI's "war fighting" role was now activated on behalf of the Iraq campaign... asking the same question... Is there even the slimmest possibility--a one percent chance--that uranium was bought in Niger, that the aluminum tubes wer usable in uranium centrifuges, or that Mohammed Atta managed to meet with an Iraqi, any Iraqi, in Prague? ...The CIA held firm: the meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi agent didn't occur. ...One down but two salient points--wobbly, but still standing--on the heart-stopping issue of nuclear weapons remained in the text: "The British Government has learned tha Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Both statements were crafted to carry the clarion ring of proof and both were known, by the people inside the CIA and the White House, to fall far short of that standard. ... Since March 2002, when the International Atomic Energy Agency filed a report showing that the documents underlying the yellowcake (from Niger, uranium) claims--by both the British and the Americans--were forgeries... (along with being signed by a Niger official not employed there for ten years.) ... the Energy Department's intelligence branch and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons" |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Charlie on Dec 1st, 2006, 10:28pm Well....when I commented on the ridiculous and tiring crap that traitors are to blame for all our troubles, I mentioned at the time "If you want to be cute." There have never been traitors in the White House. Of course it's the easy thing to say. The VC were very good at what they were doing and were willing to suffer millions of casualties. They knew we were not. That war was less about Communism than their peculiar and nasty unification. The Vietnamese hated China and still do. As far back as Korea, after Mao took over, American military...aside from MacArthur has never recommended getting into a war on the Asian mainland. It would be beyond costly. Another thing is that the south was so corrupt and they liked letting us handle their mess. Our military behaved superbly there and still do in Iraq. They have nothing to be ashamed of, just the opposite. Politicians do, and no particular side. You have to admit that rich or middle class college kids trying to avoid the draft had a significant impart in what happened after Nixon & Co. ended it. By the way, I don't say this much because I was exempt so I don't bring it up most of the time, but I was a hawk. What a mess Iraq has become. We can't just fold up and leave. We're stuck for a long time. I don't like much what I hear from most other politicians. I do know that Republicans are desperate to get some kind of hold on this thing before the 2008 election. I can't say I blame them. It's at least easier to get different opinions now that not all Republicans have to stay behind Bush. That's healthy at least. Before, if you asked one Republican, you knew where they all stood. Not necessarily the case now. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by tanner on Dec 1st, 2006, 11:59pm Charlie, understood and accepted :) the comparisons between then and now get under my skin and make me say things to nice people that I would rather not have. hence my "ignore" post which nobody ignored. The best response was from Brew with his " your not the boss of me" which made me remember and laugh at a time I needed to [smiley=laugh.gif]. Thanks Brew ya brat!....Tim |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by BB on Dec 2nd, 2006, 12:09am From a perspective of a person who had lived in Vietnam through the end part of the Vietnam War and then under Communist Regime for a few years before escaping the country, I would say that America lost the Vietnam War because the Viet Cong were totally dedicated to winning it, AT ANY COST, while America was not. The Viet Cong were all brain washed to think that their whole lives should be dedicated to the cause and that EVERY American was ugly and should be killed. Under the Communist regime, children from the age of Kindergarten were taught at school to hate and kill any American they came across. For eg, for PE while learning to throw a ball they would be taught to say : " this is a bomb and I am throwing it on the head of an American ". Would America ever do this to their citizens/children in order to win a war? No way ! Now the war is against the Fanatics who turn the act of killing into a Holy war using the name of religion. These people in many ways are the same as the Viet Cong. They also have been brain washed. They are not able nor allowed to think as individuals. They are not able to see the two sides of the arguement. One can not win a war be it physical or verbal against raging lunatics, by being civilised. Either one walks away or one completely stampedes these crazy people. Trying to fight a war diplomatically in these situations will be futile. JMHO. Annette |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Jonny on Dec 2nd, 2006, 1:00pm G. W. Bush and John Kerry somehow ended up at the same barbershop. As they sat there, each being worked on by a different barber, not a word was spoken. The barbers were even afraid to start a conversation, for fear it would turn to politics. As the barbers finished their shaves, the one who had Kerry in his chair reached for the aftershave. Kerry was quick to stop him saying, "No thanks, my wife Theresa will smell that and think I've been in a brothel. The second barber turned to Bush and said, "How about you?" Bush replied, "Go ahead, my wife doesn't know what the inside of a brothel smells like" ;;D |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Dec 2nd, 2006, 2:04pm Quote:
I don't think V.P. Cheney could say the same thing. In 1981, his wife Lynne wrote a book called 'Sisters' that featured lesbians and brothels. And we know that great writers need to research their material. :) In 1988 (when Dick was running for VP), Lynn wrote a fictional account of a woman married to the Vice President of the United States. In her story, the Vice President dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. It's hard to separate truth from fiction. Maybe in the second case, fiction is just wishful thinking on the part of the writer. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Jonny on Dec 2nd, 2006, 2:07pm Flo debating a joke.....LMMFAO......ive seen it all now.....ROTFF!!!!! ;;D Love ya, Flo......LOL |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Dec 2nd, 2006, 2:12pm on 12/02/06 at 14:07:23, Jonny wrote:
No, not debating. And there's no need to make up funnies to show what kind of a woman Lynn Cheney is - her writing speaks for itself. I sure wish my wife would write fiction about a GIS Analyst who dies when he has a sudden cluster headache while driving through heavy traffic. "But dear, how do you really feel about me? .... Oh, I love you too." |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by BobG on Dec 3rd, 2006, 1:00pm Kerry is a moot point now. He made his run at the White House and lost. He’s a has been. He has about as much say in politics as Gore. Who to watch out for next election? John McCain. That guy is a danger to America. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by CaSS on Dec 3rd, 2006, 1:35pm this is all very sad. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Charlie on Dec 3rd, 2006, 2:09pm Kerry was a terrible candidate....still is. Like Lewis Black said: "It's stunning that Democrats couldn't deal with George Bush in 2004." We need you Clintons. Oh what fun..... Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Jonny on Dec 3rd, 2006, 2:27pm *GONG*......You Rang? http://www.liveshot.cc/images/Kerry%20Yale.jpg |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by cosmicfunkfather on Dec 3rd, 2006, 3:00pm the shit has hit the fan.nothing we can do about it. [smiley=bag.gif] cff |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Woobie on Dec 4th, 2006, 10:55am this is my signature on my email.......... Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Kirk on Dec 4th, 2006, 11:25am Religion and politics aside. If your objective is to control the so called Middle East. Straticaly for control of the water and best transportation routes in the region. Irag is your real estate of choice. Has been for 2500 years. Afgahnistan was the right first thing to do. What with Bin Laden and all. And the the Taliban are not really kinder gentler Opium growers. But for control of that chunk of the planet. Straticaly, you need Irag. You don't need the people. Far as I'm concerned line them up and shoot them. You need control of the water resources and the transportation routes. And if you play your cards right. You can pretty much control most of the region. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Dec 4th, 2006, 5:12pm on 12/04/06 at 11:25:32, Kirk wrote:
Iraq has water, which is good if you want to grow food - but most of that area is dependent on food imports (as are all major cities of the world, etc). It is fairly centrally located, and it has oil. But controlling that piece of territory only gives a presence. I would rather control Kamchatka!! |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Kirk on Dec 4th, 2006, 9:37pm on 12/04/06 at 17:12:10, floridian wrote:
Not if you want to control the Middle East. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Charlie on Dec 5th, 2006, 5:58pm Yeah but it's no fun controlling the middle east by being there. Bleaugh. Kamchatka is at least closer to us though. Dunno who said it many years ago....it may have been in National Review: "I can't wait until we no longer depend on all that oil so this area of the world can retreat to the relative obscurity to which it belongs." It's not so true today but it will be nice when we can make it unprofitable to screw with us. Charlie |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Kirk on Dec 5th, 2006, 8:06pm Yeah. We could atleast go crabbing out of Kamchatka. |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by Jonny on Dec 5th, 2006, 8:23pm Kirk, I would rather ride out one of those God for saken storms with you as cap'in way before stepping on a boat with Kerry within two miles! ;) |
||
|
Title: Re: Military Historian Agrees with John Kerry Post by floridian on Dec 6th, 2006, 8:59am on 12/05/06 at 17:58:16, Charlie wrote:
Charlie, My Boy!! At this very moment, Mr. Wonka is working on a secret project to make diesel from coal and extract oil from the Athabasca tar sands in Canada. Fizzy lifting drinks for all! Too bad we have government officials in league with Sluggworth. |
||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |