jman19
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2000
- 11,220
- 654
- 126
Yep, stay the course guys, it takes time to root out terrorism!!!
Ha, while I agree that winning the WOT will take a long time, plopping 150,000 troops in ME country that they tore down was probably not the way, huh? Yea that Rummy, he's a real smart fella.
Ha, while I agree that winning the WOT will take a long time, plopping 150,000 troops in ME country that they tore down was probably not the way, huh? Yea that Rummy, he's a real smart fella.
Reminds me of a section of that movie, the Power of Nightmares. During the early eighties, Rumsfeld self selected intel to prop up the theory that the Soviet Union was behind or funding most of the terrorism of that time, much in the same manner as intel was self selected to back up the assertion that Saddam was pursueing a nuclear weapon and was an imminent threat more recently. This convinced Reagan enough that he 'took off the gloves', and led to some of your countries' more despicable actions in South America.
The Soviet Union rotted from within. Osama believes he brought it down in Afghanistan; he's just as wrong.
And a point of order, threadstarter. You seem to imply that the tactics now being pursued would work, if only "the left" would give them time to play out. "the left" has suggested all along that the tactics used in prosecuting 'the war on terror', are in fact counter productive and increase the danger present, from a small band of radicals to now an entire country embroiled in anarchy to who knows whats next. They have been proven right. I never quite understood how it is that someone with your worldview can now believe that a group of men who up to this point have screwed up beyond all reason, have the wits make a thousand apt astute correct decisions to pull through in the end, if only they had the time.
The Soviet Union rotted from within. Osama believes he brought it down in Afghanistan; he's just as wrong.
And a point of order, threadstarter. You seem to imply that the tactics now being pursued would work, if only "the left" would give them time to play out. "the left" has suggested all along that the tactics used in prosecuting 'the war on terror', are in fact counter productive and increase the danger present, from a small band of radicals to now an entire country embroiled in anarchy to who knows whats next. They have been proven right. I never quite understood how it is that someone with your worldview can now believe that a group of men who up to this point have screwed up beyond all reason, have the wits make a thousand apt astute correct decisions to pull through in the end, if only they had the time.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Well Bow, I actually agree with what you say. I gave it a quick read and thought the Pace comment was from 1984. It was 1:30am and I was on the way to bed, hence the quick post without much comment.
As a student of history I do think what he said about terrorism and governments using it was a pretty good bit of insight.
I'd like to read the whole speech.
BTW: I didn?t post this as some way to prove what a great job Rumsfeld is doing today. I posted it because what he said about terrorism was pretty correct, and this was 1984 when terrorism was just starting to expand beyond the occasional PLO airline hijacking.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The 1964 speech by Reagan on behave of Barry Goldwater. Link
This is the last part, which deals with freedom, appeasement and defeating communism.
Interestingly the Democrats are still the party of appeasement 40+ years later, and a lot of what he attributes to them could have been said last week by any peacenik protesting the war.
This is the last part, which deals with freedom, appeasement and defeating communism.
Interestingly the Democrats are still the party of appeasement 40+ years later, and a lot of what he attributes to them could have been said last week by any peacenik protesting the war.
Umm, someone already pointed out to you that Beirut barracks bombing took place in 1983. Do you even read your own threads? Student of History?
And Rummy? Yeah, he's a REAL visionary.... :roll:
And Rummy? Yeah, he's a REAL visionary.... :roll:
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Another Reagan speech, this one from 1976. In this one he all but lays out his plan to build up our military power. link
And it was the build up of military power that pushed the Soviet Union over the edge and brought us to the world we line in now. Even with all the dangers of terrorism, we are FAR safer today than when we faced a Soviet Union with thousands of Nukes aimed at us.
And it was the build up of military power that pushed the Soviet Union over the edge and brought us to the world we line in now. Even with all the dangers of terrorism, we are FAR safer today than when we faced a Soviet Union with thousands of Nukes aimed at us.
Nice revision of history. If I'm not mistaken, American participation in Vietnam was started by JFK, and the war escalated by LBJ. It was Nixon that took America out of Vietnam.
Likewise, Truman got America stuck in Korea, for which the Democratic party lost badly, and it was Eisenhower who got America out.
You wouldn't need to change a word for this to be the speech of a leader of the Iraq insurgents calling for the war against the US to continue.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
What you say is true. However, the insurgents are fighting for freedom and democracy, instead they are fighting for the opposite.
The question is "how do the Iraqi's view insurgents"
If they view them as freedom fighters, then we might as well leave now because we have lost their hearts and minds.
However, if they view them in a negative light then there is still hope.
NOTE to the bomb throwers, notice that Craig made a rational and eloquent statement, and I responded with one of my own. This is called debate, try it some time, you might actually enjoy it.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Maybe its time to back off and wonder what this war in Iraq is buying us?---which seems to be really the legacy that this thread is about---great previous thinkers who had the forsight to realise the new enemies we would face long before they even surfaced. Curiously, not a single democrat is in the group the proponents cite---but the Republican list is fairly long---Goldwater, Nixon, Rumsfeld, Reagan, Peter Pace,
Kissinger, and others. All war hawks that have past histories of advocating or implementing global bloodshed on a massive scale. And also advocates of military expendetures on a massive scale.
So it is a valid question to ask if the policies these men implemented are visionary or self fuf-filling?
And with the Soviet boogie man now largely gone as a super-power---we can also ask if these men had to invent the terrorist threat to justify continuing military expenatures now that that rascal Gorbachov has throw in the towel and said OK --you win---we can't match you in military spending. You win.--Do what you will---take your peace dividend or continue the military spending that wrecked our economy.---as we know these visionaries have rejected taking the peace dividend.
But now we are mired in Iraq---with argably something on the order of two thrillion bucks spent. I seem to recall a thread about what two trillion dollars could buy if it were better spent fighting the causes of terrorism. As our foreign policy of serving as the unpaid policeman of the world makes our economy non comcometitive with other economies in the world that don't have these massive military expenditures.
So maybe its time to ask these questions directly---are these visionaries or idiots doing the work of the devil? Keeping old wounds open and inventing new wounds.--so as to keep the rest of us humans
killing each other for their political power and amusement?
Kissinger, and others. All war hawks that have past histories of advocating or implementing global bloodshed on a massive scale. And also advocates of military expendetures on a massive scale.
So it is a valid question to ask if the policies these men implemented are visionary or self fuf-filling?
And with the Soviet boogie man now largely gone as a super-power---we can also ask if these men had to invent the terrorist threat to justify continuing military expenatures now that that rascal Gorbachov has throw in the towel and said OK --you win---we can't match you in military spending. You win.--Do what you will---take your peace dividend or continue the military spending that wrecked our economy.---as we know these visionaries have rejected taking the peace dividend.
But now we are mired in Iraq---with argably something on the order of two thrillion bucks spent. I seem to recall a thread about what two trillion dollars could buy if it were better spent fighting the causes of terrorism. As our foreign policy of serving as the unpaid policeman of the world makes our economy non comcometitive with other economies in the world that don't have these massive military expenditures.
So maybe its time to ask these questions directly---are these visionaries or idiots doing the work of the devil? Keeping old wounds open and inventing new wounds.--so as to keep the rest of us humans
killing each other for their political power and amusement?
Sorry, meant Reagan. one of those Republican crooks.
You've shown yourself to be an intellectual lightweight who frequently embarrasses himself. *shrug
The U.S. had military advisers there in 1950. At that time, Kennedy was a mere Congressman, along with Nixon. Actually he and Nixon were friends.
So, Kennedy inherited 'nam.
Last I knew, Kennedy was shot in 1963?
And, your interpretation may be that "Nixon took us out" of the war, when in fact, we lost the war under his direction. Or would you disagree that the president is indeed Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces?
What else ya got?
Eisenhower made the key entanglements in Viet Nam. Few know that the US was paying up to 90% of the war costs for France while they were the occupiers.
Kennedy increased the number of advisors, but drew the line firmly short of combat troops despite great right-wing pressure, and had plans to withdraw entirely in 1965.
LBJ had been sent over by JFK and LBJ angered JFK when he made comments about Diem being the 'Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia' (he was a tyrant).
LBJ knew the war was a terrible idea but felt unable to resist the pressures and went in with combat troops when the Gulf of Tonkin incident increased the pressure.
There is evidence that Nixon sought advantage in the 1968 campaign by sabotaging LBJ's peace talks, offering South Viet Nam a better deal if they refused any treaty.
LBJ's negotiators were shocked when they reached agreements to end the war with North Viet Nam and the South Vietname unexpectedly refused to go along.
Nixon won in an extremely close election, largely because the peace negotations had not worked. Nixon then doubled the war's casucalties, prolonging/expanding it for years.
Kennedy increased the number of advisors, but drew the line firmly short of combat troops despite great right-wing pressure, and had plans to withdraw entirely in 1965.
LBJ had been sent over by JFK and LBJ angered JFK when he made comments about Diem being the 'Winston Churchill of Southeast Asia' (he was a tyrant).
LBJ knew the war was a terrible idea but felt unable to resist the pressures and went in with combat troops when the Gulf of Tonkin incident increased the pressure.
There is evidence that Nixon sought advantage in the 1968 campaign by sabotaging LBJ's peace talks, offering South Viet Nam a better deal if they refused any treaty.
LBJ's negotiators were shocked when they reached agreements to end the war with North Viet Nam and the South Vietname unexpectedly refused to go along.
Nixon won in an extremely close election, largely because the peace negotations had not worked. Nixon then doubled the war's casucalties, prolonging/expanding it for years.
Keep speaking the propaganda--it helps it to grow.
edit: Cold War policies were in effect long before Reagan entered office--think NATO, Marshall Plan, and the fact that China still has a centralized, planned economy (teh socialism). Reagan's harsh rhetoric towards the bad old commies means about as much as the rhetoric on the war on terror.
edit: Cold War policies were in effect long before Reagan entered office--think NATO, Marshall Plan, and the fact that China still has a centralized, planned economy (teh socialism). Reagan's harsh rhetoric towards the bad old commies means about as much as the rhetoric on the war on terror.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter