yup, yup and yup
Horseman I just don't understand this rational? All the attacks on the US stopped on a dime, what attacks? Aren't our soldiers who are an extension of our country attacked on a day to day basis?Horseman 77 wrote:
you are Right.
I know all the attacks on the USA stopped on a dime but I have it on good authority they are just waiting for better weather.It has very little to do with the fact we are kicking their asses right in their own back yard. Uncovered Sarin Gas depots ( WMDs by anyone's definition )Found Airliners in Iraq's Military Bases Set up for hijacker training. And we have them now killing each other instead.
The majority of your statements are completely one sided an ignorant, and that's the way people were thinking in Nazi Germany back in the good ol' 1930'sHorseman 77 wrote:
I think you are Way way out of line. Give me one example.Spearhead wrote:
Horseman, if you were German, and you were in Germany, 60 years ago, you would fit right in that society.
You found a Real Safe place to talk like that. Talk like your face to face or dont talk at all.
@rdx what s to discus u r brainwashed
Horseman, i have some serious issues with you..
He's actually one of the only people in this thread making sence.MartinPocrezze wrote:
@rdx what s to discus u r brainwashed
Hey in Horseman's defense It's not that he's brainwashed it's that he choices to have a different view which is very benifical to the debates and serious argeements section which this should actually be under. So let's not start flaming cause all that does is kill threads and make them really annoying to read.
Edit to say I almost always disagree with horseman's views
Edit to say I almost always disagree with horseman's views
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-05-04 11:21:34)
They are fighting for their very existance in their own backyards againts trained, professional, volunteer soldiers not killing 3000 innocent civilians in 20 minutes.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Horseman I just don't understand this rational? All the attacks on the US stopped on a dime, what attacks? Aren't our soldiers who are an extension of our country attacked on a day to day basis?Horseman 77 wrote:
you are Right.
I know all the attacks on the USA stopped on a dime but I have it on good authority they are just waiting for better weather.It has very little to do with the fact we are kicking their asses right in their own back yard. Uncovered Sarin Gas depots ( WMDs by anyone's definition )Found Airliners in Iraq's Military Bases Set up for hijacker training. And we have them now killing each other instead.
You preferd the latter ?
noted:Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
Horseman, i have some serious issues with you..
I played with you once, driving off alone in vehicles while Your team mates and I called in vain for pickups.
May I say it was not a pleasure. Maybe you just have " serious issues" period.
Well number 1 there are still no facts that Iraq had anything to do with that at all. Second bombings in London, and other country's doesn't seem to me that they stopped. I don't know we "america" might be at war with them, but they are at war with our culture. So I'm saying BUNK to your "we are so much safer" mentality. Ahh and it does help that know they're a real threat because they hit us on our home front.Horseman 77 wrote:
They are fighting for their very existance in their own backyards againts trained, professional, volunteer soldiers not killing 3000 innocent civilians in 20 minutes.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Horseman I just don't understand this rational? All the attacks on the US stopped on a dime, what attacks? Aren't our soldiers who are an extension of our country attacked on a day to day basis?Horseman 77 wrote:
you are Right.
I know all the attacks on the USA stopped on a dime but I have it on good authority they are just waiting for better weather.It has very little to do with the fact we are kicking their asses right in their own back yard. Uncovered Sarin Gas depots ( WMDs by anyone's definition )Found Airliners in Iraq's Military Bases Set up for hijacker training. And we have them now killing each other instead.
You preferd the latter ?
They should be one sided. I was stating a rebuttal to a series of comments that were one sided, inflammatory and ignorant. I gave the other side, Hence it was one sided. sorry it evaded you.Spearhead wrote:
The majority of your statements are completely one sided an ignorant, and that's the way people were thinking in Nazi Germany back in the good ol' 1930'sHorseman 77 wrote:
I think you are Way way out of line. Give me one example.Spearhead wrote:
Horseman, if you were German, and you were in Germany, 60 years ago, you would fit right in that society.
You found a Real Safe place to talk like that. Talk like your face to face or dont talk at all.
And what I said before still goes.
"You found a Real Safe place to talk like that. " I bet it was no accident either. " Talk like your face to face or don't talk at all. "
I do not insult because it proves nothing and provides no gratification for me. It may feel good for you. Perhaps you can find no other venue to "Act Tough" safely, anonymously and with complete immunity?
Who really cares.
The fact is that most Nazis where in lock step with the popular opinion of the masses. Note you qualify for that one. Not me. It seems I am almost alone in my opinion here in this thread. Is that a trait of a Nazi? To stand alone in your own beliefs and hold to your own opinions? No matter what the chanting masses say or do?
Or did they gather in large crowds, Marches and Demonstrations, self assured that their Numbers alone made them Feel Safe, Smug and Right?
I do not fit the parameters of the latter example in this case.
I did not insult you. In my opinion it is the mark of the feeble minded.
But in the example I have given you surely fit in the Latter more than I.
The afghan War in the 80s was not to give The USSR a black eye, although it did. This is somewhat simplistic. It was largely to drain their resources cheaply and make it difficult if not prevent inroads into that very region the entire world depends upon for petroleum. In hind site it may seem like a bad move but the USSR was a far bigger threat than the Taliban or el Qedua will ever hope to be. At the time they had the worlds largest fleet and were expanding very aggressively and were not shy about using military might to do so. Had the USSR achieved their goals and got access to cheaper fuel sources they would have lasted that much longer or maybe never collapsed at all. A dirty bomb is less of a threat than the hundreds of nukes they had and the corrupt, clumsy and backward system that wielded them.
The cold War used up 1/3 of the USA Gross National Product. Had it ever heated up for any reason this conflict would pale in comparison.
When The USSR collapsed we still had the Reagan Tax plan basically Untouched, With 33% less to spend it on. Further Cut backs in military intelligence and preparedness seemed like a good idea to some. After a slight faulter in the market, when many defense contractors and industries slashed their payrolls these people found their footing and didn't join the welfare roles It made for a big boom in our economy.
This boom ended with the Collapse of the Dot com.s under clinton, Niether bush or clinton were responsible for the economies collapse nor was clinton responsible for the Boom in the economy before it.
The cold War used up 1/3 of the USA Gross National Product. Had it ever heated up for any reason this conflict would pale in comparison.
When The USSR collapsed we still had the Reagan Tax plan basically Untouched, With 33% less to spend it on. Further Cut backs in military intelligence and preparedness seemed like a good idea to some. After a slight faulter in the market, when many defense contractors and industries slashed their payrolls these people found their footing and didn't join the welfare roles It made for a big boom in our economy.
This boom ended with the Collapse of the Dot com.s under clinton, Niether bush or clinton were responsible for the economies collapse nor was clinton responsible for the Boom in the economy before it.
No, you completely missed my point. I'm not calling him a nazi at all. I'm using nazi Germany as an example of what happens when the people stop thinking for themselves. Note how I deliberately left out the words 'fascist' and 'Nazi'. When people rely on Fox news for information, you know somethings wrong.rdx-fx wrote:
Accusing someone of being a Nazi?Spearhead wrote:
Horseman, if you were German, and you were in Germany, 60 years ago, you would fit right in that society.
Groundless and extreme accusation.
I've not seen Horseman post anything favoring genocide, racial superiority, or the armed takeover of europe.
Perhaps you meant to say "Horseman, your views are more 'right wing' than mine"?
And to Horseman, sorry, the entire reason I posted that must've evaded you.
Criticizing NPR, lol, what the fuck? You know what it stands for? National Public Radio. Yeah. Next time you'll be criticizing PBS and CNN.
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-05-04 13:04:23)
the attacks to the US stopped cuz bush cant put them together, he busy sending people to their death in iraq. he cant handle more innocent deaths on his hand like 9/11
Bush did not join in 72. His TANG service ran from 68-73, with some "missing" time in the 72-73 time frame.Horseman 77 wrote:
I didnt mean to imply Vietnam was not a Real, big, long Tuff fight. But rather to counter his lame Fuax Legalistic aproach to his post.
Bush didnt desert his country in Time of War he joined the Guard in 72 They stopped sending Sending soldiers over by then and were withdrawing, He couldnt have fought had he wanted to.
Vietnam was not a Declared war so technically he gets a pass.
I never said they did. I said I am happy with the results of the War. No more Attacks here.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Well number 1 there are still no facts that Iraq had anything to do with that at all.
I said they Stopped attacking us. You will note the lessons were not lost on them. No doubt the went looking for weaker spirits. It doesn't appear they intimidated England so they went after spain and achieved their goals in that country. Intimidation. It didn't work on this President. They are not Dumb they are waiting for a weak willed President. If we elect another " Weather Vane " Politician it will be open season on the USA.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Second bombings in London, and other country's doesn't seem to me that they stopped.
Thats like saying the Crusades were about " Spreading the word of Christ "cpt.fass1 wrote:
I don't know we "america" might be at war with them, but they are at war with our culture.
They are driving the ignorant masses with this " Die for allah crap". " They are at war with us because of our support of israel " We all know Because they Told us so.
noted, But no more Attacks.cpt.fass1 wrote:
So I'm saying BUNK to your "we are so much safer" mentality.
Also noted. WTC 93, Somalia, Tanzania Embassy, Kenya Embassy, flight 800, Kandahar Marine Barracks, USS Cole. etc.
911 was Six years ago. We went from ( clinton ) one per year.
To ( Bush ) one in Six years. Big improvement in my book.
I don't understand you last sentence at all. Sorry.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Ahh and it does help that know they're a real threat because they hit us on our home front.
We all know he probebly used pull. BFD. Thats what being rich is about You Board first You dont wait in lines. Etc. I cant wait for my turn. ! but The same still applies. The only way he would have seen action would have been as a Naval Aviator Alpha strike or B52 pilot, not as an Interceptor.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Bush did not join in 72. His TANG service ran from 68-73, with some "missing" time in the 72-73 time frame.Horseman 77 wrote:
I didnt mean to imply Vietnam was not a Real, big, long Tuff fight. But rather to counter his lame Fuax Legalistic aproach to his post.
Bush didnt desert his country in Time of War he joined the Guard in 72 They stopped sending Sending soldiers over by then and were withdrawing, He couldnt have fought had he wanted to.
Vietnam was not a Declared war so technically he gets a pass.
You completely side stepped every statement, Classic move.Spearhead wrote:
No, you completely missed my point. I'm not calling him a nazi at all. I'm using nazi Germany as an example of what happens when the people stop thinking for themselves. Note how I deliberately left out the words 'fascist' and 'Nazi'. When people rely on Fox news for information, you know somethings wrong.rdx-fx wrote:
Accusing someone of being a Nazi?Spearhead wrote:
Horseman, if you were German, and you were in Germany, 60 years ago, you would fit right in that society.
Groundless and extreme accusation.
I've not seen Horseman post anything favoring genocide, racial superiority, or the armed takeover of europe.
Perhaps you meant to say "Horseman, your views are more 'right wing' than mine"?
And to Horseman, sorry, the entire reason I posted that must've evaded you.
Criticizing NPR, lol, what the fuck? You know what it stands for? National Public Radio. Yeah. Next time you'll be criticizing PBS and CNN.
Look at the postings here and tell me who is in " Lock step, Parroting what others say "
and who stands alone in his " own opinions "?
Sorry, I dont watch TV.
Have you ever even listend to NPR in NYC? If you have not please don't comment further.
I wasn't questioning why he didn't serve. You said he didn't join until 72 as the reason why. I was merely pointing out an error in the information you posted as to the reason he never directly served in Nam.Horseman 77 wrote:
We all know he probebly used pull. BFD. Thats what being rich is about You Board first You dont wait in lines. Etc. I cant wait for my turn. ! but The same still applies. The only way he would have seen action would have been as a Naval Aviator Alpha strike or B52 pilot, not as an Interceptor.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Bush did not join in 72. His TANG service ran from 68-73, with some "missing" time in the 72-73 time frame.Horseman 77 wrote:
I didnt mean to imply Vietnam was not a Real, big, long Tuff fight. But rather to counter his lame Fuax Legalistic aproach to his post.
Bush didnt desert his country in Time of War he joined the Guard in 72 They stopped sending Sending soldiers over by then and were withdrawing, He couldnt have fought had he wanted to.
Vietnam was not a Declared war so technically he gets a pass.
As for using pull to avoid service because his family is rich, and that a BFD? This is exactly why conservatives have no problem starting wars, most of them are too chicken shit to fight them. They use money and influence to "get a pass".
Personally I was to young to serve in Nam and My older brother just missed it. I knew it wasn't smart but at the time I badly wanted to serve there. In hind sight I am glad it didn't get the chance. If he didn't want to go and fight in a War that Johnson already pulled the plug on, I cant hold it against him. Few people want to be the Last to die in a lost cause. But this blanket statement ofAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wasn't questioning why he didn't serve. You said he didn't join until 72 as the reason why. I was merely pointing out an error in the information you posted as to the reason he never directly served in Nam.Horseman 77 wrote:
We all know he probebly used pull. BFD. Thats what being rich is about You Board first You dont wait in lines. Etc. I cant wait for my turn. ! but The same still applies. The only way he would have seen action would have been as a Naval Aviator Alpha strike or B52 pilot, not as an Interceptor.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Bush did not join in 72. His TANG service ran from 68-73, with some "missing" time in the 72-73 time frame.
As for using pull to avoid service because his family is rich, and that a BFD? This is exactly why conservatives have no problem starting wars, most of them are too chicken shit to fight them. They use money and influence to "get a pass".
"This is exactly why conservatives have no problem starting wars, most of them are too chicken shit to fight them. They use money and influence to get a pass "
is Beyond Contempt. Dole, Bush 1 the Youngest Naval Aviator Ever. Most Real Decorated Soldiers Become conservatives after their service anyway. Classic examples abound. When a decorated Soldier becomes a Liberal that's such a Rarity they become instant cult figures for the left. Name Five if you can.
Conservatives Sarting Wars? WWII Roosevelt, Who got us involved in Conflicts where we have know Idea who is fighting who and why? Korea Truman, Nam Kennedy Johnson and Nixon got us out. Who put more American soldiers in harms way for Foggy clouded ideals than clinton? Kosavo? we could have fought on either side Somalia? Haiti? Even this War could have been prevented with a Stronger ( Hell any ) Response to the 93 WTC attack.
He meant it, you cuaght him, called him on it and he back peddled.rdx-fx wrote:
I misinterpreted what you were getting at, then. That's the first time I've ever seen Nazi Germany used as an allusion - without being meant to call someone a Nazi. My mistake.Spearhead wrote:
No, you completely missed my point. I'm not calling him a nazi at all. I'm using nazi Germany as an example of what happens when the people stop thinking for themselves. Note how I deliberately left out the words 'fascist' and 'Nazi'. When people rely on Fox news for information, you know somethings wrong.rdx-fx wrote:
Accusing someone of being a Nazi?
Groundless and extreme accusation.
I've not seen Horseman post anything favoring genocide, racial superiority, or the armed takeover of europe.
Perhaps you meant to say "Horseman, your views are more 'right wing' than mine"?
And to Horseman, sorry, the entire reason I posted that must've evaded you.
Criticizing NPR, lol, what the fuck? You know what it stands for? National Public Radio. Yeah. Next time you'll be criticizing PBS and CNN.
I still don't agree with your assessment of Horseman. But.. neh.. splitting hairs, and burning too much time on one comment.
Criticizing CNN is MY pet rant here
They did a great job in the 90's. They seem to have become too much of a 'ratings whore', now that they have real competition in the 24/7 news niche. </mutter mutter> Heraldo Rivera </mutter mutter> "missing pretty girl of the week" </mutter mutter> "pretty female sex offender of the week". There are other 'news' outlets that are worse (on either side of the political polarization), but it stings a bit more to see a once-good news service going to crap.
Kennedy was assasinated before we every sent troops to Nam. While Johnson ran under a Democratic ticket, his bio would make him far more of a "conservative" than a "liberal". And to say that "I am not a crook" Nixon got us out of Nam...well we all know how that turned out.Horseman 77 wrote:
Personally I was to young to serve in Nam and My older brother just missed it. I knew it wasn't smart but at the time I badly wanted to serve there. In hind sight I am glad it didn't get the chance. If he didn't want to go and fight in a War that Johnson already pulled the plug on, I cant hold it against him. Few people want to be the Last to die in a lost cause. But this blanket statement ofAgent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wasn't questioning why he didn't serve. You said he didn't join until 72 as the reason why. I was merely pointing out an error in the information you posted as to the reason he never directly served in Nam.Horseman 77 wrote:
We all know he probebly used pull. BFD. Thats what being rich is about You Board first You dont wait in lines. Etc. I cant wait for my turn. ! but The same still applies. The only way he would have seen action would have been as a Naval Aviator Alpha strike or B52 pilot, not as an Interceptor.
As for using pull to avoid service because his family is rich, and that a BFD? This is exactly why conservatives have no problem starting wars, most of them are too chicken shit to fight them. They use money and influence to "get a pass".
"This is exactly why conservatives have no problem starting wars, most of them are too chicken shit to fight them. They use money and influence to get a pass "
is Beyond Contempt. Dole, Bush 1 the Youngest Naval Aviator Ever. Most Real Decorated Soldiers Become conservatives after their service anyway. Classic examples abound. When a decorated Soldier becomes a Liberal that's such a Rarity they become instant cult figures for the left. Name Five if you can.
Conservatives Sarting Wars? WWII Roosevelt, Who got us involved in Conflicts where we have know Idea who is fighting who and why? Korea Truman, Nam Kennedy Johnson and Nixon got us out. Who put more American soldiers in harms way for Foggy clouded ideals than clinton? Kosavo? we could have fought on either side Somalia? Haiti? Even this War could have been prevented with a Stronger ( Hell any ) Response to the 93 WTC attack.
http://www.americanpresidents.org/presi … tNumber=35
WW2? Roosevelt did everything he could to keep us out, and it wasn't until the Japanese bombed PH that we entered the war. I can't even believe you would bring up WW2.
You wanna bring up "Slick Willy" huh. Does Reagan and Iran/Contra ring any bells?
I don't hold with this Because against the USSR every last tribe was allied and on the Same team. There would have been little possibility of aiding one and not having the other get at it or access that aid.rdx-fx wrote:
We were 'on the wrong side' by backing the wrong Afghani factions there (there were better factions to help than Bin Laden, by far).
Our reputation is tainted from or aid to and backing israel no matter what, from day one. At best it will always be.rdx-fx wrote:
We also managed to quite screw up America's reputation in that region -
See above.rdx-fx wrote:
partially leading to the bad stereotype we have there now.
This I don't believe you meant to be " so narrow in scope " should we not have allied with the USSR against Hitler ? Its not " Utter Crap" its a viable strategy used with good results for ages when employed correctly.rdx-fx wrote:
Just because we wanted to 'bleed' the USSR, doesn't mean we had to side with another potential enemy to do so. 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' is utter crap.
If it defeated the USSR it was worth it. So it was not Stupid in my book. Temporary alliances from questionable allies come and go. We had a more important task at hand. This is sound reasoning only with the 20/20 hind sight of the Cold war over and safely behind us. As a matter of intrest, how old are you? Were you an adult during the cold war?rdx-fx wrote:
The USSR and USA 'game' of "who's your buddy now" in that region/time ended up hurting both sides. We both played with India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq, Afghanistan, etc..etc.. in a quite stupid way. USSR 'died' from it - USA is still feeling the repercussions of it.
True But....rdx-fx wrote:
A USSR/USA war could've been much worse than anything the Jihadis can throw at us, yes.
However, it's much easier to use diplomacy, negotiation, and brinkmanship with a political/economic enemy (like the USSR was) compared to a fundamentalist 'religious' extremist enemy. The Jihadis are much more mercurial - they're on a 'holy mission', not subject to debate, reason, or diplomacy. Jihadis could go right for Nukes, with no warning, if they had the option.
USSR was (comparatively) more rational and measured of an adversary.
My point exactly !rdx-fx wrote:
USSR could've been worse, but was less likely to actually go there. (Or, perhaps we just got really lucky?).
You never hear me call them dumb. do you ?rdx-fx wrote:
I think Bin Laden & Iran are alot more shrewd political players than they let on.
That doesn't mean that the lower level Jihadis 'got the memo' on that, however.
Still, the US is holding back with its conventional powers. Barring nukes, the we could still change our policy to allow for the carpet bombing of any small upstart country into irrelevancy, while withholding funds for rebuilding...not that the UN would approve.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
But honestly, do you think that we could hold this level of world wide military activity and still maintain an all volunteer force. Especially since we all know this shit is escalating even more, especially with Iran.
Wrong and The Spc. Forces even called themselves " Jackie Kennedy's Own Rifles "Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
Kennedy was assasinated before we every sent troops to Nam.
Anyone would be considered Conservative by today's standards, But he was a democrat. Your grasping at straws here.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
While Johnson ran under a Democratic ticket, his bio would make him far more of a "conservative" than a "liberal".
Nixon was clinton without all the dead bodies, The End of the Vietnam War was a byproduct of the entire war. The Debacle that occurred was when the Entire nation Tried its best to Flee The Communists, Despite years of left wing retoric that "the people of Vietnam Embraced and longed for Communisim "Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
And to say that Nixon got us out of Nam...well we all know how that turned out.
We also had " Boat people " for many years. You may be to young to remember but for years after Vietnam fell thousands took to the seas in any thing that would float trying to escape. Many settled here. What is your point?
Aided the British carte blanch, Ran convoy protection, Lend lease, Free Destroyers. Shoot on site German submarines. Oil Embargo to Japan.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
WW2? Roosevelt did everything he could to keep us out, and it wasn't until the Japanese bombed PH that we entered the war.
I believe we were justified in the end but don't tell me we couldn't have tried harder to avoid it. We even had access to their diplomatic codes So its possible Pearl harbor could have been avoided there is some speculation that FDR knew this would unite The USA against the Axis for some where ambivalent.
Charles Lindbergh was against our entering and Was almost Erased from history over it.
Iran contra was a Witch hunt over the hostage release negotiations. What is your point?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You wanna bring up "Slick Willy" huh. Does Reagan and Iran/Contra ring any bells?
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-04 15:23:08)