usvi-on-line
DELETED
David,
I absolutely agree with you about 1980.
In 1976 I was a big Carter supporter, we even went to his inauguration. By 1980 I was wishing I had never laid eyes on the man.
Carter, by doing nothing about the situation in Iran, did untold damage to our country's security. The Iranian exchange students that I knew were forced to decide, they either returned to a repressive regime, or they severed ties and stayed here. It was a cruel choice.
There is much more I could say about Carter because he never goes away. Obama reminds me of Carter, I hope Obama's supporters don't regret their vote the way I did supporting Carter.
I absolutely agree with you about 1980.
In 1976 I was a big Carter supporter, we even went to his inauguration. By 1980 I was wishing I had never laid eyes on the man.
Carter, by doing nothing about the situation in Iran, did untold damage to our country's security. The Iranian exchange students that I knew were forced to decide, they either returned to a repressive regime, or they severed ties and stayed here. It was a cruel choice.
There is much more I could say about Carter because he never goes away. Obama reminds me of Carter, I hope Obama's supporters don't regret their vote the way I did supporting Carter.
-
California Girl
I follow you and truly do respect your opinions, especially considering you have walked the walk and served your country.
I was born in Hampton, VA where my father and my uncle were both stationed in the Air Force. My father served in Vietnam. My uncle served in both Korea and Vietnam (he was a pilot who volunteered for 3 tours) If you have seen the great santini, that could be my uncle. My maternal grandfather received a purple heart and died from injuries he sustained in the 2nd world war leaving my grandmother a widow with 3 children under the age of 5.
I would never treat any veteran of any war (whether I think it was a just war or not) with disrespect. I don't think being against preemptive war makes me anti-military. Some would argue it is a pro-military mindset to argue against putting our troops in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary and you are ready and willing to give them every resouce they need to complete their mission. War as a last resort, not a first one.
My question is if it is our foreign policy position to say we will go to war anytime we perceive a threat to our security, where do we go next? I think you answered that at least from your own personal perspective.
Many perceive Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and the middle east as a whole (with their control of oil reserves) as a threat the the US and our way of life here.
On the other hand, if we are not starting any new preemptive wars does that mean Iraq & Afghanistan are the only threats to our national security?
I was born in Hampton, VA where my father and my uncle were both stationed in the Air Force. My father served in Vietnam. My uncle served in both Korea and Vietnam (he was a pilot who volunteered for 3 tours) If you have seen the great santini, that could be my uncle. My maternal grandfather received a purple heart and died from injuries he sustained in the 2nd world war leaving my grandmother a widow with 3 children under the age of 5.
I would never treat any veteran of any war (whether I think it was a just war or not) with disrespect. I don't think being against preemptive war makes me anti-military. Some would argue it is a pro-military mindset to argue against putting our troops in harms way unless it is absolutely necessary and you are ready and willing to give them every resouce they need to complete their mission. War as a last resort, not a first one.
My question is if it is our foreign policy position to say we will go to war anytime we perceive a threat to our security, where do we go next? I think you answered that at least from your own personal perspective.
Many perceive Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and the middle east as a whole (with their control of oil reserves) as a threat the the US and our way of life here.
On the other hand, if we are not starting any new preemptive wars does that mean Iraq & Afghanistan are the only threats to our national security?
-
David- n Hampton, VA
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:30 am
Oh, and one last comment to Flip Flop before I stop writing on this thread. I have said all I have to say (which I know....I know.....was way too much for most of you)
We are NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ.
We were at war with them for a matter of hours.
After the inevitable consolidation on the objective, non Iraqi's and militant religious zealots started attacking us...and we have defended ourselves. Then the legitimate governing bodies of Iraq ASKED US TO STAY and help them. (Not that I think we should continue to do so......but they are very very interested in remaining there.)
We are NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ.
We were at war with them for a matter of hours.
After the inevitable consolidation on the objective, non Iraqi's and militant religious zealots started attacking us...and we have defended ourselves. Then the legitimate governing bodies of Iraq ASKED US TO STAY and help them. (Not that I think we should continue to do so......but they are very very interested in remaining there.)
GWB had a score to settle that is the plain and simple truth about why we are at war with Iraq and not many of the other ugly horrible American hating regimes.
I will answer any question you put forth. You know, I really don't understand why you have this rather thinly veiled hatred for me?California Girl wrote:I'll answer your questions when you decide to answer mine, and several others you've ignored. Nuff said.soxfan22 wrote: Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Germany 'attacking' us. I believe it was the Japanese, no?
So please, remind me of the questions I have not answered. Nuff said? Who says that anymore?
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
-
California Girl
The free world went along with us because they were lied to (unbeknownst to them or us at the time), not because they perceived a threat but because they were told flat out that there were WMDs, anthrax, training camps for terrorists, etc etc etc.
My point there is GWB discredited us with the entire world. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. Who will believe our intelligence now?
If GWB was justified in his actions why lie and mislead his own public, the UN and the world at large?
My point there is GWB discredited us with the entire world. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. Who will believe our intelligence now?
If GWB was justified in his actions why lie and mislead his own public, the UN and the world at large?
Hey Flip - just thought I'd repost:
1. Do you know who coined the term "Bush Doctrine"? It was Charles Krauthamer, a conservative columnist. Two days after the Palin interview, he came out and said that the term has changed and been addendumized so much since when he birthed the term, that even he wouldn't have know what Charlie meant. The Bush doctrine was also not an official piece of United States policy, like say, The Truman Doctrine or The Marshall Plan. Instead, it was a way for pundits to describe George Bush's world view. It was a stupid question - as was Katie Couric's gem she asked of Palin "so governor, which publications do you read on a daily basis?".
2. Preemptive war. Cooler heads will prevail, and your assertion that Bush "had a score to settle" shows your naivete on the subject. I will remind you, that it is your candidate, Barack "The Chosen One" Obama, who said that he would invade Pakistan without their permission if he had intelligence showing that OBL was there. Pakistan, for all their faults, is an ally.
3. So tell me, were there elements throughout the world who "hated" us pre 9-11? Wasn't the WTC bombed in 1992. Weren't many of our troops' dead bodies dragged through the streets of Somalia in the 1990's?
Many people think that our country was introduced to muslim extremism/terrorism when Shirhan Shirhan, a 24 year old Palestinian, killed Bobby Kennedy.
And who could forget the Iran Hostage Crisis that Jimmy Carter handled so well?
Of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Seems to me the "world" has always had it out for us.
You want us to think that it is Bush's policies that have caused this hatred. I tend to think it is our greatness that causes this hatred.
It's funnny - If you listen to a Joe Biden ad from his first presidential run in 1988, he talks about "renewing America's standing in the world".
This is not new. It is standard democratic talking points.
1. Do you know who coined the term "Bush Doctrine"? It was Charles Krauthamer, a conservative columnist. Two days after the Palin interview, he came out and said that the term has changed and been addendumized so much since when he birthed the term, that even he wouldn't have know what Charlie meant. The Bush doctrine was also not an official piece of United States policy, like say, The Truman Doctrine or The Marshall Plan. Instead, it was a way for pundits to describe George Bush's world view. It was a stupid question - as was Katie Couric's gem she asked of Palin "so governor, which publications do you read on a daily basis?".
2. Preemptive war. Cooler heads will prevail, and your assertion that Bush "had a score to settle" shows your naivete on the subject. I will remind you, that it is your candidate, Barack "The Chosen One" Obama, who said that he would invade Pakistan without their permission if he had intelligence showing that OBL was there. Pakistan, for all their faults, is an ally.
3. So tell me, were there elements throughout the world who "hated" us pre 9-11? Wasn't the WTC bombed in 1992. Weren't many of our troops' dead bodies dragged through the streets of Somalia in the 1990's?
Many people think that our country was introduced to muslim extremism/terrorism when Shirhan Shirhan, a 24 year old Palestinian, killed Bobby Kennedy.
And who could forget the Iran Hostage Crisis that Jimmy Carter handled so well?
Of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Seems to me the "world" has always had it out for us.
You want us to think that it is Bush's policies that have caused this hatred. I tend to think it is our greatness that causes this hatred.
It's funnny - If you listen to a Joe Biden ad from his first presidential run in 1988, he talks about "renewing America's standing in the world".
This is not new. It is standard democratic talking points.
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
Ask a few leaders in those countries who lined up and supported the UN resolution how they feel about it now. Ask Colin Powell to tell you more about his testimony in front of the UN. Ask Dick Armey about his one on one first hand conversations with Dick Cheney and whether he would have fought going to war if he had not been lied to.SJfromNJ wrote:That is the biggest load of crap, you swallowed it, and now Obama is reeling you in with it.flip-flop wrote:The free world went along with us because they were lied to (unbeknownst to them or us at the time), not because they perceived a threat but because they were told flat out that there were WMDs, anthrax, training camps for terrorists, etc etc etc.
My point there is GWB discredited us with the entire world. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. Who will believe our intelligence now?
If GWB was justified in his actions why lie and mislead his own public, the UN and the world at large?
I guess Obama really is an unbelievable orator if he has convinced not only me but all of them as well.
Sox -
"1. Do you know who coined the term "Bush Doctrine"? "
I figure that wasn't really your question since you went on to tell me who coined the term. Look, you can complicate the "Bush Doctrine" all you want but in its simpliest form she was being asked if the US has the right to wage a preemptive war. I don't care if she does or doesn't think we do, but her inability to articulate an argument on either side indicated to me that she was unfamiliar with the concept.
"2. Preemptive war. Obama, who said that he would invade Pakistan without their permission if he had intelligence showing that OBL was there. Pakistan, for all their faults, is an ally."
Now for my questions they are in bold:
So does Pakistan as an "ally" gets an exemption from the "you are a training ground for terrorists" so we will go to war with you argument? There are actual terror camps there along the border region, no? For the record, before words get put in my mouth I do not think we should go to war with Pakistan, but then again I thought going into Iraq was wrong too.
So if we get credible intelligence saying Bin Laden is there what do we do? Nothing because they are our ally? Ask them to help us catch him? By the way, what Obama said was he would cross the border with a surgical strike and take Bin Laden out, not invade Pakistan. The nuance in this one is one of sovereignty, not war and peace.
"3. So tell me, were there elements throughout the world who "hated" us pre 9-11? Wasn't the WTC bombed in 1992. Weren't many of our troops' dead bodies dragged through the streets of Somalia in the 1990's?
Many people think that our country was introduced to muslim extremism/terrorism when Shirhan Shirhan, a 24 year old Palestinian, killed Bobby Kennedy.
And who could forget the Iran Hostage Crisis that Jimmy Carter handled so well? "
Of course, there is hatred toward us from extremists around the world. I believe I said exactly that in an earlier post. You are never going to convince insane people that they are insane. But you can illuminate it for the rest of the world. Or you can just become that which you hate in others.
So would you have been for the invasion of Iran, Somalia, and Palestine as well?
"1. Do you know who coined the term "Bush Doctrine"? "
I figure that wasn't really your question since you went on to tell me who coined the term. Look, you can complicate the "Bush Doctrine" all you want but in its simpliest form she was being asked if the US has the right to wage a preemptive war. I don't care if she does or doesn't think we do, but her inability to articulate an argument on either side indicated to me that she was unfamiliar with the concept.
"2. Preemptive war. Obama, who said that he would invade Pakistan without their permission if he had intelligence showing that OBL was there. Pakistan, for all their faults, is an ally."
Now for my questions they are in bold:
So does Pakistan as an "ally" gets an exemption from the "you are a training ground for terrorists" so we will go to war with you argument? There are actual terror camps there along the border region, no? For the record, before words get put in my mouth I do not think we should go to war with Pakistan, but then again I thought going into Iraq was wrong too.
So if we get credible intelligence saying Bin Laden is there what do we do? Nothing because they are our ally? Ask them to help us catch him? By the way, what Obama said was he would cross the border with a surgical strike and take Bin Laden out, not invade Pakistan. The nuance in this one is one of sovereignty, not war and peace.
"3. So tell me, were there elements throughout the world who "hated" us pre 9-11? Wasn't the WTC bombed in 1992. Weren't many of our troops' dead bodies dragged through the streets of Somalia in the 1990's?
Many people think that our country was introduced to muslim extremism/terrorism when Shirhan Shirhan, a 24 year old Palestinian, killed Bobby Kennedy.
And who could forget the Iran Hostage Crisis that Jimmy Carter handled so well? "
Of course, there is hatred toward us from extremists around the world. I believe I said exactly that in an earlier post. You are never going to convince insane people that they are insane. But you can illuminate it for the rest of the world. Or you can just become that which you hate in others.
So would you have been for the invasion of Iran, Somalia, and Palestine as well?
These 34 pages are pretty entertaining. It reminds me of our judicial system. Each side is out to prove and defend the fact that they are right. No one cares about what the truth really is, as long as they win their argument. No matter who wins this election, the side that loses is convinced the other side will regret it for the next 4 years.
cool...
-Bert
cool...
-Bert
The liver is evil, it must be punished!
I don't care if she does or doesn't think we do, but her inability to articulate an argument on either side indicated to me that she was unfamiliar with the concept.
It was a dumb question. I am happy that she made Charlie clarify his stupid question about a term that is completely ambiguous, at best.
So does Pakistan as an "ally" gets an exemption from the "you are a training ground for terrorists" so we will go to war with you argument?
I don't believe Bush ever said that if you train terrorists that we will "go to war with you". He has said nations who support terror will be dealt with, but as you know war is not the only deterrent.
So if we get credible intelligence saying Bin Laden is there what do we do? Nothing because they are our ally? Ask them to help us catch him? By the way, what Obama said was he would cross the border with a surgical strike and take Bin Laden out, not invade Pakistan. The nuance in this one is one of sovereignty, not war and peace.
Nonetheless, Pakistani-American's are not happy with Obama's stance on the issue - http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008 ... otest.html
We have seen these democratic "surgical strikes" in the past. Clinton ordered a "surgical strike" on bin Laden in the 1990's, and ended up bombing an aspirin factory. Not the military's fault - the man was gone before we were able to get there.
So would you have been for the invasion of Iran, Somalia, and Palestine as well?
That wasn't the point I was making. You had inferred that Bush had made the world hate us. I was simply countering that point with other instance of hate from our past.
BTW - Osama Bin Laden is on record as saying that he knew he could pull 9-11 off because of the way the Clinton turned tale and ran away from Somalia, with no retribution for the thugs who dragged our troops through the city. He thought that incident showed that the US didn't have the intestinal fortitude to react to an attack.
Here's a quote from the 9-11 commission report:
"In August 1996, Bin Ladin had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The long, disjointed document condemned the Saudi monarchy for allowing the presence of an army of infidels in a land with the sites most sacred to Islam, and celebrated recent suicide bombings of American military facilities in the Kingdom. It praised the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines, the 1992 bombing in Aden, and especially the 1993 firefight in Somalia after which the United States “left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.” Bin Ladin said in his ABC interview that he and his followers had been preparing in Somalia for another long struggle, like that against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but “the United States rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace.” Citing the Soviet army’s withdrawal from Afghanistan as proof that a ragged army of dedicated Muslims could overcome a superpower, he told the interviewer: “We are certain that we shall—with the grace of Allah—prevail over the Americans.” He went on to warn that “If the present injustice continues . . . , it will inevitably move the battle to American soil.” Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called “to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations,”5 and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam."
link: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/91 ... df#page=65
It was a dumb question. I am happy that she made Charlie clarify his stupid question about a term that is completely ambiguous, at best.
So does Pakistan as an "ally" gets an exemption from the "you are a training ground for terrorists" so we will go to war with you argument?
I don't believe Bush ever said that if you train terrorists that we will "go to war with you". He has said nations who support terror will be dealt with, but as you know war is not the only deterrent.
So if we get credible intelligence saying Bin Laden is there what do we do? Nothing because they are our ally? Ask them to help us catch him? By the way, what Obama said was he would cross the border with a surgical strike and take Bin Laden out, not invade Pakistan. The nuance in this one is one of sovereignty, not war and peace.
Nonetheless, Pakistani-American's are not happy with Obama's stance on the issue - http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008 ... otest.html
We have seen these democratic "surgical strikes" in the past. Clinton ordered a "surgical strike" on bin Laden in the 1990's, and ended up bombing an aspirin factory. Not the military's fault - the man was gone before we were able to get there.
So would you have been for the invasion of Iran, Somalia, and Palestine as well?
That wasn't the point I was making. You had inferred that Bush had made the world hate us. I was simply countering that point with other instance of hate from our past.
BTW - Osama Bin Laden is on record as saying that he knew he could pull 9-11 off because of the way the Clinton turned tale and ran away from Somalia, with no retribution for the thugs who dragged our troops through the city. He thought that incident showed that the US didn't have the intestinal fortitude to react to an attack.
Here's a quote from the 9-11 commission report:
"In August 1996, Bin Ladin had issued his own self-styled fatwa calling on Muslims to drive American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia. The long, disjointed document condemned the Saudi monarchy for allowing the presence of an army of infidels in a land with the sites most sacred to Islam, and celebrated recent suicide bombings of American military facilities in the Kingdom. It praised the 1983 suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines, the 1992 bombing in Aden, and especially the 1993 firefight in Somalia after which the United States “left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you.” Bin Ladin said in his ABC interview that he and his followers had been preparing in Somalia for another long struggle, like that against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but “the United States rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace.” Citing the Soviet army’s withdrawal from Afghanistan as proof that a ragged army of dedicated Muslims could overcome a superpower, he told the interviewer: “We are certain that we shall—with the grace of Allah—prevail over the Americans.” He went on to warn that “If the present injustice continues . . . , it will inevitably move the battle to American soil.” Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called “to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations,”5 and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam."
link: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/91 ... df#page=65
July 2003 - Honeymoon at The Westin
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
July 2004 - Glenmar, Gifft Hill
July 2005 - Arco Iris, Fish Bay
December 2007 - Dreamcatcher, GCB
July 2008 - Ellison Villa, VGE
-
bayer40601
- Posts: 612
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:06 pm
- Location: Kentucky
Its like the little boy who cried wolf.
Funny you should say that flip-flop. The Republican campaigns in 2000, 2004 and now 2008 have been just that. Unfortunately for them, the majority of the public no longer believes them.
It's just like the phrase, "The Most Liberal Senator in the US Senate." They started that with Sen. Kennedy when they were afraid he was going to run for President. Carried it on to Sen. Gore and Sen. Kerry. Then when they thought Sen. Clinton might win the primaries the turned in on to her and now Sen. Obama. The Republican message and their messengers have become old, worn out and recycled too many times.
After this election is over they're going to have to have a "Come to Jesus Meeting" (so to speak) and decide who they are and what they want to be. What they are now is a shell of what they were in 1995, but then come to think about it, that's what they've left us--a shell of ourselves. Thank goodness there is Hope on the horzon.
How many more days?