PDA

View Full Version : Can We Even Afford Another War?



Dan-O
03-20-2013, 01:34 AM
Now that Chemical Weapons are being used in Syria it looks more and more like we are going to get involved but can we even afford to pay for it? Don't forget that within the next couple of years we might have to go knocking on N. Korea or Iran's door. Its obvious we can't keep being the world police but we can't tolerate N. Korea having the means to hit us with ICBM's or a nuclear Iran either. What do you think is the best way to handle this mess?

Greg
03-20-2013, 01:50 AM
Supposedly, there were Iranian observers at North Korea's latest missile launch. Can't imagine the Iranians walked away too impressed!

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 02:01 AM
'If' Assad used chemical weapons, I fail to see how it really changes anything, especially on such a small scale, nor do I see any reason for us to get militarily involved.

Banned
03-20-2013, 02:33 AM
Now that Chemical Weapons are being used in Syria it looks more and more like we are going to get involved but can we even afford to pay for it? Don't forget that within the next couple of years we might have to go knocking on N. Korea or Iran's door. Its obvious we can't keep being the world police but we can't tolerate N. Korea having the means to hit us with ICBM's or a nuclear Iran either. What do you think is the best way to handle this mess?

Short answer - we CAN afford another war. Americans love war. Heck, we would choose war over a dental plan.

Give the American people a check for 3 trillion dollars and tell us "You can use this money to buy a healthcare system that's actually worth a shit... or buy another war" - we'll buy another war.

RobotChicken
03-20-2013, 02:39 AM
:plane In the state of our AF A/C,Naval Fleet,Army troops/equipment.............Someone somewhere better get Henry Ford and Henry J. Kaiser (Red Oak Victory is still with us) In the mass production mode cause (F-35) 12 years is too long to wait for a 'turkey in the oven to cook',let alone 5 years to build a 'Bird farm' for 'em! :fish2

imnohero
03-20-2013, 02:41 AM
Now that Chemical Weapons are being used in Syria it looks more and more like we are going to get involved but can we even afford to pay for it? Don't forget that within the next couple of years we might have to go knocking on N. Korea or Iran's door. Its obvious we can't keep being the world police but we can't tolerate N. Korea having the means to hit us with ICBM's or a nuclear Iran either. What do you think is the best way to handle this mess?

It is far from certain that Syria has used chemical weapons. If, when, or whether Iran or N. Korea have nukes or ICBMs, is no guarantee of war.

The best way to "handle" this is to change our foreign policy and stop trying to be an imperial power.

Robert F. Dorr
03-20-2013, 03:01 AM
It is far from certain that Syria has used chemical weapons. If, when, or whether Iran or N. Korea have nukes or ICBMs, is no guarantee of war.

Doesn't need to be.

BRUWIN
03-20-2013, 03:48 AM
We aren't going to another war anytime soon. Syria, North Korea, and Iran will all be there for a Republican administration to have to deal with in 2016. It will be just like Clinton left the Al Qeada and Iraq mess for Bush to have to deal with. Obama's "Red Line" is a bunch of BS and all the countries in the world know it.

RobotChicken
03-20-2013, 06:41 AM
Supposedly, there were Iranian observers at North Korea's latest missile launch. Can't imagine the Iranians walked away too impressed!

:spy Anything that goes up:plane and then goes :boom is a :thumb:nod:high5:hail 'Allah' to them. :deadhorse

Robert F. Dorr
03-20-2013, 10:41 AM
Is that how we decide whether to get into a war? By determining whether we can afford it?

Ever since the George W. Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003, after lying to the world about the reasons why, too many people seem to take it for granted that it's okay for the United States to just go around the world and wage war with whomever we want. Like, maybe, Mali?

The United States does have serious issues with Iran -- relations can never be normalized until an accounting is provided for Khobar Towers -- but we have no reason to start a war there or even to antagonize the millions of Iranians who are inclined to want to be our friends.

The United States has a far more important national interest on the Korean peninsula and it requires us to be ready for war there. But are we going to start one? I hope not.

Let's bring home most of the troops who are homesteading in overseas locations and focus on using long-0range, land based air power to defend the United States.

tiredretiredE7
03-20-2013, 10:58 AM
We aren't going to another war anytime soon. Syria, North Korea, and Iran will all be there for a Republican administration to have to deal with in 2016. It will be just like Clinton left the Al Qeada and Iraq mess for Bush to have to deal with. Obama's "Red Line" is a bunch of BS and all the countries in the world know it.

Damn, Bru just said Obama and dems are cowards.

Robert F. Dorr
03-20-2013, 11:10 AM
We aren't going to another war anytime soon. Syria, North Korea, and Iran will all be there for a Republican administration to have to deal with in 2016. It will be just like Clinton left the Al Qeada and Iraq mess for Bush to have to deal with. Obama's "Red Line" is a bunch of BS and all the countries in the world know it.

Bruwin, are you pounding on the drums of war?

It's possible there may be a Republican administration in 2017 (not 2016) but if so the party will need to change course, fast. A newly issued self-critique has the party concluding that its problem is in how it conveyed its message when, in fact, the problem is that Americans rejected its policies. Instead of understanding the election results, the party is moving towards even greater extremism.

Clinton took exactly the right steps in the context of the era and also presided over a time of unprecedented respect for the United States, prosperity, and -- who knew? -- balanced budgets. Bush dismantled the counter-terrorism program and then began to rebuild it (incompetently) after September 11. This nation will not survive the damage done to it by eight years of George W. Bush but before the U.S.A. vanishes entirely we might at least stop provoking war. We have no reason for military action in Syria or Iran and we are taking the right measures in Korea.

This warlike Bruwin, is this new?

tiredretiredE7
03-20-2013, 11:34 AM
Bruwin, are you pounding on the drums of war?

It's possible there may be a Republican administration in 2017 (not 2016) but if so the party will need to change course, fast. A newly issued self-critique has the party concluding that its problem is in how it conveyed its message when, in fact, the problem is that Americans rejected its policies. Instead of understanding the election results, the party is moving towards even greater extremism.

Clinton took exactly the right steps in the context of the era and also presided over a time of unprecedented respect for the United States, prosperity, and -- who knew? -- balanced budgets. Bush dismantled the counter-terrorism program and then began to rebuild it (incompetently) after September 11. This nation will not survive the damage done to it by eight years of George W. Bush but before the U.S.A. vanishes entirely we might at least stop provoking war. We have no reason for military action in Syria or Iran and we are taking the right measures in Korea.

This warlike Bruwin, is this new?

RFD,

Do you believe it would be better for Israel to attack Iran or a NATO coalition conduct the attack? Iran will have a nuclear weapon in one year so the time table has been established.

BRUWIN
03-20-2013, 11:53 AM
Clinton took exactly the right steps in the context of the era and also presided over a time of unprecedented respect for the United States, prosperity, and -- who knew? -- balanced budgets.

The same unprecented respect that resulted in the bombing of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the first WTC incident, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, then the whole Black Hawk Down episode, and finally 911? Yeah...lots of respect during Clinton's reign. Oh...and N. Korea is a nuclear power thanks to him as well. At least Madeline Albright had a nice time (she thought Kim Jong Il was a very nice host) dining on a smorgasborg while the N. Koreans were driven to cannibalism a few miles down the road while she was negotiating that joke of a non-proliferation treaty.

And I'm not pounding the drums of war...North Korea, Syria, and Iran are. Sometimes we don't get a choice.

Dan-O
03-20-2013, 12:57 PM
RFD,

Do you believe it would be better for Israel to attack Iran or a NATO coalition conduct the attack? Iran will have a nuclear weapon in one year so the time table has been established.

I recall Israel saying that they would strike themselves even if the USA wouldn't help them. BRUWIN, I agree that sometimes we can't avoid getting involved but I don't think we should get involved every time some country decides to have a civil war or overthrow dictatorships. Recent history has shown that it just doesn't end well and once we get involved in others people's business we never leave. At the sametime, we can't allow N. Korea or Iran to have the capability to launch Nuclear missles at other countries because they are to damn irrational and would launch them the first chance they get in my opinion.

Sergeant eNYgma
03-20-2013, 01:23 PM
We aren't going to another war anytime soon. Syria, North Korea, and Iran will all be there for a Republican administration to have to deal with in 2016. It will be just like Clinton left the Al Qeada and Iraq mess for Bush to have to deal with. Obama's "Red Line" is a bunch of BS and all the countries in the world know it.

If you're being serious with this post bravo...bravo...

Sergeant eNYgma
03-20-2013, 02:17 PM
The same unprecented respect that resulted in the bombing of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the first WTC incident, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, then the whole Black Hawk Down episode, and finally 911? Yeah...lots of respect during Clinton's reign. Oh...and N. Korea is a nuclear power thanks to him as well. At least Madeline Albright had a nice time (she thought Kim Jong Il was a very nice host) dining on a smorgasborg while the N. Koreans were driven to cannibalism a few miles down the road while she was negotiating that joke of a non-proliferation treaty.

And I'm not pounding the drums of war...North Korea, Syria, and Iran are. Sometimes we don't get a choice.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

JD2780
03-20-2013, 02:19 PM
The same unprecented respect that resulted in the bombing of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the first WTC incident, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, then the whole Black Hawk Down episode, and finally 911? Yeah...lots of respect during Clinton's reign. Oh...and N. Korea is a nuclear power thanks to him as well. At least Madeline Albright had a nice time (she thought Kim Jong Il was a very nice host) dining on a smorgasborg while the N. Koreans were driven to cannibalism a few miles down the road while she was negotiating that joke of a non-proliferation treaty.

And I'm not pounding the drums of war...North Korea, Syria, and Iran are. Sometimes we don't get a choice.

And boom goes the dynamite!!!!

Greg
03-20-2013, 02:30 PM
The same unprecented respect that resulted in the bombing of the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the first WTC incident, our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, then the whole Black Hawk Down episode, and finally 911? Yeah...lots of respect during Clinton's reign. Oh...and N. Korea is a nuclear power thanks to him as well. At least Madeline Albright had a nice time (she thought Kim Jong Il was a very nice host) dining on a smorgasborg while the N. Koreans were driven to cannibalism a few miles down the road while she was negotiating that joke of a non-proliferation treaty.

And I'm not pounding the drums of war...North Korea, Syria, and Iran are. Sometimes we don't get a choice.

But, we have Secretary of State, John Kerry to sort out this mess.

Dan-O
03-20-2013, 03:09 PM
Hey Dan-O you sound familiar.

Ron Paul? I'm not quite there yet.

Dan-O
03-20-2013, 03:16 PM
I was thinking more like FLAPS or Rusty James.

No I promise you I'm not a troll. I've been reading these message boards for awhile but I just signed up for an account recently.

Dan-O
03-20-2013, 03:33 PM
No problem. It's just when you log in FLAPS rep goes up
And your avatar is just like Blue Warrior.

Ah, gotcha. I don't have the time to make multiple accounts and play games on a message board though.

On another note, I like your sarcasm on John Kerry there Greg.

Banned
03-20-2013, 03:51 PM
RFD,

Do you believe it would be better for Israel to attack Iran or a NATO coalition conduct the attack? Iran will have a nuclear weapon in one year so the time table has been established.

My thought?

Let the little fuckers fight their own enemies. Its about time Israel put on the big boy pants and started fighting and dying in their own wars, instead of having Americans do all the dying for them. If the Zionists hate Iran so bad... tough shit, they can figure out the problem themselves. Let's not get involved in it.

/rant off

ConfusedAirman
03-20-2013, 03:54 PM
Is that how we decide whether to get into a war? By determining whether we can afford it?

Not the only decision factor, but the cost must be considered. And not just the immediate cost of daily operations. There have been recent articles about how current battlefield medical advancements, along with expansion of VA health benefits to cover standard health issues such as heart disease, sleep apnea, etc. that will create decades of ever-increasing costs and a burden to our federal budget. The US needs to prepare itself to look the other way at times and not be the world's policeman simply because it costs too much.

tiredretiredE7
03-20-2013, 04:12 PM
My thought?

Let the little fuckers fight their own enemies. Its about time Israel put on the big boy pants and started fighting and dying in their own wars, instead of having Americans do all the dying for them. If the Zionists hate Iran so bad... tough shit, they can figure out the problem themselves. Let's not get involved in it.

/rant off

So I am guessing you believe Israel will only use "conventional" weapons against Iran who will have a nuclear weapon in the next few months? Think BIG. Then you will see why a unilateral strike on Iran by Israel will be very bad. The use of chemical weapons in Syria could draw us into that mess and Iran WILL come to Syria aid. This is why Obama is scared to get involved in the Syria mess and why Obama keeps moving his "redline". Unfortunately the rest of the world knows this as well and this is how Obama diminishes our status in the world.

Banned
03-20-2013, 04:47 PM
So I am guessing you believe Israel will only use "conventional" weapons against Iran who will have a nuclear weapon in the next few months? Think BIG. Then you will see why a unilateral strike on Iran by Israel will be very bad. The use of chemical weapons in Syria could draw us into that mess and Iran WILL come to Syria aid. This is why Obama is scared to get involved in the Syria mess and why Obama keeps moving his "redline". Unfortunately the rest of the world knows this as well and this is how Obama diminishes our status in the world.

I doubt Israel would have the balls to attack at all unless they knew we would blunder in, shedding American blood all over the place, to save their sorry asses.

Many blood enemies around the world have nukes (Pakistan and India, to name one example)... none of them have obliterated each other yet. Not to say it couldn't happen, but history seems to indicate even unstable regimes are very cautious when it comes to mutually assured destruction.

tiredretiredE7
03-20-2013, 05:15 PM
I doubt Israel would have the balls to attack at all unless they knew we would blunder in, shedding American blood all over the place, to save their sorry asses.

Many blood enemies around the world have nukes (Pakistan and India, to name one example)... none of them have obliterated each other yet. Not to say it couldn't happen, but history seems to indicate even unstable regimes are very cautious when it comes to mutually assured destruction.

There is no mutually assured destruction if the enemy's nuclear capability is destroyed before the nuclear weapons capability becomes an operational threat.

JD2780
03-20-2013, 05:44 PM
My thought?

Let the little fuckers fight their own enemies. Its about time Israel put on the big boy pants and started fighting and dying in their own wars, instead of having Americans do all the dying for them. If the Zionists hate Iran so bad... tough shit, they can figure out the problem themselves. Let's not get involved in it.

/rant off

Israel wanted in during Desert Storm after having scud hit their country. However, the US talked them out of it. They're always being told to back down by the US. They've been fighting paletinians for years. I think they have their big boy pants on.

Banned
03-20-2013, 05:49 PM
There is no mutually assured destruction if the enemy's nuclear capability is destroyed before the nuclear weapons capability becomes an operational threat.

If Israel throws the first punch, then there is no question that we should definitely stay out of it if they get in over their heads. We've already made the mistake of one pre-emptive war in the 21st century... the last thing we need is supporting another country illegally launching their own.


Israel wanted in during Desert Storm after having scud hit their country. However, the US talked them out of it. They're always being told to back down by the US. They've been fighting paletinians for years. I think they have their big boy pants on.

Blowing up people in a ghetto and tearing down their solar panels and schools isn't exactly the definition of "badass". I doubt Israel would want to tangle with an equal opponent without American intervention.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2013, 05:52 PM
Bruwin, are you pounding on the drums of war?

It's possible there may be a Republican administration in 2017 (not 2016) but if so the party will need to change course, fast. A newly issued self-critique has the party concluding that its problem is in how it conveyed its message when, in fact, the problem is that Americans rejected its policies. Instead of understanding the election results, the party is moving towards even greater extremism.

Clinton took exactly the right steps in the context of the era and also presided over a time of unprecedented respect for the United States, prosperity, and -- who knew? -- balanced budgets. Bush dismantled the counter-terrorism program and then began to rebuild it (incompetently) after September 11. This nation will not survive the damage done to it by eight years of George W. Bush but before the U.S.A. vanishes entirely we might at least stop provoking war. We have no reason for military action in Syria or Iran and we are taking the right measures in Korea.

This warlike Bruwin, is this new?

God, I do really wish I could reside in your world Bob.

Banned
03-20-2013, 06:02 PM
God, I do really wish I could reside in your world Bob.

What point did you disagree with? I'm not sure I would call the Clinton years "a time of unprecented respect" (though we were definitely more respected than we are now) - but aside from that, what in that post did you find to be unrealistic?

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2013, 06:08 PM
What point did you disagree with? I'm not sure I would call the Clinton years "a time of unprecented respect" (though we were definitely more respected than we are now) - but aside from that, what in that post did you find to be unrealistic?

Actually it was both his posts.

Bush lied to start the war..............an often repeated harangue which ignores the facts. Intelligence failure, sure but hardly conclusive it was deliberate.

"Dismantled the counter-terrorism program" Bullshit.

Banned
03-20-2013, 06:23 PM
Actually it was both his posts.

Bush lied to start the war..............an often repeated harangue which ignores the facts. Intelligence failure, sure but hardly conclusive it was deliberate.

That's a point we've discussed before, and will probably never agree on. To me (with the help of Capt. Hindsight), it's telling that in the height of flag waving patriotic bullshit that swept across America after 9/11, Team Bush decided to take us on a ten year adventure in Iraq... an invasion that the party had been fantasizing about for more than a decade.

We can never "conclusively" prove that he lied about WMDs - unless we can get a signed confession or something - but it's obvious that he lied about Saddam having ties to AQ... that idea was bullshit from the start.


"Dismantled the counter-terrorism program" Bullshit.

I really don't know where he was going with that one either. If anything I would say the opposite - Bush vastly increased our security apparatus... a figurative nation-wide cavity search.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 06:23 PM
I love how the fact that the last time we were in "a time of unprecented respect" was when our President, a married man, was getting blow jobs in his office from frumpy aides. I'm pretty sure anyone in the military doing the same would be booted out immediately. Something about using a position of power to gain sexual favors, etc. Yeah, that's definitely a time for the country and president to be respected.

Quixotic
03-20-2013, 06:29 PM
"a time of unprecented respect"

Which begs the question: exactly what time, and exactly what precedent, are you using as a baseline, to make this 'unprecedented' claim?

Banned
03-20-2013, 06:34 PM
I love how the fact that the last time we were in "a time of unprecented respect" was when our President, a married man, was getting blow jobs in his office from frumpy aides.

I dunno... she's got a cute face. Even at the time she was a bit on the heavy side for my tastes... but I digress, maybe Bill likes his women thick.


I'm pretty sure anyone in the military doing the same would be booted out immediately.

I really hope that was a joke.............. seriously.


Something about using a position of power to gain sexual favors, etc. Yeah, that's definitely a time for the country and president to be respected.

As a head of state, its pretty much required for you to have groupies. If you're "that guy" who refuses to use his position for sex, people might think you're gay or something. ;)

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2013, 06:37 PM
That's a point we've discussed before, and will probably never agree on. To me (with the help of Capt. Hindsight), it's telling that in the height of flag waving patriotic bullshit that swept across America after 9/11, Team Bush decided to take us on a ten year adventure in Iraq... an invasion that the party had been fantasizing about for more than a decade.

We can never "conclusively" prove that he lied about WMDs - unless we can get a signed confession or something - but it's obvious that he lied about Saddam having ties to AQ... that idea was bullshit from the start.



I really don't know where he was going with that one either. If anything I would say the opposite - Bush vastly increased our security apparatus... a figurative nation-wide cavity search.



Well, you are right about Capt Hindsight. I doubt anyone envisioned a ten year war. I have said before the Bush administration failed miserably at the post invasion part of the equation. Horrible without a doubt. Not relevant to lying or not.

While I will agree that there was a wave of patriotic fever after 9/11 and much of that ended up going too far but I would hesitate to label it bullshit given the times. Ten years later emotionally removed from the immediate effect, some would I suppose (well, obviously some do).

As to Iraq and OBL, suggest you read the 9/11 report. It is completely nonfactual to claim there was no level of cooperation between OBL and al Qaeda (and its ancillary groups) and Hussein.

TJMAC77SP
03-20-2013, 06:39 PM
I dunno... she's got a cute face. Even at the time she was a bit on the heavy side for my tastes... but I digress, maybe Bill likes his women thick.



I really hope that was a joke.............. seriously.



As a head of state, its pretty much required for you to have groupies. If you're "that guy" who refuses to use his position for sex, people might think you're gay or something. ;)

Again, hope that is tongue in cheek.

During the period whenever a woman would defend Clinton (particularly if the usual "it was only oral sex" defense was used) I would simply ask.......would you accept that from your husband/boyfriend.

That usually stopped the conversation.

MACHINE666
03-20-2013, 06:39 PM
So has it been confirmed which side used chemical weapons? Assad's men or the Syrian rebels?

I have a hunch it may have been a third party...Al Qaida, Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood perhaps, just to throw some shit into the mix. It's only a hunch until we can get a confirmed news source. Anyone?

Banned
03-20-2013, 06:44 PM
Well, you are right about Capt Hindsight. I doubt anyone envisioned a ten year war. I have said before the Bush administration failed miserably at the post invasion part of the equation. Horrible without a doubt. Not relevant to lying or not.

Clearly there was no planning for a long term occupation - evidenced by how completely bungled the whole project was... but still doesn't explain why we went way out into right field and invaded a country that was utterly irrelevant to 911 or our national security.


While I will agree that there was a wave of patriotic fever after 9/11 and much of that ended up going too far but I would hesitate to label it bullshit given the times. Ten years later emotionally removed from the immediate effect, some would I suppose (well, obviously some do).

Looking back, I can't have anything but a bitter taste in my mouth for the whole affair - that Americans' emotions (including my own) were manipulated and exploited for profit.


As to Iraq and OBL, suggest you read the 9/11 report. It is completely nonfactual to claim there was no level of cooperation between OBL and al Qaeda (and its ancillary groups) and Hussein.

I can't say I've actually read the 9/11 report... though the Pentagon has dismissed any allegations of ties between Saddam and Osama and AQ.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-2655316.html

Banned
03-20-2013, 06:48 PM
Again, hope that is tongue in cheek.

During the period whenever a woman would defend Clinton (particularly if the usual "it was only oral sex" defense was used) I would simply ask.......would you accept that from your husband/boyfriend.

That usually stopped the conversation.

While... *ahem* LEGITIMATE rape (had to get that cross-thread reference in.;)) is a serious issue... I think this was an entirely consentual groupie relationship that was exploited to damage Clinton... similar to what happened to Scalia, and of course Assange.

Of course when it comes to generals, I'll usually take the side of the female. Is that hypocrisy? Possibly. Or maybe I'm just prejudiced against generals.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 06:54 PM
I dunno... she's got a cute face. Even at the time she was a bit on the heavy side for my tastes... but I digress, maybe Bill likes his women thick. Really doesn't matter what she looked like when we're discussing our country being respected more during a time when our President was cheating on his wife.




I really hope that was a joke.............. seriously. Not a joke at all. What he did is the same as a TI or tech school instructor banging their students. We are well aware of what's happening to those people right now.

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:04 PM
Really doesn't matter what she looked like when we're discussing our country being respected more during a time when our President was cheating on his wife.

I really really doubt that was something anybody outside the American Family Association was losing sleep over.


Not a joke at all. What he did is the same as a TI or tech school instructor banging their students. We are well aware of what's happening to those people right now.

Wow, so the military punished some E-5 for sex crimes. How impressive..........

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 07:07 PM
I really really doubt that was something anybody outside the American Family Association was losing sleep over.



Wow, so the military punished some E-5 for sex crimes. How impressive.......... The point is they punish the E-5 but not the CiC. The thing the E-5 does is a big scar on the military but the President can do the exact same thing and his time in office be considered respectable?

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:12 PM
The point is they punish the E-5 but not the CiC. The thing the E-5 does is a big scar on the military but the President can do the exact same thing and his time in office be considered respectable?

Only after YEARS of this shit being covered up, until the Air Force was finally embarassed into taking action.

This shit happens all the time (not even talking about rape, just groupies) - and 99% of the time goes unpunished. And frankly, as long as it was consentual, its not something I'm going to get upset about. There's much bigger fish to fry.

And once again - no, I doubt our credibility as a nation took a hit because our head of state was banging the secretary.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 07:25 PM
Only after YEARS of this shit being covered up, until the Air Force was finally embarassed into taking action.

And once again - no, I doubt our credibility as a nation took a hit because our head of state was banging the secretary.Only in the eyes of several million Americans, but you don't care about that, do you? As long as other countries like us, you're happy.

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 07:28 PM
That's a point we've discussed before, and will probably never agree on. To me (with the help of Capt. Hindsight), it's telling that in the height of flag waving patriotic bullshit that swept across America after 9/11, Team Bush decided to take us on a ten year adventure in Iraq... an invasion that the party had been fantasizing about for more than a decade.

We can never "conclusively" prove that he lied about WMDs - unless we can get a signed confession or something - but it's obvious that he lied about Saddam having ties to AQ... that idea was bullshit from the start.

I really don't know where he was going with that one either. If anything I would say the opposite - Bush vastly increased our security apparatus... a figurative nation-wide cavity search.

Of course you can't prove he lied about WMDs since it was proven they had 'em...hell they even used 'em on their own people.

And to the OP...it depends. If we really want to do war right, we have to stop getting in at the ground floor. That shyte is EXPENSIVE. We need another WWI or WWII where we make a fortune off the war before we get involved-course then we forgave the debts which was a bitch move that is still biting us in the @$$...

So....I think it is a record but I agree with Joe AGAIN today... Let Israel get into a world of shit, let the rest of the world come to help, sell them a ton of crap, then step in after we are out of debt and all those shitbags owe US money and finish the damn thing off.

A bit bitter and sarcastic but mostly true....

Banned
03-20-2013, 07:33 PM
Only in the eyes of several million Americans, but you don't care about that, do you? As long as other countries like us, you're happy.

If Americans don't like the president, they can just vote him out, or wait for his time in office to expire. If the entire world hates our guts and wishes we'd eat dirt and die... that's a much bigger problem!

And just out of curiosity, who were these "several million Americans" who were upset that he had a groupie?

AJBIGJ
03-20-2013, 07:44 PM
Forget Monica Lewinsky, if "worldwide reputation" of the United States is something we take heavily into consideration, the Clinton presidency probably set us back at least a decade through other means of blowback than outright aggressive military foreign policy. I haven't the time nor bandwidth underway to really go into details, so I would encourage reading the book "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson if you are truly curious what I am referring to.

That being said, and I hate to be the one to mention this (well JB actually did in his own fashion) but the cost of imperialistic tendencies generally becomes an auxliary consideration when enacting aggressive national foreign policies. Don't mistake my meaning, the cost incurred and the debt tend to both become quite large, very disturbingly so. But still it is of secondary importance to the most fundamental questions we should be asking ourselves as if we were that country's border patrol mountie, which is demanding from Congress the purpose of our visit and the expected duration of our stay.

Unfortunately the United State's more recent Imperialistic foreign policy has proven to be about as effective over the years as the other world empires throughout history when gauged over the broad scale of years and decades and even centuries, which is to say not very. At least those empires' governments had the good sense to exploit economically all the satellites they forced into servitude, whereas in the effort to appear "civilized" we only exploit them in ways that economically benefit private industry contracting organizations and foreign businessmen. But even those empires were overwhelmed by the unsustainability of their foreign policies eventually, not always in a catastrophic fashion but always consistent in the outcome.

Our own foreign policy especially in recent years has been consistent in displaying a reverse Midas touch. Instead of gold everything we touch turns into Al Quaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, or Hamas. Ironically a large percentage of the weapons our "enemies" use to kill us or our allies with has a real or imaginary "Made in the USA" label on it somewhere. The big question we should ask ourselves about Syria is not just the cost of the investment, but also the potential return on that investment. If either entity gets sided with by our forces is it vastly preferable to that which we side against? Will either magically turn into this "bastion of civilized democracy in the Middle East" as a probable outcome of our interference? Is there no value in retaining some semblance of the balance of power in that region by keeping their forces targeting reticles directed at eachother instead of US forces or those we have aligned ourselves with? Also, when the void is created by removing the "opposition" in that country, what new external opposition will subsequently surface to fill the void? Is that new "enemy" more dangerous to the US and our interests than the status quo? Anyone who does not have an explicit, definitive answer to every single one of these questions should strongly consider voting againts any form of aggression on the part of the US. I know we like to think we have a policy of "Never taking the first hit", but what is the difference if we still take the second hit when the alternative may have been taking no hits at all? Sometimes we should consider just letting these foreign civil wars play out absent our interference. The chances of (not) inadvertantly pissing off the eventual victor worse is much better if they're not dead at the hands of US attacks or even US generated collateral damage.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 07:58 PM
If Americans don't like the president, they can just vote him out, or wait for his time in office to expire.You know that won't happen as long as he's paying their bills.


If the entire world hates our guts and wishes we'd eat dirt and die... that's a much bigger problem! There's a difference between hate and jealousy


And just out of curiosity, who were these "several million Americans" who were upset that he had a groupie?Are you asking for names? I have no specifics, Joe. I can speak for myself and say that I was pretty pissed that a guy I voted for and supported would stoop to this level. I feel safe in saying that, most likely, there were at least 10% (considering the number who voted against him) probably felt the same. Again, I am not able to give you names.

Banned
03-20-2013, 08:00 PM
You know that won't happen as long as he's paying their bills.

Wait what?


There's a difference between hate and jealousy

And right now its probably more hate than jealousy. Especially the way things are sliding, it probably won't be long before we don't have much left to be jealous of.


Are you asking for names? I have no specifics, Joe. I can speak for myself and say that I was pretty pissed that a guy I voted for and supported would stoop to this level. I feel safe in saying that, most likely, there were at least 10% (considering the number who voted against him) probably felt the same. Again, I am not able to give you names.

Ah well. Shit happens. Personally I'd give him a high five, because it reminds me of some of my own (mis)-adventures.

And to be perfectly honest... I really don't think Hillary gave a shit, or at least not enough to divorce him. That marriage I think is definitely one made out of political convenience, not love.

Pullinteeth
03-20-2013, 08:06 PM
Wait what?

He is alluding to the large % of the population on the dole...they won't vote for anything that might disturb that...

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 08:10 PM
Wait what? Really? You misunderstood my point? If I'm poor and relying on social programs I'm not going to vote a guy out who is giving me all of these things. No conspiracy (as you mentioned before you changed it). Just logic.


And right now its probably more hate than jealousy. Especially the way things are sliding, it probably won't be long before we don't have much left to be jealous of. When's the last time you were out of the country? I'd heard how Europeans disliked us, then I got stationed over there. Come to find out, they were normal people who I got along with just fine. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. He's NOT a French model.




Ah well. Shit happens. Personally I'd give him a high five, because it reminds me of some of my own (mis)-adventures. I'm sure you would.


And to be perfectly honest... I really don't think Hillary gave a shit, or at least not enough to divorce him. That marriage I think is definitely one made out of political convenience, not love.Honestly, as long as the country is running relatively smooth, I don't care what the guy in office is doing. However, I will stick to my point about the respect for him as president. Those are two separate things.

AJBIGJ
03-20-2013, 08:32 PM
Dude, you lost me at "forget"

Brevity isn't my strong suit when I go on a diatribe.

Succinctly put, before even considering the cost of the war, know and plan for the desired outcome before even setting foot there.

imported_chipotleboy
03-20-2013, 08:34 PM
But, we have Secretary of State, John Kerry, who got three Purple Hearts in Vietnam, to sort out this mess.

Fixed it for ya!

Banned
03-20-2013, 08:34 PM
Really? You misunderstood my point? If I'm poor and relying on social programs I'm not going to vote a guy out who is giving me all of these things. No conspiracy (as you mentioned before you changed it). Just logic.

Except Clinton reformed and greatly reduced benefits.


When's the last time you were out of the country? I'd heard how Europeans disliked us, then I got stationed over there. Come to find out, they were normal people who I got along with just fine. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. He's NOT a French model.

We haven't bombed Europe lately either. Also - to venture a guess, even in the countries we have pillaged and destroyed, the animosity is less towards individual Americans, but the nation in general.


I'm sure you would.

Honestly, as long as the country is running relatively smooth, I don't care what the guy in office is doing. However, I will stick to my point about the respect for him as president. Those are two separate things.

Except the original point was respect for the nation - even as a president, its highly questionable that our reputation was damaged by having a groupie.

sandsjames
03-20-2013, 08:55 PM
Except Clinton reformed and greatly reduced benefits. But at that time, the economy was strong so it didn't make a difference. Again, speculation. As I said, I voted for his re-election (too young to vote the first time).



We haven't bombed Europe lately either.
So who are you worried about hating us? The middle east? They're going to hate us anyway.



Also - to venture a guess, even in the countries we have pillaged and destroyed, the animosity is less towards individual Americans, but the nation in general. I agree completely.

Robert F. Dorr
03-20-2013, 10:02 PM
Actually it was both his posts.

Bush lied to start the war..............an often repeated harangue which ignores the facts. Intelligence failure, sure but hardly conclusive it was deliberate.

"Dismantled the counter-terrorism program" Bullshit.

You may be the last person who believes only that it was a catastrophic mistake and not that it was a lie. There's hardly anyone left who doesn't agree that we were lied to. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And Bush and Powell both knowingly lied to us. You know it, too.

But let's step away from that issue. Even if Iraq had had chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, so what? We were attacked by al-Qaeda, remember? Must I write again here that on September 11, 2001 no two men on earth despised each other more than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?** We had no reason to be in Iraq. None. Zero.

** Footnote: that statement is true only if George W. Bush doesn't know me.

grimreaper
03-20-2013, 11:23 PM
You may be the last person who believes only that it was a catastrophic mistake and not that it was a lie. There's hardly anyone left who doesn't agree that we were lied to. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And Bush and Powell both knowingly lied to us. You know it, too.

But let's step away from that issue. Even if Iraq had had chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, so what? We were attacked by al-Qaeda, remember? Must I write again here that on September 11, 2001 no two men on earth despised each other more than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?** We had no reason to be in Iraq. None. Zero.

** Footnote: that statement is true only if George W. Bush doesn't know me.

Here's a better question...why are we still in Afghanistan? Bin Laden is dead, we have no defined mission, have no definition of victory, are bound by self-defeating rules of engagement, and the corrupt President of the country is claiming we are in cahoots with the Taliban...time to go, and put one in his head on the way out.

grimreaper
03-20-2013, 11:29 PM
Fixed it for ya!

I curious how taking some shrapnel in the ass qualifies a person to be SoS? Please explain.

Capt Alfredo
03-21-2013, 12:03 AM
Coming to these forums for intelligent discussion on foreign policy is an exercise in futility, Bob.

Banned
03-21-2013, 12:08 AM
Here's a better question...why are we still in Afghanistan? Bin Laden is dead, we have no defined mission, have no definition of victory,

THAT'S the question of the day!


are bound by self-defeating rules of engagement,

Unfortunately, shooting more people isn't going to make victory more attainable.


and the corrupt President of the country is claiming we are in cahoots with the Taliban... time to go,

That's the paradox - we want a self sufficient and legitimate Afghan government, but the only way they can gain legitimacy is by opposing us.


and put one in his head on the way out.

Not sure how that would be productive, or even advisable.

Capt Alfredo
03-21-2013, 12:15 AM
Recalibrated

Nah, I respect the opinions of forum members when they stick to their areas of expertise. For most, foreign policy or adversary military analyses do not fall within those confines.

JD2780
03-21-2013, 01:16 AM
Thats cool. I respect the confidence of pilots saying they would go toe to toe with an ZSU, then laugh at them during the invasion when they freak out and bug out when we're still supressing it.

tiredretiredE7
03-21-2013, 02:04 AM
Nah, I respect the opinions of forum members when they stick to their areas of expertise. For most, foreign policy or adversary military analyses do not fall within those confines.

Waiting on your educated foreign policy analyses.

grimreaper
03-21-2013, 02:43 AM
THAT'S the question of the day!



Unfortunately, shooting more people isn't going to make victory more attainable.



That's the paradox - we want a self sufficient and legitimate Afghan government, but the only way they can gain legitimacy is by opposing us.



Not sure how that would be productive, or even advisable.


Karzai should've been shown the door or the inside of a wooden box a long time ago. He has been and will continue to be a hindrance to that country ever having even a small chance of becoming somewhat normal. If he's really the best that country can do, they are doomed. No more US $$$ propping him up.

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 11:31 AM
Clearly there was no planning for a long term occupation - evidenced by how completely bungled the whole project was... but still doesn't explain why we went way out into right field and invaded a country that was utterly irrelevant to 911 or our national security.



Looking back, I can't have anything but a bitter taste in my mouth for the whole affair - that Americans' emotions (including my own) were manipulated and exploited for profit.



I can't say I've actually read the 9/11 report... though the Pentagon has dismissed any allegations of ties between Saddam and Osama and AQ.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-2655316.html

The 9/11 report cites several meetings between AQ reps and members of the Iraqi regime. True there is not evidence of operational cooperation (training camps, external logistical support etc) but when you have several meetings taking place then you can no longer say there were no contacts or cooperation. I would say the CBS article is inaccurate in that regard.

I am not by any means citing that as a viable reason to invade but it is factually incorrect to say there was no level of cooperation between the parties.

Also interesting is the mention of former DoD policy chief Douglas J. Feith. Evidently his input to the President contributed to the decision to invade. So, did Bush lie or was he misled? Did Feith lie or did he see what he wanted to see?

BTW: Since the CBS article cites CIA intelligence reporting I assume you are chosing to believe THAT particular vein of reporting from the agency? Just sayin'.

imnohero
03-21-2013, 12:02 PM
The 9/11 report cites several meetings between AQ reps and members of the Iraqi regime. True there is not evidence of operational cooperation (training camps, external logistical support etc) but when you have several meetings taking place then you can no longer say there were no contacts or cooperation. I would say the CBS article is inaccurate in that regard.

I am not by any means citing that as a viable reason to invade but it is factually incorrect to say there was no level of cooperation between the parties.

Also interesting is the mention of former DoD policy chief Douglas J. Feith. Evidently his input to the President contributed to the decision to invade. So, did Bush lie or was he misled? Did Feith lie or did he see what he wanted to see?

BTW: Since the CBS article cites CIA intelligence reporting I assume you are chosing to believe THAT particular vein of reporting from the agency? Just sayin'.

The 9/11 report was citing intelligence that has since been proven faulty. Not really trying to get into the middle of this but, generally speaking with the recent declassification of a lot of the intel documents, it's pretty clear that much of it was marginal or down-right wrong.

Capt Alfredo
03-21-2013, 12:38 PM
Waiting on your educated foreign policy analyses.

I could respond to this in one of two ways. The condescending way: I wouldn't waste my time and energy posting on a forum such as this where my stunning insight and keen sense of nuance would be lost on the great unwashed hordes. Or, the self-deprecating way: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open my mouth and remove all doubt. You pick which one fits your narrative better. Either way, it would be a waste of time.

Pullinteeth
03-21-2013, 01:41 PM
You may be the last person who believes only that it was a catastrophic mistake and not that it was a lie. There's hardly anyone left who doesn't agree that we were lied to. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And Bush and Powell both knowingly lied to us. You know it, too.

But let's step away from that issue. Even if Iraq had had chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, so what? We were attacked by al-Qaeda, remember? Must I write again here that on September 11, 2001 no two men on earth despised each other more than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?** We had no reason to be in Iraq. None. Zero.

** Footnote: that statement is true only if George W. Bush doesn't know me.

So all those dead Kurds that were killed by Saddam Insane and his mustard gas were made up?

tiredretiredE7
03-21-2013, 02:03 PM
I could respond to this in one of two ways. The condescending way: I wouldn't waste my time and energy posting on a forum such as this where my stunning insight and keen sense of nuance would be lost on the great unwashed hordes. Or, the self-deprecating way: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open my mouth and remove all doubt. You pick which one fits your narrative better. Either way, it would be a waste of time.

This sounds like a statement from PYB. I didn't have a narrative.

sandsjames
03-21-2013, 02:26 PM
You may be the last person who believes only that it was a catastrophic mistake and not that it was a lie. There's hardly anyone left who doesn't agree that we were lied to. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And Bush and Powell both knowingly lied to us. You know it, too. Nope, he's not the last person.
[/QUOTE]

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 03:36 PM
While... *ahem* LEGITIMATE rape (had to get that cross-thread reference in.;)) is a serious issue... I think this was an entirely consentual groupie relationship that was exploited to damage Clinton... similar to what happened to Scalia, and of course Assange.

Of course when it comes to generals, I'll usually take the side of the female. Is that hypocrisy? Possibly. Or maybe I'm just prejudiced against generals.

Joe, how did we get from Clinton's affair to generals boinking?

(nice try slipping Assange in there though)

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 03:50 PM
Only after YEARS of this shit being covered up, until the Air Force was finally embarassed into taking action.

This shit happens all the time (not even talking about rape, just groupies) - and 99% of the time goes unpunished. And frankly, as long as it was consentual, its not something I'm going to get upset about. There's much bigger fish to fry.

And once again - no, I doubt our credibility as a nation took a hit because our head of state was banging the secretary.

Well, actually it did but that isn't really the point. His sexual proclivities which apparently border on an addiction don't matter, that I agree with. To me the damage done is best summed up when the four top cabinet members met privately with Clinton and then immediately appeared in the driveway of the White House and issued a joint statement (with SECSTATE as spokeswoman) strongly defending Clinton and stating categorically that no inappropriate behavior had occurred.

So, we are left with two choices.

- The four of them lied (a bit doubtful given that if they knew the truth they were all smart enough to know how they would look when it came out)

- The four of them were lied to by the President. More likely and exactly the point it stopped being a matter between the three parties (Clinton, his wife, and Blewinsky).

National Security.............no. Unfortunately everything that is important is not National Security. Much has been made about Obama's success in improving the status of the US overseas as compared to Bush. Ignoring the argument over how important that really is, why is it completely irrelevant to any discussion of Clinton? It isn't a matter of comparison of degrees but rather the argument itself. Damage to the country's reputation was done, specifically to the image of the office of the President.


I make no secret of the fact that I have never held Clinton in high regard. It sincerely isn't his party. The day he lost me was the "I didn't inhale" statement. I figured any guy running for President who thinks that Americans are stupid enough to believe that won't get my vote. Although it appears enough were stupid enough it could be people didn't think it important enough to not vote for him. Those people were looking at the pot usage issue and ignoring the credibility and integrity issue.

It is a bit like Gen Fogleman's testimony to Congress in the Kelly Flynn case.......''This is an issue about an officer entrusted to fly nuclear weapons who disobeyed an order, who lied. That's what this is about.''

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 03:53 PM
Brevity isn't my strong suit when I go on a diatribe.

Succinctly put, before even considering the cost of the war, know and plan for the desired outcome before even setting foot there.

I would only add "additionally plan for alternative outcomes and how to react to them."

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 04:11 PM
You may be the last person who believes only that it was a catastrophic mistake and not that it was a lie. There's hardly anyone left who doesn't agree that we were lied to. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And Bush and Powell both knowingly lied to us. You know it, too.

But let's step away from that issue. Even if Iraq had had chemical, nuclear or biological weapons, so what? We were attacked by al-Qaeda, remember? Must I write again here that on September 11, 2001 no two men on earth despised each other more than Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?** We had no reason to be in Iraq. None. Zero.

** Footnote: that statement is true only if George W. Bush doesn't know me.

Bob, I think it extremely presumptuous for you to decide who thinks what (absent statements from all of them). I guess we can chalk that up to a bit of hyperbole on your part.

Your 'step aside' is the most revealing. You either believe they had or didn’t have a WMD program. Since your emphatic statement is that Bush et al lied about the presence of any such program, whether we should or shouldn’t have invaded is a different question altogether and it isn't the argument I have made in this discussion therefore completely irrelevant to any post quoted.

To state categorically that Iraq did not have a WMD program is complete nonsense. It ignores known facts, not just intelligence assumptions. We announced for months that we were coming. This guy has a history of subterfuge and bizarre actions (flying half your air force into the custody of your worst enemy, burying aircraft en masse, etc). Why in God would anyone be surprised we can’t find evidence? What has always puzzled me is that we haven’t found ANY evidence even though we KNOW that he HAD a program at some point since he has used chem agents on his people. If we couldn’t find evidence of that KNOWN program why are we surprised we can’t find evidence of any program? I have always been troubled by that but still can’t ignore known facts.

Part of Powell’s testimony was tractor-trailer trucks imaged leaving the back of a suspected WMD facility as the UN inspection team arrives for a pre-announced visit at the front door. That means nothing? Was it just a coincidence? Could be but I think those are as rare as the proverbial hen’s teeth. Well of course if it doesn’t fit into your nice neatly wrapped box of how you envision history so there is that as well.

It is completely beyond my comprehension that people are willing to ignore decades of a certain type of behavior by Hussein and attribute lofty visions of cooperation with the UN simply to vilify a person that you personally despise. A complete lack of integrity and credibility.

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 04:15 PM
The 9/11 report was citing intelligence that has since been proven faulty. Not really trying to get into the middle of this but, generally speaking with the recent declassification of a lot of the intel documents, it's pretty clear that much of it was marginal or down-right wrong.

Source of declassified docs? I am genuinely interested. I have always said that if proved true, I would be the first to call for the prosecution of anyone responsible for leading us into a war with lies known at the time to be lies. I suppose if I have to eat crow someday I will but until then I am not going to accept the word of folks who have no more information than I but are simply pursuing their own agenda

TJMAC77SP
03-21-2013, 04:17 PM
Ok, here is a sixth post because I hate odd numbers..............

AJBIGJ
03-21-2013, 04:28 PM
I would only add "additionally plan for alternative outcomes and how to react to them."

That I think I touched on in the longer version :dance

imported_chipotleboy
03-21-2013, 06:19 PM
I curious how taking some shrapnel in the ass qualifies a person to be SoS? Please explain.

I've long given up trying to understand or explain politics.

imnohero
03-21-2013, 06:25 PM
Source of declassified docs? I am genuinely interested. I have always said that if proved true, I would be the first to call for the prosecution of anyone responsible for leading us into a war with lies known at the time to be lies. I suppose if I have to eat crow someday I will but until then I am not going to accept the word of folks who have no more information than I but are simply pursuing their own agenda

Best I can do re: sources is point you to the following three books:

James Risen's State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
Jim Bamford's A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies.
Isikoff and Corn Hubris: Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War

Shrike
03-21-2013, 06:50 PM
I've long given up trying to understand or explain politics.

American politics is quite simple:

http://www.woosk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/politics-explained.jpg

Robert F. Dorr
03-21-2013, 07:04 PM
Bob, I think it extremely presumptuous for you to decide who thinks what (absent statements from all of them). I guess we can chalk that up to a bit of hyperbole on your part.

Your 'step aside' is the most revealing. You either believe they had or didn’t have a WMD program. Since your emphatic statement is that Bush et al lied about the presence of any such program, whether we should or shouldn’t have invaded is a different question altogether and it isn't the argument I have made in this discussion therefore completely irrelevant to any post quoted.

To state categorically that Iraq did not have a WMD program is complete nonsense. It ignores known facts, not just intelligence assumptions. We announced for months that we were coming. This guy has a history of subterfuge and bizarre actions (flying half your air force into the custody of your worst enemy, burying aircraft en masse, etc). Why in God would anyone be surprised we can’t find evidence? What has always puzzled me is that we haven’t found ANY evidence even though we KNOW that he HAD a program at some point since he has used chem agents on his people. If we couldn’t find evidence of that KNOWN program why are we surprised we can’t find evidence of any program? I have always been troubled by that but still can’t ignore known facts.

Part of Powell’s testimony was tractor-trailer trucks imaged leaving the back of a suspected WMD facility as the UN inspection team arrives for a pre-announced visit at the front door. That means nothing? Was it just a coincidence? Could be but I think those are as rare as the proverbial hen’s teeth. Well of course if it doesn’t fit into your nice neatly wrapped box of how you envision history so there is that as well.

It is completely beyond my comprehension that people are willing to ignore decades of a certain type of behavior by Hussein and attribute lofty visions of cooperation with the UN simply to vilify a person that you personally despise. A complete lack of integrity and credibility.

It appears you're right. It appears it's completely beyond your comprehension.

JD2780
03-21-2013, 07:15 PM
It appears you're right. It appears it's completely beyond your comprehension.

Not really. I completely agree with TJ. I mean, he had enough time to bury his foxbats. Why wouldnt he have had enough time to get rid of everything else.

Shrike
03-21-2013, 07:40 PM
Not really. I completely agree with TJ. I mean, he had enough time to bury his foxbats. Why wouldnt he have had enough time to get rid of everything else.

The foxbats were in the same place that ol' Bob apparently keeps his head - buried in the sand.

Banned
03-21-2013, 08:01 PM
Joe, how did we get from Clinton's affair to generals boinking?

(nice try slipping Assange in there though)

Sandjames claimed that military folks get thrown out immediately for having affairs... which is completely hilarious.

And yes - I know he's the enemy of democracy, freedom, and apple pie... but the honeypot he fell into is still a legitimate example.


The 9/11 report cites several meetings between AQ reps and members of the Iraqi regime. True there is not evidence of operational cooperation (training camps, external logistical support etc) but when you have several meetings taking place then you can no longer say there were no contacts or cooperation. I would say the CBS article is inaccurate in that regard.

I am not by any means citing that as a viable reason to invade but it is factually incorrect to say there was no level of cooperation between the parties.

Also interesting is the mention of former DoD policy chief Douglas J. Feith. Evidently his input to the President contributed to the decision to invade. So, did Bush lie or was he misled? Did Feith lie or did he see what he wanted to see?

BTW: Since the CBS article cites CIA intelligence reporting I assume you are chosing to believe THAT particular vein of reporting from the agency? Just sayin'.

Yes, which has since been debunked by the Pentagon.

sandsjames
03-22-2013, 02:42 PM
Sandjames claimed that military folks get thrown out immediately for having affairs... which is completely hilarious.



No, I didn't. I stated that enlisted members who are in a position of power get kicked out for having sex with people who are below them in the (for lack of better term) chain of command.

Very rarely does one get kicked out for an affair, unless it's an added charge for something more serious.

But feel free to twist my words anyway you want.

Banned
03-22-2013, 04:21 PM
No, I didn't. I stated that enlisted members who are in a position of power get kicked out for having sex with people who are below them in the (for lack of better term) chain of command.

Which is still bullshit.

sandsjames
03-22-2013, 04:32 PM
Which is still bullshit.

Have you recently heard anything about Lackland AFB? In fact, it even merited a change in policy to allow only E6 and above to be TIs. I'm not sure what the number is up to for people booted but it's getting quite high.

I was at Sheppard AFB when an O5 was discharged for having a relationship with a trainee. There were also several MTLs (military training leaders, the people who "run" the trainee dorms) booted for the same reason.

Though I guess if you want to believe that these statements are BS then that's up to you.

edit: Do you disagree with me on everything just on principle?

Banned
03-22-2013, 05:01 PM
Have you recently heard anything about Lackland AFB? In fact, it even merited a change in policy to allow only E6 and above to be TIs. I'm not sure what the number is up to for people booted but it's getting quite high.

I was at Sheppard AFB when an O5 was discharged for having a relationship with a trainee. There were also several MTLs (military training leaders, the people who "run" the trainee dorms) booted for the same reason.

Though I guess if you want to believe that these statements are BS then that's up to you.

edit: Do you disagree with me on everything just on principle?

Lackland became a scandal only after years of cover-ups and absurdly over-the-top sex crimes. Lots of service members still bang subordinates and get away with it. If you haven't seen it in your career then you weren't paying attention.

JD2780
03-22-2013, 06:05 PM
Lackland became a scandal only after years of cover-ups and absurdly over-the-top sex crimes. Lots of service members still bang subordinates and get away with it. If you haven't seen it in your career then you weren't paying attention.

Is it, or is it not a violation of the UCMJ? It is, and it should be handled accordingly. Getting booted for it, probably not, but possible NJP is a certainty.

grimreaper
03-22-2013, 10:35 PM
Is it, or is it not a violation of the UCMJ? It is, and it should be handled accordingly. Getting booted for it, probably not, but possible NJP is a certainty.

I personally know of 2 Amn that got the boot for screwing around with other guy's wives while the dudes were deployed.

Banned
03-22-2013, 10:57 PM
I personally know of 2 Amn that got the boot for screwing around with other guy's wives while the dudes were deployed.

Were either of them named Jody by any chance?

JD2780
03-23-2013, 01:12 AM
I personally know of 2 Amn that got the boot for screwing around with other guy's wives while the dudes were deployed.

They got the boot so the guy wouldnt come home and kill them. I was thinking more along the lines, if YOU were the lowlife cheater would you get the boot. Probably not. However, if you're hooking up with somebody's wife you deserve to get the boot in many ways.

grimreaper
03-23-2013, 01:17 AM
They got the boot so the guy wouldnt come home and kill them. I was thinking more along the lines, if YOU were the lowlife cheater would you get the boot. Probably not. However, if you're hooking up with somebody's wife you deserve to get the boot in many ways.

I know if it was me, the guy getting kicked out wouldn't stop me from finding him and kicking his ass if I wanted to bad enough.

It got so bad that the CEM more or less threatened every single new person that came in and made it a part of their in-processing that they better not be messing around with anybody's spouse.

JD2780
03-23-2013, 01:22 AM
I know if it was me, the guy getting kicked out wouldn't stop me from finding him and kicking his ass if I wanted to bad enough.

It got so bad that the CEM more or less threatened every single new person that came in and made it a part of their in-processing that they better not be messing around with anybody's spouse.

100% agree with your first part. Thats the whole good order and discipline. Turds.

sandsjames
03-23-2013, 01:02 PM
Lackland became a scandal only after years of cover-ups and absurdly over-the-top sex crimes. Lots of service members still bang subordinates and get away with it. If you haven't seen it in your career then you weren't paying attention.

It's not whether or not I've seen it. It's about whether or not the person gets caught sleeping with a subordinate by somebody who cares. Those are the people who get booted. And for you to claim otherwise is ignorant.

Quixotic
03-23-2013, 03:13 PM
I personally know of 2 Amn that got the boot for screwing around with other guy's wives while the dudes were deployed.

They got the boot for failing the world's oldest OPSEC practical exam.

Banned
03-23-2013, 04:40 PM
It's not whether or not I've seen it. It's about whether or not the person gets caught sleeping with a subordinate by somebody who cares. Those are the people who get booted. And for you to claim otherwise is ignorant.

LOL wow this is pretty funny stuff... do service members get in trouble or get the boot for fraternization some times? Sure. But to claim that military personnel somehow get a different deal than Clinton did is pretty funny. Some get caught and booted. Some don't get caught. Some get caught and beat the wrap, and of course rank is a huge factor (A general is less likely to get in trouble than a lance corporal). And mind you - Clinton almost got impeached...

You're grasping at straws.

Robert F. Dorr
03-23-2013, 05:45 PM
They got the boot for failing the world's oldest OPSEC practical exam.

Too true, too true.

Greg
03-24-2013, 04:38 PM
The latest developments, in North Korea:

http://kitup.military.com/2013/03/live-footage-north-korean-missile.html

Banned
03-24-2013, 09:06 PM
Fuck you Joe. I'm so tired of your boring ass diatribe. Please just put me on ignore and I shall do the same. It would be interesting if you weren't just disagreeing for the sake of it. I would put money on it that if I'd said that service members get off easy you would have pointed out all the ones who have been booted.

You better hope PYB comes back soon so you can get some new material.

You mad bro? Facts make you mad? How could you be in the military for 20 years and not see crazy sex and adultery happen everywhere?

RobotChicken
03-24-2013, 09:31 PM
:clock In Nuremberg during 'Desert Storm' a whole MP unit was transferred out, all female wives were offered a free trip to CONUS, including the recently impregnated ones, a PCS for one soldier who had knocked up two of them, because the officers KNEW they would have a war on their hands when the guys came home. And that was only ONE unit!! :fencing

Banned
03-24-2013, 09:34 PM
:clock In Nuremberg during 'Desert Storm' a whole MP unit was transferred out, all female wives were offered a free trip to CONUS, including the recently impregnated ones, a PCS for one soldier who had knocked up two of them, because the officers KNEW they would have a war on their hands when the guys came home. And that was only ONE unit!! :fencing

Don't be silly... we all know that military members ALWAYS honor their marriage vows!

USMC0341
03-24-2013, 10:37 PM
LOL wow this is pretty funny stuff... do service members get in trouble or get the boot for fraternization some times? Sure. But to claim that military personnel somehow get a different deal than Clinton did is pretty funny. Some get caught and booted. Some don't get caught. Some get caught and beat the wrap, and of course rank is a huge factor (A general is less likely to get in trouble than a lance corporal). And mind you - Clinton almost got impeached...

You're grasping at straws.

Actually Clinton was impeached.


That's all I got.

Banned
03-24-2013, 11:11 PM
Actually Clinton was impeached.


That's all I got.

Good catch - impeached but acquitted.

TJMAC77SP
03-26-2013, 11:18 AM
It appears you're right. It appears it's completely beyond your comprehension.

PYB...........is that you?

Maybe later you can come back and actually post something with substance.

TJMAC77SP
03-26-2013, 11:22 AM
Sandjames claimed that military folks get thrown out immediately for having affairs... which is completely hilarious.

And yes - I know he's the enemy of democracy, freedom, and apple pie... but the honeypot he fell into is still a legitimate example.

Wow, I thought he was just a narcissistic asshat.



Yes, which has since been debunked by the Pentagon.

Oh, that's why. I thought maybe because it fits your agenda. Naaaaaa, you would never think like that.

TJMAC77SP
03-26-2013, 11:24 AM
Were either of them named Jody by any chance?

"Aint no use in going home.............."

Robert F. Dorr
03-26-2013, 11:30 AM
The latest developments, in North Korea:

http://kitup.military.com/2013/03/live-footage-north-korean-missile.html

If only. Their missiles may not be perfect but on their third try they seem to have detonated a nuke as intended.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/theater-support-package-bulks-up-u-s-air-power-in-korea/

Yes, I smiled a little at the joking about Kim and the missile but, alas, the situation isn't really a barrel of laughs.