Split topic- From the AA board

[Seatacus]

Did I miss it or did someone tell us what some Democrat's plan is to fight terror? :blink:

 

[delldude]

Saddam is not there to give the $25K per martyr award.

Do I win my purple shoes?
Purple Rain

UT

WE HAVE A BINGO

 

[Garfield1966]

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think "We" did not not send troops to Viet Nam until 1965. I just want the facts please....

For entire article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


American combat troops were involved from 1959, but not in large numbers untill 1965.

Don't you just hate it when that happens? lol

 

[bagstacker]

Did I miss it or did someone tell us what some Democrat's plan is to fight terror? :blink:

Why, I thought you were quicker on the uptake than that, but I guess not... :blink: anyway, I made clear that it is incumbent upon the incumbents at long last, after six miserable years, to explain their policies clearly and fully to the American people. After all, we've paid for it... :huh:

By the way, do you smell something burning?

 

[delldude]

Why, I thought you were quicker on the uptake than that, but I guess not... :blink: anyway, I made clear that it is incumbent upon the incumbents at long last, after six miserable years, to explain their policies clearly and fully to the American people. After all, we've paid for it... :huh:

By the way, do you smell something burning?

Was part of my reference to those eight years before W(BW)and how things got so quickly out of hand and he's to blame? Lets be fair.

I don't smell anything...do you?

 

[Garfield1966]

Did I miss it or did someone tell us what some Democrat's plan is to fight terror? :blink:

Hmmm Bagstacker already made the point but I'll go for it again.

If we are to assume (I don’t by the way) that "stay the course" is a plan, then I guess you have shown us what yours is. Personally, I am still trying to figure out exactly what that course is. Do you know what the "course" is that we are on? Is there a plan other than just staying there and us killing them and them killing us?

There seems to be an assumption that our presence in Iraq is making a difference. I have indicated as well as others that if there is no US presence in Iraq then Iran will move in and set up camp. I am starting to wonder if 1. That would happen and 2. If it’s such a bad idea. Given how poorly so many different sects get along with each other in that region, I cannot help but wonder if that would be one big cluster F&*k like it is for us right now.

Either way, I am not of the opinion that our presence is Iraq is making a difference in the country much less making us more secure. There are terrorists through out the world.

I say we tell the world that we came to Iraq to get rid of Hussein (which we did), we attempted to bring an open society to Iraq but the Iraqi people chose to accept it. We made an honest effort but are leaving now. So, if the rest of the Arab nations want to try and help, you are more than welcome to lend a hand to these folks. Our last troops we be out of Iraq on Xxx ##, 200#.

At that point, we adopt a stance such as Israel that if you attack our interests, we will hunt you down and attack yours. No more land grabs. No more occupations. They obviously don’t work.


So, what's your plan? You do have one right?

 

[UAL_TECH]

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

Don't you hate being stupid?

(Where is the FU Icon?) UT

 

[bagstacker]

Was part of my reference to those eight years before W(BW)and how things got so quickly out of hand and he's to blame? Lets be fair.

I don't smell anything...do you?

Maybe a little singed-hair smell?

 

[sentrido]

Stop bothering with these guys. These 30%ers know its over for thier silly conservative "revolution". It failed and they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Former defense secretary testifies before 9/11 panel

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Defense Secretary William Cohen on Tuesday defended President Clinton's use of the military to protect national security interests, returning to a sharp GOP-led criticism of Clinton at a time when he was embroiled in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

B) UT

 

[local 12 proud]

Concede? No. Acknowledge that the current way of doing things is ineffective and that another way must be found .. yes.

So we pull out of Iraq, allow the country to self implode become another terrorist training ground (safe haven) essentially sending the World and the terrorist the message that we're not up to the task? do we just bring all our troops home, and just hope the terrorist won't strike us again, Do we send out nice letters to all the Islamic terrorist groups worldwide and ask them ...please, oh pretty please don't harm us?

Garfield,THERE IS NO OTHER WAY to deal with terrorist, its us or them, they know only one way and that is their way and they are not only willing to, but are in fact planning to kill us.

We are living in a different world where different techniques are needed. I also do not know or have all the answers. I do feel that what we are doing now will not work. The people who which to do us harm for what ever reason are wide spread and very very organized. They have watched us and know how to fight us and win.

I disagree that what we're doing is not working, We are killing way more of them than they are of us. Yes we have much work to do, but just pulling back and then trying to formulate a new strategy is not the answer. We can either take the fight to them, or they bring it to us, thats the choice.

To say that we could be fighting for 30 years or who knows how long is just going to put this country into a tail spin even quicker. No country, much less the US which is comprised of 15 or 20 second sound bytes is going to settle for a drawn out conflict. We have only been in Iraq for 3 years and people are already fed up. They don’t like seeing their children killed. They do not like feeing that they are not being told the truth by this administration. They do not like seeing that no, or very little progress has been made.

people are fed up, they don't like seeing their children killed, they don't like being lied to by the administration, no or little progress, we can't win this war..etc.

Its just this type of left wing liberal non-sense that is inviting the next attack. Stop with the 'Tokyo Rose' propaganda already, It serves to only demoralize and devide!
I guess 3000 American citizens vaporized on our soil was'nt enough to wake you and the rest (left) up, no you need more proof than that. How about 100,000 will that do it, perhaps 100,000,000? will it actually take us being Nuked before you realize these Nuts are DeadSerious.

All I know is that if you (meaning your party) do not find a way to end this conflict soon, you will be in deep crap. At the very least you will in all likely hood loose control over the senate and white house. The people will not put up with it. That is a simple reality that can be proven by looking at history. American people are short sighted and impatient. Why do you think W went to the aircraft carrier and said ‘mission accomplished’? I read one theory that the reason we dropped nukes on Japan in WWII was also because this country was tired after 5 years of war.

First let me correct you, its not (my party) of choice but I will say it was far better than what you Liberals were parading around as a Proposed Leader of the Free World.

Second if , Hillary 'rotten' Clinton, John 'flip flop' Kerry, Al 'its the environment' Gore etc.. is the best you libs can come up with then I feel the white house will remain status quo.

Third the decision to drop 'The Bomb' on Japan was made because it was determined not only would it possibly save over a million more lives, but bring a swift end to a world war that had already seen MILLION's Killed.

No one likes war, people die, but we've lost less Americans During this current conflict since it began than we lost in a few hours on a September day almost five years ago. The current administration did'nt lie, it was stated from the outset that this is going to be a long war, one that would be global, that it would cost lives, but better on their turf than on ours, but don't let the facts get in the way!

We tried your (meaning your party) hands off approach and The reward was September 11, 2001 and Now your advocating more of the same 'stand down' policy. :wacko:

 

[Garfield1966]

September 27, 1950 - The U.S. establishes a Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Saigon to aid the French Army.

Don't you hate being stupid?

(Where is the FU Icon?) UT

What/who is this directed to? Combat troops were ther in 1959. That's what I thought Sea was questioning.

What's with all the insults? Is that the way you argue?

 

[bagstacker]

So, what's your plan? You do have one right?

That's it Garfield 1966, they are the ones who have to answer for failure. They are the ones who should be on the defensive. They have no answer so they try to pretend that no one else has any kind of reasonable plan either. When they know, deep down, just know, that nearly anything else would be better.

Now, admittedly, they are often shocked, shocked I tell you!- when they get back a little of their own stick-in-the-eye rhetoric that many so unthinkingly indulge in, but never expect to have thrown back at them Stick it to them every chance you get! They'd do the same for us

Well, gotta go, the Nascar race at Bristol is coming on!

 

[Seatacus]

Combat troops were ther in 1959. That's what I thought Sea was questioning.

"Combat" troops??? Troops actually fighting? I don't think so. 1965 is when I believe we had "combat" troops actually fighting there. Hey you know, I could be wrong.

 

[local 12 proud]

"Combat" troops??? Troops actually fighting? I don't think so. 1965 is when I believe we had "combat" troops actually fighting there. Hey you know, I could be wrong.

Yea Seatacus American combat troops were involved from 1959, but not in large numbers until 1965. I suspect prior to 1965 it was mostly covert operations and the like.