A whole new war, a dazzling hate I never knew
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:59
VIEWED: 6353
PAGE 8 of 10
Uhuh, just keep telling yourself that, Hero.
From the halls of Montezuma,
To the shores of Tripoli,
The American Army Marches,
On Coke and LSD
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cobb
I see g1 as possible, but time is fleeting.
g2 I would have trouble believing.
b1 seems most likely
b2 is typical dem, but that would mean that he was a puppet, because personally, he doesn't come across as partist
ugly. That's a scary thought.
note: If you see me post "millions" for Clinton, that's because I also blame him for Rwanda. I have good evidence to do so. What I really lack is a why.
It's like the crime that you can prove, and still have no motive. I suppose there's always the homocidal lunatic angle, but I suspect there's a reason. The best I've come up with is that it was the idea of some genocidal african leader who Clinton supported in order to create the african union. (a Mugabe or Mbeki, one of those people who thinks people of other races have no place on africa, I'm talking other african races here, like nubians and pygmies.)
Anyway, yes, it's very worrisome, and I've noticed the american MSM is keeping a lid on the story. I want to hear a statement from the president. If it happens again, it will be more worrisome.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gates seems to be saying that he bombed Pakistan, but that it was cleared, in his opinion, with Pakistan and Obama. Clearly Pakistan disagrees.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/27/gates-afghanistan-military-
challenge/
Also, there's a disturbing new initiative to move the JSOC style operations, training and arming locals to fight insurgencies, to be under the state dept. aka Hillary. Not only is it disturbing to consider the creation and arming of a non-US military militia in a theater of combat to be taken out of the military power structure, but to be handed to a Clinton with no experience whatsoever.
Anyone have the whole tues 1/27/09 Senate Armed Services Gates testimony link?
[edit] He says this is an Obama admin policy and attacks will continue against Pakistan, in spite of Pakistani govt. complaints.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Dreamtrove: Clinton's veto of the Rwandan exception resolution was a blatantly evil act
That's damning enough for me. Go ahead, call it millions. I actually didn't know about that, gotta admit. F***ing appalling.
And to make things worse, most people seem to think Clinton was such a nice guy and that the worst thing he did was get a BJ in the oval office. Conveniantly forgetting the, ya know, atrocities.
"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hero wrote:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:31
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hero:
No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".
Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't prove war can constitutionally be declared by an entity other than Congress, just that war has been declared. Though of course most of the above weren't 'wars' they were 'police actions'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, but it does establish the precedent that military power can be used absent a Declaration of War...just as the founders intended. (...to the shores of Tripoli; We will fight our country's battles...)
H
Wasn't this established back in the 1890's with Phillipines?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That's damning enough for me. Go ahead, call it millions. I actually didn't know about that, gotta admit. F***ing appalling.
And to make things worse, most people seem to think Clinton was such a nice guy and that the worst thing he did was get a BJ in the oval office. Conveniantly forgetting the, ya know, atrocities.
yes, the timeline was something like this:
Ugly story warning.
Select to view spoiler:
day 2: 2 rwandan tutsi flee to gabon, meet kofi annan, who was director of UN peacekeeping affairs, who drafts the resolution, which comes to a vote on day 15. About 20,000 tutsis are dead. France abstains for treaty obligations, clinton-albright veto it. Rumor surfaces that the incident that started it was the shooting down of a plane with Rwanda+Burundi Tutsi+Hutu leaders on their way to a peace summit (over uganda i think). The weapon is identified by local african officials as a US anti-aircraft gun. No one can enter the region without risking open war. Violence flares up, and then, with about 1 million tutsis of the original 10 million are dead. Main reason for the dust settling seems to be lack of ammunition. Clinton flies in with peacekeepers with lots of weapons. Violence spikes up again, and doesn't stop until deaths pass 8 million 7.7 million are tutsis, the rest are almost all other africans accused of "helping tutsis" very little counterfire against hutu militia. Violence flares up a few more times, as the central african war gets under way (something which just started again.) Overall, no one is entirely sure if there are tutsis left. There are an estimated 2 million, some small colonies of a few thousand living in refugee groups, some here in the US, other parts of the world, and in africa. Most remaining regionally tutsis are sex slaves captured by the hutu, and their half-hutu children.
But how we got to Monica was a massive meander. There were two children killed in arkansas in connection with a drug ring, cocaine. This led investigators to a couple people who were receiving contracts from the govt. of arkansas for projects never completed. Coincidentally, they had been campaign contributors to Clinton, and rewarded a la Bush. The ring is busted, and many of Clinton's people go to jail for cocaine trafficking, 100ish (their names are all on his last day pardon list, along with the charges.)
Vince Foster is Hillary's former boss, she hires him to oversee their finances. He does so, and finds a real estate related money-laundering circle, which is a red flag to him for drug money. He calls a federal prosecutor, his secretary, and then Hillary, essentially saying to all three, I think that some of the donors might have drug money, and the clintons will have to disown this right away. (waco has already happened at this point, and foster/clinton have had a falling out over it.) So, he goes to see Hillary, and shows up dead in the wood, after several investigations, it's ruled a suicide, but it doesn't stick. Hillary ends up with a murder charge and fraud charges. This ends in a mistrial, after two years of the president's meddling in the case.
The secretary is linda tripp. She has known foster for 30 years, and been his secretary for most of them. She can't get the clintons for murder or embezzlement, because the federal prosecutors say they need hard evidence. The only hard evidence she gets is on monica, and clinton lies under oath about it.
There's a book called "the strange death of vincent foster" which makes the case, without trying, it just presents the evidence. My brother who was an avid clinton supporter, and complete non-conspiracist, read the actual case file, and his conclusion, as a law professor, was Hillary was "More guilty than OJ." That was meant as a superlative.
Next, the now disgraced foot-tapping larry craig presented to congress proof that during the arms embargo on bosnia, Clinton used the US contingent of that embargo to run arms, to the mujahideen, more commonly called "al qaeda" for the purpose of attacking croatia, to secure a strip of land to the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Evening everyone,
This is my first time to the boards and I was just looking around but saw this post and felt the need to respond.
I'm a Navy officer flying an electronic attack jet called the EA-6B Prowler. I'm a member of only two land based Prowler squadrons in the Navy and we deploy every 6 months to Bagram, Afghanistan and spend the next 6 months on the ground in the combat zone. I have to say this...we NEED the extra troops over there. I hope and pray that 20,000 is only the start. In fact, Obama's polices to increase troops in Afghanistan and his willingness not to accept Pakistan's excuses was one of the main reasons I voted for him. Pakistan is not our ally. They actively pursue polices against the US and then claim that they deserve more money. They were some of the principle backers of the Taliban in manpower, money, and equipment. I have flown many missions very near the Pakistan boarder and I have to tell you its not a comfortable feeling. They have taken potshots at my friends across the border on more than one occasion.
As far as the attacks into Pakistan go, almost the entire northern region of the country is Pashtun tribal land that the Pakistani government doesn't control at all. The entire region is run by the Taliban and the Pakistanis do nothing about it because they fear a Taliban takeover of the rest of the country.
I've met many Afghans in Bagram and I assure you that they want peace, but not a peace imposed by the Taliban. Most of the men there are clean shaven. Why? Because the Taliban wouldn't let men shave their beards and as soon as they were gone the first thing everyone did was shave their beards as a symbol of their freedom.
Ultimately we still have a long road to go over there. But us, the Australians, Canadians, French, Germans, Polls, Koreans, Checs, and everyone else over there is fighting hard. I only spend 6 months in the US a year and 3 of those months are on the road for training. So I really only spend 3 months of the year at home. Please don't tell me that we shouldn't get help. Obama is making the right moves with Afghanistan and Pakistan. I sincerely hope that we keep striking targets in the Taliban controlled parts of Pakistan to stop them from building up forces to attack us across the border. I go back in 3 months.
Have any of you been to Afghanistan? Talked to the people there?
Oh and I can't wait to get the rest of my squadron addicted to Firefly too lol
--Jason
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
we NEED the extra troops over there.
I know people in that war, including one guy who was shot in the head twice. No brain damage, but he was on the front lines in both wars over the last five years, on the ground.
His attitude was you shoot at people, bomb them, they're gonna shoot back. He never once blamed the guys that shot him, and this guy got pretty messed up more than once physically.
The real question is "Why do WE need to be there at all.
Quote:
Pakistan is not our ally.
Alliance in not an opinion, it's a fact of international law, signed on a peace of paper. We recognize a territory call it Pakistan, and are sworn to defend it. Every bit as much as you are sworn to defend America.
Quote:
principle backers of the Taliban
Why wouldn't they? Don't we also support groups on the ground in Afghanistan?. Of course we do, we openly admit to doing so, the N. Alliance and Mujahideen groups. We support militants inside Iran against that govt. We supported some in Iraq. No conspiracy theory here, this is official.
Yeah, Pakistan is going to look after its regional interests. If you were Pakistan, you'd do the same thing.
Quote:
I have to tell you its not a comfortable feeling. They have taken potshots at my friends across the border on more than one occasion.
I'm sorry, my sympathy for this sort of thing has run out. They don't like it when you shoot at them, I figured that one out for myself.
Quote:
almost the entire northern region of the country is Pashtun tribal land that the Pakistani government doesn't control at all.
Everyone on this board already knows this, if not everyone on the planet. It's their job to get control, or not as they choose, but they choose, and it's our job to help them. They have made it extremely plain that our bombing runs are counter-productive to their mission to achieve peace with the tribal areas.
Lack of control in a given country doesn't give a foreign power a right to bomb that region. If S. Ossetia hadn't asked to become a Russian protectorate by a vote of over 70% of the population, and say, instead, they hated Russia, and Russia had just started bombing them, on the grounds that they border Russia, and are a remote tribal region that is occasionally a launching spot for terrorist to get into Russia, all of which is true, then Russia would have gotten even more sternly denounced by the world. As it was, the action was not welcomed with open arms by anyone except S. Ossetia.
I can guarantee you that our actions against Pakistan will not cause us to be welcomed with open arms in Waziristan.
Quote:
The entire region is run by the Taliban
Most of your post is at least accurate, but I'm one of the skeetshooters here, and I have to point out something like this. The region is run by no one. That's part of what makes it tribal. It contains three distinct ethnic groups speaking three different languages and has no coherent body to rule. This is an ideal place for militants to hide, because there is no authority to gnab them. But that doesn't mean that the locals should just be tossed aside as collateral damage.
Quote:
I've met many Afghans in Bagram
Should we talk about Bagram for a moment?
Quote:
But us, the Australians, Canadians, French, Germans, Polls, Koreans, Checs
Czech.
Quote:
Please don't tell me that we shouldn't get help.
Okay, some people say we shouldn't, but whether or not we should, I will give you this, unapologetically: We aren't helping. We're part of the problem.
Quote:
I sincerely hope that we keep striking targets in the Taliban controlled parts of Pakistan
Jeez.. Listen to yourself. Targets in Taliban controlled parts... that's vague. That's an open license to bomb anyone. Should the rest of us say that "Democrat controlled portions of the US are fair game, civilians included?"
Okay, you want to draw a line between Taliban and Democrats, I'm game. Who has killed more people?
Taliban are a political party
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Wasn't this established back in the 1890's with Phillipines?
Yes...not to mention Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates...in 1807 or Washington marching on Pittsburg in 1794.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That's an open license to bomb anyone. Should the rest of us say that "Democrat controlled portions of the US are fair game, civilians included?"
HEY! I've seen that before (flips through book), page 29 of the Al Queda Rules of Engagement, "...an open license to bomb anyone. Democrat controlled portions of the US are fair game, civilians included."
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME