Is it 1974 again? by chrisisall

*Checks* I'm not wearing flares and I have a fashionable hair cut that doesn't require a neck brace, chances are it isn't 1974 again.

Though if it was George Bush could blame it on the boogie.

Don't blame it on Sunnis
Don't blame it on Shiites
Don't blame it on Kurds
Blame it on the bushie

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:24 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
*Checks* I'm not wearing flares

Where's your proof?
*ears perk up*
Is that Donna Summer I hear in the background, Citizen?
I think you have Dance Fever, my friend

That Seventies Chrisisall
(Okay, wrong end of the seventies; I should be talkin' Stairway To Heaven, heh heh)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:30 AM

I just can't, I just can't control my beats.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:47 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I hear a lot of rhetoric about the dangers of Iran. Since we're already in the vicinity, maybe they'll simply send the troops next door. They can say they've withdrawn from Iraq. New war, new country, gain some new momentum. Has this been done before? Frogleaping from war to war?

War on Terrorism never ends. War on Communism lasted, what, a good 3-4 decades. We have a while to go.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars.
--J. Paul Getty (1892 - 1976)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 4:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Has this been done before? Frogleaping from war to war?

lots of people have done it. Nazi Germany for instance.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:27 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Seems more like 1954 to me.

Or even 1984, the Orwell version.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:32 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Don't blame it on Sunnis
Don't blame it on Shiites
Don't blame it on Kurds
Blame it on the bushie

That's like saying it is okay to loot that electronics store because a hurricane broke the front windows.
The Sunnis have been killing the Shiites and vice versa for a lot longer than Bush has been around. They are simply using the 'occupation' as an excuse to step up their efforts.
The Kurds, OTOH, seem to be outside of the sectarian violence for a change and seem to be happy to stay that way.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:33 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Has this been done before? Frogleaping from war to war?
lots of people have done it. Nazi Germany for instance.

Oh right! So it's more like 1938!

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Don't be afraid to see what you see.
--Ronald Reagan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 7:16 AM

CRUITHNE3753

Sunni and Shia? Didn't they once have a hit with "I Got You Babe"?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Has this been done before? Frogleaping from war to war?

Usually not from a loss or stalemate...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 7:42 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Cruithne3753:
Sunni and Shia? Didn't they once have a hit with "I Got You Babe"?

BWAHAhahahahahahah!!!!!!

I'm peein' now Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
That's like saying it is okay to loot that electronics store because a hurricane broke the front windows.
The Sunnis have been killing the Shiites and vice versa for a lot longer than Bush has been around. They are simply using the 'occupation' as an excuse to step up their efforts.
The Kurds, OTOH, seem to be outside of the sectarian violence for a change and seem to be happy to stay that way.

Posting to stir stuff up.

If you can come up with some better lyrics, I'd like to see you try.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 10:06 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Don't blame it on Sunnis
Don't blame it on Shiites
Don't blame it on Kurds
Blame it on the bushie

The Sunnis have been killing the Shiites and vice versa for a lot longer than Bush has been around. They are simply using the 'occupation' as an excuse to step up their efforts.

Yup, that's true, but it's also true that when Saddam was in power, he kept the sectarian violence at a minimum--admittedly, for his own evil reasons, and through vile and ugly methods, but he did. The whole reason he was allowed to remain in power after Gulf War I was that, bitter as the fact was, he was a stabilizing factor in the region.

It reminds me of the old 1960's/1970's joke: Q. "What two words keeps Nixon from being asassinated?" A. "President Agnew." Nobody's stupid enough to take out the man with his hand on a dead-man switch. At least, nobody was until George II and his crack team of yes-men donned their rose-colored glasses and initiated a two-front war. After all, the Iraqis would all unite to welcome their liberators with open arms, strewing rose petals in their path.

Truly, when Saddam hangs, there will be laughter in hell.

And so, through the classic strategic error of believing your own propaganda, the Bush Administration has drawn us into a morass with no easy exit. I'll admit, I can see no way out of the current situation quickly. I can only hope someone else, much wiser than I am, can see a path, and implement it. But I doubt that will happen before the current administration is removed from office.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:28 PM

PHOENIXSHIP

I just hope we don't screw over the Kurds again. They're the only (relatively) sane ones over there, and they've taken up for us in the past. I really, really hate it when our government breaks valid promises.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 3:29 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
*Checks* I'm not wearing flares
Where's your proof?
*ears perk up*
Is that Donna Summer I hear in the background, Citizen?
I think you have Dance Fever, my friend

That Seventies Chrisisall
(Okay, wrong end of the seventies; I should be talkin' Stairway To Heaven, heh heh)

FREEBIRD!

----
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:09 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Some rock band will go to the top of the charts with a song about the last helo out of Baghdad...

" Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills run for your lives "

http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/ironmaiden/liveafterdeath.html#12

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:15 PM

CHRISISALL

Gino man, long time no wave!
Good to hear from ya!

Greeting old friends off-topic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 24, 2006 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:

the Bush Administration has drawn us into a morass with no easy exit. I'll admit, I can see no way out of the current situation quickly. I can only hope someone else, much wiser than I am, can see a path, and implement it.

saw a headline somewhere the other day--
" Pentagon Options- Go Big, Go Long , Go Home". They're making contingency plans for all 3. The McCain option, lots more troops; the Murtha option, bring the boys home now; and the Abazaid option( I guess he'd take credit for it, but can't think of anybody else who will, after the election), keep doin' what we're doin', only for many years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 25, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Iraq: out of control. More dead every week. No end in sight. America seems tired of it.
Are we gonna pull a Vietnam withdrawel?

What do ya think?

Well...

There is actually no comparison between what's going on now and what was going on in 1974. American involvement in the Vietnam War ended with the Paris peace accord of January 1973. I know. I was watching it on TV.

Nixon & Kissinger might've ended the war even sooner (as Nixon had always wanted to), but it was extremely difficult for them to approach the peacetable with an upper hand, when all the North Vietnamese had to do was turn on the news and see how unpopular the war was at home, to know that Nixon had no bargaining ships. Nixon always maintained (as does Kissinger to this day) that the anti-war effort at home did more to prolong that war than to shorten it. Any person with any knowledge of military history knows that the best position from which to pursue peace (or a truce) is from a position of strength, not weakness.

The anti-war effort (whether the war was justified or not) showed the enemy that we were a divided nation -- and a divided nation is not the hand one wants to take with them to the bargaining table.

I remember thinking at the time that it was too bad that LBJ didn't live to see the end of the war he had begun (as far as actual military hostilities). He died a few days before the peace accord. I also remember that the flag was already at half-mast when LBJ died, because Truman had died in December, less than a month prior to that.

A lot was going on back then. I was there. And it's not at all like what's going on today. Thankfully.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 11:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Nixon & Kissinger might've ended the war even sooner (as Nixon had always wanted to), but it was extremely difficult for them to approach the peacetable with an upper hand,

( snip)
Any person with any knowledge of military history knows that the best position from which to pursue peace (or a truce) is from a position of strength, not weakness.

going to the table with a better bargaining position is OK in a war you're winning. In a war you're losing, or going to lose, sooner or later, that is a low priority. If Hitler, or Hirohito, had thought that way, how many lives, good guys or bad, would have been wasted?
" Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:

Nixon & Kissinger might've ended the war even sooner (as Nixon had always wanted to), but it was extremely difficult for them to approach the peacetable with an upper hand,

( snip)
Any person with any knowledge of military history knows that the best position from which to pursue peace (or a truce) is from a position of strength, not weakness.

going to the table with a better bargaining position is OK in a war you're winning. In a war you're losing, or going to lose, sooner or later, that is a low priority. If Hitler, or Hirohito, had thought that way, how many lives, good guys or bad, would have been wasted?
" Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Well, that didn't come out right... Obviously the last paragraph is my opinion, not Cartoon's

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 3:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
going to the table with a better bargaining position is OK in a war you're winning. In a war you're losing, or going to lose, sooner or later, that is a low priority.

Exactly. That was the whole point. We couldn't negotiate from a point of strength, because of the anti-war protestors. If the North Vietnamese felt that the United States had the resolve to stick it out until the job was finished, they might've negotiated. As it was, they knew our nation would never stay with the job, given the turmoil and unrest caused by the anti-war protestors at home.

Sadly, we didn't learn from our mistakes, and the anti-war people are today giving the enemies of this nation the same ammunition they afforded them 35 years ago, by demonstrating we are once again divided and many of us do not have the resolve to finish the job.

Just for the record, I am not endorsing, nor have ever endorsed the United States' involvement in Vietnam. I believe that U.S. military involvement in Vietnam was a mistake. Of course, we have the advantage of hindsight, something not afforded to Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon. I would assume that (prior to our actual military involvement) Ike, JFK & LBJ imagined that Vietnam would go the way of Korea -- an uneasy truce, with each side holding its own, and a prevention of the South being overrun by the North. However, once you start something, you'd better well finish it, or every drop of blood which your military sheds will have been for nothing.

For the record, I have also multitudinously stated that I don't think the U.S. had to enter Iraq when we did. Yes, Saddam was in violation of virtually all of the UN mandates against Iraq (by the U.N.'s own admission). Unfortunately, the U.N. has (and has never had) any temerity or fortitude to actually enforce anything they cite -- and Saddam knew that, so felt no need to comply with their mandates.

As Nixon and Kissinger always maintained (and I fully concur) the U.S. could've negotiated a better (and far earlier) peace with the North Vietnamese if our nation had not been so openly divided about that war.

Fortunately for our nation (and the world), the press during WWII didn't report the catastrophic losses concurrently to the battles, as they did during Vietnam, or we may not have had the stomach to finish that one, either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:54 PM

My point in re: Iraq, is that we ain't gonna win the war militarily, no matter what the folks back home do, or don't do, to protest.

THE WAR WAS LOST ON THE GROUND A LONG TIME AGO.

The only way to achieve victory in the place would have been the way the Brits ruled their Empire 150 years ago, ruthlessly and with the bayonet. That's how Sadam did it; that's how Tito did it in Yugoslavia; that's what it woulda took in Vietnam; that's how bunches of dictators and tyrants have done it world-wide and historically.

AND OUR CHARACTER AIN'T LIKE THAT.

Which is good, but we shouldn'ta ever volunteetred to get into a situation where that was the solution, again.

Also, WE DID'T AND DON'T HAVE THE MUSCLE TO DO IT ANYWAY.

It would have taken Gen. Shinseki's 450,000 troops on the ground, with the US Army at less that 500,000, and the Marine Dorp less than 200,000

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
The only way to achieve victory in the place would have been the way the Brits ruled their Empire 150 years ago, ruthlessly and with the bayonet. That's how Sadam did it; that's how Tito did it in Yugoslavia; that's what it woulda took in Vietnam; that's how bunches of dictators and tyrants have done it world-wide and historically.

Hi. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree.

As I said, I do believe we should not have gone into Iraq -- but I don't believe the war is lost.

One example of a highly-volatile, British colony which did manage to survive after the British left (amidst the nay-saying of everyone at the time) was India. Yes, the colony had to be divided into two nations (then subsequently three) -- and there is still unease and tension in that part of the world between the Indian's and Pakistani's -- but self-rule worked, and has lasted nearly 60 years.

There are ethnic tensions among Iraqi's, for certain. However, I don't think that's the big problem over there. I think (as I've stated elsewhere) that the problem is that terrorist originations in that part of the world do not want a free Iraq. They know what it would mean for there to be a freely-elected, democratic government in the region, and they will do everything in their power to stop it. The terrorists thrive on policitical instability, and they're coming in from everywhere in that region in an effort to achieve those ends.

Naturally, if the people of Iraq do not wish to pay the cost of freedom (as we in the U.S. have done), they will not succeed. Most of the news I hear from the Iraqi's themselves, however, encourages me in this respect. (South Vietnam fell, in a large part, because the South Vietnamese, themselves, were not willing to fight for their freedom.)

It's not an ideal situation in Iraq. But, neither is it the disaster which the press is making of it. The people of Iraq can outlast the terrorist infilitrators (and their own home-bred insurgents) if they have the will to do so. They need some help for the time-being, though, and it would be wrong for us to abandon them prematurely, thereby almost guaranteeing their collapse.

Again, I don't think we should've gone into Iraq. I think if the U.N. put some teeth to their resolutions (something which they've never done)(in my opinion, that whole organization is a farce), this may've been avoided. Perhaps Saddam would've complied and joined the rest of civilization. However, it's useless to speak about "what if's". The U.N. didn't do its job, and the U.S. stepped in and tried to do the U.N.'s job for it.

I don't know the specifics as to how the Iraqi army (and local law enforcement) is being trained. They are certainly being hampered by terrorism which is being directed at Iraqi's in the military & local enforcement (another indication that the terrorists do not want them to succeed with the establishment and maintenance of a freely-elected, democratic Iraq). Until they can maintain their own army, however, someone needs to help hold the line.

If the U.N. had any teeth, they'd be in there, attempting to help, themselves. Unfortunately, the U.N. is (in my opinion) even more useless than the League of Nations had been. But that's the subject for another debate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Quote:

One example of a highly-volatile, British colony which did manage to survive after the British left (amidst the nay-saying of everyone at the time) was India. Yes, the colony had to be divided into two nations (then subsequently three) -- and there is still unease and tension in that part of the world between the Indian's and Pakistani's -- but self-rule worked, and has lasted nearly 60 years.

That would seem to be an argument against your basic position, and in favor of getting out now.
Cut and run seems , by your logic, to have worked there in spite of those nay-sayers.
Also seems to have worked in Vietnam, although Bush went there the other day and made a speech about how we shoulda stayed the course.

Maybe we should just bring the boys home, and let historical inevitability do its work...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:31 PM