Why not invade Burma?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, March 29, 2026 18:27
VIEWED: 6428
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 17, 2008 8:18 PM (P)

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739053,00.html

Quote:
That's why it's time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma. Some observers, including former USAID director Andrew Natsios, have called on the U.S. to unilaterally begin air drops to the Burmese people regardless of what the junta says. The Bush Administration has so far rejected the idea — "I can't imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday

WTF???
Well, I can't imagine invading a country that is relatively STABLE *coughIraq* 'just because'!!!!!!

The last angry Chrisisall

REAVERMAN

Saturday, May 17, 2008 9:59 PM (P)

Nothing to gain from it. Just a lot of poor people, and now, rubble. Not a very sound investment. Not to mention we don't have the resources for another invasion and occupation.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

GEEZER

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:03 PM (P)

I think the UN should get right on it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Nothing to gain from it. Just a lot of poor people, and now, rubble. Not a very sound investment. Not to mention we don't have the resources for another invasion and occupation.

Come on now, sure there's no Oil, but shit loads of rice! And who doesn't like rice? a Billion Chinese people can't be wrong!

Besides, America's foreign image could really use another [strike]imperial war[/strike] action for freedom.

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.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Nothing to gain from it.

PSSST- the country has undiscovered oil in it, I'd heard it said...(someone tell Bush!)

Chrisisall

REAVERMAN

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Besides, America's foreign image could really use another [strike]imperial war[/strike] action for freedom.

Meh, Imperial conquest has its uses, when you can pull it off (which, as Iraq has clearly shown, Bush can't). But it's usually not very good PR, unless it's so low profile that it just flies under the global radar.

But really, that's moot. Normally, as an Imperialist, I would say "go for it!", but we just can't at the moment. Bush has decided to commit the majority of our frontline units, as well as a huge chunk of our reserves, to deposing a government we should have helped, and occupying a country just waiting to explode into civil war. Not the best time for opening up yet another front in the Third World War.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Reaverman:
Not the best time for opening up yet another front in the Third World War.

Oh, go on, it'll be really funny.

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.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Oh, go on, it'll be really funny.

Cit, why do you hate Australia?

Patriotic Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Cit, why do you hate Australia?

Fucking Koalas.

Though Kangaroo Pizza is nice.

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.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, May 17, 2008 11:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Koalas.

Crap. I meant America. Always get 'em mixed up....Like with Saudi Arabia & Belgum, they're so similar....

Not on wall Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:14 AM (P)

They'd all end up voting Democrat anyways, what with the free Gov't handouts and all.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:42 AM (P)

Yeah, better off giving the money to rich businessmen.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yeah, better off giving the money to rich businessmen.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it just isn't ."

Why not ? It's mostly their money in the first place, taken by the Government.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:28 AM (P)

No, mostly the workers money, taken by the owners.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 18, 2008 3:17 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, mostly the workers money, taken by the owners.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not a fact, it just isn't ."

No, mostly the people's money, taken by the Gov't. The Gov't doesn't OWN us at all.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIVERLOVE

Sunday, May 18, 2008 4:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No, mostly the workers money, taken by the owners.

Thank you Karl Marx. Long live the Bolsheviks!

WHODIED

Sunday, May 18, 2008 7:44 PM (P)

It's the Banks' money. Everybody else merely borrows it temporarily, in a complex shell game of credit and debt, to stand as symbol for goods and services whose INTRINSIC value is inflated, subsidized, or moot.

--WhoDied

_______________________

There was a dollar eighty three in the cushions out there. That's perfectly good money just lying around.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Gov't doesn't OWN us at all.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! AU, you come up with the good ones, LOL!!!!

isall

PIRATECAT

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:32 AM (P)

Kinda like English troops in Ireland. Right. Oh don't say that. That's offensive to English people. America killed John Lennon. Another creep. Lets see how many times in the last century did Great Britain save western civilization. Hmmm left Africa in wonderful condition. England is full of puffs. The royal whores with muslim babies. They're just great. I can't wait till jolly ole england has that civil war with its imigrants. Please help America. Please send ships, food, and guns. KISS OFF BRITS LUV OBAMA.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

CITIZEN

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
Kinda like English troops in Ireland. Right. Oh don't say that. That's offensive to English people. America killed John Lennon. Another creep. Lets see how many times in the last century did Great Britain save western civilization. Hmmm left Africa in wonderful condition. England is full of puffs. The royal whores with muslim babies. They're just great. I can't wait till jolly ole england has that civil war with its imigrants. Please help America. Please send ships, food, and guns. KISS OFF BRITS LUV OBAMA.

Hey, least we never needed the French to win a war for us.

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.

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hey, least we never needed the French to win a war for us.

*winces*

Chrisisall

HAVOCMAN

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:44 PM (P)

Needed the French? LMAO - does anyone really believe that the colonies won their freedom as a result of French assistance? The French may have sped things up a bit, but that's it. We'd have beaten the Brits eventually on our own. The logistics of the whole thing would have just worn the Brits down. Too bad it had to come to war at all.

Burma is a side show because that region of the globe is not critical to global economics.

Stabilization of the global economy is why the U.S. is involved so deeply in the Middle East region of the globe. You all knew that ... right?

Although the situation in Iraq is pretty rough now, things there are certainly improving ... they can only get better, hmmmm.

Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.

As for the UN ... just stay away, please.

Let's be Bad Guys...

HERO

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Come on now, sure there's no Oil, but shit loads of rice!

I note for the record that there is oil. The former Burma Oil Company was a major producer but in the decades since the end of colonialism Burma's oil and rubber exports have dropped dramtically due to the lack of infrastructure and more easily accessable supplies from the Middle East (oil) and South America (rubber).

Invading Burma and restoring those industries would be worthwhile.

Also Naval and Air Force bases in Burma would support ongoing operation in the Gulf as well as be perfectly placed to support operations against China.

A strong military force in the region would also suppress the local pirates that plague the narrow shipping lanes in the region.

H

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:

Burma is a side show because that region of the globe is not critical to global economics.

But...this country's government cares deeply about people...

Quote:

Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.

Tell that to the dead (sorry, nix that), husband-less & parent-less peeps over there. If you can manage one every couple hours it would only take a year.

*sigh*Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 19, 2008 1:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Invading Burma and restoring those industries would be worthwhile.

I take that as a go-ahead.
I will alert the usual suspects.

Gung-Ho Chrisisall

HAVOCMAN

Monday, May 19, 2008 2:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:

Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.

Tell that to the dead (sorry, nix that), husband-less & parent-less peeps over there. If you can manage one every couple hours it would only take a year.

Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war ... again and AGAIN. How many died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many Iraqi citizens were murderd at his hands over the past few decades? How many Israeli citizens did he murder indirectly by paying off the families of Palestinian terrorists? The guy had to go.

With us so heavily involved in the region, these things have come to an end. So, while the loss of life during OIL/OIF - any life - is tragic, in the long run the US has done, and will continue to do, the right thing over there ... to the best of our ability. We ain't perfect, but we are wayyyyy better 'n most.

Besides - who else is gonna handle the job at this point? The UN?

Let's be Bad Guys...

CITIZEN

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Needed the French? LMAO - does anyone really believe that the colonies won their freedom as a result of French assistance? The French may have sped things up a bit, but that's it. We'd have beaten the Brits eventually on our own. The logistics of the whole thing would have just worn the Brits down. Too bad it had to come to war at all.

Uhuh. The British of course didn't need the Americans in World War Two. They'd already beaten the Nazi War Machine at the Battle of Britain, and Hitler had turned his eyes toward Russia. Eventually Russia would have worn down the Nazis, and British and Commonwealth troops would still have reached a point of being able to invade France. It would have just taken longer.

Quote:
Although the situation in Iraq is pretty rough now, things there are certainly improving ... they can only get better, hmmmm.

Improving? Really?

Quote:
Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.

Make that a few decades.

Quote:
As for the UN ... just stay away, please.

Funnily enough, I gather that's what the Iraqis are saying about the US.

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.

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Hey, least we never needed the French to win a war for us.

Ouch. Truth hurts. :)

Good call, since not many Americans seem to remember that...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CITIZEN

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:22 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war ... again and AGAIN.

This would be the Iraq that could barely feed its own people, and was being bombed with impunity by UN forces, that same Iraq yeah?

Quote:
How many died in the Iran/Iraq war?

This would be the war America supported, both materially and politically I take it.

Quote:
How many Iraqi citizens were murderd at his hands over the past few decades?

If you break it down, a lot less than are now dying as the result of the US led invasion.

Quote:
With us so heavily involved in the region, these things have come to an end.

If you screw your eyes up real tight and look the other way...

Quote:
Besides - who else is gonna handle the job at this point? The UN?

The UN was handling it, but now? The US sure as hell isn't doing much of a job.

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.

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Needed the French? LMAO - does anyone really believe that the colonies won their freedom as a result of French assistance? The French may have sped things up a bit, but that's it. We'd have beaten the Brits eventually on our own. The logistics of the whole thing would have just worn the Brits down. Too bad it had to come to war at all.

Burma is a side show because that region of the globe is not critical to global economics.

Stabilization of the global economy is why the U.S. is involved so deeply in the Middle East region of the globe. You all knew that ... right?

Although the situation in Iraq is pretty rough now, things there are certainly improving ... they can only get better, hmmmm.

Give things in Iraq a few years - it'll all shake out for the best.

As for the UN ... just stay away, please.

Let's be Bad Guys...

1) Yes, we absolutely needed the French. Without the influx of French weapons and money, our revolution would have collapsed at a critical time. The "French Connection", as it were, was so crucial and so major that it led directly to the collapse of the French monarchy within 15 years.

2) That region of the globe isn't critical to global economics? Try telling that to China, Hong Kong, the Phillipines, Viet Nam, et al. I think that region of the globe just *MIGHT* be a little important to global economics...

3) Stabilization of the global economy... Oh yeah, THAT'S why we invaded Iraq. I'd forgotten that, until you reminded me. I clearly remember when Bush stood before the nation and said that Saddam had WMD, and that those would destabilize the global economy, and that he was a murderous monster who must be stopped before he destabilized the global economy, or about how the War On Terror was really the War To Stabilize The Global Economy...

4) Things can only get better in Iraq, huh? Guess that puts to lie Cheney's claim about how "swimmingly" things are going there NOW, right? And yes, he did use the word "swimmingly".
To say that things can only get better implies that you think things are horribly wrong there right now, which means you think we've utterly fucked the place up with our invasion and occupation, right?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:36 PM (P)

Hate to say it, but we did need French assistance during the Revolution. They had ships and they had money. We didn't have either.

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:

Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war

So glad BushCo. could step in with immediate peace & stability then....

Biped.

Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Biped.

That's an insult to bipeds everywhere! You're only *assuming* that he's capable of walking upright, and isn't a complete knuckledragger... ;)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:22 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:

Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war
So glad BushCo. could step in with immediate peace & stability then....

Biped.

It was good training for Katrina. They vastly improved upon controlling looting, with a little help from the flooding.

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:27 PM (P)

Quote:

Invading Burma and restoring those industries would be worthwhile.

Also Naval and Air Force bases in Burma would support ongoing operation in the Gulf as well as be perfectly placed to support operations against China.

Well, good to know you're on board with another invasion. How... expected of you. And what could possibly go wrong? Historically, our military plans in South Asia have gone so well!

And why would we need any new air and naval bases in the area to support our operations in the Gulf? Isn't that one already over? Seems I heard somewhere it'd be over in a matter of days, maybe weeks, doubtfully months... So by the time we invade, overthrow, occupy, quell any resistance, and THEN build and staff our bases (say, 15 years or so from now), THEN we'll be able to give some support to our operations in the Gulf, huh?

And what exactly are you planning on doing with China, militarily speaking, that would involve us needing bases in the area? And don't we already have bases in the area, in Diego Garcia, the Phillipines, Japan (Okinawa, for one), Guam, etc.

Face it: even though the people of Myanmar may despise their government, it doesn't mean they want OUR government in its place. The junta might be assholes, but they're THEIR assholes! It's sort of along the lines of "I can call my sister a slut, but if you call her a slut, there's gonna be a fight." They realize they have problems, but they don't necessarily want outside intervention in those problems; they'd prefer to handle them themselves, possibly with our support, but not our direct intervention.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Hate to say it, but we did need French assistance during the Revolution. They had ships and they had money. We didn't have either.

Bingo. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either (a) woefully misinformed, (b) willfully ignorant of history, or (c) simply looking for a reason to discount anything and everything the French have ever done, for the sole reason of making themselves feel better about hating the French.

I have no great love for them... BUT - I'll *always* give them the benefit of the doubt, because without their help when we needed it most, America simply wouldn't have happened.

Don't think for a moment that France did anything for us out of pure altruism, though; they did it with the sole purpose of destabilizing the British Empire and weakening England. And it worked, but it weakened France's ruling class more, and the success of the American Revolution in turn got French peasants thinking that maybe, just MAYBE, they could have a taste of liberty for themselves.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:38 PM (P)

Quote:
Saddam would have plunged the region into complete chaos & war ... again and AGAIN.

So the US had to beat him to it, and show Iraqis how to REALLY plunge headlong into war...

Quote:
How many died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many Iraqi citizens were murderd at his hands over the past few decades?

Fewer than the number of Iraqis who've been murdered since the US-led invasion. And before you say that WE didn't murder them, remember that WE were the ones who removed all checks, and allowed the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence to escalate to unprecedented levels. So yes, those deaths are on our heads.

Quote:
How many Israeli citizens did he murder indirectly by paying off the families of Palestinian terrorists?

I could just as easily ask how many Palestinians "we" murdered indirectly by paying off Israeli "terrorists", so that argument has no real merit.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:53 PM (P)

Enter RWED at your own risk for sure. You never know when you will be put upon by a rabid pack of Hyenas.

CITIZEN

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:54 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I could just as easily ask how many Palestinians "we" murdered indirectly by paying off Israeli "terrorists", so that argument has no real merit.

The death ration runs about 3 Palestinians per Israeli I believe.

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.

JONGSSTRAW

Monday, May 19, 2008 6:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:
How many Iraqi citizens were murderd at his hands over the past few decades?

The US didn't invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons. Only when WMD's were NOT found did that become a "reason." Before we invaded, no one ('cept exiles) cared squat about what Hussein did to his people.

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 19, 2008 6:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Enter RWED at your own risk for sure. You never know when you will be put upon by a rabid pack of Hyenas.

RAAAWWWWGHHHHH!! *cHoMp*

HaHaaHhahhahah!!!!

HAVOCMAN

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:49 PM (P)

Let's see - dog pile and personal insults. Why am I not surprised?

I'll try hitting all the big points, but I may miss a few...

Possible UN or US invasion of Burma ... I don't support that. I doubt it will happen.

The French ... Their assistance during the American Rev War was important, but not necessary. The colonies would have eventually become independent. It would have taken longer - as I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Maybe alot longer. Glad it went the way it did.

Iraq ... What we are doing in Iraq now is working. American, coalition and Iraqi casualties are trending downward. The level of IED activity is down. The Iraqi gov is exercising control over more & more of the nation. Sunni & Shia are working together with IA forces against terrorist threats. This is all true. Check around. It's easy to find the truth if you look a little - I won't do your research for you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many Iraqi citizens were murdered at his hands over the past few decades?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fewer than the number of Iraqis who've been murdered since the US-led invasion.

Your statements about the casualty levels are simply incorrect. The number for the Iran/Iraq war is generally quoted at 1 to 1.5 million. The numbers for the current conflict are far below that - 90K Iraqi deaths is the number that is generally accepted.

Equating Israeli defense of their nation with Palestinian terrorist attacks is beneath further comment.

Also - Just find a Soldier or Marine and ask them how things are going in Iraq. I'll tell you what you'll hear ... It's a crappy job that they are doing, but the situation now is much improved over their last deployment. Do they think things are headed in the right direction now? YES. Do they wish they were home instead? You bet! Are they on good terms with the overwhelming majority of Iraqi folks? Yep! Are the Good Guys winning? Yep (The Good Guys are us, by the way.)

As for going in the first place ... in retrospect, we should have gone in harder and with more. We should not have completely disbanded the Iraqi Army. We should not have De-Bathified the nation so rapidly. The intelligence organizations of every nation involved were convinced that Hussein had WMD's. All were concerned that he would sell or give them away to Jihadists...that would be bad. So, we went. To risk otherwise could have been catastrophic.

As for the folks doing the name calling - that sort of thing doesn't help your position in any way.

It's clear that I'm not going to change any minds here. It's also clear that I'm in the overwhelming minority. What should also be clear is that I'm not about to alter my positions on anything.

It's not easy being right all the time...and I speak from experience.

So, lets just agree to disagree. This will be my last post in this thread.

Let's be Bad Guys...

CITIZEN

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:
Let's see - dog pile and personal insults. Why am I not surprised?

You said something some people don't agree with, those people disagreed with you, if you don't want people to disagree with you, don't post. Calling it a 'dog-pile' is emotive crap.

Quote:
The French ... Their assistance during the American Rev War was important, but not necessary. The colonies would have eventually become independent. It would have taken longer - as I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Maybe alot longer. Glad it went the way it did.

If you say so. Britain didn't need America's help during the Second World War either, it would have just taken longer, maybe a lot longer.

Quote:
Iraq ... What we are doing in Iraq now is working. American, coalition and Iraqi casualties are trending downward.

Actually they aren't, this is trotted out every single time, and there's no evidence to support it. In fact the evidence is that deaths are increasing.

Quote:
The level of IED activity is down. The Iraqi gov is exercising control over more & more of the nation.

Are you making this up as you go along?

Quote:
Sunni & Shia are working together with IA forces against terrorist threats. This is all true. Check around. It's easy to find the truth if you look a little - I won't do your research for you.

Ahh, I see the problem. We're talking about the Iraq in reality, not the one from "Avalon and other Fairytale nations". Really, I have no idea where you're getting this stuff, I have looked for information, and nothing I've seen even remotely supports this.

Quote:
Your statements about the casualty levels are simply incorrect. The number for the Iran/Iraq war is generally quoted at 1 to 1.5 million. The numbers for the current conflict are far below that - 90K Iraqi deaths is the number that is generally accepted.

Yeah, you can't really support a US Anti-Iraq stance off the back of actions taken with the full material and political support of the US. The US didn't give a shit about those deaths when they happened, you can't drag them up now.

Quote:
Equating Israeli defense of their nation with Palestinian terrorist attacks is beneath further comment.

Simplifying the whole situation down to "Israeli good, Palestinian bad" should be beneath further comment.

Quote:
Also - Just find a Soldier or Marine and ask them how things are going in Iraq. I'll tell you what you'll hear ... It's a crappy job that they are doing, but the situation now is much improved over their last deployment. Do they think things are headed in the right direction now? YES. Do they wish they were home instead? You bet! Are they on good terms with the overwhelming majority of Iraqi folks? Yep! Are the Good Guys winning? Yep (The Good Guys are us, by the way.)

Or we could really ask soldiers, rather than hand waving and insultingly saying "the soldiers agree with me, so there!"

Quote:
My name is Donald Hudson Jr. I have been serving our country’s military actively for the last three years. I am currently deployed to Baghdad on Forward Operating Base Loyalty, where I have been for the last four and a half months.

I came here as part of the first wave of this so called "troop surge", but so far it has effectively done nothing to quell insurgent violence. I have seen the rise in violence between the Sunni and Shiite. This country is in the middle of a civil war that has been on going since the seventh century.

Why are we here when this country still to date does not want us here? Why does our president’s personal agenda consume him so much, that he can not pay attention to what is really going on here?

Let me tell you a story. On May 10, I was out on a convoy mission to move barriers from a market to a joint security station. It was no different from any other night, except the improvised explosive device that hit our convoy this time, actually pierced through the armor of one of our trucks. The truck was immediately engulfe

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:46 PM (P)

Because Burma, like Iowa and Belgium, does not exist!

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

FORSAKEN original

CHRISISALL

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by HavocMan:

As for going in the first place ... in retrospect, we should have gone in harder and with more.

The intelligence organizations of every nation involved were convinced that Hussein had WMD's.

So, we went. To risk otherwise could have been catastrophic.

I rarely do this, but here goes.

The following assessment is in regard to this issue only, and not to be taken as an overall judgement of every other facet of one's existence.

You're a frakkin' idiot.

Succinct Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:02 PM (P)

Quote:
90K Iraqi deaths is the number that is generally accepted.

Generally accepted by whom? Several reports have put those numbers quite a bit higher - as many as 600-650k Iraqi deaths.

Quote:

Equating Israeli defense of their nation with Palestinian terrorist attacks is beneath further comment.

Why is it "beneath comment"? Because the Israelis are "defending their nation" whereas the Palestinians no longer have a nation to defend, because it was taken away from them and given to the Israelis? If the Palestinians were "defending their nation", would it be less terrorism and more "freedom fighting"? One man's Contra is another man's death squad, y'know...

I'm not saying I *agree* with the Palestinians; I'm just saying that they just might have a legitimate beef, and no legitimate way to air that beef. It's part of how terrorists are made - you take away everything they have, and any form of redress for wrongs done to them, and then you act surprised when they decided they have nothing to lose but their lives, so they may as well make a statement by their death...

Quote:
Also - Just find a Soldier or Marine and ask them how things are going in Iraq. I'll tell you what you'll hear ... It's a crappy job that they are doing, but the situation now is much improved over their last deployment. Do they think things are headed in the right direction now? YES. Do they wish they were home instead? You bet! Are they on good terms with the overwhelming majority of Iraqi folks? Yep! Are the Good Guys winning? Yep (The Good Guys are us, by the way.)

I've talked to several, all of whom have told me that it's a clusterfuck from top to bottom, with no clear rules of engagement and no organized plan for dealing with anything.

Quote:
As for going in the first place ... in retrospect, we should have gone in harder and with more. We should not have completely disbanded the Iraqi Army. We should not have De-Bathified the nation so rapidly. The intelligence organizations of every nation involved were convinced that Hussein had WMD's. All were concerned that he would sell or give them away to Jihadists...that would be bad. So, we went. To risk otherwise could have been catastrophic.

Bullshit. That's just pure, unadulterated bullshit, and it's been spread far and wide by the same people who told you that Saddam had anything at all to do with 9/11. Saddam was far too greedy to "give them away", and he'd certainly never give them to "Jihadists" - he was far too secular for that! What most people (or at least most Republicans and Neo-Cons) can't figure out, to this day, is that Saddam and Osama are about as ideologically close to each other as Hitler and the Pope - they might both claim to believe in sort of the same god, but that's about the end of it. As people, they are essentially polar opposites. To put Saddam and the fundamentalist Muslims in the same room with each other would be like putting matter and anti-matter together - catastrophic results indeed!

And I love how many do-overs you want (not going in so soft, not dismantling the army, etc.), and then claim how it's not easy being right all the time. By my count, you've yet to be right even once - and even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

Quote:
The intelligence organizations of every nation involved were convinced that Hussein had WMD's.

Not true. Look into it; that's been debunked time and again. The only people who still believe it are, apparently, George W. Bush and those of his followers who still have their heads buried in the sand. Check into it - I'm not going to do your research for you.

Quote:
It's clear that I'm not going to change any minds here. It's also clear that I'm in the overwhelming minority. What should also be clear is that I'm not about to alter my positions on anything.

Well, at least we got THAT cleared up. And you know what they say about a closed mind, right?

Quote:
It's not easy being right all the time...and I speak from experience.

Ummmmm... Yeahh

CITIZEN

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:13 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What most people (or at least most Republicans and Neo-Cons) can't figure out, to this day, is that Saddam and Osama are about as ideologically close to each other as Hitler and the Pope - they might both claim to believe in sort of the same god, but that's about the end of it.

I think that Osama and Saddam were rather less close than Hitler and the ex-Hitler Youth Pope.

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.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:51 AM (P)

Quote:
Don't think for a moment that France did anything for us out of pure altruism.

Maybe not then, but ask the question of where the Statue of Liberty came from...

As long as it's there, I tend to refrain from bashing the French so much.

-F

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Don't think for a moment that France did anything for us out of pure altruism.

Maybe not then, but ask the question of where the Statue of Liberty came from...

As long as it's there, I tend to refrain from bashing the French so much.

-F

Oh, absolutely! For an awful lot of things, I tend to give the French a bit of a "free pass". Not with the whole Vichez France thing in WWII, or the Citroen 2CV, or the Renault "Le Car", but MOST things... :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:04 AM (P)

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PIRATECAT

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:33 PM (P)

For citizen, HOW DARE YOU. It is you sir who puts vinegar on his freedom fries.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

PIRATECAT

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:38 PM (P)

Chrisisall, HOW DOUBLE DARE YOU. You have forgotten about JOHN PAUL JONES the man who stop the 500 years of rule by the Royal Navy of Britannica.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

PIRATECAT

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 12:58 PM (P)

Citizen please, England did not need America's help. Battle of Britain won the war HOLY HA HA. Is that why my grandmother and mother were running down the streets to bomb shelters in Liverpool after the skies were cleared. Yeh my grandfather loved the beach at Dunkirk.. And the French Navy blockaded the Royal Navy from resupplying Yorktown. The war was tied in the North GW owned the country and cities were held by the Brits. When they came down to Dixie is when it was over for them. They won at Charleston and Camden from then on the Scotch-Irish of the south held them at Cowpens, Kingsmountain, Guildford Courthouse, and trapped the mighty British Army at Yorktown. They were beaten even when they had won. Worn out I would say from the Overmountain men of the Smokies and Blue Ridge. Then Andy Jackson in 1812 took care of them with the help of the Cherokees down in Na Orleans. Yeh Yeh ya'll burn our capital. We were in the middle of remodeling anyhoo.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

HERO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:04 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Historically, our military plans in South Asia have gone so well!

I think it would be a mistake to confuse Burma with Vietnam. Burma is far more likely to resemble the Phillipines in the long run. In the short run Burma is so undeveloped and damaged that it would take well to Colonization, just as it did in the 1800s. Done right we could make them as stable and developed as many other nations in the region.

Quote:

And why would we need any new air and naval bases in the area to support our operations in the Gulf? Isn't that one already over?

You confusing "operations in the Gulf" with the recent Gulf conflicts. I note for the record that America has had a military presence in the Gulf since our WW2 occupation of Persia. Examination of a map will show you that Diego Garcia is not a suitable support base...its very, very far to the south and far away from shipping lanes, making it perfect as a base for prepositioned equipment and long range bombers, but not suitable to support a naval task force in the Gulf, Red Sea, or northern India Ocean.

A base in Burma would sit astride major shipping lanes leading to and from the Gulf to the Pacific Rim. It would serve to suppress the very serious pirate problem in the area and give support to Naval and Air units deploying from the Western United States into the region.

Quote:

And what exactly are you planning on doing with China, militarily speaking, that would involve us needing bases in the area?

I would note that the US is planning to fight China should China decide to invade Taiwan.

Recently there are reports of new Chinese bases:
http://www.centralchronicle.com/20080520/2005302.htm

These bases are a step in China's long range plan to build a Navy capable of contesting control of the South China sea.

In the event of war we cannot rely on Japanese support, especially given the China's nuclear arsenal. Should Japan and the Phillipines balk at war we would be forced to support our operations in a Taiwan conflict from bases much further away. Our Aircraft carriers would be within the range of China's land based aviation and without land based fighter support of their own. That would place us at a disadvantage that may not be made up for by our technological superiority.

Seas in the region are shallow. While American submarines are masters of the deep, diesel subs are most effective in shallow waters, and China has some that are as good as any out there today. And they have a LOT more that are anywhere from ok to crap. American subs would lose their best advantages...speed, manuaverability, and quiet advantages. All it would take would be one good sub attack to sink and American carrier and suddenly we're stuck fighting this war with unescorted long range bombers and a few half blind subs with one hand behind their backs.

Quote:

They realize they have problems, but they don't necessarily want outside intervention in those problems; they'd prefer to handle them themselves, possibly with our support, but not our direct intervention.

Wow, your speaking on behalf of Burma. Hell, I can do that. Food, water, shelter, medicine, safety from the crazy guys with the guns who keep taking their food, water, shelter, and medicine...give them that and they wont give a damn what flag you fly over their heads.

H

FLETCH2

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
For citizen, HOW DARE YOU. It is you sir who puts vinegar on his freedom fries.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

He knows what to do when the chips are down.

PIRATECAT

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:33 PM (P)

Ah an attempt at subtle humor, its just that kind of attitude that won the cold war. This is no place for that.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:39 PM (P)

Quote:
give them that and they wont give a damn what flag you fly over their heads.

Wanna bet? Wanna bet with YOUR LIFE for once, instead of betting the lives of thousands of your countrymen who are braver and better than you?

The Brits gave us Colonials food, water, and shelter over our heads - why then did we care what flag they flew over our heads?

You seem to have this batshit notion that other people don't have or deserve the right of self-determination that you SWEAR we have by birth. And once again you're trying to justify inflicting democracy on a nation from the barrel of a gun. Tell me again how you're any better than their current crop of oppressors...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Food, water, shelter, medicine, safety from the crazy guys with the guns who keep taking their food, water, shelter, and medicine...give them that and they wont give a damn what flag you fly over their heads.

This is true, IMO also.

Chrisisall

HERO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The Brits gave us Colonials food, water, and shelter over our heads - why then did we care what flag they flew over our heads?

I note for the record that Americans were largely self sufficient and until the absue of British taxation authority they were largely loyal to the Crown.

A family whose home is destroyed, with no food, no job, no prospects and with children to support would be grateful for help. Once basic survival is assured THEN and only then do they consider larger question of philosophy and govt. Thats why govts like the one in Burma persist. They used armed violence to strictly control the necessities of life and life itself giving the people no real opportunity to make a choice.

By its very nature one cannot impose Democracy from the barrel of a gun...Democracy in Burma would mean removing the gun from their heads.

I note for the record that I am not one who has EVER proposed the invasion of Burma. That role was undertaken by liberals around the world seeking to solve a massive humanitarian crisis. I merely acknowledge that there are legitimate strategic advantages to such an undertaking. In this regard one can draw a distinction with failed humanitarian-based military actions such as Somalia and Rwanda, both of which were colossal failures.

Burma has approx 55 million people making it approximately the same as California and Florida put together. No point here...just stating a fact.

H

CITIZEN

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
For citizen, HOW DARE YOU. It is you sir who puts vinegar on his freedom fries.

I don't eat Fries, freedom or otherwise, Frenchy.

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.

PIRATECAT

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:21 PM (P)

America gets the blame if we go in were oppressors if we stay out were cowards. Lets help em we did in Somalia we just stayed to long.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".

HERO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateCat:
America gets the blame if we go in were oppressors if we stay out were cowards. Lets help em we did in Somalia we just stayed to long.

Our mistake in Somalia was we thought too small. We should have sent 150,000 (plus an international contingent of 50,000...mostly Muslims, who in 1991 were largely on our side) men with tanks and attack helicopters for a long term rebuilding project that included a permanant Naval base on the Horn of Africa.

Apparently the idea of a US base in Somalia is catching on.

http://www.somalipress.com/20080416159/somali-news/somalia-us-warships
-hailed-for-naval-base.html

H

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:36 PM (P)

Yeah, I never really did understand what the hell went on (and went wrong) in Somalia. How the hell did a bunch of low-rent warlords armed with nothing more... well, "Technical" is the term that comes to mind ( )... technical than a couple Toyota Hilux pickups with gun mounts manage to run our boys out of the country? I never could figure that one out...

I actually like your idea of a Muslim contingent. Sure would make it a lot easier to sell it to at least SOME of the Muslim world if we included them in the plans in the future...

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:26 PM (P)

Mike, if you ask the troops on the ground what went wrong, they all start cussing the same guy.

Which'd be Steele, at the time a Captain.
(one of my buddies actually got physically pitched out of a club by his sycophants after asking then Lt Col Steele to sign his copy of Blackhawk down as a snide joke, lol !)

I am not so sure it was wholly Steeles fault, but damned if imma argue it with anyone who WAS there, you understand.

The big problem was really that most of the locals didn't like us, and our own behavior didn't win us any real support from them, without which, you just can NOT support an engagement on that scale because they act as a supportive militia, supply line, and kind of halfass intel and insurgency as well.

You wanna pull something like that off, you NEED the locals, and you need em in your pocket solid, hands down.

Add to that the idiotic myth of american superiority and invincibility, and you're begging for a disaster - stuff like not bringing your armor (Steele, again) and hovering over a hostile neighborhood for several minutes at a time, which is just ASKING for an RPG up the ass, which is exactly what happened to that particular Blackhawk....

It was a combination of complete arrogance and stupidity among the command staff, of the exact same kind which put us up to the ass in Iraq and Afghanistan, and which would guarantee an unmitigated disaster if we tried any "humanitarian" intervention now given our well known history of subversions, coups, propped up dictator scum, and recent abandonment of even the pretense of better moral behavior given renditions and gitmo.

As corrupt as the UN may be, there's less fear that they'd overthrow your government and prop up some dickhead like the Shah to run your country into the ground for the benefit of american corporations, and are they really all that more corrupt than KBR and Helliburton ?

If we REALLY wanna help these people, simple.

Fuck all the diplomatic bullshit, right off, just do this.

Create a lightweight package of food and water with it's own parachute, and tape a small pistol like the FP-45 Liberator to the bottom along with a small american flag and a note in native language.
"From your good friends the americans!"
(No propaganda, just keep it simple)

Then load up some C-5 and C-130s to the brim with them, assign a fighter escort to make sure no one bothers them, and airdrop the things all over the worst affected regions with other useful supplies on seperate pallets.

Do that a couple times, imho a better use of tax monies than "foreign aid" to assholes like a certain country that shall not be named.

And then LEAVE IT ALONE.

They're not *that* stupid, believe me, they'll get the idea, and quickly.

Then when the NEW government takes power, make a deal with them and finish the job.

-Frem
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

HERO

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Create a lightweight package of food and water with it's own parachute, and tape a small pistol like the FP-45 Liberator to the bottom along with a small american flag and a note in native language.
"From your good friends the americans!"
(No propaganda, just keep it simple)

Then load up some C-5 and C-130s to the brim with them, assign a fighter escort to make sure no one bothers them, and airdrop the things all over the worst affected regions with other useful supplies on seperate pallets.

Can't say I disagree with that...although we should vary the weapons load and include assault rifles, grenades, and light anti-tank weapons. We could even include some reliable radios, talk to them and then send them some 'instructors'.

While such measures would not work everywhere, historically they did work in Burma in World War Two. Large numbers of Burmese were conscripted to fight for the Japs and did poorly. Large numbers joined US and British special forces and did very well. Not to mention regular British units like the Bhurma Rifles that fought with distinction to liberate their homeland.

Culturally the Bhurmese would be very well suited to support and prosper from substantial western intervention or even some kind of pseudo-colonization (which would involve them being an autonomous territory for a time like Liberia or the Phillipines).

H

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:38 AM (P)

Well, the key point of that strategy is self-determination.

In essence we'd be saying...
"You want em out, YOU throw em out, here, we'll even help a little, but you gotta do it yourselves."

Sure, there would be some diplomatic whinging no doubt, but we would have the defense of not having explicitly done anything but provide food, water and a means of self defense to the population, and if they wanted to pitch the bums out, hey, it's their country, let em run it how they like.

In the end it would be THEIR decision, and that would make whatever came of it a hell of a lot more stable than anything we could prop up, especially if we actively supported it once it was in place.

It's not so much that we play the game that bothers me, it's that the folks we have currently moving the pieces are so damned bloody awful at it!

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:45 AM (P)

Frem: Thanks for the history lesson. That helps a bit. For some odd reason, I was just tuned out of the news when all that was going down. I remember troops coming into Somalia, then shots of "technicals" roaming around towns, and then... nothing. We were gone, outta there. And then some movie came out which I never saw...

I like the way you're thinking with the "care packages", too. Give 'em food and first aid, and a gun to protect it with. Simple. Effective. Warlords are effective when dealing with an unarmed populace, but push a person far enough, and then give him a gun, and suddenly there's a whole lot fewer warlords in the world.

It's just enough of a Crazy Eddie solution to work! ;)

And it MIGHT just be effective in Burma as well.

One thing to remember, though - once the shooting dies down and a government starts to coalesce, you might not necessarily like where it's headed. But if they're headed in the wrong direction, there's always more care packages to drop...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:17 AM (P)

Exactly.

Although even if we don't see completely eye to eye with the new regime, we can definately parley on past kindness and lucrative trade deals, open the rest of the diplomacy toolbox which has been rusting away as the petty little cowboys stand on it and scream useless threats.

As for getting us out of Somalia, well...

Ok, it's a fact, I despised Clinton and his smiling liars clan from the moment he took office, he was a treacherous double dealing slimerag and a notoriously effective liar, and we SHOULD have sent his snake oil ass to the UN as our rep, woulda been a good use for him, but given the alternatives, well....

Anyhows, one thing I have never called that sumbitch, is STUPID, that much, he never was.

He knew damn well we'd screwed it beyond recovery in Somalia, and Mogadishu was just the icing on the cake, so he wisely decided to cut our losses and get the hell out before we were mired up to our ass in a country fulla folk that hated our guts.

Bastard didn't bother with a bunch of bullshit rhetoric neither, just cut the orders and called em back, no sense throwing good after bad on a situation that was clearly untenable, so why waste our men and resources on a situation we ain't gonna change ?

Man was a scumbag, an adulterous lech, a liar and a crook... but he was never, ever... STUPID.

All things considered, given no better options than we currently have, and excluding Ron Paul, yes, I would vote for him even knowing what he is.

But his wife can go to hell, she's as much a nutter as Tipper Gore, and deep in the pockets of Big Pharma, and I don't want her anywhere near the reins of power, not cause she's a woman, to be honest I would prefer a female president for once, but cause Billary is just plain nuts, and her plans are something even PN would sneer at.

If they ever alter things so the Governator could run, that also opens the field for Jennifer Granholm, who would eat poor Arnie alive in any debate forum you could name.

Anyhows, Clinton might have done a lot of crap I did not approve of in his presidency, but yanking us out of Somalia before we got mousetrapped in there was one of the few things he did that I was 100% on board with.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:33 AM (P)

Quote:
Warlords are effective when dealing with an unarmed populace, but push a person far enough, and then give him a gun, and suddenly there's a whole lot fewer warlords in the world.

Which is, of course, why some folk here in the good ole US of A are so hell fired intent on getting us all unarmed.

But there's arms and arms, you know, you'd be truly amazed at what can be turned out in the average american kitchen or garage with just a little knowhow behind it - we always were an ingenious bunch, when it comes right down to it.

-F

JAYNEZTOWN

Friday, October 24, 2025 7:29 PM (P)

Rohingya Muslims plead for help at the UN to stop the killings in Myanmar
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rohingya-muslims-plead-help-un-220706464.htm
l

from 2015

The fake pictures of the Rohingya crisis
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-32979147

JAYNEZTOWN

Sunday, March 29, 2026 6:27 PM (P)

Discovery of WWII era bombs in East Singhbhum brings spotlight back on Ramgarh town
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ranchi/discovery-of-wwii-era-
bombs-in-east-singhbhum-brings-spotlight-back-on-ramgarh-town/articleshow/129808272.cms

guys in the jungle who did not give up?

Why Tojo’s men loved him – and Japan’s far-Right still does
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-tojo-men-loved-him-120500628.h
tml