Does anyone else get the willies from the Kosovo action???
- Thread starter snoman
- Start date
I don't know if I've shared this jewel i picked up in a class about the Vietnam War, but if applies here. The Prof. was an observer for State Dept during the war and knew some of the big shots during the war. One General told him that the only way we could have won Vietnam (left the country with a W, not just win every battle) was to take all the friendlies put then on a ship in the south China Sea, bomb the country flat and then sink the ship. The war in Kosovo is root so deep that I think thats the only way NATO can get a W otherwise we will be in and out of the region until the communists can take over again. the only thing that prevented this war after WWII was tito was a strong dictator and would have squashed this activity before it got this far
garrick
garrick
Gads!!
Clinton has less sense and control than a drunken high school boy with Dad's car keys.
This is a civil war with roots back over 800-1000 yrs. I am absolutely no fan of the UN, but if the world wants to do anything about this cesspool it is the UN Security Council. It is not our job and not without without UNSC OK and other countries' troops. This is not a unilateral USA move, especially to cover that evil swine's incompetent, treasonous and selfish backside.
That guy will destroy, sacrifice, kill and waste anything that he can think of to save his precious role in history. Why is it that all these bleeding heart "for the children" liberals are always the first to waste our blood for perceived brownie points?
Say goodbye to the economy stupid!
Mark my words...after we piss away our arsenal, look to Asia.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Clinton has less sense and control than a drunken high school boy with Dad's car keys.
This is a civil war with roots back over 800-1000 yrs. I am absolutely no fan of the UN, but if the world wants to do anything about this cesspool it is the UN Security Council. It is not our job and not without without UNSC OK and other countries' troops. This is not a unilateral USA move, especially to cover that evil swine's incompetent, treasonous and selfish backside.
That guy will destroy, sacrifice, kill and waste anything that he can think of to save his precious role in history. Why is it that all these bleeding heart "for the children" liberals are always the first to waste our blood for perceived brownie points?
Say goodbye to the economy stupid!
Mark my words...after we piss away our arsenal, look to Asia.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
I hate to see innocents die as much as the next fellow (or gal) and would hate to think we would stand by and do nothing in the face of a new age holocaust. But this thing is a bit different in that the victims have not asked for our help, in fact they don't want us there. Clinton is bound and determined to help them whether they want it or not (kinda like he "helps" us when we don't want it).
Like the analysts say, this ain't Iraq and we are going to lose some planes and pilots in this one. DC is right about the economy too. Clinton has been swift to claim credit for the good one - who's he going to blame the crash on? Oh yeah ... those damn OPEC ministers. The American sheeple are about to see how fragile an economy is. It can't survive oil production cutbacks and an unpopular military cause for long. Grab your a** folks, we're in for a ride!
Like the analysts say, this ain't Iraq and we are going to lose some planes and pilots in this one. DC is right about the economy too. Clinton has been swift to claim credit for the good one - who's he going to blame the crash on? Oh yeah ... those damn OPEC ministers. The American sheeple are about to see how fragile an economy is. It can't survive oil production cutbacks and an unpopular military cause for long. Grab your a** folks, we're in for a ride!
swifter...
New member
Come now, its just Willie wagging his Chinese dog... Any bets that, as soon as we get thoroughly involved, China moves on Taiwan? And the newsghouls act just like you could believe anything that puke says...
The longer I live, the more I'm amazed...
------------------
Shoot carefully, swifter...
The longer I live, the more I'm amazed...
------------------
Shoot carefully, swifter...
I caught clintons speech on TV tonight. Did anybody else notice the multiple references to a "United" Europe? I think the Brits will do their part in this but the other NATO members will only send token forces at best. Let's face it, this is a US show. These are our planes, our tax dollars and our people at risk so the UN can push their "One World" Philosphy. And there sits clinton ready to start another Vietnam because he thinks it will make him look good.
I don't want to see a new age Holocaust either, But this IS a civil war and none of our bussiness! If you really want to stop it, find that SOB Milokavich (Spelling?) and take him out. Cut the head off the snake and the body dies.
Air strikes can only do so much, in the end ground troops have to move in and take control. Anything less is doomed to failure right from the start. We are in a no win situation. I say screw 'em all. Let them fight it out without us.
I don't want to see a new age Holocaust either, But this IS a civil war and none of our bussiness! If you really want to stop it, find that SOB Milokavich (Spelling?) and take him out. Cut the head off the snake and the body dies.
Air strikes can only do so much, in the end ground troops have to move in and take control. Anything less is doomed to failure right from the start. We are in a no win situation. I say screw 'em all. Let them fight it out without us.
Sent chills up the spine when Clinton said that we were going in to help the "Poor defenseless" people that where stripped of all their arms,and in the same breath that *sshol* will try to get us in the exact same spot.ALL I CAN SAY IS "FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS AND BULLETS FIRST!!!!!"
---snoman---
---snoman---
Jeff Thomas
New member
"THE PREMIER (with slight modifications 
): My fellow Russians, today our Armed Forces joined our NATO allies in air strikes against Washington D.C. forces responsible for the brutality in Arizona. We have acted with resolve for several reasons.
We act to protect thousands of innocent people in Arizona from a mounting military offensive. We act to prevent a wider war; to diffuse a powder keg at the heart of America that has exploded once before in the last century with catastrophic results. And we act to stand united with our allies for peace. By acting now we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace.
Tonight I want to speak to you about the tragedy in Arizona and why it matters to Russia that we work with our allies to end it. First, let me explain what it is we are responding to. Arizona is a State of America, in the middle of the southwestern U.S., just north of Mexico. Its people are mostly ethnic American and mostly Christian.
In 2004, Washington's leader, Al Gore, the same leader who started the wars in Montana and Utah, and moved against Wyoming in the last decade, stripped Arizona of the constitutional autonomy its people enjoyed; thus denying them their right to speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily lives. For years, Arizonans struggled peacefully to get their rights back. When President Gore sent his troops and police to crush them, the struggle grew violent.
Last fall our diplomacy, backed by the threat of force from our NATO Alliance, stopped the fighting for a while, and rescued tens of thousands of people from freezing and starvation in the hills where they had fled to save their lives. And last month, with our allies and Canada, we proposed a peace agreement to end the fighting for good. The Arizona leaders signed that agreement last week. Even though it does not give them all they want, even though their people were still being savaged, they saw that a just peace is better than a long and unwinnable war.
The Washington D.C. leaders, on the other hand, refused even to discuss key elements of the peace agreement. As the Arizonans were saying "yes" to peace, Washington D.C. stationed 40,000 troops in and around Arizona in preparation for a major offensive -- and in clear violation of the commitments they had made.
Now, they've started moving from town to town, shelling civilians and torching their houses. We've seen innocent people taken from their homes, forced to kneel in the dirt and sprayed with bullets; Arizona men dragged from their families, fathers and sons together, lined up and shot in cold blood. This is not war in the traditional sense. It is an attack by tanks and artillery on a largely defenseless people, whose leaders already have agreed to peace.
Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to Russia's national interest. Take a look at this map. Arizona is a small place, but it sits on a major fault line between Mexico, California and Canada, at the meeting place of sanity and both the Western and California branches of Christianity. To the south are our allies, Mexico and Central America; to the north, our new democratic allies in Canada. And all around Arizona there are other small states, struggling with their own economic and political challenges -- states that could be overwhelmed by a large, new wave of refugees from Arizona. All the ingredients for a major war are there: ancient grievances, struggling democracies, and in the center of it all a dictator in Washington D.C. who has done nothing since the Cold War ended but start new wars and pour gasoline on the flames of ethnic and religious division.
Fort Sumter, the battle site of nearby South Carolina, is where the American Civil War began. Washington D.C. has participated in every major war in the last century. In those wars our allies were slow to recognize the dangers, and Russia waited even longer to enter the conflicts. Just imagine if leaders back then had acted wisely and early enough, how many lives could have been saved, how many Russians would not have had to die.
We learned some of the same lessons in Texas just a few years ago. The world did not act early enough to stop that war, either. And let's not forget what happened -- innocent people herded into concentration camps, children gunned down by snipers on their way to school, soccer fields and parks turned into cemeteries; a quarter of a million people killed, not because of anything they have done, but because of who they were. Two million Texans became refugees. This was genocide in the heart of America -- not in 1945, but in 2003. Not in some grainy newsreel from our parents' and grandparents' time, but in our own time, testing our humanity and our resolve.
At the time, many people believed nothing could be done to end the bloodshed in Texas. They said, well, that's just the way those people in Texas are. But when we and our allies joined with courageous Texans to stand up to the aggressors, we helped to end the war. We learned that in the southwestern U.S., inaction in the face of brutality simply invites more brutality. But firmness can stop armies and save lives. We must apply that lesson in Arizona before what happened in Texas happens there, too.
Over the last few months we have done everything we possibly could to solve this problem peacefully. Secretary Alright has worked tirelessly for a negotiated agreement. Mr. Gore has refused.
On Sunday I sent Ambassador Dick Hullbroke to Washington D.C. to make clear to him again, on behalf of Russia and our NATO allies, that he must honor his own commitments and stop his repression, or face military action. Again, he refused.
Today, we and our 18 NATO allies agreed to do what we said we would do, what we must do to restore the peace. Our mission is clear: to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose so that the Washington D.C. leaders understand the imperative of reversing course. To deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Arizona and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Washington D.C. military's capacity to harm the people of Arizona. In short, if President Gore will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.
Now, I want to be clear with you, there are risks in this military action -- risks to our pilots and the people on the ground. Washington D.C.'s air defenses are strong. It could decide to intensify its assault on Arizona, or to seek to harm us or our allies elsewhere. If it does, we will deliver a forceful response.
Hopefully, Mr. Gore will realize his present course is self-destructive and unsustainable. If he decides to accept the peace agreement and demilitarize Arizona, NATO has agreed to help to implement it with a peace-keeping force. If NATO is invited to do so, our troops should take part in that mission to keep the peace. But I do not intend to put our troops in Arizona to fight a war.
Do our interests in Arizona justify the dangers to our Armed Forces? I've thought long and hard about that question. I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting -- dangers to defenseless people and to our national interests. If we and our allies were to allow this war to continue with no response, President Gore would read our hesitation as a license to kill. There would be many more massacres, tens of thousands more refugees, more victims crying out for revenge.
Right now our firmness is the only hope the people of Arizona have to be able to live in their own country without having to fear for their own lives. Remember: We asked them to accept peace, and they did. We asked them to promise to lay down their arms, and they agreed. We pledged that we, Russia and the other 18 nations of NATO, would stick by them if they did the right thing. We cannot let them down now.
Imagine what would happen if we and our allies instead decided just to look the other way, as these people were massacred on NATO's doorstep. That would discredit NATO, the cornerstone on which our security has rested for 50 years now.
We must also remember that this is a conflict with no natural national boundaries. Let me ask you to look again at a map. The red dots are towns the Washington D.C. military has attacked. The arrows show the movement of refugees -- north, east and south. Already, this movement is threatening the young democracy in New Mexico, which has its own Arizonan minority and a Texan minority. Already, Washington D.C. forces have made forays into Nevada from which Arizonans have drawn support. Nevada is a gambling minority. Let a fire burn here in this area and the flames will spread. Eventually, key Russian allies could be drawn into a wider conflict, a war we would be forced to confront later -- only at far greater risk and greater cost.
I have a responsibility as Premier to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests. Russia has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom and stability in the U.S. That is what we are doing in Arizona.
If we've learned anything from the last century, it is that if Russia is going to be prosperous and secure, we need a North America that is prosperous, secure undivided and free. We need a North America that is coming together, not falling apart; a North America that shares our values and shares the burdens of leadership. That is the foundation on which the security of our children will depend.
That is why I have supported the political and economic unification of North America. That is why we brought Maryland, Georgia and South Carolina into NATO, and redefined its missions, and reached out to Texas and Vermont for new partnerships.
Now, what are the challenges to that vision of a peaceful, secure, united, stable North America? The challenge of strengthening a partnership with a democratic United States, that, despite our disagreements, is a constructive partner in the work of building peace. The challenge of resolving the tension between Mexico and California and building bridges with the Christian world. And, finally, the challenge of ending instability in the southwestern U.S. so that these bitter ethnic problems in North America are resolved with the force of argument, not the force of arms; so that future generations of Russians do not have to cross the Atlantic to fight a terrible war.
It is this challenge that we and our allies are facing in Arizona. That is why we have acted now -- because we care about saving innocent lives; because we have an interest in avoiding an even crueler and costlier war; and because our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free North America.
Our thoughts and prayers tonight must be with the men and women of our Armed Forces who are undertaking this mission for the sake of our values and our children's future. May God bless them and may God bless Russia."
The President's words sound a bit different when you substitute a few place names. It's probably my poor memory, but I thought these do-gooder forays into civil wars didn't seem to work out very well. But then Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon were all big successes, right? Hmmm ...
With due respect and honest prayer for our fellow Americans in uniform ... I do tend to think the odds of terrorist attacks against our country increase every time we pick out another patch of the world to bomb. Perhaps we should no longer call it the Department of Defense - and return to its earlier name, the War Department.
I think this is a poorly conceived battle plan. It would have made more sense to lift the arms embargo, and permit the Albanians to arm and defend themselves. Fat chance with this administration.
): My fellow Russians, today our Armed Forces joined our NATO allies in air strikes against Washington D.C. forces responsible for the brutality in Arizona. We have acted with resolve for several reasons.We act to protect thousands of innocent people in Arizona from a mounting military offensive. We act to prevent a wider war; to diffuse a powder keg at the heart of America that has exploded once before in the last century with catastrophic results. And we act to stand united with our allies for peace. By acting now we are upholding our values, protecting our interests and advancing the cause of peace.
Tonight I want to speak to you about the tragedy in Arizona and why it matters to Russia that we work with our allies to end it. First, let me explain what it is we are responding to. Arizona is a State of America, in the middle of the southwestern U.S., just north of Mexico. Its people are mostly ethnic American and mostly Christian.
In 2004, Washington's leader, Al Gore, the same leader who started the wars in Montana and Utah, and moved against Wyoming in the last decade, stripped Arizona of the constitutional autonomy its people enjoyed; thus denying them their right to speak their language, run their schools, shape their daily lives. For years, Arizonans struggled peacefully to get their rights back. When President Gore sent his troops and police to crush them, the struggle grew violent.
Last fall our diplomacy, backed by the threat of force from our NATO Alliance, stopped the fighting for a while, and rescued tens of thousands of people from freezing and starvation in the hills where they had fled to save their lives. And last month, with our allies and Canada, we proposed a peace agreement to end the fighting for good. The Arizona leaders signed that agreement last week. Even though it does not give them all they want, even though their people were still being savaged, they saw that a just peace is better than a long and unwinnable war.
The Washington D.C. leaders, on the other hand, refused even to discuss key elements of the peace agreement. As the Arizonans were saying "yes" to peace, Washington D.C. stationed 40,000 troops in and around Arizona in preparation for a major offensive -- and in clear violation of the commitments they had made.
Now, they've started moving from town to town, shelling civilians and torching their houses. We've seen innocent people taken from their homes, forced to kneel in the dirt and sprayed with bullets; Arizona men dragged from their families, fathers and sons together, lined up and shot in cold blood. This is not war in the traditional sense. It is an attack by tanks and artillery on a largely defenseless people, whose leaders already have agreed to peace.
Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative. It is also important to Russia's national interest. Take a look at this map. Arizona is a small place, but it sits on a major fault line between Mexico, California and Canada, at the meeting place of sanity and both the Western and California branches of Christianity. To the south are our allies, Mexico and Central America; to the north, our new democratic allies in Canada. And all around Arizona there are other small states, struggling with their own economic and political challenges -- states that could be overwhelmed by a large, new wave of refugees from Arizona. All the ingredients for a major war are there: ancient grievances, struggling democracies, and in the center of it all a dictator in Washington D.C. who has done nothing since the Cold War ended but start new wars and pour gasoline on the flames of ethnic and religious division.
Fort Sumter, the battle site of nearby South Carolina, is where the American Civil War began. Washington D.C. has participated in every major war in the last century. In those wars our allies were slow to recognize the dangers, and Russia waited even longer to enter the conflicts. Just imagine if leaders back then had acted wisely and early enough, how many lives could have been saved, how many Russians would not have had to die.
We learned some of the same lessons in Texas just a few years ago. The world did not act early enough to stop that war, either. And let's not forget what happened -- innocent people herded into concentration camps, children gunned down by snipers on their way to school, soccer fields and parks turned into cemeteries; a quarter of a million people killed, not because of anything they have done, but because of who they were. Two million Texans became refugees. This was genocide in the heart of America -- not in 1945, but in 2003. Not in some grainy newsreel from our parents' and grandparents' time, but in our own time, testing our humanity and our resolve.
At the time, many people believed nothing could be done to end the bloodshed in Texas. They said, well, that's just the way those people in Texas are. But when we and our allies joined with courageous Texans to stand up to the aggressors, we helped to end the war. We learned that in the southwestern U.S., inaction in the face of brutality simply invites more brutality. But firmness can stop armies and save lives. We must apply that lesson in Arizona before what happened in Texas happens there, too.
Over the last few months we have done everything we possibly could to solve this problem peacefully. Secretary Alright has worked tirelessly for a negotiated agreement. Mr. Gore has refused.
On Sunday I sent Ambassador Dick Hullbroke to Washington D.C. to make clear to him again, on behalf of Russia and our NATO allies, that he must honor his own commitments and stop his repression, or face military action. Again, he refused.
Today, we and our 18 NATO allies agreed to do what we said we would do, what we must do to restore the peace. Our mission is clear: to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose so that the Washington D.C. leaders understand the imperative of reversing course. To deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Arizona and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Washington D.C. military's capacity to harm the people of Arizona. In short, if President Gore will not make peace, we will limit his ability to make war.
Now, I want to be clear with you, there are risks in this military action -- risks to our pilots and the people on the ground. Washington D.C.'s air defenses are strong. It could decide to intensify its assault on Arizona, or to seek to harm us or our allies elsewhere. If it does, we will deliver a forceful response.
Hopefully, Mr. Gore will realize his present course is self-destructive and unsustainable. If he decides to accept the peace agreement and demilitarize Arizona, NATO has agreed to help to implement it with a peace-keeping force. If NATO is invited to do so, our troops should take part in that mission to keep the peace. But I do not intend to put our troops in Arizona to fight a war.
Do our interests in Arizona justify the dangers to our Armed Forces? I've thought long and hard about that question. I am convinced that the dangers of acting are far outweighed by the dangers of not acting -- dangers to defenseless people and to our national interests. If we and our allies were to allow this war to continue with no response, President Gore would read our hesitation as a license to kill. There would be many more massacres, tens of thousands more refugees, more victims crying out for revenge.
Right now our firmness is the only hope the people of Arizona have to be able to live in their own country without having to fear for their own lives. Remember: We asked them to accept peace, and they did. We asked them to promise to lay down their arms, and they agreed. We pledged that we, Russia and the other 18 nations of NATO, would stick by them if they did the right thing. We cannot let them down now.
Imagine what would happen if we and our allies instead decided just to look the other way, as these people were massacred on NATO's doorstep. That would discredit NATO, the cornerstone on which our security has rested for 50 years now.
We must also remember that this is a conflict with no natural national boundaries. Let me ask you to look again at a map. The red dots are towns the Washington D.C. military has attacked. The arrows show the movement of refugees -- north, east and south. Already, this movement is threatening the young democracy in New Mexico, which has its own Arizonan minority and a Texan minority. Already, Washington D.C. forces have made forays into Nevada from which Arizonans have drawn support. Nevada is a gambling minority. Let a fire burn here in this area and the flames will spread. Eventually, key Russian allies could be drawn into a wider conflict, a war we would be forced to confront later -- only at far greater risk and greater cost.
I have a responsibility as Premier to deal with problems such as this before they do permanent harm to our national interests. Russia has a responsibility to stand with our allies when they are trying to save innocent lives and preserve peace, freedom and stability in the U.S. That is what we are doing in Arizona.
If we've learned anything from the last century, it is that if Russia is going to be prosperous and secure, we need a North America that is prosperous, secure undivided and free. We need a North America that is coming together, not falling apart; a North America that shares our values and shares the burdens of leadership. That is the foundation on which the security of our children will depend.
That is why I have supported the political and economic unification of North America. That is why we brought Maryland, Georgia and South Carolina into NATO, and redefined its missions, and reached out to Texas and Vermont for new partnerships.
Now, what are the challenges to that vision of a peaceful, secure, united, stable North America? The challenge of strengthening a partnership with a democratic United States, that, despite our disagreements, is a constructive partner in the work of building peace. The challenge of resolving the tension between Mexico and California and building bridges with the Christian world. And, finally, the challenge of ending instability in the southwestern U.S. so that these bitter ethnic problems in North America are resolved with the force of argument, not the force of arms; so that future generations of Russians do not have to cross the Atlantic to fight a terrible war.
It is this challenge that we and our allies are facing in Arizona. That is why we have acted now -- because we care about saving innocent lives; because we have an interest in avoiding an even crueler and costlier war; and because our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free North America.
Our thoughts and prayers tonight must be with the men and women of our Armed Forces who are undertaking this mission for the sake of our values and our children's future. May God bless them and may God bless Russia."
The President's words sound a bit different when you substitute a few place names. It's probably my poor memory, but I thought these do-gooder forays into civil wars didn't seem to work out very well. But then Vietnam, Somalia, Lebanon were all big successes, right? Hmmm ...
With due respect and honest prayer for our fellow Americans in uniform ... I do tend to think the odds of terrorist attacks against our country increase every time we pick out another patch of the world to bomb. Perhaps we should no longer call it the Department of Defense - and return to its earlier name, the War Department.
I think this is a poorly conceived battle plan. It would have made more sense to lift the arms embargo, and permit the Albanians to arm and defend themselves. Fat chance with this administration.
Don't forget that it was the UN, NATO and the US that established the arms blockade that allowed one side to arm themselves well while the other side suffered. Now "we" have decided to step and help the poor people that have been suffering. The best thing anybody could/should do is lift the arms blockade and get the hell out of the Balkans.
The Serbs have 40,000 troops dug in, it takes 10 soldiers to dig out one (1) dug in enemy. That is 10 fighting men to get 1, not an economic return as far as I can see. So now to get the 40,000 we need 400,000.
Let us think of what can happen, the economy goes to hell, political unrest starts in the US because people get tired of seeing GI's coming home in body bags, the war in Serbia grows, the Main Land Chinese flex their muscles in Asia, the Y2K problem is worse than we thought (or is made to look worse) and the First Felon suspends the Constitution and assumes the powers of a dictator "Until these problems resolve themselves."
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited March 25, 1999).]
The Serbs have 40,000 troops dug in, it takes 10 soldiers to dig out one (1) dug in enemy. That is 10 fighting men to get 1, not an economic return as far as I can see. So now to get the 40,000 we need 400,000.
Let us think of what can happen, the economy goes to hell, political unrest starts in the US because people get tired of seeing GI's coming home in body bags, the war in Serbia grows, the Main Land Chinese flex their muscles in Asia, the Y2K problem is worse than we thought (or is made to look worse) and the First Felon suspends the Constitution and assumes the powers of a dictator "Until these problems resolve themselves."
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited March 25, 1999).]
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Interesting what Bill said at the end of his speech...that we need to do this for our *children*, that they might live in a safer world.
Now there's a novel approach. Appealing for our support based on helping "our children".....NOT.
To use a euphemized Marcinko term...looks like a classic goatscrew to me.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited March 25, 1999).]
Now there's a novel approach. Appealing for our support based on helping "our children".....NOT.
To use a euphemized Marcinko term...looks like a classic goatscrew to me.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited March 25, 1999).]
i would have been happy to see the military actions years ago to stop the genocide. if it comes now i welcome it but i think it is to late.
clinton is a vermin. he has no spine and no morals. gore no better. whoever runs against them is who i vote for. be it hulk hogan, stone cold, or anyone else.
clinton is a vermin. he has no spine and no morals. gore no better. whoever runs against them is who i vote for. be it hulk hogan, stone cold, or anyone else.
Vietnam was before my time, but I've seen lots of news footage on the Congressional debates and "brawls" concerning it...I remember the same debates and hearings concerning Desert Storm.
How come there weren't any for Koscovo?
We have the Chinese with cameras up our backside, stealing us blind...a military at less than half strength and our techie toy arsenal is less than 40% and we have nukes pointed at our backyards. Best case scenario we pull off Koscovo with minimal losses and then our arsenal is what...down to 20-30%? Then we pull out and Milosovich starts up again next year...then Saddam...then the N. Koreans, then the Chinese....I see no military spending and I hardly think RJ Reynolds/PJ Larillard and Ruger/S&W/Colt etc have enough dinero to pony up and build us up a "superpower" military.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
How come there weren't any for Koscovo?
We have the Chinese with cameras up our backside, stealing us blind...a military at less than half strength and our techie toy arsenal is less than 40% and we have nukes pointed at our backyards. Best case scenario we pull off Koscovo with minimal losses and then our arsenal is what...down to 20-30%? Then we pull out and Milosovich starts up again next year...then Saddam...then the N. Koreans, then the Chinese....I see no military spending and I hardly think RJ Reynolds/PJ Larillard and Ruger/S&W/Colt etc have enough dinero to pony up and build us up a "superpower" military.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Has anyone else noticed that Clinton only hated war and the military when it was possible that HE might be forced to go and fight?
Now that he's a fat*ssed old Bas*** who who can sit around getting oral grats whenever he feels like it, why isn't he just the strong, no nonsense military leader?
**** that sorry ******* piece of **** he's not fit to kiss the ******* crusty crack of my Jarhead ***! How DARE he play the military as a political card!
I can't say how I'd like to see all this end. I know, but I can't say it.
So much for freedom of speech huh?
------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
Now that he's a fat*ssed old Bas*** who who can sit around getting oral grats whenever he feels like it, why isn't he just the strong, no nonsense military leader?
**** that sorry ******* piece of **** he's not fit to kiss the ******* crusty crack of my Jarhead ***! How DARE he play the military as a political card!
I can't say how I'd like to see all this end. I know, but I can't say it.
So much for freedom of speech huh?
------------------
Your mind is your primary weapon.
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Clinton rides again. Great 
Dropping the arms embargo would never occur to these people, now would it?
Read some history. If they have access to arms, my money is on the Albanians.
In 1980, in the first days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, all the pundits were predicting the eminent collapse of Afghan resistance.
My reply then was to read some history. If the Afghans are conquered it will be the first time in 3000 years. Alexander the Great failed. Everyone who came after him failed. The writ of the British Raj never carried weight out of sight of Kabul in the 19th century.
But the Soviets have the most powerful land army in existence! replied the pundits. Yes, they do, but the Afghans have the Himalayas and 3000 years of defeating invaders. When they are not fighting invaders during the past three millenia they have been fighting each other. About like New Yorkers saying,"Hell, it's getting real boring here, let's go burn down Boston."
The Albanians have a similar history. Albania has been included within the confines of several empires during history. Examine how much control these empires actually exerted over Albania.
It's getting real damn easy for presidents of whatever persuasion to order out the Air Force and Navy. But you don't control a piece of ground until you put a seventeen year old kid on it with a rifle. I don't know of any American 17 year olds I want over there. It's a European problem-let the Europeans bleed for it.
Dropping the arms embargo would never occur to these people, now would it?
Read some history. If they have access to arms, my money is on the Albanians.
In 1980, in the first days of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, all the pundits were predicting the eminent collapse of Afghan resistance.
My reply then was to read some history. If the Afghans are conquered it will be the first time in 3000 years. Alexander the Great failed. Everyone who came after him failed. The writ of the British Raj never carried weight out of sight of Kabul in the 19th century.
But the Soviets have the most powerful land army in existence! replied the pundits. Yes, they do, but the Afghans have the Himalayas and 3000 years of defeating invaders. When they are not fighting invaders during the past three millenia they have been fighting each other. About like New Yorkers saying,"Hell, it's getting real boring here, let's go burn down Boston."
The Albanians have a similar history. Albania has been included within the confines of several empires during history. Examine how much control these empires actually exerted over Albania.
It's getting real damn easy for presidents of whatever persuasion to order out the Air Force and Navy. But you don't control a piece of ground until you put a seventeen year old kid on it with a rifle. I don't know of any American 17 year olds I want over there. It's a European problem-let the Europeans bleed for it.
Brett Bellmore
New member
Has anyone considered that this Milosovich character is just the guy to say, "Fine, you're bombing our country, so we'll bomb yours!"? And then start what the press will doubtless call "terrorist" bombings here in the U.S., despite the fact that we're in a war with Serbia which WE started. We've been getting into more and more of these foreign wars, and the reason the people cheer them on is that we don't suffer any at home. How long is that going to last? Not much longer, I suspect.
Gwinnydapooh
Retired Screen Name
Well, I can see I'm not going to change anyone's mind. You've all stated my position pretty well. But screw it, I'd like to vent, please.
Clinton: As far as I'm concerned, after that goatf*** in Iraq over Ramadan, ANY call by Clinton for ANY use of the military should be subject to referendum. The man has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to use military action to gain points and reputation. I remind you that Kennedy's escalation in Vietnam was partly based on his wish to look tough to the Communists in order to bargain better. Ken Cook, that was a brilliant point. My father didn't go to Vietnam either; he got exceptionally high scores on mechanical aptitude tests and got into the Air Guard. But now, 30 years later, he stands by his decision like a man. He does not hide it, nor does he suggest that I and my friends have some duty to wipe out the Serbs for winning a war that we handicapped in their favor. That's a key difference.
"Poor, defenseless, unarmed Kosovars?" Sounds exactly like the liberal approach to crime to me. First, disarm people as much as possible. Then, when crime rises, offer to "protect" them with more police and more laws. Same-same here; we enforced the arms embargo to disarm the Kosovars, now we offer to "protect" them from the big bad Serbs. Nothing is free; the price in both examples is that your protector has you permanently under his thumb. That's the real objective in Kosovo, I think. It's nothing new; the mafia has been using this for generations.
Has anyone ever explained WHY a "united Europe" is good? I'm really asking; I don't know if it's been explained well before and I just missed it. Personally, I thought we were supposed to love diversity and multiculturalism, or does that only apply to non-Western cultures?
Finally, the next time anyone tells you that Clinton, Albright and Holbrooke (sp?) have "done everything we could" to achieve "lasting peace in this troubled region" you have Uncle Don's permission to laugh heartily in his/her face. Has everyone forgotten that Holbrooke and Albright both stated clearly that any peace accord that "does not meet with U.S. approval" would result in the use of force? In other words, if the Serbs sign it, and the Kosovars sign it, but we don't like it, we bomb them anyway. As it turns out, that's just what happened.
The whole thing is disgusting. I haven't even had a chance to evaluate any of the more plausible reasons to intervene because I spend so much time listing the reasons to throw Clinton in a pond.
But before I totally lose my sense of humor, I think it's possible that Jesse Ventura could at least make a strong showing in 2000. Does anyone really want to vote for Bush, Dole, or Gore? Yeccchh. Besides, I was impressed with the way he handled his budget, though I don't like the fact that he gets a CCW for gov't buildings and I can't get one for my neighborhood walks.
If elected, I think he should appoint Vince McMahon as Secretary of State and Paul White as Ambassador to China. Now THAT would be diplomacy in action.
Clinton: As far as I'm concerned, after that goatf*** in Iraq over Ramadan, ANY call by Clinton for ANY use of the military should be subject to referendum. The man has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to use military action to gain points and reputation. I remind you that Kennedy's escalation in Vietnam was partly based on his wish to look tough to the Communists in order to bargain better. Ken Cook, that was a brilliant point. My father didn't go to Vietnam either; he got exceptionally high scores on mechanical aptitude tests and got into the Air Guard. But now, 30 years later, he stands by his decision like a man. He does not hide it, nor does he suggest that I and my friends have some duty to wipe out the Serbs for winning a war that we handicapped in their favor. That's a key difference.
"Poor, defenseless, unarmed Kosovars?" Sounds exactly like the liberal approach to crime to me. First, disarm people as much as possible. Then, when crime rises, offer to "protect" them with more police and more laws. Same-same here; we enforced the arms embargo to disarm the Kosovars, now we offer to "protect" them from the big bad Serbs. Nothing is free; the price in both examples is that your protector has you permanently under his thumb. That's the real objective in Kosovo, I think. It's nothing new; the mafia has been using this for generations.
Has anyone ever explained WHY a "united Europe" is good? I'm really asking; I don't know if it's been explained well before and I just missed it. Personally, I thought we were supposed to love diversity and multiculturalism, or does that only apply to non-Western cultures?
Finally, the next time anyone tells you that Clinton, Albright and Holbrooke (sp?) have "done everything we could" to achieve "lasting peace in this troubled region" you have Uncle Don's permission to laugh heartily in his/her face. Has everyone forgotten that Holbrooke and Albright both stated clearly that any peace accord that "does not meet with U.S. approval" would result in the use of force? In other words, if the Serbs sign it, and the Kosovars sign it, but we don't like it, we bomb them anyway. As it turns out, that's just what happened.
The whole thing is disgusting. I haven't even had a chance to evaluate any of the more plausible reasons to intervene because I spend so much time listing the reasons to throw Clinton in a pond.
But before I totally lose my sense of humor, I think it's possible that Jesse Ventura could at least make a strong showing in 2000. Does anyone really want to vote for Bush, Dole, or Gore? Yeccchh. Besides, I was impressed with the way he handled his budget, though I don't like the fact that he gets a CCW for gov't buildings and I can't get one for my neighborhood walks.
If elected, I think he should appoint Vince McMahon as Secretary of State and Paul White as Ambassador to China. Now THAT would be diplomacy in action.
I agree w/ everybody on here. we've got no business sending our people over there to die for something that's none of our business! if we wanted to help the Albanians, we should have just sent them arms and ammo and said here, fight those who are trying to eradicate you. I agree w/ Ken in that clinton didn't want to go fight himself, but by damn he sure don't mind sending other people to do it. Damn, that lying SOB!!! The things i wish on him can't be printed on here!! May God (or whatever deity you may pray to) keep our troops safe!! Rich,i would like to use one of Marcinko's sayings too, DOOM ON CLINTON & HIS CRONIES who sent our people into a place to get killed just for his own legacy!!
------------------
fiat justitia
longhaircsa@netscape.net
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited March 25, 1999).]
------------------
fiat justitia
longhaircsa@netscape.net
[This message has been edited by longhair (edited March 25, 1999).]
According to the meat puppets that give us what is supposed to be the news, the country is evenly divided about the mission in Kosovo. Considering the biased slant that most of the network news divisions have, I have to wonder what the actual proportion of that "evenly divided" public opinion really is.
Our armed forces fired off $100 million worth of cruise missles last night, put hundreds of "allied" pilots at risk, and accomplished what?! The Russians and Chinese are making unhappy noises now. The likelihood that they will re-arm Milosevich with newer and better weapons than he had before the air strikes is now a very real possibility.
All the news anchors are asking about "exit strategy" before the first bomb damage assessments even come in. Meanwhile, the "Serbian Madman" is probably hunkered down someplace nice and cozy while we fly around in our $2 billion B-2 bombers, blowing up God knows what!
Flashback to the campaign in Iraq. We bomb that country back to the stone age. Its people are living lives of despair and deprivation while their leader Saddam goes about building himself one luxurious presidential palace after another.
As Yogi Berra once said, "it's deja-vu, all over again".
Milosevich is playing Clinton like a cheap fiddle. He knows that our draft-dodging, lying pervert-in-chief doesn't have the character, prestige or support to maintain a campaign against him for very long. The only way that we're ever going to see peace in that troubled corner of the world is by putting in a permanent army of occupation. Something that our fearless leader and his acomplices refuse to acknowledge.
The people in this region have been hating and killing each other for hundreds of years. That's not going to stop because of anything Clinton is doing now.
Yeah, this situation IS really scary!
Our armed forces fired off $100 million worth of cruise missles last night, put hundreds of "allied" pilots at risk, and accomplished what?! The Russians and Chinese are making unhappy noises now. The likelihood that they will re-arm Milosevich with newer and better weapons than he had before the air strikes is now a very real possibility.
All the news anchors are asking about "exit strategy" before the first bomb damage assessments even come in. Meanwhile, the "Serbian Madman" is probably hunkered down someplace nice and cozy while we fly around in our $2 billion B-2 bombers, blowing up God knows what!
Flashback to the campaign in Iraq. We bomb that country back to the stone age. Its people are living lives of despair and deprivation while their leader Saddam goes about building himself one luxurious presidential palace after another.
As Yogi Berra once said, "it's deja-vu, all over again".
Milosevich is playing Clinton like a cheap fiddle. He knows that our draft-dodging, lying pervert-in-chief doesn't have the character, prestige or support to maintain a campaign against him for very long. The only way that we're ever going to see peace in that troubled corner of the world is by putting in a permanent army of occupation. Something that our fearless leader and his acomplices refuse to acknowledge.
The people in this region have been hating and killing each other for hundreds of years. That's not going to stop because of anything Clinton is doing now.
Yeah, this situation IS really scary!