posted on October 9, 2001 05:08:42 PM
saljo63, dont go back to lurk. Your input was appreciated. Hang around awhile. We wont bite. Not too hard, anyway.
posted on October 10, 2001 12:39:09 AM
The people in AW don't get it about this so-called war. No real war is run by politicians--generals do that and if they aren't allowed to prosecute truly military operations the little guys get killed in droves. Your little boy Johnny mangled beyond recognition and the pieces of him gathered up by his friends to put in a plastic bag to send home to you. That's what was wrong with Vietnam, that's what happened in Iraq although it was a very easy war (the significance of the voluntary retirement of the only true military general immediately afterward was lost on most of the nation), and now here we are again. People are going to be killed for the wrong reasons, and by our own people. Would you want your son to have died to place some ribbon on the chest of an incompetent suckass? Or in an effort to re-elect a president who never had a right to the job in the first place? Didn't think so. As far as getting rid of bin laden, or all of the terrorists currently active--it would be child's play to the trained killers that we have available, the Delta force guys who were formed after the munich games to emulate the extremely effective Israeli unit with the same purpose. We've always had such people. Read about the Phoenix operations in Vietnam. But no, we have to have this stupid show war. I had to laugh at some politico, Rumsfeld I guess, saying today that we had achieved air superiority today. As if there was any question of a threat? This adversary isn't worth our effort in war and the entire thing is a farce.
As for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares? Women don't fight wars, and I doubt that many of the AW women
would be appreciated as cheerleaders by the strong young men in uniform.
posted on October 10, 2001 01:02:46 AM
I expected you'd have something to say about the "loose lips" flame war between Bush and Congress. Anything in the works?
posted on October 10, 2001 01:28:14 AM
Quite a tantrum. He lost some friendly support in congress and will pay for that sometime in the future. Those guys have long memories.
posted on October 10, 2001 01:31:45 AMkrsAs for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares? Women don't fight wars, and I doubt that many of the AW women would be appreciated as cheerleaders by the strong young men in uniform.
Oooooooh! I like that krs, really a nice touch, b!tch slap em to get noticed. While I believe your posts are 'balloon juice' I do tip my hat to the skill you have at baiting folks. Did a need for attention hone that skill for you?
Will you be issuing out permits on who can post about their beliefs? You feel that women aren't able to read the news and make their own judgements?
...warmonger Inspirational krs! Did you giggle uncontrollably when you typed out that one?
If that phrasing brings you to the point of feeling neglected as it seems to have done, please feel free to consider it as applicable to you. It has already been suggested that gender related wordings are not necessarily gender specific and I see no reason not to fall in line with that viewpoint.
posted on October 10, 2001 02:16:02 AMkrsIt has already been suggested that gender related wordings are not necessarily gender specific and I see no reason not to fall in line with that viewpoint.
Ah, okay so if you say "As for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares?" you mean that in the non gender sense.
Does this be applied to other aspects of forum etiquette? If I should post "A typical krs troll post" it wouldn't necessarily be a 'member specific' post but could apply to any troll that posted not to say something, but only to bait others?
posted on October 10, 2001 02:50:53 AM
Well, I'm certainly willing to try to help you to understand, but would you first define your terms? Specifically those terms which condition a "troll post" and "a typical krs troll post" as you have used them.
Please realize that I have not said that if I post, for example "As for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares?" that I mean anything which you have interpreted. I have only allowed for you feelings in offering that you may, if you need to, consider the term applicable to you. If you look again at my post above you may see that that is exactly what I said, and that no where did I say any thing which you seem to have decided that I did say.
posted on October 10, 2001 03:52:47 AMthe significance of the voluntary retirement of the only true military general immediately afterward was lost on most of the nation
MacArthur in Korea. Same thing. History does repeat it self.
No real war is run by politicians--generals do that
Not quite true. Even in a well prosecuted war, there are political considerations. Change it "No real military operation is run by politicians", and I would agree.
One of the goals, I think, is to oust the Taliban. Unless we want to occupy Afganistan for 10 years or longer, there are a lot of political considerations.
It's a little early for me to judge if Bush is "wagging the dog", but it always is a big temptation to US Presidents.
posted on October 10, 2001 04:12:32 AM
I used 'no real war' to mean the actual conduct of war operations.
Schwartskoff (sp?) kept his views quiet for the most part, as most soldiers would, but there was a telling interview about six months after he left and carried on late night c-span in which he allowed for it to be quite clear that his retirement was a result of his frustration with bush. Powell was more outspoken at the time and his frustration brought him near to a display of rage in one appearance on a news show interview.
posted on October 10, 2001 04:19:47 AMkrsPlease realize that I have not said that if I post, for example "As for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares?" that I mean anything which you have interpreted. I have only allowed for you feelings in offering that you may, if you need to, consider the term applicable to you.
So if I post, "That's a load of jibberish also known as the krs sidestep" the interpretation would be up to the individual. Those that were offended would merely be placing themselves in the path of the insult by the way they have placed their unique meanings on the words. Interesting concept.
posted on October 10, 2001 04:40:55 AM
krs I have a couple questions for you. I believe I read in another thread that you were in the service at one time, is that correct? Which branch? And what was your MOS?
I don't know how to do the italic thing, but krs posted:
"As for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares? Women don't fight wars, and I doubt that many of the AW women
would be appreciated as cheerleaders by the strong young men in uniform."
Well, I'm a woman and I'm here at AW....but I am not a warmonger. What I AM is very proud of our men and women in uniform! I have been around the military all my life and the young men in uniform DO appreciate our cheerleading! When was the last time you were around a group of military men?
As for your comment that "women don't fight wars"...bull malarky! Check your history.
posted on October 10, 2001 05:02:14 AM
"As far as getting rid of bin laden, or all of the terrorists currently active--it would be child's play to the trained killers that we have available, the Delta force guys who were formed after the munich games to emulate the extremely effective Israeli unit with the same purpose."
I thought Clinton said he tried that? That is what he said on TV a few days after the WTC attack. He was shut up right after and has been seen rarely since. Jess
posted on October 10, 2001 05:08:36 AM
"women don't fight wars" =crapola
They lose their sons and husbands.
Women cops face death every day.
There were women in the Gulf and tho they may not have been in the front lines, they were certainly in jeopardy. Women nurses have been willing to risk their lives since the First World War, probably back to the Civil War or earlier.
My granddaughter is in boot camp and my son wants to re-up, tho he may be too old as he was in during the Gulf. God Bless them all!
Negotiation with countries is possible, negotiation with terrorists is NOT!
posted on October 10, 2001 05:44:39 AMI expected you'd have something to say about the "loose lips" flame war between Bush and Congress. Anything in the works?
Spaz, Gephardt and Lott, interviewed on CNN this morning, said that Bush will follow the law and continue the briefings as before. Trent Lott said that he didn't know what the leak was supposed to have been. Seemed a bit puzzled by it all, I thought.
Most the leaks that I've noticed have been coming from the DOJ about terrorism. I remember right after Ashcroft announced a crackdown on intelligence leaks Bob Woodward appeared on CNN with a copy of the letter that Atta had left which he said was from a secret source in the FBI. Ashcroft later acknowledged and discussed it a bit. I didn't understand why it should have been classified to begin with, but I suppose that there was a good reason.
posted on October 10, 2001 06:31:10 AM
"I expected you'd have something to say about the "loose lips" flame war between Bush and Congress. Anything in the works?"
I have something to say about that.
Do you know what some Congressman told the press the other day, what he "leaked" that put Bush in this frenzy? The Congressman said that if we bombed Afghanistan, there'd be a 100% chance of retaliation on our own soil.
This is "classified?" Can't see how. What it is is an exposition of one of the big lies that the adminstration has been spouting, and some posters here at AW have been dutifully parroting - That if we didn't bomb Afghanistan, we'd get hit again, and that's why we have to take this action - to protect outselves.
Okay. So if we don't bomb Afghanistan, we're going to get hit again, so we have to do this. But wait, if we do bomb Afghanistan, there's 100% chance that we'll get hit again.
Time for plan B - Rant about leaking "classified" information, power-grab from Congress, scowl and repeat these words over and over - "Will not stand," "eeee-vil," and "freedom."
posted on October 10, 2001 07:39:24 AM
Oh there's that Bill Clinton again. LoL! For as long as there is one republican left alive so will Bill Clinton live.
posted on October 10, 2001 07:48:22 AMIt has already been suggested that gender related wordings are not necessarily gender specific and I see no reason not to fall in line with that viewpoint.
Please realize that I have not said that if I post, for example "As for all of the warmonger testimonials from AW women--who cares?" that I mean anything which you have interpreted. ...and that no where did I say any thing which you seem to have decided that I did say.
Gosh, sounds like Pat "I never said that" Robertson has paid AW a visit!
posted on October 10, 2001 07:54:33 AM
"That's "evil-doers", Donny--straight from Oceania."
Yes.
The military guy who was with Rumsfeld at the press conference you referenced referred to some query posed by the press as "oldthink." Perhaps Bush should have characterized limiting information to Congress as coming under the "Ignorance is Strength" heading.
posted on October 10, 2001 08:06:54 AMkrsOh there's that Bill Clinton again.
I believe the only reason Bill Clinton was brought up was in response to your arm chair quarterbacking suggestion about using 'trained killers' which would be child's play.
As far as getting rid of bin laden, or all of the terrorists currently active--it would be child's play to the trained killers that we have available
While it might be child's play for you, it does appear something on that order was attempted in the past. Here's an article for you from the Guardian no less, I know you wouldn't accept one of the sources I use.
The second to last paragraph sums things up rather well by thinking.
posted on October 10, 2001 08:14:38 AM
actually, uaru, if you read, carefully now, your own citation, you will find this paragraph: "But General Pervez Musharraf, who overthrew Mr Sharif on October 12, pointedly refused to continue with it". which sums it up somewhat more completely. And if you care to see what THE MAN himself says from a source which you seem to trust implicitly,, which oddly coincides with that statement above, you might try the link which I provided above....
Yes, krs, I read the article (believe it or not) I even read it to the end. Including the second to last paragraph.
Sources told the Washington Post that President Clinton decided to use missiles so no American lives were put in jeopardy. They now believe - after the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - that stronger and more risky action should have been taken.
I even read your link... you want to hightlight the paragraph or part that you found most important? It wasn't this part was it?
Clinton heartily applauded President Bush's conduct of the hunt for bin Laden, including the war he has launched against the Taliban for giving sanctuary to bin Laden and his al Qaeda network.
Will I now be seeing you do the old 'krs side step'?
posted on October 10, 2001 08:28:13 AM
Oh I see. Now he bolds from a source which he normally would deride, and he quotes from a person 'close to the clinton defense', like maybe he was the janitor? Or can you identify the speaker from whom you so boldly quote, uaru? LOLOL!
Gee, I missed your request to highlight the part of the Clinton link. Yours is good, as any democrat would tell you, but I thought that "it was all right to laugh, truly laugh" was more the descriptive, by far.
