Obama's Afghanistan Speech....

[Hot Mega]

And just who are they intervening between? Could it be terrorist groups , religious factions?

:eek: ".....the FUCK?????" The above absolutely proves you-are-mindlessly clueless!!!!!

I rest my case... the example you give for "peacekeeping" forces is intervening between terrorist????

You've spoken for yourself for all to see....I hope no one laughs themselves to death reading this latest B/C masterpiece.

Say :hi: to "President" Jintao for us....

 

[Jack Davenport]

Anyway, this has been very entertaining but I must get my rest as I fly to Cincinnati early in the morning. There will be more to discuss I am sure but it is not possible for me to access this website in a business setting. Any further bantering will have to be tomorrow when I am in my hotel room.

Chao

 

[Jack Davenport]

:eek: ".....the FUCK?????" The above absolutely proves you-are-mindlessly clueless!!!!!

I rest my case... the example you give for "peacekeeping" forces is intervening between terrorist????

You've spoken for yourself for all to see....I hope no one laughs themselves to death reading this latest B/C masterpiece.

Say :hi: to "President" Jintao for us....

Oh what the hell. I was asking you what the peacekeeping entails not making a statement of fact. Dipshit.:1orglaugh

 

[Hot Mega]

Oh what the hell. I was asking you what the peacekeeping entails not making a statement of fact. Dipshit.:1orglaugh

Well, uh...you know how the idiocy of a question belies the idiocy or stupidity of the inquisitor? But I know, I know.....it was "sarcasm" :1orglaugh

 

[Jack Davenport]

Basic liberal strategy: Proclaim victory when you are getting the shit kicked out of you.

Now since you brought up the topic, care to answer the question?

 

[Jagger69]

Where is the enemy Mr. Jagger?

Or is there even one in your opinion?:dunno:

Glad you asked. Of course there clearly are enemies of the United States. However, they aren't confined within the borders of any particular state or region nor are they ones who are easily identifiable as particularly distinct entities at all. That's precisely my point. We're still fighting wars like it's a WWII scenario. In that war, the enemy was clearly defined (hell, they wore uniforms!) and the battles were fought by traditional "battlefield" methods....armies clashing on a specified field of battle....state against state and army against army. Certainly, "total war" tactics were in play so one could argue that terrorism is nothing unique but there is a big difference between B-17s firebombing Dresden and an otherwise unremarkable individual blowing himself up with plastic explosives in a crowded marketplace.

Clearly, the rules of engagement have changed. This new brand of war is one of shadows and specters and hit-and-run terror strikes. There is no clearly-defined "enemy" (yes, we in America choose to define them as "Al-Qaeda" or the "Taliban") but these are merely labels for those who would simply be predisposed to do harm to America if given the opportunity. We don't know where "they" are. The war we wage is a war against an idea, dogma and mindset, not a state or an army. This is a war without borders and, unfortunately, without definition. Recent events with Yemeni ties would back up this statement. Anywhere we choose to concentrate will simply force these groups to move to another safe haven in another state where there is either no central authority capable of eradicating such groups or where there are significant sympathetic (as we have seen with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, The Sudan, Nigeria etc) regional (or national) influences that are willing to harbor such groups.

That's why sending more troops to Afghanistan is the strategic military equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. We ran many of those groups out of Afghanistan before and we can certainly do it again. In fact, I predict that Obama's decision will ultimately be successful in that regard. However, this definable accomplishment means little (remember Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment?) if the action simply forces our enemies to relocate. Much like a colony of fire ants (if you're not from the southern USA this analogy might not register but hopefully you can follow my reasoning anyway) that is treated only as a single mound, they are sure to rear their ugly heads elsewhere almost immediately. How do you expect to wipe out the entire colony if you only treat a single mound? You can't. Well, that's exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan. This troop buildup solves nothing and only serves to kill more people and exacerbate the carnage.

Obama (like Bush before him) is in a tough spot. Even though I am critical of his decision, I don't claim to have an alternate answer. I suspect that the only real possibility for success in the "War on Terror" would emanate from the USA being willing to sacrifice the core principles upon which the nation was founded. If we fought the terrorists by the same rules by which they elect to fight us, would things not be quite different? Consequently, and quite ironically, if we become willing to do that, would the terrorists not become the victors anyway? Can the true American ideals and principles be preserved when fighting an enemy of this nature?

We're in uncharted waters. There are no historical examples from which to draw. I greatly fear for the future.

 

[Hot Mega]

Basic liberal strategy: Proclaim victory when you are getting the shit kicked out of you.

Now since you brought up the topic, care to answer the question?

Ya dope...."Peacekeeping" forces are a 3rd (or more) party that intervenes in the fighting of two other waring parties.

Examples would be; The Russian's peacekeeping role in South Ossetia or NATO in Kosovo....

 

[Jack Davenport]

Ya dope...."Peacekeeping" forces are a 3rd (or more) party that intervenes in the fighting of two other waring parties.

Examples would be; The Russian's peacekeeping role in South Ossetia or NATO in Kosovo....

Again please find a suitable tutor to help with your comprehension. Now I ask again slowly

Who





Are




They



Intervening





Between?

 

[Hot Mega]

Again please find a suitable tutor to help with your comprehension. Now I ask again slowly

Who





Are




They



Intervening





Between?

Waring factions...in the case of the Russians...the North Ossetian g'ment and the South Ossetian g'ment....the fuck difference does it make who anyway...

Peacekeeping forces are not "nation-builders" genius.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Waring factions...in the case of the Russians...the North Ossetian g'ment and the South Ossetian g'ment....the fuck difference does it make who anyway...

Peacekeeping forces are not "nation-builders" genius.

my god it's worse than I thought! I was asking who would an Iraq peacekeeping force be intervening between? Not a list of every conflict of the last 20 years ! :rofl:

how does that noose around your neck feel? Dr. Hawking :rofl:

 

[Hot Mega]

my god it's worse than I thought! I was asking who would an Iraq peacekeeping force be intervening between? Not a list of every conflict of the last 20 years ! :rofl:

how does that noose around your neck feel? Dr. Hawking :rofl:

"my God" is right....

Who said anything about Iraq and our troops in a peacekeeping role there??????

Talk about reading comprehension.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Ok you have had 2 panty wettings in a course of 24 hours and both times you have made yourself look like a fool. Quite frankly, shooting fish in a barrel couldn't be easier.


I hope after this schooling you have received that you will dust yourself off and not give up.

I do admire your spirit, too bad I can't say the same about your intellect.

 

[Hot Mega]

my god it's worse than I thought! I was asking who would an Iraq peacekeeping force be intervening between? Not a list of every conflict of the last 20 years ! :rofl:

how does that noose around your neck feel? Dr. Hawking :rofl:

Ok you have had 2 panty wettings in a course of 24 hours and both times you have made yourself look like a fool. Quite frankly, shooting fish in a barrel couldn't be easier.


I hope after this schooling you have received that you will dust yourself off and not give up.

I do admire your spirit, too bad I can't say the same about your intellect.

Another mind legend. You've been back-peddling so fast in this thread redefining your posts as sarcasms and jokes that by now you're time traveling. May as well change the facts while you're back there.:wave2:

If you wanted a FOs sponsored education on the facts you should have just said so and I would have done it all in one post for you.:2 cents:

What have you learned in all this?

Obama's policy on Afghanistan was made clear to anyone who would listen long before he retained Gates. Before he ran for president even.

Claiming sarcasm in the midst of being proven wrong doesn't fool anyone.

Claiming to be playing a joke in the midst of being redirected to the facts makes the joke on you.

The only president in recent history to point in one direction to cheering crowds on a campaign trail but in another direction with his appointments and actions after elected goes by the initials GWB not BHO.

Who PNAC was although you're still stumbling on their erstwhile policy beliefs.

That when you conspire to launch an unprovoked attack on a country to overthrow it's leader, install a form of government and rebuild the infrastructure you destroyed at the expense of your taxpayers....that's "nation-building" jr. no matter what kind of dress you drape over it.

That the US has had no official deployment of troops to Iraq on a peacekeeping mission.

Here's latest; Effecting a peacekeeping mission policy with your military usually requires that the two sides you're keeping peace between be official, recognized factions with some leadership structure.

What have I learned? It's probably hard for you to walk and breathe at the same time.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Another mind legend. You've been back-peddling so fast in this thread redefining your posts as sarcasms and jokes that by now you're time traveling. May as well change the facts while you're back there.:wave2:

If you wanted a FOs sponsored education on the facts you should have just said so and I would have done it all in one post for you.:2 cents:

What have you learned in all this?

Obama's policy on Afghanistan was made clear to anyone who would listen long before he retained Gates. Before he ran for president even.

Claiming sarcasm in the midst of being proven wrong doesn't fool anyone.

Claiming to be playing a joke in the midst of being redirected to the facts makes the joke on you.

The only president in recent history to point in one direction to cheering crowds on a campaign trail but in another direction with his appointments and actions after elected goes by the initials GWB not BHO.

Who PNAC was although you're still stumbling on their erstwhile policy beliefs.

That when you conspire to launch an unprovoked attack on a country to overthrow it's leader, install a form of government and rebuild the infrastructure you destroyed at the expense of your taxpayers....that's "nation-building" jr. no matter what kind of dress you drape over it.

That the US has had no official deployment of troops to Iraq on a peacekeeping mission.

Here's latest; Effecting a peacekeeping mission policy with your military usually requires that the two sides you're keeping peace between be official, recognized factions with some leadership structure.

What have I learned? It's probably hard for you to walk and breathe at the same time.

And good morning to you too twatwaffle!

It has been well documented on this thread what a complete an utter fool you are.

First, you cannot answer a direct line of questioning. I asked more than once who would a peacekeeping force in Iraq be intervening between?

You couldn't name an enemy because in your diluted mind, there is not one.



Not to mention the virtual hissy fit not once but TWICE! because you can't fathom the concept of sarcasm and because of your eagerness to click the reply button for your next round of wingnut jibberish .

Once you realized that you couldn't win the argument about my obvious jab at the anti-war crowd (well obvious to those of us that possess a fair amount of gray matter anyway) you started on the liberal mantra of GWB engaged in nation building".

Again, you were taken to the woodshed and I tried to sit you down and explain to you that an act of war against a nation with a leader that has thumbed his nose at numerous UN resolutions and one that has a history of aggression against neighboring countries was actively seeking to acquire WMD was not the same as using American forces to prop up a government to it's liking.

I consider myself a patient man, but even my patience has it's limits.

There is nothing in any of your posts to indicate that you have any formal education. If by some chance you did attend a junior college somewhere please contact me because we will immediately file a class action suit against the institution because there are certainly others like yourself that have been victimized with the promise of a higher education that did not come to fruition.

Basically you are a keyboard commando here to entertain yourself and to engage in a game of gotcha with those you disagree with politically.

The rantings that you frequently post here make the Unibomber's manifesto read like a Hemmingway novel.

Quite simply, you are a delusional whackjob that constantly rehashes conspiracy theory and outright lies against anything conservative.

Oh and the thing that started this whole brouhaha between you and I can be found here.

So much for liberal anti-war types not hoping that Obama was just
"joshin":1orglaugh


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/antiwar-groups-want-obama-to-forget-pledge/

Fuckstick.

 

[Jack Davenport]

<crickets>

 

[Hot Mega]

And good morning to you too twatwaffle!

It has been well documented on this thread what a complete an utter fool you are.

First, you cannot answer a direct line of questioning. I asked more than once who would a peacekeeping force in Iraq be intervening between?

You couldn't name an enemy because in your diluted mind, there is not one.

Sighhh. I knew I should have kept this simple. Dude, I sincerely apologize for literally confusing the HELL out of your single celled brain.

If this still doesn't make sense, maybe a fellow FOs user will come to rescue of this punchline and explain it.

The US and coalition forces have had only two missions in Iraq, combat then security. There was no official peacekeeping mission there...EVER. Nor is there any plan for US troops to deploy a peacekeeping mission in Iraq.

Now if you meant peace keeping..."peace keeping" and "nation-building" are two different things.

If using your military to oust a regime and prop up a government in the form of your dictates isn't using your troops for "nation-building", WTF is?

It's pretty clear from your repeated asking of ignorant, irrelevant questions about this (among many in this thread) that you believed I was suggesting the US was sent on a peacekeeping mission to Iraq. AND/OR you believe there was some peacekeeping role Bush could have sent them to Iraq for.

What was meant by that is (and I'll try to keep this as simple as possible), Bush could have deployed the military for many different missions around the world as necessary INCLUDING peacekeeping and not have violated his no "nation-building" promise.

But to create the circumstance to preemptively send your military into a country on a mission called "Operation Iraqi Freedom", to remove it's leader, install a form of government and rebuild the infrastructure you destroyed would be the picture next to the definition of "nation-building" in the dictionary. More so than any other example in US history sans the building of our own.

Now if you don't get that, I would suggest formal English classes...(Hell, I would suggest them anyway for you.).

Not to mention the virtual hissy fit not once but TWICE! because you can't fathom the concept of sarcasm and because of your eagerness to click the reply button for your next round of wingnut jibberish .

See above

Once you realized that you couldn't win the argument about my obvious jab at the anti-war crowd (well obvious to those of us that possess a fair amount of gray matter anyway) you started on the liberal mantra of GWB engaged in nation building".

Nooo. What I said was, between Obama and Bush, Bush was the only one of the two who gave a campaign "nod and wink" one way but did the exact opposite once elected.

Again, you were taken to the woodshed and I tried to sit you down and explain to you that an act of war against a nation with a leader that has thumbed his nose at numerous UN resolutions and one that has a history of aggression against neighboring countries was actively seeking to acquire WMD was not the same as using American forces to prop up a government to it's liking.

Saddam turned over the information he had and inspectors were in his country. What does that matter when there are governments as powerful as the US and Britain sending people like Colin Powell to the UN with fabricated evidence against you? Of course the UN was duped..fucking everyone was by the sham.

Oh and the thing that started this whole brouhaha between you and I can be found here.

So much for liberal anti-war types not hoping that Obama was just
"joshin":1orglaugh


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/antiwar-groups-want-obama-to-forget-pledge/

Fuckstick.

Well, serious people don't concern themselves with what others hope someone will do when it was NEVER implied by the person. That's why I asked you to,

post just one citing a case where they indicate Obama suggested to them with "a nod and a wink" he would say one thing then do another after elected.

But congratulations! You've demonstrated there are people who voted for a man who ran on a platform of "change" (among other things) presumably from say one thing and do another politics to do something else from what he said after elected. jr. journalist award for you.

 

[Hugh Jorgen]

Jason

The band of brothers are dead glory hounds yet there is no glory. It's a sales pitch to get meat for the grinder. (Only commenting about the bold section).

 

[jasonk282]

Jason

The band of brothers are dead glory hounds yet there is no glory. It's a sales pitch to get meat for the grinder. (Only commenting about the bold section).

You twit, the quote is from Henry V from the St. Crispen Day Speech written by William Shakespear.

Enter the KING
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Also it is the words that I used to address my Squad prior to our assult on Tal Afar during Operation Iraqi Freedom. You though I as honoring Band of Brothers TV Series :rofl:

 

[noeline]

Your point is that you can read out loud another's work is that it? No one has suggested you're illiterate. The charges against you here are blood not bard. Take down the band of brothers repetitio. It could churn fresh children into cannon fodder and make your hands blood greasy at the glory emptiness buffet.

 

[SgtMarine]

Your point is that you can read out loud another's work is that it? No one has suggested you're illiterate. The charges against you here are blood not bard. Take down the band of brothers repetitio. It could churn fresh children into cannon fodder and make your hands blood greasy at the glory emptiness buffet.

WTF are you now the FreeOnes police? What give you the right to tell him to take anything down?

What do you know about brotherhood? What do you know about taking a bullet so other may live? What do you know about giving your life so that others may live?

I would gladly take a bullet or give my life so my brother on my left and right has a chance to survive and live another day.

What do you know about watching your best fucking friend going into the "fatal funnel" and having his brains blow out all over you? Don't fucking talk to people about empty glory when they have see true VALOR with there own fucking eyes.

:thefinger