|
| Thread: The Voice of Moderation has Just Left the Building... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 04, 2005 01:53 PM |
|
|
Eisenhower was a very popular president and he never held an office before that.
We don't need a woman president. And we especially don't need someone like Clinton in office anymore. The military was gutted anough during her husband's presidency, she doesn't need a chance to do it again.
____________
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
posted February 04, 2005 03:56 PM |
|
|
gutted? Funny how the Bush administration "conquered" Iraq in two weeks with the "gutted" military... And no, they didn't boost the military until 2003, so don't say they did.
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 04, 2005 07:20 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 4 Feb 2005
|
Exactly
This is exactly what I'm talking about. An old veteran general like Powell would only do what Wolfman wants. He would strengthen the military by promoting manpower over technology and intelligence. I believe the U.K. has already evolved to this futuristic strategy. Troops and manpower are important but they won't win the wars of the future. Intelligence and technology are the most important fields of focus for the times we live in.
I think we need to defeat the terrorists by freely electing the best woman to the presidency. Then we should wage a new cold war against global terrorism. Troops should be used as border security and nothing more. If a military campaign is called for(in any form) then it should be a joint venture with our allies' troops helping to fit the human cost. I think the key to maintaining our free democratic world is to strengthen our global partnerships and commitments.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted February 04, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
|
Occupation by Combat Troops will always be a Necessity
Quote:
Troops and manpower are important but they won't win the wars of the future.
I somewhat disagree. I believe that you can bomb the hell out of your enemy from afar all you want, but in order to successfully 'hold' the territory, you must provide an occupying force...which requires manpower (i.e. infantry and close-combat soldiers). If you need an example of this, just look at the current situation in Iraq. The biggest mistake that the United States (and Coalition Forces) made was withdrawing the 'combat hardened' troops shortly after the 'fall' of Baghdad. The U.S. was pre-occupied with appeasing the U.N., the Europeans, and the rest of the dissenting world, and pulled out its 'combat ready' forces way too early. The U.S. was trying to say "Look, everyone, we achieved our objective. We are pulling back and turning Iraq back over to its people." Wrong move. Hindsight is always 20/20, but if it was up to me, U.S. forces would have occupied Baghdad and the surrounding 'hot spots' (i.e. Fallujah, Basra, etc.), while additional troops would have been brought in to help hunt down pocket cells of resistance or newly-formed terrorist cells. Instead, the U.S. pulled out the combat veterans and replaced them with fresh troops, many of whom were inexperienced in urban warfare, guerrila tactics, and counter-terrorist measures, not to mention many were Reserve Duty soldiers or National Guardsman. IMHO, that is a recipe for disaster, if not failure.
I agree that the wars of the future will require huge amounts of intelligence and technology. However, to actually 'win' a war or conflict, you must crush the will of the enemy, which means you must occupy their land and eliminate any and all forms of resistance.
Peace out! 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 04, 2005 10:41 PM |
|
|
guilt by association?
Consis, I respectfully disagree that anything any other general has to say reflects on Colin Powell. That's like saying I am a liar because you've known attorneys in the past who were liars. And this sort of comment is certainly not common among generals. Witness the attention it's getting.
I second everything Khayman said, and further suggest, as I have before, that Powell is not just a general. He is a seasoned statesman, in addition to being an incredibly astute diplomat. He further probably understands modern warfare better than anyone alive. He therefore possesses skills on both sides of the international coin, which is precisely what we need during this "War on Terror." Witness his numerous caveats to the administration, both before and during the war, which were all ignored leading to the mess as Khayman described.
Right now we need an international specialist. I like Hillary, but I don't see her possessing anywhere near the level of such skills Powell possesses.
I'd sure be willing to entertain John McCain though. I've been listening to him on C-Span for years and he appears to be highly astute in international relations, moderate, a really good communicator, and one hell of a smart guy.
Khay: Did you get that hilarious e-mail I sent you?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 05, 2005 12:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
An old veteran general like Powell would only do what Wolfman wants. He would strengthen the military by promoting manpower over technology and intelligence.
Quite an assumption you made there.
Manpower is useless without a degree of intelligence behind it. Intelligence is a waste of time unless you have troops to do something with it. It's a delicate balance.
Clinton cut personel in the military in the early '90's and slashed the intelligence budget. Google "Torricelli Principle" and you may learn something.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 05, 2005 01:46 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 4 Feb 2005
|
Excuse Me
I don't need to read some damned Torricelli Principle to know what happened Wolfman! I was in the Airforce when he was president! If anyone knows how he was down-sizing the military, I DO! I witnessed it first-hand! I helped clean the empty offices, barracks, account inventory, and said goodbye to people who were on their way out. You've got some nerve flashing the premise of the Torricelli Principle in my face when you know I was in the Airforce during his two-terms of office. I was there and I saw it with my own eyes!
Your opinion has clearly been tainted. I don't know the exact details of your parents' situation but it has clearly filtered down to you. Our country had a surplus that we(democrats) were planning on using for this damnable social security crisis that will be affecting YOU and YOUR children! How do you expect to retire now; or your own kids even? What a fine mess this president has gotten us into. I suppose I should thank the current commander&chief for not only spending all of the surplus but taking the country back into a Reaganomically uncontrolled national debt. And oh how wonderful this war has been to us.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 07, 2005 06:11 PM |
|
|
You're excused
Quote:
I don't need to read some damned Torricelli Principle to know what happened Wolfman! I was in the Airforce when he was president! If anyone knows how he was down-sizing the military, I DO! I witnessed it first-hand! … You've got some nerve flashing the premise of the Torricelli Principle in my face when you know I was in the Airforce during his two-terms of office. I was there and I saw it with my own eyes!
Torricelli Principal has to do with intelligence, not manpower. Clinton passed the largest intelligence cuts in history. Who knows, we may have known about 9/11 before it happened if not for this stupid intelligence blunder. Thank you Mr. Clinton.
My dad was in the Air Force for 21 years, and I paid attention to what was going on. So I saw it with my own eyes too.
Quote:
Your opinion has clearly been tainted. I don't know the exact details of your parents' situation but it has clearly filtered down to you.
Well, let me fill you in. My dad was in the Air Force for 21 years. He was in the Azores for a while, and then moved back to the U.S. He met my mom, they were married, I was born, we were sent to Greece. I lived there for two years. We moved back to the U.S. and he was a recruiter. (During which time the Torricelli Principle was passed, and the military personnel and budget was drastically cut.) After recruiting we moved back to Omaha and he worked at Offutt in communications.
In 2000 he was sent to Georgia to a group that deploys to Saudi Arabia mostly. He was sent there because he was some one who knew the equipment. He had never been deployed out before, so you could say he was inexperienced. He was sent anyway because when Clinton cut the military a solid age group block left the service.
Someone in that group should have been working down in Georgia, but there was no one so my dad was pulled from a base 1100 miles away. (When he was pulled away he had 18 months left until his 20 years were up and he could retire.) The Air Force said he would have to stay for the full two years of the assignment. It was worked out so he would be able to retire on time, then 9/11 happened. A halt was put on all retirees. He finally retired a year after he was supposed to, right before the Iraq invasion.
I know people who got out when Clinton was cutting back. I know what happened, so don’t tell me I have some nerve.
Quote:
Our country had a surplus that we(democrats) were planning on using for this damnable social security crisis that will be affecting YOU and YOUR children!
Yeah, I’m sure that was high on the agenda of Paul Begala and James Carville. They were the Democratic strategists at the time.
Quote:
How do you expect to retire now; or your own kids even?
Well, only an idiot, or maybe a poor person would completely rely on Social Security for retirement. Invest early is the way to go.
Quote:
What a fine mess this president has gotten us into.
Social Security should have been re-worked years/presidents ago. This isn’t the ‘40’s, Social Security can’t function the way it was set up to anymore. There are just too many people. It’s not Bush’s fault Social Security is in shambles. Maybe your precious Clinton should have done something about it.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 02:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who knows, we may have known about 9/11 before it happened if not for this stupid intelligence blunder. Thank you Mr. Clinton.
And who knows, if the Republicans hadn't insisted on spending all that money, time and resources investigating the sex habits of the president, maybe there would have been more money to go around. The recriminations are endless. I'm sure it was worth it though...
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Who knows, we may have known about 9/11 before it happened if not for this stupid intelligence blunder. Thank you Mr. Clinton.
And who knows, if the Republicans hadn't insisted on spending all that money, time and resources investigating the sex habits of the president, maybe there would have been more money to go around. The recriminations are endless. I'm sure it was worth it though...
I agree. The recriminations are endless. I mean, if Mr. Clinton would have just had the self-discipline to conduct 'official' business in the White House, instead of his 'undercover' business, then the Republicans would have had no reason to demand an investigation, not to mention all the time and money spent on an impeachment process. 
Back on topic...I, for one, am wondering if Condoleezza Rice will turn out to be more of a diplomat as Secretary of State OR will she carry out Bush's agenda with a hearty "Yes, Sir."
I think the following will be one of her first tests (also posted in Attack Iran? topic):
Rice: NATO Can't Be World's Policeman
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
The Associated Press
BRUSSELS — The expanding NATO alliance can be a bulwark for freedom without playing policeman to the world, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said as she neared the end of a European tour that included visits to both old and newer NATO members.
"How NATO's role will evolve, I think, is still an open question, but we need to be open to new roles that NATO might play," Rice said Tuesday in Paris.
She visits alliance headquarters Wednesday for an informal luncheon with NATO foreign ministers.
Shortly before flying from Paris to Brussels, Rice told an interviewer that Iran needs to realize it cannot use a European diplomatic initiative to indefinitely delay having the United Nations consider its suspected nuclear weapons program.
"The Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal ... the Europeans are giving ... then the Security Council (search) referral looms," she said in an interview with FOX News.
"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she said in a reiteration U.S. policy.
Alliance officials said her NATO visit would focus on preparations for a visit by President Bush on Feb. 22, when he will hold a summit with leaders of the other 25 allied nations.
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (search) wants the meetings to seal a new unity in the trans-Atlantic alliance following bitter divisions over the Iraq war.
The talks are also expected to review NATO's peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo and its efforts to train Iraq's military. De Hoop Scheffer said last month's elections in Iraq — which were widely applauded in Europe — should boost allied efforts to expand its training mission.
Alliance defense ministers are set to discuss expanding both the Afghan and Iraq missions at a long-scheduled meeting Wednesday and Thursday.
NATO has been struggling to persuade governments to commit extra troops to both its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the problem has been compounded by the refusal of France, Germany and other nations that opposed the U.S.-led war to send instructors.
NATO currently has about 100 troops in Iraq on the training mission.
Rice's visit to NATO is part of an eight-day tour of Europe and the Middle East that included a speech on U.S. foreign policy in Paris.
"I do not think that NATO needs to become the policeman of the world," Rice said in Paris. "I think that would be asking too much of this alliance."
"It is a bulwark for democratic states, and it can therefore play an important role in the spread of democracy and liberty, but we have other means," Rice said at a news conference with French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier (search).
The trans-Atlantic alliance now includes countries far removed from its Cold War-era roots in Western Europe, and has numerous peacekeeping and military operations around the world.
"NATO has a very important role to play, but we should be very clear that there are many others who need to play these roles as well," Rice said in Paris.
For example, she noted that Brazil is leading the peacekeeping effort in Haiti and that the African Union is willing to help in Sudan.
Rice's first trip abroad as secretary of state concludes Thursday in Luxembourg. She has said that either she or her second-in-command will visit each of the NATO capitals early this year.
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 07:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I mean, if Mr. Clinton would have just had the self-discipline to conduct 'official' business in the White House, instead of his 'undercover' business, then the Republicans would have had no reason to demand an investigation, not to mention all the time and money spent on an impeachment process
Nobody IMO has the right to interfere to that extent in the private life of a public person. The Republicans went on a witch hunt to get rid of him the only way they could. One could argue that they considered investigating whether the President got a blowjob or not more important than investigating possible terrorist threats to the country.
So no, I don't think anything in the slightest is served by people pointing the finger at eachother about 9-11 because it's easy to find someone to blame and not very easy for them both to admit that both parties were in some way at fault.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 10:02 PM |
|
|
Hey PH...If you were having extra-marital sexual relations with one of your employees at your job and got caught, then don't you think you would have to answer to your boss?
Basically, that is what happened. Clinton got caught not only 'screwing around' on the job, but at his place of employment during working hours. I understand that a person has a right to privacy when it comes to his or her sex life. However, if the incident occurs at work during working hours (not to mention with another employee), then you should have some explaining to do to your boss...which in that particular case was the American taxpayer for whom he supposedly works.
Back on topic...
Who do you guys think is sexier...Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 10:05 PM |
|
|
Powell all the way, man. There's gotta be a reason why she's still single at the age of 40...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 01:06 AM |
|
|
There's gotta be a reason why you think Powell's sexier at age 50 also!
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 01:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hey PH...If you were having extra-marital sexual relations with one of your employees at your job and got caught, then don't you think you would have to answer to your boss?
I wouldn't expect my boss to ruin the company finding out for sure, not when the company has better things to do with it's time. I'd be especially worried if he did it not out of any concern about the event but just because he wanted to sack me. It was a witch hunt, dressing it up with some vague morality excuse doesn't hide the fact.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 03:27 PM |
|
|
PH...You're Fired!
I somewhat agree. We should have just done it Donald Trump style...
"Mr. Clinton...You're fired!"
Back on topic...
I think Condoleezza Rice has an extremely large head. Does anyone else think so?
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 04:12 PM |
|
|
Speaking of hotties as Secretaries of State, who else would pay to see a Jello brand Gelatin Treat wrestling match between Albright and Rice?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 04:49 PM |
|
|
You sure do have wierd crushes Bort vwell Rice would def win this one
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 05:17 PM |
|
|
Madeline Albright makes me want to be a better man.
I would pay to watch that match, Bort. My question to you is...
Would you pay to eat the Jell-O?
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 05:53 PM |
|
|
What flavor?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
|
|
