This is getting beyond old

[AKC]

This is a  gross mischaracterization of what BiB wrote. Scrimmage Time!!!

400076[/snapback]

 

Perhaps- if you ignore the words in his post and fabricate your own meaning.

 

I'll ignore the moron if you'd like to explain exactly how pointing out his false assumption of some "especially tenuous historical circumstances" are a mischaracterization of the exact words he wrote in his post.

[Ghost of BiB]

Perhaps- if you ignore the words in his post and fabricate your own meaning.

400080[/snapback]

 

What's your !@#$ing problem, prick?

[Reuben Gant]

Perhaps- if you ignore the words in his post and fabricate your own meaning.

400080[/snapback]

Read it over. Sleep on it. Think some more. You're a smart guy. You're probably just having a bad week. I am going to enjoy the weekend, and I am sorry I asked.

[AKC]

What's your !@#$ing problem, prick?

400085[/snapback]

 

You answered a post of mine with nothing, and then followed that up with absolutely nothing until I finally coaxed you to put SOME type of persective into a post which ended up proving you have no grasp of history. Then you return to posting nothing- agreeing with everyone while disagreeing with everyone- with the single caveat that you suggest others are "over their head" in pointing out your lack of substance. It's alot like one of those old blow up punching clowns- as far as it gets knocked over each time it's hit there it comes up again- full of nothing but air but still begging for another pop!

[Ghost of BiB]

You answered a post of mine with nothing, and then followed that up with absolutely nothing until I finally coaxed you to put SOME type of persective into a post which ended up proving you have no grasp of history. Then you return to posting nothing- agreeing with everyone while disagreeing with everyone- with the single caveat that you suggest others are "over their head" in pointing out your lack of substance. It's alot like one of those old blow up punching clowns- as far as it gets knocked over each time it's hit there it comes up again- full of nothing but air but still begging for another pop!

400091[/snapback]

 

Like I asked, what's your problem, prick? I've posted what I could for 4 years here, on these subjects. I'm not starting all over for you.

[Buckey]

You answered a post of mine with nothing, and then followed that up with absolutely nothing until I finally coaxed you to put SOME type of persective into a post which ended up proving you have no grasp of history. Then you return to posting nothing- agreeing with everyone while disagreeing with everyone- with the single caveat that you suggest others are "over their head" in pointing out your lack of substance. It's alot like one of those old blow up punching clowns- as far as it gets knocked over each time it's hit there it comes up again- full of nothing but air but still begging for another pop!

400091[/snapback]

 

You have some very legitimate arguements based on history, and BIB is discounting everything in one felt swoop with name calling and not engaging you in discussion, which is his perogative if he wants to bow out and admit defeat or maybe he's tired of your rambleing..., but I have to side with BIB that you ramble on without making your point and engaging him in a point on point debate... He is more than capable of taking you apart if you want to challenge him, but that hasn't happened in 20 some posts?? With that, I regress and join BIB and say... let's watch the game! Your choice aka... Ramble or discuss point by point and engage. GO BILLS!

[Ghost of BiB]

You have some very legitimate arguements based on history, and BIB is discounting everything in one felt swoop with name calling and not engaging you in discussion, which is his perogative if he wants to bow out and admit defeat or maybe he's tired of your rambleing..., but I have to side with BIB that you ramble on without making your point and engaging him in a point on point debate... He is more than capable of taking you apart if you want to challenge him, but that hasn't happened in 20 some posts?? With that, I regress and join BIB and say... let's watch the game! Your choice aka... Ramble or discuss point by point and engage. GO BILLS!

400106[/snapback]

 

I didn't start the name calling. Read back.

[Buckey]

I didn't start the name calling. Read back.

400110[/snapback]

 

How's the bbq coming? Wings are almost ready! mmmm.

Enjoy the game my friend. Look up to the sky and know

that ya gotta friend watchin above.

Love ya pal.

[AKC]

I didn't start the name calling. Read back.

400110[/snapback]

 

I posted into this string using indisputable historical facts to support my suppositions.

 

You responded with no substance and I called you on it, whereby you set out a list of questions again with no insight and the inference that the "complicated" nature of the world today made things too difficult to rely on history as a guide to resolve the Islamist radical movement.

 

I again dispute your contention regarding history, a history replete with far more "complicated" times such as the Roman Empire's collapse. I used my historical examples to support my position that there are times when the best among us must choose to fight for our way of life to survive, and this is always when the enemy we face is one who refuses to respond to the combination of a real threat and diplomacy. I went so far as to point out why this enemy has proven he has no interest in diplomacy- his stated and exercised goal is the implementation of his religious law upon all in his region and then the balance of the world.

 

I've also pointed out that there is ALWAYS a Whimp Factor involved- it doesn't matter whether it's WWII or the French and Indian War. I didn't say the Whimp Factor was always bad- I only insinuated it's bad once we realize that we must fight. The problem with the WF is that it becomes the dog chasing its tail- we now must finish this fight- most Americans realize it and the wisest and most courageous world leaders realize it too. Now the WF is affecting our recruiting, and that's bad, especially if you're one of the kids who have already commited and are fighting overseas. Now the next set of recruits to show up to serve at their sides are guaranteed to be taken from a smaller pool of choice for the services- and that sucks. And interfering with recruitment during war is unpatriotic. It's that easy. It's that simple. And it's that true.

[boomerjamhead]

I posted into this string using indisputable historical facts to support my suppositions.

 

You responded with no substance and I called you on it, whereby you set out a list of questions again with no insight and the inference that the "complicated" nature of the world today made things too difficult to rely on history as a guide to resolve the Islamist radical movement.

 

I again dispute your contention regarding history, a history replete with far more "complicated" times such as the Roman Empire's collapse. I used my historical examples to support my position that there are times when the best among us must choose to fight for our way of life to survive, and this is always when the enemy we face is one who refuses to respond to the combination of a real threat and diplomacy. I went so far as to point out why this enemy has proven he has no interest in diplomacy- his stated and exercised goal is the implementation of his religious law upon all in his region and then the balance of the world.

 

I've also pointed out that there is ALWAYS a Whimp Factor involved- it doesn't matter whether it's WWII or the French and Indian War. I didn't say the Whimp Factor was always bad- I only insinuated it's bad once we realize that we must fight. The problem with the WF is that it becomes the dog chasing its tail- we now must finish this fight- most Americans realize it and the wisest and most courageous world leaders realize it too. Now the WF is affecting our recruiting, and that's bad, especially if you're one of the kids who have already commited and are fighting overseas. Now the next set of recruits to show up to serve at their sides are guaranteed to be taken from a smaller pool of choice for the services- and that sucks. And interfering with recruitment during war is unpatriotic. It's that easy. It's that simple. And it's that true.

400426[/snapback]

 

It's this simple:

 

Operator vs. Operations Planner. You lose AKC.

[AKC]

It's this simple:

 

Operator vs. Operations Planner.  You lose AKC.

400465[/snapback]

 

You'll have to enlighten me- in the real world facts trump information vacuums and despite all the theoriticians on any side of any argument there remains no single greater authority than history. Better to check out Bollywood or it's local equivalent if the truth makes one too uncomfortable.

[boomerjamhead]

You'll have to enlighten me- in the real world facts trump information vacuums. Better to check out Bollywood or it's local equivalent if the truth makes one too uncomfortable.

400499[/snapback]

 

My bad, I thought you were a special ops type who understood that not everything going on out there is public knowledge. I must have mistaken you for some other self-loving blowhard.

 

Instead of proving your ignorance in this matter, why don't you just sit back and learn? Is it that difficult for your ego to let go?

 

Get a grip my man, and quit making an ass out of yourself. Or... continue on.

[AKC]

My bad, I thought you were a special ops type who understood that not everything going on out there is public knowledge.  I must have mistaken you for some other self-loving blowhard.

 

Instead of proving your ignorance in this matter, why don't you just sit back and learn?  Is it that difficult for your ego to let go?

 

Get a grip my man, and quit making an ass out of yourself.  Or... continue on.

400519[/snapback]

 

 

 

I went to the same schools as Jimmy Carter for Nuclear Power Plant Operator/ET in the USN.

 

Since you've entered the conversation with your neck gripped tightly by your asslips I'll guess you also won't be the first who disagrees with me to offer one single fact to refute my position- why don't you share your particular difficulty with my pro-U.S. position? Or will you simply prove to be just another Vacuum Poster- lots of opinions with nothing of substance to support them?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Translation: "My methylphenidate is wearing down and I need another pop just to maintain myself at a remedial level".

400077[/snapback]

 

You'd be funny if you weren't so sad.

 

BiB doesn't just discuss this crap on a message board. He does this sh-- for a living. You know better than him...because you can spell "methylphenidate" and use it correctly in a sentence? You're either doing one hell of an impression of Hogboy, or you've sincerely reached a level of stupidity that surpasses even RiO.

[Ghost of BiB]

No one is discounting the role or the importance of history. History, though is only the backdrop for the current situations being faced. The fact that Turkey aligned itself with Germany in WW1 and the results had a profound effect on not only the ME, but the Balkans and other areas as well. All of it is history, in some form or fashion. Our present adversary in this instance (we have more adversaries than just these guys) is not the Ottomans, though. It is a radical extremeist form of Islam and recent history is what is most germane to what must be addressed and countered at this point in time.

 

This entire abortion started because I thought I was helping a fellow poster explain what was meant by a statement. I didn't say it was right, wrong, up, down or sideways. Melon Head came after me with both barrels, calling me whatever he did. After I said "WTF" to myself I pretty well let it go. To not much avail.

 

Truth AND FACTS are that in terms of what is currently going on, the removal of Soviet influence throughout the ME DOES have a lot to do with this. Besides Afghanistan (which technically isn't the middle east, but whatever) the USSR never had a real presence in the region, though they were the main suppliers of several ME governments and factions. I'll skip over why Iraq wouldn't have invaded Kuwait had the cold war still been going on and move ahead to the coalition response. The US and friends proceeded to stage a few hundred thousand troops on Saudi Soil, with the permission and approval of the royal Saudi family. This wouldn't have happened under the Soviets. Problem here is two-fold, and enter the Wahabi.

 

Wahabism was invented in the 1700's, but never was much of a factor in anything. It resurged with the rise of the Saudi Royals, and became the doctrine of the Saudi political, social and religious process. Wahabism in and of itself does not preach terrorism, but it's precepts are easilly adapted to sponsor it. Now, you have Bin Laden and his faction, fresh from what amounts to victory in Afghanistan staring at a few hundred thousand foreigners sitting within miles of Mecca. Like it or not, this was viewed as one of the ultimate insults, and to compound problems, it was sanctioned by a Wahabi regime. Double blow to the true believers. They were positively incensed.

 

This is an important benchmark within the history of this situation. Why? Because this is where Bin Laden and friends declared war on America, and also the Royal Saudi Family. At this point, is where they decided to export their war, to our shores, and attack us in the Homeland. That, boys and girls is significant. In 1993, a truck bomb goes off in the World Trade Center. Before this turn of events, there had never been a significant incident on American soil. A lot of hype has been given to 9/11 being when the world changed. No, it changed when a rental truck exploded in a parking garage in Manhattan. Facts. Not opinions. I take some amusement in being told that my statements are uncorraborated opinions with no merit, because much of the information I use comes directly from the interogations of captured Al Qaida leadership. I suppose that the Washington Post might have better information than AQ themselves, but I doubt it.

 

Going back to my earlier long post, prosecuting the GWOT (yes, that is what it is called no matter what the talking heads are saying these days) has different facets and objectives but the most important is defense of the homeland. So far, we haven't been doing so badly since 9/11. The strategy, in very simplified terms is to act as far away from our borders as is possible, using all means of national power. At the same time, to guard against and tactically structure towards primarily the catastrophic attack. Although it sounds cold, the NATION can withstand a suicide bomber at a shopping mall. This is not critical damage to our infrastructure. I'm not saying that this isn't of great concern - a lot of resources are devoted to preventing this, but it's not devestating in the grand scheme. In this we have so far been successful. AQ is seriously damaged, and has been forced to restructure itself and rethink it's operations. We have, as they have done so adapted to their shifts and changes.

 

None of this can be done turning a blind eye to the rest of the world. Things have to be done in balance with other objectives in mind. Has anyone noticed how nice India and Pakistan have been playing together lately? Anyone think this is an accident? Think the PRC is pissed?

 

It's very hard to show patience when the reports of things getting blown up are splattered in the news daily, but this isn't a question of "whimps" not allowing for things to be done. As has been mentioned to this point ad nauseum, there are hundreds of inter related pieces to this puzzle, and ignoring any one batch of them to jump on the others is not going to solve the problem.

 

None of this is Kumbaya. The US is going after this in terms of being the big kid on the block, no matter what anyone wants to think they know. We are going shove our influence into every corner of the globe, as much as we can and within our power, basically to make folks do what we want them to. This can be done gently and it can be done violently. Once again, I use the phrase "all elements of national power". This is not a strictly military mission, nor can it be. It also involves politcal, diplomatic, economic and informational activities. It's also not going to happen in a matter of weeks, months or even years. But, until something drastically changes, it needs to happen or the US becomes irrelevant.

[AKC]

Now, you have Bin Laden and his faction, fresh from what amounts to victory in Afghanistan staring at a few hundred thousand foreigners sitting within miles of Mecca. Like it or not, this was viewed as one of the ultimate insults, and to compound problems, it was sanctioned by a Wahabi regime. Double blow to the true believers. They were positively incensed.

 

This is an important benchmark within the history of this situation. Why? Because this is where Bin Laden and friends declared war on America, and also the Royal Saudi Family. At this point, is where they decided to export their war, to our shores, and attack us in the Homeland. That, boys and girls is significant. In 1993, a truck bomb goes off in the World Trade Center. Before this turn of events, there had never been a significant incident on American soil. A lot of hype has been given to 9/11 being when the world changed. No, it changed when a rental truck exploded in a parking garage in Manhattan. Facts. Not opinions.

 

 

You certainly understate the Afghan situation as "what amounts to a victory" when that in itself is arguably the critical event- a modern high point for the "opressed" Arab who had now moved a Super Power out of his region, and even more important, although not without local regional resistance, came the opportunity for the Wahabists to "play house" in a country. The catastrophic decision of the Saudi Royal family in allowing the Wahabs control over a large part of the population in Saudi Arabia, while allowing the Wahabs and especially the extremeists among them to thrive also left the Wahabs itching for total control of Saudi Arabia, something the Royals there were forced to insulate themselves from. This itself is the situation that incensed the Wahabs- to be granted the free hand to implement the laws of Islam on all except the ruling class. The U.S. at the same time was keeping the Saudi Royal family well protected with modern military equipment. The Wahabs came to see anyone who kept them from total rule in Saudi Arabia as their enemy- and none would be a bigger enemy outside their region than the U.S. While the presence of our troops on Saudi soil was additional provocation and made a nice rallying cry for Bin Laden, slighted because the Royals had denied him the privledge of kicking the Iraqis out of Kuwait, the actual "infidel" was already well established as the single largest barrier to radical Wahabiism at the time. What remains difficult to refute is that the concurrent implementation of Sharia law throughout much of Afghanistan offered the radicals the prmise of what they could have if they could do in Saudi Arabia- with all the resources they would gain if they could defeat the Royals- if they could only remoce the largest impediment in the U.S. With or without the U.S. troop presence during the Gulf War, an inevitable clash with America was predicated on the expansive desires of the Wahabs.

 

I take some amusement in being told that my statements are uncorraborated opinions with no merit, because much of the information I use comes directly from the interogations of captured Al Qaida leadership. I suppose that the Washington Post might have better information than AQ themselves, but I doubt it.

 

The accounts of contemporaries of the radicals and the statements of the radicals themselves show directly their interest in booting the Royals at any cost and furthering the implementation of Sharia Law- not to mention the actual execution of their goals in Afghanistan. Those same interrogations support the ideals that the goal is to push their law throughout the region and then beyond, so no matter what the logic offered by them, whether most of them cry "infidels on our soil" or as Bin Laden has said "they dropped bombs on inncoent Japanse civilians", no matter the justification, if you read their interviews and study all the information offered by those on their fringes but most importantly theiur own public speeches- the ultimate goal remains the same: the implemenation of Sharia Law, ultimately to the world. Many around the world have tried to distort this into an excercise of "what did the West do to make them mad" when in it's simplest and publicly demonstrated form the the answer is we're obstrcuting their goal of domination of their region and hence, their ultimate goal they feel their religion compels them towards- killing all who do not accept Allah and their faith and forcing those who do to live under Sharia.

 

 

So far, we haven't been doing so badly since 9/11.

 

No attacks on our soil since- yeah, I'll give that at least a not "doing so badly"

 

 

None of this can be done turning a blind eye to the rest of the world. Things have to be done in balance with other objectives in mind. Has anyone noticed how nice India and Pakistan have been playing together lately? Anyone think this is an accident? Think the PRC is pissed?

 

Ireland is another perfect example of the ripple- Gerry Adams was smart enough to realize that long time U.S. support was bound to take a dive and he positioned Sinn Fein to look more committed to the process than the boneheaded Orange Order. Its effect is still carrying the Republicans there closedr to their goals.

 

It's very hard to show patience when the reports of things getting blown up are splattered in the news daily, but this isn't a question of "whimps" not allowing for things to be done. As has been mentioned to this point ad nauseum, there are hundreds of inter related pieces to this puzzle, and ignoring any one batch of them to jump on the others is not going to solve the problem.

 

While there's obviously much we agree upon in the lead up to the present situation, I have to disconnect here because of the nuances I see driving the other side- their real goal being crystal clear IMO means they can not be negotiated with- it would only lead to a summit, for instance, upon where they'd be demanding 10 Nuclear weapons from every Western Nuclear power in order to stop, which they would simply turn around and use to further terrorize. Clearly the value of Democracy is in a wider variety of opinions being considered in solving problems, but history here teaches us that the we've been a far more efective nation at battling an enemy militarily when those opposed to the action temper their public statements for the good of the fighting persons.

 

None of this is Kumbaya. The US is going after this in terms of being the big kid on the block, no matter what anyone wants to think they know. We are going shove our influence into every corner of the globe, as much as we can and within our power, basically to make folks do what we want them to. This can be done gently and it can be done violently.

 

The enemy has chosen the script for this one.

 

Once again, I use the phrase "all elements of national power". This is not a strictly military mission, nor can it be. It also involves politcal, diplomatic, economic and informational activities. It's also not going to happen in a matter of weeks, months or even years. But, until something drastically changes, it needs to happen or the US becomes irrelevant.

 

A more subtle change in the attitude of the average Muslim, a drop in the apathy level (or just as likely the shot of pride they probably feel that "one of ours" is getting over on the big man) would probably have the greatest effect on turning the movement around. Our own Muslim population has been too young to affect it here, but there are many promising signs in England where they have a well-entranched population of Muslims who are at many levels acting responsibly. IMO it will require this action on the part of the average Mosque visitor to take hold in the ME, and in that the support-and especially their own ability to recruit- will turn the radical Islamist into a diminishing instead of growing phenomenon.

[Ghost of BiB]

While there's obviously much we agree upon in the lead up to the present situation, I have to disconnect here because of the nuances I see driving the other side- their real goal being crystal clear IMO means they can not be negotiated with- it would only lead to a summit, for instance, upon where they'd be demanding 10 Nuclear weapons from every Western Nuclear power in order to stop, which they would simply turn around and use to further terrorize. Clearly the value of Democracy is in a wider variety of opinions being considered in solving problems, but history here teaches us that the we've been a far more efective nation at battling an enemy militarily when those opposed to the action temper their public statements for the good of the fighting persons.

 

No one is remotely suggesting negotiating with them. The focus is on eliminating them. The diplomacy part comes from working with other nations to remove their base and safe haven. Militarily, each COCOM has what is referred to as a "Theater Security Cooperation Plan". State has similar arrangements. Direct contact and involvement with other nations to further our own goals. QUIT focusing on one piece, and expand your mental horizons a bit, and you might start getting it. Sure, they would like to see an islamic world, but even they realize it's generations away - best case for them. They are also very savvy, and what has to be addressed as a priority in the here and now is mitigating their influence, and taking control of the middle east in terms favorable to us. That involves concessions with some, war with others and strange bedfellows on occassion. The bad guys basically can't do jack if they don't control Saudi Arabia.

[AKC]

The bad guys basically can't do jack if they don't control Saudi Arabia.

400788[/snapback]

 

That's a frightening thought yet is certainly seems within the realm of possibilities that the bloated "Royalty" surrounded by the Saudi Welfare State of the bored, unemployed and idle "citizens of the Kingdom" could be toppled if protection isn't in place for the Feifdom of Saud. A tenuous foundation for the future of the region by any measure.