Foofie wrote:
I've read that some of the gay community is rabidly anti-Reagan, since he supposedly did very little in his administration to fund research for AIDS. That would imply that within all the commentary one hears about Reagan, one can hear some things that might just reflect a prejudicial opinion.
I like Reagan for his helping America regain some of its pride back, after the hostage situation with Iran. I also like the fact he ate jelly beans.
Surely the depth of this delusion is simply a reflection of your schtick.
JTT wrote:Foofie wrote:
I've read that some of the gay community is rabidly anti-Reagan, since he supposedly did very little in his administration to fund research for AIDS. That would imply that within all the commentary one hears about Reagan, one can hear some things that might just reflect a prejudicial opinion.
I like Reagan for his helping America regain some of its pride back, after the hostage situation with Iran. I also like the fact he ate jelly beans.
Surely the depth of this delusion is simply a reflection of your schtick.
Eloquent retort, but I don't think it applies. And shtick is in the dictionary; notice only one "c."
Dictionaries are oft behind the times. Please d'not quibble about such stuff even if the poster flubbs up.
I find that correct spelling of yiddish words to be vastly important in conveying accurate understanding when speaking in american english or even spanglish or franglish. One who pays attention to the smallest of details is often anal retentive but a stickler for a gestalt of comprehension. If it ain't "here and now" baby where is it?
I don't really mind a military base in Iraq (I think we should limit it to one though).
There is a lot of instability in this region and while our presence there would be controversial, it may also be required.
I really don't know enough about the region to make a fully formed decision, but I don't know enough about it to determine that we don't need them there either.
Oh, what the F are we doing with a military base costing zillions there?
On schtict or shtict, I'll await what Roberta says. But I think of yiddish - while a language with literature - as a spoken conveyance.
Me, I'm irish american trying to learn italian too late, having previous forays into latin, german, and spanish, and benefitting with parental english. No matter, I can usually get along. What is the big deal re the need to correct?
ossobuco wrote:Oh, what the F are we doing with a military base costing zillions there?
On schtict or shtict, I'll await what Roberta says. But I think of yiddish - while a language with literature - as a spoken conveyance.
Me, I'm irish american trying to learn italian too late, having previous forays into latin, german, and spanish, and benefitting with parental english. No matter, I can usually get along. What is the big deal re the need to correct?
The U.S. needs bases all over the world to deal with a world that can spin out of control in a comparatively short time. You, and others, may not accept that as a reality, but that's why they are there. God bless America.
The Left will not be satisfied until not a single U.S. soldier is overseas, and the whole military establishment is reduced to little more than a decorative palace guard to welcome Foreign visitors.
U.S. military presence and bases were instrumental in preventing the old USSR from occupying the entire European Continent. It has prevented the PRC from invading Taiwan since 1948. It was an essential ellement in transforming Japan into a modern Democracy, and an industrial giant. It was U.S. forces that prevented the DPRK from turning the ROK into the same gulag that currently exists under the Kims. U.S. forces and bases have maintained the peace on the Korean Penninsula for over 50 years. U.S. military bases brought prosperity to the Philippine Islands, but when they got greedy, we left them some of the finest military and naval facilities in the whole region. Who is it that finds fault with US policies of maintaining US military installations and troops outside CONUS?
Probably the same people who would like to reduce the Navy to a handful of gunboats adequate to patrol only inside our national waters. Think of all the money that could be spent to build Utopia if we only scrapped all those expensive aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and high-tech cruisers. If the US would only maintain a military roughly equal to that of Italy, the whole world would be overcome with peace and tranquility. Sure, it would.
Foofie wrote:ossobuco wrote:Oh, what the F are we doing with a military base costing zillions there?
On schtict or shtict, I'll await what Roberta says. But I think of yiddish - while a language with literature - as a spoken conveyance.
Me, I'm irish american trying to learn italian too late, having previous forays into latin, german, and spanish, and benefitting with parental english. No matter, I can usually get along. What is the big deal re the need to correct?
The U.S. needs bases all over the world to deal with a world that can spin out of control in a comparatively short time. You, and others, may not accept that as a reality, but that's why they are there. God bless America.
You don't question that at all, do you? You see us as world controller par excellance...
Quote:The Left will not be satisfied until not a single U.S. soldier is overseas, and the whole military establishment is reduced to little more than a decorative palace guard to welcome Foreign visitors.
From some people wanting us not to have an occupying force in Iraq, you get this?
Asherman wrote:The Left will not be satisfied until not a single U.S. soldier is overseas, and the whole military establishment is reduced to little more than a decorative palace guard to welcome Foreign visitors.
U.S. military presence and bases were instrumental in preventing the old USSR from occupying the entire European Continent. It has prevented the PRC from invading Taiwan since 1948. It was an essential ellement in transforming Japan into a modern Democracy, and an industrial giant. It was U.S. forces that prevented the DPRK from turning the ROK into the same gulag that currently exists under the Kims. U.S. forces and bases have maintained the peace on the Korean Penninsula for over 50 years. U.S. military bases brought prosperity to the Philippine Islands, but when they got greedy, we left them some of the finest military and naval facilities in the whole region. Who is it that finds fault with US policies of maintaining US military installations and troops outside CONUS?
Probably the same people who would like to reduce the Navy to a handful of gunboats adequate to patrol only inside our national waters. Think of all the money that could be spent to build Utopia if we only scrapped all those expensive aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and high-tech cruisers. If the US would only maintain a military roughly equal to that of Italy, the whole world would be overcome with peace and tranquility. Sure, it would.
No; I just think we should only be in places where the people of that country welcome us. (not the government but the people) There are other places we can put our military. Some ME states and countries and regions don't welcome presence so we shouldn't be there as it only fuels more hatred. They have the right to decide who they want in their country. It is not our right impose our will on others just because we think we might need to be there. We can respond to real threats from those places who would welcome us just as well. At least we did before our fake cowboy president alienated the world with his fake macho act.
I do think we should keep up our military and keep building up our defense system. (not nukes) Something which we haven't done since Bush has been in office squandering all of our resources in one place for no reason.
Neither the Germans nor the Japanese welcomed us, but our presence was necessary and ultimately everyone benefited. The DPRK has done a really great job of inciting youth and the left to anti-American demonstrations in ROK (its almost a national sport that goes off on schedule). The day US forces depart, the Korean War will recommence. The PRC hates having the USN patrolling the water's of "it's" Eastern Seas, but without those hateful ships Taiwan would join Tibet.
A whole lot of Germans hated having US forces in their country during the Cold War, because they didn't want to provoke the USSR, or become the battlefield in some clash between the Super Powers. Should the US then have pulled out and left Berlin and West Germany to the Soviets? When the Philippines asked us to leave, we left. The result is that today the logistical lines for US forces are long and vulnerable. It takes time to move naval task forces from Hawaii to the South China Sea, and longer to the waters off Iran and the Gulf. That makes for long deployments with greater wear on the men and equipment. More ships and men are required to maintain station. We've already reduced our presence in the Mediterranean Sea and Europe, so forces have to be moved from CONUS to those locations where they are most needed.
We are currently engaged in a most unusual conflict. The enemy isn't a uniformed, national military operating openly on reasonably well-defined battle fields. We are faced instead with an international effort by Radical Islamic Terrorists whose goal is world domination for their particular brand of Islam. These radical organizations have very wide popular support in South Asia, and they are logistically supported and financed by Iran, and wealthy Saudis. The enemy's strategy is built on terrorism directed indiscriminately against civilians around the world. They understand and play the propaganda game with skill and sophistication. What they can not win on the battlefield they hope to win by preying on the tender-hearts of the decadent West. The enemy, the Radical Islamic Movement and its sponsors are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, both absolutely critical to their credibility and goals. Iran, the Taliban, and Al Quida remain dangerous, but can not concede a loss in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Pakistan. They will continue as long as they can, but their resources are limited. Iraq is finally beginning to get on its feet, but will remain a toddler for some time, perhaps years.
The absolute worst thing that could happen would be a huge draw down, or withdrawal of US forces before the Radical Islamic Movement is broken and abandoned by its clandestine supporters. Many on the left continually accuse this administration of dastardly designs on Iraq's oil. Oil, being a diminishing critical resource, is certainly a factor to be considered, but even more important is that US forces be in a position to continue their efforts to defeat the Radical Islamic Movement.
Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The oft repeated comparisons between the aftermath of WWII and Iraq is blatant BC.
I would not do a good job of going head to head with you; I know others would do a much better job who know their history but this discussion has been done to death in these last few years as the administration has peddled this comparison down the throats of the American public. (no one else would buy it)
The new reconstruction
The cultural differences between western Germany and the ME are what make the comparisons false.
Asherman wrote:Don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Victory? Ha! Yeah, that's exactly what's happening...we're five minutes away from a democratic Iraq, people! Yay! And the war on terror? You can see that we've practically eradicated that threat by our presence in Iraq. And we can go on sending more and more troops there without any financial or foreign policy repurcussions at all. Yeah, VICTORY. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket...
Foofie wrote:JTT wrote:Foofie wrote:
I've read that some of the gay community is rabidly anti-Reagan, since he supposedly did very little in his administration to fund research for AIDS. That would imply that within all the commentary one hears about Reagan, one can hear some things that might just reflect a prejudicial opinion.
I like Reagan for his helping America regain some of its pride back, after the hostage situation with Iran. I also like the fact he ate jelly beans.
Surely the depth of this delusion is simply a reflection of your schtick.
Eloquent retort, but I don't think it applies. And shtick is in the dictionary; notice only one "c."
You be wrong on two issues. You often repeat, mantra like, this same old nonsense.
Pulled two foofies in one posting.
========
M-W
Main Entry:
schtick
variant of shtick
==============
AHD
schtick
PRONUNCIATION: shtk
NOUN: Variant of shtick.
================
Asherman wrote:
We are currently engaged in a most unusual conflict. The enemy isn't a uniformed, national military operating openly on reasonably well-defined battle fields. We are faced instead with an international effort by Radical Islamic Terrorists whose goal is world domination for their particular brand of Islam. These radical organizations have very wide popular support in South Asia, and they are logistically supported and financed by Iran, and wealthy Saudis. The enemy's strategy is built on terrorism directed indiscriminately against civilians around the world. They understand and play the propaganda game with skill and sophistication. What they can not win on the battlefield they hope to win by preying on the tender-hearts of the decadent West. The enemy, the Radical Islamic Movement and its sponsors are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, both absolutely critical to their credibility and goals. Iran, the Taliban, and Al Quida remain dangerous, but can not concede a loss in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Pakistan. They will continue as long as they can, but their resources are limited. Iraq is finally beginning to get on its feet, but will remain a toddler for some time, perhaps years.
You are as delusional as Foofie, Asherman. HTF do you know what they want to dominate? Perhaps they just want the USA out of their countries. Perhaps they just want the USA to stop stealing their resources by supporting dictators which support US companies.
You've swallowed, hook, line and sinker, all the nonsense your government has fed you since elementary school. Isn't it time to grow up and think for yourself?
How is it delusional to recognize that the United States is under attack by a group of international terrorists who hate and despise western humanitarian values? Radical Islam makes no effort to hide or disguise its long term intention of installing Islamic Theocratic dictatorships everywhere in the world. Radical Islam is willing, even eager to target the most vulnerable members of society (even their own people), to snatch a headline or two. These people have declared all-out and perpetual war against us, and have demonstrated their willingness to commit suicide in the process. Radical Islam has a large number of sympathizers who already hate the idea that the UN created Israel, and who blame their own miserable existence on the Western world. This enemy was carrying out active terrorist operations long before 9/11, and their rhetoric has remained unchanged since.
What has changed is that an Iraqi government is beginning to become viable. The most rabid Al Quida operatives have been marginalized, captured or killed. Stability in Iraq is slowly developing. Apparently volunteer suicide bombers are getting harder to recruit. No successful terrorist attack against the US has succeeded in several years. Oil continues to be exported to Europe, Asia and the Western hemisphere.
Those aren't delusions. The delusion is that if the United States were to withdraw inside its own borders, and give up its military supremacy the world would become a peaceful Eden in short order.
A tiger with a taste for human flesh was cornered by a hunter between a high cliff and a rock wall. The tiger laid down and saw that the hunter hesitated. "You know, Hunter, killing me would be a terribly injustice?"
"How so tiger? You've eaten numerous villagers, some of them only infants. Starvation threatens because the farmers are afraid to tend the fields." The tiger's response was that eating children was its nature, and if only the villagers would supply a few unwanted kids, the problem would be solved.
"What right do you have as a Hunter, to come into my jungle bearing weapons to kill me with? This is my country, and your presence here so offended me that I only attacked the villages to drive you away." The tiger continued, "I have no territorial ambitions, beyond this little patch of jungle, so why don't we just call it a day?"
About this time, the Hunter's cell phone began to vibrate on his hip. He answered the telephone, and slowly lowered his rifle to the ground. "Yes, who is it?" It was his wife calling to say that she just saw the cutest little tiger cub on PBS, and that it should be a crime to shoot tigers. She had heard that hunting tigers was a dangerous thing, and it would be far safer if the hunter just came on home. "Why honey, I can't just leave at the moment. There's a man-eater here who has acquired a taste for innocent lives, and there are several others reportedly considering an expansion of their diet."
The hunter's wife had an answer to that, of course. "Just yesterday, there were mass demonstration all over the world by people opposed to killing tigers for any reason. They say that you only hunt tigers for their glands to improve your virility. Some are saying its to intimidate the world with your big gun and bullets. Its not our affair, there hasn't been a tiger attack here since that terrible business at the San Fransisco Zoo. Those tigers you want to kill weren't involved in that affair, were they? Ms. Trueheart says it the Zoo things was a conspiracy by the zoo to get additional funding anyway. If you don't come home right this instant, I won't love you any more."
The tiger smiled, and commented, "what did I tell you. No one wants you here. Go home and settle back down in front of the television. Have a beer, and leave this part of the world to us natives."
I hope you copy and pasted that, Asherman, rather than waste the time typing.
