31
   

THE WAR IN GAZA

 
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 01:17 pm
@Foofie,
Gen. Betrayedus is a joke. The so-called surge was a joke, too. Check history -- generals make lousy presidents.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 08:21 pm
@Advocate,
You should be ashamed of making such a statement. You will be eating your words, should have already, as you have been proven flat wrong. You are the joke, to say such a thing.

And General Eisenhower was not a bad president, in fact he was a great man and a great president. I have an article written by Ike in the 60's, titled, "Why I am a Republican." Great article, and the whole thing could have been written now, as there were abundant leftists whackos then, as there are now, there have always been extremists. Yes, there were even nuts running around in the 30's proclaiming Hitler and others were harmless, and that utopia was possible on the earth, if only the Jews could be brought into check.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 08:37 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Gen. Betrayedus is a joke. The so-called surge was a joke, too. Check history -- generals make lousy presidents.


I have just checked history. President Grant had a few situations that only reflected that he made a better general than a president; however, President Eisenhower was a good General and a good President. The Communists did not mess with us during his time in office; they knew better not to.

But, it is hard to respond to someone that posts as though his opinion is objective fact. That in itself could be a "joke," in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 08:50 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Israel is going to impose some reciprocity on its Hamas prisoners. They will no longer live in a virtual summer camp while Shalit is denied everything.



Odd isn't it that you so vociferously criticize your own country for Guantanamo after 9/11 and several videotaped beheadings done by al quaeda.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 09:34 pm
@georgeob1,
Another red herring from George! I don't think I ever mentioned Guantanamo.

Eisenhower was a poor president. He did next to nothing for eight years except play golf. He got us involved in Nam, manufacturing the phony country deemed South Vietnam. We know what that involvement cost us.

Grant was probably as bad as GWB. There was rampant corruption during his administration, which was totally inept. He was mostly in an alcoholic stupor.

The surge did next to nothing in Iraq. Iraq was in a quiet period because, for some unknown reason, the Shites voluntarily declared a truce before the surge. We bought off the Sunni militias, paying hundreds a month to the fighters with the promise of jobs in the Iraqi government. The surge was a joke.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 10:21 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Eisenhower was a poor president. He did next to nothing for eight years except play golf. He got us involved in Nam, manufacturing the phony country deemed South Vietnam. We know what that involvement cost us.


You are again totally wrong. Yes, Ike was known for playing golf, but I believe the less needed done by a president indicates a better president. But actually Ike accomplished alot. A couple of big things, thanks to the Republicans and Eisenhower the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and secondly the interstate highway system, not exactly miniscule accomplishments. The Civil Rights Act, Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond sustained the longest one man filibuster in history in an atempt to prevent it. Senator John F. Kennedy also voted against the act, the same man that wiretapped MLK when he was president. Again to remind everyone, Martin Luther King was a Republican. Not until later when black organizations decided to become liberal socialist organizations did they unite with Democrats. J. William Fullbright of Arkansas was another notable Democrat opposing Eisenhower and conservatism, who later was said by Bill Clinton to be his political hero.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a great man, a great American, a great general, and a great president. I wish we had more of him around today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

"The Civil Rights Act of 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in the United States since Reconstruction. After it was proposed to Congress by then-President Dwight Eisenhower, Southern Democrat senator James Strom Thurmond sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep it from becoming law. His one-man filibuster consisted of 24 hours and 18 minutes of readings from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Washington’s Farewell Address, and various phone books. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster."

In regard to Vietnam, LBJ bears all the responsibility for Vietnam, to escalate it to what it was. Eisenhower merely recognized communism for the evil it was, based upon his personal experience and very real observation of the sufferings in Europe, and he sent a few advisors to Vietnam to try to help them avoid the same age old mistake he had observed elsewhere, but he cannot be held responsible for the war, no way.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 11:15 am
@okie,
That is all nonsense.

For instance, regarding Nam, Eisenhower set up the phony state, plucking a Jesuit, Diem, then living in the USA, and placing him in Saigon as the president. E called for an election on unification, but called it off when he realized that Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote. He then declared South Nam a separate state, which had the support and protection of the USA.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:27 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
generals make lousy presidents.


Wasnt George Washington a general?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:32 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
generals make lousy presidents.


Wasnt George Washington a general?


Yup, and in addition to Eisenhower, I believe so were Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison. (I think that's the list.)

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:36 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Eisenhower was a poor president. He did next to nothing for eight years except play golf. He got us involved in Nam, manufacturing the phony country deemed South Vietnam. We know what that involvement cost us.


He also ordered Israel, the UK and France to immediately withdraw from Egypt when in 1956 those countries illegally invaded in an ill-conceived attempt to seize Siani and Suez. Could that have anything to do with your antipathy?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:38 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:

For instance, regarding Nam, Eisenhower set up the phony state, plucking a Jesuit, Diem, then living in the USA, and placing him in Saigon as the president. E called for an election on unification, but called it off when he realized that Ho Chi Minh would get 80% of the vote. He then declared South Nam a separate state, which had the support and protection of the USA.


Once a terrorist state, always a terrorist state.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 12:47 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
For instance, regarding Nam, Eisenhower set up the phony state, plucking a Jesuit, Diem, then living in the USA, and placing him in Saigon as the president.


WRONG!!!!!
According to history, South Vietnam was established by an act of the Geneva Conference on Indochina.
That conference was attended by reps from U.S., Britain, China, the Soviet Union, France, Vietnam (Viet Minh and representatives of Bao Dai), Cambodia and Laos.

South Vietnam was established officially on July 21, 1954 - The Geneva Accords divide Vietnam in half at the 17th parallel, with Ho Chi Minh's Communists ceded the North, while Bao Dai's regime is granted the South.

Yes, the US did oppose elections regarding reunification, but for you to claim that the US created South Vietnam or that Diem was appointed as its president by Eisenhower in just plain wrong.

October 1954 In the South, Bao Dai has installed Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister. The U.S. now pins its hopes on anti-Communist Diem for a democratic South Vietnam. It is Diem, however, who predicts "another more deadly war" will erupt over the future of Vietnam.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 01:09 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Odd isn't it that you so vociferously criticize your own country for Guantanamo after 9/11 and several videotaped beheadings done by al quaeda.


How does that compare with a hundred thousand murdered by an illegal invasion in Iraq, Gob1?

How does that compare with thousands tortured and murdered in any number of central American countries?

That you won't criticise your country for anything clearly illustrates your level of immorality.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 04:35 pm
@mysteryman,
You are very naive. All this was engineered by Eisenhower.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 04:58 pm
@Advocate,
You seem to be obsessed with hating Eisenhower. This all seems to be a bit bizarre. I wonder if George is onto something.
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Apr, 2009 06:46 pm
On a PBS documentary awhile back, that related to Eisenhower, it showed that his golfing was primarily his ex-Presidential persona; however, it also served as a red-herring, since as an ex-President he was involved with analyzing early efforts at air reconnaissance, according to the documentary.

The fact that some can just think of him as the golfing President just shows how effective he was at his diversionary persona.

He was a great General, a great President, I believe, and a role model for those that want to serve the nation.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 07:42 am
@okie,
I am not obsessed with Eisenhower. I almost never bring him up. However, you Reps seem to view all Rep presidents, no matter how awful, with ridiculous and unearned devotion. Eisenhower was lazy, and he ignored domestic matters. Also, he was the first president to get us deeply involved in Nam.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 08:30 am
The public should not be disgusted should a Pal mosque be obliterated.


Hamas 'bomb factory' found in West Bank mosque
2 hours ago

RAMALLAH (AFP) " Palestinian security officials said on Sunday that they had found a Hamas bomb-making factory underneath a mosque in the occupied West Bank.

"Security forces found a bomb-making factory inside a mosque in Qalqiliya," an interior ministry statement said. "Many of the bombs were ready to use and many of them were of industrial grade."

A senior security official told AFP that Fatah-led Palestinian security forces had detained "many" people for questioning after the discovery, saying: "This factory belongs to Hamas."

The revelation was likely to increase tensions between the two main factions whose long-running feud exploded in June 2007 when the Islamist Hamas group booted out Fatah loyalists from Gaza after a week of deadly street battles.

The move left Fatah's power base confined to the West Bank and since then the rivals have accused each other of persecuting their members.

Egypt has sought for months to mediate reconciliation talks with the aim of creating a unity government, but earlier this month it said was putting those efforts temporarily on hold.

Copyright © 2009 AFP.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 09:32 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Eisenhower was lazy, .....

When you say that, Advocate, you pretty much destroy any credibility you ever hoped to have. That is dumb, dumb, dumb. If you did a tenth of what Eisenhower accomplished in his life, you would hardly be called "lazy."
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2009 09:42 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

The public should not be disgusted should a Pal mosque be obliterated.


Hamas 'bomb factory' found in West Bank mosque

I think this is interesting, right after Obama declares we are not fighting Islam. Yes, I know, Bush said the same, and every politician is obliged to say the same thing, and it is true to a point, but I think that most informed people would admit that numerous mosques have been found to harbor cells of terror links. London is an example of this, and right here in America, Islamic organizations have been linked to terror cells, raising money, etc.

A majority of Islamic people are peace loving, I believe, but a much higher number of mosques and Islamic organizations have terror links than one would hope or be led to believe. Links run the gamut, and apparently all the way to having a bomb making factory housed in one, if your article is true. Face it, in some countries, Islamic educational systems teach hatred, so the percentage does end up exceeding a few isolated fanatics running around, there must be in fact a very large percentage of people with sympathies toward terrorist groups. I think polls have shown this to be a fact in Arabic or Islamic countries.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE WAR IN GAZA
  3. » Page 56
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 06:58:41