WikiLeaks founder chooses to blackmail

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

WTF: .and if we lose Vietnam, we will all become Commies.

We won every major battle in Vietnam. Had the Republicans gotten their way, we would've had complete victory, with all of Vietnam being Democratic. But the Democrats pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Defeat? We are trading with Vietnam as we speak. The Dem's saved lives by pulling us out of Vietnam.

If you are in favor of nation building , I hope you know that is a liberal idealogy.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

The terrorist attacks in New York, London, Madrid, and elsewhere are connected, and are part of a methodical attack against the West, against non-Muslim countries, to carry out a war they've ben waging since Muhammad's rise.

As the leading Western Nation, we have to capitalize on our strengths to halt their centuries old war against Western Civilization... perishing if we have to in the process of fighting them and their efforts. This includes the efforts we're taking to rally other countries to this cause.

.

And you solution is to invade a country like Iraq that suppressed Radical extremist and replace it with a government that is more aligned with Iran. Invade Afghanistan to instill a Democracy? To what end? You are not fighting Muslim extremism, you are aiding it.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

WTF: and the American public footed your military education?

My military education focused on what I needed to do while performing my assigned occupation specialty. I'm described as a subject matter expert. So don't worry, the American Public's money was well spent in my case.

If you believe what you have posted on here in regards to history and future solutions all you are is just another beggar at the taxpayer trough trying to convince folks that your cause is worth our $$$$$$$$$$$$.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Hey PJ how do I deny a lovely lady? And she dared me, bad idea dear lol

Killing one board wasn't enough?

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Killing one board wasn't enough?

Ha, complete falsehood. But I'll try here ... unless Ansley withdraws the dare, you might want to speak with her.

[pjorourke]

Ansley, please withdraw the dare. I don't want to see DG's hairy ass every time I sign on.

[charlestudor2005]

Are you sure you don't want to close this thread?

@Maz
I agree.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by WTF

Defeat? We are trading with Vietnam as we speak. The Dem's saved lives by pulling us out of Vietnam.

If you are in favor of nation building , I hope you know that is a liberal idealogy.

...

You really are a left-wing ideolog aren't you? You are so blinded by your "faith" in the liberal ideology that you cannot see the ill promoted by your own party. It was the Progressive Liberals that started the eugenics movement.

Did you even know that Harry S. Truman (D) was the first president in Vietnam to protect a French garrison? And who esculated the war in Vietnam? Oh yeah, the man who coined the term "Military Industrial Complex" Eisenhower (R) and another Dem by the name of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Ike tried to warn the country of the power elite.

I really don't see the current regime stopping the nation building either.

Those on the right and those on the left are so worried about what label holds the power, you forget that both the left and right are capable of horrible attrocities. When you wake up to the fact that we are marching to a centralized, oppressive government maybe then and only then we can all stand up and say, "stop."

Unless, of course, you really want a govenment that can tell you where to work, how much you will make, what you can eat, and when and where you can vacation.

[discreetgent]

Nah, Lauren enjoys the avatar changes.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Ansley

herfacechair, is that avatar really necessary for an escort board?

That's my debate mode avatar.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Honestly guys, the more you feed the troll the more he's gonna shit blue crap all over this board. Just ignore him and let him move on to his next unfortunate target.

Mazo.

If you believed what you farted, about my "shitting blue crap" all over the board, then, certainly, you'd be able to answer the YES or NO question that I asked you. I've asked it twice, and you ignored it twice. The fact that you've failed to answer that question, given the guidelines I provided on that post, speaks volumes to the fact that your description of my posts is emotionally charged. Because if I "shit blue crap" all over this board, you'd have no problems answering that YES or NO question. But I doubt that you'd answer that with integrity, as you can't give the common sense answer without destroying your own argument in the process.

Your actions speak louder than your words.

As for anybody that refuses to take your advice? They're being like me.

[herfacechair]

WTF: Defeat?

Yes, defeat. The Vietnamese admitted that they would've surrendered had we not stopped the bombing. Unfortunately, because of the restrictions that the Democrat Congress had placed on Nixon, he couldn't continue his bombing campaign.

WTF: We are trading with Vietnam as we speak.

That's beside the point. We're trading with China, and despite our Cold War Rivalry, we traded with the USSR. We deployed combat troops to Russia around the time of World War I to fight the Bolsheviks.

WTF: The Dem's saved lives by pulling us out of Vietnam.

No they didn't. First, it was Nixon that drastically reduced our presence in Vietnam. Unlike his Democratic predecessors, he did something to bring about the end... using military means. He reduced the percent of the budget dedicated to the Vietnam operation, reduced troops to about 20,000, and began a bombing campaign where we finally did what the DOD was screaming we should do.

The Vietnamese were on the verge of surrender. Again, according to the Vietnamese, had we not stopped the bombing, the Vietnamese would've surrendered unconditionally.

The US forces pulled out in 1973 per the peace treaty between the Veitnams. A Republican Administration worked our end of those peace accords.

The Democratic Congress decided to cut funding, against a winning strategy that called for continued adequate funding. The reduction in funding resulted in the South Vietnamese being unable to uphold against the North. This lead to the Fall of Saigon in 1975.

Following the Fall of Saigon, more people died as an emboldened Northern Vietnam carried its combat campaign elsewhere.

This had ramifications for us down the road. Part of the reason the Anti-Iraqi Forces fought our forces, over the years, is that they thought that we'd pull the same stunt there that we pulled in Vietnam. They even told us that Iraq would be "our Vietnam." Somalia was the same way. Had it not been for Vietnam and Somalia, the Iraq War wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

The Democrats didn't save lives with their antiques. They simply contributed to our enemies seeing us as being weaker.

WTF: If you are in favor of nation building , I hope you know that is a liberal idealogy.

I'm not in favor of nation building, unless it serves a strategic and/or economic purpose. Nation building isn't the sole domain for the liberals.

WTF: And you solution is to invade a country like Iraq that suppressed Radical extremist

Saddam didn't suppress radical Islamists. The reason he put, "God is Great" on the Iraqi flag was to appeal to the radical extremists in his country, and throughout the Arab world. He held radical extremist/Islamist conventions during his tenure, and made "Death to America" speeches. The Iraqis called Saddam, "The grandfather of terrorists/terrorism." He didn't suppress radical extremists, he supported them. Just ask the mother of a Palestinian Shaheed.

WTF: and replace it with a government that is more aligned with Iran.

When I was there, I saw things that didn't make the news. The liberal media spun things as if the Iraqi government aligned itself to the Iranians, but that's not what actually happened. There were elements that were sympathetic to the Iranians. But the vast majority didn't favor the Iranians, they despised the Iranians trying to meddle in Iraqi affairs.

The Iraqi government is its own entity.

WTF: Invade Afghanistan to instill a Democracy? To what end? You are not fighting Muslim extremism, you are aiding it.

Go back through these posts, and read the comments I made. Part of the war on terrorism involves our actions to reduce the elements that foster and feed radical Islamic extremism. By introducing democracy into Iraq and Afghanistan, we've propelled those countries into moving toward becoming developed countries, stable democracies. We're giving them an environment that gives them other options than to fuel the Anti Iraqi Forces, or the Taliban.

NOTE: We dealt with an insurgency in Germany right after World War II. I've read post World War II articles where the United States is criticized for "losing the victory" in Europe, and for creating something that'd lead to the Europeans about to have a worse future.

I've ben to Iraq, and I know for a fact that Iraq is well on its way to becoming a strong, economically stable democracy. The vast majority of the Iraqis want democracy. The quality of their lives drastically improved since our invasion. In fact, the Iraqis WANT to westernize.

Look at a map of the Middle East. Thanks to our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, we've turned the heart of the Middle East into a checkerboard pattern of democracies. That's going to go a long way to reducing the environment that fosters radical extremism.

Your opinion that we're "aiding" the radical Islamic movement isn't supported by reality, and it's NOT something that I saw when I was downrange.

WTF: If you believe what you have posted on here in regards to history and future solutions all you are is just another beggar at the taxpayer trough trying to convince folks that your cause is worth our $$$$$$$$$$$$.

I'm just following where the facts lead me. I strongly believe what I posted here, as it's based on my analysis of what I've experienced, and on what I've researched. Now, you tried to attack my military education. One of the job specialties I had was gathering tactical data, and analyzing past trends, and making a projection based on those past and current trends. I'm injecting that here, where I'm looking at actual history, human nature, current events, and making a projection based on what the facts are telling me.

I've ben making projections, based on the facts, since the 80s. So far, my projections have proven to be accurate. In 2004, on the brazzil.com, I made a bulleted point projection of how Iraq was going to turn out. I based this on the facts that I had access to at the time. The combat deployment that I recently made to Iraq saw my final bullet become reality.

The media has ben seriously negligent in presenting the threats that we're up against. They've ben negligent in letting the people know what we're really up against, and what's really at stake. You're demonstrating the negative impact of journalistic miscarriage.

I'm letting people know the realities of what we're dealing with. I'm doing that by presenting the analysis I've done based on real world realities, and the facts that I've came across.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Are you sure you don't want to close this thread?

@Maz
I agree.

You want to restrict my freedom of speech and expression because this thread isn't going the way you intended for it to go? Nobody is forcing you to click on this thread to read it. You, and anybody else who doesn't like this thread anymore, can simply move on to other threads.

I'm doing things that I looked forward to doing while combat deployed to Iraq. Things like this, I don't always have the opportunity to do downrange. I don't know if I'd have the opportunity to post continuously on message boards when I'm in Afghanistan. I didn't have that convenience when I was in Iraq.

Based on my experiences, no matter the length of the thread that I debated on, these threads have proven that they'll die on their own.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

That's my debate mode avatar.

So you think having an avatar pointing a gun will get your point across better?.... very telling.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Ansley, please withdraw the dare. I don't want to see DG's hairy ass every time I sign on.

DG, I withdraw the dare, but I have a sneaky feeling that wouldn't stop you.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Are you sure you don't want to close this thread?

@Maz
I agree.

I find myself agreeing with Mazo and CT -- how weird is that?

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I find myself agreeing with Mazo and CT -- how weird is that?

Maybe we need a poll.