|
Libya
Mar 7, 2011 13:57:03 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Mar 7, 2011 13:57:03 GMT -5
Another Muslim dictator headed for a fall. How do YOU spell Kadaffy?
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 8, 2011 15:31:06 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 8, 2011 15:31:06 GMT -5
Another RIGHT-WING dictator is TUMBLING......Ghaddafi:)
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 9, 2011 15:57:36 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Mar 9, 2011 15:57:36 GMT -5
Another RIGHT-WING dictator is TUMBLING......Ghaddafi:) Another MUSLIM dictator falling. ;D
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 15, 2011 7:44:27 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 15, 2011 7:44:27 GMT -5
Another RIGHT-WING dictator is TUMBLING......Ghaddafi:) Another MUSLIM dictator falling. ;D Hr might be Muslim, but he's RIGHT-WING all the damn way
|
|
Ricky
Club Rocker
Long live Rock and Roll
Posts: 501
|
Libya
Mar 22, 2011 21:24:11 GMT -5
Post by Ricky on Mar 22, 2011 21:24:11 GMT -5
and Obama was going to bring the troops home
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 24, 2011 12:14:13 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 24, 2011 12:14:13 GMT -5
The troops in Afghanistan should COME BACK home rapidoooooooooooooooooooooooooo.....remember the USSR's Alamo with their invasion of Afghanistan way back when? ?! NO ONE beats the Mujadins....NOT even the USA!!!!.....quick, before another Nam happens:)
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 24, 2011 19:31:18 GMT -5
Post by Trexx on Mar 24, 2011 19:31:18 GMT -5
The war there is retarded (regarding Afganistan).
Reasons: The entire country is brown, except where they grow opium. Opium is the only export besides machine guns in Afganistan. You don't even need a satellite to see the green patches. If there was a serious resolve to destroy Al Qaida, then, destroy the opium. That's their money bags. Simple solution. Napalm works wonders. But they won't do it because there's some naughty hanky-panky going on. This is truly a no-brainer. I cannot believe that somebody like Ted Nugent or some other up-n-coming-wild-eyed cowboy hasn't called the ball on this bullshit.
I think the heroin profits are being dipped by men in black AND the rag-heads.
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 26, 2011 23:02:29 GMT -5
Post by duojett71 on Mar 26, 2011 23:02:29 GMT -5
Another RIGHT-WING dictator is TUMBLING......Ghaddafi:) huh?
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 27, 2011 11:12:39 GMT -5
Post by Equinox on Mar 27, 2011 11:12:39 GMT -5
Another Muslim dictator headed for a fall. How do YOU spell Kadaffy? What's the end game on this? Taking sides in a civil war. Hey, I'd be the first to condemn Ghadaffi. How do we know that the opposing faction is any better, ort just another despot looking to take over? Clinton even said as much.... the week before she pushed the Pres to take this action...? Are we going to continue to make the same mistakes over and over in the middle east? Iraq 101; You get rid of one despot, and another bunch line up to take over! We need to get the fuck out of there and let them go back to doing what they've done for thousands of years... destroy each other.
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 27, 2011 13:08:08 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Mar 27, 2011 13:08:08 GMT -5
Another Muslim dictator headed for a fall. How do YOU spell Kadaffy? What's the end game on this? Taking sides in a civil war. Hey, I'd be the first to condemn Ghadaffi. How do we know that the opposing faction is any better, ort just another despot looking to take over? Clinton even said as much.... the week before she pushed the Pres to take this action...? Are we going to continue to make the same mistakes over and over in the middle east? Iraq 101; You get rid of one despot, and another bunch line up to take over! We need to get the fuck out of there and let them go back to doing what they've done for thousands of years... destroy each other. That's pretty much my take on it. I was all for Mubarek getting dethroned in Egypt, but it seems like that may not have been a very good thing now in hindsight. Libya, same deal. Kadaffy is a nasty bastard, but it HAS been relatively peaceful in that region with him in charge of Libya and Mubarek in Egypt. I hope we don't soon look back on their reigns as "the good old days".
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 28, 2011 10:19:52 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 28, 2011 10:19:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 28, 2011 10:21:00 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 28, 2011 10:21:00 GMT -5
I can't wait for those REVOLTING pro-West towel-heads in Saudi Arabia to get BEATEN UP.........remember the MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES:) !!!
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 28, 2011 10:21:58 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 28, 2011 10:21:58 GMT -5
The war there is retarded (regarding Afganistan). Reasons: The entire country is brown, except where they grow opium. Opium is the only export besides machine guns in Afganistan. You don't even need a satellite to see the green patches. If there was a serious resolve to destroy Al Qaida, then, destroy the opium. That's their money bags. Simple solution. Napalm works wonders. But they won't do it because there's some naughty hanky-panky going on. This is truly a no-brainer. I cannot believe that somebody like Ted Nugent or some other up-n-coming-wild-eyed cowboy hasn't called the ball on this bullshit. I think the heroin profits are being dipped by men in black AND the rag-heads. If you think that the U.S. won the Nam war with napalm or without, you should go back to yer history books and review who REALLY won that REVOLTING, SICK war:) !!!!
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 29, 2011 21:16:42 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Mar 29, 2011 21:16:42 GMT -5
The war there is retarded (regarding Afganistan). Reasons: The entire country is brown, except where they grow opium. Opium is the only export besides machine guns in Afganistan. You don't even need a satellite to see the green patches. If there was a serious resolve to destroy Al Qaida, then, destroy the opium. That's their money bags. Simple solution. Napalm works wonders. But they won't do it because there's some naughty hanky-panky going on. This is truly a no-brainer. I cannot believe that somebody like Ted Nugent or some other up-n-coming-wild-eyed cowboy hasn't called the ball on this bullshit. I think the heroin profits are being dipped by men in black AND the rag-heads. If you think that the U.S. won the Nam war with napalm or without, you should go back to yer history books and review who REALLY won that REVOLTING, SICK war:) !!!! Nixon won, then the pussy democratic congess lost it. look it up.
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 30, 2011 8:00:01 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 30, 2011 8:00:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 30, 2011 17:57:31 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Mar 30, 2011 17:57:31 GMT -5
I knew that would get a rise outta ya! Win/loss, all depends on the definition I guess, but Nixon had Hanoi on their knees by 1973, but congress pushed to sign a treaty that heavily favored North Vietnam ( NVA troops were allowed to stay in parts of South Vietnam for one ). After the treaty congress cut funding for the South Vietnamese army. When NVA attacked in 1975 with armor divisions, the congress and President Ford refused promised air support and Saigon soon fell. Did the U.S really lose? Or did we just stop fighting? Either way, I think we all can agree that South Vietnam DID lose and North Vietnam DID win.
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 31, 2011 6:32:56 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Mar 31, 2011 6:32:56 GMT -5
I knew that would get a rise outta ya! Win/loss, all depends on the definition I guess, but Nixon had Hanoi on their knees by 1973, but congress pushed to sign a treaty that heavily favored North Vietnam ( NVA troops were allowed to stay in parts of South Vietnam for one ). After the treaty congress cut funding for the South Vietnamese army. When NVA attacked in 1975 with armor divisions, the congress and President Ford refused promised air support and Saigon soon fell. Did the U.S really lose? Or did we just stop fighting? Either way, I think we all can agree that South Vietnam DID lose and North Vietnam DID win. LUCKILY for the U.S. and the whole world at that, the U.S. govt. realized you can't do much against guerrilla warfare wherever it comes from...when the people start taking arms and organizing themselves like an army and defending their OWN land from invaders, there is NO regular army anyehere in the universe that can stop that....the American Revolution supports my comment all along....King George's army could do very little against the Sons & Daughters of America...and the Brits lost miserably just like the con U.S. army LOST in Nam:) !!! !!! AND let's NOT forget the 4 INNOCENT victims at Kent State Uni in May 1970 who were BRUTALLY murdered by the National Guard just because they were protesting against a REVOLTING war in Nam:)!!! Oh, this just came in seeing that the horrible name of Richard Nixon popped up in this thread:) Watergate gets makeover at the Nixon libraryLOS ANGELES – History is being restored at the Richard Nixon Library, where the Watergate exhibit once told visitors nearly four decades after the scandal led to his resignation that it was really a "coup" by his rivals. For years the library exhibit that retraces the former president's notorious saga was a target of ridicule, panned for omissions and editing that academics and critics said shaped a legacy favorable to the tainted 37th president. On Thursday, archivists will present a revamped and expanded version of the exhibit at the Yorba, Calif., library, a $500,000 makeover they say is faithful to fact, balanced and devoid of political judgment. "What we tried to do is lay out the record and encourage visitors to come in ... and draw their own conclusions," said Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives. Some material has never before been on public display, and it includes interviews with, among others, Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy and Nixon special counsel Charles Colson, who went to prison for seven months in 1975 for crimes related to the Watergate. The exhibit opening marks a milestone for the library, whose tangled history is marked by uneasy relations between Nixon loyalists and the National Archives, which took over the site in 2007 and oversees the presidential library system. When the library opened in private hands in 1990, Nixon biographer Stephen E. Ambrose wrote that commentary heard on one heavily edited Watergate tape "would almost convince a listener that Nixon never ordered a cover-up or a payment of hush money." The private Richard Nixon Foundation, which ran the site at the time, makes clear on its website the exhibit was "President Nixon's perspective" of the scandal that brought down his presidency. Nixon White House aide Bruce Herschensohn believes that Nixon's perspective should have remained, saying presidential libraries should be a "shrine." "I can only come to the conclusion it will probably be a hit piece," he said. "This is the Nixon library. This is his place. He's buried there ... and so is Mrs. Nixon." He said the library has veered from archival work into politically charged interpretation since going under federal control in 2007 The Watergate scandal began with a burglary at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, which eventually led to evidence of widespread wrongdoing in the Nixon White House and the president's resignation on Aug. 8, 1974. The Nixon library, built with private money, was for years the only presidential library not part of the National Archives. That was because of a post-Watergate law mandating that Nixon's presidential records remain in the Washington, D.C., area. Lawmakers were afraid he would destroy documents necessary for the Watergate investigation. The prohibition was eventually lifted by legislation pushed by California Republicans eager to incorporate the Nixon library into the national system. Since the federal takeover, the foundation serves an advisory role. Last year it filed lengthy objections to the new exhibit, saying it lacked context to explain Nixon's decision-making. Dismantled several years ago, the library's original Watergate exhibit was the largest of any at the site at the time, and the foundation stresses that no one found a factual error in its text or exhibits. Visitors followed documents, text and photographs arrayed along a long, darkened hallway. Critics said it all amounted to a whitewash. "The presentation makes the best possible case for Nixon, mainly in Nixon's own words, and is entirely self-serving," Ambrose, the historian, wrote in a Los Angeles Times column. Presidential libraries often tend toward veneration, but there is no other president forced from office during his term. At President Bill Clinton's library, opened in 2004, visitors pass along hardwood floors through an open-air exhibit, and a timeline in the center marks Clinton's time in office. An alcove exhibit off the timeline addresses the former president's impeachment and acquittal over the Monica Lewinsky affair. The Archives' holdings from the Nixon presidency included more than 40 million pages of records, 4,000 hours of tape, 350,000 photographs and 2.2 million feet of film. A precondition for the exchange was that the Watergate exhibit be revised. At one point, the American Library Association and 16 historians asked Congress to suspend the transfer of Nixon records for fear the library could limit public access to the materials and jeopardize their preservation. Steve Frank, who worked on Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign in California, looks fondly on Nixon's presidency but welcomes a new, fuller treatment of Watergate at the library. "I thought it was improper for them not to provide the whole substance of Watergate" in the original exhibit, said Frank, a conservative activist. "When you try to hide the facts, it makes it look worse than it i
|
|
|
Libya
Mar 31, 2011 11:06:14 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Mar 31, 2011 11:06:14 GMT -5
Not exactly. U.S. forces as well as South Vietnamese forces were kicking ass by the early 70's. The invading force was the NVA, NOT the U.S. History books tend to compare Vietnam to the American Revolution, I recall being taught that in school myself, but that was hardly the case. The only similarity would be that a vastly superior military got tired of fighting and simply walked away. But the similarities end there. There was no "Yorktown" moment in Vietnam. The US pulled our forces out because we had achieved our goals, not with our tail between our legs as many like to say. The U.S. lost about 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam, North Vietnam lost about 1 million by their own estimates. Who lost again?
As for Kent State, we could start a whole new thread on what lead up to that horrific event. To keep it short: if the students were JUST protesting, the National Guard would never have been called out in the first place.
As for your Nixon tirade. I'm not going to defend the man or his presidency, but he DID know how to fight a war....unlike his predecessors.
|
|
|
Libya
Apr 2, 2011 14:43:31 GMT -5
Post by snakesandladders on Apr 2, 2011 14:43:31 GMT -5
Not exactly. U.S. forces as well as South Vietnamese forces were kicking ass by the early 70's. The invading force was the NVA, NOT the U.S. History books tend to compare Vietnam to the American Revolution, I recall being taught that in school myself, but that was hardly the case. The only similarity would be that a vastly superior military got tired of fighting and simply walked away. But the similarities end there. There was no "Yorktown" moment in Vietnam. The US pulled our forces out because we had achieved our goals, not with our tail between our legs as many like to say. The U.S. lost about 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam, North Vietnam lost about 1 million by their own estimates. Who lost again? As for Kent State, we could start a whole new thread on what lead up to that horrific event. To keep it short: if the students were JUST protesting, the National Guard would never have been called out in the first place. As for your Nixon tirade. I'm not going to defend the man or his presidency, but he DID know how to fight a war....unlike his predecessors. The U.S. LOST that REVOLTING war.........oh yes they did....and the US invaders were KICKED OUT 2:).......the National Guard are a band of ROTTEN ASSASSINS....lest we forget...and RIGHT-WING at that.....what was that again.......I'M ALREADY WAITING!!!!!
|
|
|
Libya
Apr 3, 2011 9:29:32 GMT -5
Post by Jesse on Apr 3, 2011 9:29:32 GMT -5
Not exactly. U.S. forces as well as South Vietnamese forces were kicking ass by the early 70's. The invading force was the NVA, NOT the U.S. History books tend to compare Vietnam to the American Revolution, I recall being taught that in school myself, but that was hardly the case. The only similarity would be that a vastly superior military got tired of fighting and simply walked away. But the similarities end there. There was no "Yorktown" moment in Vietnam. The US pulled our forces out because we had achieved our goals, not with our tail between our legs as many like to say. The U.S. lost about 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam, North Vietnam lost about 1 million by their own estimates. Who lost again? As for Kent State, we could start a whole new thread on what lead up to that horrific event. To keep it short: if the students were JUST protesting, the National Guard would never have been called out in the first place. As for your Nixon tirade. I'm not going to defend the man or his presidency, but he DID know how to fight a war....unlike his predecessors. The U.S. LOST that REVOLTING war.........oh yes they did....and the US invaders were KICKED OUT 2:).......the National Guard are a band of ROTTEN ASSASSINS....lest we forget...and RIGHT-WING at that.....what was that again.......I'M ALREADY WAITING!!!!! Repeat that lie as often as you want, use boldface and italic fonts if you need to, even give me a few 's, it doesn't make you right and you know it, that's why you're getting so pissed off.
|
|