[ai0tron]

If this somehow becomes a big war and there is a draft I personally will sign up voluntarily.

Some people fail to realize that while it is their right to agree or disagree with their governments reasons for going to war it is often in their best interests to fight on the side of their government. There are many complexities that can alter this method of thinking but in the case of an all out war I think it is fairly obvious that a large society like ours would function best if all members were united. Up to the point when a decision to act is made I think it alright to be against the general trend. However after a decision for war is made, in this case going to kill terrorists, those who had disagreed beforhand should despite their disagrements take up arms, or support the endeavor to the best of their ability. Whether this means merely saying yes I hope we win, I think we are doing the right thing, or by accepting a draft and going to war, you are required IMHO to support your country through to the end. Opposing your country at a time like this is #1 an insult to soldiers who risk their lives in war. #2 Contrary to popular belief it is not a balancing force but a weakening force. The coordination of a united people wins wars. Dissenters merely weaken the country's resolve and hurt the moral of troops.

I personally see what happened in vietnam as a result of Anti-War protests. Some people think we never should have been there, perhaps this is true. However once our soldiers were over there dying it became wholly unpatriotic and anti-american to protest the war... That statement is in someways contradictory as it seems to put the death of soldiers in a good light but this is not the case. Essentially our soldiers went to Vietnam and died for the benefit of history books... Either soldiers do not exist or they fight and die for a cause. The anti-war mindsets during vietnam merely weakened our nations resolve and partially resulted in our governments wishy washy attitude towards the war.

I pesonally think we should kick some terrorist ass. There are many consequences to that statement and I understand some of them. I accept what I understand as necessary for the benefit of our nation...

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Khomeini's (sp? I've seen several) platform was one of reform. He was a moderate, like many dictator like figures, until he came to power. Then things went south pretty quickly, but he's still revered in Iran for being a nationalist.

He had no choice but to ACT like a moderate in order to gain control,and once entrenched the rest is history.And yes things went badly thereafter.But in his case he was a True Believer and even though misguided and harmed his own people,he at least did it for the right reasons.Not true of the present day version of the "religious fanatic".The new breed uses the seduction of doing Gods work while really only trying to gain power.Kind of taking the "Kohmeini" route ,a proven path,to the throne (not literal).

Once there it is the same old story,gather the wealth,live like a king,screw the population.And when that same population starts to realize that something is just not right,find an enemy (such as the US) to blame all the misery on.Somwhere they can vent thier anger while the real culprit gets off.
An old story
At least you expect a prince to live in a princely manner,rightly or wrongly.And until these lunatics get control,at least you do not see 10 year olds walking around with AK-47s talking about "death to america" while the so called responsible adults sit back and smile.
That smile tells you who your enemy will be in 5 or 6 years.

 

[frankclone]

a couple of points on previous replies.
1) from what I understand re: "marching to Baghdad", it wasn't
just that U.S. didn't want to go into Iraq & "finish the job" but
that the Arab members of coalition opposed it.

2)Afghanistan may have strategic importance being smack dab
in central Asia, & supposedly is eyed as a good oil-pipeline route

3) what about the role of the Shah's secret police, the SAVAK?
Is it true they commonly used torture, one of thier specialties
being frying people on an electrical grid?

4) about the WW1/ WWII discussion: I would saythe best thing that could have happened to fascist Japan & Nazi (west) Germay was to be conquered by the U.S., which took an enlightened approach & helped rebuild those countries into prosperous, democratic model "world citizens", granted there was self-interest there in countering Soviet influence--but if I'm not mistaken this was 1st time ever that a victor nation did not demand reparations but actually helped/invested in the defeated country.

5)rickcr42, I'm with you on the "get with the program" thinking--we've entered a century that could see ENORMOUS advances in medicine, technolgy & progress
& there are still a bunch of people with 11th century minds
fighting 11th century wars. The unfortunate thing is we can't
talk reason with them & we can't quarantine them... because they're using our technology against us!
(I don't mean to be harsh & downplay extent of suffering, but why-oh-why can't they see the signposts on the road to improved
quality of life? I'm reminded of a story I once heard: a western doctor in a3rd world country examined a girl with a broken leg. He
fashioned a makeshift crutch for her, but the [ignorant & superstitious] tribal elders took it away & destroyed it)
it away & destroyed it

 

[MacDEF]

First, for anyone who would like a great primer on the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East (including the Iranian revolution), pick up the latest issue of Newsweek. It's almost entirely devoted to the topic.

Quote:

So a lot of what we see today does directly relate to times past.Not perceived injustices by the United States,but perceived weaknesses.

Rick, in your post you seem to put much of the blame on the Carter administration. However, much more of the "lack of backbone/response" blame lies with the Reagan administration. I say this with *no* Republican/Democrat bias -- I'm basing it entirely on the events that occured during the two administrations. The Iranian hostages were taken under Carter, true enough. But the deals were made with Reagan -- once we made a deal, all bets were off. That was the start of a string of terrorist attacks, hijackings, and kidnappings. There was a string of lack of effective military responses under Reagan. Embassy bombings, the Beirut humiliation, other kidnappings -- and we basically didn't do anything. Our only real response was a couple flybys of Libya that didn't do much damage.

There was actually a very good documentary on TV last week about the rise of terrorist confidence in attacking U.S. targets, and it pretty much stemmed from the lack of response from the U.S. during the 1980s. Interestingly enough, there were a few people in the Reagan administration (who are now in the Bush administration) who wanted to "bomb the hell out of" anyone they thought might be responsible, but they were consistently overruled. It made me appreciate the current response a bit more.

 

[rickcr42]

Wrong again macster.I don't care what was on TV,does not make it true.For the first time under Reagan there WAS a response to terrorism,the first.
At that time it was Lybia and not Iran that were fostering terrorism.They tested the resolve od the united states by challenging our F-16s with a couple of MIGs.The MIGs were splashed.Then there were a couple of hijackings.In one of those these brave hijackers separated out the Jews and off duty US serviceman.The information was aquired from the tickets.They wer executed.
The response of the Reagon administration was not negotiation or ass kissing but the order was given to take thier ass out,which they did.
As information was gathered to find who was responsible it was determined that Libya,Mhomar Khadafi was the one that gave the OK.You must also know that old mhomar was causing trouble all over the place and that included targeting US serviceman in nightclubs.
The Reagan administration,after gathering enough information,decided to take out *******.His home was bombed but he was not at home.Some of his family WAS at home and that fact was used to great effect for propaganda purposes.They used the "US barabarians killing women and children crap,though that never stopped a terrorist.
Bottom line is mhomar went into hiding and he ceased causing trouble.The act of bombing his own house meant he had pushed the US too far and the president was not one to take any ****.
Of course these things are forgotten in revisionist history,usually are .You can not allow the truth to cloud a point you are trying to make.See the reference above to "not saying a thing can also be considered a lie if meant to make a point and sway opinion".Some things are conveniently left out.
Beirut Lebonon-way more to this than I can go into with a couple of quick paragraphs.Let me just say that it was another case of trying to help those unable to help themselves and we took it in the ass again.Too many factions with too many petty bitches willing to blow each other up.Our flag made an easy target,and I had a buddy,a marine that was on the ground (he was a sniper,damn good man to hunt with),he lost a LOT of buddies in one day.So we took our losses and left.Let those ****s kill each other ,no longer our problem.
You ever see before and after photos of Lebonon before they decided to blow each other up !
Went from the jewel of the middle east to a pile of rubble.
Anyway MacDef,you gotta do better man,pulling your info from TV and/or books won't do against the way things actually unfolded.Way too many in the media have an axe to grind and try to "slip one in" to those with either poor memories or too young to know any better.I fall into neither category

 

[rickcr42]

BTW=off topic a bit but the "deals" point has to also be challenged.

There was a "little war" in central america .The country in question was Nicaraugua.After a revolution to throw out the "tyrants" the sandinistas,the peoples army,took control.
But "whoops",they instantly proved the cure was as bad as the disease.We went from aiding those scumbags to arming the opposition against them in the field.THey were in bed with the Soviets and that could not be allowed in our hemisphere.During this time the Soviets were very expansionist and there were several "proxy wars" going on.We arm one side,they the other,we don't get shot at.
So we convinced those willing to oppose the Sandinistas to take the field with the promise of food,weapons,and logistical support.
There they were ,nose to nose with the opposing force,which would never have taken place if not for our nation promising support and.........................WHAMMO

Our more liberal minded democratic congressman/senators decided to CUT ALL AID !
Here they were in a war and all of a sudden the carpet is pulled out from under them.Guess the word of the United States Of America didn't mean ****.
Various laws were passed to tie Reagans hands so he could not bypass the new laws put in place without prosecution of the administration.
In order for the pres to keep HIS WORD,some imaginative smoke and mirrors supply lines had to be set up.

A plan was devised were arms would be sold at inflated prices and the profits would go towards purchasing supplies for those who were being slaughtered because we proved unreliable.It also accomplished getting some US citizens released.
Is ther anyone here that would not do whatever needed to keep thier word and secure the safety of a family member ?
Anyway,it almost cost the presidency.
BUT IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME TO THAT !
Some of our esteemed hollywood liberal elite were actuall hanging out with the sandinistas,an avowed communist group.Then they would come back and spout the party line.I point to one in particular-Ed Asner,iif not a true communist close enough.And do not give me no **** about "here we go with the commy thing and roll your eyes.
The stated goal of the communist party was to see an end to us and our lifestyle.I take threats seriously.But they realized that they could never poke thier heads up out of wht ever hole they were hiding in if they took a beligerent stance.So the great plan was to downlay communism,to make light of it.Every time the word communist was mentioned to roll the eyes and say "here goes the commy thing again".chuckle and make light of it.It had the desired effect.It was no longer considered to be a menace.
KNOW YOU ENEMIES ! Only way you can defend against them
If the Soviet union did not collapse it could very well be a different world today.And there were those in this country that would have welcomed them with open arms (as opposed to WITH arms,I am in that camp

)

 

[dhwilkin]

Come on guys, keep the history debate going, this stuff is pretty informative.

 

[rohorn]

Recently, I've heard that some of our current supporters (including Libya and Syria!!!) are telling GWB to "finish the job". That is a less than subtle way of telling him not to make the same mistakes as GHB.

SAVAK was the Shah's organization to (if you are on his side) mainatain stability in a country that had internal and external factions engaging in all sorts of subtle and not so subtle means of disruption. He thought nothing of treating his enemies the same way they treated him and his country. You don't deal with anarchists, subversives, and terrorists by establishing dialog and getting in touch with the roots of their discontent over tea. You kill them.

We are finally learning the same thing 20+ years later. When he did it, it was decried as an atrocity. Now that we are doing it, it is called "Enduring Freedom".

A good counterpoint to the popular press view of that era is a book my mother gave me over 20 years ago - "Answer To History". I think the author is a very good, um, authority on the events of the day. He was disappointed at the reaction of the Carter administration - and had no idea that he was being sold out.

As far as Reagan went, he did far more than you will ever see in print. Now there's a polarizing subject!

 

[rickcr42]

got that right.Funny how when you want to hide the truth all you have to do is not report it then hope those that know it forget or die of old age.No time to continue this right now guys,heading out to do some hiking.North west corner of the state is at peak color,can't miss that

And team grado will be out in a force of one

"leaves are falling all around,time i was on my way
"and thanks to you I'm much obliged,such a pleasant stay
"but now it's time for me to go
"the autumn lights my way...........................

Ramble on folks,the rickster is outta here

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Anyway MacDef,you gotta do better man,pulling your info from TV and/or books won't do against the way things actually unfolded.

LOL, it's not from a simple TV show. My job is to read up on policy issues. Yes, the Reagan administration made a few token gestures, but in my view they failed to respond (and respond consistently) in a way that would deter terrorists. Kind of hard to argue with that viewpoint when Reagan's cabinet members and staffers are the first ones to agree

Side note to keep these debates civil (this isn't aimed solely at Rick): several times in these discussions, people have made reference to the fact that they get their information from several sources and then form their own opinion (implying, or stating outright, that others just parrot some single source). Or they accuse other people of being "revisionist" or "propagandist." I just think everyone needs to be reminded that it's not the best form to discredit other opinions like this. Remember that many others also get their information from multiple sources. Some of us are quite educated in these issues, and there are lots of intelligent people here

We all have our own conclusions and views, and just because they differ from each other doesn't mean we don't have a clue as to "the way things actually unfolded" (I just use that quote of Rick's as an example).

Quote:

And do not give me no **** about "here we go with the commy thing and roll your eyes.

Sorry, Rick, but I couldn't help it

Quote:

Come on guys, keep the history debate going, this stuff is pretty informative.

dhwilkin, take everything here (including my views) with a BIG grain of salt. When it comes down to it, this is an Internet message board, and you're reading opinions. There's a lot of great info out there to learn! Plenty of books, newspaper articles, documentaries. It's a fascinating period in our history.


Quote:

As far as Reagan went, he did far more than you will ever see in print. Now there's a polarizing subject!

Very true, Rohorn. The problem is that these "things" he did that you don't see in print are both good enough and horrible enough to give both Reagan lovers and Reagan haters substantial ammo. The guy was a human being. He did some great things for the country as president, and he did some horrible things as president. You see too many people glorifying him, and too many people vilifying him. The truth is somewhere in between. Too many people look at Reagan (and Clinton) through their partisan views.

 

[dhwilkin]

Quote:

MacDEF said... dhwilkin, take everything here (including my views) with a BIG grain of salt. When it comes down to it, this is an Internet message board, and you're reading opinions. There's a lot of great info out there to learn! Plenty of books, newspaper articles, documentaries. It's a fascinating period in our history.

Of course, you can never have too much salt in your diet.

Still, doesn't mean I shouldn't try and use y'all's opinions to further refine my perspective.

 

[coolvij]

I, for one, learn a LOT about current events from head-fize.

I mean, the average eight-grader just doesn't have contact with such a diverse base of ppl on a regular basis.

I consider myself blessed to be geeky enough to survive out here.......

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Very true, Rohorn. The problem is that these "things" he did that you don't see in print are both good enough and horrible enough to give both Reagan lovers and Reagan haters substantial ammo.

Name the bad,tell me what was "horrible enough" and if true I will concede the point,not from a book or TV show,but from "live and in your face" (not meant literally as inYOUR face macster).Just give me something with a solid foundation,not some "I feel it was like this.................."
C'mon man.gimme the goods

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Name the bad,tell me what was "horrible enough" and if true I will concede the point,not from a book or TV show,but from "live and in your face" (not meant literally as inYOUR face macster).Just give me something with a solid foundation,not some "I feel it was like this.................." C'mon man.gimme the goods

LOL, Rick... trust me, I do NOT want to get into this discussion here. WAY too much potential for people to get bent out of shape. If there's one figure I've learned not to "discuss" with people, it's Ronnie. I'm impossible to be objective -- Reagan haters and Reagan lovers will both pound you

And no, I'm not refraining cuz I ain't got nuthin

-- there is so much documented (not just in "TV shows," but in books, newspapers, congressional records, court documents, and White House documents) that it's not hard for someone to find as much dirt as they want. Whether it's foreign policy, economic policy, or domestic policy, anyone with the slightest beef against Reagan and his administration has plenty of ammo.

But, like I said, he also did some great things. That's my point.

 

[rickcr42]

Smart move Macster,for every point there is a counterpoint.But the documentation really don't mean squat to me if it goes against what i remember as "how it was" as opposed to "how it is according to.........."

Anyway,back to the point,NO WAIT !

So I go hiking today,just to bust away into the "real world" for a bit,and I take another couple with me,big mistake but we will not go into that,and the rickster has about eight beers down at this point so it is WAY OVERDUE for a pitstop.We pull over around Kent Falls (the Ct. headfizers will get that one),I release the pressure,look up and
DAMN ! SUZ, I GOTTA CLIMB THAT !
What "that " is,a 35ft chimney,the only remains of ?
About 10ft wide at the base,4 or so at the top,weathered enough to
A) get a nice grip


B)be dangerous,as in loose rock
So my wife pleads with me "honey,I really do not want you to do this"
RICK "but babe, I can do this without breaking sweat"
SUZ " But ,you have been drinking"
RICK "and your point?"
At this time I am 3/4 way up but since I was in a running discussion I was not paying attention.Long story short,I was frkn STUCK ! NO WHERE TO GO !
And being the rickmonster could not show doubt or indecision or lack of **** so UP I GO !

DOWN I GO !!!!!!
caught a few handholds on the way down,no real personal damge,but the PCDP IS TOAST ! And I mean done for ever.I did not know there even were that amount of springs inside man.
DAMN !
Total basket case,did not even bother bringing it home once I realised I broke the pins that hold the lid down
But I do not have a scratch !

We get to St.Johns Ledges , an actual climbing area and I get "THE LOOK", and that look says"if you want to come home tonight,I suggest you don't even think about it"

So here I am